A Scientometric Review of Geopolymer Concrete

Machine Translated by Google
Journal Pre-proof
A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete
Zakka Wyom Paul, Nor Hasanah Abdul Shukor Lim, Ma Chau Khun
PII: S0959-6526(20)34398-5
IT HURTS: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124353
Reference: JCLP 124353
To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production
Received Date: 23 April 2020

Revised Date: 20 September 2020
Accepted Date: 21 September 2020
Please cite this article as: Wyom Paul Z, Abdul Shukor Lim NH, Chau Khun M, A scientometric review of
geopolymer concrete, Journal of Cleaner Production, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.124353.
This is a PDF file of an article that has improved enhancements after acceptance, such as the addition of a
cover page and metadata, and formatting for readability, but it is not yet the definitive version of record.
This version will undergo additional copyediting, typesetting and review before it is published in its final
form, but we are providing this version to give early visibility of the article. Please note that, during the
production process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal pertains.
© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A SCIENTOMETRIC REVIEW OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE
1,3Zakka, Wyom Paul, 2Nor Hasanah Abdul Shukor Lim, 1Ma Chau Khun
1
School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
2Construction Materials Research Group (CMRG), School of Civil Engineering, Universiti Teknologi
Malaysia, 81310 UTM, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia 3Department
of Building, University of Jos, PMB 2084, Jos, Nigeria Corresponding
authors: norhasanah@utm.my; paulzakka.pz@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
The drive towards sustainable construction materials that will reduce the amount of CO2
produced during the manufacture of Portland cement has led researchers to investigate the suitability of alternative
materials in concrete production. The use of industrial and agricultural by-products such as fly ash, slag, rice husk ash,
and natural pozzolanas high in aluminosilicate content have been found useful in the production of geopolymer concrete
which has become a suitable replacement for OPC concrete with its higher strength , temperature stability, denser
microstructure, higher bond strength, and resistance to chemicals. A holistic approach for the first scientometric review
on geopolymer concrete is described in this study. The study embraced an all-inclusive review concept using
scientometric analysis and science mapping technology, and comprehensive discussion to highlight the most influential
Journal Pre-proof
publication sources, most used keywords, most active researchers and institutions, as well as literature with the highest
impact on the field of Geopolymer concrete; to examine the current state-of-the-art research focus, and to identify the
current research gaps. The study analyzed 2011 related bibliographic data mined from the Scopus database. The
research gaps identified were in the areas of geopolymer type, materials, mix design, mechanical properties, durability
properties, microstructure, and adoption and application. Further long-term studies are required in these areas to
provide a basis for a regulatory framework for adoption of geopolymer concrete. This study will help researchers
understand the current trend in geopolymer concrete, opening more room for further research as well as serving a
source of information for policy makers, journal editors, professionals and research institutions.
Keywords: Scientometric analysis; Geopolymer concrete; Materials; Mix Design; mechanical

properties; Durability
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The production of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) which is the primary material for the production of
concrete is known to contribute about 10% of the total global carbon dioxide (CO2) emission. With
concrete being the second most used resource on earth after water, the continuous reliance on OPC
will continue to increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. Researchers have made
efforts to come up with alternative binders for the production of concrete to help reduce the CO2
burden on the planet. Geopolymer concrete has
emerged as a novel material that has shown the capacity to replace conventional concrete.
While maintaining similar properties to concrete, when designed and produced properly with
supplementary cementitious materials, it has the capacity of reducing the CO2 footprint of OPC
production by 80%. Apart from releasing CO2 into the atmosphere, the production of OPC
cements consumes non-renewable resources like limestone (Van Deventer et al., 2012; Provis
& Bernal, 2014; Zhuang et al., 2016; Hassan et al., 2019). Figure 1 shows the process of
production for OPC concrete and the stages were CO2 is released into the atmosphere.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 1. Schematic depiction of the process of production of Portland cement concrete (Provis
& Bernal, 2014).
The geopolymerization process is a complex chemical process that researchers are still trying
to understand, it is however imperative to note that various researches have shown that the
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete are influenced by the composition of the
aluminosilicates and their source, curing regime, and the alkaline solution type and concentration
(Saloma et al., 2017; Purwanto et al., 2018; Hadi et al., 2019). With the consistent growth of
industrialization and population growth, industrial wastes such as fly ash, ground granulated
blast furnace slag, rice husk ash and other industrial waste products are dumped into landfills.
The dumping of these industrial waste products in landfills is harmful to the environment as
they are sources of pollution (Jindal, 2019). Since geopolymer concrete requires raw materials
that have high aluminosilicates, the consumption of these industrial materials in the production
of geopolymer concrete will reduce the pollution burden on the environment (Hassan et al.,
2020b). The valorization of these wastes will prove to be both economically and environmentally
advantageous since these wastes are in great supply, and the continuous demand for affordable
housing will keep rising with population growth (Van Deventer et al., 2012; Jindal, 2019).
Geopolymer concrete possesses similar mechanical properties with OPC concrete and has been
found to perform better than OPC concrete when exposed to fire or harsh environments (Hassan
et al., 2020). Unlike OPC concrete which has had years of operational studies to provide a basis
for design codes, geopolymer concrete is still in its budding stage and requires long-term studies
concerning its mechanical and durability properties in field applications (Van Deventer et al.,
2012; Mehta & Siddique, 2017; Hassan et al., 2020; Hassan et al., 2020a).
In conducting independent research, the review of literature is a significant and basic, yet tedious
strategy to accumulate literature for a scientific study. There are a few files, like the h-index, an
approach for which researchers can be evaluated and recognized, and authors writings can be
distinguished. It is an extensively recognized strategy to isolate the importance from immaterial
literature by methods for the different variations of the h-file, eg, the one for institutions or else
totally new variations like the g-list that is additionally founded on the h-index (Frehe et al., 2014).
Research publications are viably the acceptable currency of scientific work. They speak to the
open total record of science, archiving observational outcomes and giving a discussion forum for
theorizing, debate, and the steady development of scientific information. In spite of the fact that
publications are not the end purpose of logical research, it is difficult to envision making an
Journal Pre-proof
interpretation of investigation into knowledge or practice without the indication of research in
publications. In this regard, no genuine assessment of the impact of translational research can
disregard the significance of publications as intermediate output (Schneider et al., 2017).
Progressively, research metrics are being utilized, alongside expert assessment, to respond to
essential inquiries. For instance, experts in the scholarly community, government and the
corporate sector use them to envision logical leaps forward, figure out where to contribute, and
measure the estimation of past ventures (Plume & Colledge, 2016; Hutchins et al., 2016). The
average number of citation per paper is one of the significant reference measurements and
shows the average cite effect of each publication in a group of quantities (Yu & Hayes, 2018).
Scientometric analysis studies the quantitative areas of the process of science, science policy,
and communication in science. Its main focus, although not limiting to, measures the impact of
authors, articles, journals, institutions and understanding citations related to them. Also, it looks
at visualization and mapping of scientific fields, evaluation of indicators for future policy and
management application. Recently, the performance of research is evaluated and measured
using scientometrics as a tool (Mingers & Leydesdorff, 2015; Glänzel & Zhang, 2018; ÿenel &
Demir, 2018; Lukman et. al., 2019). This is a form of data mining, and since data is everywhere,
the ability to mine data to improve the various field of research and human endeavor is important.
Paper & Development, (2018) argued that there is scarcity of scientometric methods among
applied researchers, and hence, applied researchers are lagging behind in the field of
scientometrics. The origin and quality of huge information are regularly flawed and furthermore
datasets must be consolidated to be useful. Big data are frequently too voluminous to even
consider being put away at only one computer system and to be overseen by customary
database frameworks, measurable bundles or standard graphical programming. Big data can be
characterized as an assortment of information from customary and computerized sources within
and outside of certain organizations which can be used for evaluation and discoveries (Papi, 2018).
Although research into geopolymer concrete has been ongoing for a few decades, it remains a new field compared to
OPC concrete composites, this has been able to sustain interest among researchers. This interest is expected to
continue growing over the next decade, however, there is limited information about the application of geopolymer
concrete when the main research themes are considered. The need for a robust review of literature on the state-of-the-
art research of geopolymer concrete cannot be overemphasized. An all-inclusive review concept made up of
scientometric analysis coupled with science mapping technology and a comprehensive discussion was used for this
study to achieve the following objectives (1) to highlight the most influential publication sources, most used keywords,
most active researchers and institutions , as well as literature with the highest impact on the field of Geopolymer
concrete, (2) to examine the current state of research focus, and (3) to identify the current research gaps and make
recommendations for further research to deal with the gaps identified . The aim of this study is to provide a futuristic
path of areas where Geopolymer concrete can be improved and applied to address the needs in materials and modern
construction.
2.0 METHODOLOGY
Journal Pre-proof
This study adopted a Scientometric-based review (Xu et al., 2018; Mryglod et al., 2018; Darko et al., 2019; Xiao et al.,
2019) and a comprehensive discussion of the present research areas in geopolymer concrete. The logical basis for
adopting the scientometric review is that a number of review-based studies in the construction field have shown that we
might be depending on judgments that might be subjective and hence, unreliable. An unbiased and less subjective
result can be achieved using scientometric analysis (Song et al., 2016; Hosseini et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2018). This
method is suitable for this study as it highlights and analyzes the growth of research over a period of time. It makes use
of a quantitative perspective that visualizes and maps as well as connects the development of research by depending
on large bibliographic data to assess the growth of a research field using qualitative indexes (Lukman et. al., 2019).
With the large number of research papers published by the scientific community, it is important to know the most reliable
databases to source for materials. Aghaei et al., (2013) posited that the two most extensive, efficient and objective
databases for literature search are Scopus and Web of Science, with Scopus being the database with the widest
coverage and most contemporary publications. These two databases rank journals in terms of visibility and citations
which indicate the impact, prestige and influence of the journal. This study adopted “Scopus” as its main source of data
as it could only find about 500 documents on web of science per download on geopolymer concrete. However, Scopus
was able to provide over 2000 documents per download on Geopolymer concrete making it easy for scientometric
analysis and visualization.
Bibliometrics and Scientometrics are novel firmly related logical fields estimating and breaking down logical distributions
in a specific field. Bibliometrics is a novel logical field that allows scholarly writing to be broken down factually and
depicts production designs in a specific field.
Bibliometrics is the quantitative investigation of the bibliographic data for distributions, including measures, for example,
absolute number of productions, reference tallies, mean standardized reference score (MNCS), h-file, and proportions
of interdisciplinarity and
specialization too. Since any huge research activity normally brings about productions,
bibliometric examination is a speedy, direct, and efficient approach to quantifying yield and
quality. Furthermore, specialists for the most part compete that bibliometric examination produces
objective, refined, quantitative proportions of research impact for scientific yields (Yu & Hayes,
2018; Saberi et al., 2019).
To extract relevant documents and data from the scopus database, the keyword used for the
search was geopolymer concrete. Therefore, all documents related to Geopolymer concrete
appeared and were downloaded. The abstracts for each downloaded document were read to
ensure that the papers fall within the research of Geopolymer concrete. The Scientometric
analysis adopted science mapping which gives a detailed account and evaluates policy objectives
and processes bibliographic big data. Science mapping also highlights the systemic and effective
aspects of scientific research, and represents how related disciplines, fields, authors, and
individual publications are to one another (Xu et al., 2018).
VOSviewer software was used for the analysis along with Scopus analyzer. VOSviewer, an
opensource software that was created for building and reviewing bibliometric maps. Dissimilar
to most software that are used for bibliometric mapping, VOSviewer gives unique consideration
to the graphical portrayal of bibliometric maps. The usefulness of VOSviewer as a data mining
tool is particularly useful for showing huge bibliometric maps in a simple to-decipher way (van
Eck & Waltman, 2010). VOSviewer is versatile in the sense that it can be used to also create,
visualize and explore maps no matter the type of network data (van Eck & Waltman, 2013).
Journal Pre-proof
Clusters and interrelationships among keywords, scientists, articles, and institutions were
analyzed through science mapping. The data extracted about researchers and keywords give a
panoramic view on the most recent development of scholastic research in a specific area. It
forestalls scholars in the worldwide scholarly network or the individuals who are keen on the
scholastic area from being segregated (Xu et al., 2018).
The study employed a sequential process of data collection from Scopus, tool selection, data
mining, data processing and analysis, visualization and presentation, interpretation, discussion
of findings, gap identification, limitation, and conclusion.
3.0 SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS
A total of 2011 articles were found from the literature search conducted in the scopus database.
The literature samples show that research into Geopolymer concrete has kicked up a gear for
over a decade. However, studies into Geopolymer concrete is still relatively new compared to
OPC concrete which has found wide acceptance, and has influenced many policy decisions
regarding concrete. The research articles show a trend of being thematic and can be grouped
into different clusters based on similarities of content and problems addressed. These articles
were analyzed using the Scientometric method to show clarity on the overall literature sample,
research keywords, source of publication, most influential and productive scholars, most cited
articles, countries, and institutions actively participating in the study of Geopolymer concrete by
constructing and generating maps for mining information. Figure 2 gives a visual representation
of the types of documents present in the data collected from the Scopus database as analyzed
by the scopus analyzer; Journal publications and conference papers make up 61.5% and 27.2%
respectively, and account for a combined 88.7% of the document database on geopolymer
concrete. The study focuses on journal papers and conference papers as the main source of data
since they make up 88.7% of the data collected as highlighted in Figure 2.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 2: Type of Documents collected
3.1 Literature Sample

The total literature sample shown in Figure 3, shows the publication years spanning 1989 to 2020
(March). The first article on Geopolymer concrete was found in 2004, a few other articles were
found between 2005 and 2013 before research in the area began to peak. The most productive
years for research in Geopolymer concrete was between 2014 and 2019. This trend shows that
researchers are showing more interest in Geopolymer concrete as an alternative to OPC based
concrete, hence, the expectation for more research publications in the coming years.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 3. Literature sample according to year of publication.
3.2 Research Keywords
The content of a research which shows and captures the core area of the research domain is
represented by keywords (Su & Lee, 2010). Table 1 Shows the keywords with the most occurrences
in the research articles used for this study. Inorganic polymers and Geopolymer appeared most in
the keywords of the researches conducted by scholars with concrete and compressive strength
making the top four most used keywords. Figure 4 shows the visualization of the most occurring
keywords and their connectivity to each other according to their link strength. The visualization
shows that inorganic polymers and geopolymer are the most prominent keywords in the study of
geopolymer concrete relative to other keywords and the size of their labels. Also, the thicker the
lines between two items, the stronger their total link strength
(Van Eck & Waltman, 2017). However, neglecting the main keywords as they do not represent a
core research area, it is observed that the main research areas are compressive strength, curing,
and mechanical properties.
Table 1. Keywords
Y/N Keywords Occurrences Total link strength
1 Aggregates 184 1940

two Binders 254 2787
3 blast furnaces 195 2348
4 Cements 324 3518
5 Compressive strength 889 8376
6 Concretes 932 8921
7 Curing 295 3307
8 Durability 181 1753
9 Fly ash 969 8700
10 Geopolymer 678 5408
11 Geopolymer concrete 768 6298
12 Geopolymers 1277 11898
13 Inorganic polymers 1319 12281
14 mechanical properties 259 2580
15 Ordinary portland cement 255 2775
16 Portland cement 500 5431
17 Reinforced concrete 152 1212
18
19
Silicates
Slags
20 Sodium hydroxide
Journal Pre-proof
305
351
221
3623
3846
2279
Figure 4: Visualization of Keywords

3.3 Sources of documents
The total link strength of a journal to other peer reviewed journals, the number of documents
published, and its citation count shows its impact as seen in Table 2. Construction and Building
Materials rank highest in terms of impact with a total link strength of 1383, a publication total of 243,
and a citation count of 6473. The visualization in Figure 5 shows Construction and Building Materials
as the leading journal with publications on geopolymer concrete, as it has the larger label. Figure 6
shows the documents by source per year that had publications on geopolymer concrete between
2008 and 2020 (March) using Scopus analyzer, the chart still highlights the fact that Construction
and Building Materials is the leading journal.
Table 2. Sources of Documents
Y/N Source Documents Quotes Total link strength
1 ACI materials journal 19 292 120
two Advanced materials research 34 93 18
3 Applied clay science 7 167 22
4 Asian journal of civil engineering 19 146 63
6
Journal Pre-proof
Cement and concrete composites
Cement and concrete research

25
14
784
596
206
141
7 Ceramics international 19 565 114
8 Composites part b: engineering 21 536 23
9 Construction and building materials 242 6473 1383
10 engineering structures 9 134 48
11 Indian concrete journal 28 106 42

International journal of civil engineering and technology
12 67 166 55
IOP conference series: materials science and
13 engineering 96 78 128
14 Journal of cleaning production 50 1754 359
15 Journal of materials in civil engineering 34 471 140
16 Magazine of concrete research 21 251 106
17 Materials 23 245 120
18 Materials and design 16 1140 288

Materials and structures/materials et
19 constructions 18 773 178
20 Material letters 7 126 16
21 Materials science forum 55 161 40
22 Procedia engineering 22 277 77
23 Resources, conservation and recycling 6 93 27

Journal Pre-proof
Figure 5: Visualization of Document Source
Figure 6: Document Source per Year

3.4 Articles with the Highest Citation
The articles with the highest citation as well as their authors and year of publication are shown
in Table 3. Figure 7 shows the visualization of authors with the most cited articles represented
in Table 3 and the link between the published articles and other authors in terms of citation.
McLellan et al., (2011) had the highest single article citation of 483 on their work “Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement”. However,
Nath & Sarker, (2014; 2015) had two documents with citations of 257 and 109 respectively.
Also, Provis, (2014) had a single document citation of 289 and document citation of 231
together with Bernal (Provis & Bernal, 2014). Bernal also has a combined document citation of
221 with Provis and others (Bernal et al., 2013), and a combined citation with Provis of 134
(Bernal & Provis, 2014). Provis and Bernal were identified as some of the most cited authors
on geopolymer concrete. The visualization shows the co-citation network between the authors
involved in the study of geopolymer concrete. The closeness of the documents shows how
interrelated they are with each other in terms of citation.
Table 3. Articles with the highest citation
Y/N Article Title Citation

1 Hemalatha & A review on fly ash characteristics – Towards promoting high volume utilization in 102
Ramaswamy, 2017
Journal Pre-proof
developing sustainable concrete (Hemalatha &
Ramaswamy, 2017)
2 Zhuang et al., 2016 Fly ash-based geopolymer: Clean production, properties and applications 159
(Zhuang et al., 2016)
3 Yan et al., 2016 A review of recent research on the use of cellulosic fibers, their fiber 139
fabric reinforced cementitious, geo-polymer and polymer composites in civil
engineering. (Yan et al., 2016)
4 Zhang et al., 2015 Mechanical, thermal insulation, thermal resistance and acoustic absorption properties 149
of geopolymer foam concrete. (Zhuang et al., 2016)
5 Singh et al., 2015 Geopolymer concrete: A review of some recent developments. (B. Singh et al., 2015) 254
6 Part et al., 2015 An overview on the influence of various factors on the properties of geopolymer 139
concrete derived from industrial by-products. (Part et al., 2017)
7 Nath & Sarker, 2015 Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly 109
ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature. (Nath & Sarker, 2015)
8 Nath & Sarker, 2014 Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash 257
geopolymer concrete cured in ambient conditions. (Nath & Sarker, 2014)
9 Ren et al., 2014 Mechanical, thermal insulation, thermal resistance and acoustic absorption 205
properties of geopolymer foam concrete. (Ren et al., 2014)
10 Liu et al., 2014 Evaluation of thermal conductivity, mechanical and transport properties of lightweight 123
aggregate foamed geopolymer concrete. (Liu et al., 2014).
11 Deb et al., 2014 The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag blending with fly ash and activator 216
content on the workability and strength properties of geopolymer concrete
cured at ambient temperature. (Deb et al., 2014)
12 Phoo-ngernkham et al., The effect of adding nano-SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 on properties of high calcium fly 141
2014 ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. (Phoo-ngernkham et al.,
2014)
13 Provis, 2014 Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: Why, how, and what? 231
(Provis & Bernal, 2014)
14 Provis, 2014b Green concrete or red herring? - Future of alkali-activated materials. 289
(Provis, 2014)
15 Bernal & Provis, 2014 Durability of alkali-activated materials: Progress and perspectives. 134
(Bernal & Provis, 2014)
16 Palomo et al., 2014 A review on alkaline activation: New analytical perspectives. (Palomo et 132
al., 2014)
17 Ismail et al., 2013 Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride permeability of alkali-activated slag mortars 138
and concretes. (Ismail et al., 2013)
18 Bernal et al., 2013 Gel nanostructure in alkali-activated binders based on slag and fly ash, 221
and effects of accelerated carbonation. (Bernal et al., 2013)
19 Ryu et al., 2013 The mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with alkaline 220
activators. (Ryu et al., 2013)
20 Turner & Collins, 2013 Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer 363
and OPC cement concrete. (Turner & Collins, 2013)
21 Ariffin et al., 2013 Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. (Ariffin et 142
al., 2013)
22 Shaikh et al., 2013 Development of ductile fiber reinforced geopolymer composites. (Shaikh 108
et al., 2013)
23 Rashad, 2013 Metakaolin as cementitious material: History, scours, production and composition- 161
A comprehensive overview. (Rashad, 2013)
24 Ahmari et al., 2012 Production of geopolymeric binder from blended waste concrete powder 114
and fly ash. (Ahmari et al., 2012)
25 Olivia & Nikraz, 2012 Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method. 155
(Olivia & Nikraz, 2012)
26 Van Deventer JSJ,
2012)
27 Imbabi et al., 2012)
Journal Pre-proof
Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement.
(Van Deventer et al., 2012)
Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology.
295
202
(Imbabi et al., 2012)
28 De Vargas et al., 2011 The effects of Na2O/SiO3 molar ratio, curing temperature and age on 140
compressive strength, morphology and microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash-
based geopolymers. (From Vargas et al., 2011)
29 McLellan et al., 2011 Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary 483
portland cement. (McLellan et al., 2011)
30 Elimbi et al., 2011 Effects of calcination temperature of kaolinite clays on the properties of geopolymer 137
cements. (Elimbi et al., 2011)
31 Diaz-Loya et al., 2011 Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete. (Diaz-Loya et al., 2011) 124
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 7: Visualization of Documents with the Highest Citation.
3.5 Authors with the Highest Citation
The number of citations of a scholar shows the level of impact a scholar has on a particular field (Yu & Hayes, 2018).
Table 4 shows various authors with their total citation in the area of geopolymer concrete as extracted from the scopus
database in the subject area. From the foregoing, it is seen that Provis, JL has a total citation of 2129 and a document
count of 29 giving him an average citation count of 73 per document. Following closely on the citation count are Bernal,
SA, Chindaprasirt, P., Sarker, and Vandeventer, JSJ with citation scores of 1069, 1033, 1092, and 997. Table 4 shows
the number of single-authored documents and citations, while Figure 8 shows the total number of single-authored and
co-authored documents produced by one author in the scopus database. From the Table 4 and Figure 8, it is observed
that Provis, JL is the most influential researcher in terms of citation and documents produced both as a single-author
and a co-author. Also, Chindaprasirt, P and Vandeventer, JSJ have had a great impact on the study of geopolymer
concrete. However, the results show that the number of documents produced does not translate to impact as can be
seen with Abdullahi, MMAB who had over 35 documents but fewer citations compared to Vandeventer, JSJ who had
less than 30 documents.
Table 4: Authors with the highest citation
Y/N Author Documents Quotes Total link strength

1 Alengaram UJ 16 375 28
two Allouche EN 17 386 16
3 Bernal SA 11 1069 20
4 Bnhussain M. 7 236 24
5 Castel A. 25 393 31
6 Cheah CB 5 191 5
7 Chen L. 5 248 5
8 Chindaprasirt P. 35 1033 48
9 Cioffi R. 12 315 26
10 Colangelo F. 11 326 25
11 Elimbi A. 7 298 9
12 Ferone C. 11 301 26
13 Foster S.J. 8 185 7
14 Hussin K. 18 156 55
15 Hussin MW 10 304 9
16 Jumaat MZ
17 Kamarudin H.
Journal Pre-proof
14
24
343
498
27
65
18 Kayali O. 13 224 17
19 Khennane A. 10 184 14
20 Kupwade-Patil K. 10 182 13
21 Mehta A. 8 192 8
22 Mo KH 7 197 16
23 Mohamed Ali MS 10 192 24
24 Mustafa Al Bakri AM 10 285 25
25 Nathan P. 10 721 10
26 Nikraz H. 5 228 3
27 Nuruddin MF 16 276 27
28 Olivia M. 7 190 two
29 Pacheco-Torgal F. 14 235 15
30 Pan Z. 10 214 9
31 Panda B. 13 318 17
32 Provis JL 29 2129 35
33 Rafiza AR 11 214 42
34 Ramli M. 7 207 5
35 Rangan B.V. 5 156 9

36 Rüscher CH 18 180 43
37 Sanjayan J. 25 263 36
38 Sanjayan J.G. 20 409 22
39 Sarker P.K. 22 1092 16
40 Sata V. 20 680 39
41 Shafiq N. 13 243 24
42 Shaikh FUA 9 231 0
43 Singh N.B. 12 191 14
44 Tan MJ 11 241 17
45 Van Deventer JSJ 15 997 22
46 Wang H. 11 619 18
47 Wongsa A. 9 160 24
48 Zarina Y. 10 200 41
49 ZhangZ. 19 592 26
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 8: Documents by Authors.
3.6 Impact of Research Institutions.
Table 5 and Figure 9 show the research institutions with the most impact on the study of
geopolymer concrete. The university of Melbourne and Curtin University both located in
Australia has had the biggest influence on geopolymer concrete research with 797 and 743
citations respectively. The visualization however shows that there is very little collaboration
between the research institutions involved in geopolymer concrete research. This result shows
the need for continuous collaborative research efforts by institutions and donors, as only 7
institutions have total link strength. Australia has the highest number of research institutions
involved in geopolymer concrete research followed by the United Kingdom and India.
Table 5. Impact of Research Institutions
Y/N Institutions Documents Citation Total Link Strength

1 Universiti Teknologi Petronas, Malaysia 5 78 0
two
Csir-Structural Engineering 6 123 two
Research Centre, Chennai, India

3 University of Melbourne, Australia 797 4
4 University of Castilla – La 87 137 5
Mancha, Spain
5 College of Engineering Trivandrum, 5 52 0
Kerala, India
6 University of Basrah, Iraq 6 49 11
7 Curtin University, GP Australia 9 743 0
Curtin University, Perth, Australia 7 189 0
Journal Pre-proof
89 University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, 8 128 0
Malaysia
10 Monash University, Clayton, Australia 11 5 130 0
Technical University of Cartagena, Spain 5 111 5

12 University of Sheffield, 5 448 4
Sheffield, United Kingdom
13 Leibniz Universität Hannover, 10 113 5
Hannover, Germany
14 King Abdul Aziz City Science and 5 102 0
Technology
(Kacst), Saudi Arabia
15 Sharda University, Greater Noida, India 9 180 0
16 Sastra University, Thanjavur, India 5 55 0
17 University of Adelaide, Australia 7 172 0
18 University of Wollongong, Australia 7 53
19 University of Brighton, 6 98 0 10
Brighton, United Kingdom
20 University of Southampton, 6 49 11
Southampton, United Kingdom
21 Nanyang Technological University, 5 175 0
Nanyang, Singapore
22 South China University of Technology, 6 64 0
Guangzhou, China
23 Khon Kaen University, Khon, Thailand 24 10 146 0
University Of South Carolina, United States 5 83 0
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 9: Visualization of Research Institutions
3.7 Countries
Table 6 highlights the countries where most of the research for geopolymer concrete were carried out. These results
show that Australia has the highest research impact with a citation of 7132 and a document count of 317. India,
Malaysia, and the United Kingdom had a citation count of 2672, 2636, and 2449 respectively, also making them top
impactful countries on geopolymer concrete research. Figure 10 shows a combined document count per country with
India having the highest number with well over 550 documents and followed closely by Australia with over 350
documents.
The number of documents, citations and total link strength show the level of impact each country has had in the
development of geopolymer concrete. The total link strength shows that documents from each country has had an
impact on one or more countries involved in these researches, with Australia and Malaysia having the highest total
link strength. Figure 11 shows the visualization of the co-citation relationship between the countries.
Table 6. Countries where most of the researches were conducted
Y/N Countries Documents Citation Total link strength
1 Australia 317 7132 144

two Brazil 30 359 11
3 Cameroon 29 666 44
4 Canada 34 444 31
5 China 187 1605 86
6Egypt 23 415 4
7 Germany 41 463 47
8 India 538 2672 30
9 Indonesia 104 388 56
10 Iran 23 249 17
11 Italy 65 892 58
12 Japan 26 855 21
13 Malaysia
14 New Zealand
15 Portugal
Journal Pre-proof
185
11
24
2636
283
284
109
17
43
16 Saudi Arabia 30 555 36
17 Singapore 22 388 8
18 South Korea 29 371 18
19 Spain 28 485 38
20Thailand 59 1228 26
21 Turkey 40 247 24
22 United Kingdom 72 2449 67

23 United States 138 1577 57
Figure 10: Documents by Country
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 11: Visualization of Co-citation Relationship by Country

4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION
The Scientometric analysis and visualization of the bibliographic data were carried out and
provided an insight into the most influential publication sources; most used keywords; most
active and influential researchers; most active institutions, and literature with the highest impact;
all of which make up the objectives of this study. From the analysis, clusters were identified
which grouped the literature based on the similarity of their keywords and abstract. The clusters
provided a picture of the current state-of-the-art in geopolymer concrete. The review of current
and past literature helped identify gaps that still exist in the study of geopolymer concrete.
Compared to OPC concrete, the development and research into geopolymer concrete is still in
its early stages. Though tremendous strides have been made to bring the great potential of
geopolymer concrete to the limelight in the last decade, there is still a gap that exists between
research, application and adoption. Despite its promise, there are areas highlighted by various
studies which show that there is need for further research into the most fundamental properties
of geopolymer concrete at its present state which have not been fully addressed (Van Deventer
et al., 2012; Van Deventer, 2016; Bondar et al., 2019; Biondi et al., 2019). The clusters identified
show that the present and future directions for geopolymer research are grouped into, geopolymer
type, material constituents, mix-design and mixing process, mechanical properties and
compressive strength, curing temperature, durability, microstructure, adoption and application.
Journal Pre-proof
4.1 Geopolymer type
The most popular and earliest type of geopolymer concrete produced is fly ash-based, as a
result, many scholars have studied its properties more than any other type of geopolymer concrete.
However, despite having comparable properties to that of Portland cement, fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete has to be cured under high temperature to achieve its strength. Fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete strength gain is slow as a result of the low amount of calcium oxide
found in fly ash. The weakness in fly ash-based geopolymer concrete has led researchers into
looking at alternative materials to supplement fly ash or totally replace it as the main ingredient
of geopolymer concrete as seen from various studies (Rovnaník et al., 2016; Dharek et al., 2019;
Simon et al., 2019). Many studies have shown that other forms of geopolymer concrete exist
which include slag-based geopolymer concrete, metakaolin-based geopolymer concrete, and fly
ash blended geopolymer concrete containing various supplementary cementitious materials.
Blended geopolymer concrete seeks to address the issues observed in the properties of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete by blending metakaolin, slag, volcanic ash, OPC cement, calcium
aluminate cement, lime, graphene oxide, nano-silica, nano-fly ash, rice husk ash, oil palm ash,
and bamboo ash (Bakri et al., 2013; Kumar et al., 2016; Wardhono et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2018;
Dony et al., 2018; Wardhono et al. , 2019; Junru et al., 2019). Figure 12 present alternative
materials for sustainable construction. Being a sustainable construction material, GPC can be
made using the various materials presented in the figure if they meet the requirements for
precursor materials used in the production of GPC.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 12. Alternative materials for sustainable concrete production (Serdar et al., 2019).
4.2 Material constituents
Geopolymers are made primarily using supplementary cementitious materials containing

aluminosilicates activated with alkaline solutions. It is a novel type of concrete that seeks eco-
friendliness (Dadsetan et al., 2019; Saravanan et al., 2019). The materials involved in the
production of geopolymer concrete include, but are not limited to, Supplementary cementitious
materials (Fly ash, slag, metakaolin etc.), Alkali activators (Sodium hydroxide (NaOH), Potassium
hydroxide (KOH), sodium silicate (Na2SiO3 ) and potassium silicate(K2SiO3), coarse aggregates,
fine aggregates, water, and additives (Shi et al., 2015; Hassan et al., 2019). Studies have shown
that the source of materials have an influence on the properties of geopolymer concrete. Other
materials have been used to enhance the properties of geopolymer concrete in a bid to help with
ambient curing and cater for the cost of fly ash which is no longer seen as a waste material by
several countries. Some of these materials include rocks ( Davidovits & Davidovits, 2020),
recycled aggregate (Nuaklong et al., 2018), fibers (Noushini et al., 2019), brewery sludge
(Okeyinka et al., 2019), spent garnet (Muttashar et al., 2018), bottom ash (Paija et al., 2020),
rubber (Luhar et al., 2019), red mud (Hu et al., 2018), glass powder (Xiao et al., 2020a), basaltic
natural pozzolana (Moon et al ., 2014), and waste foundry sand (Bhardwaj & Kumar, 2018). The
studies carried out using these materials showed improvements on the properties of geopolymer
concrete. The molar concentrations of alkali activators also have an influence on the properties
of geopolymer concrete. Studies have shown that the use of sole alkali hydroxide activation
Journal Pre-proof
improved the workability because the viscosity of alkali silicates is higher. These studies also
affirm that higher Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) values were observed with single alkali
hydroxide as a result of dense and more compact microstructure of the geopolymer concrete
with improved compressive strength (Provis & Bernal, 2014; Kantarcÿ et al., 2019; Zannerni et
al., 2020; Khalil et al., 2020).
There is some level of energy usage and emission of CO2 during the electrolytic production of
alkali hydroxides, however, the amount of emission during the production can be upstaged if the
chlorine produced during the process can be a valuable reusable by-product. Also, the alkali
hydroxides usually have a concentration above 5moles, this high concentration can pose
significant occupational hazard during mixing, hence they are classified as corrosive (Provis &
Bernal, 2014; Kamseu et al., 2017). The cost component present in the production of geopolymer
concrete because of the use of alkali activators is higher when compared to OPC concrete
(Bondar et al., 2019). Despite the challenges mentioned above, geopolymer concrete provides
technical performance with an exceptional dimensional stability at temperatures of about
1,000ÿC. The silicate gels in geopolymer concrete are credited with the dimensional stability as
a result of the high degree of connectivity between them (Provis & Bernal, 2014). Rafeet et al.,
(2017) carried out a cost benefit analysis to compare the present prices of geopolymer concrete
and OPC concrete and found out that at normal strength, geopolymer concrete is more expensive
compared to OPC concrete. However, they discovered that for the medium to high strength
applications, the prices remained comparable. They stated that identifying alternative alkali
activators or alternate production processes can help reduce the price of geopolymer concrete
compared to its present cost. Figure 13 shows some of the precursor materials used in the
production of conventional geopolymer concrete.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 13. Material constituents and process of making conventional geopolymer concrete (Singh & Middendorf, 2020)
Xiao, et al., (2020c) conducted an analytical study using thermodynamic simulation to manage the phase assemblages of
alkali activated materials, giving viewpoints on the nature of precursors. In alkali-activated ternary SiO2-CaO-Al2O3
systems, stability regions and weight percentage of each hydration product were predicted and three common forms of
alkaline activators (NH, NS
and NC) were assessed. The overall interactions between phase assemblies (Figure 14 (a) [primary phases (N50 wt%)]-
NH; (b) [primary phases (N50 wt%)]-NS; (c) [primary phases (N50 wt%) ]-NC), aqueous solution pH, and starting systems
chemical composition were well recognized as seen in figure 14. The experimental results presented in figure 15 by Bernal
& Provis (2014) gives credence to the analytical study by Xiao, et al., (2020c) showing that the most dominant gel reaction
products in the aluminosilicate wastes used in producing geopolymer are C-(N-)ASH and NASH. Both studies show that
precursors used in the production of geopolymer produce the C-(N-)ASH and NASH in the same region as seen in figures
14 and 15.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 14. Key precipitation areas in SiO2-CaO-Al2O3 ternary phase assemblages where
solid-phase formation accounts for more than 50 wt% of the simulated solid weight (Xiao, et
al., 2020c).
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 15. Alkaline activated binder gel pseudo-ternary plot compositions, after 28 days of curing,
assessed by SEM – EDX with binders synthesized by sodium metasilicate activation of fly ash
(FA), slag (BFS); The precursor combination is 1:1 (Bernal & Provis, 2014).
4.3 Mix-design
There is no standard mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete. Over the past decade,
researchers have tried to come up with various mix designs for low calcium based geopolymer
concrete. However, most of these designs are based on trial and error approaches. This is so
because of the number of variables involved in the production of geopolymer concrete. To
achieve the desired strength and workability of a concrete sample a suitable mix design is vital
(Pavithra et al., 2016; Reddy et al., 2018; Provis et al., 2019). Apart from the trial and error
method of mix designs, the two most popular methods are the Taguchi method and the Particle
packing fraction method. The Taguchi method has found wide usage in other engineering
disciplines but is only being used sparingly in geopolymer concrete. The Taguchi method adopts
a fractional factorial method of design which requires a special array sets known as orthogonal
arrays (OA) for experimental designs that for a large number of variables requiring a small
amount of experiments. Uncontrollable design parameters are reduced as well as the number of
experiments using OA. The Taguchi method can be used to evaluate a single property by
optimizing the combination of different parameters (Jithendra & Elavenil, 2019; Prusty & Pradhan,
2020).
The packing fraction method adopts the volumetric proportioning of coarse and fine aggregates
based on the best possible particle gradation curve. The idea of this method is to select a particle
size distribution that will fill up the voids between large particles with smaller particles by
optimizing the particle fraction. The concept of the excess paste theory is adopted where the
aggregates are completely covered with the paste and enhance the flowability of the concrete.
Optimizing aggregate size and blends increases workability and dimensional stability and an
increase in compressive strength at the early age (Moini et al., 2015; Li et al., 2018; Bondar et
al., 2019).
The difference between mix design methods are tested by compressive strength testing. For
these materials however, the 28 days testing age is not ideal for the determination of the
eventual properties of geopolymer concrete. This is so because the slag-based and metakaolin-
based activated mixes gain the final strength earlier than 28 days. While the fly ash-based
mixes continue to gain strength beyond the 28 days testing age (Provis et al., 2019). Figure 16
provides an example of mix design for GPC. The design is based on specified strength
requirement which is similar to OPC concrete design albeit with different precursor materials for binder.
Journal Pre-proof
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 16. An example of mix-design procedure for geopolymer concrete (Li et al., 2019).
4.4 Curing temperature
There is a difference between the curing method used for geopolymer concrete and that of OPC
concrete. OPC concrete requires curing in water while geopolymer concrete relies on heat curing
(steam curing and dry curing) and air (ambient curing). The geopolymerization process is
dependent on heat for activation (Jindal, 2019). Most of the works done on geopolymer concrete
have focused on curing geopolymer concrete at high temperatures which limits its use to precast
elements. When cured under higher temperature, geopolymer concrete experiences rapid loss of
water which results in drying shrinkage which can cause tensile and shear stresses resulting in
cracks (Biondi et al., 2019). Studies have shown that low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete exhibits great mechanical properties when heat curing (temperatures above 50ÿ to 120ÿ)
is used, while it performed poorly during ambient curing (Rangan & Hardjito, 2005; Neupane,
2016; Jindal, 2018; Nurruddin, 2018).
In order to address the problem of environmental curing, many studies have blended fly ash with
other materials such as granulated blast furnace slag (Kumar et al., 2016), metakaolin (Zhang et
al., 2020), OPC (Askarian et al. , 2018), volcanic ash (Wardhono et al., 2017), nano silica (Çevik
et al., 2018) etc. to produce ambient cured geopolymer concrete. These blended concrete showed
improvement in their mechanical properties when cured under ambient conditions with curing
temperatures ranging from 23ÿ to 47ÿ (Hadi et al., 2017; Cao et al., 2018; Jindal, 2018; Gholampour
et al., 2019; Hassan et al., 2019). Hasanah et al., (2018), explored the role of curing conditions on
Journal Pre-proof
the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar based on FA-POFA (palm oil fuel ash). The results
revealed how the compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar increased as a result of
temperature increase; the latency time before curing reduces the compressive strength of the
geopolymer mortar and the heat curing duration observed was within one to two days.
Nonetheless, FA-POFA-based geopolymer mortar 's compressive strength (35MPa) decreases at
temperatures above 90 °C.
Al Bakri et al., (2013) used high-calcium nano fly ash as precursor to geopolymer concrete with
the results showing compressive strengths between 61MPa for 1day and 65MPa for 7days when
cured under a temperature of 70ÿ. In a study conducted by Phoo-Ngernkham et al., (2018) to
produce ambient-cured geopolymer concrete using high-calcium fly ash, a compressive strength
of 15 to 35MPa was obtained after curing at ambient temperature for 28 days. Also, Topark-
Ngarm et al., (2015), presented a study on the setting time, strength, and bond of geopolymer
concrete made with high-calcium fly ash under ambient conditions and under heat curing. The
compressive strength recorded for the samples ranged from 19.89 to 46.69MPa at 7 and 28days
of ambient curing, and 40.73 to 49.50MPa for heat curing at 7 and 28days.
In a similar manner, Xiao et al., (2020a) studied some properties of ambient-cured geopolymer
concrete made using waste glass powder and observed that the waste glass acted as an inert
filler to the matrix in the first 14 days. However, after 14 days the reaction rate increased and
improved the compressive strength at 28 days. The study reported an environmental impact
consideration after a leaching test showed the leaching of alkaline solution. This phenomenon
should be taken care of during the mix design. These studies provide a basis for the further
investigation into the use of high-calcium fly ash in producing ambient cured geopolymer concrete
over an extended period of time to study other concrete properties. Figure 17 presents the
relationship between the compressive strength and curing temperature of geopolymer concrete.
The figure indicates a higher strength for specimens cured using heat as compared with samples
cured using ambient temperature.
Figure 17. Relationship between compressive strength and healing condition of GPC (Hassan et al.,
2019a).
Journal Pre-proof
4.5 Mechanical properties
In studying effect of steel slag on fresh, hardened and microstructural properties of high-calcium fly
ash based geopolymers at standard curing condition, Song et al., (2019), observed a strong
relationship between the compressive strength of hardened geopolymer paste and sorptivity,
capillary pore volume, and porosity. They also stated that the modulus of elasticity showed a linear
increase with the root mean square of the compressive strength. Part et al., (2015), highlighted the
presence of micro-cracks in geopolymer concrete samples cured at high temperature, suggesting
that the loss of moisture during curing results in the formation of micro-cracks. Hadi et al., (2019),
observed that the inclusion of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) increases the
Calcium Oxide (CaO) content which invariably increased the compressive strength of the concrete
and also decreased its setting time. However, Adam, (2009), Barnard, (2014), Mohamed, (2019)
and (Wang et al., 2019) observed a degree of drying shrinkage and high rate of carbonation when
slag was added to geopolymer. Nurruddin, (2018) noted that most of the studies carried out on
geopolymer concrete focused on its strength properties compared to other properties of concrete,
hence the need for more studies into non-strength properties of
concrete.
Jiang et al. (2020) studied the properties of fly ash-based geopolymer paste together with OPC
paste subjected to an elevated temperature of 1200ÿ and observed that the relationship that exists
between the compressive and bond strength samples were linear. However, the study also observed
a smaller loss of mass and compressive strength in geopolymer paste as compared to OPC paste
which implies a better bond behavior, and stable phase changes for geopolymer
concrete at elevated temperature. Topark-Ngarm et al. (2015) also reported an increase in bond
strength as well as higher splitting tensile strength in geopolymer concrete.
In a study to look at the influence changes in the percentage of geopolymer precursors, Kumar
et al., (2018) reported that for every variation in content of GGBFS, there was an accompanying
change in compressive and splitting tensile strength. Tennakoon (2016) observed that geopolymer
concrete 's flexural capacity was significantly greater than that of OPC. Geopolymer showed
concrete flexural strengths of about 10.5% of the compressive strength, which is high compared
to that of OPC concrete. Ahmed et al., (2020) stated that there was a decrease in deflection as
well as incremental appearance of first cracking load as well as a rise in compressive strength of
geopolymer concrete with a low crack width in beams reinforced with carbon fiber compared to
OPC concrete beams. Yacob et al., (2019) found reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete
having comparable shear strength with reinforced OPC concrete.
Also, Tran et al., (2019) carried out an experimental and analytical study on steel fiber reinforced
beams made with ambient-cured geopolymer concrete and posited that geopolymer concrete
beams showed great cracking resistance, ductility and serviceability compared to OPC beams
used as reference samples. In their study on fly ash-based polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced
geopolymer concrete, Kan et al., (2020) reported an upper limit of 8.62% strain capacity which
represents a high tensile strength property of the geopolymer concrete.
A low drying shrinkage is a desirability for geopolymer concrete. Mixtures activated with sodium
silicate showed markedly greater autogenous shrinkage, but lower drying shrinkage values at
Journal Pre-proof
lower alkali modulus. The excessive micro-cracking observed was for binder matrix that was
activated using non-fly ash mixes and activated with higher alkali modulus in silicate solution as
observed by Humad et al., (2019) and Hassan et al., (2019). Xiao et al., (2020b) used glass
powder as a precursor to geopolymer concrete with recycled waste glass aggregate for stabilized
road bases and reported a reduction in drying shrinkage with a reduction in compressive strength.
However, samples cured under high temperature and relative humidity showed better mechanical
properties. Figure 18 presents the performance of GPC and OPC concrete under elevated
temperatures. It can be observed from the figure that GPC performs better with increase in
temperature as seen in the loss of strength of the samples.
Figure 18. A comparison of compressive strength of GPC and OPC concrete under elevated
temperature (Hassan et al., 2020b)
4.6 Durability
The durability of concrete is its ability to resist to a large extent, weathering, abrasion, diffusion
of gases, absorption of dangerous liquids, and still retain its properties through its service life.
For embedded steel reinforcement to be protected from corrosion, concrete must be durable.
Albitar et al., (2017) studied the durability of geopolymer concrete and conventional OPC
concrete and found out that the general durability properties of geopolymer concrete was
superior to that of OPC concrete especially when exposed to chemical attack. Shill et al., (2020)
highlighted the performance of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar to chemicals and high thermal
cycles. Using hydrocarbon fluids (HF) and 60 cycles of heat exposure, the study stated that
every geopolymer mortar sample exhibited saponification and a subsequent 42.52% (at 3 days)
to 33.85% (at 28 days) loss of compressive strength. However, ambient cured geopolymer
mortar exposed to hydrocarbon fluids did not undergo saponification, and the loss in
compressive strength was negligible. The mineralogical composition, alkali activator
concentration and exposure time have an influence on the acid attack mechanism which is also
dependent on the concentration of the acid (Okoye et al., 2017). Geopolymer concrete has a
dimensional stability at temperatures of about 1,000ÿC due to the presence of silicate gels
which provides exceptional technical properties giving it a far superior fire resistance compared
Journal Pre-proof
to OPC concrete (Provis & Bernal, 2014; Hassan et al., 2019) .
There is so much work to be done on the durability properties of geopolymer concrete as there are only a few studies
pertaining to its durability. Test methods and validation techniques for geopolymer concrete remains a major challenge
as regulatory standards are designed for only OPC concrete. The available test methods for OPC concrete will need
validation for it to be adopted for geopolymer concrete. A sustained study into durability studies of geopolymer concrete
will lead to updates in standards as advancement in scientific knowledge of this novel material can drive adoption by
regulatory agencies, hence, promoting the adoption and utilization of this material (Provis, 2014; Provis et al. , 2019;
Gluth et al., 2020). Figure 19 gives a comparison on the performance of OPC concrete and GPC exposed to acid
environments. The figure shows that GPC performs better in acid environments with less loss in compressive strength
compared to OPC concrete.
Figure 19. Comparison of compressive strength of fly ash GPC activated with Na2SiO3 and
NaOH solution, and OPC specimens exposed to 5% Na2SO4 and MgSO4 (Hassan et al., 2019b).
4.7 Microstructure
Awoyera et al., (2018), highlighted the influence of the interfacial synergy between the
aggregates, paste, and interconnectivity of pores and cracks on the general strength of
geopolymer concrete. Zainal et al., (2015), tested the electrical resistivity of geopolymer concrete
using the wenner four-point probe and found the concrete adequate in resisting the electrical
current applied as well as negligible corrosion rate in the reinforcement when compared to OPC
concrete. Since electrical resistivity is dependent on the interfacial bonding as well as
interconnectivity of the pores in the concrete, geopolymer concrete possesses a denser
microstructure than OPC concrete. However, Cai et al., (2020) pointed out that the electrical
resistivity of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete has a greater resistivity than metakaolin-based
geopolymer concrete. In studying the micro structure of Geopolymer concrete using Ultrasonic
Pulse Velocity (UPV), Scan Electron Microscopy (SEM), Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy
(FTIR), X-ray Diffraction (XDR) and Fluorescence X-ray Spectroscopy (XRF), Alehyen et al.,
(2017), Kaur et al., (2018) and (Kantarcÿ et al., 2019) posited that the strength of geopolymer
concrete increased based on its microstructural density.
Karthik et al., (2019) considered the use of bio-additives in geopolymer concrete and also
concluded that there was an increase in the density of the microstructure of the concrete which
Journal Pre-proof
also resulted in higher compressive strength. These findings agree with other findings made
using nano-silica, silica fume, nano-aluminate, graphene oxide, etc. (Alomayri, 2019; Prabha &
Revathi, 2019). Despite these promising microstructural properties, there is very limited research
into the microstructure of geopolymer concrete; long-term studies under different environmental
conditions will shed more light on the internal workings of geopolymer concrete. Results
obtained from these studies show that concrete cured under high temperature have denser
microstructure which points to the fact that there is a need for alternative materials and curing
regime to promote denser microstructure for ambient cured geopolymer concrete. Figure 20
shows a SEM micrograph of geopolymer paste highlighting voids, unreacted fly ash particles,
partially reacted fly ash particles, and polymeric gel.
Figure 20. SEM micrograph of geopolymer paste (Alehyen et al., 2017).

4.8 Adoption and Application
Geopolymer concrete technology offers a great opportunity for the valorization of industrial and
agricultural wastes to address the issue of environmental pollution caused by dumping these wastes in
landfills. Documentation exists for the use of geopolymer-based materials in the spheres of fire-resistant
materials, new ceramics, hazardous waste stabilization matrices, high-tech materials, binders, and
asbestos-free materials (Ferone et al., 2013; Report et al ., 2016).
Central to modern civilization is cement and concrete for the development of infrastructure to provide a
good quality of life. It is believed that alkali-activated binders such as geopolymer will provide a pathway
for the expanded commercialization, production on a large scale, and a basis for rapid understanding
of research pertaining to assertions of the environmental friendliness of alkali-activated concretes. Also,
the evaluation of the most appropriate composition and transformation conditions as a function of
geographic and source materials supply chain must be initiated (Provis & Bernal, 2014).
Geopolymer concrete has found increased use on infrastructure such as pavements, retaining walls,
boundary blocks, water tank, road ramp, pre-cast bridge deck, aircraft pavements, pre-cast beams in
Australia (Aldred & Day, 2012; Report et al. , 2016). Other studies have shown the suitability of
geopolymer concrete as structural members, buttressing the current usage in Australia and some parts
Journal Pre-proof
of Europe. There is a growing interest in the adoption and application of geopolymer concrete. In 2016
the government of Japan commissioned a committee to look into the current use of geopolymer as
structural elements in other parts of the world. The International Union of Laboratories and Experts in
Construction Materials, Systems and Structures (RILEM, from the name in French) commissioned a
committee to identify and validate methodologies for testing the durability of alkali-activated concrete
with a total of 15 laboratories worldwide participating in the study. Developing these test and validation
methods is important since geopolymer concrete does not have a long-term track record for durability
(Report et al., 2016; Provis et al., 2019; Gluth et al., 2020). A rapid progression of the application of
geopolymer concrete is ongoing in some parts of the world while in some other parts, the application is
slow (Zhang et al., 2014). Alkali-activated binders when designed properly while considering their
carbon-footprint using locally-available materials hold the key as an effective component for sustainable
construction materials. It is not expected that geopolymer concrete will provide a like-for-like replacement
to OPC concrete based on the requirement for careful formulation and curing, technical challenges in
some form of usage, and supply chain limitations. Furthermore, even when regulatory bodies accept
the results for durability testing of geopolymer concrete, the ease of obtaining source materials for its
production will constitute a barrier. Also, the supply chain of cementitious materials is based on OPC,
therefore, there are regulatory challenges as well as product confidence that must be overcome to
facilitate the application and adoption of geopolymer concrete. It is also important to note that users,
researchers and regulatory bodies appreciate the commercialization aspect of concrete (Van Deventer
et al., 2012; Provis, 2018). Figure 21 highlights the areas of application of geopolymer ranging from fire
resistant heat composites, radioactive toxic encapsulation, low CO2 cement and concrete to bricks.
Journal Pre-proof
Figure 21. Areas of application of geopolymer (Davidovits, 2018).
4.9 Areas for further research
This review identified the following gaps requiring further studies:
1. The desire to cure geopolymer concrete in-situ requires materials that can reduce the
setting time as well as improve early strength gain of geopolymer concrete. Also, there
have been very few studies on bio-material use in the preparation of geopolymer concrete.
2. There is a need for a harmonized mix design method which can consider all the variables
involved in the manufacture of geopolymer concrete.
3. The production of alkaline activators via the electrolysis of salts produces CO2, therefore
new bio-materials are required for the synthesis of alkaline solutions to replace the more
expensive alkaline solutions in the market.
4. The use of single-alkaline activator was seen to improve strength of geopolymer
concrete; Further long-term studies are required to validate this finding.
5. Having different variables for its design mix, further long-term durability studies are required
to provide test methods and validation techniques since most studies focus on the 28-day
curing regime.
6. Admixtures available in the market are produced based on the properties of OPC. Since
the mechanism of geopolymer concrete is different from OPC concrete, there is need to
find alternative admixtures for geopolymer concrete.
7. There is a very limited research on the microstructural properties of geopolymer concrete.
Further studies are required to fully understand the microstructural behavior of geopolymer
concrete.
8. In the production of geopolymer concrete, researches seem to focus more on concentration
of alkaline solution and temperature. However, all the factors that affect the rates of
chemical reactions for liquids and solids should be considered, therefore emphasis should
also be placed on the surface area of the solid reactants since chemical reactions take
place at the nano and atomic level.
9. This study observed that there is little attempt in developing predictive models for strength
and durability properties for service life prediction of geopolymer concrete.
10. There is still a gap between research and adoption of geopolymer concrete by industry as
a result of the lack of long-term studies on its properties.
4.10 Limitations
Journal Pre-proof
Using a data-driven methodology, this study will be influenced by the quality of data collected.
Despite collecting the data using a scientometric method of data mining, the combination of terms
selected logically cannot guarantee that alternate publications were also collected because some
studies might adopt “green concrete” instead of “geopolymer concrete” or “alkali activated
concrete”. Also, the study was limited to the Scopus database as it provided the largest collection
of publications on geopolymer concrete compared to the Web of Science (WOS) database. When
other non-English publications are considered, search term frequency is likely to increase.
Furthermore, depending on their co-occurrences in the mined publications, VOSviewer clustered
and visualized the keywords under specific themes. The contents of the clusters mostly matched
the themes of the clusters they were attached to. The sensitivity of the data is shown when similar
keywords are contained in different clusters. However, with all of these limitations to the study, a
significant change to the findings and conclusions are not expected.
5.0 CONCLUSIONS
This review adopted the big data mining concept of scientometric analysis for scientific literature
and an in-depth discussion of findings to highlight the present state-of-the-art on geopolymer
concrete. As research in the field of geopolymer concrete increases, researchers are faced with
an overload of information which might hinder advantageous research efforts and collaboration
among researchers. There is therefore a need to identify and adopt a methodology that helps the
researcher mine valuable data from the most reliable databases. With literature reviews being
liable to subjective biases, scientometric techniques can enhance the review method by using
computational power to help address this weakness.
This study identified the keywords and their frequency of occurrence with geopolymer and inorganic
polymers being the most used. Other entities such as most influential documents, most influential
authors, most influential institutions as well as countries involved in the study of geopolymer
concrete were identified and visualized together with their citation and link strength.
Also, this study identified clusters which placed similar publications together. The clusters identified
were thematic and grouped into geopolymer type, material constituents, mix-design and mixing
process, mechanical properties and compressive strength, curing temperature, durability,
microstructure, adoption and application. Furthermore, the study identified gaps in the present-state-
of-the-art in geopolymer concrete that require further studies.
Declaration of interest: The authors wish to state that there is no personal and financial
relationship with other people or organizations that influenced this study.
Funding: This study received no external funding.
REFERENCES
Adam, A. A. (2009). Strength and Durability Properties of Alkali Activated Slag and Fly Ash-
Based Geopolymer Concrete the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. August.
Journal Pre-proof
Aghaei Chadegani, A., Salehi, H., Md Yunus, M. M., Farhadi, H., Fooladi, M., Farhadi, M., & Ale
Ebrahim, N. (2013). A comparison between two main academic literature collections: Web
of science and scopus databases. Asian Social Science, 9(5), 18–26.
https://doi.org/10.5539/ass.v9n5p18
Ahmari, S., Ren, X., Toufigh, V., & Zhang, L. (2012). Production of geopolymeric binder from
blended waste concrete powder and fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 35, 718–
729. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.044
Ahmed, H.Q., Jaf, D.K., & Yaseen, S.A. (2020). Flexural strength and failure of geopolymer
concrete beams reinforced with carbon fiber-reinforced polymer bars. Construction and
Building Materials, 231, 117185. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117185
Albitar, M., Mohamed Ali, M. S., Visintin, P., & Drechsler, M. (2017). Durability evaluation of
geopolymer and conventional concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 136(April
2019), 374–385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056
Aldred, J., & Day, J. (2012). Is Geopolymer Concrete a Suitable Alternative To Traditional
Concrete? 37th Conference on Our World in Concrete & Structures, August, 1–14.
Alehyen, S., El Achouri, M., & Taibi, M. (2017). Characterization, microstructure and properties of
fly ash-based geopolymer. Journal of Materials and Environmental Science, 8(5), 1783–
1796.
Alomayri, T. (2019). Experimental study of the microstructural and mechanical properties of
geopolymer paste with nano material (Al2O3). Journal of Building Engineering,
25(February), 100788. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.100788
Ariffin, MAM, Bhutta, MAR, Hussin, MW, Mohd Tahir, M., & Aziah, N. (2013).
Sulfuric acid resistance of blended ash geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building
Materials, 43, 80–86. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.018
Askarian, M., Tao, Z., Adam, G., & Samali, B. (2018). Mechanical properties of ambient cured
one-part hybrid OPC-geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 186, 330–
337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.160
Awoyera, PO, Akinmusuru, JO, Dawson, AR, Ndambuki, JM, & Thom, NH (2018).
Microstructural characteristics, porosity and strength development in ceramic-laterized
concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 86, 224–
237. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.11.017
Bakri, AMMA, Kamarudin, H., Bnhussain, M., Liyana, J., & Ruzaidi, C. M. (2013). Nano
geopolymer for sustainable concrete using fly ash synthesized by high energy ball milling.
Applied Mechanics and Materials, 313–314, 169–173.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.313-314.169
Barnard, R. (2014). Mechanical properties of fly ash/slag based geopolymer concrete with the
addition of macro fibers. Masters. Stellenbosch University, December.
Bernal, SA, & Provis, JL (2014). Durability of alkali-activated materials: Progress and
perspectives. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 97(4), 997–1008.
https://doi.org/10.1111/jace.12831
Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., Walkley, B., San Nicolas, R., Gehman, J. D., Brice, D. G., Kilcullen,
A. R., Duxson, P., & Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2013). Gel nanostructure in alkali-activated
binders based on slag and fly ash, and effects of accelerated carbonation. Cement
and Concrete Research, 53, 127–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2013.06.007
Bhardwaj, B., & Kumar, P. (2018). Effect of waste foundry sand addition on strength,
permeability and microstructure of ambient cured geopolymer concrete. IOP Conference
Journal Pre-proof
Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 431(9). https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-
899X/431/9/092009
Biondi, L., Perry, M., Vlachakis, C., Wu, Z., Hamilton, A., & McAlorum, J. (2019). Ambient
cured fly ash geopolymer coatings for concrete. Materials, 16(6).
https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12060923
Bondar, D., Nanukuttan, S., Provis, J.L., & Soutsos, M. (2019). Efficient mix design of alkali
activated slag concretes based on packing fraction of ingredients and paste thickness.
Journal of Cleaner Production, 218, 438–449. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.01.332
Cai, J., Pan, J., Li, X., Tan, J., & Li, J. (2020). Electrical resistivity of fly ash and metakaolin
based geopolymers. Construction and Building Materials, 234, 117868.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117868
Cao, Y.-F., Tao, Z., Pan, Z., & Wuhrer, R. (2018). Effect of calcium aluminate cement on
geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Construction and Building Materials,
191, 242–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.204
Çevik, A., Alzeebaree, R., Humur, G., Niÿ, A., & Gülÿan, M.E. (2018). Effect of nano-silica on the
chemical durability and mechanical performance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete.
Ceramics International, 44(11), 12253–12264.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ceramint.2018.04.009
Dadsetan, S., Siad, H., Lachemi, M., & Sahmaran, M. (2019). Construction and demolition waste
in geopolymer concrete technology: A review. Magazine of Concrete Research, 71(23),
1232–1252. https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.18.00307
Darko, A., Chan, A.P.C., Huo, X., & Owusu-Manu, D. G. (2019). A scientometric analysis and
visualization of global green building research. Building and Environment, 149(November
2018), 501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.buildenv.2018.12.059
Davidovits, J., & Davidovits, R. (2020). Ferro-sialate Geopolymers ( -Fe-O-Si-O-Al-O- ). Ferro-
Sialate Geopolymers, Technical Papers #27, Geopolymer Institute Library, January, 1–6.
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.25792.89608/2
Davidovits, P. J. (2018). Why Alkali-Activated Materials (AAM) are NOT Geopolymers?
https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.34337.25441
De Vargas, AS, Dal Molin, DCC, Vilela, ACF, Silva, FJD, Pavão, B., & Veit, H.
(2011). The effects of Na2O/SiO3 molar ratio, curing temperature and age on compressive strength,
morphology and microstructure of alkali-activated fly ash-based geopolymers.
Cement and Concrete Composites, 33(6), 653–660. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2011.03.006
Deb, P. S., Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2014). The effects of ground granulated blast-furnace slag
blending with fly ash and activator content on the workability and strength properties of
geopolymer concrete cured at ambient temperature. Materials and Design, 62, 32–39.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2014.05.001
Deventer, Jannie S.J. Van, Provis, J.L., & Duxson, P. (2012). Technical and commercial progress
in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Minerals Engineering, 29, 89–104.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009
Dharek, M. S., Sunagar, P., Bhanu Tej, K. V., & Naveen, S. U. (2019). Fresh and hardened
properties of self-consolidating concrete incorporating alumina silicates. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering
(Vol. 25). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3317-0_62 Diaz-Loya, E.I., Allouche, E.N.,
& Vaidya, S. (2011). Mechanical properties of fly-ash-based
geopolymer concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 108(3), 300–306. https://
Journal Pre-proof
www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
79957853353&partnerID=40&md5=e484cd606f4bdee90fc11b8bcdceae35 Dony, W.,
Saloma, & Astira, I. F. (2018). Oil palm ash-based geopolymer mortar with variation
Na2SiO3 and NaOH ratio. AIP Conference Proceedings, 2030. https://
doi.org/10.1063/1.5066745 Elimbi, A.,
Tchakoute, H. K., & Njopwouo, D. (2011). Effects of calcination temperature of kaolinite clays on the
properties of geopolymer cements. Construction and Building Materials, 25(6), 2805–2812. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.055 Ferone, C., Colangelo, F., Roviello, G., Asprone,
D., Menna, C., Balsamo, A., Prota, A ., Cioffi, R., & Manfredi, G. (2013). Application-oriented chemical
optimization of a metakaolin based geopolymer. Materials, 6(5), 1920–1939. https://doi.org/10.3390/
ma6051920 Frehe, V., Rugaitis, V., & Teuteberg, F. (2014). Scientometrics: How to perform a big
data trend analysis with ScienceMiner. Lecture Notes in Informatics (LNI), Proceedings - Series of the Gesellschaft
Fur Informatik (GI), P-232(February), 1699–1710.
Gholampour, A., Ozbakkaloglu, T., & Ng, C.-T. (2019). Ambient- and oven-cured geopolymer concretes under
active containment. Construction and Building Materials, 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2019.116722
Glänzel, W., & Zhang, L. (2018). Scientometric research assessment in the developing world: A tribute to Michael
J. Moravcsik from the perspective of the twenty-first century.
Scientometrics, 115(3), 1517–1532. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2647-4 Gluth, G.J.G.,
Arbi, K., Bernal, S.A., & Bondar, D. (2020). RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test : carbonation and chloride
penetration testing of alkali-activated concretes RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test : carbonation and
chloride penetration testing of alkali-activated concretes. Materials and Structures, 3(February). https://
doi.org/10.1617/s11527-020-1449-
3
Hadi, MNS, Farhan, NA, & Sheikh, MN (2017). Design of geopolymer concrete with
GGBFS at ambient curing condition using Taguchi method. Construction and Building
Materials, 140, 424–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.131
Hadi, MNS, Zhang, H., & Parkinson, S. (2019). Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and
concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and
workability. Journal of Building Engineering, 23, 301–313.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006
Hasanah, N., Shukor, A., Samadi, M., & Ariffin, N. F. (2018). Effect of Curing Conditions on
Compressive Strength of FA-POFA-based Geopolymer Mortar Effect of Curing Conditions
on Compressive Strength of FA-POFA-based Geopolymer Mortar.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/431/9/092007
Hassan, Amer, Arif, M., & Shariq, M. (2019a). Effect of curing condition on the mechanical
properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. SN Applied Sciences,
1(12). https://doi.org/10.1007/
s42452-019-1774-8 Hassan, Amer, Arif, M., & Shariq, M. (2019b). Use of geopolymer concrete for a cleaner and
sustainable environment – A review of mechanical properties and microstructure. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 223, 704–728.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.03.051
Hassan, Amer, Arif, M., & Shariq, M. (2020a). A review of properties and behavior of
reinforced geopolymer concrete structural elements - A clean technology option for
sustainable development. Journal of Cleaner Production, 245.
Journal Pre-proof
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.118762
Hassan, Amer, Arif, M., & Shariq, M. (2020b). Mechanical Behavior and Microstructural
Investigation of Geopolymer Concrete After Exposure to Elevated Temperatures. Arabian
Journal for Science and Engineering, 45(5), 3843–3861. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-
019-04269-9
Hemalatha, T., & Ramaswamy, A. (2017). A review on fly ash characteristics – Towards
promoting high volume utilization in developing sustainable concrete. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 147, 546–559. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.01.114
Hosseini, M.R., Martek, I., Zavadskas, E.K., Aibinu, A.A., Arashpour, M., & Chileshe, N.
(2018). Critical evaluation of off-site construction research: A Scientometric analysis.
Automation in Construction, 87(March), 235–247.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.autcon.2017.12.002
Hu, W., Nie, Q., Huang, B., Shu, X., & He, Q. (2018). Mechanical and microstructural
characterization of geopolymers derived from red mud and fly ashes. Journal of Cleaner
Production, 186, 799–806. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.03.086
Humad, A.M., Kothari, A., Provis, J.L., & Cwirzen, A. (2019). The Effect of Blast Furnace
Slag/ Fly Ash Ratio on Setting, Strength, and Shrinkage of Alkali-Activated Pastes and
Concretes. 6(February), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmats.2019.00009
Hutchins, B.I., Yuan, X., Anderson, J.M., & Santangelo, G.M. (2016). Relative Citation Ratio
(RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level.
PLoS Biology, 14(9), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541
Imbabi, M. S., Carrigan, C., & McKenna, S. (2012). Trends and developments in green cement
and concrete technology. International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment, 1(2),
194–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.05.001
Ismail, I., Bernal, SA, Provis, JL, San Nicolas, R., Brice, DG, Kilcullen, AR, Hamdan, S.,
& Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2013). Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride permeability
of alkali-activated slag mortars and concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 48,
1187–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.07.106
Jan van Eck, N., & Waltman, L. (2017). Manual for VOSviewer version 1.6.6. October.
Jiang, X., Xiao, R., Zhang, M., Hu, W., Bai, Y., & Huang, B. (2020). A laboratory investigation of
steel to fly ash-based geopolymer paste bonding behavior after exposure to elevated
temperatures. Construction and Building Materials, 254, 119267.
Jindal, B. B. (2019). Investigations on the properties of geopolymer mortar and concrete with
mineral admixtures: A review. Construction and Building Materials, 227.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.08.025
Jindal, Bharat Bhushan. (2018). Feasibility study of ambient cured geopolymer concrete -A
review. Advances in Concrete Construction, 6(4), 387–405.
https://doi.org/10.12989/acc.2018.6.4.387
Jithendra, C., & Elavenil, S. (2019). Influences of Parameters on Slump Flow and Compressive
Strength Properties of Aluminosilicate Based Flowable Geopolymer Concrete Using
Taguchi Method. Silicon. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12633-019-00166-w
Junru, R., Huiguo, C., Ruixi, D., & Tao, S. (2019). Behavior of combined fly ash/GBFS-based
geopolymer concrete after exposed to elevated temperature. IOP Conference Series:
Earth and Environmental Science, 267(3). https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/267/3/032056
Kamseu, E., Moungam, L.M., Cannio, M., Billong, N., Chaysuwan, D., Melo, U.C., &
Journal Pre-proof
Leonelli, C. (2017). Substitution of sodium silicate with rice husk ash-NaOH solution in
metakaolin based geopolymer cement concerning reduction in global warming. Journal of
Cleaner Production, 142, 3050–3060. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.10.164
Kan, L., Zhang, L., Zhao, Y., & Wu, M. (2020). Properties of polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced
fly ash based Engineered Geopolymer Composites with zeolite replacement. Construction
and Building Materials, 231, 117161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117161
Kantarcÿ, F., Türkmen, ÿ., & Ekinci, E. (2019). Optimization of production parameters of
geopolymer mortar and concrete: A comprehensive experimental study. Construction and
Building Materials, 228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116770
Karthik, A., Sudalaimani, K., Vijayakumar, CT, & Saravanakumar, S.S. (2019). Effect of bio-
additives on physico-chemical properties of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag
based self-cured geopolymer mortars. Journal of Hazardous Materials, 361, 56–63.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhazmat.2018.08.078
Kaur, M., Singh, J., & Kaur, M. (2018). Microstructure and strength development of fly ash-
based geopolymer mortar: Role of nano-metakaolin. Construction and Building Materials,
Khalil, M. G., Elgabbas, F., El-Feky, M. S., & El-Shafie, H. (2020). Performance of geopolymer
mortar cured under ambient temperature. Construction and Building Materials, 242,
118090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118090
Kumar, P., Pankar, C., Manish, D., & Santhi, A. S. (2018). Study of mechanics and
microstructural properties of geopolymer concrete with GGBS and Metakaolin. Materials
Today: Proceedings, 5(14), 28127–28135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.054
Kumar, S. S., Pazhani, K. C., & Ravisankar, K. (2016). Studies on fly ash and slag blended
geopolymer concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering (India), 43(3), 303–310.
L.Provis, J., Arbi, K., Bernal, S.A., Bondar, D., Buchwald, A., Castel, A., Chithiraputhiran, S.,
Cyr, M., Dehghan, A., Dombrowski-Daube, K., Dubey, A., Ducman, V., Gluth, G.J.G.,
Nanukuttan, S., Peterson, K., Puertas, F., van Riessen, A., Torres-Carrasco, M., Ye, G., &
Zuo, Y. (2019). RILEM TC 247-DTA round robin test: mix design and reproducibility of
compressive strength of alkali-activated concretes. Materials and Structures/ Materiaux et
Constructions, 52(5), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-019-1396-z
Li, N., Shi, C., Zhang, Z., Wang, H., & Liu, Y. (2019). A review on mixture design methods for
geopolymer concrete. Composites Part B: Engineering, 178(April), 107490.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107490
Li, N., Shi, C., Zhang, Z., Zhu, D., Hwang, H. J., Zhu, Y., & Sun, T. (2018). The mixture
proportioning method for the development of performance-based alkali-activated slag-based
concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 93, 163–
Liao, H., Tang, M., Luo, L., Li, C., Chiclana, F., & Zeng, X. J. (2018). A bibliometric analysis
and visualization of medical big data research. Sustainability (Switzerland), 10(1), 1–18.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10010166
Liu, MYJ, Alengaram, UJ, Jumaat, MZ, & Mo, KH (2014). Evaluation of thermal conductivity,
mechanical and transport properties of lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer
concrete. Energy and Buildings, 72, 238–245. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.029
Luhar, S., Chaudhary, S., & Luhar, I. (2019). Development of rubberized geopolymer concrete:
Strength and durability studies. Construction and Building Materials, 204, 740–753.
Journal Pre-proof
Lukman Mansuri, Chika Udeaja, Claudia Trillo, Gyau Kwasi, Dilip Patel, Kumar Jha, CBM and
SG (2019). Scientometric Analysis and Mapping of Digital Technologies Used in Cultural
Heritage Field. In: Gorse, C and Neilson, CJ (Eds) Proceedings of the 35th Annual
ARCOM Conference, 2-4 September 2019, Leeds, UK, Association of Researchers in
Construction Management, 255-264., September.
McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011). Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary portland cement. Journal
of Cleaner Production, 19(9–10), 1080–1090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010
Mehta, A., & Siddique, R. (2017). Sulfuric acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 146, 136–143.
Mingers, J., & Leydesdorff, L. (2015). A review of theory and practice in scientometrics.
European Journal of Operational Research, 246(1), 1–19.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejor.2015.04.002
Mohamed, O. A. (2019). A review of durability and strength characteristics of alkali-activated
slag concrete. Materials, 12(8). https://doi.org/10.3390/ma12081198
Moini, M., Flores-Vivian, I., Amirjanov, A., & Sobolev, K. (2015). The optimization of
aggregate blends for sustainable low cement concrete. Construction and Building Materials,
Moon, J., Bae, S., Celik, K., Yoon, S., Kim, K., Su, K., & Monteiro, PJM (2014). Cement &
Concrete Composites Characterization of natural pozzolan-based geopolymeric binders.
Cement and Concrete Composites, 53, 97–
Mryglod, O., Holovatch, Y., & Kenna, R. (2018). Data Mining in Scientometrics: Usage
Analysis for Academic Publications. Proceedings of the 2018 IEEE 2nd International
Conference on Data Stream Mining and Processing, DSMP 2018, 241–246.

https://doi.org/10.1109/DSMP.2018.8478458
Muttashar, HL, Ariffin, MAM, Hussein, MN, Hussin, MW, & Ishaq, SB (2018). Self-compacting
geopolymer concrete with spend garnet as sand replacement. Journal of Building
Engineering, 15, 85–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.10.007
Nath, P, & Sarker, P. K. (2014). Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength
properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient conditions. Construction and
Building Materials, 66, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
Nath, Pradip, & Sarker, P. K. (2015). Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength
properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete cured at room temperature. Cement
and Concrete Composites, 55, 205–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.08.008
Neupane, K. (2016). “Fly ash and GGBFS based powder-activated geopolymer binders: A viable
sustainable alternative of portland cement in concrete industry.” Mechanics of Materials,
103, 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mechmat.2016.09.012
Noushini, A., Castel, A., & Gilbert, R. I. (2019). Creep and shrinkage of synthetic fiber-
reinforced geopolymer concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, 71(20), 1070–1082.
https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.18.00053
Nuaklong, P., Sata, V., Wongsa, A., Srinavin, K., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2018). Recycled
aggregate high calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete with inclusion of OPC and nano-
SiO<inf>2</inf>. Construction and Building Materials, 174, 244–252.
Journal Pre-proof
Nurruddin, et al. (2018). Methods of curing geopolymer concrete: A review. International
Journal of ADVANCED AND APPLIED SCIENCES, 5(1), 31–36.
https://doi.org/10.21833/ijaas.2018.01.005
Okeyinka, OM, Oloke, DA, Adebisi, WA, & Ayininuola, GM (2019). Investigation into the
applicability of brewery sludge residue-ash as a base material for geopolymer concrete.
Construction and Building Materials, 223, 28–32.
Okoye, F.N., Prakash, S., & Singh, N.B. (2017). Durability of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete in the presence of silica fume. Journal of Cleaner Production, 149, 1062–1067.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.02.176
Olivia, M., & Nikraz, H. (2012). Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi
method. Materials and Design, 36, 191–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.036
Paija, N., Kolay, P. K., Mohanty, M., & Kumar, S. (2020). Ground Bottom Ash Application for
Conventional Mortar and Geopolymer Paste. Journal of Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive
Waste, 24(1). https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HZ.2153-5515.0000466
Palomo, A., Krivenko, P., Garcia-Lodeiro, I., Kavalerova, E., Maltseva, O., & Fernández-
Jiménez, A. (2014). A review on alkaline activation: New analytical perspectives.
Construction Materials, 64(315). https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2014.00314
Paper, W., & Development, R. (2018). www.econstor.eu.
Papi, A. (2018). Big Data and Data Science: a Scientometrics Approach. May, 233–240.
Part, W. K., Ramli, M., & Cheah, C. B. (2015). An overview on the influence of various factors
on the properties of geopolymer concrete derived from industrial by-products. Construction
and Building Materials, 77, 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.065
Part, W. K., Ramli, M., & Cheah, C. B. (2017). An Overview on the Influence of Various
Factors on the Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Derived From Industrial Byproducts. In
Handbook of Low Carbon Concrete. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804524-4.00011-7

Pavithra, P., Srinivasula Reddy, M., Dinakar, P., Hanumantha Rao, B., Satpathy, B.K., &
Mohanty, A. N. (2016). A mix design procedure for geopolymer concrete with fly ash.
Phoo-ngernkham, T., Chindaprasirt, P., Sata, V., Hanjitsuwan, S., & Hatanaka, S. (2014). The effect of adding nano-
SiO2 and nano-Al2O3 on properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature.
Materials and Design, 55, 58–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2013.09.049
Phoo-Ngernkham, T., Phiangphimai, C., Damrongwiriyanupap, N., Hanjitsuwan, S.,

Thumrongvut, J., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2018). A Mix Design Procedure for Alkali-Activated High-Calcium Fly Ash
Concrete Cured at Ambient Temperature. Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2018. https://doi.org/
10.1155/2018/2460403 Plume, A., & Colledge, L. (2016). New Metrics Will Make Journal
Assessment More Complete and Transparent. Elsevier Connect, 1–10. https://www.elsevier.com/connect/new-metrics-
will-make-journal-evaluation-easier-and-more-transparent Prabha, V. C., & Revathi, V. (2019). Geopolymer
Mortar Incorporating High Calcium Fly Ash and Silica Fume. Archives of
Civil Engineering, 65(1), 3–16. https://doi.org/10.2478/ace-2019-0001
Provis, J. L. (2014). Green concrete or red herring? - Future of alkali-activated materials.

Advances in Applied Ceramics, 113(8), 472–477. https://
Journal Pre-proof
doi.org/10.1179/1743676114Y.0000000177
Provis, J.L., & Bernal, S.A. (2014). Geopolymers and related alkali-activated materials. Annual Review of Materials
Research, 44, 299–327. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-matsci-070813-113515
Provis, John L. (2018). Alkali-activated materials. In Cement and Concrete Research.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2017.02.009
Prusty, J. K., & Pradhan, B. (2020). Multi-response optimization using Taguchi-Grey relational analysis for composition
of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials,
241, 118049. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118049
Purwanto, Han, A. L., Nuroji, & Jaya Ekaputri, J. (2018). The influence of molarity variations to the mechanical behavior
of geopolymer concrete. MATEC Web of Conferences, 195. https://doi.org/10.1051/matecconf/
201819501010
Rafeet, A., Vinai, R., Soutsos, M., & Sha, W. (2017). Guidelines for mix proportioning of flies
ash/GGBS based alkali activated concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 147, 130–
142. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.04.036 Rangan, B.,
& Hardjito, D. (2005). Studies on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Proc. 4th November.
World …,
http://www.google.com/books?hl=id&lr=&id=wIFo7L_zO8AC&oi=fnd&a
mp;pg=PA133&dq=djwantoro&ots=FlZypGbTgV&sig=wTzPfRqrskTYXr8
KGbO58Fgwij8
Rashad, A. M. (2013). Metakaolin as cementitious material: History, scours, production and
composition-A comprehensive overview. Construction and Building Materials, 41, 303–
318. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.001 Reddy, M. S.,
Dinakar, P., & Rao, B. H. (2018). Mix design development of fly ash and ground granulated blast furnace slag based
geopolymer concrete. Journal of Building Engineering,
20, 712–722. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2018.09.010

Ren, W., Xu, J., Zhang, Z., & Liu, Y. (2014). Wavelet packet analysis on acoustic spectral characteristics
of geopolymeric concrete after elevated temperature. Jianzhu Cailiao Xuebao/ Journal of Building
Materials, 17(2), 284–290. https://doi.org/10.3969/j.issn.1007-
9629.2014.02.019
Report, C., Tc, J.-, Ichimiya, K., Hatanaka, S., Atarashi, D., Kunieda, M., Goda, H., Harada, K., Geopolymer,
I., Mechanism, R. , & Group, W. (2016). Technical Committee on Application of Geopolymer Technology
to Construction Field.
Rovnaník, P., Šimonová, H., Topoláÿ, L., Schmid, P., & Keršner, Z. (2016). Effect of Carbon Nanotubes on
the Mechanical Fracture Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer. Procedia Engineering, 151, 321–
328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2016.07.360 Ryu, G. S., Lee, Y. B., Koh, K. T.,
& Chung, Y. S. (2013). The mechanical properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with alkaline
activators. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 409–418. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2013.05.069 Saberi, M. K., Barkhan, S., & Hamzehei, R.
(2019). A bibliometric study and visualization of
Library Philosophy and Practice during 1998-2018. Library Philosophy and Practice, 2019.
Saloma, Hanafiah, Elysandi, DO, & Meykan, DG (2017). Effect of Na2SiO3/NaOH on
mechanical properties and microstructure of geopolymer mortar using fly ash and rice husk ash as
precursor. AIP Conference Proceedings, 1903. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5011552 Saravanan, R.,
Pavan Kumar, M., & Elavenil, S. (2019). Study on mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete.
Journal Pre-proof
International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 8(7), 1–6.
Schneider, M., Kane, CM, Rainwater, J., Guerrero, L., Tong, G., Desai, SR, & Trochim, W.
(2017). Feasibility of common bibliometrics in evaluating translational science. Journal of Clinical and
Translational Science, 1(1), 45–52. https://doi.org/10.1017/cts.2016.8 ÿenel, E., & Demir, E.
(2018). Bibliometric and Scientometric Analysis of the Articles Published in the Journal of Religion and Health
Between 1975 and 2016. Journal of Religion and Health, 57(4), 1473–1482. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10943-017-0539-1 Serdar, M., Bjegovic, D., Štirmer, N., & Pecur, I. B. (2019).
Alternative binders for concrete:
opportunities and challenges. Journal Graÿevinar, October. https://
doi.org/10.5592/CO/FTCE.2019.09
Shaikh, F.U.A., Lu, Y.Y., & Maalej, M. (2013). Development of ductile fiber reinforced geopolymer
composites. Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of Concrete
and Concrete Structures, FraMCoS 2013, 1064–1071. https://www.scopus.com/inward/
record.uri?eid=2-s2.0-
84879965708&partnerID=40&md5=3b32e1ce5134084eaa6c5446682512e9 Shi, C.,
Chong, L., Hu, X., & Liu, X. (2015). Geopolymer: Current status and research needs.
Indian Concrete Journal, 89(2), 49–57. https://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?eid=2-
s2.0-84921963528&partnerID=40&md5=34138438dee4ee5a9070d1c9b59b3ba2 Shill, S.
K., Al-Deen, S., Ashraf, M., & Hutchison, W. (2020). Resistance of fly ash based
geopolymer mortar to both chemicals and high thermal cycles simultaneously. Construction and Building
Materials, 239, 117886. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117886
Simon, S., Hemamathi, A., & Jenishtalouis, J. (2019). Strength assessment on flyash based geopolymer
concrete. International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering, 9(1), 3956–
3960. https://doi.org/10.35940/ijitee.A5034.119119 Singh, B., Ishwarya, G., Gupta, M.,
& Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2015). Geopolymer concrete: A
review of some recent developments. Construction and Building Materials, 85, 78–90.
Singh, N. B., & Middendorf, B. (2020). Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: An
overview. Construction and Building Materials, 237.
Song, J., Zhang, H., & Dong, W. (2016). A review of emerging trends in global PPP research:
analysis and visualization. Scientometrics, 107(3), 1111–1147.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-016-1918-1
Song, W., Zhu, Z., Peng, Y., Wan, Y., Xu, X., Pu, S., Song, S ., & Wei, Y. (2019). Effect of steel
slag on fresh, hardened and microstructural properties of high-calcium fly ash based
geopolymers at standard curing condition. Construction and Building Materials, 229,
116933. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.116933
Su, H.N., & Lee, P.C. (2010). Mapping knowledge structure by keyword co-occurrence: A first
look at journal papers in Technology Foresight. Scientometrics, 85(1), 65–79.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-010-0259-8
Tennakoon, C. K. (2016). Assessment of Properties of Ambient Cured Geopolymer Concrete for
Construction Applications.
Topark-Ngarm, P., Chindaprasirt, P., & Sata, V. (2015). Setting time, strength, and bond of high-
calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 27(7), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157
Journal Pre-proof
Tran, T. T., Pham, T. M., & Hao, H. (2019). Experimental and analytical investigation on
flexural behavior of ambient cured geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with steel
fibers. Engineering Structures, 200(March), 109707.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109707
Turner, L. K., & Collins, F. G. (2013). Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO<inf>2</inf>-e)
emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Construction and
Building Materials, 43, 125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023
Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2016). Progress in the Adoption of Geopolymer Cement. In Handbook of
Low Carbon Concrete. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-804524-4.00010-5
Van Deventer, Jannie S.J., Provis, J.L., & Duxson, P. (2012). Technical and commercial
progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Minerals Engineering.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mineng.2011.09.009
van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2010). Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for
bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics, 84(2), 523–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-009-
0146-3
van Eck, N.J., & Waltman, L. (2013). {VOSviewer} manual. Leiden: Univeristeit Leiden,
September. http://www.vosviewer.com/documentation/Manual_VOSviewer_1.6.1.pdf
Wang, A., Zheng, Y., Zhang, Z., Liu, K., Ma, R., & Sun, D. (2019). Research Progress of
Geopolymer Cementitious Material Modification for Improving Durability of Concrete.
Cailiao Daobao/ Materials Reports, 33(8), 2552–2560.
https://doi.org/10.11896/cldb.19040211
Wardhono, A., Law, D. W., Sutikno, & Dani, H. (2017). The effect of slag addition on strength
development of Class C fly ash geopolymer concrete at normal temperature. AIP
Conference Proceedings, 1887. https://doi.org/10.1063/1.5003513
Wardhono, A., Risdianto, Y., Sofianto, M. F., Nur, M. T., & Pradipta, A. H. (2019). The strength
properties of high calcium fly ash geopolymer specimens incorporating mud-volcanic and
limestone variations. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 669(1).
https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/669/1/012016
Xiao, R., Jiang, X., Zhang, M., Polaczyk, P., & Huang, B. (2020c). Analytical investigation of
phase assemblages of alkali-activated materials in CaO-SiO2-Al2O3 systems: The
management of reaction products and designing of precursors. Materials and Design, 194,
108975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2020.108975
Xiao, R., Ma, Y., Jiang, X., Zhang, M., Zhang, Y., Wang, Y., Huang, B., & He, Q. (2020a).
Strength, microstructure glass , ef florescence behavior and environmental impacts of waste
geopolymers cured at ambient temperature. Journal of Cleaner Production, 252, 119610. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119610
Xiao, R., Polaczyk, P., Zhang, M., Jiang, X., Zhang, Y., Huang, B., & Hu, W. (2020b).
Evaluation of Glass Powder-Based Geopolymer Stabilized Road Bases Containing
Recycled Waste Glass Aggregate. Transportation Research Record, 2674(1), 22–32.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198119898695
Xiao, X., Skitmore, M., Li, H., & Xia, B. (2019). Mapping knowledge in the economic areas of
green building using scientometric analysis. Energies, 14(15).
https://doi.org/10.3390/en12153011
Xu, Y., Zeng, J., Chen, W., Jin, R., Li, B., & Pan, Z. (2018). A holistic review of cement
composites reinforced with graphene oxide. Construction and Building Materials, 171,
291–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.03.147
Journal Pre-proof
Yacob, N.S., ElGawady, M.A., Sneed, L.H., & Said, A. (2019). Shear strength of fly ash-based
geopolymer reinforced concrete beams. Engineering Structures,
196. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109298
Yan, L., Kasal, B., & Huang, L. (2016). A review of recent research on the use of cellulosic
fibers, their fiber fabric reinforced cementitious, geo-polymer and polymer composites in
civil engineering. Composites Part B: Engineering, 92, 94–132.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2016.02.002
Yu, F., & Hayes, B. (2018). Applying Data Analytics and Visualization to Assessing the
Research Impact of the Cancer Cell Biology (CCB) Program at the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill. Journal of EScience Librarianship, 7(1), e1123.
https://doi.org/10.7191/jeslib.2018.1123
Zainal, F. F., Hussin, K., Rahmat, A., Al Bakri Abdullah, M. M., Rizam, S., Selimin, M. T., &
Sandu, A. V. (2015). The electrical resistivity of geopolymer paste by using Wenner four
probe method. Key Engineering Materials, 660(August), 28–33.
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.660.28
Zannerni, GM, Fattah, KP, & Al-Tamimi, AK (2020). Ambient-cured geopolymer concrete with
single alkali activator. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 23. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.susmat.2019.e00131
Zhang, H.Y., Qiu, G.H., Kodur, V., & Yuan, Z.S. (2020). Spalling behavior of metakaolin-fly ash
based geopolymer concrete under elevated temperature exposure. Cement and Concrete
Composites, 106, 103483.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.103483
Zhang, Z., Provis, J.L., Reid, A., & Wang, H .(2014). Geopolymer foam concrete: An emerging
material for sustainable construction. In Construction and Building Materials.
Zhuang, X.Y., Chen, L., Komarneni, S., Zhou, CH., Tong, D.S., Yang, H.M., Yu, W.H., &
Wang, H. (2016). Fly ash-based geopolymer: Clean production, properties and applications.
Journal Pre-proof
Declaration of interest statement: The authors wish to state that there is no personal and financial
relationship with other people or organizations that influenced this study.
Journal Pre-proof

A Scientometric Review of Geopolymer Concrete

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Scientometric Review of Geopolymer Concrete

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Machine Translated by Google

A scientometric review of geopolymer concrete

To appear in: Journal of Cleaner Production

Received Date: 23 April 2020

© 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

A SCIENTOMETRIC REVIEW OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Keywords: Scientometric analysis; Geopolymer concrete; Materials; Mix Design; mechanical

3.0 SCIENTOMETRIC ANALYSIS

3.1 Literature Sample

3.2 Research Keywords

Y/N Keywords Occurrences Total link strength

1 Aggregates 184 1940

Figure 4: Visualization of Keywords

3.3 Sources of documents

Table 2. Sources of Documents

Y/N Source Documents Quotes Total link strength

1 ACI materials journal 19 292 120

two Advanced materials research 34 93 18

3 Applied clay science 7 167 22

4 Asian journal of civil engineering 19 146 63

Cement and concrete research

7 Ceramics international 19 565 114

8 Composites part b: engineering 21 536 23

9 Construction and building materials 242 6473 1383

10 engineering structures 9 134 48

11 Indian concrete journal 28 106 42

14 Journal of cleaning production 50 1754 359

15 Journal of materials in civil engineering 34 471 140

16 Magazine of concrete research 21 251 106

17 Materials 23 245 120

18 Materials and design 16 1140 288

20 Material letters 7 126 16

21 Materials science forum 55 161 40

22 Procedia engineering 22 277 77

23 Resources, conservation and recycling 6 93 27

Figure 6: Document Source per Year

3.4 Articles with the Highest Citation

Table 3. Articles with the highest citation

Y/N Article Title Citation

3.5 Authors with the Highest Citation

Table 4: Authors with the highest citation

Y/N Author Documents Quotes Total link strength

35 Rangan B.V. 5 156 9

Figure 8: Documents by Authors.

3.6 Impact of Research Institutions.

Table 5. Impact of Research Institutions

Y/N Institutions Documents Citation Total Link Strength

Research Centre, Chennai, India

Curtin University, Perth, Australia 7 189 0

Technical University of Cartagena, Spain 5 111 5

Table 6. Countries where most of the researches were conducted

Y/N Countries Documents Citation Total link strength

1 Australia 317 7132 144

22 United Kingdom 72 2449 67

Figure 10: Documents by Country

Figure 11: Visualization of Co-citation Relationship by Country

4.0 FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

4.2 Material constituents

Geopolymers are made primarily using supplementary cementitious materials containing

4.4 Curing temperature

Figure 20. SEM micrograph of geopolymer paste (Alehyen et al., 2017).

Figure 21. Areas of application of geopolymer (Davidovits, 2018).

4.9 Areas for further research

This review identified the following gaps requiring further studies: