Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Composites Part B
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/compositesb

A review on properties of fresh and hardened geopolymer mortar T

a a,∗ b a
Peng Zhang , Yuanxun Zheng , Kejin Wang , Jinping Zhang
a
School of Water Conservancy and Environment, Zhengzhou University, Zhengzhou, 450001, China
b
Department of Civil, Construction and Environmental Engineering, Iowa State University, Ames, IA, 50011, United States

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Geopolymer mortar refers to the mortar manufactured with sand and geopolymer, which is composed by the
Geopolymer mortar base materials containing affluent aluminium and silicon that was activated by adopting alkaline solution to
Physical properties serve as a binder. The investigation of the properties and application of the geopolymer mortar has attracted
Fresh properties more and more attention of the researchers and cement based industries because of its sustainability advantages.
Mechanical properties
This study reviews the properties of the geopolymer mortars including fresh performance (workability, setting
Durability
time, and temperature of fresh mortar), physical properties, mechanical properties (compressive strength, tensile
Microstructure
strength, elastic properties, flexural performance, bonding behavior, and fracture behavior), durability prop-
erties (acid resistance, resistance to elevated temperature, frost resistance, water absorption, and shrinkage
properties) and microstructure analysis. This study also reviews the properties of different types of geopolymer
mortars prepared using various source materials as base materials. The current study results indicate that the
geopolymer mortar has exhibited significant feasibility and application prospect to be used as an environmental
friendly building material, which may be an appropriate replacement to the traditional cement mortar in the
future.

1. Introduction
Cement is a traditional manmade raw material in cementitious
construction materials, which has the largest consumption in all kinds
of binding materials [1]. For every human being, almost a ton of cement
has been produced each year. Especially in China, the cement output
has ranked the first for more than 30 years throughout the world since
1985 with the development of cement industry. The traditional Port-
land cement is produced through the technology of “two grinding and
one calcinating” using limestone, clay, etc. as raw materials and the
calcination temperature in the production process will reach 1450 °C. In
China, approximately, one billion tons of limestone, 180 million tons of
clay, 50 million tons of iron powder, 100 million tons of coal, and 60
billion kw/h electricity have been consumed per year in cement pro-
duction industry. Every ton of cement approximately manufactures 1 kg
sulfur dioxide (SO2), 2 kg of oxides of nitrogen (NOx), and 10 kg dust.
As a result, the traditional cement production belongs to high energy-
consuming, high resource-consuming and high environmental burden
industry. Not only that, but cement industry has turned into a major
source of greenhouse gas emissions. Twenty years ago, the average
carbon intensity of cement production in the world was very high, and
statistically, about 810 kg of carbon dioxide (CO2) was produced in the
manufacturing process of each ton of cement [2]. During the course of
last twenty years, although the emission of CO2 for each ton of cement
production has been decreased from 750 kg to 640 kg, the production of
cement has greatly increased and the quantity is still on the rise [3].
About 4 billion tons and 7% emissions of CO2 each year all over the
world has been reported because the production of cement [4].
Therefore, it is an urgent need to develop a new applicable binding
material to substitute the traditional cement in construction industries
against environmental pollution by minimizing the emission of CO2, the
other pollutive gases and waste dust [5]. Some researchers have pro-
duced some new materials replacing the traditional cement totally or in
part, and geopolymeric material is the most potential binder material
[6].
A new aluminosilicate material with three-dimensional reticular
structure named with Geopolymer was first introduced by Davidovits in
1979, which was composed by the base materials containing affluent
aluminium and silicon that was activated by adopting alkaline solution
to serve as a binder [7,8]. The geopolymer is ceramic-like and similar to
the zeolite in terms of its chemical structure, however has an amor-
phous structure. It can quickly harden at ambient temperatures and
gain mechanical strength and excellent durability. In other words,
geopolymers are formed as a product of alkali activation of alumino-
silicate materials, including base materials, such as fly ash, granulated
blast furnace slag, etc. The properties of geopolymers are largely

∗
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: yxzheng@zzu.edu.cn (Y. Zheng).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compositesb.2018.06.031
Received 16 April 2018; Received in revised form 2 June 2018; Accepted 26 June 2018
Available online 30 June 2018
1359-8368/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Table 1 can absorb a large number of alkali metal ions, which can weaken the
Base materials used in geopolymer production. alkali-aggregate reaction inside the composite. Most importantly, there
Classification Base materials Abbreviation are abundant sources of raw materials of geopolymer, and the pro-
duction of geopolymer is characterized as low energy consumption and
Fly ash Fly ash [9,10] FA low pollution. Therefore, the geopolymer has significant application
Bottom ash [13] BA
prospect as a kind of binding material in construction materials to re-
Circulated fluidized bed combustion fly ash CFBCFA
[14]
place the Portland cement.
Palm oil fuel ash [15] POFA The traditional cement mortar often serves as one common binding
Volcanic ash [18] VA material and repairing material that widely used in all kinds of en-
High calcium fly ash [20] HCFA gineering structures. A lot of researchers have discussed the feasibility
Waste paper sludge ash [24] WPSA
and application prospect of geopolymer mortar being used as an ap-
Rice husk ash [25] RHA
propriate replacement to the traditional cement mortar [33–37]. The
Slag Ground granulated blast furnace slag [11] GGBFS first study of geopolymer mortar was conducted by Sathonsaowaphak
Ultrafine ground granulated blast furnace slag UGGBFS [38], who investigated the influence of bottom ash fineness, the ratio of
[12]
ash to liquid alkaline, the ratio of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) to sodium
Air cooled slag [21] ACS
Steel slag [22] SS
silicate (Na2SiO3), NaOH concentration, the ratio of water to ash, and
Ferrochrome slag [26] FS superplasticizer on working performance and compressive strength of
geopolymer mortars, which was prepared adopting the waste materials
Other wastes Metakaolin [16] ─ and using NaSiO3 and NaOH solution as liquid for the mortar mixture,
Kaolin [17] ─
and their results indicate that the mechanical strength for geopolymer
Clay [19] ─
Ground perlite [23] GP mortar reaches 24–58 MPa, and the incorporation of NaOH solution can
Silica waste [27] SW slightly improve working performance of geopolymer mortar without
strength reduction. Detphan and Chindaprasirt in Thailand [39] first
prepared high strength geopolymer mortars applying fly ash and rice
dependent on the characteristics of the base materials (chemical com- husk ash, which were activated with NaSiO3, NaOH and heat. They
position, content of glassy phase, amount of soluble silicon and alu- tested the density and strength of the geopolymer mortars with dif-
minum, particle size distribution, and presence of inert particles). There ferent rice husk ash dosages, and concluded that the fineness of RHA,
are many kinds of source materials suitable to be used as base materials the ration of NaSiO3 to NaOH, and the ratio of rice husk ash to fly ash
for geopolymer production, which are shown in Table 1. The content of determine the strength of geopolymer mortars. During the past several
glassy phase, particle morphology, fineness, mineralogical structure, years, with the deepening study of green construction materials and the
chemical composition of the base materials has significant influence on diversification for preparation technology of the geopolymer, the geo-
the activity of the aluminosilicate sources. The excellent base materials polymer mortar has received particular attraction to be used as the
should have enough content of spherical glass beads, and possess an replacement of the traditional cement mortar. Many investigators have
exceedingly amorphous structure, outstanding ability to easily release devoted themselves into the study of the preparation technology and
aluminium, and low water demand [1]. The alkaline solution used for properties of geopolymer mortar. The main objective of the current
geopolymer preparation often includes water glass or sodium silicate article is to present research progress in regard to related investigation
(Na2SiO3), sodium hydroxide, and potassium hydroxide (NaOH and in geopolymer mortars. The properties of the geopolymer mortar in-
KOH) [28]. During the curing of geopolymer, the temperature is often clude fresh performance, physical properties, microstructural analysis,
higher than the ambient temperature, and the geopolymer should be durability and mechanical behavior.
cured for 24–28 h under the temperature range of 60–100 °C. After the
curing with high temperature, the geopolymer can be cured under room 2. Properties of fresh geopolymer mortar
temperature.
The geopolymer has high early strength because its hardening time 2.1. Workability
is very short. The hardening time of the traditional cement ranges from
10-12 h, while the geopolymer often hardens in 2–4 h. The strength of Workability of fresh geopolymer mortar is an important property,
the geopolymer with 4 h curing can reach 70% of its ultimate strength. which determines the properties of hardened geopolymer mortar.
In this respect, the strength characteristics of the geopolymer are si- Generally, water is used to control flowability of fresh mortars with no
milar to that of the fast hardening cement, however, its physical obvious strength decrease [40]. The workability of mortar is often
properties are better than that of the fast hardening cement [29]. The evaluated by flow, which can be measured through flow test. Flow is
skeleton structure of the geopolymer belongs to oxides system, and as a usually used to evaluate the working performance of fresh mortars,
result, it will not oxidize and decompose under the high temperature of which is shown in the percent of the initial base diameter according to
1000–1200 °C. Meanwhile, its interior mass can not be oxidized because ASTM C 1437-07 standard [41]. The testing devices include a flow
the high density can keep out the air, and it has excellent heat insula- mould, trowel, tamper, flow table, and measuring tape. Through the
tion effect [30]. The geopolymer obtains wonderful acid resistance test of flow, the fresh properties of workability, filling ability, and the
because it is difficult for both of Si-O bond Al-O bond in the network consistency of the mortar can be obtained.
structure of the geopolymer to react with acid under room temperature, Li et al. [42] stated that adding polymer powder reduced the fluidity
and the geopolymer exhibits excellent stability in various acid solution of the geopolymer mortars, and there was a trend of decrease in fluidity
and organic solvent [31]. As was reported, the decomposition rate of with the increase of polymer powder content. Jumrat et al. [7] showed
the geopolymer in 5% sulfuric acid solution is just one-thirteenth of that that the flow value of the geopolymer mortar decreased with the in-
of the Portland cement, and its decomposition rate in 5% hydrochloric creasing of fly ash/alkaline solution ratio and Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio
acid is just one-twelfth of that of the Portland cement [32]. Compared because of the high viscosity of Na2SiO3 solution, and more water
with cement, shrinkage of geopolymer is much lower, and the shrinkage should be added to obtain the workable geopolymer mortar. The in-
coefficients of the geopolymer after curing of 7 days and 28 days are crease of Na2SiO3 component caused the rapid formation and higher
just 1/5-1/7 and 1/8-1/9 of that of the Portland cement, respectively. viscosity of the binder, and the temperature of the fresh mortar will
The geopolymer also has better bonding behavior with the interface of increase with the increase of the level of NaOH and Na2SiO3 [43]. The
the aggregates compared with the Portland cement. The geopolymer study of Bhowmick and Ghosh [44] shows that the increment of ash/

80
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

sand ratio increases the percentage of flow value of the geopolymer

mortar, and the flow ability and cohesiveness of the fresh geopolymer
mortar increases with the increasing of SiO2/Na2O ratio in the acti-
vator. From their results, it is also found that the flowability and con-
sistency of the mortar is influenced by the grading and particle size of
the aggregate. Li et al. [45] adopted the fluidity at 30 s and 30 min as
the evaluation index of mortar workability, and they observed that the
fluidity of the geopolymer mortars was increasing when NaOH con-
centration decreased. The same conclusion for the geopolymer mortar
with different ratios of solution to fly ash was drawn by Patankar et al.
[46]. Malkawi et al. [47] showed through flow test that the flowability
of the geopolymer mortar containing high calcium fly ash (HCFA) was
highly affected by the concentration of NaOH, and the workability was
observed decreasing with increment of NaOH concentration. Huseien
et al. [48] examined the influence of the ratio of calcium to silicate and
akkali activator solution type on the flow of the geopolymer mortar,
and the results indicate that the application of sodium silicate as alkali
solution can reduce the flow of the geopolymer mortar containing no
sodium hydroxide due to the high viscosity of Na2SiO3.
Fig. 2. Effect of liquid alkaline/ash ratio on flow of geopolymer mortar [38].
Sathonsaowaphak [38] investigated workability of geopolymer
mortars manufactured with the waste lignite bottom ash. As can be seen
from Figs. 1–5, the bottom ash fineness, liquid alkaline/ash ratio,
Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, NaOH concentration, and water/ash ratio have
great effect on the workability. Yan and Sagoe-Crentsil [49] observed
through tests that the flow behavior of geopolymer mortar was greatly
changed with the incorporation of dry wastepaper sludge in the mortar
mix because on account of that plenty of water in the mortar mix was
absorbed by the wastepaper sludge, which caused a prominent decrease
in properties of mortar flow. CFBC bottom ash can be applied to replace
the fine aggregate in the geopolymer mortar, however the replacement
of CFBC bottom ash will achieve lower flow value than using the
standard sand [50]. Kabir et al. [51] prepared the geopolymer mortar
using POFA and GGBFS and selecting metakaolin (MK) as the binders.
From their results, it can be concluded that the flow tendency was
decreased by the addition of POFA MK due to the spongy and porous
nature of the microstructure of POFA, and the finer particle size of MK
particles. The increase in content of GGBFS also reduced the flow ability
of geopolymer mortars [52]. The number of the spherical particles will
be reduced, and the amount of the nonspherical particles in fly ash will
grow when the content of GGBFS is increased. Fig. 3. Effect of Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio on flow of geopolymer mortar [38].
Using, Lee [53] fabricated slag and fly ash geopolymer mortars
applying styrene-butadiene (SB) latex, and their flow test results
showed that SB latex dosage and the coarse bottom ash almost had no
effect on the flow value, while the adding of alkali activators increased

Fig. 4. Effect of NaOH concentration on flow of geopolymer mortar [38].

flow value. Deb [54] investigated the effect of silica nano-particles on

flowability of fresh geopolymer mortars and reported that usage of si-
lica nano-particles decreased flow value in three series mixes of
Fig. 1. Flow of geopolymer mortar with various fineness of bottom ash [38].

81
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Fig. 5. Flow of geopolymer mortar with various water/ash ratios [38]. Fig. 6. Influence of molarity of NaOH on setting times of geopolymer mortar
[57].

geopolymer mortar, which can be attributed to the accelerated reaction

and the increasing water requirement of nano-particles. From the re-
sults of Laskar and Talukdar [12], it is evident that the type of the alkali
activator has significant effect on working performance of the geopo-
lymer mortar, and the mixes using NaOH as alkali activator exhibits
more excellent workability than the mixes using blended NaOH and
Na2SiO3 as alkali activator.

2.2. Setting time

In practice, the setting time of the fresh mortar is so significant

because it determines the permissible time in transporting, casting,
compacting of the mortar. The setting times can be tested using the
Vicat needle device referring to the standards of ASTM C 807-13 [55]
and BS EN 480-2 [56]. Initial setting time can be measured from the
time when the mortar mixture is prepared to the time when the needle
inserts to the depth of 4 mm from the plate base, and final setting time
can be tested when the needle goes into the depth of 2.5 mm [56]. With
regard to geopolymer mortars manufactured with fly ash, Na2SiO3/
NaOH ratio and alkaline solution/fly ash ratio almost have no influence Fig. 7. Influence of GGBS amount on setting time [52].
on setting times [7].
The increasing in molarity of NaOH can remarkably decrease the
initial setting time as well as the final setting time of geopolymer
mortars [57]. From Fig. 6, it can be seen that there is a decreasing
tendency of setting time of geopolymer mortars when the molarity of
NaOH increases. Phoo-ngernkham et al. [58] also pointed out that the
setting time of geopolymer mortars can be delayed by the high con-
centrations of NaOH. Malkawi et al. [47] concluded that the content of
Na is the main factor affecting the setting time because the ratio of Na
to Si can be changed by the changing of NaOH molarity. Calcium
content has remarkable effect on the setting times of geopolymer
mortars. The larger content of calcium can lead to shorter initial and
final setting times [48]. Laskar and Talukdar [12] reported that the
fresh geopolymer mortar adopting only sodium hydroxide as alkali
activator obtains longer setting times than the fresh geopolymer mortar
adopting NaOH together with Na2SiO3 as alkali activator.
Al-Majidi et al. [52] reported that setting times of geopolymer
mortars were greatly influenced by amount of GGBFS. From Fig. 7, it
can be observed that the incorporation of GGBFS in the mixture sig-
nificantly decreases the setting times of geopolymer mortars. When the
content of GGBS is increased, the setting time is considerably reduced. Fig. 8. Influence of nano silica on setting times of geopolymer mortars [59].
As is seen from Fig. 8 [59], usage of SiO2 nano-particles reduced setting
times of geopolymer mortars with molar concentration of 12 M, while The traditional Portland cement can be used separately or together
the setting time increased gradually with the increment of nano-SiO2 with the other promoter materials to fabricate geopolymer mortars. In
dosage. general, the setting time of Portland cement mortar is longer than that

82
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Fig. 9. Effect of Portland cement content on setting times of geopolymer mortar Fig. 10. Influence of Na2SiO3 on temperature of fresh mortars [43].
[60].

of the geopolymer mortar. The influence of Portland cement content on

setting times of the mortar is shown in Fig. 9, from which it can be seen
that the setting time is decreasing gradually with the increment of
Portland cement amount [60]. Phoo-ngernkham et al. Hanjitsuwan
et al. [13] studied the setting times of geopolymer mortars adopting the
combination of and calcium carbide residue cement as the alkali-active
materials. Their results indicate that the setting times of the geopolymer
mortars obviously reduces with the growing of the dosage of bottom ash
replaced by calcium carbide residue, and the geopolymer mortar con-
taining calcium carbide residue exhibits slower setting time than that of
the geopolymer mortar containing Portland cement.

2.3. Temperature of fresh geopolymer mortar

During the course of mixing of the geopolymer mortar, the tem-

perature of the fresh geopolymer mortar is much higher than that of the
traditional cement mortar due to more complex chemical reactions, in
which the geopolymerisation is exothermic [61]. By applying the in- Fig. 11. Influence of NaOH on temperature of mortars [43].
frared thermometer, Jumrat et al. [7] measured the surface tempera-
ture of the fresh geopolymer mortar immediately after the mortars were
mixed, and the temperature was measured again after 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 12
and 24 h, respectively. The temperature of the mortar sample was
measured with the temperature measurement in a distance. Their re-
sults show that geopolymer mortar has the highest temperature im-
mediately after mixing and the temperature falls along with time after
mixing, and this falling is so remarkable especially after 3 h.
Kotwal et al. [43] measured the temperature of the fresh geopo-
lymer mortar using a digital stem type thermometer according to ASTM
C 1064 [62], and they found that the temperature of the fresh geopo-
lymer mortar ranged from 32 to 54 °C. Besides, as is shown in
Figs. 10–12, the temperature of the mortars increased with larger do-
sages of Na2SiO3 and NaOH, while there was a decreasing trend in the
temperature with the content of fine aggregate increased [43].

3. Physical properties of geopolymer mortars

The physical performance of geopolymer mortar is quite different

from those of the traditional mortar because of the distinct material
composition. The results of Steinerova [63] indicated that the porosity,
bulk density, and pore-size distribution were remarkably affected by
the sand content of the geopolymer mortar. Gorhan [64] revealed the
influence of curing time on physical properties of geopolymer mortars
with different NaOH concentration. They concluded that the bulk
density of the geopolymer mortar with longer curing time had higher
Fig. 12. Influence of sand on temperature of fresh geopolymer mortar [43].
bulk density whether the curing temperature was 65 °C or 85 °C, and
both the apparent porosity and water absorption of the geopolymer
mortar decreased with the growing of curing age when the curing
temperature was 85 °C. The increase of the concentration of sodium

83
P. Zhang et al.
hydroxide solution has no obvious influence on the alkalinity of geo-
polymer mortars, and the highest PH value of geopolymer mortars is
lower than PH value of the common cement mortars [46]. That means
that the alkali-aggregate reaction will rarely happen even though plenty
of alkaline solution is used during the course of the geopolymer mortar
preparation.
The influence of GGBS content on the apparent porosity of geopo-
lymer mortar was studied by Al-Majidi [52] and he concluded that
increasing content of GGBS led to great decrease of the apparent por-
osity of geopolymer mortars. Yan and Sagoe-Crentsil [49] measured the
bulk density and water absorption of geopolymer mortars containing
wastepaper sludge, and they concluded that the mortar exhibited
higher water absorption after being boiled in water, while the mortar
showed lower water absorption after immersion in water and the bulk
density decreased with the paper sludge content was increasing from
0% to 10%. The results of Shadnia et al. [65] show that there is obvious
variation in specific gravity of the geopolymer mortars with various
dosage of phase change material, and the unit weight decreases with
more incorporation of phase change material.
Ranjbar et al. [66] measured the density of the geopolymer mortar
after 28-day curing with partial fly ash replaced with POFA and found
that the replacement of fly ash by POFA greatly reduced bulk density of
the geopolymer mortar, and larger replacement led to greater reduction
in bulk density. The Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio has significant effect on
physical properties of geopolymer mortar prepared with bottom ash
[67]. The apparent density, porosity, average pore radius and surface
area of the foamed specimens of the geopolymer mortar are reducing
with the increment of NaOH, while the density has a trend of in-
creasing. Abdollahnejad et al. [37] compared the water absorption
coefficient and capillarity coefficient of geopolymer mortars with dif-
ferent contents of fly ash and calcined kaolin and sodium hydroxide.
The similar water absorption by immersion was found for all mortars
because of the similar water/binder ratio, and very high capillary water
absorption was found for the geopolymer mortar containing 8% cal-
cined stuff due to the large amount of capillary pores.
The results of Adak et al. [59] indicate that addition of 6% nano-
SiO2 in geopolymer mortar with different molar concentration can de-
crease the water absorption of geopolymer mortars because of the
modification of nano particles to the microstructure of the mortar.
According to the results of sorptivity tests conducted by Deb et al. [54],
it can be found that the incorporation of nano-SiO2 decreased the
sorptivity coefficient of geopolymer mortars, which was likely due to
the precipitation of some additional reaction products in the possible
pore structures. Khater et al. [21] concluded that the addition of multi
walled carbon nanotubes (MWCNT) would decrease the water absorp-
tion of geopolymer mortars when the MWCNT dosage is less than 0.1%
and then increase with more additions of MWCNT.
4. Mechanical performance of geopolymer mortar
4.1. Compressive strength
As mentioned before, there are many kinds of source materials
suitable to be used as base materials for geopolymer production. Every
raw material and the proportioning parameters of geopolymer mortars
affect the strength of geopolymer mortar. Ismail [68] studied early
strength characteristics of geopolymer mortar produced by metakaolin
and palm oil fuel ash with different replacement levels of NaOH and
Na2SiO3 medium. Ranjbar et al. [66] concluded that the composition of
POFA as well as the surface area and particle shapes of POFA has great
effect on compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar. Besides, their
results also indicated that the geopolymerization process was delayed
and early compressive strength of the mortars decreased with incre-
ment of silica to alumina ratio due to the increasing dosage of POFA.
Yusuf [69] investigated the influence of blending of silica rich POFA
with metakaolin on strength distribution of geopolymer mortars and
84
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
they concluded that Weibull distribution is suited to analyzing of the
blended geopolymer mortars. GGBFS, POFA and low calcium FA can be
used together to manufacture geopolymer mortars on condition that
their proportion should be suitable. Through a series of experiments,
Islam et al. [70] achieved the geopolymer mortars, the maximum
compressive strength of which reached approximate 66 MPa with the
binder composed by 70% of GGBFS and 30% of POFA.
Sathonsaowaphak [38] studied influence of the BA fineness,
Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio, liquid alkaline/ash ratio and concentration of
NaOH on compressive strength of geopolymer mortars. Vasconcelos
et al. [71] stated that compressive strength of metakaolin based geo-
polymers mortar was enhanced by larger NaOH concentration when the
curing period exceeded 7 days. However, for HCFA based geopolymers,
much higher NaOH concentration may lower its compressive strength,
which is contrary to the case of LCFA based geopolymer mortar [20].
Mijarsh [72] reported that decreasing Na2SiO3 concentration through
increasing water content had great contribution on the compressive
strength of geopolymer mortar only after the mortar was cured within
30 days, and the geopolymers mortar produced with high Na2SiO3
concentration exhibited the highest development in compressive
strength applying one day delay time after moulding. Bhowmick and
Ghosh [44] revealed the impact of SiO2/N2O ratio and water/FA ratio
on compressive of geopolymer mortar. The effect of increasing molar
ratio of SiO2/N2O on compressive strength of the mortar is not the same
with different Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio. As can be seen from Fig. 13, the
compressive strength decreases with the increase of Na2SiO3 molar
ratio when Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio is 1 or 2, whereas the compressive
strength increases with increment of molar ratio when Na2SiO3/NaOH
ratio is 1.5 or 2.5 [73].
The ratios of FA to NaOH, Na2SiO3 and sand differently affect the
compressive strength of geopolymer mortars. As can be found from
Figs. 14–16 [43], the effect of sand/fly ash ratio is irregular, however,
the compressive strength is increasing with the increment of Na2SiO3/
fly ash ratio. With the NaOH/FA ratio increasing from 0.05 to 0.125,
compressive strength of the mortar increases first, and then decreases.
The binder/sand ratio also affects the compressive strength of geopo-
lymer mortars. As is shown in Fig. 17, compressive strength of the
mortar increases with binder/sand ratio increasing from 0.25 to 0.5,
whereas there is an decreasing tendency in compressive strength with
binder/sand ratio rising from 0.5 to 4.0 [74]. The results of Temuujin
et al. [75] indicated that the bond between geopolymer binder to ag-
gregate and the strength of geopolymers determined the compressive
strength of the mortar.
The compressive strength of geopolymer mortars is dependent on
their porous structure, which is associated with the type of sand and the
sand ratio. The impact of incorporation of limestone sand on the
strength of geopolymers mortars is worthy of discussion. Arellano-
Aguilar [76] stated that the addition of limestone sand in geopolymer
mortars will reduce the strength of the mortar, however, the green
construction materials can be achieved by the using limestone sand
with sand/binder ratio of up to 7:1. However, Zejak [77] concluded
that compressive strength of FA based geopolymers mortar was in-
creased by addition of limestone sand because the existence of the sand
with well connected grains changed the gel phase of the geopolymer
structure. The results of Bashar [78,79] indicated that the geopolymers
mortar prepared with 100% manufactured sand and quarry dust has no
obvious strength decrease compared to the geopolymers mortar pre-
pared with 100% conventional mining sand. Steinerova [63] concluded
that compressive strength of geopolymer mortar was increasing with
the increment of sand ratio for low dosage of sand, while the com-
pressive strength reduced above the point of 78 wt. % of sand.
The curing method greatly influenced compressive strength of
geopolymer mortars. At early stage, compressive strengths of the FA
geopolymer mortars with both of oven curing and steam curing at 60 °C
for 24 h are higher than the mortar cured under traditional standard
curing condition, however, the traditional standard curing method has
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 13. Compressive strength of BA geopolymer mortars [73].
Fig. 14. Impact of Na2SiO3 on compressive of geopolymer mortar [43].
advantages on the strength development [80]. Patankar et al. [46] also
showed that compressive strength of geopolymer mortars cured for 3
days was accelerated with increase of heating degree of oven curing,
while the strength increased little after the curing of oven heating be-
yond 3 days. The results of Li et al. [45] showed geopolymer mortars
containing Class C FA at temperature of 70 °C and duration of curing for
20 h could obtain highest compressive strength. However, Adam and
Horianto [8] found that geopolymer mortars containing FA obtained
highest compressive strength with the curing of 120 °C for 20 h. Gorhan
and Kurklu [64] found that there was an increasing tendency in
85
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
Fig. 15. Impact of NaOH on compressive of geopolymer mortar [43].
compressive strength of geopolymer mortar at the curing temperature
of 85 °C when NaOH concentration and curing time increased, and the
optimal NaOH concentration and curing temperature to obtain the
excellent strength were 6 M and 85 °C, respectively. Helmy [81] studied
the intermittent curing method of geopolymer mortars with curing at
70 °C for 4 steps (each step for 6 h) per day and then resting 18 h, and it
can be observed that the intermittent curing can improve compressive
strength of geopolymer mortar. Narayanan and Shanmugasundaram
[82] compared different curing methods of geopolymer mortars, such
as hot air oven curing, heat chamber, ambient temperature and
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 16. Effect of fine aggregate content on compressive of geopolymer mortar
[43].
Fig. 17. Influence of binder/sand ratio on compressive strength [74].
autoclave, and found that the geopolymer mortar cured at 80 °C for 6 h
exhibited the highest compressive strength. Mermerdas et al. [83] ob-
served that the increment of curing stage temperature of light-weight
geopolymer mortar increased the compressive strength of mortars.
Through experiment study of treated POFA based geopolymer
mortar, Mijarsh et al. [84] observed the compressive strength of the
prepared mortars could be improved greatly with alkali-activator
source material replaced by Ca(OH)2. The results of Shadnia et al. [65]
showed that the incorporation of phase change materials reduced the
compressive strength of geopolymer mortars because of low stiffness
and strength of phase change materials. The addition of phase change
materials in geopolymer mortars can reduce the transport heat, and as a
result, the geopolymer mortar containing phase change materials can
be used to decrease the energy demand in cooling and heating in rural
regions [19]. Nguyen et al. [6] prepared geopolymer mortars using two
kinds of thermogenetic admixtures including quicklime and the hot
pack material, and concluded that the geopolymer mortar containing
quicklime exhibited higher compressive strength than the mortar con-
taining hot pack materials.
Cyr et al. [85] produced geopolymer mortars using alkali-activated
glass cullet, and their results showed that glass fineness markedly af-
fected the compressive strength development of the mortars and the
glass with finest particles led to the highest compressive strength for the
86
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
mortars. Many kinds of industrial wastes can be used to prepare geo-
polymer, such as wastepaper sludge and silica waste. Yan and Sagoe-
Crentsil [49] showed that the mean 91-day compressive strength of
geopolymer mortar incorporating wastepaper sludge with contents of
2.5% and 10% only decreased by 8% and 48% respectively compared to
the control mortar strength. In design of geopolymer mortars mix,
compressive strength is the first parameter to consider. Chawakitch-
areon and Veesommai [27] used pure alumina and silica waste from
waste material to improve compressive strength of geopolymer mortar.
The geopolymer mortars exhibit higher compressive strength with the
increasing of substitution rate of FA with GGBFS [86]. For the geopo-
lymer mortar prepared by the combination of metakaolin, POFA and
GGBFS, the replacement ratio of GGBFS beyond 35% as well as the
replacement ratio of metakaolin beyond 20% will reduce the com-
pressive strength of the mortar [51]. Bottom ash together with meta-
kaolin can be used to manufacture geopolymer mortars with different
content of bottom ash is replaced by metakaolin, and it can be found
that the geopolymer mortar containing equal proportion of metakaolin
and bottom ash with the same liquid/binder ratio of 0.5 has highest
compressive strength [87]. For bottom ash geopolymer mortars using
calcium carbide residue and Portland cement as the promoter, the
mortar can obtain the highest compressive strength with the bottom ash
replaced 30% by Portland cement and 30% by calcium carbide residue
[13].
With the development of nanotechnology, a lot of kinds of nano
particles can be used to prepare modified geopolymer mortar. Nano
silver-silica and nano silica reinforced geopolymer mortars containing
FA exhibited better compressive strength than cement mortars with
different ages of curing [88]. Adak et al. [59] prepared fly ash based
geopolymer mortars applying different percentage of colloidal nano-
silica addition. They found that 6% substitution rate of FA was the
optimum dosage of nano silica to obtain satisfying compressive strength
when the geopolymer mortar was in ambient curing. Incorporation of
0.1 wt% and 0.2 wt% mul-walled carbon nanotubes can obviously in-
crease 7-day compressive strength of alkali activated geopolyner mor-
tars, however, the reinforcement is not evident after 90 days curing
stage [21]. In the investigation of Nazari and Sanjayan [89], applying
five kinds of metaheuristic algorithms, the parameters of support vector
machine was optimized to predict the compressive strength of geopo-
lymer mortars. Ng and Foster [90] developed a new mix design method
for geopolymer mortars mixes considering compressive strength as the
principal focus.
4.2. Tensile strength
As well as cement concrete and mortar, the geopolymer mortar is
generally acknowledged to have excellent performance under the ac-
tion of compressive load. On the other hand, the tensile performance of
construction materials also needs to be paid attention to because its
anti-cracking ability depends on it. Guades [91] evaluated the tensile
properties of geopolymer mortars through experiments. As is shown in
Fig. 18, the tensile strength of geopolymer mortars increases gradually
with increasing of sand/fly ash ratio as curing stage varies from 7 days
to 28 days. Chuah et al. [92] compared the mean tensile strength of
geopolymer mortar specimens with the design strength of ACI standard,
and presented that the splitting tensile strength of geopolymer mortar
could meet the design requirements given by the ACI code regardless of
the sand type.
Al-Majidi et al. [52] produced geopolymer mortars using GGBFS
and FA. Based on the results of direct tensile strength, they observed
that incorporation of GGBFS had positive effect on tensile performance
of the mortars at curing stage of 7 days and 28 days. From Fig. 19, it can
be found that there is an increasing trend in tensile strength of geo-
polymer mortars with increasing of the slag dosage. Zhang [93] stated
that geopolymer mortars (GM) always exhibited higher tensile strength
than the cement mortars (CM) and cement mortars (PMCM) modified
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 18. Tensile strength of various sand/fly ash ratio [91].
Fig. 19. Influence of slag dosage on tensile strength [52].
by polymer after the specimens exposure to elevated temperatures from
25 to 700 °C except that PMCM possessed better tensile strength than
GM at the temperature of 300 °C. The results of Adak et al. [59] in-
dicates that the incorporation of 6% nano silica has improvement on
tensile strength of the geopolymer mortar with ambient temperature
curing, and increasing molar concentration of activator solution results
in enhancement of splitting tensile strength of the mortar.
The solution types of alkali activator and curing temperature have
remarkable influence on tensile strength of geopolymer mortars. The
geopolymer mortar with curing of 27 °C has higher tensile strength than
the mortar with curing of 60 °C and 90 °C. The solution of sodium hy-
droxide used as the activator results in better tensile property than the
solution of sodium aluminosilicate hydrate [48]. Bhutta [2] showed
that the splitting tensile strength of geopolymer mortar with 7-d am-
bient cuing increased almost 15% with NaOH concentration increasing
from 10 M to 12 M, and the higher tensile strength of geopolymer
mortar was observed under heat curing compared with the ambient
cuing regardless of NaOH concentration.
4.3. Elastic properties
Elastic modulus and Young's modulus are universally used as the
evaluation indices to assess the elastic properties of concrete and
87
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
mortars. For cement concrete or mortars, the elastic modulus com-
monly has close relation with its compressive strength. Et al [92]. ob-
tained the equations to predict the elastic modulus of the geopolymer
mortars with low and high strength, respectively, using the compressive
strength. They also reported that there was the weakest link existing in
the matrix of the geopolymer mortars with low strength due to the very
porous structure, while the sand particle became the weakest link of the
geopolymer mortars with high strength. The binder to sand ratio greatly
affects Young's modulus of geopolymer mortars. It can be seen from the
results of Temuujin [75], the Young's modulus of the geopolymer
mortars increases gradually first with the sand content increasing from
0 wt% to 30 wt%, while there is a decreasing tendency in Young's
modulus after sand content beyond 30%. Steinerova [63] observed that
Young's modulus of the geopolymer mortars rose when the sand content
increasing from 30 wt% to 70 wt% due to the existing bonds between
the surface of large amount of sand grains and the matrix, and they
concluded that Young's modulus of the geopolymer mortars could be
presumed to depend on its strong interface existence and be linearly
dependent the sand content.
Khandelwal et al. [94] measured the Young's modulus, Poisson's
ratio and elastic modulus of geopolymer mortars at four different strain
rates, and stated that Poisson's ratio and Young's modulus depend on
the strain, and both of Young's modulus and Poisson's ratio have a trend
of increasing with the increase of strain rate. The Young's modulus of
the mortar may be determined with the concentration of NaOH and the
ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH. Zejak et al. [77] showed that the increment
of the ratio of Na2SiO3 to NaOH and the concentration of NaOH resulted
in an increase in Young's modulus of the geopolymer mortars. Through
the investigation of dynamic Young's modulus of the mortar, it can be
concluded that the rigidity of geopolymer mortars had no remarkable
change compared to the traditional cement mortars, whereas the geo-
polymer mortar incorporating crushed glass particles exhibited higher
rigidity because there was a gel layer formed between the paste and the
aggregate [95].
Haq et al. prepared various geopolymer mortar using sodium sili-
cate and bottom ash by changing the dosage of alkali [67]. Fig. 20
presents the Young's modulus of different geopolymer mortar speci-
mens, and an increasing tendency in Young's modulus can be found
with the decreasing of sodium silicate content, i.e. with the increasing
of sodium hydroxide content. Ban et al. [96] conducted the study of
geopolymer mortars with fly ash replaced by high calcium wood ash at
different levels. As is shown in Fig. 21, the dynamic modulus of geo-
polymer mortars has a trend of decrease with the increment of high
calcium wood ash dosage.
Fig. 20. Effect of NaOH content on Yong's modulus [67].
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Fig. 21. Dynamic modulus of various contents of high calcium wood ash [96]. Fig. 22. Flexural strength with different molar concentration [59].

4.4. Flexural properties results indicated that the flexural strength of geopolymer mortars de-
creases gradually as dosage increment of high calcium wood ash no
For cement mortars, the mortar with high compressive strength matter which curing method was applied.
usually has high flexural strength. However, the geopolymer mortar The incorporation of nano-SiO2 in geopolymer mortars has great
exhibits high flexural with low compressive strength because of the reinforcement on flexural strength of the mortar. The influence of nano
excellent adherence of geopolymer paste to the aggregate particles and silica on flexural strength at 28 days of the geopolymer mortar with
the remarkable fragility of the geopolymer [85]. Sand content has different molarity of the activator solution is shown in Fig. 22. As can
significant effect on flexural strength of geopolymer mortars. According be seen from the figure, the geopolymer mortar containing 6% nano
to the results of Steinerova [63], there is an increasing tendency in silica exhibits higher flexural strength than the mortar without nano
flexural strength of geopolymer mortars with increment of sand addi- particles, and flexural strength of the geopolymer mortars increases
tion, and the flexural strength reaches its peak value at the sand content gradually with the increment of molar concentration of activator so-
of 78%. After the sand content exceeds 78%, the flexural strength starts lution regardless of adding nano silica [59]. Lee et al. [53] showed that
to decline due to the lack of binder among the grains, which leads to the incorporation of styrene-butadiene (SB) latex increased the flexural
forming the coarse-pore and the rising in porosity. strength of geopolymer mortars in spite of that the alkalinity of the
The solution types of alkali activator and curing temperature affect geopolymer matrix was reduced, and the flexural strength of the mortar
the flexural strength of geopolymer mortar significantly. Huseien et al. rises because of the usage of coarse bottom ash in spite of decreasing in
[48] found that geopolymer mortars have higher flexural strength with 28-day compressive strength. The flexural strength of geopolymer
curing of 27 °C than the mortar with curing of 60 °C and 90 °C, and the mortars can be improved with the substitution of fly ash by GGBS. As is
solution of sodium aluminosilicate hydrate acting as the activator re- shown from Fig. 23, the flexural strength of the mortar cured under
sulted in lower flexural strength than the solution of sodium hydroxide. ambient temperature increases gradually with the substitution rate of
The results of Li et al. [80] showed that the geopolymer mortars pro- slag increasing from 10% to 40% [52].
duced with Class C FA with oven curing had highest early flexural
strength, and the early flexural strength of the geopolymer mortars
produced with Class F FA could be improved by the incorporation of
calcium hydroxide and slag with the standard curing. Atis et al. [97]
investigated the variation of flexural strength of geopolymer mortars
containing various contents of sodium and cured for 24, 48 and 72 h
with the heat curing temperature varying from 45 to 115 °C. The results
indicated that the geopolymer mortar incorporating 14% sodium being
cured for 24 h under the temperature of 115 °C had the highest flexural
strength, while the geopolymer mortar incorporating 4% sodium after
105 °C heat curing for 24 h possessed the lowest flexural strength.
Circulating fluidized bed combustion bottom ash can be used as the
fine aggregate in manufacturing geopolymer mortars. When the ratio of
bottom ash to fly ash is increased from 0 to 3, the flexural strength of 7
days and 28 days of the geopolymer mortar increases first, and then has
a trend of decreases after reaching the maximum value at the bottom
ash/fly ash ratio of 1 [50]. Ban [98] conducted an investigation on the
geopolymer mortar block using HCWA and pulverized fuel ash as ac-
tivator. Based on the results, they concluded that the flexural strength
of the mortar blocks rose steadily as the increment in sodium silicate
dosage due to the formation of higher degree of geopolymeric gel of K-
A-S-H and N-A-S-H. Ban [96] investigated geopolymer mortars with fly
ash replaced by high calcium wood ash at different levels, and their
Fig. 23. Flexural strength with different slag contents [52].

88
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

4.5. Bonding behavior

The geopolymer mortar is generally used as a repairing construction

material for concrete and other structures, so it must possess excellent
bonding behavior to the concrete substrate. The investigation of
Vasconcelo et al. [99] showed that the metakaolin geopolymer mortar
exhibited strong adhesive property to the concrete substrate, whereas
the bond strength between CFRP and geopolymer mortars was barely
satisfactory. However, the metakaolin geopolymer mortar presents low
adhesive property to the concrete substrate because the high shrinkage
properties results in many microcracks in the samples [71]. Gouny et al.
[100] manufactured a multimaterial assembly, which was composed by
geopolymer mortar, two pieces of bricks and a piece of wood, and
carried out double shear tests to assess the bond strength of geopolymer
mortars between the wood and earth brick. Their results showed that
there was high adhesive property between the earth brick and wood.
Bhutta et al. [2] compared the bond behavior of the geopolymer
mortar and cement mortar with different dosage of fibers and stated
that the bonding strength of geopolymer mortar was higher than that of
cement mortar regardless of the curing regime and concentration of the Fig. 25. Fracture energy of geopolymer mortar [58].
alkaline solution. Zhang [93] observed that the bonding strength of
geopolymer mortars to concrete or cement mortar is higher or close to significant properties, which are associated with the formation and
that of the common structure repair materials within the temperature propagation of the cracks in the materials. The mechanical interaction
range of 25–700 °C. Phoo-ngernkham et al. [60] compared the bonding between the binder matrix and aggregate determines the fracture
performance of several common commercial repair binders (RM) and properties of the materials. Therefore, it is imperative to investigate the
HCFA based geopolymer mortars (GPM) with various NaOH solution fracture behavior of cementitious materials so as to insure the safety of
concentration, and they concluded that the application of GPM pre- structures. Using fracture energy and fracture toughness as assessment
sented higher shear bonding strength than the application of RM in indices, Phoo-ngernkham [58] evaluated fracture characteristics of
concrete repairing engineering. HCFA based geopolymer mortars with partial fly ash replaced by
Alanazi et al. [101] performed splitting tests to compared the Portland cement. Figs. 25 and 26 present the variation of fracture
bonding performance of metakaolin-based geopolymer mortars (MK) toughness and energy of geopolymer mortar with different NaOH mo-
and the other repair materials including four cement mortars con- larities and different replacement of Portland cement, and it can be
taining different silica fume (SF) contents (0%, 5%, 7%, 10%) and two observed that both of fracture energy and fracture toughness increase
modified cementitious mortars (K100 and SBR) with two roughness with increment of the molarity of NaOH and the substitution rate of
(high and low) of concrete substrate. As can be seen from Fig. 24, much cement in general, in spite that there is a slight decrease in the two
higher bonding strength of MK can be observed compared to the other fracture parameters with the high NaOH molarity (14 M) and replace-
six concrete repair mortars regardless of the roughness of the substrate. ment of cement (15%). Khalid et al. [102] measured the interfacial
Warid Wazien et al. [35] also concluded that the geopolymer mortar fracture energy of the bonding interface of FRP to fiber reinforced
had enough high bond behavior between the geopolymer binder and geopolymer mortars using three point bending beam test method. Their
sand, as a result, the geopolymer mortar could be an excellent concrete results showed that the addition of fibers had no significant contribu-
repair material. tion to improve the interfacial fracture energy of the geopolymer
mortar beams, and the interfacial fracture energy would even decreased
4.6. Fracture properties with higher contents of fibers.

For cement based materials, fracture characteristic is one of the

Fig. 24. Bonding strength of various repair mortars [101]. Fig. 26. Fracture toughness of geopolymer mortar [58].

89
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 27. Residual compressive strength of geopolymer mortars [103].
5. Durability of geopolymer mortar
5.1. Acid resistance
The geopolymer mortar is a novel construction material with a new
binder, the structural integrity of which depends on alumina-silicate
but not calcium silicate hydrate bonds. A lot of researchers have per-
formed studies on the acid resistance of geopolymer mortars.
Thokchom [103] carried out experiments to assess the acid resistance of
geopolymer mortars with Na2O content varying from 5% to 8% after
being immersed in nitric acid and sulfuric acid for 24 weeks, respec-
tively. As is shown in Fig. 27, the geopolymer mortar with the highest
content of Na2O (8%) exhibited small compressive strength loss, and
the strength loss of the specimens with immersion in sulfuric acid was
larger than the specimens with immersion in nitric acid.
Sata et al. [104] showed that lignite bottom ash based geopolymer
mortars had better resistance to the attacking of sulfuric acid solution
(5%) and Na2SiO4 solution (3%) comparing to the conventional cement
mortars. The results of Sreevidya et al. [105] also observed that the
geopolymer mortars are exceedingly resistant to the solutions of Mur-
iatic acid and Nitric acid by comparing the compressive strength of the
mortars before and after immersion in acid solutions. Kim [25]
90
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
evaluated the resistance of geopolymer mortars to the attack of dif-
ferent sulfate and acid solutions through acid immersion tests, and
great weight loss was observed for the specimens immersed in sulfuric
acid and muriatic acid because of the existence of active calcium hy-
droxide.
The curing temperature affects the acid resistance of geopolymer
mortars significantly. Djobo et al. [18] observed that the volcanic ash
based geopolymer mortar under the curing with 27 °C showed higher
resistance to the sulfuric acid (5%) than the mortar under the curing
with 80 °C. Erdogan [23] compared the acid resistance of geopolymer
mortars activated by different activator materials, and found that the
mortar activated by sodium hydroxide solution is more resistant to
attack of sulfuric acid than the mortar activated by sodium silicate.
Izzat et al. [106] reported that the strength degradation and weight loss
of the geopolymer mortar after being immersed in 3% sulfuric acid for
120 day is lower than that of cement mortar under the same acid en-
vironment, which indicated that the geopolymer mortar was in-
susceptible to the attack of acid. However, the increase of Portland
cement content in the geopolymer mortar will lead to a high increase on
weight loss of the specimens after immersed in 10% sulfuric acid so-
lution [37].
Satya et al. [36] concluded that the geopolymer mortars manu-
factured with blended POFA and FA exhibited excellent resistance to
acidic water due to the formation of some new zeolitic phases. It can
also be found that the geopolymer mortar prepared with FA exhibited
much higher resistance to the acidic peat water than the geopolymer
mortar prepared with POFA [15]. The acid resistance of the geopolymer
mortar can be enhanced by incorporation of nano-SiO2. When 2% nano-
SiO2 was added into the geopolymer mortar, the average strength loss
and mass loss of the samples immersed in acid solution was reduced
obviously comparing to the geopolymer mortars containing no nano-
particles [54].
5.2. Resistance to elevated temperature
The strength of geopolymer mortar after being exposed to high
temperature depends on two contrary processes under the action of
high temperature exposure, which include the damage process because
of the thermal incompatibility and the process of further geopolymar-
isation and sintering. According to the results of Pan et al. [107], the
compressive strength of geopolymer mortars prepared using two types
of FA sometimes increased, but at other times decreased when the
specimens were exposed to the temperature of 800 °C. Kuenzel [108]
studied the mechanical performance of geopolymer mortar containing
metakaolin after exposure to high temperature, and concluded that the
microstructure, porosity and strength of the specimens were not greatly
influenced by the temperature up to 800 °C, and the using of silica sand
improved the mechanical behavior of the geopolymer mortar exposure
to temperature up to 1000 °C.
However, based on the tests conducted by Ranjbar et al. [109], it
can be observed that the replacement rate of FA by POFA had great
influence on bulk density and compressive strength of geopolymer
mortar at elevated temperatures. Increasing content of POFA decreased
compressive strength and bulk density of geopolymer mortar regardless
of the exposure temperature level. In general, both of the density and
compressive strength decreased with increment of the exposure tem-
perature level. As is shown in Fig. 28, the results of Abdulkareem et al.
[110] also showed the residual compressive strength of geopolymer
mortars decreased gradually as the exposure elevated temperature in-
creasing from 400 °C to 800 °C.
Erdogan [23] compared the resistance to high temperatures of
geopolymer mortars activated by different activator materials, and
found that the mortar activated by sodium hydroxide solution is less
resistant to high temperatures than the mortar activated by sodium
silicate. Zhang et al. [93,111,112] evaluated the mechanical properties
including compressive strength, tensile strength, bending strength and
P. Zhang et al. Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95

Fig. 28. Influence of elevated temperature on compressive strength [110]. Fig. 29. Effect of multi-walled carbon nanotubes dosage on water absorption
[21].

bonding strength of the geopolymer mortars after being exposed to high

temperature and concluded that the geopolmer mortar could be were cured thermally under the temperature of 85 °C, and NaOH so-
adopted as a suitable material for concrete renovation under environ- lution concentration had an influence on the water absorption, however
ment temperature below 300 °C. the related influence rule was not clear. Djobo et al. [18] investigated
the water absorption of geopolymer mortar manufactured with volcanic
ash, and found that the absorption of the specimen cured under the
5.3. Frost resistance
temperature of 80 °C was larger than that of the specimen cured under
the temperature of 27 °C, and the maximum value of the water ab-
The frost resistance can be used to evaluate the durability of geo-
sorption appeared before 28 days, while the water absorption kept
polymer mortars under the poor weather conditions. In this case, the
unchanged regardless of the curing temperature.
water can be transformed into ice inside the pores of the mortar, which
Abdollahnejad [37] measured water absorption capillarity coeffi-
will have damaging influence on the structures. Ryu [113] evaluated
cient of different types of geopolymer mortars. They found that the one-
the resistance to freezing-thawing of the geopolymer mortar manu-
part geopolymer mortar containing 8% calcined stuff exhibited very
factured with the blended FA and blast-furnace slag through some ex-
high capillary water absorption because of the existing of a large
periments and compared with the traditional cement mortar, and they
number of capillary pores. The results of Colangelo et al. [114] in-
concluded that the geopolymer mortar obtained in this study exhibited
dicated that the incorporation of epoxy resin caused a considerable
higher resistance to freezing-thawing than the cement mortar. Stei-
decrease in water absorption capacity of geopolymer mortars because
nerova [63] investigate the frost resistance of metakaolin based geo-
of the reduction of porosity of the mortar. Khater and Gawaad [21]
polymer motars containing different contents of quartz sand using a
assessed the influence of MWCNT on the water absorption of alkali
special parameter to assess the frost resistance, the value of which was
activated geopolymer mortars. As can be seen in Fig. 29, the water
equal to the ratio of the compressive strength after 25 freezing-thawing
absorption of geopolymer mortars decreased noticeably with increasing
cycles to the compressive strength undergoing no freezing-thawing.
of curing time, especially at later curing periods, regardless of addition
Their results indicated that the sand content limited the resistance to
of MWCNT, and the water absorption had a rising trend of as the
freezing-thawing of the specimens, and the critical sand content was
content of MWCNT increased from 0.1% to 0.4%. Adak et al. [59]
34 wt%. If the sand content lower than this critical value, the specimens
concluded that the geopolymer mortar containing 6% SiO2 nano-par-
could not endure 25 freezing-thawing cycles. The hydration process of
ticles with different molar concentrations showed lower water absorp-
geopolymer mortar is more complex than that of the cement mortar.
tion after the specimens cured for 28 days compared to the geopolymer
Most of the active particles, such as particles of fly ash, bottom ash, and
mortars without nano SiO2.
so on, have significant contribution on the dense structure of mortars
Yan and Sagoe-Crentsil [49] reported that the incorporation of
not only in physical effects but also in chemical effects. On the one
wastepaper sludge affected the water absorption differently with the
hand, the hardened geopolymer mortar consists of a large amount of
specimens after immersion in water at ambient temperature or after
unreacted spheres of active particles and amorphous aluminosilicate gel
boiling in water. For the mortars immersion in water, the water ab-
in its microstructure. On the other hand, most of the particles can be
sorption declined dramatically with the increment of sludge dosage up
dissolved and turned into C-S-H gel [73]. The greater abundance of C-S-
to 5%, and then rose slightly after the sludge dosage beyond 5%.
H gel greatly improves the microstructure of geopolymer mortars. As a
However, the water absorption was increasing steadily with the in-
result, it can be concluded that geopolymer mortars will possess higher
crease of sludge dosage from 0% to 10%. Yliniemi et al. [115] found
durability under the condition of very low temperatures compared with
that the usage of lightweight expanded clay aggregates (LECAs) af-
the traditional cement mortars.
fected the water absorption of the geopolymer mortar, and more water
was absorbed more rapidly by the specimens manufactured with LECAs
5.4. Water absorption than the specimens manufactured with traditional aggregate. Kurklu
[116] prepared the geopolymer mortars using FA and BFS and eval-
The water absorption of the geopolymer mortar depends on the pore uated the influence of BFS dosage on water absorption of the mortars
structure, especially the apparent porosity value and pore size. Gorhan with thermal curing time from 5 h to 168 h. As is shown in Fig. 30, the
and Kurklu [64] showed that the increase in curing time resulted of a values of water absorption of the mortars incorporating different
reduction in water absorption of geopolymer mortars when the samples

91
P. Zhang et al.
Fig. 30. Water absorption of various BFS contents and curing time [116].
dosages of fly ash varies erratically with the increment of BFS content,
and the lowest water absorption appears in the specimen containing
100% BFS after 24 h of curing, while the highest water absorption ap-
pears in the specimen containing 25% BFS after 5 h of curing.
5.5. Shrinkage
Drying shrinkage is usually considered as a significant durability
paremeter for concrete and cement mortar because it suggests the for-
mation of potential cracks in the hardened cementitous materials. As a
result, it is preferable that the geopolymer mortar should have low
drying shrinkage as far as possible. Kouamo [117] studied the impact of
different dosage of metakaolin on the linear shrinkage of geopolymer
mortar prepared with volcanic ash, which can be illustrated in Fig. 31.
Their results indicate that the linear shrinkage of the mortar samples is
increasing with the increase of curing days, and the mortar sample
incorporating higher dosage of metakaolin shows much lower linear
shrinkage than the samples containing lower metakaolin content be-
cause the gel resulted in by high dosage of metakaolin is much thicker.
Based on the systemic tests carried out by Tonnayopas et al. [118], the
same conclusion can be drawn.
Yan and Sagoe-Crentsil [49] observed through drying shrinkage
tests that the drying shrinkage of geopolymer mortars was significantly
Fig. 31. Linear shrinkage of geopolymer mortars [117].
92
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
Fig. 32. Drying shrinkage with different dosage of wastepaper sludge [49].
reduced with incorporation of dry wastepaper sludge. As is shown in
Fig. 32, the drying shrinkage strain is decreasing steadily depending on
the growing of paper sludge content. Khater et al. [21] found that the
addition of MWCNT reduced the drying shrinkage of the geopolymer
mortar, and there was an increase in drying shrinkage with more and
more MWCNT used. Chang et al. [119] investigated the shrinkage
properties of the geopolymer mortars incorporating various content
ratios of metakaolin and slag cured at different relative humidity. The
results showed that the geopolymer mortar containing 30% metakaolin
and 70% slag at 50% relative humidity had the lowest drying shrinkage
after 28 days curing.
6. Microstructure of geopolymer mortar
Haq et al. [67] reported that the pore size distribution of bottom ash
based geopolymer mortars was very wide because the bottom ash
particles with irregular shape caused various levels of steam pressures,
and as a result, the irregular pores were formed among the adjacent
particles. It is revealed from SEM investigation of bottom ash based
geopolymer mortars that the mortar principally consists of unreacted
spheres of bottom ash and amorphous aluminosilicate gel in its mi-
crostructure, and most of the particles of bottom ash were dissolved and
turned into C-S-H gel [73]. According to the EDX spectrum and SEM of
geopolymer mortars being immersed in sulfuric acid solution for 120
days, Sata et al. [104] stated that the geopolymer mortar made of fine
BA performed worse after immersion in acid solutions as compared to
the coarse BA because fine BA endured more hydration and more
geopolymerization related to the calcium as compared to that of the
coarse BA.
Kouamo [117] studied the microstructure properties of geopolymer
mortars manufactured with fused VA (volcanic ash). The XRD pattern of
fused VA indicated that a mass of diopside, anorthoclase and muscovite
were turned into soluble aluminosilicates, which revealed that the fused
VA possessed a larger quantity of reactive phase than the raw VA. It can
be concluded that alkali fusion is a reasonable method to improve the
reactivity of VA for geopolymerization. SEM micrographs of geopo-
lymer mortars manufactured with class C FA showed that some com-
paratively dense reacted products generated in the mortars despite of
the ratio of water/fly ash [45]. The fluorescent microscopy tests of RHA
based geopolymer mortar carried by Kim [25] showed that the mortar
possessed homogenous, compact, and denser particle packing.
From the images of SEM/EDS analysis for the microstructure of
geopolymer mortars containing GGBS, it can be seen that there was
some non-reacted fly ash particles and a less compact structure in the
mortar containing low dosages of GGBS, however, the increasing
P. Zhang et al.
dosage of GGBS resulted in higher dense structure of the geopolymer
mortar [54]. Cyr et al. [85] analyzed the microstructural character-
ization of the geopolymer mortars made of glass cullet through SEM,
EDX and XRD tests. The results of elemental analysis indicated that
there was no definite difference between the phase containing C-S-H
hydration products and the geopolymer phase. As is shown from the
SEM image of fracture surface of geopolymer mortar samples in-
corporating phase change material, the amount of the broken particles
on fracture surface is increasing with the increase of the dosage of the
phase change material, which may be due to that the shear strength of
the phase change material is low and some particles of the phase change
material will be failed during the course of shearing [65].
The incorporation of nano-SiO2 can change the morphology of the
geopolymer mortars. The geopolymer mortar containing 6% SiO2 nano-
particles consists of a higher quantity of crystalline compound con-
verted from amorphous compound than the geopolymer mortars
without nano-particles [59]. The existence of nano-particles has ex-
cellent improvement on the polymerization process of the geopolymer
mortars because of the large specific surface area and amorphous
characteristics. Khater and Gawaad [21] investigated the influence of
MWCNT on microstructure of the slag geopolymer mortars and found
that the dense and compact structure in the mortar composite was
formed due to the addition of MWCNT with the dosage of 0.1%. With
the increment of MWCNT dosage, a large amount of agglomerates was
generated, which reflected that the porosity was increased in the geo-
polymer mortar.
Arellano-Aguilar [76] investigated the microstructures of geopo-
lymer mortars cured under different temperatures. Their results in-
dicated that the number of unreacted particles in the mortar cured at
75 °C is larger compared to the mortar cured at 20 °C. Besides, the
formation of micropores in the geopolymer mortar was caused by the
rapid water evaporation and the reactions were accelerated when the
curing temperature rose from 20 °C to 75 °C. Abdulkareem et al. [110]
investigated the microstructure of the geopolymer mortars exposed and
unexposed high temperatures by SEM micrographs, and found that the
microstructure appearance of geopolymer mortars changed little after it
was subjected to high temperature of 400 °C. However, it was found
that the evaporation of structural water would result in some small
microcracks on geopolymeric gel spots after the geopolymer mortar was
exposed to 600 °C, which led to the deterioration in strength of the
mortar. This deterioration in microstructure became more severe as the
elevated temperature increased to 800 °C.
The NMR, FTIR, and XRD analysis conducted by Erdogan [23] in-
dicated that water glass activated geopolymer mortars experienced less
geopolymerization than NaOH solution activated geopolymer mortars.
It can be found from the FESEM micrographs of the geopolymer mortars
prepared using different activators that the mortar using sodium silicate
solutions exhibited fragile matrix and less density, and there were more
partially reacted and non-reacted particles of FA and POFA in the
composite [48]. The results of microstructural study via XRD, SEM and
FTIR analysis of geopolymer mortars activated by Portland cement and
calcium carbide residue indicated that the usage of calcium carbide
residue formed smaller amount of reaction products compared to the
usage of Portland cement [13].
7. Conclusions
The properties and application investigation of the geopolymer
mortar has attracted more and more attention of the researchers and
cement based industries because of its sustainability advantages. The
properties of the fresh and hardened geopolymer mortars prepared
using various raw materials were reviewed through 119 recent and past
literature. The workability, setting time and temperature of fresh geo-
polymer mortars, as well as the physical properties, compressive
strength, tensile strength, elastic properties, flexural performance,
bonding behavior, fracture behavior, acid resistance, resistance to
93
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
elevated temperature, frost resistance, water absorption, shrinkage
properties and microstructure of the hardened geopolymer mortar were
discussed. This study has reviewed the above-mentioned properties of
different types of geopolymer mortars prepared using various source
materials as base materials, such as common FA, GGBFS, BA, circulated
fluidized bed combustion FA, POFA, metakaolin, kaolin, volcanic ash,
clay, high calcium fly ash, air cooled slag, steel slag, ground perlite,
waste paper sludge ash, rice husk ash, ferrochrome slag, and silica
waste. The current study results indicate that the geopolymer mortar
has exhibited significant feasibility and application prospect to be used
as an environmental friendly building material, which may be an ap-
propriate replacement to the traditional cement mortar in the future.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support re-
ceived from Open Projects Funds of Dike Safety and Disaster Prevention
Engineering Technology Research Center of Chinese Ministry of Water
Resources (Grant no. 2018006), National Natural Science Foundation of
China (Grant No. 51678534), Foundation Supported by State Key
Laboratory of High Performance Civil Engineering Materials (No.
2016CEM010), Foundation Sponsored by Program for Science &
Technology Innovation Talents in Universities of Henan Province
(Grant No. 16HASTIT012).
References
[1] Sumesh M, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Mo KH, Alnahhal MF. Incorporation of
nano-materials in cement composite and geopolymer based paste and mortar-A
review. Construct Build Mater 2017;148:62–84.
[2] Bhutta A, Farooq M, Zanotti C, Banthia N. Pull-out behavior of different fibers in
geopolymer mortars: effects of alkaline solution concentration and curing. Mater
Struct 2017;50(1):1–13.
[3] World Buisness Council for Sustainable Development. The cement sustainability
initiative. 10 years of progress-moving on to the next decade. 2012http://www.
wbcsdcement.org/.
[4] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. On the development of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 2017;101(6):467–72.
[5] Abdel-Gawwad H, Abo-El-Enein S. A novel method to produce dry geopolymer
cement powder. HBRC J 2016;12(1):13–24.
[6] Nguyen KT, Le TA, Lee J, Lee D, Lee K. Investigation on properties of geopolymer
mortar using preheated materials and thermogenetic admixture. Construct Build
Mater 2017;130:146–55.
[7] Jumrat S, Chatveera B, Rattanadecho P. Dielectric properties and temperature
profile of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Int Commun Heat Mass Tran
2011;38(2):242–8.
[8] Adam AA, Horianto X. The effect of temperature and duration of curing on the
strength of fly ash based geopolymer mortar. Procedia Eng 2014;95:410–4.
[9] Fernandez-Jimenez A, Palomo A. Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash
concrete. ACI Mater J 2006;103(2):106–12.
[10] van Deventer JSJ, Lukey GC, Xu H. Effect of curing temperature and silicate
concentration on fly-ash-based geopolymerization. Ind Eng Chem Res
2006;45:3559–68.
[11] Bakharev T, Sanjayan J, Cheng Y. Alkali activation of Australian slag cements.
Cement Concr Res 1999;29:113–20.
[12] Laskar SM, Talukdar S. Development of ultrafine slag-based geopolymer mortar for
use as repairing mortar. J Mater Civ Eng 2017;29(5):1–11.
[13] Hanjitsuwan S, Phoo-ngernkham T, Damrongwiriyanupap N. Comparative study
using Portland cement and calcium carbide residue as a promoter in bottom ash
geopolymer mortar. Construct Build Mater 2017;133:128–34.
[14] Shon C, Lee D. Activation energy of alkali-silica reaction in CFBC fly ash geopo-
lymer mortar. Mater Sci Forum 2017;882:77–82.
[15] Olivia M, Wulandari C, Sitompul IR. Study of fly ash (FA) and palm oil fuel ash
(POFA) geopolymer mortar resistance in acidic peat environment. Mater Sci Forum
2016;841:126–32.
[16] Clausi M, Tarantino SC, Magnani LL, Riccardi MP, Tedeschi C, Zema M.
Metakaolin as a precursor of materials for application in Cultural Heritage: geo-
polymer-based mortars with ornamental stone aggregates. Appl Clay Sci
2016;132–133:589–99.
[17] Balczar I, Korim T, Kovacs A, Mako E. Mechanochemical and thermal activation of
kaolin for manufacturing geopolymer mortars – comparative study. Ceram Int
2016;42:15367–75.
[18] Djobo JNY, Elimbi A, Tchakoute HK, Kumar S. Mechanical properties and dur-
ability of volcanic ash based geopolymer mortars. Construct Build Mater
2016;124:606–14.
[19] Wang Z, Su H, Zhao S, Zhao N. Influence of phase change material on mechanical
and thermal properties of clay geopolymer mortar. Construct Build Mater
P. Zhang et al.
2016;120:329–34.
[20] Malkawi AB, Nuruddin MF, Fauzi A, Almattarneh H, Mohammed BS. Effect of
alkaline solution on properties of the HCFA geopolymer mortars. Procedia Eng
2016;148:710–7.
[21] Khater HM, Abd el Gawaad HA. Characterization of alkali activated geopolymer
mortar doped with MWCNT. Construct Build Mater 2016;102:329–37.
[22] Jiao X, Luo X, Li J, Chen Q, Yan Y. Preparation of aluminosilicious tailings-based
geopolymer powder and strength performance of the cement mortar. Bull Chin
Ceram Soc 2015;34(12):3641–7.
[23] Erdogan ST. Properties of ground perlite geopolymer mortars. J Mater Civ Eng
2015;27(7):1–10.
[24] Ridzuan ARA, Khairulniza AA, Fadzil MA, Nurliza J. Effect of alkaline activators
concentration to the strength and morphological properties of wastepaper-based
geopolymer mortars. Mater Sci Forum 2015;803:88–92.
[25] Kim YY, Lee B, Saraswathy V, Kwon S. Strength and durability performance of
alkali-activated rice husk ash geopolymer mortar. Sci World J 2014;2014:1–11.
[26] Karakoc MB, Turkmen I, Maras MM, Kantarci F, Demirboga R, Toprak MU.
Mechanical properties and setting time of ferrochrome slag based geopolymer
paste and mortar. Construct Build Mater 2014;72:283–92.
[27] Chawakitchareon P, Veesommai C. Geopolymer mortar production using silica
waste as raw material. Am Trans Eng Appl Sci 2013;2(1):43–53.
[28] Teewara S, Mizi F. Influence of OPC replacement and manufacturing procedures
on the properties of self-cured geopolymer. Construct Build Mater
2014;73:551–61.
[29] Van Jaarsveld JGS, Van Deventer JSJ, Schwartzman A. The potential use of geo-
polymer materials to immobolise toxic metals: Part II. Material and leaching
characteristics. Miner Eng 1999;12(1):75–91.
[30] Zhang SZ, Gong KC. Geopolymer. J Mater Sci Eng 2003;21(3):430–6.
[31] Zhang CB, Shi ZL, Wang SH. Current status and perspective of researches on
geopolymer. Bull Chin Ceram Soc 2003;27(1):127–31.
[32] Wang E, Ni W, Sun H. The principle and development of the technique for pre-
paring industrial slags-based geopolymer. Multipurppose. Util. Miner. Resour.
2005;26(2):30–4.
[33] Atis CD, Bilim C, Cdlik O, Karahan O. Influence of activator on the strength and
drying shrinkage of alkali-activated slag mortar. Construct Build Mater
2009;23:548–55.
[34] Yodsudjai W, Suwanvitaya P, Pikulprayong W, Taweesappaiboon B. Testing of
geopolymer mortar properties for use as a repair material. Ceram Trans
2010;215:325–34.
[35] W. Wazien AZ, Abdullah MMAB, Razak RA, M.R. Rozainy MAZ, Tahir MFM,
Hussin K. Potential of geopolymer mortar as concrete repairing materials. Mater
Sci Forum 2016;857:382–7.
[36] Satya YSD, Saputra E, Olivia M. Performance of blended fly ash (FA) and palm oil
fuel ash (POFA) geopolymer mortar in acidic peat environment. Mater Sci Forum
2016;841:83–9.
[37] Abdollahnejad Z, Pacheco-Torgal F, Aguiar JB, Jesus C. Durability performance of
fly ash based one-part geopolymer mortars. Key Eng Mater 2015;634:113–20.
[38] Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K. Workability and strength of
lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. J Hazard Mater 2009;168:44–50.
[39] Detphan S, Chindaprasirt P. Preparation of fly ash and rice husk ash geopolymer.
Int J Miner Metall Mater 2009;16(6):720–6.
[40] Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Sirivivatnanon V. Workability and strength of coarse
high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement Concr Compos 2007;29:224–9.
[41] ASTM C 1437–07. Standard test methods for flow of hydraulic cement mortar.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, International; 2008.
[42] Li X, Liu S, Wang P. Flexural behavior of geopolymer mortar modified by re-dis-
persible polymer emulsion powder. J Build Mater 2009;12(2):205–8.
[43] Kotwal AR, Kim YJ, Hu J, Sriraman V. Characterization and early age physical
properties of ambient cured geopolymer mortar based on class C fly ash. Int J.
Concr. Struct. Mater. 2015;9(1):35–43.
[44] Bhowmick A, Ghosh S. Effect of synthesizing parameters on workability and
compressive strength of fly ash based geopolymer mortar. Int J Civ Struct Eng
2012;3(1):168–77.
[45] Li X, Ma X, Zhang S, Zheng E. Mechanical properties and microstructure of class C
fly ash-based geopolymer paste and mortar. Materials 2013;6:1485–95.
[46] Patankar SV, Ghugal YM, Jamkar SS. Effect of concentration of sodium hydroxide
and degree of heat curing on fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Indian J. Eng.
Mater. Sci. 2014;2014:1–6.
[47] Malkawi AB, Nuruddin MF, Fauzi A, Almattarneh H, Mohammed BS. Effects of
alkaline solution on properties of the HCFA geopolymer mortars. Procedia Eng
2016;148:710–7.
[48] Huseien GF, Mirza J, Ismail M, Hussin MW. Influence of different curing tem-
peratures and alkali activators on properties of GBFS geopolymer mortars con-
taining fly ash and palm-oil fuel ash. Construct Build Mater 2016;125:1229–40.
[49] Yan S, Sagoe-Crentsil K. Properties of wastepaper sludge in geopolymer mortars for
masonry applications. J Environ Manag 2012;112:27–32.
[50] Li Q, Chen C, Shen L, Zhai J. Manufacturing F-fly ash based geopolymer mortars
using CFBC bottom ash as fine aggregates. J Chem Soc Pakistan 2013;35(2):314–9.
[51] Kabir SMA, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Sharmin A, Islam A. Influence of molarity
and chemical composition on the development of compressive strength in POFA
based geopolymer mortar. Adv Mate sci Eng 2015;2015:1–15.
[52] Al-Majidi MH, Lampropoulos A, Cundy A, Meikle S. Development of geopolymer
mortar under ambient temperature for in situ applications. Construct Build Mater
2016;120:198–211.
[53] Lee NK, Kim EM, Lee HK. Mechanical properties and setting characteristics of
geopolymer mortar using styrene-butadiene (SB) latex. Construct Build Mater
94
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
2016;113:264–72.
[54] Deb PS, Sarker PK, Barbhuiya S. Sorptivity and acid resistance of ambient-cured
geopolymer mortars containing nano-silica. Cement Concr Compos
2016;72:235–45.
[55] ASTM C 807–813. Standard test methods for time of setting of hydraulic cement
mortar by modified Vicat needle. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM, International;
2008.
[56] BS EN 480–482. Admixtures for concrete, Mortar and Grout, Test methods,
Determination of Setting Time. 2006.
[57] Saloma, Saggaff A, Hanafiah, Mawwarni A. Geopolymer mortar with fly ash.
MATEC Web of Conferences, 78. 2016. p. 1–6.
[58] Phoo-ngernkham T, Sata V, Hanjitsuwan S, Ridtirud C, Hatanaka S, Chindaprasirt
P. Compressive strength, bending and fracture characteristics of high calcium fly
ash geopolymer mortars containing Portland cement cured at ambient tempera-
ture. Arabian J Sci Eng 2016;41:1263–71.
[59] Adak D, Sarkar M, Mandal S. Effect of nano-silica on strength and durability of fly
ash based geopolymer mortar. Construct Build Mater 2014;70:453–9.
[60] Phoo-ngernkham T, Sata V, Hanjitsuwan S, Ridtirud C, Hatanaka S, Chindaprasirt
P. High calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar containing Portland cement for use as
repair material. Construct Build Mater 2015;98:482–8.
[61] Davidovits J. Geopolymer: inorganics polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal
1991;37:1633–56.
[62] ASTM C. 1064, standard test methods for temperature of freshly mixed hydraulic-
cement concrete. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM International; 2011.
[63] Steinerova M. Mechanical properties of geopolymer mortars in relation to their
porous structure. Ceramics 2011;55(4):362–72.
[64] Gorhan G, Kurklu G. The influence of the NaOH solution on the properties of the
fly ash-based geopolymer mortar cured at different temperatures. Composites Part
B 2014;58:371–7.
[65] Shadnia R, Zhang L, Li P. Experimental study of geopolymer mortar with in-
corporated PCM. Construct Build Mater 2015;84:95–102.
[66] Ranjbar N, Mehrali M, Behnia A, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ. Compressive strength
and microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar.
Mater Des 2014;59:532–9.
[67] Haq EU, Padmanabhan SK, Zubair M, Ali L, Licciulli A. Intumescence behaviour of
bottom ash based geopolymer mortar through microwave irradiation – as affected
by alkali activation. Construct Build Mater 2016;126:951–6.
[68] Ismail M, Yusuf TO, Noruzman AH, Hassan IO. Early strength characteristics of
palm oil fuel ash and metakaolin blended geopolymer mortar. Adv Mater Res
2013;690–693:1045–8.
[69] Yusuf TO, Ismail M, Uaman J, Noruzman AH. Impact of blending on strength
distribution of ambient cured metakaolin and palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer
mortar. Adv Civ Eng 2014;2014:1–8.
[70] Islam A, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Bashar II. The development of compressive
strength of ground granulated blast furnace slag-palm oil fuel ash-fly ash based
geopolymer mortar. Mater Des 2014;56:833–41.
[71] Vasconcelos E, Fernandes S, Barroso de Aguiar JL, Pacheco-Torgal F. Concrete
retrofitting using metakaolin geopolymer mortars and CFRP. Construct Build
Mater 2011;25:3213–21.
[72] Mijarsh MJA, Megat Ahmad MA, Ahmad ZA. Effect of delay time and Na2SiO3
concentrations on compressive strength development of geopolymer mortar syn-
thesized from TPOFA. Construct Build Mater 2015;86:64–74.
[73] Thaarrini J, Ramasamy V. Feasibility studies on compressive strength of ground
coal ash geopolymer mortar. Period Polytech Civ Eng 2015;59(3):373–9.
[74] Warid Wazien AZ, Abdullah MMAB, Razak RA, Mohd Remy Rozainy MAZ, Tahir
MFM. Strength and density of geopolymer mortar cured at ambient temperature
for use as repair material. Mater Sci Eng 2016;133:1–8.
[75] Temuujin J, van Riessen A, MacKenzie KJD. Preparation and characterization of
fly ash based geopolymer mortars. Construct Build Mater 2010;24:1906–10.
[76] Arellano-Aguilar R, Burciaga-Diaz O, Gorokhovsky A, Escalante-Garcia JI.
Geopolymer mortars based on a low grade metakaolin: effects of the chemical
composition, temperature and aggregate: binder ratio. Construct Build Mater
2014;50:642–8.
[77] Zejak R, Nikolic I, Blecic D, Radmilovic V, Radmilovic V. Mechanical and micro-
structural properties of the fly-ash-based geopolymer paste and mortar. Mater
Technol 2013;47(4):535–40.
[78] Bashar II, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Islam A. The effect of variation of molarity of
alkali activator and fine aggregate content on the compressive strength of the fly
ash: palm oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng
2014;2014:1–13.
[79] Bashar II, Alengaram UJ, Jumaat MZ, Islam A. Development of sustainable geo-
polymer mortar using industrial waste materials. Mater Today: Proceedings
2016;3:125–9.
[80] Li X, Wang Z, Jiao Z. Influence of curing on the strength development of calcium-
containing geopolymer mortar. Materials 2013;6:5069–76.
[81] Helmy AII. Intermittent curing of fly ash geopolymer mortar. Construct Build
Mater 2016;110:54–64.
[82] Narayanan A, Shanmugasundaram P. An experimental investigation on flyash-
based geopolymer mortar under different curing regime for thermal analysis.
Energy Build 2017;138:539–45.
[83] Mermerdas K, Algin Z, Oleiwi SM, Nassani DE. Optimization of lightweight GGBFS
and FA geopolymer mortars by response surface method. Construct Build Mater
2017;139:159–71.
[84] Mijarsh MJA, Megat Johari MA, Ahmad ZA. Compressive strength of treated palm
oil fuel ash based geopolymer mortar containing calcium hydroxide, aluminum
hydroxide and silica fume as mineral additives. Cement Concr Compos
P. Zhang et al.
2015;60:65–81.
[85] Cyr M, Idir R, Poinot T. Prpoerties of inorganic polymer (geopolymer) mortars
made of glass cullet. J Mater Sci 2012;47:2782–97.
[86] Mallikarjuna Rao G, Gunneswara Rao TD. Final setting time and compressive
strength of fly ash and GGBS-based geopolymer paste and mortar. Arabian J Sci
Eng 2015;40:3067–74.
[87] Logesh Kumar M, Revathi V. Metakaolin bottom ash blend geopolymer mortar – a
feasibility study. Construct Build Mater 2016;114:1–5.
[88] Adak D, Sarkar M, Maiti M, Tamang A, Mandal S, Chattopadhyay B. Anti-microbial
efficiency of nano silver-silica modified geopolymer mortar for eco-friendly green
construction technology. Roy. Soc. Chem. 2015;5:64037–45.
[89] Nazari A, Sanjayan JG. Modelling of compressive strength of geopolymer paste,
mortar and concrete by optimized support vector machine. Ceram Int
2015;41:12164–77.
[90] Ng TS, Foster SJ. Development of a mix design methodology for high-performance
geopolymer mortars. Struct Concr 2013;14(2):148–56.
[91] Guades EJ. Experimental investigation of the compressive and tensile strengths of
geopolymer mortar: the effect of sand/fly ash (S/FA) ratio. Construct Build Mater
2016;127:484–93.
[92] Chuah S, Duan WH, Pan Z, Hunter E, Korayem AH, Zhao XL, Collins F, Sanjayan
JG. The properties of fly ash based geopolymer mortars made with dune sand.
Mater Des 2016;92:571–8.
[93] Zhang HY, Kodur V, Wu B, Cao L, Wang F. Thermal behavior and mechanical
properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures.
Construct Build Mater 2016;109:17–24.
[94] Khandelwal M, Ranjith PG, Pan Z, Sanjayan JG. Effect of strain rate on strength
properties of low-calcium fly-ash-based geopolymer mortar under dry condition.
Arab J. Geosciences 2013;6:2383–9.
[95] Pouhet R, Cyr M. Alkali-silica reaction in metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar.
Mater Struct 2015;48:571–83.
[96] Ban CC, Ken PW, Ramli M. Mechanical and durability performance of novel self-
activating geopolymer mortars. Procedia Eng 2017;171:564–71.
[97] Atis CD, Gorur EB, Karahan O, Bilim C, Ilkentapar S, Luga E. Very high strength
(120 MPa) class F fly ash geopolymer mortar activated at different NaOH amount,
heat curing temperature and heat curing duration. Construct Build Mater
2015;96:673–8.
[98] Ban CC, Ken PW, Ramli M. Effect of sodium silicate and curing regime on prop-
erties of lad bearing geopolymer mortar block. J Mater Civ Eng 2017;29(3):1–9.
[99] Vasconcelos E, Fernandes S, Aguiar B, Pacheco-Torgal F. Concrete retrofitting
using CFRP and geopolymer mortars. Mater Sci Forum 2013;730–732:427–32.
[100] Gouny F, Fouchal F, Maillard P, Rossignol S. A geopolymer mortars for wood and
earth structures. Construct Build Mater 2012;36:188–95.
[101] Alanazi H, Yang M, Zhang D, Gao Z. Bond strength of PCC pavement repairs using
metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar. Cement Concr Compos 2016;65:75–82.
[102] Khalid HR, Ha SK, Park SM, Kim GM, Lee HK. Interfacial bond behavior of FRP
fabrics bonded to fiber-reinforced geopolymer mortar. Compos Struct
2015;134:353–68.
[103] Thokchom S, Ghosh P, Ghosh S. Acid resistance of fly ash based geopolymer
mortars. Int J Recent Trends Eng Technol 2009;1(6):36–40.
95
Composites Part B 152 (2018) 79–95
[104] Sata V, Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasirt P. Resistance of lignite bottom ash
geopolymer mortar to sulfate and sulfuric acid attack. Cement Concr Compos
2012;34:700–8.
[105] Sreevidya V, Anuradha R, Thomas T, Venkatasubramani R. Duribility studies on
fly ash geopolymer mortar under in ambient curing condition. Asian J Chem
2013;25(5):2497–9.
[106] Izzat AM, Bakri AMM, Kamarudin H, Moga LM, Ruzaidi GCM, Faheem MTM,
Sandu AV. Microstructural analysis of geopolymer and ordinary Portland cement
mortar exposed to sulfuric acid. Mater Plast 2013;50(3):171–4.
[107] Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Rangan BV. An investigation of the mechanisms for strength
gain or loss of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperature. J Mater
Sci 2009;44:1873–80.
[108] Kuenzel C, Grover LM, Vandeperre L, Boccaccini AR, Cheeseman CR. Production
of nepheline/quartz ceramics from geopolymer mortars. J Eur Ceram Soc
2013;33:251–8.
[109] Ranjbar N, Mehrali M, Alengaram UJ, Metselaar HSC, Jumaat MZ. Compressive
strength and microstructural analysis of fly ash/palm oil fuel ash based geopo-
lymer mortar under elevated temperatures. Construct Build Mater
2014;65:114–21.
[110] Abdulkareem OA, Bakri AMMA, Kamarudin H, Nizar IK, Saif AA. Effects of ele-
vated temperatures on the thermal behavior and mechanical performance of fly
ash geopolymer paste, mortar and lightweight concrete. Construct Build Mater
2014;50:377–87.
[111] Zhang HY, Qi SL, Cao L. Mechanical performance comparison geopolymer paste,
mortar and concrete after exposure to high temperature. J Disaster. Prev. Mitig.
Eng 2015;35(1):11–6.
[112] Zhang HY, Cao L, Wu B. Tensile and bond properties and strength degradation
mechanism of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures. J
Harbin Inst Technol 2016;48(12):128–34.
[113] Ryu GS, Koh KT, Lee JH. Strength development and durability of geopolymer
mortar using the combined fly ash and blast-furnace slag. J. Recreat Construct
Resour 2013;1(1):35–41.
[114] Colangelo F, Roviello G, Ricciotti L, Ferone C, Cioffi R. Preparation and char-
acterization of new geopolymer-epoxy resin hybrid mortars. Materials
2013;6:2989–3006.
[115] Yliniemi Paiva, Ferreira Tiainen. Illikainen, Development and incorporation of
lightweight waste-based geopolymer aggregates in mortar and concrete. Construct
Build Mater 2017;131:784–92.
[116] Kurklu G. The effect of high temperature on the design of blast furnace slag and
coarse fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Composites Part B 2016;92:9–18.
[117] Tchakoute Kouamo H, Mbey JA, Elimbi A, Kenne Diffo BB, Njopwouo D. Synthesis
of volcanic ash-based geopolymer mortars by fusion method: effects of adding
metakaolin to fused volcanic ash. Ceram Int 2013;39:1613–21.
[118] Tonnayopas D, Hawa A, Prachasaree W, Taneerananon P. Effect of parawood ash
on drying shrinkage, compressive strength and microstructural characterization of
metakaolin-based geopolymer mortar. Key Eng Mater 2013;594–595:411–5.
[119] Chang TP, Chen ZC, Yang TR. Shrinkage behavior of composite geopolymer
mortar cured at different relative humidities. Adv Mater Res 2014;1064:95–100.