Performance Comparison of Carbon Footprint and Dielectric Properties of Geopolymer Mortars with Portland Cement Mortars
Bibliographic record
Abstract
No abstract is available for this record. The assistant can identify its topic from the title, but cannot infer the study’s results.
Source: Not provided · Quality: missing
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Smart Materials for Construction · Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (53)
Show source-provided references
1. Wudil YS, Al-Fakih A, Al-Osta MA, Gondal MA (2024) Intelligent optimization for modeling carbon dioxide footprint in fly ash geopolymer concrete: a novel approach for minimizing CO2 emissions. J Environ Chem Eng 12(1):111835. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.11183510.1016/j.jece.2023.111835 ↗
2. Labaran YH, Mathur VS, Farouq MM (2021) The carbon footprint of construction industry: a review of direct and indirect emission. J Sustain Constr Mater Technol 6(3):101–115. https://doi.org/10.29187/jscmt.2021.6610.29187/jscmt.2021.66 ↗
3. Imbabi MS, Carrigan C, McKenna S (2012) Trends and developments in green cement and concrete technology. Int J Sustain Built Environ 1(2):194–216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.05.00110.1016/j.ijsbe.2013.05.001 ↗
4. Çakmak T, Gürbüz A, Kurt Z, Ustabaş İ (2024) Mechanical and microstructural properties of mortars: obsidian powder effect. J Sustain Constr Mater Technol 9(2):170–176. https://doi.org/10.47481/jscmt.148591210.47481/jscmt.1485912 ↗
5. Cakmak T, Ustabas I, Kurt Z, Gurbuz A (2024) The importance of early strength in structural applications: obsidian-based geopolymer mortars and silica fume substitution study. Struct Concr. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.20240072610.1002/suco.202400726 ↗
6. Yilmaz Y, Cakmak T, Kurt Z, Ustabas I (2025) Predicting mechanical properties in geopolymer mortars, including novel precursor combinations, through XGBoost method. Arab J Sci Eng 50:2009–2033. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13369-024-09179-z10.1007/s13369-024-09179-z ↗
7. Cakmak T, Ustabas I (2025) Investigating experimentally the potency of divergent sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate molar proportions on silica fume and obsidian-based geopolymer mortars. Struct Concr. https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.20250005510.1002/suco.202500055 ↗
8. Yuan W, Zheng Y, Yu N, Shen Y, Hao X (2025) Comparative analysis of time-dependent CO2 uptake in cement and geopolymer concretes via diffusion-induced carbonation. Case Stud Constr Mater 22:e04573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e0457310.1016/j.cscm.2025.e04573 ↗
9. Chen Y, Huang Y, Huang Y, Lin Y, Huang H, Jeng R, Cheng Y, Wu C (2023) A crosslinked waterborne poly(vinyl acetate) for greenhouse gas fixation with improved elastomeric properties, shape-memory ability, and recyclability. J Environ Chem Eng 11(6):111170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.11117010.1016/j.jece.2023.111170 ↗
10. Yang H, Guo Y, Fang N, Dong B (2023) Life cycle assessment of sludge anaerobic digestion combined with land application treatment route: greenhouse gas emission and reduction potential. J Environ Chem Eng 11(6):111255. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2023.11125510.1016/j.jece.2023.111255 ↗
11. Coffetti D, Crotti E, Gazzaniga G, Carrara M, Pastore T, Coppola L (2022) Pathways towards sustainable concrete. Cem Concr Res 154:106718. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.10671810.1016/j.cemconres.2022.106718 ↗
12. Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers. J Therm Anal 37:1633–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF0191219310.1007/BF01912193 ↗
13. Majidi B (2009) Geopolymer technology, from fundamentals to advanced applications: a review. Mater Technol 24(2):79–87. https://doi.org/10.1179/175355509X44935510.1179/175355509X449355 ↗
14. Mugahed Amran YH, Alyousef R, Alabduljabbar H, El-Zeadani M (2020) Clean production and properties of geopolymer concrete; a review. J Clean Prod 251:119679. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2019.11967910.1016/j.jclepro.2019.119679 ↗
15. Cong P, Ruyan Du, Gao H, Chen Z (2024) Comparison and assessment of carbon dioxide emissions between alkali-activated materials and OPC cement concrete. J Traffic Transp Eng 11(5):918–938. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtte.2023.07.01110.1016/j.jtte.2023.07.011 ↗
16. Nawaz M, Heitor A, Sivakumar M (2020) Geopolymers in construction - recent developments. Constr Build Mater 260:120472. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.12047210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120472 ↗
17. Stafford FN, Raupp-Pereira F, Labrincha JA, Hotza D (2016) Life cycle assessment of the production of cement: a Brazilian case study. J Clean Prod 137:1293–1299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.05010.1016/j.jclepro.2016.07.050 ↗
18. van Deventer JSJ, Provis JL, Duxson P, Brice DG (2010) Chemical research and climate change as drivers in the commercial adoption of alkali activated materials. Waste Biomass Valor 1:145–155. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12649-010-9015-910.1007/s12649-010-9015-9 ↗
19. Habert G, de d’Espinose Lacaillerie JB, Roussel N (2011) An environmental evaluation of geopolymer based concrete production: reviewing current research trends. J Clean Prod 19(11):1229–1238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.01210.1016/j.jclepro.2011.03.012 ↗
20. Turner LK, Collins FG (2013) Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: a comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr Build Mater 43:125–130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.02310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023 ↗
21. Nayır S, Bahadır Ü, Toğan V (2024) Investigation of global warming potential of concrete with silica fume and blast furnace slag. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civ Eng 48:1965–1975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-023-01264-x10.1007/s40996-023-01264-x ↗
22. He M, Yang Z, Li N, Zhu X, Fu B, Ou Z (2023) Strength, microstructure, CO2 emission and economic analyses of low concentration phosphoric acid-activated fly ash geopolymer. Constr Build Mater 374:130920. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.13092010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130920 ↗
23. Carreño-Gallardo C, Tejeda-Ochoa A, Perez-Ordonez OI, Ledezma-Sillas JE, Lardizabal-Gutierrez D, Prieto-Gomez C, Valenzuela-Grado JA, Robles Hernandez FC, Herrera-Ramirez JM (2018) In the CO2 emission remediation by means of alternative geopolymers as substitutes for cements. J Environ Chem Eng 6(4):4878–4884. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jece.2018.07.03310.1016/j.jece.2018.07.033 ↗
24. Ji X, Huang X, Zhong S, Zhou J (2025) Advancing toward a low-carbon infrastructure: emission reduction potential of geopolymer road maintenance. Materials Today Sustainability. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2025.10112110.1016/j.mtsust.2025.101121 ↗
25. Liu S, Liu Z, Harada K, Takasu K, Suyama H, Yamamoto H (2024) Investigating the use of bamboo charcoal to reduce carbon emissions in geopolymer mortar. Constr Build Mater 434:136781. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.13678110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136781 ↗
26. Jumrat S, Chatveera B, Rattanadecho P (2011) Dielectric properties and temperature profile of fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Int Commun Heat Mass Transf 38(2):242–248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2010.11.02010.1016/j.icheatmasstransfer.2010.11.020 ↗
27. Chuewangkam N, Nachaithong T, Chanlek N, Thongbai P, Pinitsoontorn S (2022) Mechanical and dielectric properties of fly ash geopolymer/sugarcane bagasse ash composites. Polymers 14(6):1140. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym1406114010.3390/polym14061140 ↗
28. Wang D, Zhang Z, Ding S, Ning C, Shi C et al (2025) Nano-structure and sensitivity of self-sensing geopolymer composites containing nano carbon black. Cem Concr Compos 160:106072. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2025.10607210.1016/j.cemconcomp.2025.106072 ↗
29. Saafi M, Tang L, Fung J, Rahman M, Sillars F et al (2014) Graphene/fly ash geopolymeric composites as self-sensing structural materials. Smart Mater Struct 23(6):065006. https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/23/6/06500610.1088/0964-1726/23/6/065006 ↗
30. Hanjitsuwan S, Chindaprasirt P, Pimraksa K (2011) Electrical conductivity and dielectric property of fly ash geopolymer pastes. Int J Miner Metall Mater 18(1):94–99. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12613-011-0406-010.1007/s12613-011-0406-0 ↗
31. Kurhade SD, Patankar S (2025) Predicting compressive strength of geopolymer concrete using machine learning models. Innov Infrastruct Solut 10:12. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-024-01832-810.1007/s41062-024-01832-8 ↗
32. Venkataramana K, Rao BH, Singh DN (2009) A critical review of the methodologies employed for determination of tensile strength of fine-grained soils. J Test Eval 37(2):115–121. https://doi.org/10.1520/JTE10198910.1520/JTE101989 ↗
33. Ho ATN, Duy HP, Yonghan A, Bee LO, Benson THL (2025) Machine learning and sustainable geopolymer materials: a systematic review. Mater Today Sustain 30:101095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mtsust.2025.10109510.1016/j.mtsust.2025.101095 ↗
34. Chen Y, Yongfu Xu, Jamhiri B, Wang L, Li T (2022) Predicting uniaxial tensile strength of expansive soil with ensemble learning methods. Comput Geotech 150:104904. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compgeo.2022.10490410.1016/j.compgeo.2022.104904 ↗
35. McDonald SM, Augustine EK, Lanners Q et al (2023) Applied machine learning as a driver for polymeric biomaterials design. Nat Commun 14:4838. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-023-40459-810.1038/s41467-023-40459-8 ↗
36. Husnain A, Iqbal M, Ashraf M, Alsekait DM, Javed MF, Alabduljabbar H, Elminaam DSA (2024) Machine learning approaches for predicting shielding effectiveness of carbon fiber-reinforced mortars. Case Stud Constr Mater 20:e03189. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0318910.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03189 ↗
37. Sinkhonde D, Mirindi D, Dabakuyo I, Bezabih T, Mashava D, Mirindi F (2025) Applications of machine learning algorithms on the compressive strength of laterite blocks made with metakaolin-based geopolymer and sugarcane molasses. Waste Management Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wmb.2025.10021210.1016/j.wmb.2025.100212 ↗
38. Ulloa N, León MAM, Palmay LFS, Castillo MM (2025) Evaluating the compressive strength of industrial wastes-based geopolymer concrete with machine learning models. Constr Build Mater 472:140891. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.14089110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.140891 ↗
39. TS EN 197-1 (2012) Cement-Section 1: Compound, specification and conformity criteria for common cements, Turkish Standards Institute, Ankara
40. ASTM C109/C109M-11 (2011) Standard test method for compressive strength of hydraulic cement mortars. ASTM International. West Conshohocken, PA. https://doi.org/10.1520/C0109_C0109M-2010.1520/C0109_C0109M-20 ↗
41. Li J, Liu X, Cai C, Li F, Jin H, Zhang S, Sheng N, Wang T, Ngo T (2024) Microstructure, strength development mechanism and CO2 emission assessments of molybdenum tailings collaborative fly ash geopolymers. Case Stud Constr Mater 21:e03608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e0360810.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03608 ↗
42. Kina C, Tanyildizi H, Acik V (2025) Hybrid portland cement-slag-based geopolymer mortar: strength, microstructural and environmental assessment. Process Saf Environ Prot 195:106771. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psep.2025.10677110.1016/j.psep.2025.106771 ↗
43. Collins F (2010) Inclusion of carbonation during the life cycle of built and recycled concrete: influence on their carbon footprint. Int J Life Cycle Assess 15:549–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11367-010-0191-410.1007/s11367-010-0191-4 ↗
44. Habert G, Denarié E, Šajna A, Rossi P (2013) Lowering the global warming impact of bridge rehabilitations by using ultra high performance fibre reinforced concretes. Cem Concr Compos 38:1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.11.00810.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.11.008 ↗
45. Li H, Guo X (2024) Fabricating hydrophobic silica fume to improve mechanical strength and anti-corrosion of integral hydrophobic cement mortar and its carbon emission assessment. J Clean Prod 439:140857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2024.14085710.1016/j.jclepro.2024.140857 ↗
46. Mohammed AMR, Onchiri RO, Gathimba N, Sabuni B (2024) Assessing the durability performance of geopolymer concrete utilizing fly ash and sugarcane bagasse ash as sustainable binders. Open Ceram 20:100687. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.oceram.2024.10068710.1016/j.oceram.2024.100687 ↗
47. Jahandari S, Tao Z, Rahmani A, Alim MA (2025) Durability of one-part geopolymer concrete in aggressive environments. Constr Build Mater 490:142510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.14251010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2025.142510 ↗
48. Amran M, Al-Fakih A, Chu SH, Fediuk R, Haruna S, Azevedo A, Vatin N (2021) Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: an in-depth review. Case Stud Constr Mater 15:e00661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e0066110.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00661 ↗
49. Amari S, Darestani M, Millar GJ, Samali B, Strounina E (2024) Engineering and life cycle assessment (LCA) of sustainable zeolite-based geopolymer incorporating blast furnace slag. Sustainability 16(1):440. https://doi.org/10.3390/su1601044010.3390/su16010440 ↗
50. Angiulli G, Versaci M, Burrascano P, Laganá F (2025) A data-driven Gaussian process regression model for concrete complex dielectric permittivity characterization. Sensors 25(20):6350. https://doi.org/10.3390/s2520635010.3390/s25206350 ↗
51. Ihamouten A, Le Bastard C, Xavier D, Bosc F, Villain G (2016) Using machine learning algorithms to link volumetric water content to complex dielectric permittivity in a wide (33–2000 MHz) frequency band for hydraulic concretes. Near Surf Geophys 14:527–536. https://doi.org/10.3997/1873-0604.201604510.3997/1873-0604.2016045 ↗
52. Hou Z, Liu H, Cheng J, Zhang Q, Tong Z (2025) Permittivity measurement in multi-phase heterogeneous concrete using evidential regression deep network and high-frequency electromagnetic waves. Materials 18(16):3766. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma1816376610.3390/ma18163766 ↗
53. Chen M, Xin J, Tang Q, Hu T, Zhou Y, Zhou J (2024) Explainable machine learning model for load-deformation correlation in long-span suspension bridges using XGBoost-SHAP. Dev Built Environ 20:100569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dibe.2024.10056910.1016/j.dibe.2024.100569 ↗