Effect of superplasticizer in geopolymer and alkali-activated cement mortar/concrete: A review
Source abstract
Abstract
Abstract The cement and construction industry creates around 10% of the global carbon footprint. Geopolymer and alkali-activated concrete provide a sustainable solution to conventional concrete. Due to its disadvantages, the practical usage of geopolymer and alkali-activated concrete is limited. Workability is one of the issues faced in developing geopolymer and alkali-activated concretes. Plenty of research was conducted to provide a solution to enhance the ability to use different superplasticizers (SPs). The present article extensively reviews the effects of SPs on geopolymer and alkali-activated concretes. The research articles published in the last 5 years in high-quality journals are considered for the chemical composition of the different SPs and analyses of their exact impact on geopolymer and alkali-activated cement mortar and concrete. Later, the impact of SPs on the normal consistency and setting times of cement mortar, workability, compressive strength, flexural strength, split tensile strength, microstructure, and water absorption of geopolymer and alkali-activated concrete was determined. SPs improve the geopolymer and alkali-activated concretes upon their use in desired dosages; more dosage leads to negative effects. Therefore, selecting the optimal superplasticizer is essential since it impacts the performance of the geopolymer and alkali-activated concrete.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Magnesium Oxide Properties and Applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation , Guntur , Vaddeswaram , India
Department of Civil Engineering, KLE Technological University DR. M.S. Sheshgiri Campus , Udyambag, Belagavi , Karnataka, 590008 , India
Engineering Management Department, College of Engineering, Prince Sultan University , 11586 , Riyadh , Saudi Arabia
References (100+)
Show source-provided references
1. Tosti, L., A. van Zomeren, J. R. Pels, and R. N. J. Comans. Technical and environmental performance of lower carbon footprint cement mortars containing biomass fly ash as a secondary cementitious material. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 134, No. January, 2018, pp. 25–33.10.1016/j.resconrec.2018.03.004 ↗
2. Palacios, M., P. F. G. Banfill, and F. Puertas. Rheology and setting of alkali-activated slag pastes and mortars: Effect if organic admixture. ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 105, No. 2, 2008, pp. 140–148.10.14359/19754 ↗
3. Tong, S., Z. Yuqi, and W. Qiang. Recent advances in chemical admixtures for improving the workability of alkali-activated slag-based material systems. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 272, 2021, id. 121647.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121647 ↗
4. Gunasekara, C., D. W. Law, S. Setunge, and J. G. Sanjayan. Zeta potential, gel formation and compressive strength of low calcium fly ash geopolymers. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 95, 2015, pp. 592–599.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.175 ↗
5. Kong, Y. K. and K. Kurumisawa. Prediction of the drying shrinkage of alkali-activated materials using artificial neural networks. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 17, No. April, 2022, id. e01166.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01166 ↗
6. Costa, F. N. and D. V. Ribeiro. Reduction in CO2 emissions during production of cement, with partial replacement of traditional raw materials by civil construction waste (CCW). Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 276, 2020, id. 123302.10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123302 ↗
7. Yunsheng, Z., S. Wei, L. Zongjin, Z. Xiangming, C. Eddie, and C. Chungkong. Impact properties of geopolymer based extrudates incorporated with fly ash and PVA short fiber. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 22, No. 3, 2008, pp. 370–383.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2006.08.006 ↗
8. Naik, T. R. Sustainability of concrete construction. Practice Periodical on Structural Design and Construction, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2008, pp. 98–103.10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0680(2008)13:2(98) ↗
9. Shi, C., C. Meyer, and A. Behnood. Utilization of copper slag in cement and concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 52, No. 10, 2008, pp. 1115–1120.10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.06.008 ↗
10. Chand, G. Microstructural study of sustainable cements produced from industrial by-products, natural minerals and agricultural wastes: A critical review on engineering properties. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, Vol. 4, No. July, 2021, id. 100224.10.1016/j.clet.2021.100224 ↗
11. Garcia Lodeiro, I., N. Cristelo, A. Palomo, and A. Fernández-Jiménez. Use of industrial by-products as alkaline cement activators. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 253, 2020, id. 119000.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119000 ↗
12. Mavroulidou, M., I. Sanam, and L. Mengasini. Mechanical and durability performance of alkali-activated slag cement concretes with carbonate and silicate activators. Sustainable Chemistry and Pharmacy, Vol. 31, 2023, id. 100896.10.1016/j.scp.2022.100896 ↗
13. Murali, G. Recent research in mechanical properties of geopolymer-based ultra-high-performance concrete: A review. Defence Technology, July, 2023.10.1016/j.dt.2023.07.003 ↗
14. Zaid, O., N. Abdulwahid Hamah Sor, R. Martínez-García, J. de Prado-Gil, K. Mohamed Elhadi, and A. M. Yosri. Sustainability evaluation, engineering properties and challenges relevant to geopolymer concrete modified with different nanomaterials: A systematic review. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2023, id. 102373.10.1016/j.asej.2023.102373 ↗
15. Kishore, K., A. Pandey, N. K. Wagri, A. Saxena, J. Patel, and A. Al-Fakih. Technological challenges in nanoparticle-modified geopolymer concrete: A comprehensive review on nanomaterial dispersion, characterization techniques and its mechanical properties. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 19, No. July, 2023, id. e02265.10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02265 ↗
16. Duxson, P., J. L. Provis, G. C. Lukey, and J. S. J. van Deventer. The role of inorganic polymer technology in the development of ‘green concrete’. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 37, No. 12, 2007, pp. 1590–1597.10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.08.018 ↗
17. Kanagaraj, B., N. Anand, S. Raj R, and E. Lubloy. Performance evaluation of sodium silicate waste as a replacement for conventional sand in geopolymer concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, Vol. 375, No. September, 2022, id. 134172.10.1016/j.jclepro.2022.134172 ↗
18. Wasim, M., T. Duc Ngo, and D. Law. Durability performance of reinforced waste-based geopolymer foam concrete under exposure to various corrosive environments. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 15, No. August, 2021, id. e00703.10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00703 ↗
19. Milad, A., Ali A. S. B., Babalghaith A. M. Memon Z. A. Mashaan N. S. Arafa, et al. Utilisation of waste-based geopolymer in asphalt pavement modification and construction—A review. Sustainability, Vol. 13, No. 6, 2021, id. 3330.10.3390/su13063330 ↗
20. Alharbi, Y. R., A. A. Abadel, A. A. Salah, O. A. Mayhoub, and M. Kohail. Engineering properties of alkali activated materials reactive powder concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 271, 2021, id. 121550.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.121550 ↗
21. Dehghani, A., F. Aslani, and N. Ghaebi Panah. Effects of initial SiO2/Al2O3 molar ratio and slag on fly ash-based ambient cured geopolymer properties. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 293, 2021, id. 123527.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.123527 ↗
22. Bajgain, S. K. and M. Mookherjee. Carbon bearing aluminosilicate melt at high pressure. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 312, 2021, pp. 106–123.10.1016/j.gca.2021.07.039 ↗
23. Le Losq, C., A. P. Valentine, B. O. Mysen, and D. R. Neuville. Structure and properties of alkali aluminosilicate glasses and melts: Insights from deep learning. Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta, Vol. 314, 2021, pp. 27–54.10.1016/j.gca.2021.08.023 ↗
24. Nath, P. and P. K. Sarker. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 66, Sep. 2014, pp. 163–171.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080 ↗
25. Abdullah M. N. I., F. Mustapha, K. A. Ahmad, M. Mustapha, T. Khan, B. Singh, et al. Effect of different pre-treatment on the microstructure and intumescent properties of rice husk ash-based geopolymer hybrid coating. Polymers (Basel), Vol. 14, No. 11, 2022, id. 2252.10.3390/polym14112252 ↗
26. Liu, J., J. H. Doh, D. E. L. Ong, Z. Liu, and M. N. S. Hadi. Methods to evaluate and quantify the geopolymerization reactivity of waste-derived aluminosilicate precursor in alkali-activated material: A state-of-the-art review. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 362, No. August 2022, 2023, id. 129784.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129784 ↗
27. Gharzouni, A., L. Ouamara, I. Sobrados, and S. Rossignol. Alkali-activated materials from different aluminosilicate sources: Effect of aluminum and calcium availability. Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, Vol. 484, No. January, 2018, pp. 14–25.10.1016/j.jnoncrysol.2018.01.014 ↗
28. Ouffa, N., M. Benzaazoua, T. Belem, R. Trauchessec, and A. Lecomte. Alkaline dissolution potential of aluminosilicate minerals for the geosynthesis of mine paste backfill. Materials Today Communications, Vol. 24, No. September, 2020, id. 2019.10.1016/j.mtcomm.2020.101221 ↗
29. Nath, P., P. K. Sarker, and V. B. Rangan. Early age properties of low-calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete suitable for ambient curing. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 125, 2015, pp. 601–607.10.1016/j.proeng.2015.11.077 ↗
30. Laskar, S. M. and S. Talukdar. Preparation and tests for workability, compressive and bond strength of ultra-fine slag based geopolymer as concrete repairing agent. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 154, Nov. 2017, pp. 176–190.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.07.187 ↗
31. Chindaprasirt, P., T. Chareerat, and V. Sirivivatnanon. Workability and strength of coarse high calcium fly ash geopolymer. Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 29, No. 3, 2007, pp. 224–229.10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.11.002 ↗
32. Ravitheja, A. and N. L. N. Kiran Kumar. A study on the effect of nano clay and GGBS on the strength properties of fly ash based geopolymers. Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 19, 2019, pp. 273–276.10.1016/j.matpr.2019.06.761 ↗
33. Paul, E. Influence of superplasticizer on workability and strength of ambient cured alkali activated mortar. Cleaner Materials, Vol. 6, Dec. 2022, id. 100152.10.1016/j.clema.2022.100152 ↗
34. Krishna Rao, A. and D. Rupesh Kumar. Effect of various alkaline binder ratio on geopolymer concrete under ambient curing condition. Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 27, 2020, pp. 1768–1773.10.1016/j.matpr.2020.03.682 ↗
35. Ihsan, A. Use of waste glass powder toward more sustainable geopolymer concrete. Journal of materials research and technology, Vol. 24, 2023, pp. 8533–8546.10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.05.094 ↗
36. Siyal, A. A., M. R. Shamsuddin, S. H. Khahro, A. Low, and M. Ayoub. Optimization of synthesis of geopolymer adsorbent for the effective removal of anionic surfactant from aqueous solution. Journal of Environmental Chemical Engineering, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2021, id. 104949.10.1016/j.jece.2020.104949 ↗
37. Nematollahi, B. and J. Sanjayan. Effect of different superplasticizers and activator combinations on workability and strength of fly ash based geopolymer. Materials & Design, Vol. 57, 2014, pp. 667–672.10.1016/j.matdes.2014.01.064 ↗
38. Richardson, I. G. Tobermorite/jennite- and tobermorite/calcium hydroxide-based models for the structure of C-S-H: Applicability to hardened pastes of tricalcium silicate, β-dicalcium silicate, Portland cement, and blends of Portland cement with blast-furnace slag, metakaol. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 34, No. 9, 2004, pp. 1733–1777.10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.034 ↗
39. Mabroum, S., S. Moukannaa, A. El Machi, Y. Taha, M. Benzaazoua, and R. Hakkou. Mine wastes based geopolymers: A critical review. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, Vol. 1, 2020, id. 100014.10.1016/j.clet.2020.100014 ↗
40. Sandeep Kumar, A. D., D. Singh, V. S. Reddy, and K. J. Reddy. Geo-polymerization mechanism and factors affecting it in Metakaolin-slag-fly ash blended concrete. E3S Web Conference, Vol. 184, 2020, pp. 1–6.10.1051/e3sconf/202018401080 ↗
41. Jamaludin L., R. A. Razak, M. M. A. B. Abdullah, P. Vizureanu, A. Bras, T. Imjai, et al. The suitability of photocatalyst precursor materials in geopolymer coating applications: A review. Coatings, Vol. 12, No. 9, 2022, id. 1348.10.3390/coatings12091348 ↗
42. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, N. Almakayeel, and T. M. Yunus Khan. Development and optimization of an eco-friendly geopolymer brick production process for sustainable masonry construction. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 18, No. March, 2023, id. e02133.10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02133 ↗
43. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, I. Neelakanta Reddy, and J. Shim. Preparation and validation of sustainable metakaolin based geopolymer concrete for structural application. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 371, No. February, 2023, id. 130688.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130688 ↗
44. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, S. Javed, T. M. Y. Khan, and R. U. Baig. Assessment of destructive and nondestructive analysis for GGBS based geopolymer concrete and its statistical analysis. Polymers (Basel), Vol. 14, No. 15, 2022.10.3390/polym14153132 ↗
45. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, T. M. Y. Khan, S. Javed, and R. U. Baig. Optimization of alkaline activator on the strength properties of geopolymer concrete. Polymers (Basel), Vol. 14, No. 12, 2022.10.3390/polym14122434 ↗
46. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, K. S. Nisar, A. H. Abdel-Aty, and I. S. Yahia. Evaluation of the effect of granite waste powder by varying the molarity of activator on the mechanical properties of ground granulated blast-furnace slag-based geopolymer concrete. Polymers (Basel), Vol. 14, No. 2, 2022, id. 306.10.3390/polym14020306 ↗
47. Marvila, M. T., A. R. Garcez de Azevedo, J. A. Tostes Linhares Júnior, and C. M. Fontes Vieira. Activated alkali cement based on blast furnace slag: effect of curing type and concentration of Na20. Journal of Materials Research and Technology, Vol. 23, 2023, pp. 4551–4565.10.1016/j.jmrt.2023.02.088 ↗
48. Shee-Ween, O., H. Cheng-Yong, L. Yun-Ming, M. M. A. B. Abdullah, H. Li-Ngee, P. Pakawanit, et al. Green development of fly ash geopolymer via casting and pressing approaches: Strength, morphology, efflorescence and ecological properties. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 398, No. November 2022, 2023, id. 132446.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132446 ↗
49. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, V. B. Patil, B. E. Bhojaraja, T. M. Yunus Khan, and N. Almakayeel. A review of 3D printing of geopolymer composites for structural and functional applications. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 400, No. February, 2023, id. 132869.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132869 ↗
50. Wan-En, O., L. Yun-Ming, H. Cheng-Yong, M. M. A. B. Abdullah, H. L. Ngee, P. Pakawanit, et al. Acid-resistance of one-part geopolymers: Sodium aluminate and carbonate as alternative activators to conventional sodium metasilicate and hydroxide. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 404, No. September, 2023, id. 133264.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133264 ↗
51. Shilar, F. A., S. V. Ganachari, and V. B. Patil. Investigation of the effect of granite waste powder as a binder for different molarity of geopolymer concrete on fresh and mechanical properties. Materials Letters, Vol. 309, No. October 2021, 2022, id. 131302.10.1016/j.matlet.2021.131302 ↗
52. Al-Noaimat, Y. A., S. H. Ghaffar, M. Chougan, and M. J. Al-Kheetan. A review of 3D printing low-carbon concrete with one-part geopolymer: Engineering, environmental and economic feasibility. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 18, No. October 2022, 2023, id. e01818.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01818 ↗
53. Islam, A., U. J. Alengaram, M. Z. Jumaat, I. I. Bashar, and S. M. A. Kabir. Engineering properties and carbon footprint of ground granulated blast-furnace slag-palm oil fuel ash-based structural geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 101, 2015, pp. 503–521.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.10.026 ↗
54. Garces, J. I. T., A. B. Beltran, R. R. Tan, J. M. C. Ongpeng, and M. A. B. Promentilla. Carbon footprint of self-healing geopolymer concrete with variable mix model. Cleaner Chemical Engineering, Vol. 2, No. May, 2022, id. 100027.10.1016/j.clce.2022.100027 ↗
55. Jegan, M., R. Annadurai, and P. R. Kannan Rajkumar. A state of the art on effect of alkali activator, precursor, and fibers on properties of geopolymer composites. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 18, No. January, 2023, id. e01891.10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01891 ↗
56. Neupane, K. Evaluation of environmental sustainability of one-part geopolymer binder concrete. Cleaner Materials, Vol. 6, No. 2, 2022, id. 100138.10.1016/j.clema.2022.100138 ↗
57. Saini, G. and U. Vattipalli. Assessing properties of alkali activated GGBS based self-compacting geopolymer concrete using nano-silica. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 12, 2020, id. e00352.10.1016/j.cscm.2020.e00352 ↗
58. Xie, J. and O. Kayali. Effect of SP on workability enhancement of Class F and Class C fly ash-based geopolymers. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 122, 2016, pp. 36–42.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.067 ↗
59. Pandurangan, K., M. Thennavan, and A. Muthadhi. Studies on effect of source of flyash on the bond strength of geopolymer concrete. Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 5, No. 5, 2018, pp. 12725–12733.10.1016/j.matpr.2018.02.256 ↗
60. de Hita, M. J. and M. Criado. Influence of superplasticizers on the workability and mechanical development of binary and ternary blended cement and alkali-activated cement. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 366, No. January, 2023, id. 130272.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.130272 ↗
61. Bakharev, T., J. G. Sanjayan, and Y. B. Cheng. Effect of admixtures on properties of alkali-activated slag concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 30, No. 9, 2000, pp. 1367–1374.10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00349-5 ↗
62. Lloyd, N. A. and B. V. Rangan. Geopolymer concrete with fly ash. 2nd International Conference on sustainable construction Materials and Technologies, Vol. 7, 2010, pp. 1493–1504.
63. Kandagaddala, R. K., S. V. Dhanapal, and P. Nanthagopalan. Rheological characterization of limestone calcined clay cement pastes with various generations of superplasticizers for pumping applications. Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 76, No. March, 2023, id. 107410.10.1016/j.jobe.2023.107410 ↗
64. Sha, S., S. Mantellato, S. A. Weckwerth, Z. Zhang, C. Shi, and R. J. Flatt. Do superplasticizers work the way we think? New insights from their effect on the percolation threshold of limestone pastes. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 172, No. July, 2023, id. 107235.10.1016/j.cemconres.2023.107235 ↗
65. Vora, P. R. and U. V. Dave. Parametric studies on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete. Procedia Engineering, Vol. 51, 2013, pp. 210–219.10.1016/j.proeng.2013.01.030 ↗
66. Sherwani, A. F. H., K. H. Younis, R. W. Arndt, and K. Pilakoutas. Performance of self-compacted geopolymer concrete containing fly ash and slag as binders. Sustainability, Vol. 14, No. 22, Nov. 2022.10.3390/su142215063 ↗
67. Rajendrana, R., D. S. Kumar, K. Megan, P. Muneswaren, D. Senthilvel, B. Shri, et al. Strength analysis of geopolymer concrete based on fly ash and P-sand. Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 47, 2021, pp. 5489–5492.10.1016/j.matpr.2021.08.032 ↗
68. Almutairi, A. L., B. A. Tayeh, A. Adesina, H. F. Isleem, and A. M. Zeyad. Potential applications of geopolymer concrete in construction: A review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 15, No. August, 2021, id. e00733.10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00733 ↗
69. Mahmood, A. H., S. J. Foster, and A. Castel. Effects of mixing duration on engineering properties of geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 303, No. April, 2021, id. 124449.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124449 ↗
70. Negahban, E., A. Bagheri, and J. Sanjayan. Pore structure profile of ambient temperature-cured geopolymer concrete and its effect on engineering properties. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 406, No. April, 2023, id. 133311.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133311 ↗
71. Kugler, F., J. Karrer, W. Krcmar, and U. Teipel. Setting behavior and mechanical properties of concrete rubble fly ash geopolymers. Open Ceramics, Vol. 11, May, 2022, id. 100286.10.1016/j.oceram.2022.100286 ↗
72. Asadi, I., M. H. Baghban, M. Hashemi, N. Izadyar, and B. Sajadi. Phase change materials incorporated into geopolymer concrete for enhancing energy efficiency and sustainability of buildings: A review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 17, No. March, 2022, id. e01162.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01162 ↗
73. Amran, M., A. Al-Fakih, S. H. Chu, R. Fediuk, S. Haruna, A. Azevedo, et al. Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: An in-depth review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 15, No. August, 2021, id. e00661.10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00661 ↗
74. Çelik, A.İ., Y. O. Özkılıç, A. Bahrami, and I. Y. Hakeem. Mechanical performance of geopolymer concrete with micro silica fume and waste steel lathe scraps. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 19, October, 2023, id. e02548.10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02548 ↗
75. Martínez, A. and S. A. Miller. A review of drivers for implementing geopolymers in construction: Codes and constructability. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, Vol. 199, October, 2023, id. 107238.10.1016/j.resconrec.2023.107238 ↗
76. Mayhoub, O. A., E. S. A. R. Nasr, Y. Ali, and M. Kohail. Properties of slag based geopolymer reactive powder concrete. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, Vol. 12, No. 1, 2021, pp. 99–105.10.1016/j.asej.2020.08.013 ↗
77. Chandra, S. and J. Björnström. Influence of cement and superplasticizers type and dosage on the fluidity of cement mortars - Part I. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 32, No. 10, 2002, pp. 1605–1611.10.1016/S0008-8846(02)00839-6 ↗
78. Kapeluszna, E. and K. Chrabąszcz. Mutual compatibility of superplasticizers (PC, SNF), grinding aids (TEA, glycol) and C3A in Portland cement systems – Hydration, rheology, physical properties and air void characteristics. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 373, January, 2023, id. 130877.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130877 ↗
79. De Schutter, G., M. Ezzat, K. Lesage, and R. Hoogenboom. Responsive superplasticizers for active rheology control of cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 165, No. January, 2023, id. 107084.10.1016/j.cemconres.2022.107084 ↗
80. Gupta, N., A. Gupta, K. K. Saxena, A. Shukla, and S. K. Goyal. Mechanical and durability properties of geopolymer concrete composite at varying superplasticizer dosage. Materials Today: Proceedings, Vol. 44, 2021, pp. 12–16.10.1016/j.matpr.2020.05.646 ↗
81. Triwulan, M., P. Wigestika, and J. J. Ekaputri. Addition of superplasticizer on geopolymer concrete. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 11, No. 24, 2016, pp. 14456–14462.
82. Palacios, M., Y. F. Houst, P. Bowen, and F. Puertas. Adsorption of superplasticizer admixtures on alkali-activated slag pastes. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 39, No. 8, 2009, pp. 670–677.10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.05.005 ↗
83. Palacios, M. and F. Puertas. Effect of superplasticizer and shrinkage-reducing admixtures on alkali-activated slag pastes and mortars. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35, No. 7, 2005, pp. 1358–1367.10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.10.014 ↗
84. Sathonsaowaphak, A., P. Chindaprasirt, and K. Pimraksa. Workability and strength of lignite bottom ash geopolymer mortar. Journal of Hazardous Materials, Vol. 168, No. 1, 2009, pp. 44–50.10.1016/j.jhazmat.2009.01.120 ↗
85. Jang, J. G., N. K. Lee, and H. K. Lee. Fresh and hardened properties of alkali-activated fly ash/slag pastes with superplasticizers. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 50, 2014, pp. 169–176.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.09.048 ↗
86. Bong, S. H., B. Nematollahi, A. Nazari, M. Xia, and J. Sanjayan. Efficiency of different superplasticizers and retarders on properties of ‘one-part’ fly ash-slag blended geopolymers with different activators. Materials (Basel), Vol. 12, No. 20, 2019, id. 3410.10.3390/ma12203410 ↗
87. Yin, W., X. Li, Y. Chen, Y. Wang, M. Xu, and C. Pei. Mechanical and rheological properties of High-Performance concrete (HPC) incorporating waste glass as cementitious material and fine aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 387, No. December 2022, 2023, id. 131656.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.131656 ↗
88. Rifaai, Y., A. Yahia, S. Aggoun, and E. H. Kadri. Rheology and mechanical performance of self-consolidating hybrid-geopolymer concrete as a sustainable construction material. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 314, No. PB, 2022, id. 125633.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125633 ↗
89. Wang, W., C. Fan, B. Wang, X. Zhang, and Z. Liu. Workability, rheology, and geopolymerization of fly ash geopolymer: Role of alkali content, modulus, and waterbinder ratio. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 367, No. November 2022, 2023, id. 130357.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.130357 ↗
90. Gadkar, A. and K. V. L. Subramaniam. Porosity and pore structure control in cellular geopolymer using rheology and surface tension modifiers. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 323, No. December 2021, 2022, id. 126600.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.126600 ↗
91. Zhang, D. W., K. F. Zhao, F. Zhu Xie, H. Li, and D. Min Wang. Rheology and agglomerate structure of fresh geopolymer pastes with different Ms ratio of waterglass. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 250, 2020, id. 118881.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118881 ↗
92. Zhang, D. W., K. F. Zhao, F. Zhu Xie, H. Li, and D. Min Wang. Effect of water-binding ability of amorphous gel on the rheology of geopolymer fresh pastes with the different NaOH content at the early age. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 261, 2020, id. 120529.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120529 ↗
93. Panda, B., C. Unluer, and M. J. Tan. Extrusion and rheology characterization of geopolymer nanocomposites used in 3D printing. Composites Part B: Engineering, Vol. 176, No. August, 2019, id. 107290.10.1016/j.compositesb.2019.107290 ↗
94. Revathi, T. and R. Jeyalakshmi. Fly ash–GGBS geopolymer in boron environment: A study on rheology and microstructure by ATR FT-IR and MAS NMR. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 267, 2021, id. 120965.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120965 ↗
95. Hadi, M. N. S., H. Zhang, and S. Parkinson. Optimum mix design of geopolymer pastes and concretes cured in ambient condition based on compressive strength, setting time and workability. Journal of Building Engineering, Vol. 23, No. February, 2019, pp. 301–313.10.1016/j.jobe.2019.02.006 ↗
96. Neville, J. J. B. A. M. Concrete technology by A. M. Neville and J.J- By EasyEngineering.net, Vol. 2, 2010, pp. 1–434.
97. Wu, X., Y. Shen, and L. Hu. Performance of geopolymer concrete activated by sodium silicate and silica fume activator. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 17, No. August, 2022, id. e01513.10.1016/j.cscm.2022.e01513 ↗
98. Shen, P., P. Han, T. Guo, R. Wang, W. Song, X. Bai, et al. Study on the Setting and Hardening Process of red mud-coal metakaolin geopolymer concrete by Electrochemical Impedance Spectroscopy. International Journal of Electrochemical Science, Vol. 17, No. 11, 2022, id. 221158.10.20964/2022.11.56 ↗
99. Arunkumar, K., M. Muthukannan, A. Suresh kumar, and A. Chithambar Ganesh. Mitigation of waste rubber tire and waste wood ash by the production of rubberized low calcium waste wood ash based geopolymer concrete and influence of waste rubber fibre in setting properties and mechanical behavior. Environmental Research, Vol. 194, No. October 2020, 2021, id. 110661.10.1016/j.envres.2020.110661 ↗
100. Tran, M. V., T. H. Vu, and T. H. Y. Nguyen. Simplified assessment for one-part 3D-printable geopolymer concrete based on slump and slump flow measurements. Case Studies in Construction Materials, Vol. 18, No. September 2022, 2023, id. e01889.10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e01889 ↗