STM Journals Peer-reviewed research from Consortium e-Learning Network

Journal of Polymer & Composites Original Research Special issue

Development and Performance Evaluation of Polymer-Modified Geopolymer Composites Incorporating GGBS

  1. Mayuri Patil Department of civil engineering, Rabindranath Tagore University, Bhopal
  2. Amit Kumar Ahirwar Department of civil engineering, Rabindranath Tagore University, Bhopal

Abstract

This research investigates the development and performance of geopolymer-based composite materials formulated using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) as a reactive mineral component within an aluminosilicate polymer matrix. The study aims to create an eco-efficient and structurally sound inorganic polymer composite comparable to M35-grade concrete, produced entirely under ambient curing conditions. A series of mixes with varying GGBS replacement ratios (0–100%) was prepared, maintaining a constant binder content of 400 kg/m³ and an activator-to-binder ratio of 0.45. The polymerisation reaction between sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and sodium silicate (Na₂SiO₃) solutions facilitated the formation of a cross-linked aluminosilicate network, serving as a polymeric binder reinforced by calcium-rich GGBS particles. Mechanical testing, including compressive, flexural, and split tensile strength, as well as durability assessments such as water absorption and sorptivity, were conducted at 7, 14, and 28 days. Microstructural and spectroscopic analyses (FTIR, Raman, TGA/DTA, XRD) confirmed the development of a hybrid C–A–S–H/N–A–S–H composite gel structure, indicating strong interfacial bonding and matrix densification. The 28-day compressive strength increased from 28.8 MPa to 41.6 MPa with increasing GGBS content, while water absorption and sorptivity decreased by over 30%, demonstrating improved composite integrity and reduced permeability. The optimal mix (60–80% GGBS) delivered superior performance and sustainability, achieving nearly a 90% reduction in embodied carbon compared with OPC-based systems. Overall, this study advocates GGBS-based geopolymer concrete as a sustainable inorganic polymer composite that offers high mechanical performance, microstructural stability, and environmental compatibility for next-generation structural applications.

Keywords

References (50)

  1. Li C, Pradhan P, Chen G, Kropp JP, Schellnhuber HJ. Carbon footprint of the construction sector is projected to double by 2050 globally. Communications Earth & Environment. 2025;6(1). doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02840-x
  2. Nazar S, Iqbal M, Yang J, Ashraf M. Machine learning-driven evaluation of carbon emissions in geopolymer concrete. Applied Soft Computing. 2025;185:114017. doi:10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114017
  3. Roviello G, Occhicone A, De Gregorio E, Ricciotti L, Cioffi R, Ferone C, et al. Geopolymer-based composite and hybrid materials: The synergistic interaction between components. Sustainable Materials and Technologies. 2025;44:e01404. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2025.e01404
  4. Wu, Y., Lu, B., Bai, T., Wang, H., Du, F., Zhang, Y., ... & Wang, W. (2019). Geopolymer, green alkali-activated cementitious material: Synthesis, applications and challenges. Construction and Building Materials, 224, 930-949.
  5. Cong, P., & Cheng, Y. (2021). Advances in Geopolymer Materials: A Comprehensive Review. Journal of Traffic and Transportation Engineering (English Edition), 8(3), 283-314.
  6. Kan L, Chen B, Gan Y. Engineered geopolymer composites for concrete repair: Durability behavior and mechanistic investigation under sulfate wet-dry cycles. Journal of Building Engineering. 2025;114:114323. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2025.114323
  7. Labaran YH, Mathur VS, Muhammad SU, Musa AA. Carbon footprint management: A review of construction industry. Cleaner Engineering and Technology. 2022;9:100531. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2022.100531
  8. Sbahieh S, McKay G, Nurdiawati A, Al-Ghamdi SG. The sustainability of partial and total replacement of Ordinary Portland Cement: A deep dive into different concrete mixtures through life cycle assessment. Journal of Building Engineering. 2025;108:112830. doi:10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112830
  9. Kanagaraj B, Anand N, Samuvel Raj R, Lubloy E. Techno-socio-economic aspects of Portland cement, Geopolymer, and Limestone Calcined Clay Cement (LC3) composite systems: A-State-of-Art-Review. Construction and Building Materials. 2023;398:132484. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132484
  10. Adnan, Anas M. Geopolymer concrete as a sustainable alternative to OPC. Journal of Umm Al-Qura University for Engineering and Architecture. 2025;16(4):1223-1245. doi:10.1007/s43995-025-00155-8
  11. Ayarkwa J, Joe Opoku DG, Antwi-Afari P, Li RYM. Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relative important index approach. Cleaner Engineering and Technology. 2022;7:100455. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2022.100455
  12. Firoozi AA, Oyejobi DO, Firoozi AA. Innovations in energy-efficient construction: Pioneering sustainable building practices. Cleaner Engineering and Technology. 2025;26:100957. doi:10.1016/j.clet.2025.100957
  13. Singh, N. B., & Middendorf, B. (2020). Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: An overview. Construction and Building Materials, 237, 117455.
  14. Madirisha MM, Dada OR, Ikotun BD. Chemical fundamentals of geopolymers in sustainable construction. Materials Today Sustainability. 2024;27:100842. doi:10.1016/j.mtsust.2024.100842
  15. Amran, M., Al-Fakih, A., Chu, S. H., Fediuk, R., Haruna, S., Azevedo, A., & Vatin, N. (2021). Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: An in-depth review. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00661.
  16. Hakeem, I. Y., Zaid, O., Arbili, M. M., Alyami, M., Alhamami, A., & Alharthai, M. (2024). A state-of-the-art review of the physical and durability characteristics and microstructure behaviour of ultra-high-performance geopolymer concrete. Heliyon, 10(2).
  17. Walkley B, San Nicolas R, Sani MA, Rees GJ, Hanna JV, van Deventer JSJ, et al. Phase evolution of C-(N)-A-S-H/N-A-S-H gel blends investigated via alkali-activation of synthetic calcium aluminosilicate precursors. Cement and Concrete Research. 2016;89:120-135. doi:10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.08.010
  18. Nasir M, Mahmood AH, Bahraq AA. History, recent progress, and future challenges of alkali-activated binders – An overview. Construction and Building Materials. 2024;426:136141. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136141
  19. Akhtar, N., Ahmad, T., Husain, D., Majdi, A., Alam, M. T., Husain, N., & Wayal, A. K. S. (2022). Ecological Footprint and Economic Assessment of Conventional and Geopolymer Concrete for Sustainable Construction Journal of Cleaner Production, 380, 134910.
  20. Mohan Kumar SGK, Kinuthia JM, Oti J, Adeleke BO. Geopolymer Chemistry and Composition: A Comprehensive Review of Synthesis, Reaction Mechanisms, and Material Properties—Oriented with Sustainable Construction. Materials. 2025;18(16):3823. doi:10.3390/ma18163823
  21. Salim MU, Moro C. Microstructural insights of geopolymer mortar containing cenosphere: effects on fresh properties and durability. Materials and Structures. 2025;58(4). doi:10.1617/s11527-025-02636-7
  22. Patil, M., Boraste, S., & Minde, P. (2022). A comprehensive review of emerging trends in innovative green building technologies and sustainable materials. Materials Today: Proceedings, 65, 1813-1822.
  23. Munro D, Di Benedetto G, Graham M, Jans-Singh M, Turpin M, Kanavaris F. The assessment of the embodied carbon of resource-constrained materials including ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and ferrous scrap. Structures. 2025;78:109175. doi:10.1016/j.istruc.2025.109175
  24. Murali G. Recent research in mechanical properties of geopolymer-based ultra-high-performance concrete: A review. Defence Technology. 2024;32:67-88. doi:10.1016/j.dt.2023.07.003
  25. Davidovits J. Geopolymers. Journal of Thermal Analysis. 1991;37(8):1633-1656. doi:10.1007/bf01912193
  26. Duxson P, Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, van Deventer JSJ. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science. 2006;42(9):2917-2933. doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z
  27. Duxson P, Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, van Deventer JSJ. Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science. 2006;42(9):2917-2933. doi:10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z
  28. Nath P, Sarker PK. Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construction and Building Materials. 2014;66:163-171. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
  29. Olivia M, Nikraz H. Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by Taguchi method. Materials & Design (1980-2015). 2012;36:191-198. doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2011.10.036
  30. Gourley, J. T., & Johnson, G. B. (2005). Developments in geopolymer precast concrete. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Geopolymer Cement and Concrete (pp. 139–149). Perth, Australia: Curtin University of Technology.
  31. Patankar, S. V., Jamkar, S. S., & Ghugal, Y. M. (2015). Effect of concentration of sodium hydroxide and degree of heat curing on fly ash-based geopolymer mortar. Indian Journal of Materials Science, 2015, 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/852763
  32. Aliabdo, A. A., Abd Elmoaty, M., & Salem, H. (2016). Effect of alkali silicate and aluminate modifiers on alkali-activated slag pastes and mortars. Construction and Building Materials, 102, 997–1006. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.11.021
  33. Hewayde, E., Nehdi, M., Allouche, E., & Nakhla, G. (2006). Effect of geopolymer cement on microstructure, compressive strength and sulphuric acid resistance of concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, 58(5), 321-331.
  34. Bouaissi A, Li LY, Al Bakri Abdullah MM, Bui QB. Mechanical properties and microstructure analysis of FA-GGBS-HMNS based geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 2019;210:198-209. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.202
  35. Bellum, R. R., Muniraj, K., & Madduru, S. R. C. (2020). Influence of Activator Solution on the Microstructural and Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete. Materialia, 10, 100659.
  36. Caballero, L. R., Paiva, M. D. D. M., Fairbairn, E. D. M. R., & Toledo Filho, R. D. (2019). Thermal, mechanical, and microstructural analysis of metakaolin-based geopolymers. Materials Research, 22(02), e20180716.
  37. Thakur, I. C., Kisku, N., Singh, J. P., & Kumar, S. (2016). Properties of concrete incorporated with GGBS. International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, 5(08), 275-281.
  38. Yi Y, Liska M, Al-Tabbaa A. Properties and microstructure of GGBS–magnesia pastes. Advances in Cement Research. 2014;26(2):114-122. doi:10.1680/adcr.13.00005
  39. Xie, J., Wang, J., Rao, R., Wang, C., & Fang, C. (2019). Effects of combined usage of GGBS and fly ash on workability and mechanical properties of alkali-activated geopolymer concrete with recycled aggregate. Composites Part B: Engineering, 164, 179-190.
  40. Phoo-Ngernkham, T., Hanjitsuwan, S., Damrongwiriyanupap, N., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2017). Effect of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions on the strengths of alkali-activated high calcium fly ash containing Portland cement. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 21(6), 2202-2210.
  41. Kwek, S. Y., Awang, H., & Cheah, C. B. (2021). Influence of liquid-to-solid and alkaline activator (Sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide) ratios on fresh and hardened properties of alkali-activated palm oil fuel ash geopolymer. Materials, 14(15), 4253.
  42. Cheah, C. B., Chow, W. K., Oo, C. W., & Leow, K. H. (2020). The influence of type and combination of polycarboxylate ether superplasticiser on the mechanical properties and microstructure of slag-silica fume ternary blended self-consolidating concrete—Journal of Building Engineering, 31, 101412.
  43. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1991). IS 1489 (Part 1): Portland pozzolana cement Specification – Part 1: Fly ash based. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards. https://archive.org/details/gov.in.is.1489.1.1991
  44. C09 Committee. Practice for Making and Curing Concrete Test Specimens in the Laboratory. doi:10.1520/c0192_c0192m-19
  45. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1959). IS 1199:1959 – Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete—Bureau of Indian Standards.
  46. Bureau of Indian Standards. (2018). IS 516:2018 – Methods of tests for strength of concrete—Bureau of Indian Standards.
  47. Bureau of Indian Standards. (1999). IS 5816:1999 – Splitting tensile strength of concrete – Method of test—Bureau of Indian Standards.
  48. C09 Committee. Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete. doi:10.1520/c0642-13
  49. ASTM International. (2018). ASTM C1585-18: Standard test method for measurement of rate of absorption of water by hydraulic-cement concretes. ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/C1585-18
  50. C09 Committee. Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method). doi:10.1520/c1260-14
Support