DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF POLYMER-MODIFIED GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITES INCORPORATING GGBS

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2026 | Volume : 14 | 02 | Page :
    By

    Mayuri Patil,

  • Amit Kumar Ahirwar,

  1. Research Scholar, Department of civil engineering, Rabindranath Tagore University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India
  2. Assistant Professor, Department of civil engineering, Rabindranath Tagore University, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh, India

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: Geopolymer Composites; Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS); Inorganic Polymer Matrix; Alkali Activation; C–A–S–H / N–A–S–H Gels; Composite Microstructure;

How to cite this article:
Mayuri Patil, Amit Kumar Ahirwar. DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF POLYMER-MODIFIED GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITES INCORPORATING GGBS. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(02):-.
How to cite this URL:
Mayuri Patil, Amit Kumar Ahirwar. DEVELOPMENT AND PERFORMANCE EVALUATION OF POLYMER-MODIFIED GEOPOLYMER COMPOSITES INCORPORATING GGBS. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(02):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2026/view=240495


References

  1. Li, C., Pradhan, P., Chen, G. et al.The carbon footprint of the construction sector is projected to double globally by 2050. Commun Earth Environ 6, 831 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s43247-025-02840-x
  2. Nazar, S., Iqbal, M., Yang, J., & Ashraf, M. (2025). Machine Learning-Driven Evaluation of Carbon Emissions in Geopolymer Concrete. Applied Soft Computing, 114017. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asoc.2025.114017
  3. Roviello, G., Occhicone, A., De Gregorio, E., Ricciotti, L., Cioffi, R., Ferone, C., & Tarallo, O. (2025). Geopolymer-based composite and hybrid materials: The synergistic interaction between components. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, e01404. https://doi.org/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. (2025). Engineered geopolymer composites for concrete repair: Durability behaviour and mechanistic investigation under sulfate wet-dry cycles. Journal of Building Engineering, 114323. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.114323
  7. Labaran, Y. H., Mathur, V. S., Muhammad, S. U., & Musa, A. A. (2022). Carbon footprint management: A review of the construction industry. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 9, 100531. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100531
  8. Sbahieh, S., McKay, G., Nurdiawati, A., & Al-Ghamdi, S. G. (2025). 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, 112830. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2025.112830
  9. Kanagaraj, B., Anand, N., Raj, R. S., & Lubloy, E. (2023). Techno-socio-economic aspects of Portland cement, geopolymer, and limestone calcined clay cement (LC3) composite systems: a state-of-the-art review. Construction and Building Materials, 398, 132484.https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132484
  10. Adnan, Anas, M. Geopolymer concrete as a sustainable alternative to OPC. J. Umm Al-Qura Univ. Eng. Archit. (2025). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43995-025-00155-8
  11. Ayarkwa, J., Opoku, D. G. J., Antwi-Afari, P., & Li, R. Y. M. (2022). Sustainable building processes’ challenges and strategies: The relatively necessary index approach. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 7, 100455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clet.2022.100455
  12. Firoozi, A. A., Oyejobi, D. O., & Firoozi, A. A. (2025). Innovations in energy-efficient construction: Pioneering sustainable building practices. Cleaner Engineering and Technology, 100957. https://doi.org/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, M. M., Dada, O. R., & Ikotun, B. D. (2024). Chemical fundamentals of geopolymers in sustainable construction. Materials Today Sustainability, 27, 100842 https://doi.org/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, M. A., Rees, G. J., Hanna, J. V., van Deventer, J. S., & Provis, J. L. (2016). Phase evolution of C-(N)-ASH/NASH gel blends investigated via alkali-activation of synthetic calcium aluminosilicate precursors. Cement and Concrete Research, 89, 120-135. DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2016.08.010
  18. Nasir, M., Mahmood, A. H., & Bahraq, A. A. (2024). History, recent progress, and future challenges of alkali-activated binders–An overview. Construction and Building Materials, 426, 136141. https://doi.org/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, S. G. K., Kinuthia, J. M., Oti, J., & Adeleke, B. O. (2025). Geopolymer Chemistry and Composition: A Comprehensive Review of Synthesis, Reaction Mechanisms, and Material Properties—Oriented with Sustainable Construction. Materials, 18(16), 3823. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma18163823
  21. Salim, M.U., Moro, C. Microstructural insights of geopolymer mortar containing chemosphere: effects on fresh properties and durability. Mater Struct 58, 101 (2025). https://doi.org/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. (2025, August). The assessment of the embodied carbon of resource-constrained materials, including ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and ferrous scrap. In Structures (Vol. 78, p. 109175). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2025.109175
  24. Murali, G. (2024). Recent research in mechanical properties of geopolymer-based ultra-high-performance concrete: A review. Defence Technology, 32, 67-88. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dt.2023.07.003
  25. Davidovits, J. (1991). Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials. Journal of Thermal Analysis, 37(8), 1633–1656. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01912193
  26. Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., Palomo, A., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2007). Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science, 42(9), 2917–2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z
  27. Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., Palomo, A., & van Deventer, J. S. J. (2007). Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art. Journal of Materials Science, 42(9), 2917–2933. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0637-z
  28. Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2014). Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability, and early-strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured under ambient conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 66, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
  29. Olivia, M., & Nikraz, H. (2012). Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Designed by the Taguchi Method. Materials & Design, 36, 191–198. https://doi.org/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, L. Y., Abdullah, M. M. A. B., & Bui, Q. B. (2019). Mechanical properties and microstructure analysis of FA-GGBS-HMNS-based geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 210, 198-209. https://doi.org/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. Yaolin Yi, Martin Liska, Abir Al-Tabbaa; Properties and microstructure of GGBS–magnesia pastes. Advances in Cement Research 1 April 2014; 26 (2): 114–122. https://doi.org/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. ASTM International. (2019). ASTM C192/C192M-19: Standard practice for making and curing concrete test specimens in the laboratory. ASTM International. https://doi.org/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. ASTM International. (2013). ASTM C642-13: Standard test method for density, absorption, and voids in hardened concrete. ASTM International. https://doi.org/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. ASTM International. (2014). ASTM C1260-14: Standard test method for potential alkali reactivity of aggregates (mortar-bar method). ASTM International. https://doi.org/10.1520/C1260-14
Ahead of Print Subscription Original Research
Volume 14
02
Received 10/11/2025
Accepted 27/11/2025
Published 22/04/2026
Publication Time 163 Days
11

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics