Next Article in Journal
Factors Affecting Synthesized C-S-H CO2 Uptake: Initial Alkalinity and Ca/Si
Previous Article in Journal
The Impact of Using Information Systems on Project Management Success Through the Mediator Variable of Project Risk Management: Results from Construction Companies
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 15
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings15081262
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

An Investigation of Key Mechanical and Physical Characteristics of Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Road Infrastructure Applications

by
Adam Kmiotek
1,
Beata Figiela
1,
Michał Łach
1,2,
Lyazat Aruova
3 and
Kinga Korniejenko
1,2,*
1
Faculty of Materials Engineering and Physics, Cracow University of Technology, 37 Jana Pawła II Street, 31-864 Cracow, Poland
2
Interdisciplinary Center for Circular Economy, Cracow University of Technology, Warszawska 24, 31-155 Cracow, Poland
3
Faculty of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Gumilyov Eurasian National University, Kazhymukan Str. 13, r205, Astana 010008, Kazakhstan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2025, 15(8), 1262; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081262
Submission received: 1 March 2025 / Revised: 2 April 2025 / Accepted: 9 April 2025 / Published: 11 April 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Building Materials, and Repair & Renovation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

One of the most important areas of the construction industry is road infrastructure. It plays a crucial role in the economy of various countries. Today’s roads must withstand long-term temperature and load differences, but some of the infrastructure cannot survive these tests, and after one severe winter, there may be asphalt cracks and holes that need to be repaired. This problem requires new applications and more resistant materials. Geopolymers are potential candidates. This class of material as a building material for roads has the potential to withstand frost and salt. The aim of the study herein is to demonstrate the mechanical and physical properties of a composite geopolymer made from fly ash, coal shale, nanosilica, and carbon fiber for potential application in road infrastructure. The research and experiments herein will serve to determine whether geopolymers are suitable for replacing traditional concrete in road construction processes. The following research methods were applied: SEM, XRF, XRD, compressive strength testing, abrasion, and investigation of freeze–thaw resistance in a climatic chamber. The results confirm the potential possibility of applying geopolymer compositions in road infrastructure, including sufficient mechanical properties such as ca. 38 MPa and freeze–thaw resistance, as shown by mass loss of about 1.7%, as well as sufficient abrasion resistance, as shown by mass loss of about 4%.

1. Introduction

More and more stringent regulations regarding ecological solutions are forcing us to move away from traditional concrete; in the production of concrete, a ton of CO2 is produced from each ton of raw material produced [1,2]. The possible solutions are associated with the replacement of a part of traditional concrete with waste or industrial by-products, as well as the design of alternative materials such as geopolymers [3,4]. The second approach seems to be a more long-term approach to solving this problem. Geopolymers are the ecological alternative in construction to traditional cement, which is usually ordinary Portland cement [5,6]. One of the most important areas of construction is road infrastructure; a large part of the economy of various countries is based on it. Because of this, even partly replacing traditional materials with more ecological ones can bring about large-scale effects. Today’s roads have to not only fulfill strength requirements but must also withstand long-term temperature and load differences; some infrastructure cannot withstand these tests, and after one severe winter, asphalt cracks and holes may need to be repaired. This kind of construction also has to withstand frost and salt, which would prevent construction in many countries [7,8].
Previous investigations have shown the possibility of applying geopolymers as a material for road construction, including the application of industrial by-products such as fly ash or slag for material preparation [9,10]. Particular attention should be paid to the use of local waste for this purpose in order to limit the cost of transportation and the pollution connected to them. However, the implementation of such waste products seems very attractive; it has to be stressed that different waste streams have slightly different characteristics depending on local conditions, and because of that, they require additional research before application [11,12]. In some use cases, such kinds of waste, alongside computer methods, can play an important role in the optimization of geopolymers’ composition [13].
Another important factor is obtaining proper compositions of used materials, which should include the prevention of cracking. One of the most popular methods of avoiding this phenomenon is the addition of fibers. Most previous research confirms the possibility of the application of different fibers for this purpose [14,15]. In this case, the best results are obtained by using carbon fibers. They not only prevent cracking but also do not influence compressive strength and enhance the flexural strength and fracture tongues of materials [16,17,18]. When steel fibers are used, they are not harmful in the case of material surface degradation, for example, as a result of surface abrasion.
In recent years, micro- and nano-additives have also emerged as points of interest for scientists, as a potential admixture to compositions made especially for roads [8]. Even a small amount of this additive can significantly affect the properties of the material. Currently, mineral nano-additives, such as nano-silica and nano-clays, are the most intensively researched solutions used in road construction, especially if we consider concrete applications [8,19,20]. The other popular group is that of metal compounds [8,21]. Both metals and ceramics may be classified into one group of inorganic nano-additives. The addition of nanoparticles to this group could have different purposes. The most common are catalytic applications [22]; enhancement of the physical and rheological properties, including the increased durability of asphalt mixtures [21,23]; improved rutting resistance [24]; fatigue properties; and temperature resistance [24,25]. Despite a lot of benefits, the usage of nano-additives also brings some challenges. In the case of inorganic ones, the basic issue is their poor affinity to the organic materials used in road composition [26,27]. In the case of geopolymers (inorganic compounds), this problem does not appear.
Despite a relatively large amount of research in the field of geopolymers with nano-additives, geopolymer nanocomposites have not been widely investigated with the intention of applying them in the road industry. However, other investigations into geopolymers with nano-additives have shown their potential as a construction material, including some pavement technologies. Among others, one promising additive seems to be nano-silica, and research works have shown its potential to improve the mechanical properties of geopolymers. Previous works have shown that it enhances mechanical and rheological properties [28,29,30], resistance to sulfate attack [31], durability [32], and thermal resistance [33,34]. In the case of metal and metal oxide nanoparticles, investigations have focused mainly on the addition of titanium dioxide and photocatalytic properties [35]. Other types of compounds have been investigated in the area of antimicrobial properties and improving compressive strength [33,36].
The literature gap shows the necessity of designing more complex materials for road construction. The main motivation for the choice of this topic stemmed from questions regarding the feasibility, economic viability, and environmental impact of using geopolymers compared to traditional concrete. This article presents the process of research and experiments carried out to confirm the suitability of geopolymers for road infrastructure. The aim of the work was to determine the possibility of using geopolymer composites as materials for road infrastructure. The work included the synthesis of geopolymer materials and the examination of selected mechanical and physical properties.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

For the geopolymer sample preparation, the following ingredients were used: fly ash from a power plant Skawina (CHP Skawina, Skawina, Poland); coal shale—a by-product from mining from the Silesia mine (Silesia mine, Czechowice-Dziedzice, Poland); short carbon fibers—3 mm (R&G GmbH, Waldenbuch, Germany); and nano-silica (Nanografi Nano Technology, Ankara, Turkey). The additives were selected to improve the material properties required for road application and give a synergic effect [37]. Fly ash, carbon fiber, and nano-silica were used in an unaltered state. The coal shale, before its usage, was calcinated to improve its reactivity during geopolymer synthesis. At first, the coal shale was crushed, ground, and sifted through a special sieve to separate it from larger unground items. Then, the material was processed by calcination (a thermal activation) to remove carbon residues and achieve appropriate reactive microstructures. This process took place at a temperature of 800 °C for 24 h. In the next step, the material was characterized according to its chemical and mineralogical composition as well as its microstructure.

2.2. Raw Material Analysis

2.2.1. Fly Ash

In the first step, the elemental and oxide compositions were investigated to confirm the suitability of the material for the geopolymerization process, as shown in Table 1 and Table 2.
The elemental composition of fly ash showed the content of the typical elements such as silicon and aluminum. The analyzed fly ash also included an amount of iron (above 16%) and other elements, such as potassium, calcium, titanium, and sulfur. This composition is typical of fly ash from the energy industry [38].
Figure 1 presents the results of the investigation of the mineral composition of the fly ash. The presented fly ash fulfilled the requirements for fly ash class F, following ASTM C618, including a CaO value of 4.576% (<10%), a total SiO2 + Al2O3+ Fe2O3 value of 87.751% (>70%) and SO3 of 1.395% (<5%) [39]. This kind of fly ash is suitable for geopolymerization processes and should create a proper material structure [11,40].
The presented pattern shows that among the crystalline ingredients of fly ash, the main mineralogical components are quartz (49.5%) and mullite (46.5%). The quartz does not influence the reactivity of the material, but in the final composition, it allows the required strength to be obtained [41]. Mullite is also hardly reactive; it reacts with alkaline solutions to a limited degree [42]. However, mullite, similar to quartz, can ensure that the final products have enhanced strength and durability [43,44]. XRD analysis shows a small amount of hematite (1.7%) and anhydrite (2.4%).
SEM observations for the material are presented in Figure 2.
Fly ash is characterized by the presence of many spherical particles. This kind of particle usually gives the fresh paste good workability and allows the amount of water used to be reduced [45].

2.2.2. Coal Shale

According to the data presented in Table 1, coal shale is mainly composed of silicon, aluminum, and iron. It also includes other elements, such as potassium, calcium, titanium, and sulfur. Table 2 shows the oxide composition. The main component in this case is SiO2. In the material, there is also a significant amount of Al2O3 and Fe2O3. All of these elements are supportive of a geopolymerization reaction.
Figure 3 presents the results of the investigation of the mineral composition of coal shale “Silezia” after the calcination process.
The presented pattern shows the crystalline ingredients of the milled coal shale “Silezia”. The main component is quartz, with 43.3%, followed by muscovite, with 45.9%. The quartz, just as in the case of the fly ash, plays the role of filler in the material, allowing the required strength of the final composition to be obtained [41]. Muscovite is only partly reactive and can be challenging when trying to obtain a proper geopolymer microstructure, in comparison with kaolinite, even after calcination [46]. However, when this mineral is present, the geopolymerization process at a temperature above 70 °C seems to be important for the efficiency of the process, as well as ensuring a high pH value [46,47,48]. XRD analysis shows a certain amount of hematite (6.4%) and anhydrite (4.4%). The presence of these minerals is higher than in fly ash, but still not very high. The lack of kaolinite in the analysis is caused by its change into an amorphous phase, becoming metakaolin after the calcination process. This mineral normally appears in coal shale [40,49].
SEM observations of the material are presented in Figure 4.
The microstructure investigation in the case of coal shale shows sharp elements with irregular shapes, which are an effect of grinding the material.

2.2.3. Nano-Silica

According to the data presented in Table 1 and Table 2, nano-silica is mainly composed of SiO2, which is also confirmed by the XRD analysis in Figure 5.
Silicon oxide is an ingredient of nano-silica. The material has a highly amorphous character.
SEM observations of the material are presented in Figure 6.
The nano-silica has particles of a regular shape; the small particles are very often agglomerated into larger clusters, which is more visible with higher magnification. To work effectively, nano-silica should be divided into smaller particles to be effectively integrated into the geopolymer matrix.

2.2.4. Carbon Fibers

For the carbon fibers, SEM observations are presented in Figure 7.
SEM investigation confirmed the regular character of the fibers. The measurements show that they all have a diameter of about 7 µm and smooth surfaces.

2.3. Samples Preparation

The day before the samples’ preparation, a 10 molar solution of a mixture of hydrated sodium hydroxide flakes with aqueous sodium silicate type R-145 (molar module 2.5, density 1.45 g/cm3) in a ratio of 1:2.5 was synthesized. It was stored in laboratory conditions to equalize the concentrations. Next, the samples were made. To prepare the samples, the dry ingredients of the mass were combined (Table 3), and then an alkaline solution was added to them.
The geopolymer composite was made based on FA with the addition of coal gangue, carbon fibers, and nano-silica. Each component was planned for the improvement of material properties. The role of coal gangue was the reinforcement of mechanical properties and lowering costs by using industrial by-products. CFs should enhance flexural strength and work against cracking in changeable preparations. Nano-silica should also improve physical and mechanical properties, including resistance against friction and limited water absorption. The reference sample was created based on FA to compare if the above additions brought about the expected effects.
The mass prepared in this way was mixed in a special laboratory mixer for 10 min. After this time, the geopolymer mass was transferred to appropriate forms, and the molds were placed on a vibrating table to remove air bubbles. The scheme of the samples’ preparation is presented in Figure 8.
Then, the samples were placed in the oven for 24 h at 75 °C. The time was due to the laboratory’s schedule, and the setting time was between 8 and 12 h. The next day, they were unmolded and left in laboratory conditions for development for 28 days.

2.4. Methods

The elemental and oxide composition were investigated by X-ray fluorescence (XRF). The research was performed using the EDX-7200 from the company SHIMADZU (SHIMADZU EUROPA GmbH, Duisburg, Germany) and the software PCEDX Navi (Version: EDX-7000P). The materials were powdered, put into plastic, and covered by polypropylene foil. They were measured in an air atmosphere.
The mineralogical composition was measured by X-ray diffraction (XRD). The measurements were made using AERIS from the company Malvern PANalytical (PANalytical, Almelo, The Netherlands). The test was performed using a copper lamp. The detailed parameters of the machine’s settings were as follows: starting and ending angle—9.999–100 °2 Ɵ; measurement step—0.0027166 °2 Ɵ; time for measurement—340.425 s; total testing time—13 h 2 min 32 s; nickel filter; a 13 mm mask; knife in the low position; and a 1 mm gap. The measurements were made using powdered samples.
To study the microstructure, a JSM-IT200 InTouchScope™ scanning electron microscope (JEOL, Tokyo, Japan) was used. The samples were placed in a pot using carbon tape and covered by a gold layer to obtain conductivity. The observations were made at different magnifications; additionally, an automatic virtual ruler was involved in checking the grains’ dimensions.
Density was measured by using the geometric method by employing a caterpillar and laboratory weight. The test involved three samples of each type.
The compressive strength test was performed using MATEST (Matest, Treviolo, Italy). The test was provided according to the standard PN-EN 12390-3:2019 for the testing of concrete—Part 3: the Compressive strength of test specimens [50]. Samples with dimensions of 50 mm × 50 mm × 50 mm were used for this test. The test involved three samples of each type.
The abrasion resistance was investigated using a Böhme disk (Matest, Treviolo, Italy). The main element of this device is an iron horizontal disc with a diameter of 750 mm and a 200 mm test track used to position specimens. The maximum speed of rotation was 30 rpm. The initial force was 294 ± 3 N on the specimen. The test consisted of abrading the sample surface using corundum powder (20 g of artificial corundum for each cycle). A single cycle consisted of 22 revolutions of the Böhme dial. Abrasion wear was measured after 16 cycles on each sample, and after each cycle, the sample was rotated 90° to ensure uniform abrasion in all directions. The samples used for the test were cubes of 50 mm × 50 mm × 50 mm. The sample height and weight were determined before and after the test. The test involved three samples of each type.
This process of investigating freeze–thaw resistance intended to examine the percentage of each sample’s weight loss over cycles of freezing and thawing (as a simulation of changeable temperature during the year in countries such as Poland and Kazakhstan) in a climatic chamber (WeissTechnik GMbH, Reiskirchen-Lindenstruth, Germany). Before starting the study, the samples were weighed; their weight was recorded, and then they were transferred to a chamber where they were exposed to cycles of temperature changes from −40 °C to 80 °C (Table 1). Samples were tested in such cycles for 24 h. Each cycle lasted 90 min, which translates into 16 cycles per day, as shown in Table 4.
The entire study took 36 days. This value was estimated taking into consideration the predicted lifetime of the material for the road (10 years) and the number of days with a transition to 0 °C in Poland (57) [51].

3. Results

3.1. Density

The results of the density measurements are presented in Table 5.
The additives allowed for a reduction in the weight of the composition. This weight reduction is desirable if it does not significantly affect mechanical properties [52,53]. In the case of building materials, a reduction in weight is connected with a decrease in the cost of transportation and CO2 emissions [54,55].

3.2. Mechanical Properties—Abrasion and Compressive Strength

The results of compressive strength are presented in Table 6.
Compressive strength is a basic parameter for cementitious materials. The investigated composition obtained very good compression strength, taking into consideration that they it was a paste without aggregates. The compressive strength was almost 35 MPa for the reference sample and almost 38 MPa for the reference sample. The minimum requirement for bicycle paths, sidewalks, and forest roads is 30 MPa [56]. The addition of fine aggregate or coarse aggregate can increase this value within the composition.
Additionally, the abrasion resistance was tested, as shown in Table 7.
The additives improved the abrasion resistance of the geopolymers. Compared to reference samples, a lower mass loss was noted. These properties are important for road applications, especially to ensure the proper durability, fatigue performance, rutting resistance, and wear resistance of the composition [57,58].

3.3. Freeze–Thaw Resistance and Visual Assessment

The results of the investigation of freeze–thaw resistance are presented in Table 8.
The additives enhanced the freeze–thaw resistance of the geopolymers. The obtained results show good resistance against conditions typical of many countries in central Europe and central Asia. The most important ingredient that plays a role in the improvement of this property is nano-silica. Another investigation confirmed their influence on freeze–thaw resistance [32]. The mechanics reinforced by fibers may also be responsible for better material coherence, especially the prevention of the propagation of microcracks in the material [56].
Additionally, some visual observations of selected samples were made after the friction test. They were half-submerged in the water and were sprinkled with road salt. The main aim of this experiment was to visually assess any changes in possible conditions during the late autumn or early spring season in temperate climates, where salt is commonly used as a medium to counteract ice on the road (Figure 9).
After 1 week, no significant changes were noted. The salt did not significantly influence the structure of the material. Most of the salt was left in solid form; only a small amount was dissolved (Figure 9a). After 1 month, visible efflorescence appeared on the material. This phenomenon can also occur in geopolymers without the presence of salt [59]. It did not significantly influence the salt’s behavior (Figure 9b). In both cases, there was a lack of reaction between the geopolymer composites and salt.

3.4. Microstructure Investigation

Microstructural analysis of the geopolymer composites was performed using SEM, as shown in Figure 10.
The observed matrix is typical of geopolymer materials [60,61]. At a large magnification, undissolved particles from fly ash with a spherical shape can be observed (Figure 10). There is no incoherence or agglomeration of the additives visible in the matrix.
For the selected point, EDS analysis is also provided (Figure 11 and Table 9).
The composition presented in Table 9 is in line with the investigation performed for the raw materials and the typical composition of geopolymers [40]. The main ingredients are SiO2 and Al2O3, which build the main structure of the materials. The analysis did not show any compounds of iron, but it has to be stressed that EDS is a qualitative not quantitative analysis, and it was performed only for one point. The presence of Na2O is an effect of activation by solutions with this ingredient.
In Figure 12, the mineralogical composition of the geopolymer composite is presented.
Compared to the raw materials, some minerals were still present in the composition, including quartz, mullite, and hematite. The difference in their proportion is due to a method that shows only the composition of the crystalline phase. In the geopolymer composition, new phases are also visible. These are illite and albite. The occurrence of illite is a result of the transformation of muscovite, which is a component of coal shale [62]. The presence of albite is an effect of the interaction of Si-O and Al-O monomers with the alkaline activators [63,64]. Also, it should be noted that anhydrite, which is a component of fly ash and coal shale, is not visible in the geopolymer composition. It is an effect of the dissolution of this phase in the alkaline medium to form the subsequent geopolymer network [62]. The phases present in the raw materials transformed to create new crystalline components visible in the XRD patterns, as well as an amorphous geopolymer network that is not visible using this kind of analysis.

4. Discussion and Future Studies

The preliminary results show the high relevance of the properties of the geopolymer composition for road applications. Information about the obtained results and a comparison with basic requirements are presented in Table 10.
In the case of scaling up this technology for practical application, further investigation is required. The most important area of research should include the following aspects.
  • Environmental safety, including leaching tests for ready compositions; despite the raw materials not showing hazardous components, environmental safety should be additionally confirmed before further applications.
  • Additional research for material durability, also in corrosive environments and on the polluted surface, as well as reactions with carbon dioxide; the surface has to be resistant to the most popular pollutants on the road, i.e., those associated with acid rain and other elements that potentially can appear on the road, including oils.
  • Long-term cracking resistance—freeze–thaw studies should be continued for longer periods, e.g., for 25 years. Additionally, there should be experiments with extreme cold or high humidity.
The above tests should be carried out before the first stage of scalability and real-world applications on a medium scale. Next steps may involve improving compositions with additional components, such as nano-titanium dioxide, which can be applied to obtain other desired properties, including photocatalytic ones. Also, before application on a wider scale, technology has to be improved, as well as the process of production. There are also some limitations connected to wider applications of geopolymers, including a lack of proper standards for these materials, which can make practical application on a wider scale (beyond experimental installations) difficult.

5. Conclusions

A new material dedicated to road application has been synthesized and investigated. The most important results are as follows.
  • The chemical composition (elemental and oxide) of the final composition is in line with investigations performed for raw materials and typical compositions of geopolymers. The main ingredients are SiO2 and Al2O3, which build the main structure of the material.
  • The mineralogical composition is a geopolymer material based on quartz, mullite, and hematite that is not transformed during the geopolymerization process, alongside other components, such as illite and albite, that are the results of the manufacturing process.
  • The additives allow for a reduction in the weight of the composition from 1.78 to 1.53 g/cm3.
  • The compressive strength of the investigated paste is almost 35 MPa for the reference sample and almost 38 MPa for the reference sample. The addition of fine aggregate or coarse aggregate can increase the value of this composition.
  • The additives improve the abrasion resistance of geopolymers. Compared to the reference samples, a lower mass loss was noted.
  • The additives enhance the freeze–thaw resistance of the geopolymers.
  • Visual observation of samples with a salt layer showed that salt does not significantly influence the structure of the material.
  • Microstructure investigation showed a structure typical of geopolymer materials. At a large magnification, in the structure, we observed some undissolved particles which came from fly ash. No incoherence or agglomeration of the additives was visible in the matrix.
The preliminary results show the high relevance of the properties of geopolymer compositions for road applications. However, for practical applications, further investigations are required to confirm the environmental safety of the material in leaching tests, alongside additional research on material durability. Moreover, material synthesis with the usage of additional components, such as nano-titanium dioxide, can be applied to obtain other desired properties, including photocatalytic ones.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, K.K.; methodology, K.K. and M.Ł.; validation, B.F., M.Ł. and L.A.; formal analysis, A.K.; investigation, A.K. and B.F.; resources, K.K. and M.Ł.; data curation, A.K.; writing—original draft preparation, A.K. and K.K.; writing—review and editing, L.A.; visualization, A.K. and B.F.; supervision, K.K.; project administration, K.K.; funding acquisition, K.K. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the project titled “Development of geopolymer composites as a material for protection of hazardous wrecks and other critical underwater structures against corrosion” under the M-ERA.NET 3 program by the Polish National Centre for Research and Development, grant number M-ERA.NET3/2021/71/MAR-WRECK/2022.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article; further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Abbreviations

  • The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EDSEnergy-dispersive X-ray spectroscopy
SEMScanning electron microscopy
XRDX-ray diffraction
XRFX-ray fluorescence
XRFX-ray fluorescence

References

  1. Belaïd, F. How Does Concrete and Cement Industry Transformation Contribute to Mitigating Climate Change Challenges? Resour. Conserv. Recycl. Adv. 2022, 15, 200084. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Barbhuiya, S.; Kanavaris, F.; Das, B.B.; Idrees, M. Decarbonising Cement and Concrete Production: Strategies, Challenges and Pathways for Sustainable Development. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 86, 108861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Mohd Tahir, M.F.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Abd Rahim, S.Z.; Mohd Hasan, M.R.; Saafi, M.; Putra Jaya, R.; Mohamed, R. Potential of Industrial By-Products Based Geopolymer for Rigid Concrete Pavement Application. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 344, 128190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Sharma, U.; Gupta, N.; Saxena, K.K. Comparative Study on the Effect of Industrial By-Products as a Replacement of Cement in Concrete. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 44, 45–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Rihan, M.A.M.; Onchiri, R.O.; Gathimba, N.; Sabuni, B. Mix Design Approaches of Eco-Friendly Geopolymer Concrete: A Critical Review. Hybrid Adv. 2024, 7, 100290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Cong, P.; Du, R.; Gao, H.; Chen, Z. Comparison and Assessment of Carbon Dioxide Emissions between Alkali-Activated Materials and OPC Cement Concrete. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. (Engl. Ed.) 2024, 11, 918–938. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Shi, C.; Zhao, R.; Wang, W.; Zhang, S. Effect of Load on Bonding Properties and Salt Freeze-Thaw Resistance of Bridge Expansion Joint Concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 411, 134680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Korniejenko, K.; Nykiel, M.; Choinska, M.; Jexembayeva, A.; Konkanov, M.; Aruova, L. An Overview of Micro- and Nano-Dispersion Additives for Asphalt and Bitumen for Road Construction. Buildings 2023, 13, 2948. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qin, Z.; Yuan, Y.; Chen, Z.; Li, Y.; Xia, Y. Combined Preparation and Application of Geopolymer Pavement Materials from Coal Slurry-Slag Powder-Fly Ash Mining Solid Waste: A Case Study. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 441, 137510. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Azad, N.M.; Samarakoon, S.M.S.M.K. Utilization of Industrial By-Products/Waste to Manufacture Geopolymer Cement/Concrete. Sustainability 2021, 13, 873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Korniejenko, K.; Halyag, N.; Mucsi, G. Fly Ash as a Raw Material for Geopolymerisation—Chemical Composition and Physical Properties. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 706, 012002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Al Biajawi, M.I.; Embong, R.; Muthusamy, K.; Ismail, N.; Obianyo, I.I. Recycled Coal Bottom Ash as Sustainable Materials for Cement Replacement in Cementitious Composites: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 338, 127624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Zeng, Y.; Chen, Y.; Liu, Y.; Wu, T.; Zhao, Y.; Jin, D.; Xu, F. Prediction of Compressive and Flexural Strength of Coal Gangue-Based Geopolymer Using Machine Learning Method. Mater. Today Commun. 2025, 44, 112076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Min, W.; Jin, W.; He, X.; Wu, R.; Chen, K.; Chen, J.; Xia, J. Experimental Study on the Flexural Fatigue Performance of Slag/Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete Reinforced with Modified Basalt and PVA Hybrid Fibers. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 94, 109917. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Rashad, A.M. Effect of Steel Fibers on Geopolymer Properties—The Best Synopsis for Civil Engineer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 246, 118534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wang, T.; Fan, X.; Gao, C.; Qu, C.; Liu, J.; Yu, G. The Influence of Fiber on the Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete: A Review. Polymers 2023, 15, 827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Sharma, U.; Gupta, N.; Bahrami, A.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Verma, M.; Berwal, P.; Althaqafi, E.; Khan, M.A.; Islam, S. Behavior of Fibers in Geopolymer Concrete: A Comprehensive Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, D.; Vitse, J.; Vandeginste, V.; Yang, Q.; Li, J. Study on the Fracture Performance of Carbon Fiber Reinforced Recycled Powder-Based Geopolymer Composites. In Proceedings of the RILEM Spring Convention and Conference 2024, Milan, Italy, 10–12 April 2024; Ferrara, L., Muciaccia, G., Trochoutsou, N., Eds.; RILEM Bookseries. Springer Nature: Cham, Switzerland, 2025; Volume 55, pp. 71–79, ISBN 978-3-031-70276-1. [Google Scholar]
  19. Shafabakhsh, G.A.; Sadeghnejad, M.; Ahoor, B.; Taheri, E. Laboratory Experiment on the Effect of Nano SiO2 and TiO2 on Short and Long-Term Aging Behavior of Bitumen. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 237, 117640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Golestani, B.; Nam, B.H.; Moghadas Nejad, F.; Fallah, S. Nanoclay Application to Asphalt Concrete: Characterization of Polymer and Linear Nanocomposite-Modified Asphalt Binder and Mixture. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 32–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Filippi, S.; Cappello, M.; Merce, M.; Polacco, G. Effect of Nanoadditives on Bitumen Aging Resistance: A Critical Review. J. Nanomater. 2018, 2018, 2469307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Jin, H.; Lee, T.M.; Choi, H.; Kim, K.-S. Effects of Process Variables for NO Conversion by Double-Layered Photocatalytic Mortar with TiO2 Nanoparticles. J. Ind. Eng. Chem. 2023, 117, 461–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Bhat, F.S.; Mir, M.S. Performance Evaluation of Nanosilica-Modified Asphalt Binder. Innov. Infrastruct. Solut. 2019, 4, 63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Amini, A.; Ziari, H.; Saadatjoo, S.A.; Hashemifar, N.S.; Goli, A. Rutting Resistance, Fatigue Properties and Temperature Susceptibility of Nano Clay Modified Asphalt Rubber Binder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 267, 120946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Tan, Y.; Xie, J.; Wang, Z.; Li, K.; He, Z. Effect of Halloysite Nanotubes (HNTs) and Organic Montmorillonite (OMMT) on the Performance and Mechanism of Flame Retardant-Modified Asphalt. J. Nanopart. Res. 2023, 25, 74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Karnati, S.R.; Oldham, D.; Fini, E.H.; Zhang, L. Surface Functionalization of Silica Nanoparticles to Enhance Aging Resistance of Asphalt Binder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 211, 1065–1072. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Debbarma, K.; Debnath, B.; Sarkar, P.P. A Comprehensive Review on the Usage of Nanomaterials in Asphalt Mixes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 361, 129634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Yi, C.; Boluk, Y.; Bindiganavile, V. Preparation of Geopolymers with Nanosilica and Water-in-Air Pickering Emulsion: Mechanisms Underlying Its Rheology, Polymerization, and Strength. Langmuir 2024, 40, 11436–11449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mohammed, A.A. Engineering Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Composites Incorporated Recycled Plastic Aggregates Modified with Nano-Silica. J. Build. Eng. 2023, 75, 106942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Vanitha, N.; Revathi, T.; Jeyalakshmi, R. Influence on Rheology and Microstructure of Nanosilica and Modified Polycarboxylate in Water-Glass-Activated Fly Ash/Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Geopolymers. ChemistrySelect 2023, 8, e202203491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Hashemi, A.; Mousavi, S.S.; Nazarpour, H.; Dehestani, M. Effect of Nano-SiO2 and Sulfate Solutions Curing on Bond Strength of GGBFS-Based Geopolymer Repairing Mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 435, 136778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Shi, J.; Shen, Y.; Zhang, W.; Fu, Y.; Kong, X. Effects of Three Different Nanomaterials on the Properties and Microstructure of Sludge Based Geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 414, 134965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Drabczyk, A.; Kudłacik-Kramarczyk, S.; Korniejenko, K.; Figiela, B.; Furtos, G. Review of Geopolymer Nanocomposites: Novel Materials for Sustainable Development. Materials 2023, 16, 3478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Khater, H.M.; Gharieb, M. Synergetic Effect of Nano-Silica Fume for Enhancing Physico-Mechanical Properties and Thermal Behavior of MK-Geopolymer Composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 350, 128879. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peturai, P.; Sanguanpak, S.; Chiemchaisri, C.; Chiemchaisri, W.; Lu, M.C. Photocatalytic Removals of Imidacloprid Insecticide in TiO2- and Fe2O3-Immobilized Porous Geopolymer Granules. Chemosphere 2024, 362, 142940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Shumuye, E.D.; Mehrpay, S.; Fang, G.; Li, W.; Wang, Z.; Uge, B.U.; Liu, C. Influence of Novel Hybrid Nanoparticles as a Function of Admixture on Responses of Engineered Geopolymer Composites: A Review. J. Build. Eng. 2024, 86, 108782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Ünal, M.T.; Gökçe, H.S.; Ayough, P.; Alnahhal, A.M.; Şimşek, O.; Nehdi, M.L. Nanomaterial and Fiber-Reinforced Sustainable Geopolymers: A Systematic Critical Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2023, 404, 133325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Alterary, S.S.; Marei, N.H. Fly Ash Properties, Characterization, and Applications: A Review. J. King Saud Univ. Sci. 2021, 33, 101536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Wardhono, A. Comparison Study of Class F and Class C Fly Ashes as Cement Replacement Material on Strength Development of Non-Cement Mortar. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 288, 012019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Bazan, P.; Figiela, B.; Kozub, B.; Łach, M.; Mróz, K.; Melnychuk, M.; Korniejenko, K. Geopolymer Foam with Low Thermal Conductivity Based on Industrial Waste. Materials 2024, 17, 6143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Stefanini, L.; Ansari, D.; Walkley, B.; Provis, J.L. Characterisation of Calcined Waste Clays from Kaolinite Extraction in Alkali-Activated GGBFS Blends. Mater. Today Commun. 2024, 38, 107777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Deng, Y.; Zhang, Z.; Hu, J.; Yu, Q.; Shi, C. Fundamental Study on Reactive Components and Leaching Kinetics of Ceramic Waste for Geopolymer Production. Compos. Part B Eng. 2025, 295, 112211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Saini, G.; Vattipalli, U. Assessing Properties of Alkali Activated GGBS Based Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Nano-Silica. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2020, 12, e00352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Thatikonda, N.; Mallik, M.; Rao, S.V.; Dubey, S. Performance and Microstructural Characterization of Sustainable Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete with Multi-Component Binders. Sustain. Chem. Pharm. 2025, 44, 101926. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Korniejenko, K.; Łach, M.; Marczyk, J.; Ziejewska, C.; Halyag, N.; Mucsi, G. Fly Ash as a Raw Material for Geopolymerisation-Mineralogical Composition and Morphology. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019, 706, 012006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. El Khomsi, A.; Gharzouni, A.; Sobrados, I.; Bourbon, X.; Michau, N.; Rossignol, S. A MAS-NMR Analysis of 29Si, 27Al and 1H on the Temperature’s Impact on Geopolymer Grouts Derived from Argillite and Metakaolin. J. Non-Cryst. Solids 2024, 642, 123163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Knauss, K.G.; Thomas, J.W. Muscovite Dissolution Kinetics as a Function of pH and Time at 70 °C. Geochim. Cosmochim. Acta 1989, 53, 1493–1501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Guo, L.; Liu, J.; Zhou, M.; An, S. Effect of an Alkali Activators on the Compressive Strength and Reaction Mechanism of Coal Gangue-Slag-Fly Ash Geopolymer Grouting Materials. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 426, 136012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ziejewska, C.; Bąk, A.; Hodor, K.; Hebda, M. Eco-Friendly Coal Gangue and/or Metakaolin-Based Lightweight Geopolymer with the Addition of Waste Glass. Materials 2023, 16, 6054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. EN 12390-3:2019; Testing of Concrete—Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny: Warsaw, Poland, 2020.
  51. Klimada 2.0. Available online: https://klimada2.ios.gov.pl/liczba-dni-z-przejsciem-przez-0-c/ (accessed on 11 February 2025).
  52. John, S.K.; Nadir, Y.; Girija, K. Effect of Source Materials, Additives on the Mechanical Properties and Durability of Fly Ash and Fly Ash-Slag Geopolymer Mortar: A Review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 280, 122443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shehata, N.; Mohamed, O.A.; Sayed, E.T.; Abdelkareem, M.A.; Olabi, A.G. Geopolymer Concrete as Green Building Materials: Recent Applications, Sustainable Development and Circular Economy Potentials. Sci. Total Environ. 2022, 836, 155577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Sizirici, B.; Fseha, Y.; Cho, C.-S.; Yildiz, I.; Byon, Y.-J. A Review of Carbon Footprint Reduction in Construction Industry, from Design to Operation. Materials 2021, 14, 6094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Aminzadegan, S.; Shahriari, M.; Mehranfar, F.; Abramović, B. Factors Affecting the Emission of Pollutants in Different Types of Transportation: A Literature Review. Energy Rep. 2022, 8, 2508–2529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Korniejenko, K.; Łach, M.; Mikuła, J. The Influence of Short Coir, Glass and Carbon Fibers on the Properties of Composites with Geopolymer Matrix. Materials 2021, 14, 4599. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Kuna, E.; Bögöly, G. Overview of Mechanical Degradation of Aggregates, Related Standards, and the Empirical Relations of the Parameters. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2024, 83, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bibitha, L.; Durgalakshmi, S.; Athiappan, K. Evaluation of Strength, Wear, and Skid Resistance in Pavement Quality Concrete with Partial Replacement of Steel Slag. Matéria 2025, 30, e20240636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Luhar, S.; Luhar, I.; Gupta, R. Durability Performance Evaluation of Green Geopolymer Concrete. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2022, 26, 4297–4345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yalcinkaya, B.; Spirek, T.; Bousa, M.; Louda, P.; Růžek, V.; Rapiejko, C.; Buczkowska, K.E. Unlocking the Potential of Biomass Fly Ash: Exploring Its Application in Geopolymeric Materials and a Comparative Case Study of BFA-Based Geopolymeric Concrete against Conventional Concrete. Ceramics 2023, 6, 1682–1704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kozub, B.; Dudek, J.; Melnychuk, M. The Effect of Oil Additives on the Properties of Fly Ash-Based Foamed Geopolymers. Materials 2024, 17, 5819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Tome, S.; Nana, A.; Tchakouté, H.K.; Temuujin, J.; Rüscher, C.H. Mineralogical Evolution of Raw Materials Transformed to Geopolymer Materials: A Review. Ceram. Int. 2024, 50, 35855–35868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Chuewangkam, N.; Kidkhunthod, P.; Pinitsoontorn, S. Direct Evidence for the Mechanism of Early-Stage Geopolymerization Process. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2024, 21, e03539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Xu, X.; Bao, S.; Zhang, Y.; Luo, Y.; Qin, L.; Li, S. Role of Particle Fineness and Reactive Silicon-Aluminum Ratio in Mechanical Properties and Microstructure of Geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 313, 125483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 15 01262 g001
Figure 1. XRD patterns for fly ash.
Figure 1. XRD patterns for fly ash.
Buildings 15 01262 g001
Buildings 15 01262 g002
Figure 2. SEM images of fly ash: (a) magnification 1500×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Figure 2. SEM images of fly ash: (a) magnification 1500×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Buildings 15 01262 g002
Buildings 15 01262 g003
Figure 3. XRD patterns for coal shale “Silezia”.
Figure 3. XRD patterns for coal shale “Silezia”.
Buildings 15 01262 g003
Buildings 15 01262 g004
Figure 4. SEM images of coal shale: (a) magnification 2000×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Figure 4. SEM images of coal shale: (a) magnification 2000×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Buildings 15 01262 g004
Buildings 15 01262 g005
Figure 5. XRD patterns for nano-silica. The red line is a result of the invastigation (the same as on the previous patterns). Other colors are supportive lines generated by the program to show different phases. The green one is just a shape and the blue ones are market peaks for the phase.
Figure 5. XRD patterns for nano-silica. The red line is a result of the invastigation (the same as on the previous patterns). Other colors are supportive lines generated by the program to show different phases. The green one is just a shape and the blue ones are market peaks for the phase.
Buildings 15 01262 g005
Buildings 15 01262 g006
Figure 6. SEM images of nano-silica: (a) magnification 1800×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Figure 6. SEM images of nano-silica: (a) magnification 1800×; (b) magnification 1000× with marked selected particles sizes.
Buildings 15 01262 g006
Buildings 15 01262 g007
Figure 7. SEM images of carbon fibers: (a) magnification 850×; (b) magnification 3300× with marked selected fibers’ diameters.
Figure 7. SEM images of carbon fibers: (a) magnification 850×; (b) magnification 3300× with marked selected fibers’ diameters.
Buildings 15 01262 g007
Buildings 15 01262 g008
Figure 8. Scheme of samples’ preparation.
Figure 8. Scheme of samples’ preparation.
Buildings 15 01262 g008
Buildings 15 01262 g009
Figure 9. Sample of geopolymer composition sprinkled with road salt: (a) after 1-week exposition; (b) after 1-month exposition.
Figure 9. Sample of geopolymer composition sprinkled with road salt: (a) after 1-week exposition; (b) after 1-month exposition.
Buildings 15 01262 g009
Buildings 15 01262 g010aBuildings 15 01262 g010b
Figure 10. SEM images of geopolymer composite: (a) magnification 120×; (b) magnification 400×; (c) magnification 600×; (d) magnification 1500×.
Figure 10. SEM images of geopolymer composite: (a) magnification 120×; (b) magnification 400×; (c) magnification 600×; (d) magnification 1500×.
Buildings 15 01262 g010aBuildings 15 01262 g010b
Buildings 15 01262 g011
Figure 11. EDS analysis for the selected point of the geopolymer composite: (a) SEM figure with specific points selected for analysis; (b) plot with information about peaks for particular elements.
Figure 11. EDS analysis for the selected point of the geopolymer composite: (a) SEM figure with specific points selected for analysis; (b) plot with information about peaks for particular elements.
Buildings 15 01262 g011
Buildings 15 01262 g012
Figure 12. XRD patterns of the geopolymer composite.
Figure 12. XRD patterns of the geopolymer composite.
Buildings 15 01262 g012
Table 1. Elemental analysis of the used raw materials.
Table 1. Elemental analysis of the used raw materials.
ElementFly AshCoal ShaleNano-Silica
Si44.331%43.476%99.760%
Al20.016%20.677%---
Fe16.526%22.448%0.009%
K7.448%6.250%---
Ca7.364%2.146%---
Ti2.119%1.776%0.005%
S1.109%1.460%0.126%
Mn0.236%0.208%0.019%
Sr0.229%0.087%---
V0.192%0.158%---
Zn0.094%0.089%0.001%
Zr0.082%0.058%---
Cu0.051%0.068%0.008%
Ni0.031%0.164%---
Others0.172%0.075%0.072%
Table 2. Oxide analysis of used raw materials.
Table 2. Oxide analysis of used raw materials.
OxideFly AshCoal ShaleNano-Silica
SiO253.525%51.875%99.863%
Al2O324.866%24.891%---
Fe2O39.360%13.896%0.002%
CaO4.576%1.599%0.004%
K2O4.217%3.490%---
TiO21.506%1.352%---
SO31.395%1.755%0.074%
P2O5---0.447%---
V2O50.127%0.126%---
MnO0.122%0.119%---
SrO0.091%0.038%---
ZnO0.040%0.040%0.001%
ZrO20.037%0.029%---
Cr2O30.037%0.220%0.006%
CuO0.022%0.035%0.003%
NiO---0.031%---
Others0.086%0.055%0.048%
Table 3. Sample composition.
Table 3. Sample composition.
SampleFly Ash [g]Coal Gangue from Silesia Mine [g]Carbon Fiber [g]Nano-Silica [g]Solution 10M
[g]
Reference sample (REF)2344---930
Geopolymer composite (GP)2000320168930
Table 4. The basic parameters of investigation in a climatic chamber.
Table 4. The basic parameters of investigation in a climatic chamber.
StepTime [min]T [°C]
temperature stabilization023
holding temperature15−40
heating30up to 80
holding temperature1580
cooling30up to −40
Table 5. Density.
Table 5. Density.
SampleWeight [g]Volume [g/cm3]Density [g/cm3]
REF232.04129.471.78
GP205.25132.91.53
Table 6. Compressive strength.
Table 6. Compressive strength.
SampleCompressive Strength [MPa]Standard Deviation [MPa]
REF34.907.80
GP37.708.19
Table 7. Abrasion resistance of geopolymer composites.
Table 7. Abrasion resistance of geopolymer composites.
SampleWeight Before TestWeight After Test% Change
REF232.04221.634.48
GP205.25196.87 4.08
Table 8. Freeze–thaw resistance of geopolymer composites in a climatic chamber.
Table 8. Freeze–thaw resistance of geopolymer composites in a climatic chamber.
SampleWeight Before TestWeight After Test% Change
REF209.99206.101.85
GP204.01200.521.71
Table 9. Oxide composition from EDS analysis.
Table 9. Oxide composition from EDS analysis.
Oxide Composition Mass wt. %Molar Ratio [%]
Na2O5.61 ± 0.256.39 ± 0.28
MgO0.66 ± 0.091.16 ± 0.17
Al2O335.41 ± 0.5824.52 ± 0.40
SiO255.88 ± 0.8565.65 ± 1.00
K2O1.55 ± 0.121.16 ± 0.09
CaO0.89 ± 0.101.13 ± 0.13
Table 10. Key properties of geopolymers for road applications.
Table 10. Key properties of geopolymers for road applications.
No Investigated ParameterResultsAdvantages in Road Construction
1Density1.53 g/cm3There are a lack of formal requirements. Relatively low density is an advantage for pre-casting elements for pavements.
2Compressive strength37.70 MPaThe compressive strength determines the class of road where the material can be used. There are possible applications in maneuvering areas, storage areas, for making road surfaces, sidewalks, access roads, and parking lots.
3Abrasion resistanceThe test shows low abrasion resistance.There are a lack of formal requirements. Low abrasion resistance is connected to longer predicted time of road usage.
4Freeze–thaw resistance The results suggest that the material should be resistant for a minimum of 10 years The minimum period for road usage is fulfilled. Further tests are required.
5Salt resistancePreliminary tests suggest resistance against salt.There are a lack of formal requirements. However, from a practical point of view, the materials must be resistant against salt used as an anti-slip layer during the winter.
6MicrostructureTypical structure for a geopolymer material.A geopolymer material should be durable in different conditions. Further tests are required.
7Chemical compositionMainly silica and aluminia. There are a lack of hazardous elementsThe material has the potential to be safe for the environment. Further tests are required.
8Mineralogical compositionAlbite, mullite, illite, quartzThere is a lack of regulation. Minerals should be considered safe for the environment.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kmiotek, A.; Figiela, B.; Łach, M.; Aruova, L.; Korniejenko, K. An Investigation of Key Mechanical and Physical Characteristics of Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Road Infrastructure Applications. Buildings 2025, 15, 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081262

AMA Style

Kmiotek A, Figiela B, Łach M, Aruova L, Korniejenko K. An Investigation of Key Mechanical and Physical Characteristics of Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Road Infrastructure Applications. Buildings. 2025; 15(8):1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081262

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kmiotek, Adam, Beata Figiela, Michał Łach, Lyazat Aruova, and Kinga Korniejenko. 2025. "An Investigation of Key Mechanical and Physical Characteristics of Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Road Infrastructure Applications" Buildings 15, no. 8: 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081262

APA Style

Kmiotek, A., Figiela, B., Łach, M., Aruova, L., & Korniejenko, K. (2025). An Investigation of Key Mechanical and Physical Characteristics of Geopolymer Composites for Sustainable Road Infrastructure Applications. Buildings, 15(8), 1262. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings15081262

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop