Geopolymer Concrete Incorporating Fly Ash: A Comprehensive Review on Mix Design Strategies, Engineering Performance and Environmental Sustainability

Abstract

Recent concern over the shortage of driving sustainable construction material has catalyzed the level of attention that has been given to Geopolymer concrete (GPC), especially those based on the use of fly ash which is a by-product of coal combustion as a major cementing agent. This review analyses the use of fly ash in Geopolymer concrete by critically looking into the mix design strategies, engineering performance as well as environmental sustainability. The underlying chemical composition of fly ash, size and shape of the particles and reactivity play an important role in Geopolymerization and end concrete properties. Important variable parameters including alkaline activator concentration Si/Al ratio and curing conditions are expounded on in regards to their role in the strength and endurance of the mechanical processes. Fly ash GPC shows high resistance to chemical attacks, low permeability as well as thermal performance over the conventional OPC concrete. In addition, production places tremendous benefits on the environment by way of carbon emission, energy requirement and efficient use of industrial wastes. Real life applications and case studies emphasize the implementation potential of best fly ash-based GPC, some obstacles being variable material, standardisation, and cost. Key gaps in current research and future directions are established in this review to provide future sense in terms of commercialization of Geopolymer concrete in supporting the construction of sustainable infrastructure.

Introduction

The chapter reviews the use of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete (GPC) as a sustainable alternative to conventional Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete. Since OPC production contributes nearly 7% of global CO? emissions, there is growing interest in environmentally friendly construction materials. Geopolymer concrete is produced by activating aluminosilicate-rich materials, such as fly ash, with alkaline solutions instead of using cement hydration. This process forms a three-dimensional aluminosilicate gel that provides high mechanical strength, excellent chemical resistance, early strength development, fire resistance, and significantly lower carbon emissions and energy consumption. The use of fly ash, an industrial by-product of coal combustion, also supports waste utilization and the circular economy.

The performance of fly ash-based GPC depends largely on its mix design and material constituents. Key components include fly ash, alkaline activators (sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate), water, and supplementary materials such as ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), metakaolin, and rice husk ash. Class F fly ash, with high silica and alumina content and low calcium, is generally preferred for geopolymerization. Critical parameters such as the Si/Al ratio, activator concentration, liquid-to-binder ratio, and curing conditions strongly influence workability, strength, and durability. Thermal curing at 60–90°C is often recommended to achieve higher early strength, while careful optimization of mix proportions is essential to produce durable and high-performance geopolymer concrete.

Fly ash-based GPC exhibits excellent mechanical and durability properties. Properly designed mixes can achieve compressive strengths exceeding 40–60 MPa, making them suitable for structural applications. Although tensile and flexural strengths are relatively lower, they can be enhanced through fiber reinforcement. Compared with OPC concrete, GPC demonstrates superior resistance to acid and sulfate attack, chloride penetration, thermal degradation, and fire exposure due to its dense microstructure and low calcium content. Microstructural studies reveal that the primary binding phase is sodium aluminosilicate hydrate (N-A-S-H) gel, which contributes to enhanced durability and long-term performance.

From an environmental perspective, fly ash-based GPC offers substantial sustainability benefits. By replacing OPC, it can reduce CO? emissions by up to 80–90%, lower embodied energy, and minimize industrial waste disposal. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) studies consistently show reduced global warming potential and resource depletion compared with conventional concrete. The material also requires less water during production and supports green building initiatives and circular economy principles. However, the environmental advantages depend on factors such as fly ash availability, transportation distance, and the energy-intensive production of alkaline activators.

The chapter also discusses the applications, challenges, and future prospects of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. It has been successfully used in precast components, paving blocks, retaining walls, sewer pipes, marine structures, railway sleepers, and bridge girders, particularly in countries such as India and Australia. Despite its promising performance, widespread adoption is limited by the lack of standardized mix design procedures, high cost and handling challenges of alkaline activators, variability in fly ash properties, workability issues, and insufficient long-term field performance data. Future research should focus on developing standardized design guidelines, improving admixtures, reducing activator costs, and expanding long-term durability studies to facilitate broader commercial implementation. Overall, fly ash-based geopolymer concrete represents a promising sustainable construction material capable of significantly reducing the environmental impact of the construction industry while delivering excellent engineering performance.

References

[1] Singh, G. V. P. B., & Prasad, V. D. (2024). Evaluating the performance and environmental impact of low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer in comparison to OPC-based concrete. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 31(59), 66892–66910. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-024 [2] Raza, A., Ahmed, B., El Ouni, M. H., & Chen, W. (2024). Mechanical, durability and microstructural characterization of cost-effective polyethylene fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 432, 136661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.136661 [3] Alaneme, G. U., Olonade, K. A., & Esenogho, E. (2023). Critical review on the application of artificial intelligence techniques in the production of geopolymer concrete. SN Applied Sciences, 5(8), 217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-023-06332-9 [4] Sithole, N. T., Tsotetsi, N. T., Mashifana, T., & Sillanpää, M. (2022). Alternative cleaner production of sustainable concrete from waste foundry sand and slag. Journal of Cleaner Production, 336, 130399. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.130399. [5] Valizadeh Kiamahalleh, M., Gholampour, A., Ngo, T. D., & Ozbakkaloglu, T. (2024). Mechanical, durability and microstructural properties of waste-based concrete reinforced with sugarcane fiber. Structures, 67, 107019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107019. [6] Ah?skal?, A., Benli, A., Ah?skal?, M., Bayraktar, O. Y., & Kaplan, G. (2025). Sustainable geopolymer foam concrete with recycled crumb rubber and dual fiber reinforcement of polypropylene and glass fibers: A comprehensive study. Construction and Building Materials, 474, 141137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2024.141137. [7] Prasad, B. V., Anand, N., Kiran, T., Cashell, K. A., & Andrushia, D. (2024). Residual behaviour of fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete following exposure to a standard fire. Structures, 69, 107358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.istruc.2024.107358. [8] Subramanian, S., Davis, R., & Thomas, B. S. (2024). Microstructure and residual strength properties of engineered geopolymer composites (EGC) subjected to high temperatures. Journal of Building Engineering, 96, 110637. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2024.110637. [9] Petrovi?, B., Eriksson, O., & Zhang, X. (2023). Carbon assessment of a wooden single-family building – A novel deep green design and elaborating on assessment parameters. Building and Environment, 233, Article 110093. [10] Joseph, V. R., & Mustaffa, N. K. (2023). Carbon emissions management in construction operations: A systematic review. Engineering, Construction and Architectural Management, 30(3), 1271–1299. [11] Scherz, M., Kreiner, H., & Passer, A. (2023). Sustainable procurement for carbon neutrality of buildings: A Life Cycle Assessment (LCA)-based bonus/malus system to consider external cost in the bid price. Developments in the Built Environment, 14, Article 100161. [12] Liu, Z., Li, P., Wang, F., Osmani, M., & Demian, P. (2022). Building Information Modeling (BIM) driven carbon emission reduction research: A 14-year bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(19), Article 12820. [13] Livne, A., Wösten, H. A. B., Pearlmutter, D., & Gal, E. (2022). Fungal mycelium bio-composite acts as a CO?-sink building material with low embodied energy. ACS Sustainable Chemistry and Engineering, 10(37), 12099–12106. [14] Milad, A., Babalghaith, A. M., Al-Sabaeei, A. M., Dulaimi, A., Ali, A., Reddy, S. S., Bilema, M., & Yusoff, N. I. M. (2022). A comparative review of hot and warm mix asphalt technologies from environmental and economic perspectives: Towards a sustainable asphalt pavement. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(22), Article 14863. [15] Abid, M. K., Vinay Kumar, M., Arun Raj, V., & Davidson Kamala Dhas, M. (2023). Environmental impacts of the solar photovoltaic systems in the context of globalization. Ecological Engineering and Environmental Technology, 24(2), 231–240. [16] Singh, A., Biligiri, K. P., & Sampath, P. V. (2022). Engineering properties and lifecycle impacts of pervious all-road all-weather multilayered pavement. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 180, Article 106186. [17] Khorgade, P., Rettinger, M., Burghartz, A., & Schlaich, M. (2023). A comparative cradle-to-gate life cycle assessment of carbon fiber-reinforced polymer and steel-reinforced bridges. Structural Concrete, 24(2), 1737–1750. [18] Greene, J. M., Hosanna, H. R., Willson, B., & Quinn, J. C. (2023). Whole life embodied emissions and net-zero emissions potential for a mid-rise office building constructed with mass timber. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 35, Article e00528. [19] V.S. Sujitha a., S. Raja., Maher Ali Rusho b., & Simon Yishak. (2025). Advances and developments in high strength geopolymer concrete for sustainable construction. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2214-5095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e04669 [20] Chen, H., Zhang, Z., Li, J., Guo, W., Li, Y., & Zhao, Q. (2024). Impact of curing conditions on the mechanical properties and micro characteristics of alkali-activated material synthesized from industrial waste soda residue. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 21, e03675. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2024.e03675 [21] Ali, A., uz Zaman Khan, Q., Saqib Mehboob, S., Tayyab, A., Hayyat, K., Khan, D., Ul Haq, I., & Bux alias Imran Latif Qureshi, Q. (2024). Enhancing multi-objective mix design for GGBS-based geopolymer concrete with natural mineral blends under ambient curing: A Taguchi-Grey relational optimization. Ain Shams Engineering Journal, 15(5), 102708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2024.102708 [22] Niveditha, M., Chouksey, A., & Palanisamy, T. (2024). Crafting sustainability: Optimizing oxalic acid in iron carbonate binder formulation with waste iron powder for a carbon-negative impact. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (Vol. 607, pp. 259–272). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-70431-4_19 [23] Pesaramelli, M. R., Nayaka, R. R., & Siva Kumar, M. V. N. (2023). Value-added utilization of granite industry by-product in development of geopolymer paver blocks for medium traffic driveways. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 8(9), 242. https://doi.org/10.1007/s41062-023-01218-2 [24] Hameed, A. S., Chackochan, T. K., & Nagarajan, P. (2024). Feasibility of iron ore tailings in geopolymer concrete for sustainable development. In Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering (Vol. 456, pp. 337–345). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-99-9458-8_32 [25] Ghosh, A., Naga Gondaimei, R. R., & Kumar, P. (2024). Embracing sustainability in rigid pavement construction: Unveiling geopolymer concrete’s potential with incorporated reclaimed asphalt pavement aggregates. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 36(10), 04024317. https://doi.org/10.1061/JMCEE7.MTENG-17566. [26] Rohit Rawat., & Dinakar Pasla. (2025). Corrosion performance and sustainability of high-strength lightweight geopolymer concrete incorporating sintered fly ash aggregate as the coarse aggregate. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 2214-5095. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2025.e05379. [27] N. Anuja., M. Palanivel., & N. Amutha Priya. (2026). Durability characteristics of TiO2 blended flyash-based geopolymer tiles reinforced with basalt fibre. Next Materials, 2949-8228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nxmate.2025.101495.

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Vikram M K, Dr. Udayakumar G, Dr. Ajay N. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.