Available online at www.CivileJournal.

org

Civil Engineering Journal

(E-ISSN: 2476-3055; ISSN: 2676-6957)

Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

Effect of Portland Cement on Mechanical and Durability Properties

of Geopolymer Concrete at Ambient Temperature

Seick Omar Sore 1, 2, Yawo Daniel Adufu 2, Philbert Nshimiyimana 2* , Adamah Messan 2 ,
Gilles Escadeillas 3
1
Département Génie Civil de l’Institut Universitaire de Technologie / Laboratoire de Chimie et Energies Renouvelables (LaCER),
Université Nazi BONI, B.P. 1091 Bobo 01, Burkina Faso.
2
Laboratoire Eco-Matériaux et Habitats Durables (LEMHaD), Institut International d’Ingénierie de l’Eau et de l’Environnement (Institut
2iE), 01 BP 594 Ouagadougou 01, Burkina Faso.
3
Laboratoire Matériaux et Durabilité des Constructions (LMDC), UPS, INSA, Université de Toulouse, 135 Avenue de Rangueil cedex 04,
31077 Toulouse Cedex 04, France.

Received 21 January 2023; Revised 04 June 2023; Accepted 11 June 2023; Published 01 July 2023

Abstract
Environmental concerns have prompted researchers to focus on the development of alternative building materials like
geopolymer concrete. However, their implementation requires curing beyond 60°C, which limits their application on
building sites. This study aims to design a geopolymer concrete at room temperature (30 ± 5°C) in a laboratory in Burkina
Faso using a metakaolin-based geopolymer binder activated by an alkaline solution of NaOH and natural aggregates.
Portland cement type CEM I 42.5 was used by mass substitution (0 to 25%) of metakaolin to promote curing at ambient
temperature. The samples were cured for 7 to 28 days and characterized for physical, mechanical, and durability properties.
The results showed that the incorporation of 0 to 20% cement significantly improved the compressive strength from 9.9 to
30.5 MPa and the tensile strength from 1.2 to 2.2 MPa. However, Portland cement has various effects on the durability of
geopolymer concrete. It reduces the porosity accessible by water from 15 to 13% and decreases the resistance to acid attack
by increasing the mass loss from 2 to 7%. This confirms that common concrete types C20/25 or C25/30 can be casted using
geopolymer concrete on the sites in Burkina Faso once their durability is confirmed.
Keywords: Portland Cement; Metakaolin; Geopolymer Concrete; Physico-Mechanical Property; Durability.

1. Introduction
Hydraulic concrete is one of the most common building materials in the world. It is obtained by a mixture of
aggregates, water, and binder. The most widely used binder is ordinary Portland cement (OPC), and its global demand
was estimated at 3000 million tons in 2020, with a growth rate of 4.7% per year [1]. This hydraulic concrete allows the
realization of large civil engineering structures. It is relatively common nowadays to produce concrete with a
compressive strength of 20 to 40 MPa using an average cement dosage of 350 kg/m3, which is largely sufficient for the
construction of common structures. Beyond its remarkable performances and facility to implement, hydraulic concrete
has a high carbon footprint due to the use of OPC, among others. The cement industry has been a major player in global
warming because of its manufacturing process, which generates a lot of CO2 [1]. The share of global CO2 emissions from
cement production is estimated at 7% [2]. The increase in the world population combined with the increase in the
standard of living, specifically in developing countries, increases the demand for new construction. This will necessarily

* Corresponding author: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2023-09-07-04

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee C.E.J, Tehran, Iran. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

1597
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

induce an increase in the use of OPC despite its very high cost, particularly in countries like Burkina Faso, which does
not produce it. It is therefore obvious that more pollution linked to the production of OPC can be expected in the coming
years. Nowadays, the durability of hydraulic concrete is also problematic. Indeed, even if the design of concrete
structures is carried out according to standards, the degradation of concrete over time in aggressive environments has
been widely documented [3, 4]. It has been particularly observed that hydraulic concretes in corrosive environments
(coastal or marine areas) begin to deteriorate after 20 to 30 years of service, whereas they were initially designed for a
service life of at least 50 years [5].
To reduce the environmental impact of hydraulic concrete and consider its low durability in acidic environments,
recent studies have aimed to find alternative materials. The geopolymer, considered an environmentally friendly binder
obtained by alkaline activation of an aluminosilicate material, has attracted considerable attention. It has been used for
the synthesis of concrete that is less polluting than hydraulic concrete [6, 7]. It has been shown that geopolymer concrete
can reduce approximately 44-64% of greenhouse gas emissions compared to OPC [8]. However, many studies have
shown the need for the thermal curing of geopolymers to increase their engineering performance. Nath & Sarker [9]
reported that a moderate curing temperature is essential for the activation of geopolymers produced from
aluminosilicates such as fly ash if the mixture does not contain enough calcium oxide. Other studies have achieved high
initial mechanical properties as well as good durability in geopolymer concretes cured at moderately high temperatures,
ranging from 60 to 90°C [10–12]. The requirement for thermal curing is not only energy-intensive and therefore imparts
a high embodied energy and carbon footprint to the geopolymer, but it could also limit the large-scale use of geopolymer
concrete on construction sites.
To limit the need for thermal curing of geopolymers, researchers [13, 14] have shown that the addition of CaO in
the geopolymer matrix leads to the formation of C-S-H, which promotes the development of the resistance of
geopolymers at room temperature. Khan et al. [15] investigated the workability and compressive strength of a
geopolymer mortar at room temperature using ultrafine, low-calcium fly ash mixed with hydrated lime. The compressive
strengths of these geopolymers were around 100 MPa at 28 days. It should also be noted that the heat of hydration of
these cementitious materials also promotes geopolymerization kinetics. Cao et al. [16] reported that calcium aluminate
cement (CAC) in geopolymer concrete plays an important role in the development of its strength and workability at
room temperature. Fernández-Jiménez et al. [17] have shown that CAC was successfully absorbed into the geopolymer
gel, resulting in a significant improvement in the mechanical properties of metakaolin-based geopolymer cured at 85 °C.
Unfortunately, all these studies, which were able to design the geopolymer at room or moderate temperature, made
use of an expensive alkaline silicate. To date, few studies have been reported on the potential design of alkali silicate-
free geopolymer concrete based on metakaolin and at room temperature. In addition, there is abundant availability of
kaolinitic clay resources in Burkina Faso, which allows the use of clay-based materials for the design of geopolymer
concrete.
The present study aims to add value to these local materials through the design of a geopolymer concrete at room
temperature without the addition of an alkali silicate solution. This was achieved by using the calcined clay, metakaolin,
as the source of aluminosilicate, which was substituted by 0 to 25% OPC, corresponding roughly to the content of
cement of only 0 to 87.5 kg/m3 in the concrete. The addition of cement to the matrix of the geopolymer could promote
the geopolymerization reaction through the increase of CaO and the heat of cement hydration. This specifically involves
setting up a mix design for the geopolymer concrete based on the literature [18–20] and evaluating the physico-
mechanical properties and durability of the geopolymer concrete.

2. Materials and Experimental Methods

2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Aluminosilicate and Alkaline Activator
The aluminosilicate is from a kaolin-rich clayey material in Burkina Faso (Saaba: 12°22'46'' N; 1°24'38'' W and 317
m altitude) and calcined at 700 °C for 3 hours. It was called metakaolin (MK) in this article. This material has previously
been characterized and used for the synthesis of a geopolymer binder for the stabilization of earthen materials by Sore
et al. [21, 22]. The MK mainly contains silica (57.9%) and alumina (38.3%), with a molar ratio of SiO 2/Al2O3 of 2.57
(Table 1). Its physical characteristics are summarized in Table 2.

Table 1. Chemical composition of metakaolin, MK [21]

Oxide (%) SiO2 Al2O3 CaO Fe2O3 K2O _ Na2O MgO MnO2 TiO2 P2O5 LOI SiO2/Al2O3
MK 57.85 38.30 0.05 2.30 0.23 0.11 0.09 0.01 0.09 0.02 1.01 2.57

The alkaline solution used for the activation of the aluminosilicate is a 12 M NaOH solution obtained by the
dissolution of NaOH crystals (99% purity) in distilled water.

1598
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

Table 2. Physical characteristics of metakaolin and cement

Laser granulometry Specific surface area (m2/g)

Characteristics of Materials Absolute density
D50 (µm) D90 (µm) BET Blaine

Metakaolin 09 25 2.63 ± 0.01 12.74 ± 0.03 -

Cement 10 35 3.10 ± 0.03 - 0.36

2.1.2. Portland Cement and Superplasticizer

The Portland cement type CEM I 42.5 R, which has an average compressive strength of 40 MPa and is produced in
Burkina Faso by CIMFASO, was used for the substitution of MK. The CEM has a lower specific surface area (0.36
m2/g) than the MK (12.74 m2/g). The CEM also has a slightly higher grain size than MK, with median particle sizes D50
of 10 µm and 9 µm, respectively (Table 2). Therefore, MK requires more water than Portland cement to achieve a similar
consistency. This was taken into consideration by the use of the superplasticizer type DYNAMON NRG 1045, which
has a density of 1.08. This superplasticizer was chosen given its pH of 6.5 ± 1 closer to neutrality, unlike others that
have a more acidic pH and whose addition could significantly lower the basicity of the NaOH solution necessary for the
activation of the aluminosilicate.

2.1.3. Aggregates
The quartzitic sand is sampled on the banks of a river in Manga (Burkina Faso). The granitic gravel is from a
company that crushes granite rock in Koubri (Burkina Faso). The aggregates have particle sizes in the ranges of 0–2
mm and 4–8 mm, respectively, for sand and gravel. They were washed and dried at 105 °C in an oven for 24 hours and
stored in a plastic container to avoid any contamination. Figure 1 presents the particle size distribution of the aggregates.
The fineness modulus (MF) of the sand is 2.25, and its coefficient of uniformity (CU) is 2.22. This shows a wide particle
size distribution and good quality for the design of concrete. Moreover, the CU of the gravel is 1.4, which is less than 2,
meaning that its particle size is uniform.

Figure 1. Particle size distribution of aggregates

2.2. Experimental Methods

2.2.1. Samples Preparation
The composition of the granular skeleton of geopolymer concrete was determined according to the literature,
particularly referring to Pouhet & Cyr [19] and Cao et al. [16]. Six (06) mix designs were studied, corresponding to the
different content of partial substitution of metakaolin (MK) by cement (PC) from 0 to 25% at steps of 5%. Geopolymer
concrete is called GXPCY, where X and Y respectively correspond to the percentage of MK and PC in the geopolymer
binder. Table 3 presents the mix design to produce one cubic meter (1 m3) of each type of geopolymer concrete.

1599
 Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

Table 3. Mix design of geopolymer concrete

Materials (kg/m3) G100 PC0 G95 PC5 G90 PC10 G85 PC15 G80 PC20 G75 PC25
Metakaolin 350 332.5 315 297.5 280 262.5
Cement 0 17.5 35 52 70 87.5
Superplasticizer 23.82 23.82 23.82 23.82 23.82 23.82
NaOH crystals 126.4 126.4 126.4 126.4 126.4 126.4
Water 229.1 229.1 229.1 229.1 229.1 229.1
Sand 723.08 723.08 723.08 723.08 723.08 723.08
Gravels 958 958 958 958 958 958
water/binder* 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48 0.48
Superplasticizer/binder* 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
Binder* = metakaolin + NaOH crystals + Cement

The aggregates, metakaolin, and cement are first homogenized in an electric mixer. The NaOH solution and the
superplasticizer were gradually added as the mixing continued. The mixing took 5 minutes to obtain the concrete used
to fill in the cylindrical molds Ø50 mm × H100 mm for testing the physico-mechanical properties and Ø40 mm × H 60
mm for testing the durability. The molds were filled in two layers and compacted by applying 60 strokes to each layer
to reduce the air trapped in the mixture. The specimens were cured in the ambient conditions of the laboratory in
Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso (average temperature of 30 ± 5 °C; relative humidity of 50 ± 10 %) for 28 days before
testing their performances. In addition, some tests (apparent density, mechanical strength) were performed over the
curing time (2, 7, 14, and 28 days). The methodological workflow of the study is presented in Figure 2.

Powders
Workability
MK OPC Samples types
 Apparent density
Binders

Ø 50 x h 100 mm2

(0 to 25%) Physical :
Characterizations

 G100PC0  Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

 G95PC5
Solution
NaOH (12M)  G90PC10  Compressive strength
Mechanical :  Splitting tensile strength
 G85PC15
 G80PC20
Aggregates

 Attack acid
Gravels Sand Geopolymer  G75PC25 Durability :  Porosity accessible to water
(4/8) (0/2) concrete Curing at 30 C  Capillary absorption
(7, 14, 28 days)

Figure 2. Methodology workflow of study

2.2.2. Characterization of Physical Properties

The workability of the concrete was determined by measuring the slump using Abram's mini-cone Ø15 cm × Ø210
cm × H15 cm (Figure 3-a), referring to standard NF EN 12350-2 [23]. The apparent density (ρd ) was calculated using
equation 1, where Md [g] is the mass of the dry sample and V [cm3] is the volume of the sample. The compactness was
assessed by the measurement of the ultrasonic pulse velocity through the sample using a portable non-destructive
ultrasonic device (PUNDIT) of the lab, BeraTest (Figure 3-b).
Md
ρd = (1)
V

Figure 3. Experimental setups to measure a) workability of concrete, b) ultrasonic pulse velocity – Pundit

1600
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

2.2.3. Characterization of Mechanical Properties

The test of compressive strength was performed on three cylindrical specimens of each mix design using a PROETTI
hydro-electric press, which has a capacity of 300 kN. The specimens are subjected to an increasing load at a rate of 0.25
kN/s until failure. The compressive strength, RC [MPa], is the ratio of the load at failure, P [N], and the cross-section
area, S [mm2] of the specimen (Equation 2). The tensile strength was determined using a splitting tensile test (Figure 4).
It consists of measuring the load, P [N], necessary to break a cylindrical specimen subjected to linear diametral
compression. The tensile strength, RT [MPa], is calculated using Equation 3, where R [mm] is the radius and H [mm] is
the height of the sample.
P
RC = (2)
S
P
RT = (3)
πRH

Figure 4. Experimental setup for splitting tensile test

2.2.4. Durability Tests

The resistance to acid attack consists of measuring the mass loss of concrete specimens immersed in a solution of
sulfuric acid (H2SO4) whose volumetric concentration is 3% with a pH of 0.7 ± 0.05. This acid is chosen because it is
one of the acids mainly found in acidic rain and chemical plants. After curing the samples for 28 days, the concrete
specimens were immersed in the acid solution to measure the mass loss after 2, 7, 14, and 28 days of immersion. The
pH of the solution increased over the immersion time and was therefore regularly adjusted by adding more sulfuric acid
throughout the period of immersion of the samples, according to [24, 25].
The capillary water absorption capacity was measured on geopolymer concrete specimens after curing for 28 days.
The samples were immersed in water at a depth of 5 ± 1 mm to allow water ingress in the bottom-up direction. The
variation in mass was recorded over time for 24 hours. This is considered a durability indicator because it makes it
possible to evaluate the water rise in the concrete, which is an environmental agent that can transport corroding agents
in concrete structures.
The porosity accessible by water was evaluated through hydrostatic weighing of the sample after saturation by total
immersion in water. It is expressed in Equation 4, where P water [%] is the porosity accessible by water; Mair [g] is the mass
of the saturated specimen measured in air; Mwater [g] is the mass of the saturated specimen measured in water; and Mdry
[g] is the mass of the specimen dried to a constant mass at 105°C ± 5°C. This test is often used to characterize the
durability of materials with regards to the diffusion of environmental agents in concrete structures [26].
Mair −Mdry
Pwater = × 100 (4)
Mair −Mwater

The tests of capillary absorption and water-accessible porosity were carried out according to the directives of the
AFPC-AFREM cited in Ntimugura et al. [27].

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Physical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete
Workability and Apparent Density of Geopolymer Concrete

Figure 5 presents the evolution of the workability of geopolymer concretes with the substitution of metakaolin by
cement. The slump increases from 10 to 37 mm for a cement content of 0 to 15%. This increase can be explained by the
finer particle size of metakaolin and its higher water demand compared to cement. A low cement content (≤ 15%)
improves the workability of geopolymer concrete, from a very plastic consistency (𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑝 < 10 mm) to a very fluid
consistency (𝑠𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑝 ≥ 22 mm), according to the standard NF EN 12350-2 [23]. This would potentially facilitate the
implementation of this type of concrete on construction sites.

1601
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

However, beyond the cement content of 15%, the slump decreases to 14 mm and 15 mm, respectively, with 20 and
25% cement, which are still higher than the slump of the reference concrete. This decrease can be explained by the
modification of the viscosity of the mixture by the relatively high quantity of Portland cement. It can also be attributed
to the increase in calcium content through the substitution of metakaolin, which has a lower CaO content than Portland
cement (Table 1). Thus, the calcium interacts quickly with the alkaline activator to initiate the geopolymerization
reaction, which is accompanied by an exothermic reaction, resulting in a reduction in the workability of the paste. A
similar observation has been reported by Khan et al. [15]. Aliabdo et al. [18] claim that the addition of chemical
admixtures may be needed to improve the geopolymer's workability. However, Cao et al. [16] have obtained the opposite
results, i.e., a decrease in workability with the addition of the cement, and attributed it to the increase in calcium content
and its rapid reaction with the alkaline activator.

45
40 37

35
28
30
Slump (mm)

25
20 17
15
15 14
10
10
5
0
G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25
Concrete mix design

Figure 5. Evolution of the slump of geopolymer concretes with cement content

Figure 6 presents the evolution of the apparent density of geopolymer concretes with cement content and curing
time. Firstly, there is a slight decrease in density with curing time, which is probably related to the loss of part of the
water contained in the geopolymer matrix under the effect of geopolymerization between the metakaolin and the alkaline
solution. This decrease corroborates the results of Pouhet et al. [19], who showed that the water contained in the
geopolymer paste evaporated easily over the curing time. However, a slight increase in the density of the samples was
observed with the cement content, more specifically for the curing times of 14 and 28 days (2.07 to 2.17 g/cm3). This
increase in density may be partly related to the fact that the specific density of metakaolin (2.63g/m 3) is lower than that
of cement (3.10 g/cm3). Therefore, the partial substitution of MK by cement would cause an increase in the density of
the concrete matrix. It can also be related to the densification (reduction of internal porosity) of the concrete matrix by
the geopolymer gel. The condensation of this gel may have been improved by the heat of hydration of the cement
contained in the matrix, which increases the geopolymerization reaction. The results obtained in this study are
comparable to those presented by Joshi & Kadu [10], who found a density between 2.20 and 2.35 g/cm 3.

G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25

2.4
2.28
2.23
Apparent density (g/cm3)

2.3
2.20
2.19

2.19

2.17
2.17
2.16

2.13

2.12
2.12
2.12

2.12
2.11
2.11

2.2
2.10
2.08

2.07

2.1

2.0

1.9

1.8
7 days 14 days 28 days
Curing time

Figure 6. Evolution of the dry apparent density of geopolymer concretes with the curing time for different cement content

1602
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity

The evolution of the compactness of the different geopolymer concretes with the content of cement was assessed
through the measurement of the ultrasonic pulse velocity after 28 days of curing (Figure 7). The ultrasonic velocity
increases from 3553 to 4098 m/s, with the content of cement ranging from 0 to 20%. This reflects the densification of
the geopolymer concrete with the content of cement up to an optimal of 20%, at which better mechanical resistance can
be expected. However, the decrease in ultrasonic velocity to 3612 m/s with 25% cement would probably be due to a
modification of the molar ratio SiO2/Al2O3 in favor of calcium oxide (CaO), which may have led to adverse effects such
as a decrease in the geopolymerization reaction and microcracks in the matrix following the high rate of hydration of
CaO. This is in agreement with the results obtained on a geopolymer concrete (3420 m/s) produced by Kumar et al. [28].

4250 4098

3899 3886
4000
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (m/s)

3752
3612
3750 3553

3500

3250

3000

2750

2500
G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25
Geopolymer concrete

Figure 7. Evolution of ultrasonic pulse velocity of geopolymer concrete with the content of cement at 28 days

3.2. Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete

Compressive Strength
Figure 8-a presents the evolution of the compressive strength (R C) of geopolymer concretes with the content of
cement and the curing time. The compressive strength increases with the curing time up to 28 days for all the samples,
except the samples that do not contain cement, whose strength does not increase beyond the 14 th day of curing. The low
compressive strength observed on G85PC15 on the 7th day compared to other samples containing cement could be
explained by a phenomenon of segregation that may have taken place during the mixing. The low increase in strength
over the curing time with the cement was also observed by Mehta and Siddique [14], who estimated a variation of less
than 1% between 7 and 28 days of curing.

35
30.5

G100PC0 G95PC5
26.5

G90PC10 G85PC15
26.0

30
23.5

G80PC20 G75PC25
Compressive strength (MPa)

21.3
20.8

25
20.1

17.5

16.0
15.9

20
15.4
13.9
13.9
12.5

15
9.9
9.6
8.0

10
6.2

0
7 days 14 days 28 days
(a) Curing time

1603
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

35

Compressive strength (MPa)

30

25 y = 0.03x - 95.5
R² = 0.67
20

15

10

0
3500 3600 3700 3800 3900 4000 4100 4200
(b)
Ultrasonic pulse vilocity

Figure 8. Evolution of the compressive strength a) with the curing time and the cement content, b) ultrasonic pulse velocity

Furthermore, the compressive strength increases with the content of cement for all curing times but is much greater
at 14 and 28 days. The strength increases from 9.9 MPa to 30.5 MPa with 0% to 20% cement on the 28 th day, resulting
in a gain of the compressive strength 208% [(30.5-9.9)*100/9.9] with 20% cement compared to concrete without cement.
This gain in strength can be attributed to the formation of cementitious hydrates, which are responsible for the
development of the mechanical resistance of geopolymer concretes compared to the samples that do not contain cement.
In addition, the improvement in resistance can be explained by the positive effect of the addition of CaO from the
cement, whose heat of hydration leads to condensation of the geopolymer gel and acceleration of geopolymerization.
These results are in agreement with those of Askarian et al. [29], who also showed that the incorporation of Portland
cement in geopolymer concrete under curing at a controlled temperature of 20 ± 3 °C and relative humidity of 65 ± 10%
considerably improved its compressive strength. The substitution of MK by only 10% cement, i.e., 35 kg/m3, allows the
geopolymer concrete to be useful in common construction projects in Burkina Faso, where the concrete should have a
compressive strength of 20 to 25 MPa, i.e., class C23/25. This is also interesting in terms of the limited environmental
impacts and economic benefits that this would generate compared to the use of concrete containing up to 350 kg/m3 of
cement.
However, the compressive strength decreased to 23.5 MPa at 25% cement content; corroborating the decrease in the
ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete G75PC25 (Figure 7). In fact, a quasi-linear correlation was devised between the
evolution of the compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity (Figure 8-b). This would be explained by a reduction
in the content of geopolymer gel, which provides the bond between the particles of the matrix, due to the increase in the
content of CaO from the cement to the detriment of the content of amorphous silica and alumina from MK. In addition,
the heat of hydration, whose intensity depends on the content of the cement, would cause microcracks in the matrix and
result in a reduction in strength. Furthermore, Chen et al. [4] also showed that beyond the optimal content of CaO, the
distances between the SiO4/AlO4 tetrahedra become large, causing a decrease in geopolymerization reactions due to the
overabundance of Ca bonds at the expense of Si and Al geopolymer bonds. Thus, the additional Ca2+ precipitates into
Ca(OH)2 and OH- in the alkaline reaction medium, preventing the dissolution of Ca 2+ from the cement, which leads to a
decrease in the strength of the geopolymer concrete.

Tensile Strength

The effect of the partial substitution of metakaolin by cement was also studied on the tensile strength (R T) of
geopolymer concrete at 7, 14, and 28 days of curing (Figure 9). Just like conventional concrete, the tensile strength of
geopolymer concrete is very low compared to the compressive strength for the same mix design. However, a slight
increase in this strength was observed over the curing time. For example, the tensile strength is 0.8 MPa at 7 days and
slightly increases to 1.2 MPa at 28 days with 0% cement. Furthermore, there is also a variation in tensile strength with
the content of cement. At 28 days, the tensile strength increases from 1.2 to 2.2 MPa with 20% cement; resulting in a
ratio RC/RT of 14 for G80PC20. These results are similar to those reported by Ramujee & Potharaju [11], where the 28 th
day tensile strength of concrete of the same class of strength is 2.3 MPa.

1604
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25

2.2
2.2
2.2
2.1
2.4

2.0

1.9
1.9
2.1

1.7

1.8
Tensile strength (MPa)

1.6
1.8

1.5

1.5
1.4
1.5

1.2
1.1

0.9
1.2

0.8
0.8

0.9

0.6

0.3

0.0
7 days 14 days 28 days
Curing time

Figure 9. Evolution of the splitting tensile strength of geopolymer concrete with the curing time and the cement content

The improvement of the tensile strength with the addition of cement would be related to the formation of C-S-H type
hydrates from the hydration of cement, which are responsible for the mechanical resistance of cementitious materials.
It can also be attributed to the accelerated geopolymerization and condensation of the geopolymer gel due to the heat of
hydration of the cement.
However, the tensile strength decreased to 1.8 MPa with 25% cement cured at 28 days, and the same phenomenon
is also observed at 14 days of curing. This decrease would probably be due to an effect of inhibition of the
geopolymerization reaction linked to a considerable decrease in the content of amorphous aluminosilicate in the
metakaolin, comparable to the content of cement.
3.3. Durability of Geopolymers Concrete
Resistance to Acid Attacks
Figure 10 presents the evolution of the mass loss of geopolymer concrete soaked in a sulfuric acid solution (H 2SO4),
concentrated at 3% and pH 0.7 ± 0.05, for a continuous period of 28 days. It generally shows an increase in mass loss
for all samples with the soaking time and the content of cement, except for 15% cement, which presents a particular
variation. For all the soaking times (2 to 28 days), the maximum mass losses are recorded with the samples containing
the highest content of cement at 25% (up 7.1% after 7 days), contrarily to the geopolymer concrete without cement,
which presents the lowest mass loss (only 2.1% after 7 days). Moreover, the mass loss after 28 days of acid attack is
only 8.3% for G100PC0 against 11.4% for G75PC25. This shows the detrimental effect of cement on the resistance to acid
attacks of geopolymer concrete. This is related to the vulnerability of hydration products to sulfuric acid compared to
geopolymerization products [30].

G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25

11.4

12
9.3
8.9

10
8.3
8.4
7.3

7.3
7.1

8
Massloss (%)

5.8

6
4.2

4.2
4.1
3.8
3.8
3.5
3.5

3.2
3.0

4
2.4

2.3
2.1
1.7
1.7
1.1

0
2 days 7 days 14 days 28 days
Curing time

Figure 10. Evolution of the weight loss of geopolymer concrete exposed to acid sulfuric attack (pH of 0.7 ± 0.05)

1605
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

The increase in mass loss is attributed to the leaching of hydration products from the cementitious binder during
exposure to acid attacks [31]. It can also be attributed to the consumption of reactive silica and alumina from metakaolin
by the soluble CH to form supplementary cementitious products, which are more vulnerable to sulfuric acid. Sulfuric
acid, in addition to leaching the cementitious products, may generate ettringite, which leads to expansion and creates
microcracks that further accelerate the leaching and mass loss of the material [30].

Porosity Accessible by Water and Capillary Absorption

The effect of cement on the water-accessible porosity and capillary water absorption of geopolymer concretes is
presented in Figures 11 and 12. They show a low porosity for the concrete containing cement compared to the reference
concrete without cement. The porosity decreases from 15 to 13.2% between 0 to 20% cement (Figure 11). Moreover,
the same phenomenon is observed in capillary absorption (Figure 12), whose rate of absorption (sorptivity) also
decreases with increasing the content of cement. These confirm a possible relationship between these two parameters;
as the most porous samples would absorb the highest amount of water rapidly. The high porosity of the sample without
cement (15%) led to a very high sorptivity (4.82 kg/m2.h1/2) and saturation in only about 4 hours of capillary immersion.
However, the sample that contains 20% cement has the lowest porosity (13.2%), sorptivity (2.12 kg/m2.h1/2), and absence
of saturation up to 24 hours of capillary immersion. The water absorption depends on the characteristics of the porous
network in the material, essentially the size of the pores, their connectivity, and their shape.

16 15.0
14.0
13.8 13.6 13.7
14 13.2
Porosity accessible by water (%)

12

10

0
G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 1 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25
Geopolymer concrete

Figure 11. Evolution of the porosity accessible by the water with cement content

G100PC0 G95PC5 G90PC10 G85PC15 G80PC20 G75PC25

y = 4.82x + 0.91 y = 2.63x - 0.53 y = 2.21x - 1.08 y = 2.14x - 1.66 y = 2.12x - 1.65 y = 2.14x - 1.48
R² = 0.98 R² = 0.99 R² = 0.99 R² = 0.98 R² = 0.99 R² = 0.99
12.0
Coefficient of capillary absorption (kg/m²)

10.0

8.0

6.0

4.0

2.0

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0
Square root of time (h1/2)

Figure 12. Evolution of water capillary absorption between 1 and 24 hours

1606
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

The decrease in porosity and sorptivity with the increase in cement content is due to a densification of the geopolymer
matrix network following the heat of hydration of the cement, which favors an acceleration of the geopolymerization.
This made it possible to reduce the porous texture of the concrete matrix by closing the capillary porosity with
geopolymer gel and hydrates and increasing the discontinuity of the percolation paths. Therefore, the more cement in
the matrix, the less capillary porosity and water absorption occur in the geopolymer. These results corroborate those of
the pulse velocity (Figure 7) and the mechanical resistance (Figures 8 and 9), where the highest ultrasonic velocity is
observed on the least porous samples, also presenting the highest mechanical resistance.

4. Conclusions
This study aimed to design and characterize the engineering and durability properties of geopolymer concrete
produced using calcined clay and Portland cement type CEM I 42.5 at room temperature in the context of Burkina Faso.
The analysis of the results can lead to the following conclusions:
 The physical properties of the geopolymer concrete improved with cement, reaching a good workability
characterized by values of slump between 15 and 37 mm and thus guaranteeing its implementation on site. The
apparent density also slightly increases with the content of cement for all the curing times, and more specifically
for the curing times of 14 and 28 days. The compactness of the concrete also increased with the content of cement
in the geopolymer concrete.
 The mechanical properties generally improved when the metakaolin was partly substituted by Portland cement. At
28 days, the gain in compressive strength reached 208% for the content of cement of 20%, compared to concrete
without cement. The tensile strength of different samples changes very little with age and the content of cement.
 The durability of geopolymer concretes improved through the decrease of capillary sorptivity (4.83 kg/m2.h1/2 with
0% cement against 2.12 kg/m2.h1/2 with 20% cement) and porosity (15% with 0% cement against 13.2% with 20%
cement). However, it has been observed that cement leads to more degradation of geopolymer concrete exposed
to sulfuric acid. The mass loss is only 8.3% for geopolymer concrete without cement against 11.4% with 25%
cement after 28 days of immersion in acidic solution. Although the cement made it possible to decrease the porosity
of geopolymer concretes, it also had a very damaging effect on their resistance to acid attack.
The present study has shown the feasibility of producing geopolymer concretes without heat treatment by
substituting metakaolin with cement, which improves their engineering properties. The cement content of 10%, i.e., only
35 kg/m3, can allow the applications of geopolymer concretes class C25/30 on construction sites in Burkina Faso, with
a low environmental impact compared to its counterpart hydraulic concrete containing up to 350 kg/m3. However, further
studies should be carried out to study the microstructure of geopolymer concretes containing cement to better understand
its microbehaviors, as well as the correlation that may exist between the strength and other parameters such as the
ultrasonic pulse velocity. The possibility of using alternative mineral additions that are less polluting than Portland
cement should also be considered.

5. List of Abbreviations
Symbols Definitions Symbols Definitions
°C Degree centigrade NaOH Sodium hydroxide
Ordinary Portland cement of characteristic resistance
M Mole CEM I 42.5 R
42.5 MPa
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement MPa Mega Pascal
CO2 Carbon dioxide C-S-H Calcium Silicate Hydrate
CAC Calcium Aluminate Cement CaO Calcium Oxide
Size of the particles for which 50% of the sample is
MK Metakaolin D50
smaller
Size of the particles for which 90% of the
D90 BET Brunauer, Emmett and Teller (specific surface area)
sample is smaller
CU Coefficient of uniformity MF Fineness Modulus
Geopolymer concrete sample containing x%
GxPCy Ø Diameter of a sample
metakaolin and y% cement
H Height of a sample ρd Apparent density
Md Mass of a dry sample V Volume of a sample
RC Compressive strength P Force applied to the sample
S Cross-sectional area of a sample RT Tensile strength
R Radius of a sample H2SO4 Sulfuric acid

1607
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

Pwater Porosity accessible by water Mair Mass of a saturated sample measured in air
Mass of a sample dried to constant mass at
Mdry Mwater Mass of a saturated sample measured in water
105°C ± 5°C
SiO2 Silicon oxide Al2O3 Aluminum oxide
Fe2O3 Iron oxide K2O Potassium oxide
MgO Magnesium oxide Na2O Sodium oxide
MnO2 Manganese oxide TiO2 Titanium oxide
P2O5 Phosphorus oxide LOI Loss on ignition

6. Declarations
6.1. Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.O.S., A.M., and G.E.; methodology, S.O.S., Y.D.A., P.N., A.M., and G.E.; formal analysis,
S.O.S, Y.D.A., P.N., A.M., and G.E.; investigation, S.O.S, Y.D.A., and A.M.; resources, S.O.S. and A.M.; writing—
original draft preparation, S.O.S. and P.N.; writing—review and editing, S.O.S., Y.D.A., P.N., A.M., and G.E.;
supervision, A.M.; project administration, A.M. and G.E.; funding acquisition, A.M. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.

6.2. Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available in the article.

6.3. Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

6.4. Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the management team of Institute 2iE who accepted that these studies be carried out
within the laboratory LEMHaD. The authors acknowledge the World Bank Group under the Africa Centers of
Excellence for Development Impact (ACE Impact) Project [Grant D443-BF] and the Government of Burkina Faso
[Credit 6388-BF] for their support throughout the publication of this article.

6.5. Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

7. References
[1] Ighalo, J. O., & Adeniyi, A. G. (2020). A perspective on environmental sustainability in the cement industry. Waste Disposal and
Sustainable Energy, 2(3), 161–164. doi:10.1007/s42768-020-00043-y.

[2] Hardjito, D., Wallah, S. E., Sumajouw, D. M. J., & Rangan, B. V. (2004). On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 101(6), 467–472. doi:10.14359/13485.

[3] Kroviakov, S., Zavoloka, M., Dudnik, L., & Kryzhanovskyi, V. (2019). Comparison of Strength and Durability of Concretes
Made with Sulfate-Resistant Portland cement and Portland cement with Pozzolana Additive. Elektronički Časopis Građevinskog
Fakulteta Osijek, 19, 81–86. doi:10.13167/2019.19.8.

[4] Chen, K., Wu, D., Xia, L., Cai, Q., & Zhang, Z. (2021). Geopolymer concrete durability subjected to aggressive environments –
A review of influence factors and comparison with ordinary Portland cement. Construction and Building Materials, 279, 122496.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122496.

[5] Abhilash, P., Sashidhar, C., & Reddy, I. R. (2016). Strength properties of Fly ash and GGBS based Geo-polymer Concrete.
International Journal of ChemTech Research, 9(3), 350-356.

[6] Ali, A. A., Al-Attar, T. S., & Abbas, W. A. (2022). A Statistical Model to Predict the Strength Development of Geopolymer
Concrete Based on SiO2/Al2O3 Ratio Variation. Civil Engineering Journal (Iran), 8(3), 454–471. doi:10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-03-
04.

[7] El-Dieb, A. S., & Kanaan, D. M. (2018). Ceramic waste powder an alternative cement replacement–Characterization and
evaluation. Sustainable Materials and Technologies, 17, e00063. doi:10.1016/j.susmat.2018.e00063.

[8] McLellan, B. C., Williams, R. P., Lay, J., Van Riessen, A., & Corder, G. D. (2011). Costs and carbon emissions for geopolymer
pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland cement. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19(9–10), 1080–1090.
doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.02.010.

1608
Civil Engineering Journal Vol. 9, No. 07, July, 2023

[9] Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2015). Use of OPC to improve setting and early strength properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer
concrete cured at room temperature. Cement and Concrete Composites, 55, 205–214. doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2014.08.008.
[10] Joshi, S. V., & Kadu, M. S. (2012). Role of Alkaline Activator in Development of Eco-friendly Fly Ash Based Geo Polymer
Concrete. International Journal of Environmental Science and Development, 417–421. doi:10.7763/ijesd.2012.v3.258.
[11] Ramujee, K., & Potharaju, M. (2017). Mechanical Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Composites. Materials Today:
Proceedings, 4(2), 2937–2945. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2017.02.175.
[12] Nazari, A., Bagheri, A., Sanjayan, J. G., Dao, M., Mallawa, C., Zannis, P., & Zumbo, S. (2019). Thermal shock reactions of
Ordinary Portland cement and geopolymer concrete: Microstructural and mechanical investigation. Construction and Building
Materials, 196, 492–498. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.11.098.
[13] Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2017). Flexural strength and elastic modulus of ambient-cured blended low-calcium fly ash
geopolymer concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 130, 22–31. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.034.
[14] Mehta, A., & Siddique, R. (2017). Properties of low-calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete incorporating OPC as partial
replacement of fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 150, 792–807. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.06.067.
[15] Khan, M. Z. N., Shaikh, F. Uddin A., Hao, Y., & Hao, H. (2016). Synthesis of high strength ambient cured geopolymer composite
by using low calcium fly ash. Construction and Building Materials, 125, 809–820. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.097.
[16] Cao, Y. F., Tao, Z., Pan, Z., & Wuhrer, R. (2018). Effect of calcium aluminate cement on geopolymer concrete cured at ambient
temperature. Construction and Building Materials, 191, 242–252. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.09.204.
[17] Fernández-Jiménez, A., Palomo, Á., Vazquez, T., Vallepu, R., Terai, T., & Ikeda, K. (2008). Alkaline activation of blends of
metakaolin and calcium aluminate. Journal of the American Ceramic Society, 91(4), 1231–1236. doi:10.1111/j.1551-
2916.2007.02002.x.
[18] Aliabdo, A. A., Abd Elmoaty, A. E. M., & Salem, H. A. (2016). Effect of cement addition, solution resting time and curing
characteristics on fly ash based geopolymer concrete performance. Construction and Building Materials, 123, 581–593.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.043.
[19] Pouhet, R., & Cyr, M. (2016). Formulation and performance of flash metakaolin geopolymer concretes. In Construction and
Building Materials (Vol. 120, pp. 150–160). doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.061.
[20] Mukhametkaliyev, T., Ali, M. H., Kutugin, V., Savinova, O., & Vereschagin, V. (2022). Influence of Mixing Order on the
Synthesis of Geopolymer Concrete. Polymers, 14(21). doi:10.3390/polym14214777.
[21] Anggarini, U., & Sukmana, N. C. (2016). Synthesis and characterization of geopolymer from bottom ash and rice husk ash. IOP
Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, 107. doi:10.1088/1757-899X/107/1/012022.
[22] Sore, S. O., Messan, A., Prud’Homme, E., Escadeillas, G., & Tsobnang, F. (2020). Comparative Study on Geopolymer Binders
Based on Two Alkaline Solutions (NaOH and KOH). Journal of Minerals and Materials Characterization and Engineering,
08(06), 407–420. doi:10.4236/jmmce.2020.86026.
[23] NF EN 12350 – 2. (2019). Tests for fresh concrete - Part 2: slump test. AFNOR, Standard Organization, Paris, France.
[24] Albitar, M., Mohamed Ali, M. S., Visintin, P., & Drechsler, M. (2017). Durability evaluation of geopolymer and conventional
concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 136, 374–385. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.01.056.
[25] Mohamed, O. A., Al-Khattab, R., & Al-Hawat, W. (2022). Resistance to acid degradation, sorptivity, and setting time of
geopolymer mortars. Frontiers of Structural and Civil Engineering, 16(6), 781–791. doi:10.1007/s11709-022-0862-9.
[26] Cassagnabère, F., Lachemi, M., Mouret, M., & Escadeillas, G. (2011). Performance characterization of a ternary binder based
on cement, slag and metakaolin. Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, 38(8), 837–848. doi:10.1139/l11-043.
[27] Ntimugura, F., Sore, S. O., Bello, L., & Messan, A. (2017). The Influence of Metakaolin from Saaba (Burkina Faso) over
Physico-Mechanical and Durability Properties of Mortars. Open Journal of Civil Engineering, 07(03), 389–408.
doi:10.4236/ojce.2017.73027.
[28] Kumar, P., Pankar, C., Manish, D., & Santhi, A. S. (2018). Study of mechanical and microstructural properties of geopolymer
concrete with GGBS and Metakaolin. Materials Today: Proceedings, 5(14), 28127–28135. doi:10.1016/j.matpr.2018.10.054.
[29] Askarian, M., Tao, Z., Adam, G., & Samali, B. (2018). Mechanical properties of ambient cured one-part hybrid OPC-geopolymer
concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 186, 330–337. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.160.
[30] Alexander, M., Bertron, A., & De Belie, N. (2013). Performance of Cement-Based Materials in Aggressive Aqueous
Environments. RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports, Springer, Dordrecht, Netherlands. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5413-3.
[31] Monteny, J., Vincke, E., Beeldens, A., De Belie, N., Taerwe, L., Van Gemert, D., & Verstraete, W. (2000). Chemical,
microbiological, and in situ test methods for biogenic sulfuric acid corrosion of concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 30(4),
623–634. doi:10.1016/S0008-8846(00)00219-2.

1609