polymers

Review
Properties of Fiber-Reinforced One-Part Geopolymers:
A Review
Guoliang Guo 1,† , Chun Lv 1, *,† , Jie Liu 2,3 and Li Wang 1

1 College of Architecture and Civil Engineering, Qiqihar University, Qiqihar 161006, China
2 College of Light-Industry and Textile Engineering, Qiqihar University, Qiqihar 161006, China
3 Engineering Research Center for Hemp and Product in Cold Region of Ministry of Education,
Qiqihar 161006, China
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-452-2-725-797
† These authors contributed equally to this work.

Abstract: Geopolymers have the advantages of low carbon, being environmentally friendly and
low price, which matches the development direction of building materials. Common geopolymer
materials are also known as two-part geopolymers (TPGs). TPGs are usually prepared from two
main substances, which are formed by polymerization of a silicoaluminate precursor and an alkaline
activator solution. The TPG has many limitations in engineering application because of its preparation
on the construction site, and the use of solid alkaline activator in one-part geopolymers (OPGs)
overcomes this shortcoming. However, the brittleness of OPGs such as ceramics also hinders its
popularization and application. The properties of the new OPG can be improved effectively by
toughening and strengthening it with fibers. This review discusses the current studies of fiber-
reinforced one-part geopolymers (FOPGs) in terms of raw precursors, activators, fibers, physical
properties and curing mechanisms. In this paper, the effects of the commonly used reinforcement
Citation: Guo, G.; Lv, C.; Liu, J.; fibers, including polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fiber, polypropylene (PP) fiber, polyethylene (PE) fiber,
Wang, L. Properties of basalt fiber and other composite fibers, on the fresh-mixing properties and mechanical properties of
Fiber-Reinforced One-Part the OPGs are summarized. The performance and toughening mechanism of FOPGs are summarized,
Geopolymers: A Review. Polymers and the workability, macroscopic mechanical properties and durability of FOPGs are investigated.
2022, 14, 3333. https://doi.org/ Finally, the development and engineering application prospect of FOPGs are prospected.
10.3390/polym14163333

Academic Editors: Pedro Jesús Keywords: one-part geopolymer; fiber-reinforced; workability; mechanical property; durability
Herrera Franco, Pedro Cortés,
Eral Bele, Eliana M. Agaliotis and
Jose Gonzalo Carrillo Baeza
1. Introduction
Received: 19 July 2022
Accepted: 9 August 2022 Geopolymer is a kind of inorganic polymer material formed by polycondensation of
Published: 16 August 2022 silicon-aluminum raw materials. It is a silicon-aluminum cementitious material produced
by mixing low-calcium natural minerals or industrial wastes with an alkaline activator. It
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
has a three-dimensional Al-Si network structure similar to that of natural zeolite. In the
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
1970s, French scientist Joesph Davidovits and his team prepared the earliest geopolymer
published maps and institutional affil-
materials by mixing alkaline solutions with calcined kaolin limestone and dolomite [1]. In
iations.
recent years, due to a wide source of raw materials, simple process, low energy consump-
tion, low environmental pollution and other excellent characteristics [2–5], the geopolymer
has been regarded as a kind of environmentally friendly silicon-aluminum inorganic ce-
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors. mentitious material, which has great development prospect and is expected to replace the
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. Portland cement [6].
This article is an open access article In fact, what is commonly referred to as alkali-excited binders is one of the geopolymer
distributed under the terms and materials [7]. Similar to other geopolymers, it refers to inorganic binders produced by the
conditions of the Creative Commons reaction of precursor materials with potential hydraulic properties and alkaline activa-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// tors [8,9]. Many studies show that alkali-activated cementitious materials have excellent
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).

Polymers 2022, 14, 3333. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym14163333 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/polymers

Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 2 of 20

physical and mechanical properties, such as fast hardening, early strength, corrosion resis-
tance, freeze–thaw resistance and thermal stability. This geopolymer has been extensively
studied by scientists and has been preliminarily applied in engineering [10].
Nowadays, to improve the toughness of geopolymers, scientists modified the matrix
materials or added fibers to improve the brittleness of geopolymers. Commonly used
reinforcement fibers include organic polymer fibers, cellulose fibers and other inorganic
fibers. Organic fibers include polyvinyl alcohol fibers (PVA) [11], polyethylene fibers (PE),
polypropylene fibers (PP) [12–14], plant straw fibers [15,16], etc. Inorganic fibers include
basalt fibers, carbon fibers [17,18], steel fibers [19–21] and other types of fibers [22]. By
toughening and strengthening the matrix of geopolymers with fibers, the optimization level
of various fibers on geopolymers was explored, including fluidity, condensation, hardening,
compressive strength, flexural strength and toughness [23,24].
The one-part geopolymers (OPGs) reviewed in this paper were usually based on
fly ash, slag, kaolin, and other waste materials were also used [25–27]. FOPGs were
synthesized by a solid state activator and toughened by fibers [28]. Usually, solid alkaline
materials, such as Na2 SiO3 , were used as the activator. Through exploring the different
material ratios, activator content, fiber type and content in the precursor, the influence
rules of the workability, mechanical properties and durability of FOPGs were analyzed.
Comprehensive studies showed that toughening and strengthening OPGs with fibers can
effectively improve their macroscopic mechanical properties, including flow characteristics,
compressive and flexural strength [29]. The microstructure of FOPG was characterized by
means of microscopic analysis, and the stress transfer between the fibers and the matrix
was explained in depth by means of microstructure analysis and comparative analysis of
macroscopic mechanical properties. At the same time, the modification mechanism of fibers
was explored to provide the basis for the structural design and engineering application
of FOPGs.

2. Two-Part Geopolymer (TPG) and One-Part Geopolymer (OPG)

The main difference between OPG and TPG is the difference in the activator. The
activator of OPG is a solid powder, and the activator of TPG is a liquid solution. The typical
preparation process of traditional TPGs is relatively clear. First, silicon-aluminum raw
materials are activated by calcination, and then, soluble alkali silicon-aluminate solution is
used to dissolve and excite. Finally, after forming the geopolymer component, it is cured at
20–120 ◦ C [30]. TPGs are prepared by reactive polymerization of silicaluminate precursors
and alkaline activator solutions, such as sodium hydroxide (NaOH), potassium hydroxide
(KOH) and sodium silicate, or their combinations.
Because traditional TPGs are prepared on construction sites, there are many limitations
in engineering applications [31,32]. First of all, the synthesis and preparation of geopoly-
mers are carried out on site, which will cause inconvenience in construction. Secondly,
the alkaline solution is highly corrosive, and the construction process must be carried out
under perfect protective measures, which hinders the large-scale use of geopolymers [33].
In addition, it is difficult to control the quality of different liquid activators, which reduces
the efficiency of mass production of geopolymers.
As activators directly affect the hydration development process of geopolymers and the
structure of hydration products, different activators have great influence on the properties
of geopolymers [34,35]. The commonly used activator types mainly include: basic metal
oxides or hydroxide, alkaline earth metal oxides or their hydroxides; non-silicate system
weak acid salts, alkali silicate; alkali aluminate, basic aluminosilicate, non-silicate system
strong acid salts, etc. Among these types, common activators include caustic soda, sodium
silicate, sodium carbonate, sodium sulfate, lime, etc. [36,37].
Currently, the most studied types of geopolymer activators are caustic soda and
sodium silicate [38]. Alkaline-activated cementitious materials with good performance
can be obtained by using sodium silicate excitation, and their finished products have a
high strength [39,40] and excellent resistance to chemical erosion [41,42]. Compared with
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 3 of 20

sodium silicate excitation, the strength of geopolymers obtained by caustic soda excitation
is relatively lower [43,44], and its porosity is relatively larger [45–47]. Engineering practice
shows that the high alkalinity of the two activators brings risks to construction, such as
high price of the activator [48], easy shrinkage and cracking [49], fast setting time and poor
fluidity of the mixture [50,51]. With that in mind, some scientists are starting to look at
other kinds of activators. Rashad et al. [52] used a sodium sulfate activator to modify the
slag-based precursor with traditional Portland cement, which significantly improved the
strength of geopolymers. Yuan et al. [53] combined sodium silicate, sodium carbonate
and sodium hydroxide as the activator and tested the strength and hydration products of
alkali slag cement, indicating that the content of sodium silicate determines the strength
of the cementing material, while sodium carbonate mainly affects the gel structure of
hydration products.
At present, the research of geopolymers mainly focuses on the modification of TPGs.
Using fibers to enhance the toughness of the geopolymer is an important research content
in this field [54–56]. Based on the current research status of geopolymers, some researchers
put forward the concept of OPGs. However, there are relatively few studies on OPGs,
especially on fiber-reinforced one-part geopolymers (FOPGs) [57]. The matrix of FOPG
mainly consists of precursors, activators and other auxiliary materials. Similar to the TPG,
the precursor materials are mostly silicon aluminate materials, such as kaolin, fly ash and
slag. However, the activator in OPG is different from TPG, which uses a solid activator.
OPGs are usually synthesized by the solid Na2 SiO3 activator.
Specifically, an OPG is a mixture of a solid alkaline activator and a precursor of alu-
minum silicate that can be directly mixed with water, similar to the traditional cement
concrete [58]. The early studies on OPGs mainly focused on the calcination of silicoalu-
minate with solid alkali metal hydroxide or carbonate, and the clinker was crushed into
clinker and then added into water for preparation [59]. In addition, similar to TPGs, OPGs
also have the shortcomings of insufficient toughness and brittle failure, so using fibers as
the toughening materials is an inevitable choice [60,61].
In fact, from the meaning of OPG, we naturally come to the concept of FOPG. FOPG
is a material prepared by composite preparation of silicon aluminate precursor and solid
basic activator with fibers. According to engineering needs, different types, aspect ratio and
content of fibers can be selected. Through the composite of fibers and OPG, the toughness
and other mechanical properties of FOPGs can be effectively improved.

3. Properties of Different Fibers

The types of fibers are closely related to the mechanical properties, geometric prop-
erties and elongation of fibers and have great influence on the properties of FOPGs. Re-
inforced fibers commonly used in FOPGs include organic polymer fibers, cellulose fibers,
steel fibers, carbon fibers and basalt fibers [62,63]. These properties are shown in Table 1.
It can be seen that the properties of different types of fiber are greatly different, and the
enhancement effect of geopolymers is also different. Organic polymer fibers have high
tensile strength and good properties, which are similar to traditional inorganic fibers. The
elastic modulus and tensile strength of cellulose fibers are low, which mainly improve the
toughness and impact resistance of FOPGs.
In engineering practice, these characteristics of different types of fiber should be
fully utilized. According to the needs, FOPGs were prepared by mixing fibers in OPGs.
Nematollahi et al. studied PE and PVA fiber-reinforced OPGs prepared with fly ash and
blast furnace slag as precursors and lime as the activator [71–73]. In these experimental
studies, the fiber addition is usually 2% by volume. Relevant studies have shown that
FOPGs with excellent performance can be successfully developed by a proper combination
of fiber, precursor and solid activator.
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 4 of 20

Table 1. Properties of fibers.

Elastic Modulus Tensile Strength Density Elongation

Fiber Type Aspect Ratio Ref.
(GPa) (MPa) (g/cm3 ) (%)
200 41 - [64]
Polyvinyl 40–450 - - [65]
1600 1.30
alcohol 308 40 6.42 [66]
Polymer 200 41 6 [67]
765 114 3000 [68,69]
Polyethylene 0.97
1000 123 3500 3–5 [67]
Polypropylene 538 - 220–340 0.91 - [65]
72 200 2850 - [68,69]
47 200 3000 - [66]
Steel 7.8
47 200 1300 - [64]
50 210 850 4.2 [70]
333 100 4500 2.63 - [64]
1389 - 4100–4840 2.8 - [65]
Basalt
1385 105 3500 2.4 2.5 [66]
750 45 1360 2.7 1.2 [70]
Carbon 1000 218 3500 1.75 1.5 [70]
Cellulose 117 8.5 750 1.10 - [64]

4. Properties of FOPGs
As an inorganic cementitious material, OPGs exhibit high ceramic-like brittleness
and relatively low fracture energy [74]. To overcome this weakness, combining fibers
with the geopolymer matrix is an effective technique to improve the flexural properties
of composites [75,76]. Of course, it also has varying degrees of influence on working
performance and other performances. See Table 2 for the related research on the mix
composition of TOPGs.

Table 2. Mix composition of TOPGs.

Fine Curing Water

Precursors Solid Activators Fibers Fiber Content Solid Ref.
(%) Aggregate Condition * Ratio
Steel
Ground granulated Anhydrous sodium Polyvinyl alcohol Standard A, 23 ◦ C 35% [64]
Basalt 1.0 (RH) 0.45
blast furnace slag metasilicate sand
Cellulose
Ground granulated Polyvinyl alcohol Porcelain
Anhydrous sodium Polypropylene A, 23 ◦ C 60% [65]
blast furnace slag 0.5–1.5 ceramic (RH) 0.35
fly ash metasilicate Basalt waste
Micro-steel
Fly ash and slag
Anhydrous sodium
Polyvinyl alcohol A, 25 ± 2 ◦ C [66]
0.5–2.0 Fine sand 70 ± 10% (RH) 0.3
silicate grains Basalt

Fly ash and slag Anhydrous sodium Polyvinyl alcohol - H

2.0 0.35 [67]
metasilicate powder Polyethylene A, 23 ± 3 ◦ C
Activating slag Anhydrous sodium Steel 1.5 PE and 0.5 Fine silica W 0.45 [68,69]
Fly ash and slag metasilicate powder Polyethylene ST sand
Plain slag Steel
Ternary Glass Standard A, 20 ◦ C [77]
Sodium silicate 1.0 100% (RH) 0.3
blended slag Basalt sand

Fly ash and Ca(OH)2 /Na2 SO4 Polyvinyl alcohol - W

2.0 0.35–0.375 [78]
Ground granulated A, 23 ± 3 ◦ C
Ca(OH)2 /Na2 SiO3 ·5H2 O 95 ± 5% (RH)
blast furnace slag
* A—Ambient Temperature Air, H—Heat Air, W—Water Tank curing, RH—Relative Humidity.

As can be seen from Table 2, slag or a combination of slag and fly ash are mostly used
as precursors of TOPGs. The slag precursor is prone to crack due to its large shrinkage,
which can be improved by adding fly ash. Most of the activators are anhydrous sodium
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 5 of 20

silicate powder. Traditional steel fiber is used more often; more choose polymer fiber and
basalt fiber, but cellulose fiber is also chosen. Curing is mainly ambient temperature air
curing, water tank curing and heat air curing. The water solid ratio is between 0.3 and 0.45,
and the fine aggregate usually adopts standard sand, but it also adopts fine sand or no
fine aggregate.

4.1. Workability of FOPGs

As can be seen from the previous discussion, the content of the activator has a great
influence on the fluidity of fresh FOPGs [79]. On the one hand, as the catalyst of alkali
excited reaction, the activator can effectively stimulate the activity of the precursor and
catalyze the polymerization reaction. On the other hand, it is also an important participant
in the reaction, interacting with Ca2+ to produce C-S-H gels. Therefore, the content of
the activator is an important factor affecting the property of geopolymers [80]. The solid
Na2 SiO3 activator was used, and the effects of different contents of the activator on the
properties of the polymer were different. As can be seen from the influence of the content
of the activator on the fluidity and setting time of the geopolymer, the fluidity of FOPGs
basically decreases with the increase in Na2 SiO3 content. At the same time, the increase in
alkali content of the geopolymer accelerates the process of hydration reaction and promotes
the polymerization reaction.
In recent years, FOPGs have attracted widespread attention from researchers, and
the research results are gradually increasing. Panda et al. [81] conducted an experimental
study on 3D printed geopolymers and found that the TPGs had high viscosity due to the
high content of the alkaline activator solution. By using solid aluminosilicate precursors
and solid activators, a solution was provided for the synthesis of OPGs. In this work, the
OPG mixture has good flow characteristics and thixotropy.
Shah et al. [66] studied the properties of micro-steel fiber, PVA and basalt fiber rein-
forced FOPGs. The fluidity, compressive strength, flexural strength and splitting tensile
strength of composites were evaluated according to the influence of different fiber types
and contents. The results showed that the mechanical properties of FOPGs containing
three kinds of fibers were improved. The reinforcement effect of micro-steel fibers was best
under the tensile load. The addition of PVA fibers could improve the deformation ability
and the strength of the mixture. Basalt fibers also produced positive results for OPGs.
The effect of different fibers on the flow of FOPGs was slightly different. Compared with
non-fiber mortar, the flow diameter of non-fiber mortar was the largest, and the addition of
three kinds of fiber decreased the flow diameter. Among the different fibers, PVA fibers
reinforced geopolymer had the lowest workability, followed by basalt fibers and micro-steel
fibers. Different researchers have also reported flow losses of different fibers added to
FOPGs [82]. The unstable flow of the paste due to the addition of fibers to the composite
resulted in a loss of workability. The basalt fiber and micro-steel fiber reinforced FOPGs
remained workable up to 2% fiber volume fraction, while PVA remained workable up
to 1.5%.
The relationship between the relative slump of FOPGs with different fiber contents
was shown in Figure 1.
The groups in the figure show the mixture ratio and fiber distribution of the precur-
sor slag and fly ash used in each series. P:EGC-S represents the slag base geopolymer
(100% Slag), and considering the effect of sand addition to the mixture, P series represents
fine sand without drying treatment. M:EGC-FA/S stands for the mixed base geopolymer
(50% Fly ash and 50% Slag). The fine sand used in the M series was dried in an oven.
Each series consisted of five different ST and PE fiber blends while maintaining a total
fiber volume fraction of 2%. It can be seen from the figure that the slump of the mixed
base geopolymer (P:EGCFA/S) is slightly higher than that of the slag base geopolymer
(P:EGC-S), which is due to the ball-bearing effect of FA particles. The relative slump of
the composite decreases after the fiber is added to the matrix. Apparently, this decrease is
more pronounced when higher PE volume fractions are used. In other words, the greater
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 6 of 20

the amount of steel fibers used in the matrix, the higher the workability. This trend is
reflected in both the mixed and slag-type geopolymers. According to the observation of
all geopolymer mixtures in the study, the mixture has good workability and uniform fiber
dispersion in the process of mixing and compaction [83].

Figure 1. Relative slump versus PE and ST fiber volume fractions, Adapted with permission from [69],
copyright 2018 Elsevier.

With the addition of single fibers, the fluidity of FOPGs decreased with the increase
in fiber content, and it showed higher consistency than that of the geopolymer mortar
without fiber. This indicates that the addition of fibers in FOPGs will significantly af-
fect their workability, and fibers were well dispersed in the geopolymer slurry without
agglomeration [84]. For organic polymer fibers, both PVA and PE fibers can obviously
reduce the fluidity of the mortar. Because the PVA and PE fibers show high cohesion in
water, the fibers evenly dispersed in the geopolymer gel play a supporting role, so that
the fiber and the geopolymer matrix are closely combined. At the same time, with the
increase in fiber content, the amount of coated geopolymer slurry increases, which prevents
the flow diameter of the mortar body from further expanding. This shows that the flow
characteristics are closely related to the fiber volume content in FOPGs.

4.2. Mechanical Properties of FOPGs

Similar to other concrete composites, the mechanical properties of FOPGs mainly
include the compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile strength and tensile toughness.

4.2.1. Compressive Properties of FOPGs

Generally, the compressive strength of FOPGs decreases with the increase in fiber
content, regardless of the kind of fiber added. Compared with the failure mode of OPGs
without fiber addition, only matrix cracking occurred in FOPGs, but no fragmentation
failure occurred.
Perumal’s team studied two different FOPGs [77]. Two types of precursors—pure
slag and ternary mixed slag—were used to understand their efficiency in FOPGs. These
matrices were reinforced with three different fibers (steel, glass and basalt) of 1% volume
fraction to improve their flexural properties. The results showed that the compressive
strength of steel fiber was better than that of mineral fiber.
Sood et al. studied binary and ternary combinations of geopolymer precursors, and
the activators used two kinds of reagents in the form of powder [78]. Sixteen different
combinations of SiO2 /Al2 O3 , Na2 O/SiO2 , CaO/SiO2 and Na2 O/Al2 O3 and PVA fibers
were formed to study their fresh state and hardening properties. The results showed that
the compressive strength of the 56-day FOPG was 54 MPa, which was the best binder, with
the ternary precursor combination of C-grade fly ash 25%, F-grade fly ash 35%, slag fine
particles 40% and the activator combination of calcium hydroxide and sodium metasilicate
ratio 1:5.5. The addition of 2% PVA fibers to the FOPG had no significant effect on its
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 7 of 20

compressive strength. However, it contributed to the relaxation of the matrix shrinkage

strain through micro-constraint.
Alrefaei et al. [69] studied different hybrid combinations of steel fibers and PE fibers.
Two FOPGs were prepared under the condition where the total fiber volume was 2%. One
was 100% slag-activated synthesis, and the other was a mixture of 50% fly ash and 50% slag.
The effects of different precursor materials and fiber contents on the properties of FOPGs
were studied. It was found that the two FOPGs had comparable compressive strength.
Compared with the mixed base FOPG, the slag base FOPG had a relatively better tensile
response. The results showed that the matrix density of slag FOPG is higher than that of
mixed FOPG. Another study quantitatively evaluated the effects of curing conditions (heat
curing and room temperature curing) and fiber type on the macroscopic properties of the
matrix and composites [85,86]. The matrix fracture properties and fiber–matrix interface
properties were determined by a fracture toughness test and a single fiber drawing test,
respectively. The fiber bridging constitutive relationship of composites was calculated by
the micromechanical model, and the microstructure of the composites was related to the
macroscopic tensile properties of the composites. The results showed that curing at room
temperature increased the compressive strength and tensile strength of the PP FOPGs but
decreased their tensile ductility. Compared with the PVA FOPGs, the PP FOPGs had a
lower compressive strength and tensile strength but higher tensile ductility.
Nematollahi et al. also found that the addition of 2% PVA fibers to FOPGs had
no significant effect on the compressive strength [67]. Bernal et al. [87] found that the
addition of fibers reduced the compressive strength of the geopolymer. However, with the
increase in fiber volume, the splitting tensile strength and flexural strength were greatly
improved, which were 3.75–4.64 MPa and 6.40–8.86 MPa, respectively, after curing for 28 d.
The addition of steel fiber improved the properties related to durability, such as water
absorption and water permeability. At the same time, different fiber contents may reduce
the flexural strength and compressive strength of FOPGs [88,89].
OPGs have good compressive strength and durability. However, their low flexural
strength, tensile strength, strain capacity and brittleness limit their application in some
cases. Shah [66] studied the properties of a one-part alkali-activated fly ash slag mortar
reinforced with micro-steel, PVA and basalt fibers. The effects of fiber type and content
on the mortar were evaluated from the slump, water absorption, compressive strength,
flexural strength, splitting tensile strength and load deflection curves under flexural and
splitting tensile strength. The results showed that the mechanical properties of one-part
alkali-active mortar could be improved by adding three kinds of fibers. Under the tensile
load, micro-steel fibers were most beneficial to improve the displacement capacity of the
mixture, and the addition of PVA fibers significantly improved the strength performance of
the mixture. Basalt fibers also achieved positive results in mechanical properties, showing
good potential for enhancing the mechanical properties in FOPGs.
In engineering practice, fibers should be correctly added to FOPGs according to
the engineering needs. Generally, the addition of a fiber has no significant effect on the
compressive strength of composites. In particular, the addition of excessive fibers to the
composite may reduce the compressive strength of the FOPGs.

4.2.2. Flexural Strength of FOPGs

The main purpose of adding fibers into cement mortar or concrete is to optimize the
flexural strength of the hardened matrix and transform it from brittle fracture mode to
ductile fracture mode. The flexural strength of the OPG matrix increases obviously with
fiber incorporation. When the fiber content is less than 2%, the flexural strength of FOPGs
at each age increases with the increase in fiber volume content, especially the early flexural
strength. When the fiber content continues to increase, due to the restriction of the forming
process, the fiber aggregation phenomenon occurs, and the matrix is weak in the zone with
less fiber distribution. During the experiment, it was also observed that with the increase
in fiber volume content, the matrix showed the failure mode of multiple cracks. These
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 8 of 20

results indicate that PVA fibers contribute to the improvement of the flexural strength of
the geopolymer matrix, especially in the early flexural strength. Natali et al. explored
the influence of carbon fiber and PVC fibers on the properties of metakaolin slag-based
geopolymers. They found through experiments that all samples with fiber added showed
increased flexural strength, and this improvement effect was particularly obvious when
carbon fibers and PVA fibers were added. At the same time, the ductility of the matrix was
improved after cracking, which was consistent with the results of this test [90].
In the FOPGs system, the fiber length-diameter ratio, volume content and stirring
mode have significant effects on the mechanical properties of the matrix, so the selection of
the preparation process is particularly important. Table 3 shows the test results of a typical
mix of FOPGs [67].

Table 3. Typical coordination ratio and test results of the FOPG. Adapted with permission from [67],
copyright 2017 Elsevier.

Solid First-Crack Ultimate Tensile Tensile Strain

Mix ID Fly Ash Slag Water Fiber
Activator Strength (MPa) Strength (MPa) Capacity (%)
PE-H 0.50 0.50 0.08 0.35 PE 2.1 ± 0.24 3.3 ± 0.50 5.5 ± 0.52
PE-A 0.50 0.50 0.08 0.35 PE 2.8 ± 0.66 4.2 ± 0.66 4.9 ± 0.68
PVA-A 0.50 0.50 0.08 0.35 PVA 4.1 ± 0.095 4.6 ± 0.26 4.2 ± 0.71

In Table 3, all numbers are mass ratios of the precursor weight (fly ash + slag), except
fiber content (volume fraction). All fiber contents are 2%. A and H are different curing
conditions (A—Ambient Temperature Air, H—Heat Air). It can be seen that different kinds
of fibers and curing conditions have different effects on the properties of composites.
Figure 2 shows the tensile stress–strain response curves of FOPGs. It can be seen that
regardless of the curing conditions and fiber types, they all exhibit strong strain hardening
behavior. Different from the PE fibers (Figure 2a,b), PVA fibers (Figure 2c) form chemical
bonds with the matrix (PVA-A) due to their hydrophilicity, and their initial crack strength
is higher. The results show that the FOPG of PE (PE-H, PE-A) had moderate to high tensile
strength (3.3–4.2 MPa) and very high tensile strength (4.9–5.5%), while the PVA-A had high
tensile strength and very high tensile resistance—4.6 MPa and 4.2%, respectively.
As mentioned above, the fiber plays a positive role in the improvement of the flexural
strength of FOPGs. The fiber effectively improves the cracking resistance of the matrix
and greatly improves the flexural strength of FOPGs. The improvement difference of the
flexural strength mainly depends on the mechanical properties of the fibers themselves
and the dispersion degree of the fibers in the geopolymer matrix. When the fiber volume
content is more than 2%, the fiber strength decreases due to uneven dispersion. Therefore,
it is considered that 2% is the optimal proportion to improve the flexural strength of FOPGs.
In addition, it was found that when the composite fiber was added, the flexural strength
of the FOPG was not significantly increased, which was basically the same as that of the
single fiber.
Alrefaei et al. [68] tested the elastic modulus of FOPGs. The results showed that the
compressive strength of the mixture of fly ash and slag was higher than that of slag, but the
elastic modulus of slag was larger. The addition of fiber increased the elastic modulus of
geopolymer composites compared with the non-fiber composites, and the increase in elastic
modulus was related to the volume of steel fibers. In addition, all composites exhibited
flexural hardening behavior, which was directly related to the volume of PE fibers contained
in the composites. In general, the slag base exhibited better bending behavior than the
mixed base.
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 9 of 20

Figure 2. Tensile stress–strain responses of FOPG [67]. (a) Heat-cured FOPG (PE-H), (b) Ambient-
temperature-cured FOPG (PE-A), (c) Ambient-temperature-cured FOPG (PVA-A). Adapted with
permission from [67], copyright 2017 Elsevier.

Shah et al. [66] found that fiber type and content had a significant influence on the
flexural properties of FOPGs. The load displacement curves under the flexural loading
of FOPGs reinforced by 2% PVA, basalt and micro-steel fibers are shown in Figure 3. As
can be seen from the figure, the geopolymer with no fibers suddenly cracked under peak
load, presenting a typical brittle failure. The peak load and the corresponding displacement
of the mortar were increased compared with those of the control mortar. The addition of
2% micro-steel fibers showed displacement hardening, and the other components showed
displacement softening. Perumal et al. [77] found that the fracture energy of SF reinforced
composites is about 4 times higher than that of mineral fibers reinforced geopolymers.
In addition, regardless of the fiber type and properties, the flexural properties of ternary
composites were higher than those of slag-based composites.
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 10 of 20

Figure 3. Load displacement curves under flexural loading. PVA fibers (P), basalt fibers (B), micro-
steel fibers (S) and control (C: no fibers). Adapted with permission from [66], copyright 2020 Elsevier.

Figure 4 showed the flexural strength–deflection curve of polypropylene fiber (PPF)

geopolymer after 56 days [88]. Similar to FOPGs, the results showed that the hardened
geopolymer matrix without PPF had a high brittleness, and the strength of the first crack
was higher than that of the matrix with fiber. On the contrary, the addition of PPF fibers
increased the shrinkage defects and extra porosity of the matrix, resulting in the reduction
in the effective cross section. Therefore, the flexural strength of the matrix itself was
weakened, and the stress when the first microcrack appeared in the FOPG was reduced.
A similar behavior was observed in other cementitious composites, where an increase in
porosity led to a decrease in bending strength.

Figure 4. Flexural strength–deflection curve of FOPG at 56 days. Adapted from Ranjbar et al. [88];
licensed under CC BY 4.0 (open access).

It was found that the fiber could improve the physical properties of FOPGs, and the
fiber type and curing condition had a certain effect on the mechanical properties. Numerical
calculation results showed that the flexural capacity of FOPGs was within the range of
10–40 kN/m2 , and the allowable load was far lower than the ultimate capacity [91].

4.2.3. Adhesion Mechanism between Fibers and Geopolymer Matrix

Similar to other fiber-reinforced geopolymer or concrete, the fiber toughening mecha-
nism for FOPGs mainly includes fiber fracture, fiber pulling out, fiber debonding, crack
bridging, crack deflection [92].
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 11 of 20

Fiber fracture consists of an effective breakage of the fiber during crack propaga-
tion [93]. Fiber pulling out means that the fiber at the crack tip slides out along the interface
between the fibers and the matrix under the action of external tensile stress. Compared with
fiber fracture, the toughening effect of fiber debonding is better. Fiber bridging refers to the
difficulty of deflecting fibers with cracks facing specific distribution and direction. Crack
deflection means that the crack tip causes the crack to bend and extend, which leads to the
reduction in matrix stress and hinders crack growth. Generally speaking, the toughening
effect is related to the volume ratio and aspect ratio of the reinforcement. The larger the
volume ratio and aspect ratio, the better the toughening effect of crack bending.
As mentioned above, fiber plays a positive role in improving the flexural strength
of FOPGs. The addition of fibers improves the properties of OPGs through toughening,
strengthening and cracking resistance. Some scientists tested the microscopic morphol-
ogy of FOPGs to further explain the improved mechanical properties of FOPGs from a
microscopic perspective.
Fibers embedded in the matrix and the failure mode of the fiber are shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. SEM images from the mixture reinforced with: (a) steel fiber, (b) glass fiber and (c) basalt
fiber. Adapted with permission from [77], copyright 2021 Elsevier.

From these images, it can be seen that the microstructure of the steel fiber reinforced
matrix is shown in Figure 5a. The matrix demonstrated debonding failure, and the matrix
had a certain pull-out effect. The residual bond between the mortar and the fibers indicated
the effective bond between the fibers and the mortar. In terms of fiber types, steel fiber was
superior to glass fiber and basalt fiber in the contribution to the compressive strength of the
FOPG. It could be observed that glass fiber clusters (see Figure 5b) and basalt fiber clusters
(see Figure 5c) were still bound in the binder matrix, which explained the inefficient fiber
distribution. In addition, basalt is unstable in highly alkaline environments and can cause
fiber degradation [94].
In Figure 5c, the image of basalt fibers shows its reactivity with the matrix, and fibers
are captured into the reaction product. This explains the strength loss caused by basalt
fibers in FOPG systems and promotes the need for alkali-resistant coatings [95].
Abdollahnejad’s team also found similar SEM patterns in their study [65]. PVA and
basalt fibers provided a good interfacial transition zone bonding between the fibers and the
matrix, which was already attached to the fiber surface. Due to the smooth surface of the
PP fibers, these fibers had weak bonding properties at the fiber/matrix, and therefore, the
PP fibers were de-bonded to the surrounding matrix. In addition, one end of the PVA fibers
was obviously fractured, while the other end was embedded in the hydration product
of the matrix, indicating that when the main crack appeared, the PVA fiber continued to
function under the external bending load until it was damaged by tension.
Shah et al. also studied the microstructure of FOPGs using SEM, as shown in
Figure 6 [66]. Firstly, it can be seen from Figure 6a that the amorphous hydration products
with apparent density and uniformity were formed, and the C-S-H and N-A-S-H gels
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 12 of 20

generated by the reaction covered the surface of the geopolymer matrix. At the same time,
the hydration reaction of the matrix occurred rapidly, and a large amount of heat was
released, which caused the shrinkage of the matrix. The microcracks in the interfacial
transition zone and in the matrix were generated. Figure 6b shows that hydration particles
were attached to the surface of PVA fibers, and fibers were wrapped by the geopolymer
slurry in good shape. This shows that the adhesion between PVA fibers and the matrix
was good. The good adhesion of PVA fibers was the main reason that PVA fibers acted as
bridges under external load and thus improved the strength of the mortar.

Figure 6. SEM images of FOPGs. (a) control, (b) basalt fiber, (c) PVA fiber and (d) steel fiber. Adapted
with permission from [66], copyright 2020 Elsevier.

As for basalt fibers reinforced OPG, due to the poor adhesion between basalt fibers
and the geopolymer matrix, a few fibers slipped, as shown in Figure 6c. Basalt fiber has
a lower splitting tensile strength and flexural strength compared with PVA fiber, which
is related to the slip of basalt fiber under tensile load. The slip of the basalt fiber may be
caused by the smooth surface of the basalt fiber and the weak bond between the matrix and
fibers. In terms of the failure mode, a path is formed at the interface between the matrix
and the fibers, which is caused by the slip of the fiber in the matrix under tensile stress. In
this process, the work carried out by external force is used to balance the breaking energy,
which belongs to fiber pulling out.
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 13 of 20

The microscopic cracks formed by the micro-steel fibers can be observed in Figure 6d.
When the fiber content was greater than the optimal value, the microcracks had negative
effects on the mechanical strength of the composites. When the amount of micro-steel
fiber was 2%, the mechanical strength decreased slightly because the formation of the
microcracks had a negative effect on the amount of micro-steel fiber.
According to the test results, Alrfaei et al. plotted the relationship between the average
fracture spacing and the fiber volume fractions [69], as shown in Figure 7. The crack spacing
of the slag base geopolymer hybrid fibers composite was 1.6–5.1 mm, and that of the fly ash
mixed with slag base geopolymer hybrid fibers composite was 1.9–9.3 mm. For the single
PE fibers composite, the crack spacing of the fly ash-slag mixed base geopolymer was 19%
larger than that of the slag base geopolymer, while for the hybrid fibers composite, the crack
spacing of the fly ash-slag mixed base geopolymer was 80–150% larger than that of the
slag base geopolymer. Therefore, the crossbreeding of steel fibers and PE fibers had better
performance in the slag base geopolymer. As can be seen from the figure, with the increase
in PE fiber addition, the crack spacing of the fly ash and slag mixed base geopolymer and
the slag base geopolymer decreased. As mentioned above, the PE volume fraction has a
direct influence on the multiple cracking behavior of the composites, and hence, on crack
spacing. In addition, the slag base geopolymer has better cracking performance than the
fly ash mixed with slag base geopolymer, so the crack spacing is relatively small.

Figure 7. Average crack spacing versus PE and ST fiber volume fractions [69]. Adapted with
permission from [69], copyright 2018 Elsevier.

4.3. Durability of FOPGs

Durability is related to the long-term performance of the composites and has had
great importance attached to it by relevant researchers [96–99]. Abdollahnejad et al. [64]
studied the effects of different types of fibers (steel, PVA, basalt and cellulose) and fiber
combinations (single and mixed) on the mechanical properties and durability of FOPGs. All
fibers were added at a volume fraction of 1%. The durability of FOPGs was studied by the
properties of water absorption, acid resistance, high temperature resistance, carbonation
resistance and freeze–thaw resistance. The experimental results showed that different
types and combinations had great influence on the mechanical properties and durability
of FOPGs. In addition, the influence of different types and combinations on high temper-
ature resistance and freeze–thaw resistance was greater than that on acid resistance and
carbonization resistance [100]. Coppola et al. [101,102] evaluated the durability of OPGs in
different corrosive environments, such as calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate solu-
tions, and compared them with conventional mortars. The experimental results showed
that the alkali content was a key parameter for durability; the higher the alkali content,
the higher the resistance under harsh conditions. In particular, the high-alkali-content
geopolymer had a similar freeze–thaw resistance to the blast furnace slag cement mixture
but lower than the Portland cement mortar, while the low activator geopolymer had very
limited freeze–thaw resistance in a cold environment. FOPGs also had good acid resistance,
but they were very susceptible to magnesium sulfate [103].
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 14 of 20

The use of hazardous alkali solutions is avoided in FOPGs, making these materials
easier to handle and transport. The blast furnace slag can be used as a one-part alkali active
binder and can achieve high compressive strength in the early stage. However, the use of
slag alone has some disadvantages, including fast setting time and high drying shrinkage,
which narrow the application range of these mixed components and lead to the formation
of cracks separately, thereby shortening the service life. Fly ash can partially replace slag
as a one-part alkali-activated material, which can not only reduce drying shrinkage but
also prolong setting time. The effect of fly ash replacing more than 80% of slag on the fresh
hardening performance of one-part alkali-active mortar was studied [104]. These properties
were characterized by initial and final setting times, strength development and drying
shrinkage rates. The one-part alkali-activated slag/fly ash mortar was reinforced with
different fiber contents and combinations in order to improve its strength, further reduce
the drying shrinkage rate and improve its freeze–thaw resistance. The results showed
that adding fly ash and fiber could reduce the drying shrinkage and prolong the curing
time. The mechanical properties of the slag/fly ash composite were weakened by the
decrease in the slag content, so that the slag/fly ash composite could be fully considered
in an engineering application. After drying and shrinking, geopolymer materials easily
produce cracks, which is also an important index affecting their durability. The effects of
different fiber types and combinations on the drying and shrinkage of FOPGs are shown in
Figure 8 [65].

Figure 8. The effects of using different fiber types and combinations on the drying shrinkage. Adapted
with permission from [65], copyright 2020 Elsevier.

The addition of hybrid fibers increased the drying shrinkage more than that of single
fibers. The only effective fiber that reduced the drying shrinkage was glass fiber with
a 1.5 volume content, which reduced the final drying shrinkage by approximately 15%.
Although the addition of all hybrid composite fibers increased the drying shrinkage rate,
the increase was the lowest in 0.5Ba1PP, which was about 10%. Although the drying
shrinkage rate of most reinforced mixtures was increased compared to the traditional
reference mixture, the final drying shrinkage rate recorded was even lower than that of
some traditional mixtures. The drying shrinkage of FOPGs was much lower than the crack
value observed in other geopolymer substrates.
The compressive strength of the reinforced mixture before and after freeze–thaw cycles
is shown in Figure 9. It can be seen that after 120 freeze–thaw cycles, the compressive
strength of all the mixed materials decreased. According to the results, the compressive
strength of the common mixture was reduced by about 10%, respectively, and the minimum
and maximum compressive strength losses of 1.5 PVA and 1.5 PP were about 10% when
reinforced by single fibers. In addition, for hybrid fibers reinforced materials, the maximum
and minimum compressive strength decreased by about 50 and 15% at 0.75PVA0.75pp and
0.5PVA1Ba at 90 days, respectively.
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 15 of 20

Figure 9. The effects of freeze–thaw cycles on the compressive strength [65]. Adapted with permission
from [65], copyright 2020 Elsevier.

In general, the workability of a FOPG decreases with the addition of fibers, which has
an adverse effect on the compressive strength of the matrix, and its durability decreases
to a certain extent. However, its flexural strength is greatly improved. On the one hand,
the elastic modulus of the fiber is much lower than that of the geopolymer, and the matrix
is limited by the bearing capacity of the fiber, which is easier to destroy than the mortar
without fiber. On the other hand, the strength decline is related to the pores introduced into
the mortar during the formation of the fiber-reinforced geopolymer sample. In addition,
there is a porous weak layer in the interfacial transition zone between the polymer matrix
and the fiber, which is also the reason why the presence of fiber can weaken the compressive
strength of the geopolymer. At the same time, the stress distribution of fibers in the matrix
changes under the loading. The failure mode of FOPGs also changes, and the fracture mode
of OPGs changes from brittle fracture to plastic fracture. The FOPG exhibits more crack
propagation and strain hardening characteristics, which improves the bending toughness
of FOPGs.

5. Future Perspectives
From the perspective of the engineering application of green materials, although
FOPGs have so many advantages, they still need to be improved and perfected in many
aspects. However, the study of FOPGs still has some limitations. There are relatively few
types of binder, which limits their engineering application. At the same time, there is a
lack of research and application on the recycled aggregate, and few studies on straw fibers
reinforced OPGs.
FOPGs consist mainly of fibers, precursors, activators and a perfect combination of
these factors. Compared with the traditional steel fibers, basalt, carbon, polyvinyl alcohol,
polyethylene, polypropylene fibers have unique characteristics in mechanical properties,
scale dimension, cluster effect and morphological effect. Therefore, synthetic fiber rein-
forced and toughened cementitious composites have received great attention. Compared
with fiber-reinforced cementitious composites, the research of FOPGs is relatively lag-
ging behind. At the same time, in view of the differences in the physical and mechanical
properties of different fibers, the distribution characteristics of fibers in reinforcement are
obviously different, and the strengthening effect and action mechanism need to be further
studied. Using slag alone as a precursor has the disadvantages of short solidification time,
large drying shrinkage and the formation of cracks, so as to shorten the service life. Fly ash
is used in FOPGs to partially replace slag, which can not only reduce the drying shrinkage
but also prolong the solidification time. FOPGs use a solid activator; its variety is relatively
limited, and the cost is high. From the previous study, it can be seen that the solid activator
is mainly anhydrous sodium metasilicate (Na2 SiO3 ). In the future, it is necessary to develop
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 16 of 20

more varieties and lower the prices of activators in order for them to be more suitable for
engineering applications.

6. Conclusions
Compared with TPGs, OPG is more suitable for engineering popularization and
application. However, the brittleness of its ceramic-like materials hinders its further
application in engineering. The mechanical properties can be improved by adding fibers.
The commonly used fibers include PVA, PE, basalt and composite fibers, which have great
influence on the fresh mixing performance and mechanical properties of slag-/fly-ash-
based FOPGs. When fibers are added into FOPGs, the fluidity decreases greatly with the
increase in fiber volume content. Because these fibers show good cohesion when they come
into contact with water, the fibers are closely combined with the matrix. At the same time,
with the increase in fiber content, the amount of wrapped geopolymer slurry increases, thus
preventing the flow diameter of the mortar body from further expanding. The compressive
strength of FOPG decreases with the increase in fiber volume content, while the flexural
strength increases first and then decreases. The modification effect of fibers in the FOPG is
mainly visible after the initial cracking of the matrix and before the failure. Under the action
of external load, the excessive development of cracks can be inhibited by means of fiber
pulling out and fiber fracture, and the energy consumption of external force destruction
can be increased to improve the flexural toughness of FOPGs. Fibers have the effect of
enhancing the toughening and strengthening of FOPGs. The energy consumption modes
of fibers pull-out work and fracture work can improve the cracking resistance and bending
resistance of FOPGs.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.G., C.L., J.L. and L.W.; methodology, C.L.; validation,
G.G., C.L. and J.L.; formal analysis, C.L. and G.G.; investigation, C.L.; resources, C.L.; data curation,
C.L.; writing—original draft preparation, G.G.; writing—review and editing, G.G. and C.L.; supervi-
sion, C.L.; project administration, G.G. and C.L.; funding acquisition, C.L. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the general items of basic scientific research business expenses
of provincial universities in Heilongjiang Province, grant number 145109126, Higher Education
Teaching Reform Project of Heilongjiang Province, grant number SJGY20200784.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Davidovits, J. Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal. 1991, 37, 1633–1656. [CrossRef]
2. Giacobello, F.; Ielo, I.; Belhamdi, H.; Plutino, M.R. Geopolymers and Functionalization Strategies for the Development of
Sustainable Materials in Construction Industry and Cultural Heritage Applications: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 1725. [CrossRef]
[PubMed]
3. Yu, G.; Jia, Y. Microstructure and Mechanical Properties of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Cementitious Composites. Minerals 2022,
12, 853. [CrossRef]
4. Ayeni, O.; Mahamat, A.A.; Bih, N.L.; Stanislas, T.T.; Isah, I.; Savastano Junior, H.; Boakye, E.; Onwualu, A.P. Effect of Coir Fiber
Reinforcement on Properties of Metakaolin-Based Geopolymer Composite. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 5478. [CrossRef]
5. Luhar, I.; Luhar, S. A Comprehensive Review on Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 219. [CrossRef]
6. Zhou, S.; Ma, C.; Long, G.; Xie, Y. A novel non-Portland cementitious material: Mechanical properties, durability and characteri-
zation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 238, 117671. [CrossRef]
7. Shi, C.; He, F.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Krivenko, V.; Palomo, A. Classification and Characteristics of Alkali-Activated Cements.
J. Chin. Ceram. Soc. 2012, 1, 69–75.
8. Mourak, A.; Hajjaji, M.; Alagui, A. Cured alkali-activated heated clay-cellulose composites: Microstructure, effect of glass addition
and performances. Boletín Soc. Española Cerámica Vidr. 2021, 20, 62–72. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 17 of 20

9. Yang, Z.; Zhang, D.; Fang, C.; Jiao, Y.; Kang, D.; Yan, C.; Zhang, J. Hydration Mechanisms of Alkali-Activated Cementitious
Materials with Ternary Solid Waste Composition. Materials 2022, 15, 3616. [CrossRef]
10. Kumar, A.; Kumar, V.; Prasad, B. Strength development and flexural behavior of reinforced concrete beam using one-part
alkali-activated binder. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 281, 122619. [CrossRef]
11. Shaikh, F.U.A.; Patel, A. Flexural Behavior of Hybrid PVA Fiber and AR-Glass Textile Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. Fibers
2018, 6, 2. [CrossRef]
12. Liu, J.; Lv, C. Properties of 3D-Printed Polymer Fiber-Reinforced Mortars: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 1315. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
13. Choi, J.; Lee, B.; Ranade, R.; Li, V.C.; Lee, Y. Ultra-high-ductile behavior of a polyethylene fber-reinforced alkali-activated
slagbased composite. Cement. Concr. Compos. 2016, 70, 153–158. [CrossRef]
14. Puertas, F.; Amat, T.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Vázquez, T. Mechanical and durable behaviour of alkaline cement mortars reinforced
with polypropylene fbres. Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 2031–2036. [CrossRef]
15. Liu, J.; Lv, C. Research Progress on Durability of Cellulose Fiber-Reinforced Cement-Based Composites. Int. J. Polymer Sci. 2021,
2021, 1014531. [CrossRef]
16. Ahmad, M.; Chen, B.; Haque, M.; Oderji, S. Multiproperty characterization of cleaner and energy-efficient vegetal concrete based
on one-part geopolymer binder. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 253, 119916. [CrossRef]
17. Vilaplana, J.L.; Baeza, F.J.; Galao, O.; Alcocel, E.G.; Zornoza, E.; Garcés, P. Mechanical properties of alkali activated blast furnace
slag pastes reinforced with carbon fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 116, 63–71. [CrossRef]
18. Samal, S. Anisotropic Heat Transfer in Plane of Carbon Fabrics Reinforced Geopolymer Composite. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 6624.
[CrossRef]
19. Gopika, M.; Ganesan, N.; Indira, P.V.; Sathish Kumar, V.; Murali, G.; Vatin, N.I. Influence of Steel Fibers on the Interfacial Shear
Strength of Ternary Blend Geopolymer Concrete Composite. Sustainability 2022, 14, 7724. [CrossRef]
20. Alomayri, T.; Raza, A.; Shaikh, F. Effect of nano SiO2 on mechanical properties of micro-steel fibers reinforced geopolymer
composites. Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 33444–33453. [CrossRef]
21. Łach, M.; Kluska, B.; Janus, D.; Kabat, D.; Pławecka, K.; Korniejenko, K.; Guigou, M.D.; Choińska, M. Effect of Fiber Reinforcement
on the Compression and Flexural Strength of Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 10443. [CrossRef]
22. Puertas, F.; Gil-Maroto, A.; Palacios, M.; Amat, T. Alkali-activated slag mortars reiforced with ar glassfbre. Performance and
properties. Mater. Constr. 2006, 56, 79–90.
23. Wei, Q.; Liu, Y.; Le, H. Mechanical and Thermal Properties of Phosphoric Acid Activated Geopolymer Materials Reinforced with
Mullite Fibers. Materials 2022, 15, 4185. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
24. Alomayri, T. Performance evaluation of basalt fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites with various contents of nano CaCO3 .
Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 29949–29959. [CrossRef]
25. Samarakoon, M.; Ranjith, P.; Hui, D.; Haque, A.; Chen, B. Extensive use of waste glass in one-part alkali-activated materials:
Towards sustainable construction practices. Waste Manag. 2021, 130, 1301–1311. [CrossRef]
26. Galvão, S.; Strecker, K. Kaolin, fly-ash and ceramic waste based alkali-activated materials production by the “one-part” method.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121306. [CrossRef]
27. Adesanya, E.; Ohenoja, K.; Maria, A.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. Alternative alkali-activator from steel-making waste for
one-part alkali-activated slag. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 274, 123020. [CrossRef]
28. Zheng, X.; Wu, J. Early Strength Development of Soft Clay Stabilized by One-Part Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and Fly
Ash-Based Geopolymer. Front. Mater. 2021, 8, 616430. [CrossRef]
29. Alrefaei, Y.; Wang, Y.; Dai, J.; Xu, Q. Effect of superplasticizers on properties of one-part Ca(OH)2 /Na2 SO4 activated geopolymer
pastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 241, 117990. [CrossRef]
30. Singh, N.B. Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Binder: A Future Construction Material. Minerals 2018, 8, 299. [CrossRef]
31. Favier, A.; Hot, J.; Habert, G.; Roussela, N.; Lacaillerie, J. Flow properties of mk-based geopolymer pastes: A comparative study
with standard portland cement pastes. Soft Matter 2013, 10, 1134–1141.
32. Ahmed, H.U.; Mohammed, A.A.; Rafiq, S.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mosavi, A.; Sor, N.H.; Qaidi, S.M.A. Compressive Strength of
Sustainable Geopolymer Concrete Composites: A State-of-the-Art Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13502. [CrossRef]
33. Patil, S.S.; Patil, A.A. Properties of Polypropylene Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete. Int. J. Curr. Eng. Technol. 2015, 5,
2909–2912.
34. Yang, B.; Jang, J. Environmentally benign production of one-part alkali-activated slag with calcined oyster shell as an activator.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 257, 19. [CrossRef]
35. Mobili, A.; Tittarelli, F.; Rahier, H. One-Part Alkali-Activated Pastes and Mortars Prepared with Metakaolin and Biomass Ash.
Appl. Sci. 2020, 10, 5610. [CrossRef]
36. Cong, P.; Cheng, Y. Advances in geopolymer materials: A comprehensive review. J. Traffic Transp. Eng. 2021, 8, 283–314. [CrossRef]
37. Abdulkareem, M.; Havukainen, J.; Nuortila-Jokinen, J.; Horttanainen, M. Environmental and economic perspective of waste-
derived activators on alkali-activated mortars. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 280, 124651. [CrossRef]
38. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J. Effect of different superplasticizers and activator combinations on workability and strength of fly
ash based geopolymer. Mater. Design 2014, 57, 667–672. [CrossRef]
39. Kadhim, A.; Sadique, M.; Al-Mufti, R.; Hashim, K. Long-term performance of novel high-calcium one-part alkali-activated
cement developed from thermally activated lime kiln dust. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 32, 101766. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 18 of 20

40. Perumal, P.; Sreenivasan, H.; Luukkonen, T.; Kantola, A.M.; Telkki, V.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. High strength one-part
alkali-activated slag blends designed by particle packing optimization. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 299, 124004. [CrossRef]
41. Sturm, P.; Gluth, G.J.G.; Jäger, C.; Brouwers, H.J.H.; Kühne, H.-C. Sulfuric acid resistance of one-part alkali-activated mortars.
Cem. Concr. Res. 2018, 109, 54–63. [CrossRef]
42. Jeon, I.K.; Ryou, J.S.; Jakhrani, S.H.; Kim, H.G. Effects of Light-Burnt Dolomite Incorporation on the Setting, Strength, and Drying
Shrinkage of One-Part Alkali-Activated Slag Cement. Materials 2019, 12, 2874. [CrossRef]
43. Ren, B.; Zhao, Y.; Bai, H.; Kang, S.; Zhang, T.; Song, S. Eco-friendly geopolymer prepared from solid wastes: A critical review.
Chemosphere 2021, 267, 128900. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
44. Dong, M.; Elchalakani, M.; Karrech, A. Development of high strength one-part geopolymer mortar using sodium metasilicate.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 236, 117611. [CrossRef]
45. Fu, Q.; Xu, W.; Zhao, X.; Bu, M.; Niu, D. The microstructure and durability of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: A review.
Ceram. Int. 2021, 47, 29550–29566. [CrossRef]
46. Haha, M.B.; Le Saout, G.; Winnerfeld, F. Influence of activator type on hydration kinetics, hydrate assemblage and microstructural
development of alkali activated blast-furnace slags. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 301–310. [CrossRef]
47. Colangelo, F.; Farina, I.; Travaglioni, M.; Salzano, C.; Cioffi, R.; Petrillo, A. Eco-efficient industrial waste recycling for the
manufacturing of fibre reinforced innovative geopolymer mortars: Integrated waste management and green product development
through LCA. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 312, 127777. [CrossRef]
48. Askarian, M.; Tao, Z.; Samali, B.; Adam, G.; Shuaibu, R. Mix composition and characterisation of one-part geopolymers with
different activators. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 225, 526–537. [CrossRef]
49. Oderji, S.; Chen, B.; Ahmad, M.; Shah, S. Fresh and hardened properties of one-part fly ash-based geopolymer binders cured at
room temperature: Effect of slag and alkali activators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 225, 1–10.
50. Yang, K.H.; Song, J.K.; Ashour, A.F. Properties of cementless mortars activated by sodium silicate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22,
1981–1989. [CrossRef]
51. Zhuang, X.; Chen, L.; Komarneni, S.; Zhou, C.; Tong, D.; Yang, H.; Yu, W.; Wang, H. Fly ash-based geopolymer: Clean production,
properties and applications. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 125, 253–267. [CrossRef]
52. Rashad, A.M. An exploratory study on sodium sulfate activated slag modified with Portland cement. Mater. Struct. 2015, 48,
4085–4095. [CrossRef]
53. Yuan, B.; Yu, Q.; Brouwers, H. Reaction kinetics, reaction products and compressive strength of ternary activators activated slag
designed by Taguchi method. Mater. Design 2015, 86, 878–886. [CrossRef]
54. Humur, G.; Çevik, A. Mechanical characterization of lightweight engineered geopolymer composites exposed to elevated
temperatures. Ceram. Int. 2022, 48, 13634–13650.
55. Choi, S.; Choi, J.; Song, J.; Lee, B. Rheological and mechanical properties of fber-reinforced alkali-activated composite. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2015, 96, 112–118. [CrossRef]
56. Bhutta, A.; Borges, P.H.R.; Zanotti, Z.; Farooq, M.; Banthia, N. Flexural behavior of geopolymer composites reinforced with steel
and polypropylene macro fibers. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2017, 80, 31–40. [CrossRef]
57. Luukkonen, T.; Abdollahnejad, Z.; Yliniemi, J.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. One-part alkali-activated materials: A review. Cem.
Concr. Res. 2018, 103, 21–34. [CrossRef]
58. Haruna, S.; Mohammed, B.; Wahab, M.; Liew, M. Effect of paste aggregate ratio and curing methods on the performance of
one-part alkali-activated concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 261, 120024. [CrossRef]
59. Gonçalves, M.; Vilarinho, I.S.; Capela, M.; Caetano, A.; Novais, R.M.; Labrincha, J.A.; Seabra, M.P. Waste-Based One-Part Alkali
Activated Materials. Materials 2021, 14, 2911. [CrossRef]
60. Feng, D.; Provis, J.; Van Deventer, S. Thermal activation of Albite for the synthesis of one-part mix geopolymers. J. Am. Ceram.
Soc. 2012, 95, 565–572. [CrossRef]
61. Zhao, N.; Wang, S.; Quan, X.; Liu, Y. Behavior of polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced geopolymer composites under the coupled
attack of sulfate and freeze-thaw in a marine environment. Ocean Eng. 2021, 238, 109734. [CrossRef]
62. Liu, J.; Lv, C. Durability of Cellulosic-Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 796. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
63. Merta, I.; Poletanovic, B.; Dragas, J.; Carevic, V.; Ignjatovic, I.; Komljenovic, M. The Influence of Accelerated Carbonation on
Physical and Mechanical Properties of Hemp-Fibre-Reinforced Alkali-Activated Fly Ash and Fly Ash/Slag Mortars. Polymers
2022, 14, 1799. [CrossRef]
64. Abdollahnejad, Z.; Mastali, M.; Falah, M.; Mohammad Shaad, K.; Luukkonen, T.; Illikainen, M. Durability of the Reinforced
On-Part Alkali-Activated Slag Mortars with Diferent Fibers. Waste Biomass Valoriz. 2021, 12, 487–501. [CrossRef]
65. Abdollahnejad, Z.; Mastali, M.; Woof, B.; Illikainen, M. High strength fiber reinforced one-part alkali activated slag/fly ash
binders with ceramic aggregates: Microscopic analysis, mechanical properties, drying shrinkage, and freeze-thaw resistance.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 241, 118129. [CrossRef]
66. Shah, S.; Chen, B.; Oderji, S.; Haque, M.; Ahmad, M. Comparative study on the effect of fiber type and content on the performance
of one-part alkali-activated mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 243, 118221. [CrossRef]
67. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Qiu, J.; Yang, E.-H. High ductile behavior of a polyethylene fiber-reinforced one-part geopolymer
composite: A micromechanics-based investigation. Arch. Civ. Mech. Eng. 2017, 17, 555–563. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 19 of 20

68. Alrefaei, Y.; Dai, J. Deflection hardening behavior and elastic modulus of one-part hybrid fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites.
J. Asian Concr. Fed. 2019, 5, 37–51. [CrossRef]
69. Alrfaei, Y.; Dai, J. Tensile behavior and microstructure of hybrid fiber ambient cured one-part engineered geopolymer composites.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 184, 419–431. [CrossRef]
70. Song, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, Y. Flexural Strength and Flexural Toughness of Fiber/Hybrid Fibers and Slag-geopolymers Composites.
Mater. Rev. 2017, 31, 121–124.
71. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J. Influence of Type of Fiber on Tensile Performance of One-Part “Dry-Mix” Strain Hardening
Geopolymer Composite (SHGC). In Proceedings of the 11th Fib International PhD Symposium in Civil Engineering, Tokyo, Japan,
29–31 August 2016; pp. 831–838.
72. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Ahmed, S.F.U. Tensile strain hardening behavior of PVA fiber-reinforced engineered geopolymer
composite. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2015, 27, 04015001. [CrossRef]
73. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Shaikh, F.U.A. Comparative deflection hardening behavior of short fiber reinforced geopolymer
composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 70, 54–64. [CrossRef]
74. Hajimohammadi, A.; Deventer, J. Deventer. Characterisation of One-Part Geopolymer Binders Made from Fly Ash. Waste Biomass
Valoriz. 2017, 8, 225–233. [CrossRef]
75. Bernal, S.; Bejarano, J.; Garzón, C.; Mejía de Gutiérrez, R.; Delvasto, S.; Rodríguez, E. Performance of refractory aluminosilicate
particle/fber-reinforced geopolymer composites. Compos. Part B 2012, 43, 1919–1928. [CrossRef]
76. Kozub, B.; Bazan, P.; Mierzwiński, D.; Korniejenko, K. Fly-Ash-Based Geopolymers Reinforced by Melamine Fibers. Materials
2021, 14, 400. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
77. Perumal, P.; Nguyen, H.; Carvelli, V.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. High strength fiber reinforced one-part alkali activated slag
composites from industrial side streams. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 319, 126124. [CrossRef]
78. Sood, D.; Hossain, K.M.A. Strength, Shrinkage and Early Age Characteristics of One-Part Alkali-Activated Binders with High-
Calcium Industrial Wastes, Solid Reagents and Fibers. J. Compos. Sci. 2021, 5, 315. [CrossRef]
79. Ma, C.; Zhao, B.; Guo, S.; Long, G.; Xie, Y. Properties and characterization of green one-part geopolymer activated by composite
activators. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 188–199. [CrossRef]
80. Kim, S.-W.; Jang, S.-J.; Kang, D.-H.; Ahn, K.-L.; Yun, H.-D. Mechanical Properties and Eco-Efficiency of Steel Fiber Reinforced
Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete. Materials 2015, 8, 7309–7321. [CrossRef]
81. Panda, B.; Singh, G.; Unluer, C.; Tan, M. Synthesis and characterization of one-part geopolymers for extrusion based 3D concrete
printing. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 220, 610–619. [CrossRef]
82. Bazan, P.; Kozub, B.; Łach, M.; Korniejenko, K. Evaluation of Hybrid Melamine and Steel Fiber Reinforced Geopolymers
Composites. Materials 2020, 13, 5548. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
83. Nematollahi, B.; Sanjayan, J.; Qiu, J.; Yang, E.-H. Micromechanics-based investigation of a sustainable ambient temperature cured
one-part strain hardening geopolymer composite. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 131, 552–563. [CrossRef]
84. Teo, W.; Shirai, K.; Lim, J.H. Influence of Precursor Materials on the Mechanical Behavior of Ambient-Cured One-Part Engineered
Geopolymer Composites. Eng. Proc. 2022, 17, 8. [CrossRef]
85. Nguyen, H.; Carvelli, V.; Adesanya, E.; Kinnunen, P.; Illikainen, M. High performance cementitious composite from alkali-
activated ladle slag reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2018, 90, 150–160. [CrossRef]
86. Nguyen, H.; Kinnunen, P.; Carvelli, V.; Illikainen, M. Durability of ettringite-based composite reinforced with polypropylene
fibers under combined chemical and physical attack. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2019, 102, 157–168. [CrossRef]
87. Bernal, S.; Gutierrez, R.; Delvasto, S.; Rodriguez, E. Performance of an alkali-activated slag concrete reinforced with steel fibers.
Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 208–214. [CrossRef]
88. Ranjbar, N.; Mehrali, M.; Behnia, A.; Javadi Pordsari, A.; Mehrali, M.; Alengaram, U. A Comprehensive Study of the Polypropylene
Fiber Reinforced Fly Ash Based Geopolymer. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0147546. [CrossRef]
89. Zuaiter, M.; El-Hassan, H.; El-Maaddawy, T.; El-Ariss, B. Properties of Slag-Fly Ash Blended Geopolymer Concrete Reinforced
with Hybrid Glass Fibers. Buildings 2022, 12, 1114. [CrossRef]
90. Natali, A.; Manzi, S.; Bignozzi, M.C. Novel fiber-reinforced composite materials based on sustainable geopolymer matrix. Procedia
Eng. 2011, 21, 1124–1131.
91. Abdollahnejad, Z.; Mastali, M. Fiber-reinforced one-part alkali-activated slag/ceramic binders. Ceram. Int. 2018, 44, 8963–8976.
[CrossRef]
92. Islam, A.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Ghazali, N.B.; Yusoff, S.; Bashar, I.I. Influence of steel fibers on the mechanical properties
and impact resistance of lightweight geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 152, 964–977. [CrossRef]
93. Zhang, N.; Yan, C.; Li, L.; Khan, M. Assessment of fiber factor for the fracture toughness of polyethylene fiber reinforced
geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 319, 126130. [CrossRef]
94. Wei, B.; Cao, H.; Song, S. Tensile behavior contrast of basalt and glass fibers after chemical treatment. Mater. Des. 2010, 31,
4244–4250. [CrossRef]
95. Dhand, V.; Mittal, G.; Rhee, K.Y.; Park, S.J.; Hui, D. A short review on basalt fiber reinforced polymer composites. Compos. Part B
Eng. 2015, 73, 166–180. [CrossRef]
96. Funke, H.; Gelbrich, S.; Kroll, L. The durability and performance of short fbers for a newly developed alkali-activated binder.
Fibers 2016, 4, 11. [CrossRef]
Polymers 2022, 14, 3333 20 of 20

97. Haruna, S.; Mohammed, B.S.; Wahab, M.M.A.; Kankia, M.U.; Amran, M.; Gora, A.M. Long-Term Strength Development of Fly
Ash-Based One-Part Alkali-Activated Binders. Materials 2021, 14, 4160. [CrossRef]
98. Alzaza, A.; Ohenoja, K.; Illikainen, M. Enhancing the mechanical and durability properties of subzero-cured one-part alkali-
activated blast furnace slag mortar by using submicron metallurgical residue as an additive. Cem. Concr. Comp. 2021, 122, 104128.
[CrossRef]
99. Wong, L.S. Durability Performance of Geopolymer Concrete: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 868. [CrossRef]
100. Nam, J.; Kim, G.; Lee, B.; Hasegawa, R.; Hama, Y. Frost resistance of polyvinyl alcohol fiber and polypropylene fiber reinforced
cementitious composites under freeze thaw cycling. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 90, 241–250. [CrossRef]
101. Coppola, L.; Coffetti, D.; Crotti, E.; Gazzaniga, G.; Pastore, T. The Durability of One-Part Alkali-Activated Slag-Based Mortars in
Different Environments. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3561. [CrossRef]
102. Man, X.; Haque, M.; Chen, B. Engineering properties and microstructure analysis of magnesium phosphate cement mortar
containing bentonite clay. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 227, 116656. [CrossRef]
103. Procházka, L.; Boháčová, J.; Vojvodíková, B. Effect of Admixtures on Durability and Physical-Mechanical Properties of Alkali-
Activated Materials. Materials 2022, 15, 2010. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
104. Ahmad, M.; Chen, B.; Shah, S. Influence of different admixtures on the mechanical and durability properties of one-part
alkali-activated mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 265, 120320. [CrossRef]