Next Article in Journal
Structural Health Monitoring of Bridges under the Influence of Natural Environmental Factors and Geomatic Technologies: A Literature Review and Bibliometric Analysis
Previous Article in Journal
Dynamic Load Identification on Prefabricated Girder Bridges Based on a CNN and Dynamic Strain Data
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 14
Issue 9
10.3390/buildings14092810
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

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

Composition, Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Dispersedly Reinforced with Sisal Fiber

by
Evgenii M. Shcherban’
1,
Sergey A. Stel’makh
2,
Alexey N. Beskopylny
3,*,
Besarion Meskhi
4,
Innessa Efremenko
5,
Alexandr A. Shilov
2,
Ivan Vialikov
6,
Oxana Ananova
7,
Andrei Chernil’nik
2 and
Diana Elshaeva
2
1
Department of Engineering Geometry and Computer Graphics, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
2
Department of Unique Buildings and Constructions Engineering, Don State Technical University, Gagarin Sq. 1, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
3
Department of Transport Systems, Faculty of Roads and Transport Systems, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
4
Department of Life Safety and Environmental Protection, Faculty of Life Safety and Environmental Engineering, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
5
Project Management Center, Don State Technical University, Gagarin, 1, 344000 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
6
School of Architecture, Design and Arts, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
7
Department of Marketing and Engineering Economics, Faculty of Innovative Business and Management, Don State Technical University, 344003 Rostov-on-Don, Russia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2024, 14(9), 2810; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092810
Submission received: 19 August 2024 / Revised: 4 September 2024 / Accepted: 5 September 2024 / Published: 6 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Advanced Green and Intelligent Building Materials)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The application of geopolymer composites in the construction of environmentally sustainable buildings and low-carbon structures has generated considerable interest, presenting an alternative and eco-friendly approach to composite materials. The purpose of this research is to develop a new composition of geopolymer concrete, dispersedly reinforced with sisal fiber, and investigate its structure and physical and mechanical properties. To evaluate the effectiveness of the proposed compositions, the fresh properties of the geopolymer concrete mixture—density and slump—and the properties of the hardened composite, namely, the compressive strength, flexural strength and water absorption, were studied. The most rational composition of the alkaline activator was established, and sisal fiber (SF) was protected from alkaline degradation by adding styrene-acrylic copolymer at an amount of 5% and microsilica at an amount of 3% to the concrete mixture. It was determined that the most optimal SF content was 1.0%. The compressive strength exhibited a maximum increase of 12.8%, the flexural strength showed a significant increase of 76.5%, and the water absorption displayed a decrease of 10.3%. The geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete developed in this study is an environmentally friendly replacement for traditional types of concrete with cement binders and can be used for the manufacture of small architectural forms and landscaping elements.

1. Introduction

Recently, there has been an increase in the population of large cities. The concentration of primary jobs in large cities leads to an increase in the need for residential buildings, due to which the outskirts of modern regional centers are actively being built up [1]. However, the expansion of the urban environment is performed not only through residential buildings but also through the improvement of adjacent areas. As a rule, to ensure the comfort of people living in large residential areas, parks, squares, sports grounds, and places for recreation and leisure are designed and built. Important objects for the improvement of such territories are small architectural forms. These include elements of monumental and decorative design, designs for mobile and vertical gardening, designs of artificial reservoirs and fountains, and urban public furniture, as well as household and technical equipment [2].
For a long time, concrete has been one of the most popular materials for manufacturing small architectural forms. Its exceptional physical and mechanical characteristics, ease of construction and repair, and affordability are key factors that contribute to the material’s popularity in constructing improvement elements [3]. Nevertheless, the extraction and production processes of raw materials for concrete mixtures are linked to considerable energy expenditures, substantial emissions of greenhouse gases, and the depletion of non-renewable natural resources [4,5,6]. As a result, geopolymer concretes are becoming increasingly popular as an eco-friendly substitution for ordinary concrete that relies on Portland cement [7,8,9,10]. The manufacturing of geopolymer concrete requires significantly less energy compared to conventional Portland cement production, primarily because of its utilization of industrial and agricultural waste. Additionally, geopolymer concrete results in a substantially lower carbon footprint compared to the extraction and production processes involved in conventional concrete components. Also, in terms of performance characteristics, it is not inferior to conventional concrete based on Portland cement, and sometimes it has better characteristics [11,12,13,14].
Despite the well-known technology of dispersed fiber reinforcement and its potential to enhance product performance, fiber-reinforced composites are infrequently employed in the production of small architectural forms and landscaping elements [15,16,17,18]. The integration of fiber into a geopolymer matrix is a widely recognized technology, extensively studied in scientific research and applied in practical settings. Nonetheless, the focus of most researchers lies in inorganic fibers like glass, polypropylene, or basalt fiber [19,20,21,22]. According to Alomayri et al. [23], the application of micro-glass fibers in combination with nanoclay in the production of geopolymer pastes made it possible to improve the compressive strength by 46.7% and the flexural strength by 150.8%. The introduction of glass fiber to the geopolymer composite at an amount of 1% increases the peak load deflection value and flexural strength [24]. Dispersed glass fiber reinforcement also has a beneficial effect on the properties of geopolymer composites [25,26,27]. The addition of polypropylene fibers [28] at a concentration of 0.5% has the potential to enhance both the strength and durability properties of geopolymer concrete. Improved mechanical and physical properties were achieved through the incorporation of polypropylene fibers at levels of 1–2% in the production of foamed geopolymer, as reported by Ahıskalı et al. [29]. Research [30,31] also validates the beneficial impact of polypropylene fibers on the characteristics of geopolymer composites. Along with polypropylene and glass fiber, the use of basalt fiber is no less popular and effective. Zubarev et al. [32] studied the influence of basalt fiber on the properties of a geopolymer composite. According to the study’s results, the optimal fiber content of 1.5% yielded significant improvements, with a 40.54% increase in compressive strength, a 93.75% increase in flexural strength, and a 45.75% decrease in water absorption. Using basalt fibers at proportions up to 2% [33] improved the properties of self-compacting geopolymer concrete. The compressive strength increased by over 20%, and the indirect tensile strength by 60%. Introducing basalt fiber as a dispersed reinforcement not only improves the strength properties but also enhances the physical attributes and durability of geopolymer concrete [34,35,36].
All the above types of fiber have good resistance to alkaline conditions, which affects the fiber not only in terms of the alkaline activation of the binder but also after the hardening of the geopolymer material [37]. Using organic natural fibers for fiber reinforcement of geopolymer compositions is significantly limited by the fact that the highly alkaline environment that arises when mixing the geopolymer binder with an alkaline activator slowly destroys natural fibers and leads to their mineralization, which in turn leads not only to a gradual decrease in the fiber’s reinforcement effect, but also to the degradation of the geopolymer matrix [38]. This problem is solved both by reducing the activity of the alkaline conditions of the geopolymer composition through the selection of components and maximizing the reduction in the amount of alkaline activator used, and by technologies for protecting fibers from the alkaline environment of the geopolymer matrix [39]. For example, Tonoli et al. [40] modified eucalyptus fiber using silane. This led to a reduction in the water retention and consequently improved the spatial stability. In a study by Ardanuy et al. [41], three types of organic fiber were considered—hemp fiber, agave fiber, and sisal fiber. Protecting this fiber with 5% styrene-acrylic copolymer reduced the composite’s water absorption by 50% and improved its stiffness and stability. Also, one of the effective methods of protecting natural fibers from the effects of negative factors caused by the characteristics of geopolymer materials is the addition of nanomodifiers to the mixture, which not only accelerate the polymerization process but also lead to the compaction of the structure of the geopolymer matrix, improving the characteristics of the resulting composite material due to unreacted nanoparticles, coated with geopolymer matrix material [42,43]. One of the most suitable nanomodifiers for protecting plant fibers is nanosilica (SiO2), which absorbs an alkaline solution in the geopolymer matrix, due to which the total alkali content in the geopolymer composite is reduced, which significantly reduces the rate of degradation of the natural fiber. The authors used nanosilica as a modifier for geopolymer composites dispersedly reinforced with flax fiber [44]. The experimental results showed that the flexural strength of the composites containing nanosilica decreased by about 10.3% after 32 weeks, while for the composites without a nanomodifier, the decrease in the flexural strength was about 22.4%. Rahman et al. [45] revealed that by incorporating silica fume and rice husk ash, the porosity of the geopolymer matrix decreased by 20%, while the flexural strength increased by 27%.
There are many different types of natural fibers. Nevertheless, sisal fiber has garnered considerable research interest. Derived from the leaves of the Agava sisalana plant, this particular fiber is known for its coarse texture. Batista Dos Santos et al. [46] studied the durability of a geopolymer composite based on wastewater treatment plant sludge, dispersedly reinforced with sisal fibers, where, based on the results of microstructural studies, it was proven that the degradation of sisal fibers was insignificant. Using sisal fiber increased the flexural strength of lightweight geopolymer pastes [47]. According to Sanfilippo et al. [48], sisal fibers were treated with sodium bicarbonate (NaHCO3) and introduced into a geopolymer mixture. As a result, adhesion at the fiber–matrix interface and strength properties improved. The positive effect of the use of sisal fibers in geopolymer concrete technology is also confirmed by da Silva Alves et al. [49], Wongsa et al. [50], and Özkılıç’ et al. [51].
However, there is a shortage of studies that have studied the effect of sisal fiber on the structure formation and characteristics of geopolymer concrete. In this study, by carefully selecting the composition of a geopolymer concrete with optimal molarity of alkali activator, the effect of sisal fiber on the structure and performance of the finished composite is studied. Therefore, the scientific novelty of this study lies in obtaining new compositions and relationships between the amount of dispersed sisal fibers and the characteristics of geopolymer concrete.
The primary goal of this research is to select components and determine their optimal quantity to create an environmentally friendly and effective composite material with improved characteristics based on geopolymer concrete dispersedly reinforced with plant fiber, applicable for the manufacture of various architectural objects and elements of urban landscaping.
The objective of this investigation was to conduct a theoretical analysis and experimental testing to assess the suitability of the plant fiber employed in the research for integration with the primary constituents of geopolymer concrete. Furthermore, this study aimed to evaluate whether the properties of the resulting composite material align with the fundamental criteria for materials used in the production of compact architectural structures. Thus, the main objectives of this study are as follows:
-
The development of compositions of geopolymer composites considering the actual properties of raw materials;
-
The manufacturing of experimental compositions of geopolymer mortar mixtures using alkaline activators of various concentrations, the selection of the most effective alkaline activator, and the production of geopolymer concretes with various dosages of sisal fiber;
-
To conduct experimental studies, which include assessing the fresh properties of geopolymer concrete mixtures, as well as the density, compressive strength, bending strength, and water absorption of hardened composites;
-
An analysis of the results and identification of the optimal solutions for the production of geopolymer concrete dispersedly reinforced with sisal fiber.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

The aluminosilicate binder utilized in this research was ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) procured from Severstal (Cherepovets, Russia). The chemical composition of GGBS is outlined in Table 1.
For the purpose of this investigation, fine and coarse aggregates were selected, namely, quartz sand (QS) derived from the Arkhipovsky quarry in Arkhipovskoye, Russia, and crushed sandstone (CSS) obtained from Pavlovsknerud in Pavlovsk, Russia. The essential attributes of sand and crushed stone can be found in Table 2 and Table 3.
The above characteristics of the geopolymer concrete components are provided by the manufacturers.
Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the particle size distribution for CSS, QS, and GGBS.
The alkaline activators employed in this research comprised sodium hydroxide (NaOH) sourced from Khimprom in Novocheboksarsk, Russia, and sodium liquid glass (Na2O(SiO2)n) obtained from Kerami-NSK in Novosibirsk, Russia.
Chinese-made sisal fiber (SF) was employed to provide dispersed reinforcement. The fibers were provided in a ready-to-use state and did not necessitate further processing. The fibers were precisely cut to lengths within the range of 20 ± 2 mm. This fiber length was selected based on a literature review. In most studies, the selected sisal fiber length performed better than other fibers (short and longer) in terms of finished composite performance. In preparation for use, the fibers were stored for a minimum of 48 h in a dry and well-ventilated area, where the air temperature was maintained at 25 °C and the humidity at 65%. Table 4 presents the distinctive features of sisal fiber, while Figure 2 provides a visual depiction of its appearance.
To protect sisal fiber from alkaline degradation, styrene-acrylic copolymer Indpol 027 (Polymer, Dzerzhinsk, Russia) was used in the geopolymer matrix. The characteristics of the styrene-acrylic copolymer are presented in Table 5.
To reduce the activity of the alkaline environment of the geopolymer matrix, microsilica MK-85 (Novolipetsk Metallurgical Plant, Lipetsk, Russia) was used. Table 6 provides an overview of the properties of microsilica.
Data in Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6 are provided by material manufacturers.

2.2. Methods

In order to develop the optimal composition of geopolymer concrete containing sisal fibers, preliminary experiments were carried out to select the optimal molarity of the alkaline activator. In order to achieve this objective, five mortar geopolymer mixtures were prepared. The alkaline activator used was a liquid glass solution with the following composition: SiO2 34.1%, Na2O 14.9%, H2O 51.0%, and sodium hydroxide containing pure NaOH 99.6%. The molar concentration varied from 6 to 14 mol/L. Solutions of alkaline activators were prepared 24 h before their use. The presentation of geopolymer mixture compositions can be found in Table 7, while the program of experimental research is depicted in Figure 3.
Geopolymer mortar mixtures were prepared in the form of prism samples measuring 40 × 40 × 160 mm. In the laboratory setting, the creation of mortar geopolymer mixtures was accomplished by utilizing the Matest E093 mortar mixer, produced by Matest (Treviolo, Italy). First, the raw materials were dosed following the recipe presented in Table 7. Then, the aluminosilicate binder and an alkaline activator solution of the required molarity were loaded into the mixer and mixed until complete homogenization. Following the acquisition of a consistent geopolymer paste, sand was introduced in the prescribed quantity and blended until achieving uniform consistency. The completed geopolymer mortar mixture was placed into 40 × 40 × 160 mm metal molds, which were subsequently compressed on a laboratory vibration platform SMZh (Imash, Armavir, Russia). One day following their production, the samples were extracted from the molds. Afterwards, the samples were stored in laboratory conditions for a total of 27 days. On the 28th day, prism samples of geopolymer mortar mixtures were subjected to compression and bending tests under the requirements [52]. The bending and compressive strengths of samples of geopolymer mortar mixtures were determined using Press P-50 equipment (PKC ZIM, Armavir, Russia). Before the bending test, samples of hardened geopolymer mortar mixtures were installed in a special device and then loaded at a load rate of 50 ± 10 N/s. The calculation for determining flexural strength involved the use of the following formula:
R m   b t = 1.5   F   l b 3
Here, F is the breaking load (N); b—size of the side of the square section of the prism sample (mm); l—distance between the axes of the supports (mm).
After determining the flexural strength, the resulting 6 prism halves were subjected to compression testing. The application of the load occurred at a rate of 0.6 ± 0.4 MPa/s. The formula used to determine compressive strength was as follows:
R m = F S
where S—area of the plate (mm2).
A total of 15 prism specimens of the hardened geopolymer mortar were manufactured and tested.
After preliminary experimental studies, the best composition of the alkaline activator was determined, which was subsequently used for the production of geopolymer concrete with sisal fiber. Figure 4 illustrates the experimental research program, while Table 8 provides the compositions of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete.
Before preparing geopolymer concrete mixtures, an alkaline activator of the appropriate concentration was also prepared within one day. The manufacturing of the prototypes took place within the confines of laboratory conditions. The geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete mixture components were measured using HT-5000 laboratory scales (NPP Gosmetr, Saint Petersburg, Russia), following the calculated quantitative values. Then, the measured components were placed into a BL-10 laboratory concrete mixer (ZZBO, Zlatoust, Russia) and processed until a homogeneous mass consistency was achieved. Initially, the aluminosilicate binder was blended with an alkaline activator for a duration of 5 min, followed by the introduction of quartz sand to the resulting geopolymer matrix. Styrene-acrylic copolymer was introduced into the geopolymer mixture at an amount of 5% by weight of GGBS. Microsilica was introduced into the geopolymer mixture at an amount of 3% by weight of GGBS. Next, sisal fibers were added to the mixer. The final step involved adding coarse aggregate. After homogenization, the mixture was unloaded into sample molds and then vibrated to remove unwanted air bubbles and compact the mixture to the required state on a laboratory vibration platform. The vibration time was 60 s.
After the geopolymer concrete mixtures were produced, their fresh properties, such as slump and density, were determined. The settlement of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete mixtures was determined following the method described in [53]. Before testing, the surface of the metal cone, bayonet, and metal sheet used to determine the draft was wiped with a damp cloth. Following the necessary preparations, the cone was securely placed onto a metal sheet and gradually filled with a concrete mixture in three distinct stages. At every stage, the mixture was loaded to approximately one-third of the cone’s height and compacted by delivering 25 bayonet blows. Once the compaction process had finished, the surplus concrete mixture was trimmed using a ruler and the cone was then lifted vertically. Right after the cone was removed, the slump was measured and determined by calculating the disparity between the form’s height and the highest point of the settled concrete mixture. The density of concrete geopolymer mixtures was determined according to the method described in [54]. A two-liter metal vessel was filled with the concrete mixture and accurately weighed, ensuring an error of no more than 5 g. The calculation of the concrete mixture’s density was performed using the following prescribed formula:
ρ C M = m − m 1 V × 1000
Here, m is the mass of the measuring vessel with the concrete mixture (g); m1—mass of the measuring vessel without mixture (g); V—capacity of the measuring vessel (cm3).
The following hardened geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete properties were determined: density, compressive strength, flexural strength, and water absorption. Determination of the density of hardened geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete was carried out according to the method described in [55]. Density was calculated using the following formula:
ρ = m V × 1000
Here, m is the mass of the sample (g); V—volume (cm3).
Compressive and flexural strengths were determined under the requirements described in [56,57,58,59,60] using samples of geopolymer concrete aged for 28 days. The cube samples were installed in a Press P-50 laboratory setup. The load was applied at a rate of increase of 0.6 ± 0.2 MPa/s. The compressive strength of concrete was calculated using the following formula:
R c = α F A
Here, F is the breaking load (N); A—sample working section area (mm2); α is a coefficient taking into account the dimensions of the samples (for samples with a side of 100 mm α = 0.95).
When testing for bending, samples of geopolymer concrete were first installed in a special laboratory installation, and the load was applied at a rate of increase of 0.05 ± 0.01 MPa/s. Flexural strength was calculated using the following formula:
R c   b t = δ F   l a   b 2
Here, F is the breaking load (N); a, b, l—cross-sectional dimensions of the specimen and distance between supports (mm); δ—coefficient taking into account the dimensions of the samples (for samples with a size of 100 mm δ = 0.92).
The estimation of water absorption of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete was conducted under the requirements of [61,62]. Water absorption was calculated using the following formula:
W = m w − m d m d × 100
Here, mw is the mass of the sample saturated with water (g); md is the mass of the dry sample (g).
A total of 54 cube samples were made (27 to determine density and compressive strength, 27 to determine water absorption) and 27 prism samples were made to determine the bending strength of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete.
The analysis of sand, crushed stone, and slag particles was carried out using laboratory sets of sieves (RNPO RusPribor, Chelyabinsk, Russia) and a laser particle analyzer Microsizer 201C (VA INSALT, St. Petersburg, Russia).
The structure of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete was studied using an MBS-10 optical microscope (Izmeritelnaya Tekhnika, Moscow, Russia) at a magnification of 12.

3. Results and Discussion

The strength properties of geopolymer mortar mixtures sealed with an alkaline activator with different molarities of sodium hydroxide are presented in Figure 5 (compressive strength) and Figure 6 (flexural strength).
The data presented in Figure 5 indicate that geopolymer mixtures prepared with an alkaline activator, specifically a 12M sodium hydroxide solution, exhibited the highest compressive strength. The least effective was the use of NaOH solutions with a molarity of 6M and 14M. Composition 12M has a 40.74% higher compressive strength value than composition 6M. Compositions 8M, 10M, and 14M have compressive strengths 26.85%, 34.26%, and 4.63% higher than 6M, respectively.
The alteration of the flexural strength as a function of the composition of the alkaline activator, presented in Figure 6, is of a similar nature as the dependence of the compressive strength in Figure 5. The highest value of bending strength was recorded for composition 12M. It is 50.0% higher than the bending strength of composition 6M. Compositions 8M, 10M, and 14M had flexural strength values 36.89%, 43.44%, and 9.84% higher than that of composition 6M.
As a rule, the influence of the alkaline activator on the future properties of the geopolymer composite begins at the stage of its dissolution and transformation into polysilicic acid and continues at the stages of gel setting and its transformation into crystals. Another important factor affecting the strength properties of the geopolymer is the reactivity of the aluminosilicate binder component, which is determined by the granulometry of the particles. The smaller the particles of the aluminosilicate component, the more actively they enter into polymerization reactions. Each composition of the geopolymer composite is individual, and aluminosilicate components of different origin and unstable chemical and physical properties are used for production. The best strength properties in this study are demonstrated by the geopolymer solution, the production of which used an alkaline activator containing 12M sodium hydroxide. It is in this combination that GGBS most actively dissolves and enters into a polymerization reaction, creating a strong structure. Alkaline activators containing sodium hydroxide 6M and 14M are less effective for the sealing of GGBS. In the case of sodium hydroxide 6M, the lower compressive and flexural strength is due to the fact that a smaller number of GGBS particles dissolve and enter into polymerization reactions. With a higher molarity of sodium hydroxide 14M, the reason for the reduced properties is a less effective combination of the chemical and granulometric composition of the binder component with the alkaline activator than with 12M [14].
Experimentally, it was found that for the manufacture of a geopolymer composite using this type of raw material, the characteristics of which are presented in detail in Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6, the most suitable is the use of an alkaline activator from a mixture of sodium liquid glass and a solution of sodium hydroxide with a molarity of 12M. Accordingly, to produce geopolymer concrete with sisal fiber, an alkaline activator was used from a mixture of sodium liquid glass and sodium hydroxide solution with a molarity of 12M.
Next, Figure 7 and Figure 8 show the characteristics of fresh concrete geopolymer mixtures with different dosages of SF. Figure 7 shows the dependence of the density of the geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of introduced SF.
The experimental data shown in Figure 7 showed that in the range studied, there is a slight dependence of density ρ on the dosage of sisal fiber (x in the equation).
ρ = 2212.9 + 14.57   x − 3.896   x 2 ,           R 2 = 0.978
where R2 is the coefficient of determination.
According to the data on changes in the densities of the fresh geopolymer concrete mixture presented in Figure 7, it can be concluded that the introduction of SF in the considered amount of up to 1.6% does not have a significant effect on the change in the density of the fresh geopolymer concrete mixture. As the SF content increases, a slight increase in the density of the mixture is visible. If we consider a slight increase in density with the introduction of the fiber, then the explanation seems to be as follows. The presence of the fibers allows for the creation of a somewhat denser structure, the packing of the particles improves, the intergranular cohesion increases, and the porosity decreases. A decrease in porosity at the micro and macro levels leads to a slight increase in the density of the fiber-reinforced concrete compared to conventional concrete. For the geopolymer concrete mixture, the density, depending on the amount of sisal fiber introduced, varied from 2213 kg/m3 to 2227 kg/m3. These changes are not significant, and the maximum density value at 1.6% SF content is 0.6% higher than the control composition.
Figure 8 shows the dependence of the change in settlement of the geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of SF used in it.
The experimental data shown in Figure 8 showed that in the studied range, the dependence of the slump of the geopolymer concrete mixture on the dosage of sisal fiber (x in the equation) is described by a linear function, as follows:
S l = 6.85 − 3.07   x ,      R 2 = 0.987
The red dotted lines show the confidence limits for the regression Equation (9) with a confidence probability of 0.99.
The results of the slump measurements of the geopolymer concrete mixture, presented in Figure 8, indicate that the introduction of SF into the mixture reduces its slump. The dependence is direct: with increasing SF dosage, the sediment cone of geopolymer mixtures decreases. At a maximum SF content of 1.6%, the reduction in cone settlement compared to the control mixture was 67.2%. SF has the ability to absorb some liquid from the geopolymer concrete mixture, thereby reducing its settlement. In general, the decrease in the workability parameters of geopolymer concrete mixtures when fiber is introduced into them is a well-known fact [38,46,63,64,65].
Figure 9 and Figure 10 illustrate the relationship between the strength properties of the geopolymer concrete and different SF dosages. Figure 9 shows the graphical dependence of the compressive strength of the hardened geopolymer concrete on the amount of SF introduced into it.
The experimental data presented in Figure 9 showed that in the studied range, the dependence of the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete on the dosage of sisal fiber (x in the equation) is described by a polynomial function of the third degree:
R c = 22.66 + 0.212   x + 6.54   x 2 − 4.093   x 3 ,        R 2 = 0.981
As can be seen from Figure 9, the dispersed reinforcement of SF geopolymer concrete has a positive effect on the compressive strength. The compressive strength change curve is as follows. At a level of dispersed SF reinforcement from 0.0% to 1.0%, a steady increase in the compressive strength is observed with a peak value at 1.0% SF. At 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.6% SF, the compressive strength has the opposite tendency and decreases. The increases in the compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete reinforced with SF at amounts of 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, and 0.8% compared to the control composition were 0.9%, 3.5%, 6.6%, and 9.7%, respectively. The maximum peak compressive strength value was 25.6 MPa for the geopolymer concrete composition with 1.0% SF, which is 12.8% higher than the control composition. The geopolymer concrete modified with higher dosages of SF at amounts of 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.6% had a higher compressive strength compared to the fiber-free geopolymer concrete by 11.0%, 7.0%, and 1.8%, respectively.
Figure 10 shows the dependence of the change in the flexural strength of the geopolymer concrete (Rcbt) on the amount of SF contained in it.
The experimental data presented in Figure 10 showed that in the studied range, the dependence of the flexural strength of the geopolymer concrete on the dosage of sisal fiber (x in the equation) is described by a polynomial function of the third degree:
R c   b t = 3.11 + 4.95   x − 3.07   x 2 + 0.296   x 3 ,       R 2 = 0.982
The correlation between the variation in the flexural strength of the geopolymer concrete and the quantity of SF, as illustrated in Figure 10, demonstrates a comparable trend to the relationship observed in Figure 9 regarding the change in the compressive strength. There is a line of active growth in the strength with a peak value at 1.0% SF and a gradual decrease in flexural strength with an SF content from 1.2% to 1.6%. In the SF dosage range from 0.2% to 0.8%, the increases in the flexural strength were 29.9%, 46.0%, 61.1%, and 68.8%, respectively. The maximum flexural strength value was 5.49 MPa, which is 76.5% higher than that of the composition without SF. Geopolymer concrete dispersedly reinforced with SF at amounts of 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.6% had higher flexural strength than the composition without SF by 61.4%, 53.4%, and 42.4%, respectively.
In general, when analyzing compressive and flexural strength, it is clear that the use of SF has a positive effect on them; however, a more significant effect is observed when assessing flexural strength in particular. The SF content of 1.0% is the most optimal and provided increases in the compressive and bending strength of 12.8% and 76.5%, respectively. More significant increases in the bending strength are explained by the mechanism of operation of the sisal fiber in the structure of the geopolymer composite under bending loads. Under compressive loads, sisal fibers in the body of the geopolymer composite can absorb some of the stress and maintain the integrity of the concrete structure, which subsequently helps improve the compressive strength. The nature of the destruction of geopolymer concrete with SF is clearly shown in Figure 11.
Under compressive loads, sisal fibers do not break and maintain their integrity. Regarding bending loads, sisal fibers, on the contrary, absorb all the stresses until they are completely destroyed, which explains the higher increases in the bending strength [43]. As is known, in most cases, fibers introduced into the composition of any composite have a chaotic distribution throughout the structure of the entire body of the composite. The degree of saturation of the composite with fiber and the uniformity of its distribution are fundamental factors that determine the degree of positive influence of dispersed reinforcement on the properties of composites [66,67,68,69,70,71]. Accordingly, when the structure of geopolymer concrete is supersaturated with SF fibers, a reverse negative effect will be observed due to an increase in the porosity of the composite structure and accumulations of SF agglomerations.
Figure 12 illustrates the dependence of the water absorption of the geopolymer concrete (W) on the amount of SF contained in it.
The experimental data presented in Figure 12 showed that in the studied range, the dependence of the water absorption of the geopolymer concrete on the dosage of sisal fiber (x in the equation) is described by a polynomial function of the third degree.
W = 5.74 − 0.304   x − 0.943   x 2 + 0.699   x 3 ,         R 2 = 0.952
According to the data presented in Figure 12, it is clear that the usage of sisal fiber in the geopolymer concrete generally has a beneficial effect and helps to reduce the water absorption of the composite. The dependence of the change in the water absorption of the geopolymer concrete on the amount of SF has the following characteristic: a stable decrease in water absorption values with an SF content of 0.2% to 1.0%. The minimum water absorption value was recorded at 1.0%. Further, with an increase in the SF content to 1.6%, an inverse relationship is observed. The reductions in the water absorption values of the geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete in comparison with the composition without SF at 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.6%, and 0.8% SF were 0.5%, 2.6%, 6.7%, and 8.2%, respectively. The geopolymer concrete with 1.0% SF had the lowest water absorption value, which was 5.12%, which is 10.3% less than the composition without fiber. The compositions containing 1.2%, 1.4%, and 1.6% SF displayed water absorption lower than that of the composition without SF by 7.7%, 4.7%, and 0.9%, respectively.
An analysis of the structure of the geopolymer concrete without SF and composition with 1.0% SF is presented in Figure 13.
The geopolymer concrete, shown in Figure 13, has a fairly dense structure. The SFs are randomly distributed in the geopolymer composite structure (Figure 13b) and have good adhesion to the hardened geopolymer matrix. The SFs are partially elongated from the composite, which indicates a standard characteristic failure of the fiber in the body of the composite under destructive compressive or bending loads, which is in good agreement with a number of other studies [39,44,46]. There are no visible signs of alkaline degradation of the SFs.
The presence of sisal fibers increases the cohesion of the structure, reducing the porosity at the micro and macro level, which leads to an improvement in the short-term mechanical properties. But the degradation of sisal fibers in an alkaline solution will negatively affect the further strength gain and long-term properties of the geopolymer composite. This is due to alkaline hydrolysis, which leads to the decomposition of hemicellulose and the amorphous regions of the cellulose fibers, which ultimately leads to a violation of the integrity of the zone at the interface between the fiber and geopolymer matrix phases [42,43].
Having analyzed the results of determining the density, compressive strength, bending strength, and water absorption of the geopolymer concrete dispersedly reinforced with sisal fiber, a number of conclusions can be drawn:
-
The best composition of the alkaline activator is a mixture of sodium liquid glass and sodium hydroxide solution with a molarity of 12M;
-
SF in the considered dosages up to 1.6% has a positive effect on the properties of the geopolymer composite;
-
The introduction of SF into the geopolymer concrete mixture does not have a significant effect on the change in its density. However, dispersed reinforcement with sisal fiber reduces the settlement of the geopolymer concrete mixture. This dependence is direct and decreases with increasing sediment fiber content. At the maximum SF content of 1.6% considered in this study, the reduction in the mixture slump was 67.2%;
-
The dispersed reinforcement of the SF geopolymer concrete improves its physical and mechanical properties. The greatest positive effect was recorded at an SF content of 1.0%. The increase in the compressive strength was 12.8%, the flexural strength increased by 76.5%, and water absorption decreased by 10.3%. With a dosage of sisal fiber of about 1%, the maximum increases in the compressive strength and flexural strength of the geopolymer concrete were obtained, as well as the maximum reductions in the water absorption of the geopolymer concrete in comparison with the composite without sisal fiber. The structure of the geopolymer concrete with this dosage of sisal fiber had the highest visual homogeneity, coherence, and integrity in comparison with the control samples, which confirmed the dependence of the physical and mechanical characteristics of the geopolymer concrete on the dosage of sisal fiber.
A comparative analysis of the influence of various types of organic fibers on the properties of geopolymer concrete is presented in Table 9.
According to the findings of the comparative analysis, the results obtained in this study are consistent with the results reported by other authors [48,49,72,73,74,75,76,77,78]. The introduction of various types of natural fiber in the geopolymer composite has a beneficial effect on its properties. The most improved properties are the compressive strength, flexural strength, and fracture toughness.
We also note that in this study, additional formulation decisions were made to protect the SF from alkaline degradation. A diagram of the alkaline degradation of plant fibers is shown in Figure 14.
The introduction of styrene-acrylic copolymer (Indpol 027) and microsilica into the geopolymer mixture reduces the activity of the alkaline environment and makes it possible to protect the SF from its effects. The styrene-acrylic copolymer and microsilica additives absorb the alkaline solution in the geopolymer matrix, reducing the alkaline activity of the environment at the initial stage of the hardening of the composite, due to which the total alkali content in the geopolymer composite decreases, which significantly reduces the rate of degradation of the natural fiber, since the fiber is in a less aggressive environment [41,42,43].
In general, this study develops previously obtained theoretical concepts and experimental dependencies created by the influence of various formulations and other factors on the properties of geopolymer concrete [15,32,67,68,79]. The solutions obtained in this study can be enhanced by the models proposed in [80] in terms of improving the protection of the geopolymer concrete surface from moisture even at the nano scale and increasing the mechanical strength of the modified surface to extend the service life of geopolymer concrete structures. The same can be said about the improvement of the geopolymer structure when interacting with graphene-based nanosheets, which leads to an improvement in the mechanical, electrical, and thermal properties of the material [81]. Our research was initially characterized by an integrated approach, which involved a detailed study of the aluminosilicate binder (GGBS), alkaline activator (Na2O(SiO2)n + NaOH (12M)), coarse and fine aggregate, styrene-acrylic copolymer, microsilica, and sisal used as the studied fiber, as well as a detailed analysis of their properties and mutual combination in a mixture of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete. After analyzing the properties of the mixture components used in this study, the relationships between them and the final characteristics of the resulting geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete were identified. The newly developed compositions of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete have fairly good physical and mechanical characteristics and can be used both for the construction of buildings and for the manufacture of small architectural forms and landscaping elements. At the same time, the existing limitations on the use of sisal-reinforced geopolymer concrete in structural applications require more detailed studies of the long-term characteristics of such concrete. Therefore, the use of such concrete in non-load-bearing structures is more justified and appropriate today than in load-bearing ones. The use of geopolymer concrete, dispersedly reinforced with sisal fiber, reduces the negative impact on the environment, which corresponds to the concept of sustainable development, the urgent problem with which is the search for environmentally friendly alternatives to materials traditionally used in construction, the production of which is less energy-intensive and does not lead to the depletion of non-renewable natural resources [6,82].
The production of geopolymer concrete is much less energy-intensive than the production of conventional concrete, mainly due to the use of industrial and agricultural waste, and also leaves a much smaller carbon footprint than the processes associated with the extraction and production of components of conventional concrete. The use of geopolymer composites reinforced with sisal fibers will reduce the cost of large-scale construction projects due to the use of cheaper components compared to conventional concrete, which are also forms of waste from other industries. According to preliminary estimates by industrial partners, the economic effect of using geopolymer concrete with sisal fibers can be up to 20%. Replacing conventional concrete with geopolymer concrete with fibers will lead to a significant reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, which will have a positive effect on the environmental consequences of scaling up the production of geopolymer concrete reinforced with sisal fibers for use in large-scale construction projects.
Sisal-reinforced geopolymer concrete has some limitations in structural applications. Sisal fiber degrades quickly in the alkaline matrix, which deteriorates the long-term properties of geopolymer concrete. Future research should strengthen the protection against sisal fiber degradation to better utilize the environmental and economic benefits of reinforcing geopolymer concrete. It should also consider using sisal with other types of fibers to expand the application range of geopolymer concrete.

4. Conclusions

Various types of formulation solutions aimed at improving the properties of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete have been studied. The selection of the most optimal composition of an alkaline activator for the production of geopolymer concrete has been carried out. An effective composition of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete has been selected, which provides protection of the sisal fiber from alkaline degradation. The influence of dispersed reinforcement with sisal fiber on the physical and mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete was assessed.
(1) The production of a geopolymer composite using ground granulated blast furnace slag involved the selection of an optimal alkaline activator composition based on the results of preliminary experimental studies. Geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete was produced using an alkaline activator from a mixture of sodium liquid glass and sodium hydroxide solution with a molarity of 12M.
(2) The introduction of SF up to 1.6% does not have a significant effect on the change in the density of the geopolymer concrete mixture (0.6%).
(3) The addition of SF deteriorates the workability of fresh geopolymer concrete mixtures. The slump of the geopolymer concrete mixture decreases as the amount of SF introduced increases. Geopolymer concrete mixture with 1.6% SF has a 62.7% lower slump value compared to a mixture without SF.
(4) Dispersed SF reinforcement has a positive effect on the properties of geopolymer concrete. The most efficient composition of geopolymer concrete has a 1.0% weight ratio of sisal fiber to GGBS. A notable increase of 12.8% was observed in the compressive strength, accompanied by a significant improvement of 76.5% in the flexural strength. Furthermore, a decrease of 10.3% was recorded in the water absorption. The degree of saturation of the composite with fiber and the uniformity of its distribution are fundamental factors that determine the degree of positive influence of dispersed reinforcement on the properties of composites. Accordingly, when the structure of geopolymer concrete is supersaturated with SF fibers, a reverse negative effect will be observed due to an increase in the porosity of the composite structure and accumulations of SF agglomerations.
(5) The developed new compositions of geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete have fairly good physical and mechanical characteristics and can be used both for the construction of buildings and for the manufacture of small architectural forms and landscaping elements. A future direction of research is to study the long-term properties of geopolymer concrete with sisal fiber and its degree and rate of degradation, as well as to study the characteristics of geopolymer concrete and geopolymer concrete products containing other types of plant fibers.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.A.S., E.M.S., D.E. and A.C.; methodology, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.A.S.; software, I.V., D.E. and A.C.; validation, A.C., I.V., O.A. and D.E.; formal analysis, A.C., S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.A.S.; investigation, D.E., A.A.S., B.M., S.A.S., E.M.S., A.N.B. and A.C.; resources, I.E., S.A.S., E.M.S. and B.M.; data curation, I.E., I.V., O.A. and A.C.; writing—original draft preparation, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; writing—review and editing, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; visualization, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B.; supervision, B.M. and I.E.; project administration, B.M.; funding acquisition, S.A.S., E.M.S. and A.N.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data is contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the administration of Don State Technical University for their resources and financial support.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tolstykh, T.; Gamidullaeva, L.; Shmeleva, N.; Gromov, S.; Ermolenko, A. Megapolis as a Symbiosis of Socio-Economic Ecosystems: The Role of Collaboration. J. Open Innov. Technol. Mark. Complex. 2022, 8, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Baqa, M.F.; Chen, F.; Lu, L.; Qureshi, S.; Tariq, A.; Wang, S.; Jing, L.; Hamza, S.; Li, Q. Monitoring and Modeling the Patterns and Trends of Urban Growth Using Urban Sprawl Matrix and CA-Markov Model: A Case Study of Karachi, Pakistan. Land 2021, 10, 700. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Al-Kheetan, M.J.; Byzyka, J.; Ghaffar, S.H. Sustainable Valorisation of Silane-Treated Waste Glass Powder in Concrete Pavement. Sustainability 2021, 13, 4949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Runganga, D.; Okonta, F.; Musonda, I. Strength and Durability Properties of High-Volume Fly Ash (HVFA) Binders: A Systematic Review. Civil. Eng. 2024, 5, 435–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Moreno, S.; Rosales, M.; Rosales, J.; Agrela, F.; Díaz-López, J.L. Feasibility of Using New Sustainable Mineral Additions for the Manufacture of Eco-Cements. Materials 2024, 17, 777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. WMO. Greenhouse Gas. Bulletin: The State of the Greenhouse Gases in the Atmosphere Based on Global Observations through 2018. Weather Clim. Water 2019, 15, 191536. [Google Scholar]
  7. Khan, K.; Ahmad, W.; Amin, M.N.; Nazar, S. A Scientometric-Analysis-Based Review of the Research Development on Geopolymers. Polymers 2022, 14, 3676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Castillo, H.; Collado, H.; Droguett, T.; Vesely, M.; Garrido, P.; Palma, S. State of the art of geopolymers: A review. e-Polymers 2022, 22, 108–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Qin, L.; Yan, J.; Zhou, M.; Liu, H.; Wang, A.; Zhang, W.; Duan, P.; Zhang, Z. Mechanical properties and durability of fiber reinforced geopolymer composites: A review on recent progress. Eng. Rep. 2023, 5, e12708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Valente, M.; Sambucci, M.; Sibai, A. Geopolymers vs. Cement Matrix Materials: How Nanofiller Can Help a Sustainability Approach for Smart Construction Applications—A Review. Nanomaterials 2021, 11, 2007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Mohamed, O.; Zuaiter, H. Fresh Properties, Strength, and Durability of Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer and Conventional Concrete: A Review. Polymers 2024, 16, 141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Kabirova, A.I.; Ibragimov, R.A.; Genç, B.; Korolev, E.V.; Kiyamov, I.K.; Kiyamova, L.I. Research trends in the mechanoactivation of clay minerals used in obtaining geopolymers. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2023, 6, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Khater, H.M.; El Nagar, A.M.; Ezzat, M. Processing, characterization and hardening mechanism of one-part geopolymer cement. Mag. Civ. Eng. 2022, 116, 11611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Eroshkina, N.A.; Chamurliev, M.Y.; Korovkin, M.O. The Influence of Composition of Geopolymer Binder on the Deformation and Strength Properties of Concrete. Obraz. I Nauka V Sovrem. Mire Innovacii 2019, 4, 181–187. [Google Scholar]
  15. Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Shilov, A.A.; Beskopylny, N.; Chernil’nik, A. Enhanced Performance of Concrete Dispersedly Reinforced with Sisal Fibers. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 9102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Antypas, I.R. Effect of Glass Fiber Reinforcement on the Mechanical Properties of Polyester Composites. Adv. Eng. Res. 2023, 23, 387–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Morgun, V.N. About Dynamics of Improving the Foam Concrete Technological and Operational Properties upon Disperse Reinforcement with Polypropylene Fibers. Mod. Trends Constr. Urban Territ. Plan. 2023, 2, 69–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Yazyev, S.B.; Chepurnenko, A.S. Buckling of Rectangular Plates under Nonlinear Creep. Adv. Eng. Res. (Rostov-on-Don) 2023, 23, 257–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Sharma, U.; Gupta, N.; Bahrami, A.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Verma, M.; Berwal, P.; Althaqafi, E.; Khan, M.A.; Islam, S. Behavior of Fibers in Geopolymer Concrete: A Comprehensive Review. Buildings 2024, 14, 136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Tsai, S.-L.; Wang, H.-Y.; Lin, K.-T.; Hung, C.-C. A Novel Eco-Friendly Thermal-Insulating High-Performance Geopolymer Concrete Containing Calcium Oxide-Activated Materials from Waste Tires and Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate. Buildings 2024, 14, 1437. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhang, X.; Ling, Y.; Wu, Y.; Lai, H.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Z. Comprehensive Analysis of Mechanical, Economic, and Environmental Characteristics of Hybrid PE/PP Fiber-Reinforced Engineered Geopolymer Composites. Buildings 2024, 14, 1094. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. 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. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Alomayri, T.; Adesina, A. The influence of nano CaCO3 on the mechanical performance of micro glass-reinforced geopolymer paste. Arab. J. Geosci. 2021, 14, 1369. Available online: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12517-021-07839-0 (accessed on 5 September 2024). [CrossRef]
  24. Ahmed Shaikh, F.U.; Patel, A. Flexural Behavior of Hybrid PVA Fiber and AR-Glass Textile Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. Fibers 2018, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Kumar, Y.N.; Kumar, B.D.; Swami, B.L.P. Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete reinforced with steel and glass fibers with various mineral admixtures. Mater. Today Proc. 2022, 52, 632–641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Ganesh, A.C.; Muthukannan, M. Development of high performance sustainable optimized fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete and prediction of compressive strength. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 282, 124543. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Abbas, S.N.; Qureshi, M.I.; Abid, M.M.; Asad Zia, A.; Tariq, M.A.U.R. An Investigation of Mechanical Properties of Fly Ash Based Geopolymer and Glass Fibers Concrete. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Waqas, R.M.; Zaman, S.; Alkharisi, M.K.; Butt, F.; Alsuhaibani, E. Influence of Bentonite and Polypropylene Fibers on Geopolymer Concrete. Sustainability 2024, 16, 789. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ahıskalı, A.; Ahıskalı, M.; Bayraktar, O.Y.; Kaplan, G.; Assaad, J.J. Mechanical and durability properties of polymer fiber reinforced one-part foam geopolymer concrete: A sustainable strategy for the recycling of waste steel slag aggregate and fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 440, 137492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Thakur, G.; Singh, Y.; Singh, R.; Prakash, C.; Saxena, K.K.; Pramanik, A.; Basak, A.; Subramaniam, S. Development of GGBS-Based Geopolymer Concrete Incorporated with Polypropylene Fibers as Sustainable Materials. Sustainability 2022, 14, 10639. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Aygörmez, Y.; Canpolat, O.; Al-Mashhadani, M.M.; Uysal, M. Elevated temperature, freezing-thawing and wetting-drying effects on polypropylene fiber reinforced metakaolin based geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 235, 117502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zubarev, K.P.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Elshaeva, D.; Chernil’nik, A.; Zakieva, N.I.; Pimenova, E.V.; Shilov, A.A. Structure and Properties Improvement by Recipe Factors of Geopolymer Basalt Fiber Reinforced Concrete for Building Enclosing Structures. Buildings 2024, 14, 743. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Heweidak, M.; Kafle, B.; Al-Ameri, R. Basalt Fibres’ Length on Fresh and Mechanical Properties of Self-Compacted Ambient-Cured Geopolymer Concrete. J. Compos. Sci. 2022, 6, 292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dollente, I.J.R.; Valerio, D.N.R.; Quiatchon, P.R.J.; Villoria, M.B.D.; Garciano, L.E.O.; Promentilla, M.A.B.; Guades, E.J.; Ongpeng, J.M.C. Enhancing the Mechanical Properties of Historical Masonry Using Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers. Polymers 2023, 15, 1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mahmood, A.; Noman, M.T.; Pechočiaková, M.; Amor, N.; Petrů, M.; Abdelkader, M.; Militký, J.; Sozcu, S.; Ul Hassan, S.Z. Geopolymers and Fiber-Reinforced Concrete Composites in Civil Engineering. Polymers 2021, 13, 2099. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Ziada, M.; Erdem, S.; Tammam, Y.; Kara, S.; González Lezcano, R.A. The Effect of Basalt Fiber on Mechanical, Microstructural, and High-Temperature Properties of Fly Ash-Based and Basalt Powder Waste-Filled Sustainable Geopolymer Mortar. Sustainability 2021, 13, 12610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Guo, X.; Xiong, G. Resistance of fiber-reinforced fly ash-steel slag based geopolymer mortar to sulfate attack and drying-wetting cycles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 269, 121326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Qu, W.; Niu, B.; Lv, C.; Liu, J. A Review of Sisal Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers: Preparation, Microstructure, and Mechanical Properties. Molecules 2024, 29, 2401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, J.; Lv, C. Durability of Cellulosic-Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers: A Review. Molecules 2022, 27, 796. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Tonoli, G.H.D.; Belgacem, M.N.; Siqueira, G.; Bras, J.; Savastano, H.; Rocco Lahr, F.A. Processing and dimensional changes of cement based composites reinforced with surface-treated cellulose fibres. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2013, 37, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Ardanuy, M.; Clarmunt, J.; Filho, R. Evaluation of durability to wet/dry cycling of cement mortar composites reinforced with nanofibrillated cellulose. Brittle Matrix Comp. 2012, 10, 33–41. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/2117/17326 (accessed on 5 September 2024).
  42. Wei, J.; Meyer, C. Degradation mechanisms of natural fiber in the matrix of cement composites. Cem. Concr. Res. 2015, 73, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lv, C.; Liu, J.; Guo, G.; Zhang, Y. The Mechanical Properties of Plant Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers: A Review. Polymers 2022, 14, 4134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Assaedi, H.; Alomayri, T.; Shaikh, F.; Low, I.-M. Influence of Nano Silica Particles on Durability of Flax Fabric Reinforced Geopolymer Composites. Materials 2019, 12, 1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Rahman, A.S.; Shah, C.; Gupta, N. Simultaneous effects of rice husk silica and silicon carbide whiskers on the mechanical properties and morphology of sodium geopolymer. J. Compos. Mater. 2020, 54, 4611–4620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Batista Dos Santos, G.Z.; Passos de Oliveira, D.; de Almeida Melo Filho, J.; Marques da Silva, N. Sustainable geopolymer composite reinforced with sisal fiber: Durability to wetting and drying cycles. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 43, 102568. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Kavipriya, S.; Deepanraj, C.G.; Dinesh, S.; Prakhash, N.; Lingeshwaran, N.; Ramkumar, S. Flexural strength of Lightweight geopolymer concrete using sisal fibres. Mat. Today Proc. 2021, 47, 5503–5507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Sanfilippo, C.; Fiore, V.; Calabrese, L.; Megna, B.; Valenza, A. Effect of sodium bicarbonate treatment on the properties of sisal fibers and their geopolymer composites. CSCM 2024, 21, e03536. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. da Silva Alves, L.C.; Dos Reis Ferreira, R.A.; Bellini Machado, L.; de Castro Motta, L.A. Optimization of metakaolin-based geopolymer reinforced with sisal fibers using response surface methology. Ind. Crops Prod. 2019, 139, 111551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Wongsa, A.; Kunthawatwong, R.; Naenudon, S.; Sata, V.; Chindaprasirt, P. Natural fiber reinforced high calcium fly ash geopolymer mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 241, 118143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Özkılıç’, Y.O.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Chernil’nik, A.; Ananova, O.; Aksoylu, C.; Madenci, E. Lightweight expanded-clay fiber concrete with improved characteristics reinforced with short natural fibers. CSCM 2023, 19, e02367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. GOST 30744; Cements. Methods of Testing with Using Polyfraction Standard Sand. State Construction Committee of Russia, GUP CPP: Moscow, Russia, 2001. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200011363 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  53. GOST R 57809-2017/EN 12350-2:2009; Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 2. Slump Test. Standartinform: Moscow, Russia, 2017. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200157288 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  54. GOST R 57813-2017/EN 12350-6:2009; Testing Fresh Concrete. Part 6. Density. Standartinform: Moscow, Russia, 2019. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200157335 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  55. EN 12390-7:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 7: Density of Hardened Concrete. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/811a0cf3-55e3-495a-b06e-5c302d5f2806/en-12390-7-2019 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  56. EN 12390-1:2021; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 1: Shape, Dimensions and Other Requirements of Specimens and Moulds. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2021. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/d1c9ccee-2e5a-425e-a964-961da95d2f99/en-12390-1-2021 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  57. EN 12390-2:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 2: Making and Curing Specimens for Strength Tests. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/ae7e6a86-1cbc-455e-8b2a-8964be9087f9/en-12390-2-2019 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  58. EN 12390-3:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/7eb738ef-44af-436c-ab8e-e6561571302c/en-12390-3-2019 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  59. EN 12390-4:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 4: Compressive Strength—Specification for Testing Machines. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/10b1c613-819b-42d7-8f94-480cd37a666a/en-12390-4-2019 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  60. EN 12390-5:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 5: Flexural strength of test specimens. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2019. Available online: https://standards.iteh.ai/catalog/standards/cen/5653c2c7-55a9-4bcb-8e13-5b1dfb0e3baf/en-12390-5-2019 (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  61. GOST 12730.3; Concretes. Method of Determination of Water Absorption. Standartinform: Moscow, Russia, 2021. Available online: https://docs.cntd.ru/document/1200177301 (accessed on 5 September 2024).
  62. BS 1881-122:2011+A1:2020; Testing Concrete Method for Determination of Water Absorption. European Standards: Plzen, Czech Republic, 2020. Available online: https://www.en-standard.eu/bs-1881-122-2011-a1-2020-testing-concrete-method-for-determination-of-water-absorption/ (accessed on 9 August 2024).
  63. Lv, C.; He, P.; Pang, G.; Liu, J. Effect of Wet–Dry Cycling on Properties of Natural-Cellulose-Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymers: A Short Review. Molecules 2023, 28, 7189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Brugaletta, F.; Becher, A.F.; Rostagno, D.L.; Kim, J.; Fresneda Medina, J.I.; Ziejewska, C.; Marczyk, J.; Korniejenko, K. The Different Properties of Geopolymer Composites Reinforced with Flax Fibers and Carbon Fibers. Materials 2024, 17, 2633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Abdelrazik, A.T.; Khayat, K.H. Effect of fiber characteristics on fresh properties of fiber-reinforced concrete with adapted rheology. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 230, 116852. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Beskopylny, A.N.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Evtushenko, A.; El’shaeva, D.; Chernil’nik, A. Improving the Physical and Mechanical Characteristics of Modified Aerated Concrete by Reinforcing with Plant Fibers. Fibers 2023, 11, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Beskopylny, A.N.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; El’shaeva, D. The Influence of Composition and Recipe Dosage on the Strength Characteristics of New Geopolymer Concrete with the Use of Stone Flour. Appl. Sci. 2022, 12, 613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Shcherban’, E.M.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; El’shaeva, D.; Varavka, V. Developing Environmentally Sustainable and Cost-Effective Geopolymer Concrete with Improved Characteristics. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Smolyanichenko, A.S.; Chernil’nik, A.; Elshaeva, D.; Beskopylny, N. Influence of Polymer Fibers on the Structure and Properties of Modified Variatropic Vibrocentrifuged Concrete. Polymers 2024, 16, 642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Mikhaskin, V.V. Influence of dynamic loads on fatigue strength of steel beams reinforced with carbon fiber. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2023, 6, 35–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Antipas, I.R. Polyethylene Resistance to Oil and Associated Water. Adv. Eng. Res. (Rostov-on-Don) 2023, 23, 55–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lazorenko, G.; Kasprzhitskii, A.; Kruglikov, A.; Mischinenko, V.; Yavna, V. Sustainable geopolymer composites reinforced with flax tows. Ceram. Int. 2020, 46, 12870–12875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Alomayri, T.; Shaikh, F.U.A.; Low, I.M. Characterisation of cotton fibre-reinforced geopolymer composites. Compos. B Eng. 2013, 50, 1–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Alomayri, T.; Low, I.M. Synthesis and characterization of mechanical properties in cotton fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites. J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 2013, 1, 30–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Walbrück, K.; Drewler, L.; Witzleben, S.; Stephan, D. Factors influencing thermal conductivity and compressive strength of natural fiber-reinforced geopolymer foams. Open Ceram. 2021, 5, 100065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Guido Silva, G.; Kim, S.; Bertolotti, B.; Nakamatsu, J.; Aguilar, R. Optimization of a reinforced geopolymer composite using natural fibers and construction wastes. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 258, 119697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Malenab, R.A.J.; Ngo, J.P.S.; Promentilla, M.A.B. Chemical Treatment of Waste Abaca for Natural Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer Composite. Materials 2017, 10, 579. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Zhao, X.; Wang, H.; Zhao, X.-E. Sustainable activation of sisal fiber-reinforced slag composites: Mechanical strength and microstructural insights through recycling of alkali-treated wastewaters. Constr. Build. Mater. 2024, 424, 135971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Shcherban’, E.M.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Mailyan, L.R.; Meskhi, B.; Shilov, A.A.; Pimenova, E.; El’shaeva, D. Combined Effect of Ceramic Waste Powder Additives and PVA on the Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Used for Finishing Facades of Buildings. Materials 2023, 16, 3259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Izadifar, M.; Sekkal, W.; Dubyey, L.; Ukrainczyk, N.; Zaoui, A.; Koenders, E. Theoretical Studies of Adsorption Reactions of Aluminosilicate Aqueous Species on Graphene-Based Nanomaterials: Implications for Geopolymer Binders. ACS Appl. Nano Mater. 2023, 6, 16318–16331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Sekkal, W.; Izadifar, M.; Zaoui, A.; Ukrainczyk, N.; Koenders, E. Theoretical investigation of protective graphene-coated metakaolin geopolymer interface under moisture and chemical composition effects. Powder Technol. 2023, 430, 119007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Fedchenko, E.A.; Gusarova, L.V.; Uskenbayeva, A.R. Green building in the ESG agenda for sustainable development of Russia: Conditions and trends. Constr. Mater. Prod. 2024, 7, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Buildings 14 02810 g001
Figure 1. Particle size composition of raw materials: (a) CSS; (b) QS; (c) GGBS.
Figure 1. Particle size composition of raw materials: (a) CSS; (b) QS; (c) GGBS.
Buildings 14 02810 g001
Buildings 14 02810 g002
Figure 2. Sisal fiber.
Figure 2. Sisal fiber.
Buildings 14 02810 g002
Buildings 14 02810 g003
Figure 3. Experimental research program for geopolymer mortar mixtures.
Figure 3. Experimental research program for geopolymer mortar mixtures.
Buildings 14 02810 g003
Buildings 14 02810 g004
Figure 4. Experimental research program for geopolymer concrete.
Figure 4. Experimental research program for geopolymer concrete.
Buildings 14 02810 g004
Buildings 14 02810 g005
Figure 5. Dependence of the compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar mixture on the molarity of the alkaline activator.
Figure 5. Dependence of the compressive strength of the geopolymer mortar mixture on the molarity of the alkaline activator.
Buildings 14 02810 g005
Buildings 14 02810 g006
Figure 6. Dependence of the bending strength of the geopolymer mortar mixture on the molarity of the alkaline activator.
Figure 6. Dependence of the bending strength of the geopolymer mortar mixture on the molarity of the alkaline activator.
Buildings 14 02810 g006
Buildings 14 02810 g007
Figure 7. Dependence of the density of the geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of introduced SF.
Figure 7. Dependence of the density of the geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of introduced SF.
Buildings 14 02810 g007
Buildings 14 02810 g008
Figure 8. Dependence of slump of geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of SF.
Figure 8. Dependence of slump of geopolymer concrete mixture on the amount of SF.
Buildings 14 02810 g008
Buildings 14 02810 g009
Figure 9. Dependence of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete on the amount of SF.
Figure 9. Dependence of compressive strength of geopolymer concrete on the amount of SF.
Buildings 14 02810 g009
Buildings 14 02810 g010
Figure 10. Flexural strength of geopolymer concrete (Rcbt) as a function of the amount of SF.
Figure 10. Flexural strength of geopolymer concrete (Rcbt) as a function of the amount of SF.
Buildings 14 02810 g010
Buildings 14 02810 g011
Figure 11. Appearance of destroyed geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete: (a) general view; (b) photo of the fracture.
Figure 11. Appearance of destroyed geopolymer fiber-reinforced concrete: (a) general view; (b) photo of the fracture.
Buildings 14 02810 g011
Buildings 14 02810 g012
Figure 12. Dependence of water absorption of geopolymer concrete (W) on the amount of SF.
Figure 12. Dependence of water absorption of geopolymer concrete (W) on the amount of SF.
Buildings 14 02810 g012
Buildings 14 02810 g013
Figure 13. Structure of geopolymer concrete samples: (a) without SF; (b) formulation with 1.0% SF (microscope scale division value—0.1 mm).
Figure 13. Structure of geopolymer concrete samples: (a) without SF; (b) formulation with 1.0% SF (microscope scale division value—0.1 mm).
Buildings 14 02810 g013
Buildings 14 02810 g014
Figure 14. Schematic of alkaline degradation of plant fibers.
Figure 14. Schematic of alkaline degradation of plant fibers.
Buildings 14 02810 g014
Table 1. Chemical composition of GGBS.
Table 1. Chemical composition of GGBS.
GGBSLOI (%)SiO2 (%)Al2O3 (%)Fe2O3 (%)CaO (%)MgO (%)TiO2 (%)P2O5 (%)SO3 (%)
11.3832.155.920.7340.565.830.280.043.11
Table 2. Sand properties.
Table 2. Sand properties.
QSBulk Density (kg/m3)Apparent Density (kg/m3)Content of Dust and Clay Particles (%)Content of Clay in Lumps (%)Organic and Contaminant Content (%)
137825930.020.05No
Table 3. Properties of crushed stone.
Table 3. Properties of crushed stone.
CSSBulk Density (kg/m3)Apparent Density (kg/m3)Resistance to Fragmentation (wt%)Content of Lamellar and Acicular Grains (wt%)
1427266111.25.6
Table 4. Characteristics of sisal fiber.
Table 4. Characteristics of sisal fiber.
SFFiber Density (g/cm3)Porosity (%)Tensile Strength (MPa)Tensile Ultimate Strain (%)Elasticity Modulus (GPa)
1.512–14381 ± 23.62.45 ± 0.128.5 ± 8
Table 5. Characteristics of styrene-acrylic copolymer.
Table 5. Characteristics of styrene-acrylic copolymer.
IndicatorActual Value
Solventwhite spirit
Proportion of nonvolatile substances (dry residue) (wt.%)48–52
Conditional viscosity at temperature (20 ± 0.5) °C according to the VZ-246 viscometer (s)80–150 (Ø4)
Table 6. Characteristics of microsilica.
Table 6. Characteristics of microsilica.
MK-85SiO2 (%)CaO (%)Al2O3 (%)Fe2O3 (%)MgO (%)Na2O (%)K2O (%)C (%)S (%)Bulk Density, (kg/m3)
95.70.930.670.690.450.640.090.40.43158.7
Table 7. Compositions of mortar geopolymer mixtures.
Table 7. Compositions of mortar geopolymer mixtures.
Mixture TypeGGBS (g)QS (g)NaOH (g)/
Molarity of Solution		Na2O(SiO2)n (g)Water (g)
6M500150056 (6M)12470
8M500150056 (8M)12470
10M500150056 (10M)12470
12M500150056 (12M)12470
14M500150056 (14M)12470
Table 8. Compositions of geopolymer concrete mixtures.
Table 8. Compositions of geopolymer concrete mixtures.
Mixture TypeGGBS (kg/m3)QS
(kg/m3)		CSS
(kg/m3)		NaOH (kg/m)3Na2O(SiO2)n (kg/m3)SF (kg/m3)Indpol 027
(kg/m3)		MK-85
(kg/m3)		Water
(L/m3)
12M/SF03905671012481050.0019.511.760
12M/SF0.23905671012481050.7819.511.760
12M/SF0.43905671012481051.5619.511.760
12M/SF0.63905671012481052.3419.511.760
12M/SF0.83905671012481053.1219.511.760
12M/SF1.03905671012481053.9019.511.760
12M/SF1.23905671012481054.6819.511.760
12M/SF1.43905671012481055.4619.511.760
12M/SF1.63905671012481056.2419.511.760
Table 9. Comparative analysis of the influence of various types of plant fiber on the properties of geopolymer concrete.
Table 9. Comparative analysis of the influence of various types of plant fiber on the properties of geopolymer concrete.
Reference NumberFiber NameBest DosageResult
[72]Flax fibers1%Flexural strength increased by 22%
[73,74]Cotton fibers0.5%Higher values of flexural strength and fracture toughness were obtained
[75]Miscanthus fiber0.2%–0.4%The compressive strength of geopolymer foam concrete increased from 0.007 MPa to 0.719 MPa
[76]Sisal fibers/jute fibers2.5%/1.5%The compressive, splitting, and flexural strengths increased by 76%, 112%, and 270% with the addition of sisal fibers. With the addition of jute fibers, these types of strength increased by 64%, 45%, and 222%, respectively.
[77]Sisal fibers2.0%The use of sisal fibers treated with a 10% NaHCO3 solution provided an increase in bending strength of 53% and impact strength of 82%
[78]Abaca fiber1.0%The compressive and flexural strength increased by 20% and 161%, respectively
[79,80]Sisal fibers1.0%The mechanical properties of the geopolymer concrete improved
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Shcherban’, E.M.; Stel’makh, S.A.; Beskopylny, A.N.; Meskhi, B.; Efremenko, I.; Shilov, A.A.; Vialikov, I.; Ananova, O.; Chernil’nik, A.; Elshaeva, D. Composition, Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Dispersedly Reinforced with Sisal Fiber. Buildings 2024, 14, 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092810

AMA Style

Shcherban’ EM, Stel’makh SA, Beskopylny AN, Meskhi B, Efremenko I, Shilov AA, Vialikov I, Ananova O, Chernil’nik A, Elshaeva D. Composition, Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Dispersedly Reinforced with Sisal Fiber. Buildings. 2024; 14(9):2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092810

Chicago/Turabian Style

Shcherban’, Evgenii M., Sergey A. Stel’makh, Alexey N. Beskopylny, Besarion Meskhi, Innessa Efremenko, Alexandr A. Shilov, Ivan Vialikov, Oxana Ananova, Andrei Chernil’nik, and Diana Elshaeva. 2024. "Composition, Structure and Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Dispersedly Reinforced with Sisal Fiber" Buildings 14, no. 9: 2810. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings14092810

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

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop