Journal of Physics: Conference

Series

PAPER • OPEN ACCESS You may also like

- Fabrication, sinterabilty and
Foamed geopolymers: a review of recent studies characterization of non-colored and
colored geopolymers with improved
properties
To cite this article: L Radina et al 2023 J. Phys.: Conf. Ser. 2423 012032 S E Abo Sawan, M F Zawrah, R M Khattab
et al.

- Study on the effect of emulsifiers on the

pore structures of geopolymer prepared by
emulsion templating
View the article online for updates and enhancements. Zhuangzhuang Wang and Duyou Lu

- The effect of alkali activation solutions with

different water glass/NaOH solution ratios
on geopolymer composite materials
N Doan-Salamtimur, H Öznur Öz, A Bilgil
et al.

This content was downloaded from IP address 106.51.3.192 on 27/03/2024 at 16:15

IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

Foamed geopolymers: a review of recent studies

L Radina1, A Sprince1, L Pakrastins1, R Gailitis1, G Sakale1

1
Institute of Structural Engineering, Riga Technical University, Kipsalas 6A, LV-
1048, Riga, Latvia; [email protected]

Abstract. Undoubtedly, current environmental trends force scientists to search for a way to
reduce carbon dioxide emissions in the production process of building materials. Geopolymers
have been called as a potential alternative to traditional concrete for decades, allowing us to
obtain more sustainable and durable materials with good thermal and reasonable mechanical
properties and solve the problems related to waste materials utilization. Despite the great interest
of scientists and the many advantages both in the production process of geopolymers and in
terms of material properties, this idea looks unattainable in the near future, so it is worth
investigating alternative ways of geopolymer applications.
Thereby this review paper summarizes the recent progress in the field of foamed geopolymer
concrete, focusing on the different preparation methods, material base, as well as information
about the obstacles and challenges that hinder the transition of foamed geopolymers from
research laboratories to real application in the civil engineering. This report also describes the
density, compressive strength, thermal conductivity, pore size and distribution. A random
sampling method and descriptive analysis were used in the preparation of a review, taking into
account the year of publication, used materials, availability and the number of citations.

1. Introduction
The modern world is unimaginable without concrete; it is widely used on all continents, in the
construction of underground and marine structures, transport infrastructure, as well as skyscrapers and
concrete roads. It has become self-evident in new and historical buildings, construction sites, art
galleries, and children's playgrounds. The European Green Deal encourages scientists and
representatives of the cement and concrete industry to seek solutions for the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions. It includes elaboration of new materials as alternatives for ordinary Portland cement
(OPC)-based concretes or considerable rearrangements related to OPC production technology and
current environmental trends compel us not only to try but also to do everything possible to reduce the
amount of CO2 emissions and to be responsible today for the environment we will live soon.
It is well-known that the production of ordinary Portland cement (OPC)-based concretes needs a
considerable amount of resources and ingredients that are acquired through resource mining, as well as
exhaustive processing, which, in turn, causes immense quantities of greenhouse gas (essentially CO2
and NOX) emissions into the atmosphere [1].
Every tonne of Portland cement produced means an extra tonne of CO2 and other greenhouse gases [2]
because of the calcination process and combustion of fossil fuels [3]. If 20 years ago emissions from
making cement for buildings, roads and other infrastructure accounted for 1.4 billion tons of carbon
dioxide (CO2), now it is found that by 2021 this figure had more than doubled, rising to 2.9 billion tonnes
and accounting for more than 7% of all global emissions [4]. The production of geopolymers instead of
OPC-based concretes allows to reduce the CO2 emissions [5] by 40% - 80% [6, 7], thanks to which
geopolymers have been called a potential alternative to traditional concrete for decades [8-10].

Content from this work may be used under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 licence. Any further distribution
of this work must maintain attribution to the author(s) and the title of the work, journal citation and DOI.
Published under licence by IOP Publishing Ltd 1
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

Geopolymer uses waste material (furnace slag, red mud, fly ash etc.), whereas OPC uses natural
resources. Additionally, in the making of OPC, the hydration role of water is significant, but in the
geopolymerization process water plays a minor role, thus reducing water consumption [3]. When it
comes to mechanical properties, geopolymer has high compressive strength, low permeability and good
thermal properties [11, 12]. Compared to conventional organic polymers, glass, ceramics, cement or
concrete, geopolymers have attractive properties as being non-combustible, non-flammable and fire/heat
resistant [11], but despite their advantages, there are several reasons why they are still not widely used.
Geopolymers can be considered to be challenging to create, because the manufacturing process includes
a corrosive chemical substance that can harm humans, such as sodium hydroxide [13]; there is no
standard mix design, and the properties differ significantly depending on the used raw materials (even
the chemical composition of fly ash produced by the same manufacturer in different years is quite
diverse); a special curing method is needed [14], which require more skilled labors and practice. Also,
there are technical problems, such as high thermally induced shrinkage in fly ash based geopolimers
[15] and efflorescence, which can reduce the durability of geopolymer due to reduced compressive and
tensile strength and aesthetic issues [16].
Undoubtedly, the above-mentioned aspects limit the application and use of geopolymer concrete instead
of OPC-based concrete. However, considering the vast amount of research that has been carried out on
geopolymers, it is worth using the existing knowledge when looking for new application possibilities
for geopolymers. One of the promising areas of their application is the production of foamed materials
with low thermal conductivity and high fire resistance properties [17], low cost, and green synthesis
protocol, enabling their use in various high-added-value applications [18]. Thereby, this review paper
summarizes the recent progress in the field of foamed geopolymers, focusing on the different foaming
methods, and material base, as well as the compressive strength, porosity and thermal conductivity of
the foamed geopolymer concrete.

2. Foamed geopolymer concrete

Foamed geopolymer concrete has applications in various fields, which is evident from the interest of
researchers in areas such as materials, structures, ceramics, chemistry and environmental engineering
[19]. The need for alternative, sustainable materials with a low carbon footprint undeniably also exists
in the field of insulating materials, where, taking into account the advantages of geopolymers, the idea
of using foamed geopolymers seems perspective and justified.
These materials may be obtained by chemical or mechanical foaming or by forming syntactic foams
[20]. According to the chemical foaming method, a foaming agent is mixed with the other ingredients
to generate air voids. It is possible to produce the foamed geopolymer concrete at ambient hygro-thermal
conditions using the chemical foaming method, thus obtaining a lower energy footprint than with other
methods, which, in turn, explains the popularity of this technique [21]. The syntactic foam method
means that the geopolymer foam is fabricated by embedding hollow spheres into a binding matrix.
Microspheres are the main constituents for syntactic foams, and they provide low density, high specific
strength and low moisture absorption [22]. When it comes to the mechanical foaming technique, it is
necessary to distinguish between two different types: mixed foaming and pre-foaming. In the first case,
foam is generated during the mixing process after adding a surfactant, while in the second - a pre-made
foam is mixed with the geopolymer concrete [20]. This method usually involves applying such gases as
N2, Ar, and O2 and the main disadvantage of the mechanical foaming method is that tuning the
homogeneity and pore size distribution is very challenging [21].
It should be mentioned that publications about the production of foamed geopolymer concrete using
mechanical foaming are mostly found in the period from 2011 to 2015 [23, 24].
Nowadays, chemical foaming and forming of syntactic foams are widely used and therefore in Table 1,
which summarizes examples of foamed geopolymer concrete subdivided depending on the way it was
obtained, most examples are about these two foaming methods.

2
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

Table 1. Foaming methods for geopolymer concrete

Foaming Foaming Agent Alkaline Aluminosilicate Results Ref.
Method Activator Sources
H2O2 and Sodium Fly ash (FA) The compressive strength of foamed [7]
Aluminium hydroxide and geopolymer increased due to the use of waste
powder (Al) sodium silicate glass wool.

Al Sodium FA The higher the foaming agent content, the lower [25]
hydroxide and the compressive strength and density of the
sodium silicate geopolymer.

H2O2 and Al Sodium silicate Metakaolin The use of an additive in the form of expanded [26]
perlite to the geopolymer matrix results in a
significantly lower thermal conductivity and
density with an insignificant change in
compressive strength.

H2O2 Sodium silicate FA, ground Incorporating CP into the GGBS-FA system [27]
Chemical
and sodium granulated blast- effectively reduces the reaction rate of the
foaming
hydroxide furnace slag geopolymer paste and increases its fluidity and
(GGBS) and setting time.
cenospheres (CP)

H2O2 and Sodium Metakaolin The nature of the surfactant had a significant [28]
different hydroxide and effect on the rheological properties of the
surfactants sodium silicate researched pastes, resulting in differences in
the morphology and topology of the
macroporous networks in the geopolymer
foams.

H2O2 and KOH pellets Metakaolin The pore analysis indicates that SDS endowed [29]
sodium dodecyl and potassium a formation of homogeneous and small
sulphate (SDS) silicate micropores.

Chemical H2O2 and SDS Sodium FA and GGBS The combination of both foaming techniques [30],
and hydroxide and has been useful for the reduction of the pore [31]
mechanical sodium silicate size and the narrowing of the size distribution
foaming of the pores.

Hollow glass Sodium Slag An increase in the mechanical strength can be [32]
microsphere hydroxide and achieved by increasing the content of the
(HGM), sodium silicate HGMs, while other significant parameters,
H2O2 and SDS such as high volume of porosity and low
thermal conductivity, were almost unvaried.

CP Sodium FA and GGBS Strong bonding between CP and the [33]

metasilicate geopolymer matrix results in high compressive
strength and thermal conductivity.
Syntactic
foams HGM and Sodium Metakaolin The microspheres acted as voids in the matrix [34]
hollow phenolic hydroxide and and weakened the structure, causing the
microspheres sodium silicate compressive yield strength to decrease with
increasing microsphere content.

HGM Sodium FA Samples exhibit excellent strength to density [20],

hydroxide and ratio, which is associated with the high degree [35]
sodium silicate of geopolymerization and excellent filling
properties of HGB microspheres.

Mechanical SDS and xantan Sodium GGBS and FA Increasing of xanthan gum concentration leads [30]
foaming gum as a foam hydroxide and to an increase in compressive strength and a
stabilizer sodium silicate decrease in thermal conductivity.

The data gathered in Table 1 not only provides information on the method used for the production of
foamed geopolymers but demonstrates and at the same time confirms that still the most popular raw
materials that are used as an aluminosilicate source are fly ash, ground granulated blast slag and
metakaolin, but sodium hydroxide together with sodium silicate as an alkaline activator.

3
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

At the same time, the most commonly used the foaming agent is hydrogen peroxide, aluminium powder
and different surfactants, which is consistent with the information given in scientific publications about
the most popular raw materials [36].
Like for any other insulation material, it is essential to investigate such properties of foamed geopolymer
as porosity, thermal conductivity and mechanical behaviour in order to evaluate and be able to improve
the insulating properties. Such mechanical properties as compressive and flexural strength are closely
related to the porosity and microstructure of foamed geopolymers, therefore a significant amount of
studies on foamed geopolymers have investigated these properties [20].

3. Properties of the hardened foamed geopolymer concrete

As is well-known, the density is a critical reason for the compressive strength of porous solid material
regardless of the type of filler and foaming method [37]. Therefore, publications of the last four years
on the production of various foamed geopolymers were randomly selected, gathering information about
their compressive strength, density, porosity and thermal conductivity, as well as used foaming agent
and aluminosilicate source. This information is summarized in Table 2. Attention was paid to not only
to the year of publication, but also to the materials used (so that they are not very rare or relevant for a
small region), availability and the number of citations. The selected properties of foam geopolymer
concrete are the most extensively studied in randomly selected publications on foam geopolymer
concrete, they are essential in characterizing the properties and application possibilities of construction
materials.
Undoubtedly, for a more accurate comparison it is essential to take into account the pore distribution,
size, material curing conditions, and used components, but the purpose of this section is to generally
show the relationship between density, porosity and compressive strength for 22 randomly selected
samples of foamed geopolymer.
According to Cui Y. and Wang D. [47] the thermal conductivity of the typically foamed geopolymer
generally ranges from 0,072 W/(m·K) to 0,480 W/(m·K) with its corresponding compressive strength
and density ranging from 0,7 MPa to 48 MPa and from 300 kg/m3 to 1400 kg/m3, respectively.
Comparing the information summarised in Table 2 with the above parameters, the following results
were obtained: the sample density data summarised in Table 2 are almost completely within the ranges
shown above, and only 1 density value – 1770 kg/m3 is greater than 1400 kg/m3, the thermal conductivity
in 3 of the 17 publications is better (i.e. lower), and the lowest value is 0,048 – 0,060 W/(m·K), but,
unfortunately, specimens in 3 out of 21 publications has lower compressive strength values than
indicated by Cui Y. and Wang D.
Comparing the properties of foamed geopolymer with structural lightweight concrete, it is worth
mentioning that in Europe structural lightweight concrete (LC) is covered as a material in Standard EN
206, and its application for structural use is regulated by Eurocode EN 1992 [57]. In accordance with
EN 206 LC has an oven-dry density of 800 - 2000 kg/m3; therefore, comparing the data obtained in
Table 2 in the form of a random selection of foamed geopolymer samples, we see that all of the results
are within these limits or lower. Still, if we compare these foamed geopolymer concrete samples with
infra-lightweight concrete, which includes concrete with a density below 800 kg/m3 [58], we see that
only 2 out of 22 values did not fall within these limits. In the case of a wide density range, it was
considered that at least the lower limit does not exceed 800 kg/m3. If we analyse only the density
summarized in Table 2, the results look promising, but, understandably, the lightness arises from the
entrapped air, and although the more entrapped air means lower density and thereby better thermal
conductivity, it also means lower strength [59]. This dilemma in the field of building materials is
inherent and must be considered.
When analysing the compressive strength of the specimens summarised in Table 2, a cut-off of at least
0,7 MPa is used, corresponding to lightweight concrete with low density [60], thus it can be seen that in
the randomly selected studies, only 2 out of 21 had compressive strength below this limit.

4
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

If we change this 0,7 MPa borderline to at least 3 MPa, thus comparing the compressive strength of
foamed geopolymer concrete with structural/insulating concrete, then at least 5 of the 21 samples from
the studies of foamed geopolymer concrete have lower strength than 3 MPa. In the case where the
compressive strength is specified within a certain range, the highest value was selected for analysis.

Table 2. Properties of the hardened foamed geopolymer concrete specimens

Compr. Thermal
Density, Porosity,
Ref. strength, conductivity Foaming agent Base materials
kg/m3 %
MPa W/mK
[7] 500 3,4 0,113 48-51 H2O2, Al FA
[26] 790 5,5 NR 67-77 H2O2 and Al Metakaolin
[29] 480-750 1,6-3,6 0,080 29-54 H2O2 and SDS Metakaolin
[38] 590 6,2 NR 50-66 ZSM-5 waste FA
[39] 471-1212 0,4-6,0 0,110-0,300 36-86 H2O2 Metakaolin
[40] 370-740 0,3-11,6 0,110-0,170 66-83 H2O2 Metakaolin
[41] 363-375 0,5-0,7 0,070-0,080 NR H2O2, microspheres FA
FA, metakaolin and
[42] 450-500 2,1 0,069 NR H2O2 and CaS chopped polypropylene
fiber
Biomass fly ash and
[43] 1000 2,9 0,227 NR Al, Hotaspur OSB, Clariant
Metakaolin
[44] 270-480 1,2-5,5 0,110-0,150 77-88 H2O2 and Triton X-100 Waste glass
Coal gangue microspheres,
[45] 210-630 5,7 NR 81-88 Metakaolin
SDS, H2O2
[46] 600-1000 NR 0,150-0,250 55-75 Lightcrete 02TM surfactant FA
[47] 210-260 0,5-0,8 0,048-0,060 89-92 H2O2 FA

Metakaolin and ground

[48] 320-1770 0,4-32,7 NR 62-82 H2O2 and Canola oil
silica powder

Tungsten mining waste,

[49] 700 3,0 0,100 NR Al and SDBS
municipal waste glass
[50] 610 3,5 NR NR H2O2 and CaS FA
[51] 590 5,5 0,130 NR Al Waste glass
[52] 262-375 0,5-0,7 0,070-0,080 NR H2O2 Sand and FA
H2O2 , SDS, isometric
octanol ethoxylates,
[53] 350-1200 0,4-56,5 NR 50-86 Metakaolin
Sodium cocoyl glycinate,
benzethonium chloride
[54] 546-1028 1,9-9,0 0,130-0,359 42-63 Al Metakaolin
[55] 300-650 2,0-5,5 0,122-0,195 NR H2O2 FA and metakaolin
[56] 910-1120 19,0 0,077-0,087 NR H2O2 Metakaolin

Looking at the data summarised in Table 2, the above-mentioned correlation between density and
thermal conductivity, as well as the strength can be seen, but it is impossible to discuss these parameters
without mentioning something as significant as porosity, which was also summarized in Table 2.
Porosity data were available in 13 of the 22 publications, with values ranging from 29% to 92% [29;
47]. While it is generally evident that samples with lower strength and lower density have higher
porosity, a correct analysis requires a more extensive and detailed study of the available information,
both on the conditions under which the foamed geopolymer was obtained and on the characteristics of
the pores and other relevant parameters.

5
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

4. Porosity
Pore size, volume, and connectivity are the most critical factors determining the compressive strength,
thermal conductivity and permeability of foamed concrete [61]. The connectivity of pores within this
review describes the interaction of introduced voids. This property depends on the foaming agents and
the foaming method. It has a vital influence on the compressive strength and permeability of the obtained
foamed geopolymer concrete, which is considered a macroscopic measure of the ease with which a fluid
is driven through the voids of a porous medium by a pressure gradient flows. In order for the porous
material to be permeable, the internal porosity of the medium should be well accessible, with a
percolation threshold above a critical value [62]. The high connectivity of individual fine pores leads to
large open and interacted pores, thus lowering the compressive strength [63, 64].
Regarding the pore size, it is essential to mention that the pores of Portland cement or foamed
geopolymer concrete include interlayer pores/spaces, gel pores, capillary pores and air voids [61].
Interlayer pores/spaces are negligible pores present in sodium incorporated calcium aluminosilicate
hydrate N(C)-A-S-H gel, and their width is smaller than 1 nm, while the width of gel pores between
N(C)-A-S-H gels exceeds 10 nm. The average radius of capillary pores is 5–100 nm, but the width of
air voids ranges from several micrometers to 10 µm-2 mm [65]. The pore size also depends on the foam
dose, but the shape of pores is relatively constant as a function of the foam dosage or the density, which
has a limited or indirect effect on the mechanical properties of the foamed geopolymer concrete [61].
High porosity, narrow pore size distribution, and closed pores are preferred for better thermal resistance
[21].
According to Zhang Z. and Wang H. [61], two crucial guidelines for foamed geopolymer concrete
manufacturing should be defined: firstly, foaming agents, regardless of the method used to make the
material, should be able to generate fine bubbles, and secondly, it is essential during the mixing process
to keep stable the fine air bubbles, which were introduced into the paste, to avoid the formation of large
pores. It can be achieved by introducing of foam stabilizer and adjusting the setting behaviour of foamed
geopolymer paste [61].
The effect of various alkali activators, several foam stabilizers and curing temperature on the porosity
of the foamed geopolymer has been extensively investigated [66]. However, these studies have mainly
used organic [20] or polymeric-based foam stabilizers with potentially poor pore structure. On the other
hand, if an anionic surfactant, such as sodium dodecylbenzene sulfonate, is used, unfortunately, air
entrainment of this surfactant weakens its foam stabilization effectiveness [65]. Table 1 and Table 2
show that for most of the samples aluminium powder and hydrogen peroxide are used as foaming agents,
which allows to obtain the foamed geopolymer concrete with lower density and more voids [61], but it
should be noted that the large pores also significantly influence the compressive strength of the resulting
material. Although extensive research is still needed to select the best foam stabilizer in terms of
properties, calcium stearate-based foam stabilizers [42] can be prospectively used as they allow a
significant reduction of the surface tension of bubbles and has a positive effect on the elasticity of the
bubble shell and strength [65].
It is well known that water is one of the crucial components in the formation of geopolymers, so much
more attention should be paid to the influence of the water-to-solid ratio on the mechanical properties
and the pore structure of the foamed geopolymer [47]. The role of water in geopolymerization is to
achieve consistency in the fluidity of the reaction system by adjusting the viscosity [21]. Water not only
plays an essential role in the dissolution process of aluminosilicate precursors as a medium but also
helps to ensure the transfer of various ions and polycondensation of Si and Al monomeric and oligomeric
species [67]. In addition, after the geopolymer foams have hardened, water remains in them in three
different forms: as free water trapped in pores (lost at 150 °C), as interstitial water bonding to the
engineered 3-D geopolymer network (lost at 300 °C), which is defined as a function of a geopolymer
matrix and causes shrinkage when lost, and chemically bound water associated with OH groups (lost at
700 °C) [21].

6
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

After water loss pores belonging to the category of microcapillaries fades, thus positively influencing
the thermal resistance of foamed geopolymers. In addition, water significantly influences the viscosity
of the initial mixture, which is an essential parameter for the foaming process.
Regardless of the type of foam, it can influence the foam structure in terms of regularity, porosity and
pore distribution., while the appropriate viscosity during the foaming process may increase the stability
of the bubble and reduce the irregularity of pores [47].
The necessary amount of water depends on the characteristics of the aluminosilicate precursor,
particularly on its particle size and shape. The water amount in the reaction system should be coupled
with other mixing parameters. It should be noted that an excessive amount of water could decrease the
viscosity of the system, thereby increasing the speed of the pore formation and collapse because of high
Gibbs free energy and fragile pore walls. On the other hand, low water amount content in the preparation
of foamed geopolymer concrete could lead to a decrease in intrinsic and extrinsic porosity and degrade
the thermal insulating capacity of the formed monolith material. Considering the previously mentioned
information, the water content should be kept at the lowest possible level where enough alkalinity and
workability for intrinsic and extrinsic pore formations can be ensured [21]. In order to increase the
amount of water in the reaction mixture while maintaining the workability, which is necessary for the
formation of extrinsic and intrinsic pores of the foamed geopolymer, different surfactants or
superplasticizers can be used [21; 68].

5. Concluding remarks and research perspective

The conducted review provides clear evidence that the mechanical and thermal properties of the foamed
geopolymer concrete have been extensively studied and developed. However, it highlights the
advantages of these materials over traditional Portland cement-based concrete and the results achieved,
as well as the limiting factors for their wider use. It is essential to focus on studying these limiting
factors, as well as the distribution and size of pores and their influence in future research. Mentioned
factors have not been thoroughly investigated in this review.
Despite similarities in the structure (also at molecular and nanoparticle levels), the differences in the
properties of geopolymers derived from different raw materials are evident. The problem is that different
countries use various, mainly local raw materials that are not available elsewhere and that raw materials
from the same place can have different properties.
Geopolymers are also being actively researched in places where the main ingredients needed for their
production, e.g. fly ash, are imported from abroad because they are unavailable locally. It raises doubts
whether the desire to produce a more environmentally friendly material, which reduces emissions
compared to Portland cement-based concrete production, is feasible and justified anywhere.
The randomly selected studies on foamed geopolymer concrete do not provide a common approach to
the foaming process, stabilization process, raw materials and their preparation. Of course, there are
prevalent methods, but there is a lack of a unified approach, standardization of geopolymer materials
and their testing.

Acknowledgement
This work has been supported by the Latvian Council of Science within the scope of the project “Foamed
Geopolymer Made by Additive Manufacturing for the Construction Technology Applications (3D-
FOAM)” No. ESRTD/2022/8
This work has been supported by the European Social Fund within the Project No 8.2.2.0/20/I/008
«Strengthening of PhD students and academic personnel of Riga Technical University and BA School
of Business and Finance in the strategic fields of specialization» of the Specific Objective 8.2.2 «To
Strengthen Academic Staff of Higher Education Institutions in Strategic Specialization Areas» of the
Operational Programme «Growth and Employment»

7
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

References
[1] Shah K W, Huseien G F and Xiong T 2020 Functional nanomaterials and their applications toward
smart and green buildings New Materials in Civil Engineering ed S Pijush et al (Oxford:
Butterworth-Heinemann) chapter 11 pp 395-433
[2] Naik T R 2013 Sustainability of cement and concrete industries Achieving sustainability in
construction pp 141-150
[3] Akbari H, Heller T, Shin S, Yang X, Kolay P K, Kumar S and Mohanty M 2013 Geopolymer
based concrete to reduce carbon footprint of the construction industry Min. Eng. 65 pp 57-62
[4] Andrew R M 2019 Global CO2 emissions from cement production, 1928–2018 Earth System
Science Data 11 pp 1675-1710
[5] Das S, Saha P, Jena S P and Panda P 2022 Geopolymer concrete: sustainable green concrete for
reduced greenhouse gas emission – review Materials Today: Proc. 60 Part 1 pp 62-71
[6] Singh N B and Middendorf B 2020 Geopolymers as an alternative to Portland cement: an
overview Construction and building materials p 237
[7] Kozub B, Bazan P, Gailitis R, Korniejenko K and Mierzwinski D 2021 Foamed geopolymer
composites with the addition of glass wool waste Materials 14 (17) 4978
[8] Kumar S and Kumar R 2014 Geopolymer: cement for low carbon economy Indian Concr. J.
88 7 pp 29-37
[9] Prakash R V and Urmil V D 2013 Parametric studies on compressive strength of geopolymer
concrete Procedia Engineering 51 pp 210-9
[10] Duxson P, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Provis J, Lugey G, Palomo A and Van Deventer J 2007
Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art J. Mater. Sci. 42 pp 2917-33
[11] Yong H, Ming L, Abdullah M M and Kamarudin H 2015 Fire resistant properties of geopolymers:
a review Key Engineering Materials 660 pp 39-43
[12] Ridtirud C, Chindaprasirt P and Pimraksa K 2011 Factors affecting the shrinkage of fly ash
geopolymers Int. J. Miner. Metall. 18 pp 100-4
[13] Burduhos Negris D D, Abdullah M M A B, Vizureanu P and Tahir M F M 2018 Geopolymers
and their uses: review IOP Conf.Ser. Mater.Sci.Eng. 374 pp 12-19
[14] Muhd F N, Sani H, Bashar S M and Ibrakim G S 2018 Method of curing geopolymer concrete: a
review International Journal of Advanced and Applied Sciences 5 1 pp 31-36
[15] Vickers L, Rickard W and van Riesen A 2014 Strategies to control the high temperature shrinkage
of fly ash based geopolymers Thermochimica Acta. p 580
[16] Simao L, Fernandes E, Hotza D, Ribeiro M J, Montedo O R K and Raupp-Pereira F 2021
Controlling efflorescence in geopolymers: a ner approach Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 15
[17] Lach M 2021 Geopolymer foams – will they ever become a viable alternative to popular insulation
materials? - a critical opinion Materials 14(13):3568
[18] Rui M N, Robert C Pullar, Joao A L 2020 Geopolymer foams: an overview of recent
advancements Progress in Materials Science 109 100621
[19] Dhasindrakrishna K, Pasupathy K, Ramakrishnan S and Sanjayan J 2021 Progress, current
thinking and challenges in geopolymer foam concrete technology Cement and Concrete
Composites 116 103886
[20] Walbruck K, Maeting F, Witzleben S and Stephan D 2020 Natural Fiber-stabilized geopolymer
foams-a review Materials 1 3198
[21] Degefu D M, Liao Z, Berardi U and Doan H 2021 Salient parameters affecting the performance
of foamed geopolymers as sustainable insulating materials Construction and Building
Materials 313 125400
[22] Ali M, Rubel R and Yusuf S 2019 A review on syntactic foams processing preparation and
application Proc. Int. Conf. on Mechanical Engineering and Renewable Energy p 6
[23] Wang M R, Ji D, He P G and Zhou Y 2011 Microstructural and mechanical characterization of
fly ash cenosphere/metakaolin-based geopolymetric composites Ceram. Int. 37 pp 1661-66

8
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

[24] Abdullah M M A B, Hussin K, Bnhussain M, Ismail K N, Yanya Z and Razak R A 2012 Fly ash
based geopolymer lightweight concrete using foaming agent Int. J. Mol. Sci. 13 pp 7186-98
[25] Anggarini U, Pratapa S, Purnomo V and Sukmana N C 2019 A comparative study of the
utilization of synthetic foaming agent and aluminium powder as poreforming agents in
lightweight geopolymer synthesis Open Chem. 17 pp 629-638
[26] Kurek I et al 2022 Foamed Eco-geopolymer modified by perlite and cellulose as a construction
material for energy efficient buildings Energies 15 4297
[27] Shi J, Liu Y, Wang E, Wang L, Li C, Xu H, Zheng X and Yuan Q 2022 Physico-mechanical
properties and durability of foamed geopolymer concrete containing cenospheres Construction
and Building Materials 325 126841
[28] Petlitckaia S and Poulesquen A 2019 Design of lightweight metakaolin based geopolymer foamed
with hydrogen peroxide Ceram. Int. 45 pp 1322-30
[29] Kyung W K, Hyung M L, Seog-Young Y and Hyunseok K 2022 Fast-curing geopolymer foams
with an enhanced pore homogeneity derived by hydrogen peroxide and sodium dodecyl sulfate
surfactant Minerals 12 7 821
[30] Hajimohammadi A, Ngo T and Mendis P 2018 Enhancing the strength of pre-made foams for
foam concrete appplications Cem. Concr. Compos. 87 pp 164-171
[31] Hajimohammadi A, Ngo T and Mendis P 2018 Combining chemical and mechanical foaming in
geopolymer foam concretes Proc. Int. Conf. on alkali activated materials and geopolymers 74
[32] Bai C, Shao J, Li X, Zhang Z, Oiao Y, Hao J, Li H, Zheng T and Colombo P 2022 Fabrication
and properties of slag-based geopolymer syntactic foams containing follow glass microspheres
Materials Letters 308 B pp 131-158
[33] Hajimohammadi A, Ngo T, Provis J, Kim T and Vongsvivut J 2019 High strength/density ration
in a syntactic foam mage from one-part mix geopolymer and cenospheres Composites Part B
Engineering 173 106908
[34] Zhang L, Zhang F, Liu M and Hu X 2017 Novel sustainable geopolymer based syntactic foams:
an eco-friendly alternative to polymer based syntactic foams Chem. Eng. J. 313 pp 74-82
[35] Shao N N , Liu Z, Xu Y Y, Kong F L and Wand D M 2015 Fabrication of hollow microspheres
filled fly ash geopolymer composites with excellent strength and low density Materials Letters
161 pp. 451-4
[36] Lermen R T, Korf E M, de Oliviera L N, de Oliviera R N, dos Santos Neto D D , Ferreira Junior
R and Silva R A 2021 Evaluation of the properties of a foamed geopolymer developed with
different types of metakaolin Ceramica 67 pp 164-178
[37] Tsaousi G M and Panias D 2021 Production, properties and performance of slag-based
geopolymer foams Minerals 11 732
[38] Shao Z et al 2022 The influence of ZSM-5 waste on the properties of fly-ash based foamed
geopolymer Journal of Cleaner Production 255 131800
[39] Jaya N A, Yun-Ming L, Cheng-Yong H, Abdullah M M A B and Hussin K 2020 Correlation
between pore structure, compressive strength and thermal conductivity of porous metakaolin
geopolymer Constr. Build. Mater. 247 pp.1-12
[40] Bai C, Ni T, Wand Q, Li H and Colombo P 2018 Porosity, mechanical and insulating properties
of geopolymer foams using vegetable oil as the stabilizing agent J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 38 (2) pp
799-805
[41] Lack M, Mikula J, Lin W T, Bazan P, Figiela B and Korniejenko K 2020 Development and
characterization of thermal insulation geopolymer foams based on fly ash Proc. Eng. Technol.
Innov. 16 pp 23-29
[42] Kurtulus C and Baspinar M S 2020 Effect of calcium stearate on the thermal conductivity of
geopolymer foam J. Turkish Chem. Soc. Sect. A Chem. 7 (2) pp 535-444
[43] Senff L, Novais R M, Carvalheiras J and Labrincha J A 2020 Eco-friendly approach to enhance
the mechanical performance of geopolymer foams: using glass fibre waste coming from wind
blade production Constr. Build. Mater. 239 pp 1-11

9
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

[44] Bai C, Li H, Bernardo E and Colombo P 2019 Waste-to-resource preparation of glaas-containing

foams from geopolymers Ceram. Int. 45 (6) pp 7196-7202
[45] Yan S, Zhang F, Liu J, Ren B, He P, Jia D and Yand J 2019 Green synthesis of high porosity
waste gangue microsphere/geopolymer composite foams via hydrogen peroxide modification
J. Clean. Prod. 227 pp 483-494
[46] Alghamdi H, Neithalath N 2019 Synthesis and characterization of 3D-printable geopolymeric
foams for thermally efficient building envelope materials Cem. Concr. Compos. 104 pp 1-27
[47] Cui Y and Wang D 2019 Effects of water on pore structure and thermal conductivity of fly-ash
based foam geopolymers Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2019:3202794 p 10
[48] Fiset J, Cellier M and Vuillaume P Y 2020 Macroporous geopolymers designed for facile
polymers post-infusion Cem. Concr. Compos. 110 pp 1-12
[49] Kastiukas G, Zhou X, Wan K T and Castro Gomes J 2019 Lightweight alkali-activated material
from mining and glass waste by chemical and physical foaming J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 31(3) pp
1-8
[50] Rizal F, Pratama A P, Khamistan, Fauzi A, Syarwan and Azka A 2020 Effect of H2O2 as the
foaming agent on the geopolymer mortar using curing of room temperature IOP Conf. Ser.
Mater. Sci. Eng. 854 (1) pp 1-6
[51] Ruan S, Kastiukas G, Liand S and Zhou X 2020 Waste glass reuse in foamed alkali-activated
binders production: technical and environmental assessment Front. Mater. 7 pp 1-13
[52] Lack M, Mikula J, Lin W T, Bazan P, Figiela B and Korniejenko K 2020 Development and
characterization of thermal insulation geopolymer foams based on fly ash Proc. Eng. Technol.
Innov. 16 pp 23-29
[53] Qiao Y et al 2021 Effects of surfactants/stabilizing agents on the microstructure and properties of
porous geoplolymers by direct foaming J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 9 (1) pp 412-23
[54] Le V S U 2019 Thermal conductivity of reinforced geopolymer foams Ceram. Silikaty 63 (4) pp
365-73
[55] Shi J, Liu B, Liu Y, Wang W, He Z, Xu H and Ren X 2020 Preparation and characterization of
lightweight aggregate foamed geopolymer concretes aerated using hydrogen peroxide Constr.
Build. Mater. 256 pp 1-13
[56] Abdullah S T A, Yun-ming L, Abdullah M M A B, Cheng-Yong H and Zulkifly K 2019
Mechanical properties and thermal conductivity of lightweight foamed geopolymer concretes
IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 551 012089
[57] Thienel K C, Haller T and Beuntner N 2020 Review lightweight concrete-from basics to
innovations Materials 13 1120
composites with the addition of glass wool waste Materials 14 (17) 4978
[58] Elshahawi M, Hueckler A and Schlaich M 2020 Infra lightweight concrete: a decade of
investigation (a review) Structural Concrete 22 (4)
[59] Le V S, Szczypinski M M, Hajkova P, Kovacic V, Bakalova T, Volesky L, Hiep L C and Louda
P 2020 Mechanical properties of geopolymer foam at high temperature Sci. Eng. Compos.
Mater. 27 pp. 129-138
[60] Chaipanich A and Chindaprasirt P 2015 The properties and durability of autoclaved aerated
concrete masonry blocks Eco-Efficient Masonry Bricks and Blocks ed Pacheco-Torgal F et al
(Cambridge:Woodhead Publishing) chapter 9 pp 141-150
[61] Zhang Z and Wang H 2016 The Pore Characteristics of geopolymer foam concrete and their
impact on the compressive strength and modulus Front. Mater. 3 38
[62] Papa E, Landi E, Miccio F and Medri V 2022 K2O-metakaolin-based geopolymer
foams:production, porosity characterization and permeability test Materials 15 1008
[63] Stauffer D and Aharony A Amran M, Al-Fakih A, Chu S H , Fedium R, Haruna S, Azevedo A
and Vatin N 2021 Long-term durability properties of geopolymer concrete: an in-depth review
Case Studies in Construction Materials 15 00661

10
IMST 2022 IOP Publishing
Journal of Physics: Conference Series 2423 (2023) 012032 doi:10.1088/1742-6596/2423/1/012032

[64] Amran M, Al-Fakih A, Chu S H , Fedium R, Haruna S, Azevedo A and Vatin N 2021 Long-term
durability properties of geopolymer concrete: an in-depth review Case Studies in Construction
Materials 15 00661
[65] Cui Y, Wang D, Zhao J, Li D, Ng S and Rui Y 2018 Effect of calcium stearate based foam
stabilizer on pore characteristics and thermal conductivity of geopolymer foam material
Journal of Building Engineering 20 pp 21-29
[66] Hajimohammadi A, Ngo T D, Mendis P, Kashani A and van Deventer J S J 2017 Alkali activated
slag foams: the effect of the alkali reaction on foam characteristics Journal of Cleaner
Production 147 pp 330-339
[67] Lizcano M, Gonzalez S, Basu S, Lozano K and Radovic M 2012 Effects of water content and
chemical composition on structural properties of alkaline activated metakaolin-based
geopolymers Journal of the American Ceramic Society 95 7 pp 2169-77
[68] Samson G and Cyr M 2018 Porous structure optimisation of flash-calcined metakaolin/fly ash
geopolymer foam concrete Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 22 (12) pp 1482-98

11