Effect of Liquid-To-Solid (L/S) Ratio on The Characteristics of Fly Ash and Pumice-Based Geopolymer Mortar for Lightweight Panel Applications
Downloads
Fly ash and pumice-based geopolymers have emerged as promising low-carbon construction materials with the potential to reduce the environmental impacts associated with Portland cement production. However, their performance is highly dependent on mixture proportions, particularly the liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratio. Therefore, this study aimed to identify the optimum L/S ratio and evaluate its effect on the characteristics of fly ash and pumice-based geopolymer mortar. A laboratory experimental program was conducted using five liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratios of 0.40, 0.45, 0.50, 0.55, and 0.60. The investigated properties included compressive strength, density, and water absorption. The statistical significance of the L/S ratio was evaluated using one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA). The L/S ratio significantly influenced the compressive strength, density, and water absorption of geopolymer mortar. The optimum performance was achieved at an L/S ratio of 0.45, resulting in the highest compressive strength (21.03 MPa), highest density (2.12 g/cm³), and lowest water absorption (6%). One-way ANOVA confirmed that variations in the L/S ratio had statistically significant effects on all investigated properties (p < 0.001), with coefficients of determination of 99.44% for compressive strength, 98.42% for density, and 75.04% for water absorption. The liquid-to-solid (L/S) ratio was identified as a critical parameter governing matrix densification, porosity development, and the physical and mechanical properties of fly ash and pumice-based geopolymer mortar. An L/S ratio of 0.45 was recommended as the optimum condition for achieving the best balance among compressive strength, density, and water absorption.
Adesina, A. (2020). Recent advances in the concrete industry to reduce its carbon dioxide emissions. Environmental Challenges, 1, 100004.
Dwibedy, S., Parhi, S. K., Panda, S., & Panigrahi, S. K. (2024). Performance of precursor characteristics in the realisation of geopolymer concrete: A review. Magazine of Concrete Research, 76(24), 1404–1423.
Ekmen, Y., et al. (2022). Response surface optimization of geopolymer mix parameters in terms of key engineering properties. Revista de la Construcción, 21(3), 631–645. https://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.21.3.631
Feng, L., Yi, S., Zhao, S., Zhong, Q., Ren, F., Liu, C., Zhang, Y., Wang, W., Xie, N., & Li, Z. (2024). Recycling of aluminosilicate-based solid wastes through alkali-activation: Preparation, characterization, and challenges. Buildings, 14(1), 226.
Gonnon, P., & Lootens, D. (2023). Toward net zero carbon for concrete and mortar: Clinker substitution with ground calcium carbonate. Cement and Concrete Composites, 142, 105190.
Hamid, M. A., Yaltay, N., & Türkmenoğlu, M. (2022). Properties of pumice-fly ash based geopolymer paste. Construction and Building Materials, 316, 125732. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125732
Hardjito, D., Wallah, S. E., Sumajouw, D. M. J., & Rangan, B. V. (2004). On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Materials Journal, 101(6), 467–472.
Jwaida, Z., Dulaimi, A., Mashaan, N., & Othuman Mydin, M. A. (2023). Geopolymers: The green alternative to traditional materials for engineering applications. Infrastructures, 8(6), 98.
Karaaslan, C., Yener, E., Bağatur, T., & Polat, R. (2022). Improving the durability of pumice-fly ash based geopolymer concrete with calcium aluminate cement. Journal of Building Engineering, 59, 105110. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2022.105110
Khasawneh, M. A. (2025). Geopolymer concrete in construction projects: A review. Discover Civil Engineering, 2(1), 124.
Küçükyıldırım, E. (2023). Reaction kinetics and properties of pumice-based geopolymer systems. Construction and Building Materials. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.133792
Luhar, I., & Luhar, S. (2022). A comprehensive review on fly ash-based geopolymer. Journal of Composites Science, 6(8), 219.
Malhotra, V. M. (2010). Global warming, and role of supplementary cementing materials and superplasticisers in reducing greenhouse gas emissions from the manufacturing of Portland cement. International Journal of Structural Engineering, 1(2), 116–130.
Miller, S. A., John, V. M., Pacca, S. A., & Horvath, A. (2018). Carbon dioxide reduction potential in the global cement industry by 2050. Cement and Concrete Research, 114, 115–124.
Mohan Kumar, S. G. K., Kinuthia, J. M., Oti, J., & Adeleke, B. O. (2025). Geopolymer chemistry and composition: A comprehensive review of synthesis, reaction mechanisms, and material properties—oriented with sustainable construction. Materials, 18(16), 3823.
Nath, P., & Sarker, P. K. (2014). Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition. Construction and Building Materials, 66, 163–171. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.080
Pedro, M. P. S., Samuel, C. M., Mercedes, D. G. C., Irina, D. R., & Guillermo, R. G. C. (2022). Use of fly ash in the production of geopolymers: A literature review. Innovative Infrastructure Solutions, 7(3), 236.
Quiatchon, L., et al. (2021). Investigation on the compressive strength and time of setting of low-calcium fly ash geopolymer paste using response surface methodology. Polymers, 13(20), 3461. https://doi.org/10.3390/polym13203461
Sambucci, M., Sibai, A., & Valente, M. (2021). Recent advances in geopolymer technology. A potential eco-friendly solution in the construction materials industry: A review. Journal of Composites Science, 5(4), 109.
Tomar, A. S., Gupta, R., Bijanu, A., Arya, R., Mishra, D., Singh, A., & Salammal, S. T. (2022). Progress in fabrication and manufacturing of sodium aluminosilicate materials (geopolymers) as protective coating materials: A review. Journal of Polymer Research, 29(6), 239.
Xu, X., Bao, S., Zhang, Y., & Ping, Y. (2024). Sustainable enhancement of fly ash-based geopolymers: Impact of alkali thermal activation and particle size on green production. Process Safety and Environmental Protection, 191, 478–489.
Copyright (c) 2026 Mohamad Zulfikar Akbar, Jauhar Fajrin, Ni Nyoman Kencanawati, Pathurahman Pathurahman, Miko Eniarti
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
