The Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) is the head component of typical concrete, which is widely used in the building sector and said to be the most utilised material there is [1]. But there are substantial emissions of CO2 into the air from the OPC's manufacturing operation. Carbon dioxide emissions are widely believed to be a primary contributor to climate change throughout the past few decades in particular. About 65% of the greenhouse effect is attributed to CO2. The production of cement is said to be responsible for around 6% of CO₂ emissions, since it was discovered that making one metric tonne of Portland cement may produce around one metric ton of CO₂. In addition, there is a rising need to reduce the use of natural resources in the manufacture of concrete [2]. This is increasingly critical to utilise renewable resources rather than the traditional, costly and harmful Portland cement in order to lessen the bad effects on the natural world. With this in mind, geopolymer concrete has become an indispensable alternative to regular concrete in the company's operations [3].

The word "geopolymer" was first used by Davidovits in the late 1970s to characterise the alkali-activated silicate of bindings. Using geopolymer concrete instead of Portland cement has several positive effects on the environment, such as reducing electricity consumption, the release of carbon dioxide and substance utilization [4]. The primary by-products in the production of geopolymer are silicon (Si) and aluminium (Ai), both of which are in a specific ratio required for the geo polymerization process. An alkaline activator is also added to the mixture. Geopolymer concrete can frequently be strengthened by adding an alkaline activator, such a combination of potassium silicate and potassium hydroxide or sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate, among others. A three-dimensional Si-O-Al-O chain is formed by atoms of silica or alumina as a result of it [5].

Large and tiny fragments, fluid and other substances are  the  usual  ingredients  in  geopolymer  mixes,  much as  in  traditional  concrete.  The  behaviour  of  geopolymer concrete is heavily dependent on a number of important elements. Among these variables are  the  alkali stimulator saturation rate, the silicon-to-aluminium to silicon ratio and the kind of aluminosilicates resources. The two most common ways which silicon and aluminum are produced are via organic processes or as remnants of other metals [6]. Several aluminosilicate ingredients can be used to make geopolymer concreting. These include but are not limited to, metakaolin, fly ash, slag, high calcium wood ash and rice husk ash. Not only does geopolymer concrete possess a low creep rate, limited drying shrinkage and a high power but it also reportedly has an impressive resistance to sulphate attack. Furthermore, geopolymer concrete may boost endurance characteristics in terms of alkali-aggregate reactivity, which means that it could potentially show off incredible resilience to fire [7].

Improved durability owing to the formation of compact and dense microstructures may be achieved with the right mix design component material choices in concrete. Extensive study conducted on the qualities of geopolymer concrete over the past decade has established its reputation as sustainable and ecologically benign. Nevertheless, there has been a lack of thorough investigation of the immovability of geopolymer concrete, as seen by the little literature on the subject. The publications published up to this point have been thoroughly and critically examined in this study on the rust and durability of geopolymer concrete. This paper presents a comprehensive rating of the corrosion and durability of geopolymer concrete using a systematic manner. Several elements and criteria that affect geopolymer concrete corrosion resistance are examined in this examination of geopolymer concrete durability [8]. 

A review was conducted on the studies that were conducted on the evolution of the microstructure of different kinds of geopolymer concrete accelerated corrosion procedures that were applied to geopolymer concrete. In addition, this study provides an overall appreciation of the use of geopolymer concrete as a material for structural restoration, as well as the impact that corrosion has on the structural and unthinking characteristics of geopolymer concrete. The purpose of this survey is to identify areas of weakness and potential for further investigation into the durability of geopolymer concrete. 

Sustainable, energy-efficient and ecologically friendly geopolymer concrete will be the end product of durability research, which is why it is important. The age of an engineering structure or infrastructure's design is also a direct indicator of its endurance. Consequently, an extended favor life, greater lifecycle execution and decreased costs are all results of a more robust construction. Moreover, the worldwide cost of corrosion is 2.5 trillion dollars and the COVID-19 pandemic is predicted to drive this value much higher. In order to help asset managers and owners minimise this substantial expense, it is helpful to evaluate the durability of past research on low carbon geopolymer concrete. This will aid in the development of commitment tools and techniques for repairs and maintenance. From both academic and business vantage points, this demonstrates why the present review is so important [9].

Bonds Durability in Geopolymer Concrete

In order to probe the structural dynamics of geopolymer concrete bonding behaviour amid Steel bars used to provide additional strength and support in construction projects, geopolymer concrete must be deliberate in assigned. For geopolymer concrete mixes, development value as a link stress assessment is the amount that appears a value that is lower than 4.3 times the number of the crest amount of tension on the connection. The geopolymer concrete has sophisticated force of the connection juxtaposed to normal concrete. Polygonal and unpretentious Retaining rods were employed so the interest of studying the bond strength of geopolymer concrete down ambient and upraised temperature. Above 300 degrees Celsius, there is a considerable decrease in the binding quality. To a greater extent than CS, the pace of deterioration is comparable to that of STS. Through the use of 20 mm and 24 mm warped bars, beam tip sections were produced in order to assess Putting pressure in the connections of FA-based geopolymer concrete with compressive strengths range (25-39) MPa while the concrete was subjected to 24 hours of steam curing. We investigated the relationship between the bond stress and the factors such as the diameter of the rebar, the cover and the cube CS. It is a correlation between the normalized square root of CS and a rise in CS, which occurs as the diameter of the cover or rebar increases. It is possible to utilize the same equations that are used to forecast the bond strength of OPC concrete for geopolymer concrete as well. Push up experiments were conducted on 260 specimens, including 10 and 12 mm behind bars, to arrive at a cubic inductive paradigm that defines the connection between CS with strength of bond. The samples were reviewed under varied years ranging from 1 to 28 days. When the Compressive Strength (CS) is under twenty-five MPa, a straightforward linear graph yields results that are comparable to the experimental values but the FIB model was found to be unconventional [9].

Most compounds, ranging from those with low to high CS of geopolymer concrete, may now have their bond strength predicted using the re-calibrated FIB model. Pull out samples employing 12 and 16 mm distorted bars were used to study the effects of a rise in curing duration and CS along the bond strength of Class C FA based geopolymer concrete. By contrast to geopolymer concrete, which showed no effect from CS, OPC concrete specimens were more affected by shorter curing times and larger infill (28 and 56 days, respectively) and less by CS. Geopolymer concrete made containing various amounts of crimping steel fibers (0.25, 0.50, 0.75 and 1% by weight) was used to make pull out specimens with distorted high yield strength bars measuring 10, 12 and 16 mm. For 10 mm and 12 mm the measured diameter bars, respectively, the bond stress increased by 38.2% and 5.7% if 0.025 mm slippage with 1% steel fibers was used. For 16 mm bars with sliding values of 0.025 and 0.25, the relationship force decreased as the fibre fraction increased [11].

Flexural Behavior of RGPC Beams

Concrete beams made of geopolymer concrete (GPC) are examined for their long-term behavior [12]. In order to replicate real-world building circumstances, the beams are subjected to a self-weight and sustained load of 1 kPa after they reach 14 days of age. Cylinders were subjected to creep tests with sustained stress at 14 and 28 days of age. Creep testing on GPC revealed that specimens loaded at 14 days exhibited more creep than those loaded at 28 days. The mechanical properties of hard concrete are some of the GPC characteristics that are used as input parameters to make beam deflection predictions utilising RCM, EMM and AEMM. These studies of properties demonstrate that GPC may reach structural design strengths, however drying reduces compressive and flexural tensile strengths, leading to microcracking on drying surfaces and differential drying shrinkage. By comparing the expected differences from these methods of analysis with the actual results using beams, we discover that RCM performs the poorest of the three methods. Based on the results, the AEMM may be used without a few variable tweaks to determine GPC beam over time tilt.

While incorporating a new material into applications in engineering, it is essential for comprehending the thermal characteristics at the structure's base [13]. We put eight concrete beams-four made of geopolymer and four of organic polymer concrete-through three separate heating cycles at an ISO834 rate. All of the beams had identical reinforcing structures and comparable concrete strengths. The exposed geopolymer concrete beams changed colour, cracked severely and did not spall, according to the experiments. The geopolymer concrete samples showed reduced flexural stiffness and fracture resistance when subjected to loads. The samples of geopolymer concrete had residual load capacities of 110, 107 and 90% of the ambient specimen, whereas the samples of OPC concrete had capacities of 103, 97 and 80%, respectively. Beams made of geopolymer concrete outperformed their OPC concrete equivalents in terms of fire resistance.

This research discusses the flexural behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams based on fly ash that were subjected to high temperatures (200, 400, 600 and 800°C) [14]. The dimensions of the beams that were cast were 150 mm (W)×200 mm (D)×1100 mm (L). The reinforcing steel content was 0.52%. A cube compressive strength of 57 MPa was achieved by using geopolymer concrete and the reinforcing cover has been changed between 20, 30 and 40 mm. We noticed the cracking behaviour, moment-curvature connection and deformation features. Using the strain compatibility technique, one may infer that, at room temperature, reinforced geopolymer concrete beams exhibit deformation properties comparable to reinforced cement concrete beams. Reinforced geopolymer concrete beams understate their deformation behaviour when subjected to high temperatures when using the strain compatibility method. The geopolymer concrete beams' ductility also decreases sharply as exposure temperature rises. The service load fracture width of geopolymer concrete beams exposed to high temperatures may be approximated using a recently suggested equation.

Deepa Raj and Ramachandran [15] investigated how geopolymer concrete beams based on low calcium fly ash fared under shear loads when reinforced with steel and hybrid fibres (steel and polypropylene). The primary variables under consideration are the volume fractions of steel fibres, namely 0.5 and 1%, as well as the volume fractions of hybrid fibres. To investigate the performance of beams reinforced with fibre and a combination of fibres, shear deficient beams of 1200 mm×100 mm×150 mm were produced. The beams had different volume percentages of fibres. The beams underwent two-point loading tests after 28 days of being cast. Tests indicate that hybrid fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete beams have better breaking strength and behavior over steel fibre treated beams.

Hawileh et al. [16] investigated the impact of using the GGBFS-based sample has shown enhanced durability by exhibiting reduced permeability to chloride ions in comparison to ordinary concrete. Four beams were fabricated with the suggested mixture and then subjected to testing under both three-point and four-point loading conditions. The beams were classified into two groups: group 1, consisting of samples intentionally meant to fail in flexure and group 2, consisting of samples intentionally designed to fail in shear. The specimens that were based on GGBFS were tested and compared to the control beams in terms of their performance. The GGBFS-based sample only managed to support 83% of the control sample's maximum load in flexure, much below the anticipated 96%. In contrast, the control beam supported 79% of the load, whereas the shear deficient sample based on GGBFS supported just 72%. It has been determined that the use of GGBFS as a complete substitute for OPC is feasible, despite the fact that the normalised capacity of GGBFS samples is equivalent to that of the control samples. This conclusion was reached despite the fact that GGBFS samples carried a lower load. Moreover, the use of GGBFS helps to lessen the amount of carbon dioxide emissions, which in turn encourages the utilisation of environmentally friendly and sustainable concrete.

Shear Behavior of RGPC Beams

Ng et al. [17] looked into how geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with steel fibres behaved under shear loads. Five sets of 2250 mm long, 120 mm broad beams were subjected to shear testing. The beams were not strengthened with traditional stirrups but instead were reinforced with end-hooked and straight steel fibres at different volumetric doses, ranging from 0 to 1.5%. The test findings indicate a substantial increase in shear strength with higher fibre content and the addition of fibres leads to an enhancement in cracking behaviour. During the procedure of determining the failure mode and failure load of beams that do not include steel fibre additional troops, arched movement is an essential component that must be taken into consideration. When the volume concentration of the fibres is raised, the cracking  load  of  the  material  as  well  as  the  ultimate tensile strength of the substance both continue to grow. It was shown that there was actually a significant correlation between the fibre volumetric ratio that was used and the rate at which fractures developed, in addition to the diameters of the fractures. The breaks propagated at a faster rate in the specimens that had a lesser number of fibres than the other samples on the list. 

Maranan et al. [18] studied the geopolymer-concrete beams using glass-fiber-reinforced polymer (GFRP) to study the shear behaviour. The results showed that the a spiral curve reinforced beam had 20 percent higher shear strength and 120 percent larger deflection capabilities than the traditionally reinforced beam. One possible clarification for these superiority, aside from the spirals' curved continuous nature that effectively withstood shear pressures and shear cracks and deformations, is that the spiral links' inclination was almost equivalent to the trend of shear cracking.

Yacob et al. [19] studied, the shear conduct of geopolymer concrete beams that were strengthened with fly ash was tested. For the motive of locating the shear strengths of five GC beams and one standard concrete beam, investigational studies carried out the horizontal reinforcement proportion and the shear span-to- efficacious depth ratio were working as bit of the test changeable. In it, the strengths, stresses, deformations and failure apparatus of the beams that were studied are recounted in particular. As stated by the results, crack propagation takes place in GC beams as skillfully, equitable Classic Concrete (CC) beams. Both the shear encouragement, the a/d ratio and the concrete compressive strength were factors that had an effect on the shear strength of GC beams. These are the characteristics that influence the shear force of CC beams. The shear span-to-effective depth ratio varied from 2.0 to 2.4 for the GC beams in this investigation, which caused a shift in failure mode from shear failure to shear-flexure failure. The failure mode shifted from shear failure to shear-flexure failure when the shear reinforcement was increased from no stirrups to ϕ10@191mm (#3 @ 7.5 in.). With comparable reinforcement, the GC beam had almost identical ductility to the CC beam in terms of load-deflection response.Beams that failed in shear and torsion-shear had considerable shear deformation and average principal strain, whereas beams that failed in shear-flexure had less significant values. Beams reinforced with shear showed a strength that was 1.12 times the computed value but those without showed a strength that was 2.98 times the calculated value. Beams with shear span-to-depth ratios below 2.5 were considered for inclusion in this publication. Because of the arching action, the shear strength values of these beams are higher compared to those of narrower beams having identical strengthening. This is due to the ascending motion taking place.

The shear action of the geopolymer concrete beams was investigated when they were horizontally reinforced with six volcanic fibre reinforced polymer bars [20]. Stirrups were not included in the analysis. The results refer to the incorporation of steel fiber command to a particularly substantial improvement in the cracking behaviour, post-cracked stiffness and shear capacity of the beams by a considerable amount. The GPC beam experienced a 56% increase. The inclusion of PF leads to a significant increase in normalised shear strength, increasing it by up to 33 percent with a fibre level of 0.5%. Even though SF is more efficient than PF, this conclusion is reached. An impressive interaction is demonstrated by the combination of SF and PVF hybridization in terms of the augmentation of the shear capacity. However, the integration of PF and CF did not result in a positive influence on the shear strength of the beams. This was the expected outcome. On the contrary, it led to a significant improvement in the beams' flexibility as a consequence of the transformation. Despitewith this, three distinct methods of analysis were suggested to ascertain the shear capacity of the beams of reinforced concrete construction that were formed of SF.

Kumar et al. [21] studied the effect that different types of fibres mixed on the shear strength of flexural on geopolymer concrete. The shear strength of reinforced concrete beams with dimensions of (100*150*1200) mm. Used proportions of steel fibres (0.5 and 1% by volume) and four volume amounts of the polypropylene fibres (0.15, 0.2, 0.2 and 0.25% by volume). As a result of the incorporation of hybrid fibres, the shear strength of the beam was significantly enhanced and the cause of failure of the beam from shear to flexure.

Tauqir et al. [22] investigated the shear action of geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with steel, proportions of shear span to effective depth as measured by (a/d) of 4.5 show5. The results give the crack propagation and failure mechanism were equivalent for two types of concrete beam. Midspan deflections were larger for geopolymer concrete beams compared to OPC beams. Compared to beams with an a/d ratio of 5, the normalized shear resistance of normal concrete and geopolymer concrete beams with a ratio of 4.5 was over 4% and 30%, respectively. In comparison to geopolymer concrete beams, OPC beams demonstrated a steeper drop in shear resistance as the a/d ratio increased. The exploratory shear opposition of both OPC and geopolymer concrete beams was under-estimated by the shear resistances calculated using observed correspondence found in several normal concrete design codes, such as AC1-318. Furthermore, geopolymer concrete beams release about 34% minimal personify CO₂ than OPC beams, according to the environmental evaluation of the two types of beams.

Discussion and Future Scope

Without cement concrete that is made using processing waste as the fundamental casing sort of oil-based polymers, GPC is a sustainable and ecologically sound building material, according to the literature assessment in the previous sections. Plus, when making GPC, no harmful greenhouse gases are released into the atmosphere. The utilisation of waste resources in GPC production makes it relatively inexpensive. The key reason for implementing GPC successfully in practice is the lack of mixed-media design standards. A number of mix design characteristics, including aluminosilicate type and quantity, alkali type and dosage, curing conditions and the ratio of alkaline liquid to binder are all important to evaluate correctly. To determine how these factors affect the structural behaviour of GPC, more critical research is needed. Considering the similarity in fundamental structural behaviours, researchers generally agreed that GPC beams may be constructed and utilised in a similar manner as OPCC, Examples include the behaviour of load and deflection, as well as  the  mechanics of fracture formation and failure. Beams made from geopolymer concrete are compatible with normal concrete design regulations including AS-3600 and ACI-318. 

Nevertheless, on a regular basis, a cautious evaluation of the beams made from geopolymer concrete. Enhancing the price -efficiency of geopolymer concrete structures might be accomplished by either issuing modern codes or revising the existing codes based on OPCC. In order to get a complete understanding of the behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete structural beams, it is important to construct models that can accurately forecast the flexural and shear characteristics of geopolymer concrete beams. It is important to compare these models with the current duplicate for OPCC. While a few inspectors came across that the flexibility of geopolymer concrete beams was lower than that of normal beams, other inspectors noticed an increase in the elasticity of geopolymer concrete buildings. Because there is no consensus in this field, it is recommended a further study be carried out in order to explore the ductility of geopolymer concrete members. In the course of the building design stage, this will allow it possible to take into account geopolymer concrete components in an appropriate manner. It is essential for the establishment industry to have a full interpretation of the endurance of geopolymer concrete structures when subjected to harsh circumstances, like being exposed to harsh weather or fires, due to geopolymer concrete's well-known reputation for great durability and fire resistance. This has the potential to enhance the durability of buildings constructed with geopolymer concrete materials and perhaps reduce the costs associated with significant mend and conservation in harsh conditions. Therefore, based on the review, the following aspects may be recognized as the areas where research is lacking in the domain of geopolymer concrete: In addition, empirical studies are necessary to evaluate the structural performance of geopolymer concrete components fabricated using various precursors and their combinations. The fragility of geopolymer concrete beams is a matter of disquiet and should be taken into account in future research, an essential aspect to consider is the evaluation of the concrete's serviceability, namely the propagation of cracks, in order to get a deeper understanding of the structural performance of geopolymer concrete. There is a lack of research examining the shear characteristics of geopolymer concrete. Therefore, more investigation is necessary to determine the shear strength of geopolymer concrete and it is imperative to establish models for accurately forecasting the shear capacity of geopolymer concrete components. Future studies should extensively examine the persistent deformation and contraction of geopolymer concrete over an extended period of time. Geopolymer binders need alkaline and heat curing conditions. In order to get widespread recognition in the industry, it is necessary to work towards the creation of a geopolymer system that can cure in ambient conditions and uses inorganic stimulants rather than acidic ones. It is recommended to assess the suitability of different waste materials and industrial waste, for the production of geopolymer concrete. Additionally, efforts should be made to discover new alkaline activators that occur naturally and are cost-effective. In addition, investigation is needed to evaluate the feasibility and cost-efficiency of using geopolymer concrete in the construction sector.

This research conducted a comprehensive analysis and comparison of the bond strength, flexural behaviour and shear conduct of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams in relation to OPCC beams. The outcomes of the review research support the following conclusion:

• Almost all of the experiments demonstrated that reinforced geopolymer concrete beams displayed flexural behaviour that was barely comparable to that of RC ordinary concrete beams. This was the case with regard to the initial crack load, the breadth of the crack, the flexural rigidity, the load-deflection bent, the ultimate load and the failure technique

• For the purpose of determining deflection, blemish width and moment strength, a number of publications proposed the use of traditional RC quality in geopolymer concrete beams

• A number of other fibres, in particular steel fibre, were collected to the geopolymer concrete, which resulted in an improvement in the flexural behaviour of beams

• Some of the writers reported seeing reinforced geopolymer concrete beams collapse with a brittle and fragile appearance. It is important to do more study on this topic in light of the criteria that cause the brittle formation of geopolymer concrete

• When contrasted to OPCC beams, the shear amplitude of geopolymer concrete beams was practically identical to that of beams. Through the incorporation of fibres into geopolymer concrete beams, it is possible to get an even greater increase in shear capacity

• Even though a great number of there is a dearth of documented equations and models for geopolymer concrete beams, despite their use in the field. So, to develop a more practical, efficient and cost-effective design code for geopolymer concrete members, more study into the structural behaviour of this material is still required

1. Dawood, M.B. and H.M.A.M. Taher. “Various Methods for Retrofitting Prestressed Concrete Members: A Critical Review.” Periodicals of Engineering and Natural Sciences, vol. 9, no. 2, 2021. https://doi.org/10.21533/pen.v9i2. 1849.

2. Taher, H.M.A.M. and M.B. Dawood. “Shear Strengthening of Continuous Prestressed Concrete Beams with Precast SIFCON Laminates Subjected to Monotonic and Repeated Loads.” Materials Today: Proceedings, vol. 60, 2022. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2022.01.250.

3. Uma. “Experimental Investigation and Analytical Modeling of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beam.” International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, vol. 2, no. 3, 2012. https://doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.00202030010.

4. Alhawat, M. and A. Ashour. “Bond Strength between Corroded Steel and Recycled Aggregate Concrete Incorporating Nano Silica.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 237, 2020, p. 117441. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117441.

5. Nguyen, K.T. et al. “Theoretical and Experimental Study on Mechanical Properties and Flexural Strength of Fly Ash-Geopolymer Concrete.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 106, 2016, pp. 65–77. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.033.

6. Cheng, T.W. and J.P. Chiu. “Fire-Resistant Geopolymer Produced by Granulated Blast Furnace Slag.” Minerals Engineering, vol. 16, no. 3, 2003, pp. 205–210. https://doi. org/10.1016/S0892-6875(03)00008-6.

7. Zinkaah, O.H. et al. “Performance of ACI Code for Predicting the Flexural Capacity and Deflection of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams.” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 1090, no. 1, 2021, p. 012067. https://doi.org/10.1088/1757-899x/1090/1/ 012067.

8. Ansari, M.A. et al. “Structural Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams – A Review.” Materials Today: Proceedings, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr. 2023.03.675.

9. Wasim, M. et al. “A State-of-the-Art Review on the Durability of Geopolymer Concrete for Sustainable Structures and Infrastructure.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 291, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. conbuildmat.2021.123381.

10. Singh, N.B. and B. Middendorf. “Geopolymers as an Alternative to Portland Cement: An Overview.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 237, 2020, p. 117455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019. 117455.

11. Srividya, T. et al. “A State-of-the-Art on Development of Geopolymer Concrete and Its Field Applications.” Case Studies in Construction Materials, vol. 16, 2022. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2021.e00812.

12. Un, C.H. et al. “Predictions of Long-Term Deflection of Geopolymer Concrete Beams.” Construction and Building Materials, vol. 94, 2015, pp. 10–19. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.030.

13. Ren, J.R. et al. “Flexural Behaviour of Combined FA/GGBFS Geopolymer Concrete Beams after Exposure to Elevated Temperatures.” Advances in Materials Science and Engineering, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1155/2017/6854 043.

14. Mathew, G. and B. Joseph. “Flexural Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete Beams Exposed to Elevated Temperatures.” Journal of Building Engineering, vol. 15, 2018, pp. 311–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017. 09.009.

15. Deepa Raj, S. and A. Ramachandran. “Performance of Hybrid Fibre Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams.” SN Applied Sciences, vol. 1, no. 12, 2019. https://doi.org/10. 1007/s42452-019-1788-2.

16. Hawileh, R.A. et al. “Behavior of Reinforced Concrete Beams Cast with a Proposed Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) Mix.” International Journal of Applied Science and Engineering, vol. 19, no. 2, 2022. https://doi.org/10.67 03/IJASE.202206_19(2).009.

17. Ng, T.S. et al. “The Behaviour of Steel-Fibre-Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams in Shear.” Magazine of Concrete Research, vol. 65, no. 5, 2013, pp. 308–318. https://doi.org/10.1680/macr.12.00081.

18. Maranan, G.B. et al. “Shear Behaviour of Geopolymer-Concrete Beams Transversely Reinforced with Continuous Rectangular GFRP Composite Spirals.” Composite Structures, vol. 187, 2018, pp. 454–465. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.compstruct.2017.12.080.

19. Yacob, N.S. et al. “Shear Strength of Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Reinforced Concrete Beams.” Engineering Structures, vol. 196, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. engstruct.2019.109298.

20. Tran, T.T. et al. “Effect of Hybrid Fibers on Shear Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete Beams Reinforced by Basalt Fiber Reinforced Polymer (BFRP) Bars without Stirrups.” Composite Structures, vol. 243, 2020. https://doi.org/10. 1016/j.compstruct.2020.112236.

21. Kumar, V.S. et al. “Shear Strength of Hybrid Fibre-Reinforced Ternary Blend Geopolymer Concrete Beams under Flexure.” Materials, vol. 14, no. 21, 2021. https://doi. org/10.3390/ma14216634.

22. Tauqir, M. et al. “Shear Behavior of Geopolymer Concrete Slender Beams.” Buildings, vol. 13, no. 5, 2023. https://doi. org/10.3390/buildings13051191.