Eijcse3012 PDF

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING
Volume 2, No 1, 2011
© Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services
Research article ISSN 0976 – 4399
Flexural behaviour of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beams
Dattatreya J K 1 , Rajamane NP 2 , Sabitha D 1 , Ambily P S 1 , Nataraja MC 3
1 Scientists, Advanced Materials Laboratory,
CSIRStructural Engineering Research Centre (SERC), Taramani, Chennai
2Former Scientist, CSIRSERC, Chennai, 600113, India
3 Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, SJCE, Mysore 570 006, India
ambilypshanker@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
Efforts are urgently underway all over the world to develop environmentally friendly
construction materials, which make minimum utility of fast dwindling natural resources and
help to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In this connection, Geopolymers are showing great
potential and several researchers have critically examined the various aspects of their
viability as binder system. Geopolymer concretes (GPCs) are new class of building materials
that have emerged as an alternative to Ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC) and
possess the potential to revolutionize the building construction industry. Considerable
research has been carried out on development of Geopolymer concretes (GPCs), which
involve heat curing. A few studies have been reported on the use of such GPCs for structural
applications. In this paper, studies carried out on the behaviour of room temperature cured
reinforced GPC flexural members are reported. A total of eighteen beams were tested in
flexure. Three conventional concrete mixes and six GPC mixes of target strength ranging
from 17 to 63 MPa and having varying combinations of fly ash and slag in the binder phase
were considered. The reinforcement was designed considering a balanced section for the
expected characteristic strength. All the specimens were tested under twopoint static loading.
The studies demonstrated that the load carrying capacity of most of the GPC beams was in
most cases marginally more than that of the corresponding conventional OPCC beams. The
deflections at different stages including service load and peak load stage were higher for GPC
beams. However, the ductility factor was comparable to that of OPCC beams. The studies
showed that the conventional RC theory could be used for reinforced GPCC flexural beams
for the computation of moment capacity, deflection, and crack width within reasonable limits.
Keywords: Flexural behaviour, reinforced concrete, geopolymer concrete, beams
1. Introduction
The construction industry forms a vital sector of the nation’s economy. Utilization of the
industrial byproducts in this sector could become an important route for largescale safe
disposal of the industrial wastes and reduction of construction cost. In this regard, direct
alkaline activation of industrial wastes, such as fly ash and GGBS, can be employed to
produce Geopolymer cements which can be gainfully utilized to manufacture novel concretes
for constructions (Davidovits, 1991: Duxson, 2007). This can be considered as a sustainable
approach to construction since the internal energy content of these new concretes are much
less than that of Ordinary Portland cement based concretes (OPCCs) and by this process
Portland cement, one of the largest contributors to green house gas is completely
eliminated(Duxson, 2007). OPCCs are found to be less durable in some of the very severe
Received on July 2011 published on September 2011 138

Dattatreya J K, Rajamane NP, Sabitha D, Ambily P S, Nataraja MC
environmental conditions; therefore there is a need for development of alternative concretes.
The extensive research works carried out by several investigators corroborate the potential of
GPC as a prospective construction material (Davidovits, 1991: Duxson, 2007: Harjito and
Rangan, 2005, Bakharev,2005: Palomo, 1999:Van Jaarsveld et al.,2002a,Sofi et al., 2006).
The development of alternative concretes is of great relevance to India, where the
construction industry is in a boom and large quantities of industrial wastes are being
generated by the allied industries. Realizing this potential, the CSIRStructural Engineering
Research Centre has carried considerable research on different aspects of Geopolymer
concretes (GPCs) for more than 10 years (Rajamane et al., 2005, Dattatreya et al., 2009). The
use of GPC is slowly gaining acceptance, especially for chemical resistant structures and
research in this area has gained some momentum to extend the range of application. In fact,
considerable amount of experimental work has been already carried out in Australia, US and
Spain. The previous investigators were mainly engaged in identifying suitable source
materials for GPC, their processing, mix design, mechanical properties, and durability
aspects(Wallah and Rangan, 2006:Bakharev,2005a, c). The GPC was found to have a high
degree of durability when it had inorganic binder based on alumina and silica containing
materials like fly ash and GGBS 4 . But, as in conventional reinforced concretes, the GPC also
needs to be reinforced with steel bars for its large scale utility in civil engineering structural
applications. Hence, the investigations on behaviour of Reinforced GPC (RGPC) were
undertaken.
This paper considers reinforced GPC beams with different binder compositions and
compressive strengths ranging from 17 to 63 MPa and produced by ambient temperature
curing. The RPCC beams based on OPC were also prepared and tested for comparison of
performance. A total of eighteen beams consisting of three GPC mixes and three OPCC
mixes were tested as part of this study. The beams were designed with 1.82 to 3.33% tension
reinforcement (82110% of corresponding balanced section reinforcement). Performance
aspects such as load carrying capacity, moments, deflections, and strains at different stages
were studied. The failure modes were also recorded for the beams. The paper compares the
performance of RGPC beams vis a vis reinforced Portland cement Concrete (RPCC) beams.
2. Materials and Method
2.1 Materials
Ordinary Portland cement conforming to IS 12269 (with specific gravity of 3.15), fine
aggregates, coarse aggregates and potable water were used for the control RPCC test
specimens. The RGPC was obtained by mixing different combinations of GGBS, Fly ash,
fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and alkaline activator solution (AAS). Fly ash conforming
to grade 1 of IS 3812 and GGBS (ground granulated blast furnace slag) from Andhra
Cements, Vishakhapatnam conforming to IS 12089 were used. River sand available in
Chennai was used as fine aggregates. They were tested as per IS 2386. In this investigation,
locally available blue granite crushed stone aggregates of maximum size 12mm and down
was used and characterization tests were carried out as per IS 2386. The properties of the
materials used are shown in Tables 1 to 5. Potable water was used for the RPCC and
distilled water was used for the RGPCs. High strength deformed steel bars with 0.2% proof
stress of 450 MPa and nominal diameters of 8mm, 16mm were used as reinforcements in
beams.
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering 139
Volume 2 Issue 1 2011
Table 1: Physical properties of Cement, Fly Ash and GGBS
Sl. No. Descriptions OPC Fly ash GGBS
1 Fineness (m 2 /kg) 306 419 400
2 Normal Consistency (%) 31
3 Setting Time (minutes)
a) Initial 55
b) Final 100
4 Specific gravity 3.15 2.20 2.90
5 Compressive Strength (MPa)
1d 18.2
3 d 36.6 62*
7d 46.1 71* 87**
28 d 58.5 88*
* The pozzolanic activity index (%) of cementfly ash mix as per ASTM C1240
** The Slag activity index as per ASTM C989
Table 2: Chemical Analysis of Fly Ash and GGBS
Material LOI SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O TiO2 Mn2O3 SO3
FA 0.76 62.10 27.44 4.57 0.83 0.55 0.04 1.17 1.09 0.04 0.40
GGBS 2.1 43.4 12.5 0.82 40.3 0.75 0.26 0.35 0.5 0.14 0.34
Table 3: Properties of Superplasticizer
Conplast SP 430 (SP1)
Brand: Conplast SP 430 (FOSROC, Mumbai)
Density = 1206 kg/m 3
Colour = Colourless
Free flowing liquid
Manufacturer’s recommended dosage = 0.2 – 0.9 kg per 100 kg of cement.
Base chemical = SNFC
pH = 8.027
Table 4: Properties of Fine Aggregates (River sand)
Specific gravity (SSD): Deleterious Materials: Not present
2.53
Mass Cumulative Cumulative % Cumulative
Bulk density (SSD): 1.54
Retained on Mass Mass % Passing
gm/cc
each sieve, retained, Retained
Water absorption: 0.83%
gm gm
Fineness modulus: 2.62
Zone II
IS Sieve Size
4.75mm
2.36mm 70 70 3.5 96.5
1.18mm 98 168 8.4 91.6
600 microns 985.5 1153.5 57.68 42.33
300 microns 726.5 1880 94 6
150 microns 95 1975 98.75 1.25
Pan 25 2000 100 0
Fineness Modulus 2.62
Table 5: Properties of Coarse Aggregates
Specific gravity (SSD): 2.63, Bulk density (SSD): 1.54 gm/cc, Water absorption:
0.53%
IS Sieve Mass Retained Cumulative Mass Cumulative % Cumulative %
Size on each sieve, gm retained, gm Mass Retained Passing
12.5 mm 181.00 181.00 9.05 90.95
10 mm 714.50 895.50 44.78 55.23
4.75 mm 55.50 1987.00 99.35 0.65
The alkaline activator solution (AAS) used in GPC mixes was a combination of sodium
silicate solution (SiO2/Na2O=2.2), sodium hydroxide pellets and distilled water. The role of
AAS is to dissolve the reactive portion of source materials Si and Al present in fly ash and
GGBS and provide a high alkaline liquid medium for condensation polymerization reaction.
The sodium hydroxide was taken in the form of flakes of approximately 3mm in size. The
sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution with required concentration was prepared by dissolving
the computed amount of sodium hydroxide flakes in distilled water.
The NaOH solution and sodium silicate solution were prepared separately and mixed together
at the time of casting. Since lot of heat is generated when sodium hydroxide flakes react with
water, the sodium hydroxide solution was prepared a day earlier to casting. It should be noted
here that it is essential to achieve the desired degree of workability of the GPC concrete mix.
However, excess water can result in formation of pore network, which could be the source of
low strength and low durability.
2.2 Mix Proportions
Unlike Ordinary Portland cement concretes GPCs are a new class of construction materials
and therefore no standard mix design approaches are available for GPCs. While Rangan and
Hardjito have presented certain guidelines for fly ash based GPCs, some of the trials carried
out using these procedures indicated that the workability and strength characteristics of such
mixes were not satisfactory. Such a thing is possible because GPC concrete involves more
constituents in its binder (viz., FA, GGBS, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide and water),
whose interactions and final structure and chemical composition are strongly dependent on
the source of the materials and their production process. Therefore, the chemistry and
microstructure of GPC is more complex and is still a matter of research whereas the
chemistry of cement and its structure and chemical composition are well established due to
extensive research carried out over more than century. While the strength of cement concrete
is known to be well related to its watercement ratio, such a simplistic formulation may not
hold good for GPCs. Therefore, the formulation of the GPC mixtures was done by trial and
error basis. Numerous trial mixes were cast and tested for compressive strength at the end of
28 days. The ratio of AAS to binder solids (GPS) (designated as l/b) and the composition of
GPS (FA+GGBS) was varied suitably to meet the workability and strength requirements. The
primary objective for performing the trial and error procedure was to obtain a range of
compressive strength at the end of 28 days. The secondary objective was to obtain a good
cohesive mix with satisfactory workability (slump of 75 to 100mm). The proportions and
composition of GPS and AAS were so decided that the test specimens cast were demouldable
after 24 hours of inmould curing and the required strength could be realized. Since three of
these mixes had 75% of fly ash they were designated as FAB (FA based GPC) and the other
three mixes had 100%, 75% and 50% of GGBS, they were designated as GGB (GGBS based
GPC).
In order to compare the results of tests conducted using RGPC, additional conventional
concrete mixes prepared with OPC and designed as per IS 102622009 and ACI 211.1
guidelines. The details of the mix proportions are given in Table 6a & 6b. The mechanical
properties of the mixes are shown in Table 7.
Table 6a: Mix Composition
Mix Id. Binder (b), Mix H2O / Na2O SiO2 / Na2O SiO2 /
Proportion Al2O3
(b:Sand:CA)
FAB1 75% FA, 25% GGBS 1:1.5:2.5 14.76 4.74 4.24
FAB2 75% FA, 25% GGBS 1:1.5:2.5 14.29 4.41 4.59
FAB3 75% FA, 25% GGBS 1:1.13:2.5 11.89 5.42 4.44
GGB1 0% FA, 100% GGBS 1:1.5:2.5 11.78 3.74 3.57
GGB2 25% FA, 75% GGBS 1:1.5:2.5 11.84 4.46 3.81
GGB3 50% FA, 50% GGBS 1:1.5:2.5 11.91 5.18 4.01
CC1 OPC 1:2.35:2.95
CC2 OPC 1:1.95:2.58
CC3 OPC 1:1.49:2.15
Table 6b: Mix Composition
Mix Id. Na2O/ (Al2O3+ SiO2) l/b Na2O/ GPS, % SiO2 /GPS
FAB1 0.17 0.70 11.38 4.28

FAB2 0.19 0.70 12.47 8.06
FAB3 0.15 0.55 10.18 6.58
GGB1 0.21 0.55 9.18 3.45
GGB2 0.18 0.55 9.18 3.45
GGB3 0.15 0.55 9.18 3.45
CC1 0.55
CC2 0.48
CC3 0.40
Note: σcu, 28d Compressive strength, l/b=liquid (AAS)/binder ratio, GPS=binder +AAS
Table 7: Strength Characteristics of the Mixes
Mix Id. Binder σcu, σft, Ec, σft, MPa Ec, GPa Ec, GPa

MPa MPa GPa (IS456) (IS456) (ACI318)
CC1 OPC 35 4.03 24.9 3.62 25.86 24.9
CC2 OPC 41 4.32 26.9 4.01 28.61 26.9
CC3 OPC 52 4.85 30.3 4.63 33.07 30.3
FAB1 75% F, 25% G 17 2.35 11.2 2.07 14.79 14.7
FAB2 75% F ,25%G 49 4.65 20.8 4.47 31.92 25.0
FAB3 75% F, 25% G 52 4.81 22.4 4.63 33.07 25.8
GGB1 0% F, 100%G 63 5.53 28.3 5.18 37.00 28.4
GGB2 25% F, 75% G 57 4.84 26.5 4.89 34.91 27.0
GGB3 50% F, 50%G 52 4.86 22.7 4.63 33.07 25.8
Note : σcu,, σspt, σft Ec = Compressive strength, split tensile and flexural tensile strength and
elastic modulus
2.3 Specimen Details
The beam specimens were 100mm wide and 150mm deep in crosssection. They were
1500mm in length and simplysupported over an effective span of 1350mm. The clear cover
of the beam was 20mm. The geometry of the beam specimen is shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1: Geometry of beam specimen (All dimensions are in mm)
High yield strength deformed steel bars of diameter 16mm, 12mm and 8mm were used as the
longitudinal reinforcement in the specimens. Three different percentages of tensile
reinforcement of 1.82 to 3.33% tension reinforcement (82110% of corresponding balanced
section reinforcement) were used. The reinforcement details are given in the Table 8 for both
compression steel and tension steel. Two legged vertical stirrups of 8 mm diameter at a
spacing of 100 mm centre to centre were provided as shear reinforcement. Electrical
resistance type strain gauges were fastened at the mid span longitudinal tension steel, a day
before casting.
Table 8: Reinforcement details for beam specimens
Specimen ID Area of Steel (mm 2 )
Asc Ast
CC1 100 226
CC2 100 339
CC3 100 402
FAB1 100 226
FAB2 100 339
FAB3 100 402
GGB1 100 402
GGB2 100 402
GGB3 100 402
2.4 Preparation of Specimens
Prior to casting, the inner walls of moulds were coated with lubricating oil to prevent
adhesion with the hardening concrete. Both OPCC and GPC were mixed in a tilting drum
mixer machine of 350kg capacity for about 58 minutes. The concrete was placed in the
moulds in three layers of equal thickness and each layer was vibrated until the concrete was
thoroughly compacted. Along with beam casting, three numbers of 100mm cubes were cast
to determine the 28 day compressive strength. Specimens were demoulded after 24 hrs. The
OPCC beams were water cured for a period of 28 days while the GPC beams were cured with
wet burlap for a day and subsequently air cured, in the lab oratory for a period up to 28 days
after casting. After curing, the test specimens were tested for compressive strength and
structural behaviour. The compressive strength ranged from 17 to 63 MPa for GPC mixes and
3552 MPa for OPCC mixes.
2.5 Test Setup
The test setup for the flexural test is shown in Figure 2. The test specimen was mounted in a
UTM of 1000 kN capacity. The supports of the beam rested on a stiffened steel box girder of
length 1700mm. The effective span of the beam was 1350 mm. The load was applied on two
points each 225mm away from centre of the beam towards the support.
Dial gauges of 0.001 mm least count were used for measuring the deflections under the load
points and at mid span for measuring the deflection. The dial gauge readings were recorded at
different loads. The strain in concrete was measured using a pfender gauge. The beam was
instrumented to record the strain profile across the depth at mid span and under the load
points. The steel strains were recorded by a multichannel strain meter. The load was applied
at intervals of 2.5 kN until the first crack was observed. Subsequently, the load was applied in
increments of 5 kN. The behaviour of the beam was observed carefully and the first crack
was identified using a hand held microscope. The deflections and strain values were recorded
for respective load increments until failure. The failure mode of the beams was also recorded.
Figure 2: Test setup for flexural test
3. Test results and discussions
Table 7 gives the mechanical properties of the mixes while the load and moment capacities

of RGPC beams at different stages are listed in Table 9a and 9b. The Figures 3 to 5 show
the loaddeflection behavior at midspan for the OPCC and GPC beam specimens
respectively while the Figures 6 to 8 show the corresponding momentcurvature relationship.
Figures 9 to 10 compare the load and deflection at different critical stages of member
response while the variation of crack width with load is depicted in Figure 11. Figure 12a
and 12b portrays the failure mode and final crack pattern for the different series of beams.
Table 9a: Load carried at various stages by the beams
Specimen First crack load, Service load, Yield load, Ultimate load,
ID PCR (kN) PSL (kN) PyL(kN) PUL(kN)
CC1 9.5 39 58.9 58.9
CC2 10 48 75.65 75.65
CC3 10 56 76.95 76.95
FAB1 6.75 26 37.5 37.5
FAB2 9.5 38 84.74 84.74
FAB3 8.75 39 89.8 89.8
GGB1 10 48 90.6 90.6
GGB2 10 45 85.45 85.45
GGB3 8 44 69.75 69.75
Table 9b: Moment carried at various stages by the beams
Specimen Normalized Normalized Normalized Normalized
ID Cracking Service Yield Ultimate
Moment, Mcrn Moment, Msln Moment, Myln Moment,Mun
CC1 0.040 0.163 0.17 0.246
CC2 0.036 0.171 0.21 0.270
CC3 0.029 0.163 0.22 0.224
FAB1 0.058 0.224 0.28 0.323
FAB2 0.028 0.113 0.18 0.253
FAB3 0.025 0.113 0.15 0.261
GGB1 0.024 0.115 0.18 0.217
GGB2 0.027 0.119 0.19 0.227
GGB3 0.023 0.128 0.17 0.203
2
Note ; Normalized moment= M/(σcubd )
Figure 3: Load versus mid span deflection for RPCC Beams
Figure 4: Load versus mid span deflection for FAB Series RGPC Beams
Figure 5: Load versus mid span deflection for GGB series RGBC Beams
Figure 6: M – relation for RPCC Beams
Figure 7: M – relation for HVFRGPC Beams
Figure 8: M – relation for HVGRGPC Beams
Figure 9: Normalized Cracking load and Service load for different series of beams
Figure 10: Normalized deflection for different series of beams
Figure 11: Variation of average crack width with load
3.1 Strength Characteristics
The GPC mixes developed compressive strength of 17 to 63 MPa compared to 35 to 52 MPa
of OPCCs. One of the GPC mixes viz., FAB1 had a low compressive strength of 17 MPa,
which is attributed to its high l/b ratio, low SiO2/GPS and low SiO2/Na2O ratio. The flexural
strength of GPC mixes is found to be close to that predicted from IS: 456 formula and
compares well with the strength of OPCC specimens (vide Table 7). The elastic modulus is
significantly lower for GPCs and ACI 318 prediction seems to be closer to measured elastic
modulus compared to IS: 456. This is attributed to the lower aggregate volume fraction of the
GPC mixes used.
3.2 Loaddeflection Behaviour
The Figures 3 to 5 show the loaddeflection behavior at midspan for the OPCC and GPC
beam specimens respectively. The changes in the loaddeflection curves clearly indicate the
different events occurring during the test. The first visible crack formation occurred at around
10 kN load (about 1316 % of ultimate load for RPCC and 911% for RGPC vide Table 9)
registering the first deviation or kink in the curve. Onset of profuse cracking beyond the
service load (3956 kN or about 6372% for RPCC and 4363% for RGPC) caused
pronounced nonlinearity while the yielding of main tensile reinforcement in the load range
of 3274 kN (6796% for CC series and 5785% for RPCC beams) led to softening response
in some cases and deflection hardening in certain cases depending on the area of
reinforcement. The loaddeflection pattern was similar in case of RGPC beams as well as
RPCC beams except specimen FAB1, which had a very low compressive strength of 17 MPa.
A slight drop in the load followed the peak load, in almost all the beams except FAB1 which
indicates the disintegration of concrete in the compression zone as a result of buckling of the
longitudinal compression steel.
The deflection at first crack was less than 1% of ultimate deflection for RPCC beams and
slightly more for RGPC beams. The deflection at service load was 816% for RPCC and 9 to
20% for RGPC [Table 12]. The deflection at yield ranged from 19 to 57% and 32 to 57% at
peak load for both the RPCC and RGPC beams. The better serviceability of RPCC is due to
their higher elastic modulus and higher flexural strength.
In the case of FAB series beams (FAB2 and FAB3), the deflection was about 4172% more
than the RPCC beams at first crack and 3352% higher at peak load obviously due to their
lower elastic modulus. However, the difference was much less in case of GGB series due to
their higher compressive strength and hence higher elastic modulus. The deflection of the
beams under various loads such as service loads and ultimate loads have been summarized in
Table 9. In this study, the service load was reckoned as the load corresponding to a deflection
of span/350 or ultimate load divided by load factor 1.5, whichever is less.
3.3 Momentcurvature relations
The curvature at midspan can be computed from sectional analysis by two approaches viz.,
1) From the measured deflection using areamoment theorem
(1)
Where,
From the linear strain distribution at midspan as,
(2)
While both the approaches give similar results, the second approach was used in the
computations in the study as continuous monitoring of all the deflections was not possible in
the failure stage. The curves show nearly trilinear behavior in the prepeak regime followed
by a softening response due to yielding of both tension and compression reinforcement. The
changes in slope arise due to reduction in flexural rigidity due to initiation of flexural cracks
in the constant bending moment zone and their vertical propagation. RPCC beams show
nearly plastic behavior in the postpeak load stage with increasing curvature at almost
constant moment where as RGPC beams showed considerable softening in the resisting
moment with increase in deflection/curvature indicating a lower residual moment capacity in
the post peak regime. The ratio of ultimate curvature (at failure) to curvature at peak load
ranged from 1.38 to 2.33 for RPCC beams to 1.47 to 1.75 for GPC, which is indicative of

lower post peak ductility of RGPC compared to RPCC.
3.4 Load Capacity at Different stages of Loading
The load capacities at various stages such as, first crack, service load and ultimate stage are
summarised in the Table 9 and Figure 9. It is seen that the load at the appearance of first
crack was almost the same in the case of RPCC and RGPC beams, despite the slightly higher
compressive strength of the RGPC beams. This could be attributed to the marginally lower
flexural strength of GPC compared to OPCC probably due to weaker aggregatepaste
transition zone and possible shrinkage cracking in the ITZ due to its rapid setting. The first
crack load expressed as a fraction of the corresponding ultimate load was distinctly lower for
RGPC beams as seen from Figure 9. The RGPC beams also showed lower service load of
4369% of ultimate load carrying capacity against 6373% for RPCC beams due to slightly
lower flexural rigidity of RGPC. The ultimate load carrying capacity of RGPC beams, except
FAB1 was found to be in the narrow range of 7790 kN. The ultimate load carrying
capacities of the RGPC beams were about 1417% more than RPCC beams. This could be
attributed to their higher compressive strength. As seen from table 10, the normalized
moment capacities for RGPC beams were significantly lower with respect to cracking and
service load and marginally different in the case of ultimate moment with the exception of
low compressive strength beam FAB1. The beam GGB3 showed lower moment capacity than
anticipated and this was discovered to be due to lower yield strength and ultimate strength of
steel (330 MPa and 430 MPa) used for their production.
3.5 Crack width and crack spacing
The flexure cracks were the first to initiate in the Constant Bending moment Zone 99(CBMZ)
as expected. As the load increased, the existing cracks propagated and new cracks developed
in the farther regions of CBMZ. In the shear span regions, the flexural cracks gave way to
inclined cracks with increasing load. These inclined cracks were prominent in case of beam
specimens with higher percentage of tensile reinforcement [Figure 12a and 12 b]. The
spacing of cracks varied along the span. The crack patterns observed for RGPC beams were
found to be similar to that of RPCC beams.
Figure 12a: Crack patterns and failure mode of RPCC beam specimens
Figure 12b: Crack patterns and failure mode of RGPC beam specimens
Figure 11 shows the variation in average crack width with load for all the beam specimens.
In general, the RGPC beam specimens developed the same order of crack width and total
number of flexural cracks (around 40) compared to RPCC beam specimens for a given load
as is observed from Table 11 except for beam GGB3. The GGB3 specimen recorded the
maximum crack width at peak load (0.53 mm) while the specimen GGB1 recorded the least
(0.32).The spacing of the cracks in the flexural zone was almost similar for both RPCC and
RGPC beams.
Table 10: Comparison of Computed and Experimental Moment Capacities
Specimen MCR,E (kN) MCR,T(kN) MSL,E(kN) MSLt (kN) MUL,E(kN) MUL,T(kN)
ID
CC1 2.14 1.64 39 21.6 13.25 11.44
CC2 2.25 1.94 48 30.8 17.03 16.19
CC3 2.25 2.23 56 35.8 17.33 18.87
FAB1 1.52 0.88 26 20.4 8.44 10.25
FAB2 2.14 2.09 38 30.2 19.06 17.18
FAB3 1.97 2.45 39 35.3 20.21 19.22
GGB1 2.25 2.77 48 35.7 20.39 19.78
GGB2 2.25 2.61 45 35.5 19.24 19.41

GGB3 1.80 1.94 44 35.3 15.71 14.62
1
M cr,T Theoretical cracking moment capacity as per ACI 318
M 1 SL, T Theoretical service moment capacity as per IS;456
MUL, T Theoretical ultimate moment capacity as per IS;456
Table 11: Crack Width and No. of flexural Cracks
Average crack width around
Specimen ID Service Load (40 kN), mm Total no. of flexural cracks
CC1 0.125 40
CC2 0.21 37
CC3 0.23 37
FAB1 23
FAB2 0.13 46
FAB3 0.28 48
GGB1 0.18 42
GGB2 0.24 40
GGB3 0.45 38
3.6 Failure Mode and crack pattern
Beyond the peak load, the no. of flexural cracks stabilized and the cracks at the midspan
opened widely thereafter with the yielding of steel. At failure load, all the beams deflected
significantly. The failure pattern of the beam specimens was found to be similar for both
RPCC and RGPC beams (Figure 12a and 12b). The failure in all the cases was initiated by
yielding of the tensile steel (around 4000 µm/m) followed by the crushing of concrete in the
compression face.
In general, there was no major difference in the failure modes of RGPC and RPCC beams
and the crack pattern at different stages were also nearly identical. There was no evidence of
inadequacy of bond leading to splitting of concrete along the tensile reinforcement (Figure
12a and 12 b).
4. Comparison of Test Results and Theoretically Computed Results
4.1 Flexural Moment Capacity
Table 10 compares the predicted values of flexural moment capacity at cracking, service load
and ultimate load for RPCC beams and RGPC beams. The predicted values were obtained by
theoretical analysis using the transformed section method and strain compatibility method
specified in the codes of practice for reinforced cement concrete. The flexural strength
required for the computation of cracking moment was obtained from the corresponding cube
strength using the formulae recommended in the codes of practice. As seen from the Table 9,
the cracking moment prediction by ACI 383 formula for flexural strength 0.498 (√fcy) was
found to match better with the experimental result (within 2030% in most of the cases). The
comparison was slightly unsatisfactory for GGB series beams, which showed lower flexural
strength compared to that predicted by the codal formulae. Considering the typical variability
in flexural strength data (Macgregor,1987), the predicted moments are reasonably close to
actual moment. The service load moment was obtained using the transformed section based
on the allowable working stress permitted in IS: 4562000. The comparison with
experimental values indicates lack of good agreement, especially in case of RPCC beams and
GGB series. This indicates that the factor of safety for allowable stresses and the effective
modular ratio to be used for compression and tension steel may need revision on the higher
side.
The theoretical ultimate moment capacity showed a variation of 0.8 to 16.9% with the test

results and the agreement was in the range of 89 to 99% of experimental value for RGPC
beams, which is on the conservative side. The moment capacities were computed at the
midspan section by strain compatibility method using a trial and error approach. In case of
two FAB series, the results were on the nonconservative side. This indicates a need for more
detailed investigation into the stress block shape and other parameters like reinforcement
index at the ultimate stage for such members. With more no. of test results, such variability is
also likely to reduce. Figure 13(a) shows that the predicted moments cluster quite closely
around the 45 O line in the predicted moment Vs experimental moment capacity and compares
favourably with the results of Sumajouw and Rangan[5].
4.2 Beam Deflections
The midspan deflection was predicted at cracking, yielding moment and ultimate stages. In
the first crack stage, the gross moment of inertia was used and the deflection was calculated
using the expression given for the maximum elastic deflection of a simply supported
homogeneous beam subjected to two point loading as,
(3)
At the service load stage, the effective moment of inertia expression given in IS: 4562000
was utilized. The effective moment of inertia Ieff for the calculation of the deflections at the
cracked stage is given as,
; But Ir ≤ Ieff ≤ Igr (4)
Where, =
At the, yield moment stage, the yielding moment at a section is given by
= (5)
Where,
A similar approach was used for the deflection at the peak load. Comparison between the test
load and the corresponding predicted deflections show fairly good agreement with the actual
measurements (Table 12). The agreement may be poor due to reliance of the approach on
sectional analysis and ignoring the contribution of shear deflection besides extraneous
deflection due to support settlement and load transfer yoke. There is a need for improved
computational methods and more accurate measurement of deflections.
5. Conclusions
Based on the experimental and analytical investigations carried out on the reinforced
Geopolymer cement concrete beams and conventional Portland cement concrete beams, it can
be concluded that:
1. The load deflection characteristics of the RPCC beams and RGPC beams are almost
similar. The cracking moment and service load moment were marginally lower for
RGPC beams compared to RPCC beams.
2. The values of curvature at the peak load for the GGB beams and RPCC were same,
but FAB series beams had more curvature values at same or lesser moments.
3. The ultimate moment capacity of the RGPC beams investigated in the study was
found to be more than that of the RPCC beams because of their higher compressive
strength. However, in terms of normalized moment capacity Mu/σcu bd 2 , the cracking
and service load moments were less for RGPC beams while the ultimate moment
capacity was of the same order.
4. The cracking, service and ultimate moment carrying capacity of the test beams
calculated using the conventional reinforced concrete principles and strain
compatibility approach showed good correlation between the test and predicted
values. The studies showed that the computational methods used for evaluating the
performance parameters of the RPCC beams at different stages can also be extended
to RGPC beams. However, the predictions may not be conservative in all the cases
and therefore use a capacity reduction factor may be necessary for design purposes.
5. More extensive investigations are required to decide on the shape and parameters of
the stress block and maximum compressive strain in concrete to provide more
accurate prediction.
6. The measured deflections of beams compared with the predicted deflections
calculated using the provisions of IS 456:2000 and conventional RC theory show fair
agreement but call for improved prediction.
7. The crack patterns and failure modes observed for RGPC beams were found to be
similar to the RPCC beams. The total number of the flexural cracks developed was
almost same for all the beams. The beams failed initially by yielding of the tensile
steel followed by the crushing of concrete in the compression face.
8. The crack widths, crack spacing and no. of cracks were comparable for both RPCC
and RGPC beams.
Acknowledgement
This paper is being published with the kind permission of Director, CSIRSERC, Chennai.
The work was carried at the Advanced Materials Laboratory (AML) of CSIR SERC,
Chennai and the authors acknowledge the help and cooperation rendered by the Head, AML,
staff, scientists, and project trainee students at AML.
6. References
1. Bakharev T. (2005a), Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and
magnesium sulfate solutions, Cement and Concrete Research, 35(6), pp 1233
1246.
2. Bakharev T., (2005), Geopolymeric materials prepared using Class Fly ash and
elevated temperature curing, Cement and Concrete Research, 35, pp 12241232.
3. Bakharev T., (2005c), Resistance of geopolymer materials to acid attack, Cement
and Concrete Research, 35(4), pp 658670.
4. Bakharev T., Sanjayan J.G., Cheng J.B., (2003), Resistance of alkaliactivated
slag concrete to acid attack, Cement and Concrete Research, 33, pp 16071611.
5. Bakharev T., Sanjayan J.G., Cheng Y.B., (1999), Effect of elevated temperature
curing on properties of alkaliactivated slag concrete, Cement and Concrete
Research, 29(10), pp 16191625.
6. Dattatreya J.K., Ambily P.S., Madheswaran C.K., Sabitha D., Neelamegam M.
(2010), Experimental Studies on Shear Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer
Concrete Beams, SERC Research Report No. RR2, June.
7. Dattatreya J.K., Rajamane N.P., and Ambily P.S., (2009), Structural Behaviour of
Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams and Columns, SERC Research Report,
RR6, May.
8. Davidovits J. (1991), Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials, Journal of
Thermal Analysis, 37, pp 1633–1656.
9. Duxson P., FernándezJiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, Van
Deventer,(2007), Geopolymer technology, The current state of the art, Journal of
Material Science , 42 (9),pp 2917–2933.
10. FernándezJiménez A., Palomo A., (2003), Characterisation of fly ashes, Potential
reactivity as alkaline cements, Fuel, 82(18), pp 22592265.
11. FernándezJiménez A., Palomo A., LópezHambrados C.,(2006), Engineering

Properties of AlkaliActivated Fly Ash Concrete, ACI Materials Journal 103(2),
Mar–Apr, pp 106–112.
12. Hardjito D., and Rangan B.V., 2005, Development and properties of low calcium
fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Research report GC1, Curtin University of
Technology, Perth, Australia.
13. Macgregor J.G. (1987). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, 3 rd edition,
Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
14. Palomo A., FernándezJiménez A., LópezHombrados C., Lleyda J.L.,2004,

“Precast elements made of alkali activated fly ash concrete”, 8th CANMET/ACI
International Conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in
concrete. Las Vegas, (U.S.A.), Supplementary Volume, pp 545558
15. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W.,Blanco M.T.,(1999), Alkaliactivated Fly Ashes: A

Cement for the Future, Cement and Concrete Research, 29, pp 1323–1329.
16. Phair J.W., 2006, Green chemistry for sustainable cement production and use,
Green Chem., pp 763–780
17. Rajamane N.P., Dattatreya J.K., Ambily P.S., (2009), Bond Characteristics of
Steel Rebars in Geopolymer Concrete, SERC Research Report, RR7, May.
18. Rajamane N.P., P.S. Ambily, J.K. Dattatreya, D. Sabitha, (2010), Technical
Feasibility Studies on Geopolymer Concrete Building Blocks / Pavers with
Natural and Synthetic Aggregates, SERC Technical Report.
19. Rajamane N.P., P.S. Ambily, J.K. Dattatreya, D. Sabitha, C.K. Madheswaran,
Neelamegam M., J. Annie Peter, (2009), Statistical Evaluation of Experimental
Results, Internal Report RR9, October.
20. Rajamane N.P., Sabitha D., (2005), “Studies on geopolymer mortars using fly ash
and blast furnace slag powder”, International Congress on Fly Ash, Fly Ash India,
Chapter 6, pp 17.
21. Rajamane N.P., Sabitha D., and Sajana Mary James, (2005), Potential of industrial
wastes to produce geopolymeric mortar of practical utility a study, Indian
Concrete Institute Journal, Vol. 5, No 4, JanMar, pp 920.
22. Rajamane N.P., Sabitha D., Sajana Mary James, Gopalakrishnan S.,(2005),
“Studies on development of geopolymeric lowenergy cement from fly ash for
structural applications”, Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances
in Concrete Composites and Structures, ICAS, 68 January, SERC, Chennai,
India, pp 219226.
23. Rangan B.V., (2006), Fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Research report GC4,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
24. Sofi D., Van Deventer J.S.J., Mendis P.A., Lukey G.C., (2006), Engineering
properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs), Cement and Concrete Research,
37, pp 251257.
25. Sumajouw M.D.J., Rangan B.V., (2006), LowCalcium fly ash based geopolymer
concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns, Research report GC3, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
26. Swanepoel J.C., Strydom C. A., (2002), Utilisation of fly ash in a geopolymeric
material, Applied Geochemistry, 17(8), pp 11431148.
27. Van Jaarsveld J.G.S., van Deventer J.S.J., Lukey G.C., (2002a), The effect of
composition and temperature on the properties of fly ash and kaolinitebased
geopolymers, Chemical Engineering Journal, 89(13), pp 6373.
28. Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., van Deventer J. S.J., Lukey G.C., (2003), The
characterisation of source materials in fly ashbased geopolymers, Materials
Letters, 57(7), pp 12721280.
29. Wallah S.E., Rangan B.V., (2006), Lowcalcium fly ash based geopolymer
concrete: long term properties. Research report GC2, Curtin University of
Technology,Perth, Australia

Eijcse3012 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eijcse3012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Received on July 2011 published on September 2011 138

10 mm 714.50 895.50 44.78 55.23

4.75 mm 55.50 1987.00 99.35 0.65

Mix Id. Na2O/ (Al2O3+ SiO2) l/b Na2O/ GPS, % SiO2 /GPS

FAB1 0.17 0.70 11.38 4.28

Mix Id. Binder σcu, σft, Ec, σft, MPa Ec, GPa Ec, GPa

Table 7 gives the mechanical properties of the mixes while the load and moment capacities

ranged from 1.38 to 2.33 for RPCC beams to 1.47 to 1.75 for GPC, which is indicative of

GGB2 2.25 2.61 45 35.5 19.24 19.41

The theoretical ultimate moment capacity showed a variation of 0.8 to 16.9% with the test

11. FernándezJiménez A., Palomo A., LópezHambrados C.,(2006), Engineering

14. Palomo A., FernándezJiménez A., LópezHombrados C., Lleyda J.L.,2004,

15. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W.,Blanco M.T.,(1999), Alkaliactivated Fly Ashes: A

You might also like

Eijcse3012 PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Eijcse3012 PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Received on July 2011 published on September 2011 138

10 mm 714.50 895.50 44.78 55.23

4.75 mm 55.50 1987.00 99.35 0.65

Mix Id. Na2O/ (Al2O3+ SiO2) l/b Na2O/ GPS, % SiO2 /GPS

FAB­1 0.17 0.70 11.38 4.28

Mix Id. Binder σcu, σft, Ec, σft, MPa Ec, GPa Ec, GPa

Table 7 gives the mechanical properties of the mixes while the load and moment capacities

ranged from 1.38 to 2.33 for RPCC beams to 1.47 to 1.75 for GPC, which is indicative of

GGB­2 2.25 2.61 45 35.5 19.24 19.41

The theoretical ultimate moment capacity showed a variation of ­0.8 to 16.9% with the test

11. Fernández­Jiménez A., Palomo A., López­Hambrados C.,(2006), Engineering

14. Palomo A., Fernández­Jiménez A., López­Hombrados C., Lleyda J.L.,2004,

15. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W.,Blanco M.T.,(1999), Alkali­activated Fly Ashes: A

You might also like

FAB1 0.17 0.70 11.38 4.28

GGB2 2.25 2.61 45 35.5 19.24 19.41

The theoretical ultimate moment capacity showed a variation of 0.8 to 16.9% with the test

11. FernándezJiménez A., Palomo A., LópezHambrados C.,(2006), Engineering

14. Palomo A., FernándezJiménez A., LópezHombrados C., Lleyda J.L.,2004,

15. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W.,Blanco M.T.,(1999), Alkaliactivated Fly Ashes: A