4.

11 Measurement of Pulse Velocity

Table 4.12 Pulse Velocity of GPC mix samples

Length of cylinder/(m) Time ×10-6/(s) Pulse Velocity/(km/s)

Sample
7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day
1.2(100F:12M) 0.107 0.100 0.105 79.0 65.6 57.2 1.354 1.524 1.836
1.3(100F:14M) 0.108 0.102 0.107 77.5 63.7 57.3 1.393 1.601 1.867
2(90F:10S) 0.106 0.106 0.107 71.0 68.4 54.5 1.492 1.550 1.963
3(80F:20S) 0.106 0.107 0.108 70.6 66.6 57.5 1.501 1.607 1.878
4(70F:30S) 0.107 0.108 0.108 74.6 66.3 56.3 1.434 1.644 1.918
5(60F:40S) 0.107 0.108 0.106 70.6 68.3 59.0 1.515 1.581 1.797
6(50F:50S) 0.107 0.107 0.106 74.8 66.2 57.2 1.430 1.616 1.853

Pulse velocity was measured by the ultrasonic wave transmitting through the concrete and the time to
travel between the transducer. So the time to travel through concrete surface depends on the concrete
static module and dynamic module. So due to variation of the material distribution (not homogeneous)
the pulse traveling time varying. And also if there any sudden pulse time reduction was obtained then
that indicate there may be any obstruction. Here pulse velocity has an increment with age. The main
reason for that is transit time has decreased. It may be happen due to hardening of concrete with age.
When concrete is hardening, wave may travel quickly. So travel time has a reduction. Due to this
reason velocity has an increment. According to Figure 4.26 it can be shown that all has similar type of
behavior.

Figure 4.26 Variation of pulse velocity with age

41
4.12 Static and dynamic modulus

Modulus can be divided into two categories. Those are static modulus and dynamic modulus. Dynamic
modulus was found by using following formula.

E = ƿV2 (1+ⱱ) (1-2ⱱ) / (1-ⱱ)

E = Dynamic modulus

V= Pulse velocity

ⱱ = Poisson’s ratio

ƿ = Density

According to Table 4.13, it shows that weight, volume and density of the samples which was used to
test pulse velocity and dynamic modulus. Here density of GPC varies in the range 2147 - 2225 kg/m3.
According to the research which was done by Diaz,Allouche and Vaidya in 2011 was shown that
range is 2165-2319 kg/m3. So these two ranges are nearly same.

Table 4.13 Density of the samples

Volume/(m3) ×10-3 Mass/(kg) Density/(kg/m3)

Sample
7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day
1.2(100F:12M) 0. 254 0. 237 0. 249 0.5456 0.5137 0.5395 2147 2163 2164
1.3(100F:14M) 0. 256 0. 242 0.254 0.5622 0.5474 0.5552 2192 2260 2185
2(90F:10S) 0. 251 0. 251 0.254 0.547 0.5336 0.5556 2173 2120 2187
3(80F:20S) 0. 251 0. 254 0.256 0.5559 0.562 0.561 2209 2212 2187
4(70F:30S) 0. 254 0. 259 0.256 0.5562 0.574 0.5618 2189 2218 2191
5(60F:40S) 0. 254 0. 256 0.251 0.5663 0.563 0.5536 2229 2195 2199
6(50F:50S) 0. 254 0. 254 0.251 0.5654 0.5644 0.5565 2225 2221 2211

According to Table 4.14, it shows the dynamic modulus of GPC. It was calculated by using density,
pulse velocity and poisson’s ratio. Generally dynamic modulus values are in the range of 3.58 -7.66
GPa. Those values are increasing with age as well. According to Figure 4.27, it shows that all the
samples have similar type of behavior.

According to the research which was done by Diaz,Allouche and Vaidya in 2011 shows that Elastic
modulus of fly ash based GPC concrete is 1.87 - 42.88 GPa and according to the research which was
done by Xie, Ozbakkaloglu in 2015 shows that Elastic modulus of fly and bottom ash based GPC
concrete is 6 - 11 GPa

42
 Table 4.14 Dynamic modulus of GPC sample

Density/(kg/m3) Pulse Velocity/(m/s) Dynamic modulus/(GPa)

Sample
7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day 7 day 14 day 28 day
1.2(100F:12M) 2147 2163 2164 1354 1524 1836 3.58 4.57 6.63
1.3(100F:14M) 2192 2260 2185 1393 1601 1867 3.87 5.27 6.93
2(90F:10S) 2173 2120 2187 1492 1550 1963 4.40 4.63 7.66
3(80F:20S) 2209 2212 2187 1501 1607 1878 4.52 5.19 7.02
4(70F:30S) 2189 2218 2191 1434 1644 1918 4.09 5.45 7.33
5(60F:40S) 2229 2195 2199 1515 1581 1797 4.65 4.99 6.45
6(50F:50S) 2225 2221 2211 1430 1616 1853 4.13 5.28 6.90

Figure 4.27 Variation of dynamic modulus with age

According to Table 4.15, it shows the static modulus of GPC. It was calculated by using strain and
stress of GPC. Graphs were used to calculate the strain. Generally static modulus values are in the
range of 3.01 - 6.57 GPa. Those values have increased with age of the concrete. According to Figure
4.28 shows that has similar type of behavior.

43
 Table 4.15 Static modulus of GPC sample

static modulus/(GPa)
Sample
7 day 14 day 28 day

1.2(100F:12M) 3.01 3.76 5.54

1.3(100F:14M) 3.09 4.57 5.84

2(90F:10S) 3.76 3.89 6.57

3(80F:20S) 3.90 4.21 5.84
4(70F:30S) 3.29 4.38 6.57

5(60F:40S) 3.90 4.05 5.26

6(50F:50S) 3.39 4.57 5.54

Figure 4.28 Variation of static modulus with age of concrete

According to Table 4.16, it shows that static modulus/ dynamic modulus ratio for GPC. The table
shows that ratio is varying from 0.79 to 0.89. But the ratio between static modulus / dynamic modulus
is 0.83 in GPC concrete according to the research which was done by Salman, Amawee in 2006. So in
these samples that ratio is not changing too much from exact value.

44
 Table 4.16 Ratio between static modulus / dynamic modulus

static modulus/ dynamic modulus

Sample
7 day 14 day 28 day
1.2(100F:12M) 0.83 0.82 0.84
1.3(100F:14M) 0.79 0.87 0.84
2(90F:10S) 0.85 0.84 0.86
3(80F:20S) 0.86 0.81 0.83
4(70F:30S) 0.80 0.80 0.89
5(60F:40S) 0.84 0.81 0.82
6(50F:50S) 0.8 0.87 0.80

According to Figure 4.29 to Figure 4.35, it shows that variation of static modulus and dynamic
modulus with age of the all the concrete samples.

Figure 4.29 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 1.2(100F:12M)

45
Figure 4.30 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 1.3(100F:14M)

Figure 4.31 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 2(90F:10S)

46
Figure 4.32 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 3(80F:20S)

Figure 4.33 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 4(70F:30S)

47
 Figure 4.34 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 5(60F:40S)

Figure 4.35 Variation of dynamic modulus, static modulus for 6(50F:50S)

According to the figures it can shows that variation of both static modulus and dynamic modulus have
similar behavior. Both are increased with time and increasing rate is decreasing with time and dynamic
modulus is greater than static modulus in each case.

48
4.13 Regression analysis for compressive strength and elastic modulus of cylinders

Let be, compressive strength of the cylinder = fc and elastic modulus of the cylinder = Ec.

Then if compressive strength of the some sample is known, it can be predicted about the elastic
modulus only if and equation is there. Usually relationship of compressive strength and elastic
modulus of concrete is Ec= α.fcn. α and n are less than 1. And also to find the and n, regression analysis
should be followed. To find α and n, MATLAB code which was used earlier was used.

By using that mat lab code α and n were found for each sample separately. According to Figure 4.36
to Figure 4.42 are shown those equations and graphs which have been obtained. Here unit of
compressive strength is MPa and unit of elastic modulus is GPa.

Figure 4.36 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 1.2

49
Figure 4.37 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 1.3

Figure 4.38 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 2

50
Figure 4.39 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 3

Figure 4.40 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 4

51
 Figure 4.41 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 5

Figure 4.42 Regression between static modulus and compressive strength for sample 6

According to Table 4.17, it is summarized above results that have been obtained. Here compressive
strength unit is MPa and elastic modulus units are GPa.

52
 Table 4.17 Summary of the regression analysis

Sample α n Regression model

1.2(100F:12M) 0.37 1 Ec = 0.37fc
1.3(100F:14M) 0.39 1 Ec = 0.39fc
2(90F:10S) 0.39 1 Ec = 0.39fc
3(80F:20S) 0.37 1 Ec = 0.37fc
4(70F:30S) 0.35 1 Ec = 0.35fc
5(60F:40S) 0.71 0.74 Ec = 0.71fc0.74
6(50F:50S) 0.46 1 Ec = 0.46fc

Those were compared with the available information on fly ash based geopolymer concrete data also.
According to Table 4.18, it is shown that the regression models which are derived for the GPC
concrete.

Table 4.18 Regression models

Institute / Standards / Specifications Regression model

ACI318-08(For normal weight concrete ) Ec = 4.733fc 0.5

Curtin university of technology(For

Ec = 3.32 fc0.5+ 6.9
GPC)

Units of compressive strength are MPa and elastic modulus units are in GPa.

Figure 4.43 Regression models for all the samples (according to table 4.16)
53
By considering Figure 4.43, it can be observed that sample 3(80F:20S), 1.2(100F:12M) and
1.3(100F:14M), 2(90F:10S) vary approximately in a similar manner. Regression models which derived
for GPC are discussed in the Figure 4.44 (those are summarized in the table 4.18)

Figure 4.44 Regression models for concrete standards (according to table 4.16)

By considering Table 4.17 and 4.18 it can be concluded that our geopolymer concrete samples and
GPC concrete models have different behavior type. That means our results are consisted of equation
such as Y = mx and one sample shows that as Y = mxn but exact solutions are like Y = mxn.
According to those results it can be predicted that the modal equation which we obtained are not same
as exact solution therefore combined equation was derived for GPC. That equation is Ec = 0.38fc.

54
Figure 4.45 Combined regression model for all the samples

55