Asian Journal

Asian Research Consortium of Research in

Social Sciences
and
Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities
Vol. 6, No. 9, September 2016, pp. 820-827. Humanities
ISSN 2249-7315 www.aijsh.com
A Journal Indexed in Indian Citation Index
DOI NUMBER: 10.5958/2249-7315.2016.00834.0
Category:Science and Technology

Flexural Behaviour of Bottom Ash Geopolymer

Reinforced Concrete Beams

R. Saravana Kumar*; Dr. V. Revathi**

*Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
K. S. R. College of Engineering,
Tiruchengode, Tamilnadu, India.
**Professor and Head,
Department of Civil Engineering,
K. S. R. College of Engineering,
Tiruchengode, Tamilnadu, India.

Abstract
The present work deals with flexural behavior of bottom ash geopolymer reinforced concrete beam.
A total of twelve beams were cast, in which six beams were control reinforced concrete beams and
six beams were bottom ash geopolymer reinforced concrete (BAGPRC) beam. BAGPRC beam was
cured at ambient temperature. The load carrying capacity, load deflection behavior, initial stiffness,
ductility factor and energy absorption capacity of beams were arrived and compared with control
reinforced cement concrete (RCC) specimens. The test result reveals that BAGPRC exhibited
excellent performance over control RCC beam. However, ductility index and stiffness behavior of
BAGPRC beam were comparable with control RCC beam.

Keywords: Bottom ash, flexural behavior, ambient curing, geopolymer concrete.

820
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

1. Introduction
In a country like India, infrastructure development has been expanded tremendously due to rapid
increase in population. In one aspect, the infrastructure development indicates the growth of the
nation, but in the other aspect, it promotes pollution and creates problem to the health of human
beings. Cement is commonly used binder material for concrete. During the cement manufacturing
process 1 tonne cement produces equal quantities of CO2. Cement industries are responsible about
5% world CO2 emission. [11]. India is having second place in world cement production after China
like our population [16]. The need to reduce global warming Davidovits (1978) father of
geopolymer concrete proposed a reaction of alkaline liquids with the materials rich in silicon and
aluminum. The fast reaction of geopolymer paste with alkaline solution produces three dimensional
polymeric chain Si-O-Al-O bonds [9]. Bottom ash is a waste that results from coal burning to
produce electricity in thermal power plant. Bottom ash contains high contents of silica and alumina
and should be suitable for use as source materials in making geopolymer. The particle size of
bottom ash is larger and it has to be ground to increase the reactivity. The ground Bottom ash has
also been successfully used as a source material for making geopolymer [13]. Fly ash based
geopolymer concrete beams cured at 60˚C for 24 hours takes more load when compared to RCC
beam, but the deflection was little higher when compared to control RCC specimens [15]. Further,
fly ash, GGBS combinations were used to produce geopolymer concrete beams. Like fly ash
geopolymer concrete beams the behavior of geopolymer concrete beams take more loads compared
to RCC beam, but with higher deflection [2]. Steam cured low calcium fly ash reinforced
geopolymer concrete beams behaves similar to ordinary Portland cement reinforced concrete beams
[1,17,14,10]. Besides, flexural behavior of BAGPRC is not undertaken so far. In such a way, the
present study aims to investigate the flexural behavior of bottom ash geopolymer reinforced
concrete beams (BAGPRC).

2. Experimental Work
2.1 Materials used
Bottom ash was obtained from Mettur Thermal Power Plant. The collected bottom ash was ground
to finer using ball mill in such a way that more than 95% of particles of ash are passing through
45µ sieve. The ground bottom ash is shown in fig 2.1. Ordinary Portland cement 53 grade
confirming to IS 12269: 2013 was used in the present study. Locally available river sand conforming
to IS: 383-1987 was used as fine aggregates in the study. The specific gravity of sand was
carried as per IS: 2386-1963 (Part 3) and was found as 2.69. Two sizes of coarse aggregates of
12 mm and 6 mm were used in this work. The specific gravity of coarse aggregate was found as
2.8 as per IS: 2386-1963 (Part 3). Alkaline activator is a combination of sodium silicate solution
and sodium hydroxide flakes and shown in fig. 2.2 and 2.3 respectively. 97-98% purity was
purchased from a local supplier where the sodium hydroxide in flakes and the same solids were
mixed to make the solution in water. Sodium oxide is 13.7%, silicon dioxide is 29.4% and water is
55.9% by mass in sodium silicate solution. These solutions were purchased from the local
supplier.

821
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

Fig 2.1 Bottom Ash Fig. 2.2 NaOH Fig.2.3 Na2SiO3

2.2. Mix proportions

The mix design of bottom ash geopolymer concrete followed the guide lines reported by Rangan
(2008) [1]. The ratio of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution was taken as 2 by
mass. The molarity of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was 8M. As per the procedure indicated
by Rajamane and Jeyalakshmi (2015) sodium hydroxide solution was prepared [12]. The ratio of
activator solution to binder by mass was in the range of 0.5. The density of geopolymer concrete
was 2400 kg/m3. The total aggregate content was considered as 75 % in the mix. In which 70%
coarse aggregate and 30% fine aggregate were used. As there is no codal procedure for the design
of geopolymer concrete (GPC), by trial and error method, the mix design was done. In case of
control cement concrete, mix design was arrived as per IS 10262-2009. Both geopolymer, cement
concrete mix design were prepared with grade of 40MPa.

2.3. Preparation of specimens

The dimension of beam size was chosen as 1350 mm x120 mm x 180 mm for BAGPRC and RCC.
The beam size has arrived from one-fourth scale model of a two storied framed structure which has
been analyzed by STAAD.pro. After the analysis maximum moment was considered for calculating
reinforcement details as per IS 456:2000. The beam scaling indicates the originality of geometry of
the real building. For all the beams, two 8 mm diameter bars were provided on the compression
side. And as two legged stirrups of 8 mm diameter @ 100 mm c/c were used. Two 10 mm diameter
bars provided at tension face for GPC I, RCC I and three 10 mm diameter bars provided at tension
face for GPC II, RCC II as shown in fig.2.4.The aggregates were first mixed with bottom ash for
about three minutes. The mixing continued for next four minutes, the alkaline liquid was added to
the dry material. After the mixing, in the beam mould concrete was poured and compacted
completely. After 24 hours the all specimen were demoulded, the GPC beams are kept in laboratory
ambient conditions for 28 days while RCC beams are covered with jute bag in water for 28 days.
Totally twelve beams were cast in which six beams were GPC and remaining six were RCC.

822
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

Fig.2.4 Reinforcement Detailing of BAGPRC & RCC

2.4. Testing of Specimens

The beams were considered as simply supported and two point static loading was applied. The
effective span of the beam measurement is 1200 mm. This beam load was tested by hydraulic jack
and deviation was measured by load cell. Fig. 2.5 shows the experimental set up of simply
supported GPC beams subjected to monotonic loading. The load was increased till the failure of the
specimen occurs. Then, the deflections at mid-span by LVDT were noted.

Fig.2.5. Test Set up For Two Point Static Loading

823
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

3. Results and Discussions

3.1 Load Carrying Capacity
It can be seen from table 3.1 experimental load carrying capacity at ultimate load GPC I was 8.8 %
higher than RCC I and GPC II was also higher than 6.5 % higher than RCC II. In all mixes of GPC
takes more load when compared to reinforced cement concrete beams. The deflection of GPC at
ultimate load was little higher than RCC it shows that GPC are more flexible than RCC. First crack
load of GPC I, II was increased by 25% and 15.38 % when compared to RCC I, II.

Table 3.1 Flexural Properties of BAGPRC and RCC

First Energy
Initial
Specimen crack Ultimate Deflection Ductility absorption
Stiffness
ID load load (kN) (mm) index capacity
(kN) kN/mm
(kN – mm)
RCC I 21 99 9.9 4.5 35.3 620
GPC I 28 108 12.7 4.9 34.5 780
RCC II 33 115 13.8 4.6 34.8 1060
GPC II 39 123 16.3 5.0 35.4 1290

3.2 Load – Deflection Behavior of GPC & RCC

The experimental of load versus deflection curve is shown in fig.3.1 and 3.2. The results clearly
indicates that increasing the reinforcement in RCC II and GPC II increases the load carrying
capacity and deflection when compared to GPC I, RCC I. In fact, the load deflection behavior of
GPC was improved than RCC. Furthermore, the energy absorption capacity, ductility index and
stiffness behavior were calculated.

3.3 Energy absorption capacity, Ductility index & Initial stiffness

The results presented in table 3.1 were obtained from the load deflection curve. In general, stiffness
is defined as a load required for causing unit deflection. A tangent is drawn through the origin to
the load deflection curve the slope of the tangent is calculated stiffness of the member. Ductility is
defined as ability to undergo inelastic deformation. In this study, ductility was calculated from the
ratio between ultimate load deflection (∆u) to yield load deflection (∆y) yield deflection was
calculated from the assumed bilinear behavior. Energy absorption capacity was calculated from the
area under the load deflection diagram. The ductility index, stiffness of GPC I, GPC II was
marginally higher than RCC I, RCC II. This shows GPC behavior similar to RCC. Energy
absorption capacity of GPC I was 20.5 % higher than RCC I & GPC II was 17.8 % higher than
RCC II

824
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

Fig. 3.1 Load vs Deflection for RCC I & GPC I

Fig. 3.2 Load vs Deflection for RCC II & GPC II

4. Conclusion
From the experimental results on BAGPRC and RCC beam, the following conclusions were made.
 Load carrying capacity of GPC I was 8.8 % higher than that of RCC I & GPC II was 6.5
% higher than RCC II.
 GPC II has the higher load carrying than GPC I due to the additional of reinforcement.
 Ductility index, stiffness behaviour of GPC I, GPC II was marginally varied from RCC I,
RCC II.
 Energy absorption capacity of GPC I was 20.5 % higher than RCC I & GPC II was 17.8 %
higher than RCC II.

825
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

References
1. B. V. Rangan (2008) “Fly ash-based geopolymer Concrete”, Research Report GC 4,
Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
2. Dattateraya J K, Rajamane N P, Sabitha D, Ambity P S, Nataraja M C, (2011) “ Flexural
Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams ’’, International Journal of Civil
Structural Engineering, Vol. 2, Issue 1, PP.138-159.
3. D.Hardjito and B.V.Rangan (2005) “Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete” Research Report GC1, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
4. IS 10262 (2009), Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
5. IS 456 (2000), Plain and Reinforced Concrete -Code of Practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi.
6. IS 383 (1987), Specification of coarse and fine aggregate from natural sources for
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
7. IS 456 (1978), Design Aids for Reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi.
8. IS 2386 (part 3) (1963), methods for testing for aggregates for concrete, specific gravity,
Density, Absorption and organic impurities, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
9. J. Davidovits (1991) “Geopolymer - Inorganic polymeric new materials” Journal of
thermal analysis, Vol. 37, Issue 8,PP.1633-1656.
10. Madeshwaran C K, Ambily P S, Dattatreya J K, Ramesh G, (2014) “ Experimental studies
on Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams Subjected to Monotonic Static
Loading”, International journal of innovative research in sciences, engineering
technology,Vol.3, issue 7, PP.14473-14482.
11. Mohammed Ba-Shammakh, Hernane Caruso, Ali Elkamel, Eric Croiset, and Peter L.
Douglas, (2008) “Analysis and Optimization of Carbon Dioxide Emission Mitigation
Options in the Cement Industry”, American Journal of Environmental Sciences Vol. 4 (5),
PP. 482-490.
12. Rajamane.N.P and Jeyalakshmi.R (2015) “Quantity of sodium hydroxide solids and water
to prepare sodium hydroxide solution of given molarity for Geopolymer concrete mixes”
ICI journal, PP.33-36.
13. Revathi.V, Saravanakumar.R and Thaarrini.J, (2014) ”Effect of molar ratio of
SiO2/Na2O,Na2SiO3/NaOH ratio and Curing Mode on Compressive Strength of Ground
Bottom Ash Geopolymer Mortar”, International Journal of Earth Science and Engineering,
vol. 07, Issue 4,PP.1511-1516.
14. S.Kumaravel, S.Thirugnanasambandam (2013) “Flexural behavior of low calcium fly ash
based geopolymer concrete beams” International Journal of Structural and Civil
Engineering, Vol.2, Issue 11, PP.01-07.
15. S.Kumaravel, S.Thirugnanasambandam, (2013) “Flexural behavior of geopolymer
concrete beams” International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies,
Vol.3, Issue 1, PP.04-06.
16. Shuangzhen Wang, Xiaochun Han, (2012) Sustainable Cement Production with Improved
Energy Efficiency and Emerging CO2 Mitigation”, Advances in Chemical Engineering
and Science, Vol.2, PP. 123-128.

826
 Kumar & Revathi (2016). Asian Journal of Research in Social Sciences and Humanities,
Vol. 6, No.9, pp. 820-827.

17. Sumajouw, M.D.J. and Rangan, B.V. (2006), “Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer
Concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns”, Research Report GC3, Faculty of
Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

827