See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/363896165

Effects of Size and Flexural Reinforcement Ratio on Ambient-Cured

Geopolymer Slag Concrete Beams under Four-Point Bending

Article  in  Buildings · September 2022

DOI: 10.3390/buildings12101554

CITATION READS

1 121

5 authors, including:

Hala Mamdouh Ashraf M.Ali

Helwan University Ain Shams University
10 PUBLICATIONS   43 CITATIONS    2 PUBLICATIONS   1 CITATION   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Ahmed Farouk Deifalla Nehal Ayash

Future University in Egypt Helwan University
130 PUBLICATIONS   1,152 CITATIONS    13 PUBLICATIONS   4 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

high rise buildings lateral load structural systems View project

Sustainability and green construction for Egypt View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ashraf M.Ali on 28 September 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 buildings
Article
Effects of Size and Flexural Reinforcement Ratio on
Ambient-Cured Geopolymer Slag Concrete Beams under
Four-Point Bending
Hala Mamdouh 1 , Ashraf M. Ali 1 , Mostafa A. Osman 1 , Ahmed F. Deifalla 2, *
Citation: Mamdouh, H.; Ali, A.M.;
Osman, M.A.; Deifalla, A.F.; Ayash,
N.M. Effects of Size and Flexural
Reinforcement Ratio on
Ambient-Cured Geopolymer Slag
Concrete Beams under Four-Point
Bending. Buildings 2022, 12, 1554.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
buildings12101554
Academic Editors: Binsheng
(Ben) Zhang and Wei (David) Dong
Received: 30 June 2022
Accepted: 22 July 2022
Published: 28 September 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12101554
and Nehal M. Ayash 1
1 Civil Engineering Department, Faculty of Engineering at Mataria, Helwan University, Cairo 11718, Egypt
2 Department of Structural Engineering and Construction Management, Faculty of Engineering, Future
University in Egypt, New Cairo 11835, Egypt
* Correspondence: ahmed.deifalla@fue.edu.eg
Abstract: With the rise in cement production required by conventional concrete, CO2 emissions
increase, causing pollution to the atmosphere. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is investigated in the
literature as an eco-efficient alternative to conventional concrete (CC). However, most geopolymer
studies focus on studying the mechanical properties of GPC, with only limited investigations on
the structural performances of structural elements using GPC. The structural behaviors of GPC
elements are yet to be completely understood, and there are no current studies on investigating
the structural behaviors of geopolymer slag concrete. Thus, this paper investigates the flexural
performances of reinforced geopolymer slag concrete beams, focusing on the effects of different
beam depths and reinforcement ratios. Five full-scale ambient-cured reinforced geopolymer slag
concrete beams were tested under four-point flexure, in addition to one control conventional concrete
(CC) beam. The structural performances are evaluated, including the cracking moment, flexural
capacity, load–deflection relationship, and crack distribution. The results indicate that the flexural
behaviors of GPC beams are comparable to that of the CC beams. Compared to the CC beams, the
GPC beams have 7.4% higher flexural moment capacity, 60% lower stiffness, 28% lower ductility, and
18.3% higher toughness. Finally, the Egyptian code of practice ECP 203 and ACI 318 are found to be
applicable to safely design under-reinforced GPC flexural beam elements.
Keywords: beam; geopolymer concrete (GPC); slag concrete; conventional concrete (CC); alkali
activation; flexural behavior
1. Introduction
Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is a type of concrete made by reacting one or more of
alumina–silicate materials with an activator. In most cases, waste materials, such as fly ash
or slag from iron and metal products, are used in production of the geopolymer cement
which helps lead to a clean environment by reducing carbon dioxide emissions. Hence, the
chemical process could reduce the carbon dioxide emission by about 80% more [1] than
conventional cement. This concrete is an innovative, eco-friendly material that is used as a
replacement for conventional concrete.
The mechanical properties of GPC are investigated in many studies. First, it is well es-
tablished that the compressive strength of GPC develops more quickly than CC, reaching up
to 60 MPa in one day, and it can reach 92.9 MPa after 28 days as reported by Luan et al. [2].
Ashour et al. [3] reported that the geopolymer concrete reached 95% of its final compressive
strength in 7 days unlike the conventional concrete, which means that geopolymer concrete
can be more efficient in fast-track projects. One of the drawbacks of using GPC is that it
requires heat-curing to reach high strengths, but high GPC strengths in ambient curing is
possible. Hadi et al. [4] reported a compressive strength of 60.4 MPa after 7 days under
air-curing by utilizing pure slag as a main binder. Furthermore, Amer et al. [5] recently
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/buildings
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 2 of 17

designed a geopolymer pure ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBFS) concrete mix

that achieved adequate mechanical properties in addition to a high slump value using am-
bient curing, making this particular mix sufficiently practical. Other mechanical properties,
such as the bond behavior, were investigated in the literature. Fernandez-Jimenez et al. [6]
performed pull-out tests and discovered that the GPC bond property is superior to CC.
The steel bar broke before slippage from the GPC, while it slipped without breaking from
the CC. The maximum pull-out force between GPC and the steel bar was 40% higher than
that between CC and the steel bar. Pull-out tests were performed by Zhang et al. [7] on
GPC specimens embedded with smooth and ribbed rebars at room temperature and after
exposure to 100, 300, 500 and 700 ◦ C. They noticed that GPC exhibits insignificant bond
strength reduction up to 300 ◦ C, but suffers significant degradation thereafter. Both at room
temperature and after exposure to elevated temperatures, GPC has similar or better bond
properties than CC.
Slag, fly ash, silica fume and metakaolin are the most commonly used binder materials
in geopolymer concrete [8]. The reaction mechanisms of slag concrete are more complex
than the other binders due to the high CaO content. It was found that the presence of
Ca has a positive effect on the strength of ambient-cured concrete [9]. Thus, a slag-based
geopolymer mix, developed by Amer et al. [5], was chosen for this study.
The flexural behavior is the most important for beams, so it was investigated for GPC
beams. Sumajouw et al. [10] studied the structural behavior of fly ash-based geopolymer
reinforced concrete beams. They investigated the flexural failure of six under-reinforced
concrete beams with various reinforcement ratios. The flexural load-carrying capacity im-
proved as the tensile reinforcement ratio increased. Adak et al. [11] examined the flexural
behaviors of nano-silica modified fly ash-based geopolymer reinforced concrete beams and
found that the nano silica modified geopolymer concrete exhibits better structural perfor-
mances than the heat cured geopolymer concrete (without nano silica) and conventional
cement concrete samples. Ferdous et al. [12] studied the flexural behaviors of reinforced
GPC fly ash-based beams. The maximum load-carrying capacities of the GPC beams were
found to be higher than those of the corresponding CC beams in most cases. The GPC and
CC beams failed in nearly identical ways, with the same orders of crack diameter, number
of cracks, and flexural crack spacing. Du et al. [13] performed bending tests on geopolymer
concrete beams and conventional concrete beams, to investigate the effects of concrete
strength, rebar ratio and beam depth on the flexural performances. The test results revealed
that the flexural behaviors of the GPC beams were comparable to those of the CC beams.
When the beam depth increased, the flexural stiffness and load-carrying capacity of the
GPC beams were significantly improved. The load-carrying capacity increased significantly
as the rebar ratio increased, but the ductility decreased. It was noticed that the flexural per-
formance of GPC beams was unaffected by concrete strength. Moazzenchi and Oskouei [14]
examined the bending behavior of the geopolymer concrete beams and reinforced with
FRP and steel bars. Four-point flexural tests were carried out on geopolymer concrete and
cement concrete beams reinforced with steel, GFRP and CFRP bars. Geopolymer beams
reinforced with FRP rebars showed similar results to the reinforced cement beams, and the
ductility ratios of the FRP and steel reinforced geopolymer beams are 5% and 34% greater
than that of the reinforced OPC concrete, respectively, and these results were comparable to
the numerical investigations by Othman et al. [15]. Kumar and Bendapudi [16] investigated
the behaviors of geopolymer concrete with various proportions of cement replacement
with ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) and added metakaolin. Experiments
were carried out on the control beams and beams with 100%, 70%, 50% and 30% GGBS and
metakaolin, respectively. They found that the load deflection relations of the conventional
concrete beams and geopolymer concrete beams are very similar. The cracking moments in
the geopolymer beams were lower than those in the conventional concrete beams. Increas-
ing the percentage of metakaolin with respect to GGBS reduces the load-carrying capacity
of the beams. Hutagi and Khadiranaikar [17] studied the bending behaviors of Geopolymer
Concrete (GPC) beams cured under ambient temperature. Twelve beams were tested under
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 3 of 17

four-point bending. The percentage of tensile reinforcement and the compressive strength
of concrete were taken as the variables while the cross sections of the beams remain con-
stant. The results were found to be similar to those on the conventional cement concrete
reinforced beams. Vithiyaluxmi and Senthamilselvi [18] studied the geopolymer RC beams
with 30% scrap steel as coarse aggregate and compared with the conventional reinforced
cement concrete beams. They found that the performances of the geopolymer beams were
marginally better than the conventional beams. The ultimate load-carrying capacity, deflec-
tion, service load and ductility factor of the geopolymer beams were higher than those of
the conventional RC beams. It is also found that conventional RC theory is suitable to cal-
culate the moment capacity, deflection, and crack width of the geopolymer beams. Ahmed
et al. [19] investigated the flexural capacities of GPC (GFRP-RGPC) and ordinary Portland
concrete beams reinforced (GFRP-ROPC) with GFRP bars. Nine GFRP-RGPC beams and
three GFRP-ROPC beams were tested. The reinforcement ratio and concrete compressive
strength types were taken as the variables. Experimental results were compared with the
equations provided by ACI 440.1R-15, CSA S806-12, and parabolic stress block method.
The results showed the decrease in defection and the increase in the first cracking load
by increasing the compressive strength. A slight increase in the defection of the GFRP-
RGPC beams and approximately the same value of the ultimate load was observed. The
crack widths in the GFRP-RGPC beams are higher than those in the GFRP-ROPC beams.
The parabolic stress block method can better predict the flexural capacity rather than the
equations in ACI 440.1R-15 and CSA S806-12. Kumaravel et al. [20] studied the flexural
behaviors of geopolymer concrete (GPC) beams and control cement concrete beams. The
results show that the GPC beams exhibit increases in the flexural strength and deflections
at different stages, including service load and peak load stages. Subramanian et al. [21]
investigated the flexural behaviors of the geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with basalt
(BFRP) and glass (GFRP) fiber reinforced polymer rebars. They found that the basalt and
glass reinforced polymer beams demonstrated premature failure and sudden shear failure.
The FRP bars helped higher mid-span deflection, crack width and crack propagation, or
number and lower cracks spacing than steel bars. Maranan et al. [22] studied the flexural
behaviors of geopolymer-concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with a hybrid of GFRP
and steel bars. Seven geopolymer-concrete beams with different ratios and configurations
of GFRP-to-steel reinforcement were tested. The hybrid beams showed better serviceability
and ductility by up to 15% higher than the geopolymer-concrete beams reinforced with
GFRP bars only. Increasing the reinforcement ratio increased the overall beam performance.
The hybrid beams reinforced with tensile steel reinforcement and compressive GFRP rein-
forcement obtain higher stiffness and strength at concrete crushing than the beams with
hybrid tensile reinforcement. The previous literature indicates that the mix design of
geopolymer concrete has a significant effect on the flexural behaviors of GPC beams [23].
However, the mixes investigated in the literature are not practical for use in engineering
practice due to the extremely short setting time, or the required heat/steam-curing for GPC
to gain adequate mechanical properties, and there is a recommendation to use fibers in
geopolymer concrete, as it improves the mechanical characteristics of geopolymer concrete,
such as the flexural property [24,25].
Recent advancements in geopolymer mix design produced practical mixes that achieved
high compressive strengths and adequate slump values, but their use in structural elements
still needs to be investigated. Slag-based geopolymer concrete mixes proved their practical-
ity due to their adequate compressive strength in ambient curing [5]. However, there are
currently no studies on investigating the structural behaviors of slag-based geopolymer
concrete elements. Thus, this paper provides important results on the flexural behaviors
of slag-based geopolymer concrete beams. This study examines the effects of GPC beam
depth and reinforcement ratio on the flexural behaviors of reinforced GPC beams. The
load–deflection relationship, initial stiffness, post-yield stiffness, ductility, and cracking
behavior were examined. Furthermore, the structural behaviors of the GPC beams were
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 18

Buildings 2022, 12, 1554

effects of GPC beam depth and reinforcement ratio on the flexural behaviors of reinforced4 of 17
GPC beams. The load–deflection relationship, initial stiffness, post-yield stiffness, ductil-
ity, and cracking behavior were examined. Furthermore, the structural behaviors of the
GPC beams were compared to those of the CC beams, and the experimental results were
comparedaccording
validated to those of
tothe CC beams,
different and
design the experimental results were validated according
codes.
to different design codes.
2. Mix Design
2. Mix Design
2.1.
2.1.Raw
RawMaterials
Materials
2.1.1.
2.1.1.Binder
Binder
Ordinary
Ordinaryportland
portlandcement
cement(OPC)
(OPC)for
forconventional
conventionalconcrete
concreteand
andground-granulated
ground-granulated
blast-furnace
blast-furnaceslag
slag(GGBFS)
(GGBFS)for
forgeopolymer
geopolymerconcrete
concretewere
wereused
usedasasbinders
bindersininthis
thisstudy.
study.
The
Theused
usedOPC
OPCwaswasofofgrade
grade42.5
42.5NNas
asper
perBS-EN
BS-EN197-1
197-1[26].
[26].Table
Table11shows
showsthe
thechemical
chemical
compositionsof
compositions ofthe
theused
usedOPC
OPCand
andGGBFS
GGBFSaccording
accordingto
toX-ray
X-rayfluorescence
fluorescence (XRF)
(XRF) analysis.
analysis.

Chemicalcompositions
Table1.1.Chemical
Table compositionsof
ofGGBFS
GGBFSand
andOPC
OPCby
by(wt.
(wt.%).
%).

Component Component
SiO2 Al2 O3 SiO
Fe22 O3 Al2O3 2 OFe2O3CaO
Na Na2O MgO
CaO MgO
K2 O K 2OSO3SO3 TiOTiO2 2 Mn
Mn22O O33
GGBFS GGBFS
35.41 17.42 35.41
1.39 17.42
0.49 1.3936.870.49 6.83
36.87 6.83
0.97 0.97 - - 0.11
0.11 0.35
0.35
OPC 21.07OPC 5.01 21.07
3.47 5.010.29 3.4763.250.29 2.52
63.25 2.52
0.19 0.19
3.053.05 - - --

2.1.2.
2.1.2.Aggregate
Aggregate
Crushed
Crushedlimestone
limestonewas
wasused
usedasascoarse
coarseaggregate,
aggregate,withwithaanominal
nominalmaximum
maximumsize sizeofof
9.5 mm, bulk density of 1600 kg/m 3 and
3 specific gravity of 2.66. Natural sand
9.5 mm, bulk density of 1600 kg/m and specific gravity of 2.66. Natural sand was used was used as
fine aggregate, with nominal maximum size of 4.8 mm, fineness modulus
as fine aggregate, with nominal maximum size of 4.8 mm, fineness modulus of 2.89, bulkof 2.89, bulk
density
densityofof1640 kg/mand
1640kg/m
3 3 specific
and gravity
specific ofof
gravity 2.55. Figure
2.55. 1 shows
Figure 1 showsthe sieve
the analyses.
sieve analyses.

Figure
Figure1.1.Sieve
Sieveanalyses
analysesofofthe
theaggregates.
aggregates.

2.1.3.Activator
2.1.3. Activator
Theactivator
The activatorcomposed
composed of of a mixture
a mixture of sodium
of sodium silicate
silicate (12%(12% Na31%
Na2O, 2 O, SiO
31%2 and
SiO257%
and
57% H O) and sodium hydroxide (60.25% Na O and 39.75% H O) solutions.
H2O) and sodium hydroxide (60.25% Na2O and 39.75% H2O) solutions. The sodium hy-
2 2 2 The sodium
hydroxide
droxide solution
solution waswas made
made by by dissolving
dissolving small
small solids
solids ofofsodium
sodiumhydroxide
hydroxideininpotable
potable
water, and the sodium silicate solution was obtained from a local
water, and the sodium silicate solution was obtained from a local producer. producer.

2.2. Mix Proportion

Table 2 shows the mix proportion of slag geopolymer concrete (GPC) and conventional
concrete (CC) mixes to produce 1 m3 of mix.
 2.2. Mix Proportion

Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 Table 2 shows the mix proportion of slag geopolymer concrete (GPC) and conventional
5 of 17
concrete (CC) mixes to produce 1 m of mix.
3

Table2.2.Mix
Table MixProportions
Proportionsofofthe
theconcrete
concretemixes
mixes(kg/m
(kg/m33).).

GGBFS OPC C. Agg. * F. Agg. ** NaOH Na2SiO3 Water Superplastizer ***

GGBFS OPC C. Agg. * F. Agg. ** NaOH Na2 SiO3 Water Superplastizer ***
Conventional - 450 1058 710 - - 176 12.2
Conventional - 450 1058 710 - - 176 12.2
Slag Concrete
Slag Concrete
by Amer et al. 450 450 - - 1093
1093 547547 41 41 131131 112112 --
by Amer et al. [5] [5]
Note: * Coarse aggregate, ** Fine aggregate, *** Sikament®—163M.
Note: * Coarse aggregate, ** Fine aggregate, *** Sikament® —163M.

2.2.1. Conventional Concrete Mix

2.2.1. Conventional Concrete Mix
The mix contained crushed limestone as coarse aggregate, natural sand as fine aggre-
The mix contained crushed limestone as coarse aggregate, natural sand as fine aggre-
gate and ordinary portland cement, and was mixed with water, having a water–cement
gate and ordinary portland cement, and was mixed with water, having a water–cement
ratio of 0.39. Sikament®—163 M was used as superplasticizer admixture for reducing the
ratio of 0.39. Sikament® —163 M was used as superplasticizer admixture for reducing the
watertotocement
water cementratio
ratiowithout
withoutnegatively
negativelyaffecting
affectingthe
theworkability
workabilityofofthe
themixture.
mixture.

2.2.2.Geopolymer
2.2.2. GeopolymerConcrete
ConcreteMixMix
Themix
The mixdeveloped
developedby byAmer
Ameretetal. al.[5]
[5]was
wasused
usedhere
herefor
forits
itsadequate
adequatecompressive
compressive
strength and ambient curing, which makes its practical use feasible. Figure 22shows
strength and ambient curing, which makes its practical use feasible. Figure showsthethe
mixing procedure
mixing procedure for the slag geopolymer concrete mix. First, the alkali activator
slag geopolymer concrete mix. First, the alkali activator was was pre-
pared byby
prepared dissolving
dissolvingsmall
smallsolids
solidsofofsodium
sodiumhydroxide
hydroxide inin potable water
water to
to make
makesodium
sodium
hydroxidesolution.
hydroxide solution.Then,
Then,ititwas
wasmixed
mixedwithwiththe
thesodium
sodiumsilicate
silicatesolution.
solution.The
Themixture
mixturewas
was
lefttotocool
left cooldown
downforforthree
threehours
hourssince
sinceititreleases
releasesheat.
heat.The
Thedry
drycomponents
componentswere weremixed
mixed
fortwo
for twominutes
minutestotoensure
ensurehomogeneity.
homogeneity.Then, Then,the
theprepared
preparedactivator
activatorsolution
solutionwas
wasslowly
slowly
pouredinto
poured intothe
thepan
panmixer
mixerwhile
whilemixing
mixingfor foranother
anothertwo
twominutes.
minutes.

Figure 2. Mixing procedure of the slag geopolymer concrete.

Figure 2. Mixing procedure of the slag geopolymer concrete.

2.3.Mechanical
2.3. MechanicalProperties
Properties
2.3.1. Concrete
2.3.1. Concrete
AAtotal
totalofof21
21cubic
cubicspecimens
specimens(3(3ofofthem
themwere wereconventional
conventionalconcrete
concretecubes
cubesand
and1818ofof
them were geopolymer concrete cubes) of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150
them were geopolymer concrete cubes) of 150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm were prepared to mm were prepared
to determine
determine thethe compressive
compressive strength
strength (fcu(f cu ) according
) according to BSto EN
BS EN 12390-1
12390-1 [27].[27]. Specimens
Specimens were
were
removed from their molds after 24 h. The GPC specimens were immediately cured cured
removed from their molds after 24 h. The GPC specimens were immediately in am-
in ambient
bient air of air of temperature
temperature 33 ± 2 33 ± 2 ◦ C (summer
°C (summer season)
season) until untilwhile
testing, testing,
the while the CC
CC specimens
specimens
were first were first water-cured
water-cured for 7 daysfor 7 days
before beforethem
leaving leaving them in air.
in ambient ambient
Threeair. Three
prismatic
prismatic specimens of 500 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm were used to determine the modulus
of rupture (fctr ) of each mix subjected to a three-point loading test according to ASTM
C293 standard [28]. Finally, the moduli of elasticity (Ec ) were determined for the CC and
GPC mixes using three cylindrical specimens of 150 mm dia. × 300 mm for each mix
according to the ASTM C469 standard [29]. The slump tests were performed directly after
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 6 of 17

mixing according to the ASTM C143 standard [30], and the average value was found to
be 215 mm. Despite the high slump values, the used geopolymer mix had a relatively
low setting time. Hence, more investigations on increasing the setting time of pure slag
mixes are required. Table 3 provides the average mechanical properties of the two mixes
after 28 days. The compressive strength of the GPC is higher than that of the CC by
approximately 13.8% for the same binder content, but the modulus of rupture and elasticity
of the GPC are lower than those of the CC by 24.7% and 27.7%, respectively.

Table 3. The mechanical properties of all mixes after 28 days.

Property GPC CC
Compressive strength fcu (MPa) 51.62 45.36
Modulus of rupture fctr (MPa) 4.38 5.46
Modulus of elasticity Ec (GPa) 25.10 32.30

2.3.2. Reinforcing Steel

High tensile steel bars with diameters of 10, 12 and 16 mm are used. Table 4 provides
the mechanical properties of the used reinforcing steel bars of different diameters.

Table 4. Properties of reinforcing steel bars.

10 mm Diameter 12 mm Diameter 16 mm Diameter

(T10) (T12) (T16)
Yield stress (MPa) 542.30 519.60 558.40
Ultimate stress (MPa) 705.10 680.60 779.20
Young's modulus (GPa) 231.20 246.20 248.60

3. Experimental Plan
3.1. Details of the Test Specimens
Five GPC beams and one reference CC beam were tested in total. All beams had the
same 2000 mm overall length, an 1800 mm effective span, a 150 mm width, and a 10 mm
clear cover. Figure 3 shows the concrete dimensions and the reinforcement of all beam
specimens. T10 stirrups with a 100 mm spacing along the beam span were used to avoid
shear failure, and all beams were under-reinforced to ensure a ductile failure due to the
yielding of steel reinforcement. Two steel bars with a 10 mm diameter (T10) are used
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 18
as top reinforcement for all tested beams. The beam specimens had various depths and
reinforcement ratios. Table 5 provides the test parameters of the tested beams.

Figure 3. Geometries and reinforcement details of the beams (all dimensions in mm).
Figure 3. Geometries and reinforcement details of the beams (all dimensions in mm).
3.2. Test Setup and Procedure
Beams were tested for flexure under four-point symmetric loading test as shown in
Figure 4. The spacing between two-point loadings was 600 mm to ensure the pure bending
and zero shear region between them as illustrated in Figure 5. A digital load cell was used
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 7 of 17

Table 5. Beam test parameters.

Bottom Reinforcement Total Depth

Beam Label *
Reinforcement Ratio, ρ (mm), t
CC-2T10-300 2T10 0.37% 300
GPC-2T10-300 2T10 0.37% 300
Figure 3. Geometries and reinforcement
GPC-2T12-300 details2T12
of the beams (all dimensions
0.53% in mm). 300
GPC-2T16-300 2T16 0.95% 300
GPC-2T10-250 2T10 0.45% 250
3.2. Test Setup and Procedure
GPC-2T10-350 2T10 0.31% 350
* The first part of the beam label indicates the mix type: CC for Conventional Concrete, and GPC for Geopolymer
Beams were tested
Concrete. for flexure
The second part under
of the beamfour-point
label indicates symmetric loading
the number of bars test as
and the diameter shown
of the bottom in
reinforcement. The last part of the beam label indicates the overall beam depth.
Figure 4. The spacing between two-point loadings was 600 mm to ensure the pure bending
and zero shear region between
3.2. Test Setup andthem as illustrated in Figure 5. A digital load cell was used
Procedure
in the testing procedure.Beams Thewerecapacity
tested for offlexure
the loadunder cell was 5000
four-point kN with
symmetric a loading
loading rate in
test as shown 1.25
kN per second and was installed at the mid-span of the beam. The beam deflection was
Figure 4. The spacing between two-point loadings was 600 mm to ensure the pure bending
measured by threeand zero shear region between them as illustrated in Figure 5. A digital load cell was used
linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs), with one placed at the
in the testing procedure. The capacity of the load cell was 5000 kN with a loading rate
mid-span and two1.25at the third
kN per of span
second and was from each
installed side.
at the As shown
mid-span in Figure
of the beam. 6a,b,
The beam two groups
deflection was
of strain gauges were usedbytothree
measured monitor the strain
linear variable components
differential transformers at the specified
(LVDTs), with onelocations.
placed at the The
mid-span and two at the third of span from each side. As shown in Figure 6a,b, two groups
first group was the steel reinforcement gauges that were glued on the bottom reinforcing
of strain gauges were used to monitor the strain components at the specified locations. The
bars at the mid-span
first of thewas
group beam. The
the steel second group
reinforcement gaugeswas the glued
that were concreteon thestrain
bottomgauges,
reinforcing and
they were mounted on the top and bottom faces of the mid-span of the beam. The loads,
bars at the mid-span of the beam. The second group was the concrete strain gauges, and
they were mounted on the top and bottom faces of the mid-span of the beam. The loads,
deflections and strains were measured using a data acquisition system. The readings from
deflections and strains were measured using a data acquisition system. The readings from
the load cell and other measurement
the load devices were
cell and other measurement recorded
devices by a data
were recorded logger.
by a data logger.

Figure 4. Beam flexure loading

Figure 4. Beamtest setup
flexure and
loading testLVDTs locations.
setup and LVDTs locations.
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 8 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 18

Figure 5. Statically loading system on the beam, with loading, bending moment and shear force.
Figure 5. Statically
Figure 5. Statically loading
loading system
system on
on the
the beam,
beam, with
with loading,
loading, bending
bending moment
moment and
and shear
shear force.
force.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 6. Locations of the strain gauges on (a) steel bars and (b) concrete.
Figure 6. Locations of the strain gauges on (a) steel bars and (b) concrete.
Figure 6. Locations of the strain gauges on (a) steel bars and (b) concrete.
4. Results and Discussion
4. Results and Discussion
4.
4.1. Cracks Distribution
4.1.
4.1. Cracks
Cracks Distribution
Distribution
Figure 7 shows the crack distributions for all beam specimens. While increasing the
Figure
Figure 7 shows the crack distributions for
for all beam
beam specimens. While increasing the
applied load, 7the shows theof
widths crack distributions
the pervious observed allcracks specimens.
increased While
and newincreasing
cracks were the
applied
applied load,
load, the
the widths
widths of
of the
the pervious
pervious observed
observed cracks
cracks increased
increased and
and new
new cracks
cracks were
were
generated for the cracks initiated in the pure bending zone. When the load exceeded a
generated
generated for the
the cracks
fordiagonalcracks initiated
initiated in the
in to
the pure
pure bending
bending zone.
zone. When the load
load exceeded a
specific value, cracks started develop along the shearWhenspan.the
By comparing exceeded
Fig- a
specific
specific value,
value, diagonal
diagonal cracks
cracks started to develop along the shear span. By comparing
ure 7a,b, the crack patterns in thestarted
GPC beamsto develop along
occurred the with
first, shearlonger
span. By comparing
cracks Fig-
and larger
Figure
ure 7a,b,
7a,b, the the
crackcrack patterns
patterns in theinGPC
the GPCbeams beams occurred
occurred first, first, longer
with with longer
cracks cracks
and and
larger
crack numbers than those occurring in the CC beams, which supports previous findings
larger crack numbers
crack numbers thanoccurring
than those those occurring
in the and
CCin the
beams,CC beams,supports which supports previous
[13,31]. Table 6 shows the numbers of shear flexuralwhichcracks in different previous findings
specimens, in
findings
[13,31]. [13,31].
Table 6 Table
shows the6 shows
numbers theof numbers
shear and of shear
flexural and
cracks flexural
in cracks
different in different
specimens, in
addition
specimens,to the
in crack widths.
addition The
to the The crack
crack widths
widths. are
Theare calculated
crack widths at at the
are service
calculated load according
at the service
addition
toload
ECP203 to the crack
[32] astoshown widths.
in Equation crack widths
(1). Compared calculated
to(1).
the Compared the
CC beams, to service
thethe load
equivalentaccording
GPC
to according
ECP203 [32] as ECP203
shown in[32] as shown
Equation (1). in Equation
Compared to the CC beams, the CC beams,
equivalent the
GPC
beams have wider
equivalent GPC crack widths
beams have and acrack
wider largerwidths
number andof flexural
a larger cracks,
number indicating
of flexurala better
cracks,
beamsdissipation.
energy have wider crack widths and a larger number of flexural cracks, indicating a better
indicating a better energy dissipation.
energy dissipation.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 9 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 18

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure
Figure7.7.Cracks
Cracksdistribution patterns
distribution forfor
patterns all all
tested beams.
tested (a) CC—2
beams. T 10—300,
(a) CC—2 (b) GPC—2
T 10—300, T 10—T
(b) GPC—2
300, (c) GPC—2
10—300, T 12—300,
(c) GPC—2 (d) GPC—2
T 12—300, T 16—300,
(d) GPC—2 (e) GPC—2
T 16—300, T 10—250,
(e) GPC—2 (f) GPC—2
T 10—250, T 10—350.
(f) GPC—2 T 10—350.

Table
Table 6.
6. Flexural
Flexural and
and shear
shear cracks.
cracks.
Specimens
Specimens Flexural
FlexuralCracks
Cracks Shear Cracks
Shear Cracks Crack Width
Crack Width (mm)
(mm)
CC-2T10-300 5 1 0.23
CC-2T10-300 5 1 0.23
GPC-2T10-300
GPC-2T10-300 77 1 1 0.26
0.26
GPC-2T12-300
GPC-2T12-300 99 2 2 0.24
0.24
GPC-2T16-300
GPC-2T16-300 1212 5 5 0.22
0.22
GPC-2T10-250
GPC-2T10-250 66 - - 0.27
0.27
GPC-2T10-350 9 1 0.21
GPC-2T10-350 9 1 0.21

Asthe
As therebar
rebarratio
ratioincreased,
increased, thetheaverage
averagespacing
spacingof ofthe
thedeveloped
developedcracks
cracksof ofthe
theGPC
GPC
beamsdecreased,
beams decreased,and andthe
the length
length andand number
number of cracks
of cracks increased.
increased. The The
crackcrack initiation
initiation was
was also delayed with the increasing rebar ratio in the GPC beams,
also delayed with the increasing rebar ratio in the GPC beams, since the flexural capacitysince the flexural
capacity increased
increased with the increasing
with the increasing rebar
rebar ratio. Thisratio. This alsoin
also resulted resulted in more
more shear shear
cracks cracks
in speci-
in specimen GPC-2T16-300. Increasing the GPC beam depth increased
men GPC-2T16-300. Increasing the GPC beam depth increased the average spacing be- the average spacing
between
tween thethe developed
developed cracks,
cracks, the the
crackcrack length,
length, andand the number
the number of cracks.
of cracks. The crack
The crack for-
formation was delayed with the increasing beam depth due
mation was delayed with the increasing beam depth due to the increased capacity. to the increased capacity.
Over-
Overall,
all, the failure
the failure mechanisms
mechanisms of the of
GPC thebeams
GPC beams are similar
are similar toof
to those those of the
the CC CC beams
beams in terms in
terms
of of nominal
nominal crack
crack size andsize and distribution,
distribution, similarsimilar to the previous
to the previous investigations
investigations in the
in the litera-
literature [12,13,31,33].
ture [12,13,31,33].
Wk = βε sm Srm (1)
𝑊 = 𝛽𝜀 𝑆 (1)
where:
where:
β is the coefficient relating to average crack width and β = 1.7,
is is
𝛽ε sm thethe mean steel
coefficient strain,to average crack width and 𝛽 = 1.7,
relating
𝜀Srm isisthethemean
meansteel
crackstrain,
spacing in mm.
𝑆 is the mean crack spacing in mm.
4.2. Load–Deflection Relationship
Figure 8a,b show
4.2. Load–Deflection the load–deflection curves of the tested beams, with Figure 8a for
Relationship
comparing the tested beams with different rebar
Figure 8a,b show the load–deflection ratios
curves of and Figure beams,
the tested 8b for comparing
with Figurethe8a
tested
for
beams with different depths. The load–deflection curves of the GPC beams are
comparing the tested beams with different rebar ratios and Figure 8b for comparing the approximately
similarbeams
tested to those
with ofdifferent
the CC beams,
depths.as previously
The found in
load–deflection the literature
curves of the GPC[12,13,31,33].
beams are The
ap-
load–deflection curves are divided into three zones: (1) pre-cracking zone, where the load
proximately similar to those of the CC beams, as previously found in the literature
deflection curves linearly increase without any noticeable cracks; (2) pre-yield stage, where
[12,13,31,33]. The load–deflection curves are divided into three zones: (1) pre-cracking
cracks start to appear, the crack width increases as the load increases and cracks extend to
zone, where the load deflection curves linearly increase without any noticeable cracks; (2)
the top of the beam, which decreases the flexural stiffness; (3) post-yield stage, where more
pre-yield stage, where cracks start to appear, the crack width increases as the load in-
cracks appear and the bottom steel bars yield.
creases and cracks extend to the top of the beam, which decreases the flexural stiffness;
(3) post-yield stage, where more cracks appear and the bottom steel bars yield.
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 10 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 18

(a) (b)
Figure 8. Load–deflection relationship for the tested beams. (a) For different reinforcement ratios,
Figure 8. Load–deflection relationship for the tested beams. (a) For different reinforcement ratios,
(b) For different beam depths.
(b) For different beam depths.
Comparedtotothe
Compared theCCCCbeam beam of of
thethe
samesame depth
depth and and
rebarrebar
ratio,ratio,
the GPC the beam
GPC beam has
has 90.3%
90.3% higher deflection at yielding, and 48.8% higher deflection at failure.
higher deflection at yielding, and 48.8% higher deflection at failure. It also has 15.2% higher It also has 15.2%
higher
yield yield
load andload
7.4%and 7.4% failure
higher higherload.
failure load. Previous
Previous studies studies
on the fly onash-based
the fly ash-based
geopolymergeo-
polymer concrete beams indicated that the geopolymer beams
concrete beams indicated that the geopolymer beams had 37–62% higher yield deflectionshad 37–62% higher yield
deflections
and 20–35%and 20–35%
higher failurehigher failure compared
deflections deflectionstocompared
the CC [31]. to the
TheCC [31]. The
studies studies
[13,31] also
[13,31] also showed that the geopolymer beams had 98–154%
showed that the geopolymer beams had 98–154% of the yielding load of the equivalent of the yielding load of CC
the
equivalent CC beam, and 100–146% of the failure load of the equivalent
beam, and 100–146% of the failure load of the equivalent CC beam, all depending on the CC beam, all de-
pending on the
geopolymer geopolymer
concrete mix design.concrete mix design.
Table 77 shows
Table shows thethe key
key load
load and
and deflection
deflection results.
results. For
For the
the GPC
GPC beamsbeams of of the
the same
same
total depth,
total depth, increasing
increasing the the reinforcement
reinforcement ratioratio from
from 0.37%
0.37% to to 0.95%
0.95% reduced
reduced the the deflection
deflection
at yielding
at yielding and
andfailure
failureby by9% 9%andand17.4%,
17.4%, respectively,
respectively, andand
increased
increased the the
yielding and and
yielding fail-
ure loads by 224% and 230%, respectively. Previous investigations
failure loads by 224% and 230%, respectively. Previous investigations indicated similar indicated similar de-
flection behaviors
deflection behaviors where
where increasing
increasingthethe
reinforcement
reinforcement ratioratio
decreased
decreased the yield and and
the yield fail-
ure deflections
failure [10,13,17,31].
deflections [10,13,17,31]. Finally, for for
Finally, the the
GPC GPCbeams withwith
beams the same
the same reinforcement
reinforcement and
variable
and beam
variable depths,
beam increasing
depths, the beam
increasing the beam depth fromfrom
depth 250 250
mmmm to 350 mmmm
to 350 reduced
reducedthe
deflections
the at yielding
deflections at yielding and failure
and byby
failure 52.6%
52.6%and and32.5%,
32.5%,andandincreased
increased the the yielding and and
failure loads
failure loads by
by 36.3%
36.3% and
and 40.1%.
40.1%.

Table7.7. Comparisons
Table Comparisonsof
ofthe
theinitial
initialstiffness,
stiffness,post
postyield
yieldstiffness,
stiffness,ductility
ductilityindex
indexand
andtoughness.
toughness.

Py∆ Pu ∆ ∆𝒖 K K1
Py Specimens
Pu y ∆u𝐲 1 K 2 K2 𝝁
Toughness
Toughness
Specimens
(kN) (kN) (kN)
(mm) (kN) (mm)
(mm) (mm) (kN/mm)
(kN/mm) (kN/mm) µ ∆ ∆
(kN/mm) (Joule)
(Joule)
CC-2T10-300 66.5 CC-2T10-300
85.3 66.53.8 85.3 3.8
16.2 16.217.50 17.50 1.521.52 4.26
4.26 3368
3368
GPC-2T10-300 76.6GPC-2T10-300
91.6 76.6
7.23 91.6 7.23
24.1 24.110.59 10.59 0.890.89 3.33
3.33 3985
3985
GPC-2T12-300 86.6GPC-2T12-300
114.0 7.08 114.0
86.6 22.7
7.08 22.712.23 12.23 1.751.75 3.21
3.21 4605
4605
GPC-2T16-300 172.0GPC-2T16-300
211.0 6.58 211.0
172.0 19.9
6.58 19.926.14 26.14 2.932.93 3.02
3.02 6320
6320
GPC-2T10-250 58.9 69.02 10.12 28.2 5.83 0.56 2.79 3055
GPC-2T10-350 80.3GPC-2T10-250
96.7 58.9
4.8 69.02 10.12
19.03 28.216.73 5.83 1.150.56 2.79
3.96 3055
4865
GPC-2T10-350 80.3 96.7 4.8 19.03 16.73 1.15 3.96 4865

4.3.
4.3. Strains
Strains in
in the
the Concrete
Concrete and
and Steel
Steel Bars
Bars
Load–strain curves are used mainly to determine the yielding load and yielding
Load–strain curves are used mainly to determine the yielding load and yielding de-
deflection, which are used to determine the ductility index and stiffness of the tested beams.
flection, which are used to determine the ductility index and stiffness of the tested beams.
Figure 9a,b show the compressive strains of the concrete at the mid-span of the beam
Figure 9a,b show the compressive strains of the concrete at the mid-span of the beam
specimens. Figure 10 shows the tensile strains of the steel at the mid-span of the beam
specimens. Figure 10 shows the tensile strains of the steel at the mid-span of the beam
specimens, with Figure 10a comparing the tested beams with different rebar ratios and
specimens, with Figure 10a comparing the tested beams with different rebar ratios and
Figure 10b comparing the tested beams with different depths. The GPC and CC beams
Figure 10b comparing the tested beams with different depths. The GPC and CC beams
showed similar load–strain trends as there are approximate linear load–strain behaviors
showed similar load–strain trends as there are approximate linear load–strain behaviors
Buildings
Buildings2022,
2022,12,
12,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 11
11 of
of 18
18
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 11 of 17

for both
forfor
both steel and concrete until steel yielding. Then, the strains of
ofboth steel and
andconcrete
bothsteel
steeland
and concrete untilsteel
concrete until steelyielding.
yielding. Then,
Then, thethe strains
strains of both both
steel steel concrete
and concrete
rapidly
rapidly increased
increased until
until the
the strain
strain gauges
gauges failed.
failed. Both
Both the
the rebar
rebar and
and concrete
rapidly increased until the strain gauges failed. Both the rebar and concrete strains remainedconcrete strains
strains re-
re-
mained
mained unchanged
unchanged
unchanged for the increasing
for the increasing
for the increasing depth and reinforcement
depth and reinforcement
depth and reinforcement ratios. However, ratios.
ratios. However,
However,
increasing increas-
increas-
the rebar
ing
ing the
ratio rebar
rebar ratio
theincreased both
ratio increased
rebar andboth
increased rebar
concrete
both and
strains
rebar andatconcrete strains
failure, while
concrete at
at failure,
increasing
strains the while
failure, beam increasing
whiledepth
increasing
the beam
beamdepth
thereduced reduced
both rebar
depth andboth
reduced rebar
concrete
both rebar and
andconcrete
strains at failure.strains
concrete Theseat
strains atfailure.
results areThese
failure. similarresults
These are
aresimilar
to previous
results similar
to previous investigations
investigations on geopolymer on geopolymer
flexural flexural
members [22].
to previous investigations on geopolymer flexural members [22]. members [22].

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure
Figure9.9.9.
Load–steel
Load–steelrebar
Load–steel rebar strain
rebar relationships
strainrelationships
strain relationships for
forfor
thethe
the tested
tested
tested beams.
beams.
beams. (a)
(a)For
(a) For Fordifferent
different
different reinforcement
reinforcement
reinforcement
ratios,
ratios,(b)
(b)
ratios, For
(b)Fordifferent
Fordifferent beam
different beam depths.
depths.
beam depths.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure10.
10.Load–concrete
Load–concretestrain
strainrelationships
relationshipsforforthe
thetested
testedbeams.
beams.(a)
(a)Geopolymer
Geopolymerbeams
beamswith
withdif-
dif-
Figure
ferent 10. Load–concrete
reinforcement ratios, strain
(b) relationshipsbeams
Geopolymer for thewith
tested beams. beam
different (a) Geopolymer
depths. beams with
ferent reinforcement ratios, (b) Geopolymer beams with different beam depths.
different reinforcement ratios, (b) Geopolymer beams with different beam depths.
4.4.
4.4. Stiffness,
Stiffness,
4.4. Ductility
Stiffness, Ductilityand
Ductility and Toughness
Toughness
Toughness
The stiffness
stiffnessof
ofthe
the beam
The stiffness of the beamcan
The beam can be
canbe defined
bedefined
defined asas the
the
as slope
slope
the slope of
ofthe
of the load–deflection
load–deflection
the curve.curve.
load–deflection The The
curve. The
pre-yield
pre-yieldstiffness
pre-yield stiffness(K
stiffness (K111))and
(K ) andthe
and thepost-yield
the post-yieldstiffness
post-yield stiffness(K
stiffness (K 2(K22))are
) arearegiven
givenby
given by byEquations
Equations(2)
Equations (2) and and
and(3).
(2)(3). (3).
TheThe ductilityindex
ductility index(𝜇(µ∆∆)) is
is also
also calculated
calculated asasshown
shown in in
Equation
Equation(4). (4).
The The
ductility of theof the
ductility
The ductility index (𝜇∆ ) is also calculated as shown in Equation (4). The ductility of the
beam
beam can bedefined
can defined as the the ratio of the deflection at thetheyield loadload
to the deflection at the the
beam canbebe definedas
ultimate load.
as theratio
ratioof
ofthe
thedeflection
deflectionat at theyield
yield loadto tothe
thedeflection
deflectionat at the
ultimate
ultimateload.
load. Py
K1 = (2)
∆y 𝑃𝑃
𝐾𝐾 =
=∆ (2)
(2)
∆

𝑃𝑃 −
− 𝑃𝑃
𝐾𝐾 =
=∆ − ∆ (3)
(3)
∆ − ∆
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 12 of 17

Pu − Py
K2 = (3)
∆u − ∆y
∆u
µ∆= (4)
∆y
where:
K1 is the pre–yield “initial” stiffness in kN/mm,
Py is the yielding load in kN,
∆y is the deflection at the yielding load in mm,
K2 is the post–yield “effective” stiffness in kN/mm,
Pu is the ultimate load in kN,
∆u is the deflection at the ultimate load in mm.
Table 7 shows the flexural stiffness, ductility and toughness values of the beam speci-
mens. Reductions in the modulus of elasticity and the initial stiffness of the GPC compared
to the equivalent CC beams were reported in previous studies [13,33]. For the same depth
and reinforcement ratio, the initial and effective stiffness of the GPC beams are lower than
those of the CC beams by approximately 60%. The modulus of elasticity of the GPC is
also lower than that of the CC by approximately 30%. This is expected since the initial
flexural stiffness is affected by the modulus of elasticity. The ultimate loading capacity of
the GPC beams is slightly larger than that of the CC beams by 7.4%. Previous investigations
found up to 46% load capacity increment [13,31,34]. The deflection of the GPC beams is
48% higher than that of the CC beams, which is similar to the findings by Jeyasehar et al.
who observed up to 35% higher deflection in the geopolymer beams compared to the CC
beams [31].
The GPC beams showed less ductile behaviors than the CC beams as the ductility
values of the GPC beams were 28% lower than that of the equivalent CC beam. Previous
investigations found the ductility of fly ash beams to be 92–101% of that in the equivalent
CC beam [13]. The toughness (energy absorption) of the beams was determined as the
area under the load–deflection curve [35]. For the same depth and reinforcement ratio, the
toughness of the GPC beams is found to be higher than the equivalent CC beam by up to
approximately 18.3%, indicating a better energy dissipation. This is also supported by the
wider crack distributions in the GPC beams.
Figures 11–13 show the values of the initial and effective stiffnesses, ductility index
and toughness for the Geopolymer tested beams, with Figures 11a, 12a and 13a for different
rebar ratios and Figures 11b, 12b and 13b for different beam depths. When the rebar ratio
increased from 0.37% to 0.95%, the cracking moment increased by 24%, the initial stiffness
increased by 147%, the effective stiffness increased by 229%, and the toughness increased
by 58.6%. The ductility index decreased by 10.2% with the increasing rebar ratio. Having
a higher rebar ratio corresponds to a higher energy dissipation, which is evident in the
wider crack distribution shown in Figure 7d for beam specimen GPC-2T16-300. This led to
tougher, more brittle behavior for the GPC beam with a higher rebar ratio.
When the beam depth increased from 250 mm to 350 mm, the initial stiffness increased
by 181%, the effective stiffness increased by 105%, the toughness increased by 59%, and
the ductility index increased by 42%. Increasing the beam depth increased the section
inertia, which increased the stiffness. Additionally, for the same reinforcement (2T10),
increasing the beam depth reduced the rebar ratio (from 0.45% to 0.31%). This reduction in
the reinforcement ratio led to less tough, more ductile behavior. Similar relations between
the rebar ratio and the ductile behavior of GPC beams have also been asserted in previous
research [13].
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 13 of 17
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18
Buildings 2022, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 18

(a) (b)
(a) 11. Initial and effective stiffnesses for the geopolymer(b)
Figure tested beams.
beams. (a)
Figure
(a) 11. Initial and effective stiffnesses for the geopolymer
(b)tested (a) For
For different rebar
different rebar
ratios,
Figure (b) For different beam depths.
ratios, (b)11.
For Initial and beam
different effective stiffnesses for the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different rebar
depths.
Figure
ratios, 11.
(b) Initial and effective
For different stiffnesses for the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different rebar
beam depths.
ratios, (b) For different beam depths.

(a) (b)
(a) (b)
Figure 12. Ductility indexes for the geopolymer tested beams.
(a) (b) (a) For different rebar ratios, (b) For
different beam
Figure 12. depths.
Ductility indexes for the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different rebar ratios, (b) For
Figure
Figure 12.
12. Ductility
Ductility indexes
indexes for
for the
the geopolymer
geopolymer tested
tested beams.
beams. (a)
(a) For
For different
different rebar
rebar ratios,
ratios, (b)
(b) For
For
different beam depths.
different beam depths.
different beam depths.

(a) (b)
Figure 13. Toughness (a) (b)
of the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different
(a) (b) rebar ratios, (b) For different
beam depths.
Figure 13. Toughness of the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different rebar ratios, (b) For different
Figure
beam 13. Toughnessof
depths.
Figure 13. Toughness of the
the geopolymer
geopolymertested
tested beams.
beams. (a)
(a) For
For different
different rebar
rebar ratios,
ratios, (b)
(b) For
For different
different
beamWhen
depths.
the beam depth increased from 250 mm to 350 mm, the initial stiffness increased
beam depths.
by 181%,
When thethe
effective
beam stiffness increased
depth increased by 105%,
from 250 mm thetotoughness
350 mm, theincreased by 59%,increased
initial stiffness and the
When
ductility the beam depth increased from 250 mm to 350 mm, the initial stiffness
by 181%, the effective stiffness increased by 105%, the toughness increased by 59%,inertia,
index increased by 42%. Increasing the beam depth increased the increased
section and the
by 181%,
which
ductility the
increasedeffective
index stiffness
the stiffness.
increased increased by 105%,
Additionally,
by 42%. Increasingforthe the
thebeam toughness
same increased
reinforcement
depth increased bysection
(2T10),
the 59%, and the
increasing
inertia,
ductility index increased by 42%. Increasing the beam depth increased the
which increased the stiffness. Additionally, for the same reinforcement (2T10), increasing section inertia,
which increased the stiffness. Additionally, for the same reinforcement (2T10), increasing
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 14 of 17

4.5. Cracking and Ultimate Moments

Table 8 shows the experimental and predicted cracking moments. The predicted
cracking moment is calculated with Equation (5). The experimental cracking moment
is smaller by an average of 10% for all beams. The experimental cracking moments are
reduced because of the additional stresses resulting from shrinkage and the presence of
hair cracks due to temperature effects. For the same beam depth and reinforcement ratio,
the experimental cracking moment of the GPC beams was less than that of the CC beams,
since the modulus of rupture of the GPC is found to be lower than the modulus of rupture
of the CC.
f ctr Ig
Mcr = (5)
yt
where:
Mcr is the theoretical cracking moment in kNm,
fctr is the modulus of rupture of concrete in kN/m2 ,
Ig is the gross moment of inertia of beam section in m4 ,
yt is the distance from the tension side of beam to the neutral axis in m.

Table 8. Experimental and theoretical cracking and ultimate moments of the tested beams.

Mu (kNm) by
Mcr (kNm) Mn (kNm) by ACI318
Specimens ECP203
Mexp Mtheo Mexp/Mtheo Mexp Mtheo Mexp/Mtheo Mtheo Mexp/Mtheo
CC-2T10-300 12.0 14.2 0.85 25.59 23.47 1.09 23.48 1.09
GPC-2T10-300 9.9 11.4 0.87 27.48 23.56 1.17 23.58 1.17
GPC-2T12-300 10.8 11.8 0.92 34.2 32.01 1.07 32.16 1.06
GPC-2T16-300 12.3 12.9 0.95 63.3 58.42 1.08 59.19 1.07
GPC-2T10-250 7.5 8.0 0.93 20.7 19.31 1.07 19.32 1.07
GPC-2T10-350 12.6 15.2 0.83 29.01 27.82 1.04 27.83 1.04
Notes: Mcr —cracking moment, Mu —ultimate moment, Mn —nominal moment, Mexp —experimental results,
Mtheo —predicted results.

The predicted ultimate moment is calculated with Equation (6) according to ECP203 [32]
and calculated with Equation (7) according to ACI318 [36]. For the beams with the same
depth and reinforcement ratio, the ultimate moment of the GPC beam was 7.4% higher than
that of the CC beam. Furthermore, the experimental-to-predicted ultimate moment ratio for
the GPC beams ranged between 1.04 and 1.17 with an average of 1.09, compared to 1.09 for
the CC beam. This indicates that the design codes ECP203 and ACI 318 could be used to
design flexural GPC beams. Previous investigations used other building codes to validate
the tested geopolymer concrete beams. The test to prediction moment ratios of the GPC
beams were found to be 0.98–1.28 as per AS3600 [10] and 0.95–1.10 as per GB50010 [13].

f y As
a= 2
(6)
3 f cu b
 a
Mu = f y A s d − (7)
2
where:
Mu is the theoretical ultimate moment in kNm,
fy is the steel yielding stress in MPa,
As is the main steel area in mm2 ,
d is the effective depth of beam in mm,
a is the concrete compression zone depth in mm,
b is the beam width in mm.
 fy is the steel yielding stress in MPa,
As is the main steel area in mm2,
d is the effective depth of beam in mm,
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 a is the concrete compression zone depth in mm, 15 of 17
b is the beam width in mm.
. )
𝛽 = 0.85 − ≥ 0.65; for 28 MPa < 𝑓′ < 55 MPa (8)
0.05 (f0 − 28)
β 1 = 0.85 − c
𝑓 𝐴
≥ 0.65; for 28 MPa < f 0 c < 55 MPa (8)
7
𝑐= ; (9)
0.85 𝑓′ 𝛽 𝑏
f y As
c= ; (9)
0.85 f 0 c β 1 𝛽
b 𝑐
𝑀 = 𝑓 𝐴 𝑑 −  (10)
β 1 c2
Mn = f y A s d − (10)
where: 2
Mn is the unfactored theoretical nominal moment in kNm,
where:
𝑓′ is the cylinder compressive strength of concrete in MPa,
Mn is the unfactored theoretical nominal moment in kNm,
𝛽f 0 isisthe
theratio of the
cylinder depth of the
compressive equivalent
strength stress block
of concrete to the actual neutral axis depth.
in MPa,
c
β 1 is the ratio of the depth of the equivalent stress block to the actual neutral axis depth.
Generally, increasing the rebar ratio led to the improvements in the moment capacity,
effective stiffness
Generally, and toughness,
increasing the rebarbut didled
ratio not
to improve the ductility.
the improvements Onmoment
in the the other hand,
capacity,
increasing the beam depth with constant reinforcements led to the improvement
effective stiffness and toughness, but did not improve the ductility. On the other hand, in the
ductility in addition to the moment capacity, effective stiffness and toughness.
increasing the beam depth with constant reinforcements led to the improvement in the Figure 14
shows theincracking
ductility additionand ultimate
to the moment moments foreffective
capacity, the tested GPC beams,
stiffness with Figure
and toughness. 14a for
Figure 14
different rebar ratios and Figure 14b for different beam depths. When
shows the cracking and ultimate moments for the tested GPC beams, with Figure 14a the rebar ratio in-
creased
for fromrebar
different 0.37% to 0.95%,
ratios the cracking
and Figure 14b for moment
different increased
beam depths. by 24%,
When and thethe ultimate
rebar ratio
moment increased by 130%. Previous investigations also reported 56–71%
increased from 0.37% to 0.95%, the cracking moment increased by 24%, and the ultimate increases in the
cracking increased
moment moment for by increasing the reinforcement
130%. Previous investigationsratio
also from 0.66%
reported to 2.71%,
56–71% depending
increases in the
on the mix
cracking strength
moment for [13]. Additionally,
increasing when the ratio
the reinforcement beamfrom
depth increased
0.66% from
to 2.71%, 250 mmon
depending to
350 mix
the mm,strength
the cracking moment increased
[13]. Additionally, when the bybeam
68% depth
and the ultimate
increased moment
from 250 mm increased
to 350 mm,by
40%.
the cracking moment increased by 68% and the ultimate moment increased by 40%.

(a) (b)
Figure 14. Cracking and ultimate moments for the geopolymer tested beams. (a) For different rebar
different beam
ratios, (b) For different beam depths.
depths.

5. Conclusions
This study investigates the effects of the beam depth and rebar ratio on the flexural
behaviors of the ambient-cured slag geopolymer concrete beams. The results presented in
this research are limited to the dimensions, reinforcements and loading conditions studied.
The main conclusions derived from the results can be summarized as follows:
1. The load-carrying capacity of the GPC beams increased with increasing both the beam
depth and rebar ratio. Compared to the CC beams, the flexural moment capacity
of the reinforced GPC beams was 7.4% higher, and the cracking moment was 17.5%
lower due to the lower modulus of rupture.
2. The initial and effective stiffnesses of the GPC beams increased with increasing both
the beam depth and rebar ratio. Compared to the CC beams, the initial and effective
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 16 of 17

stiffnesses of the GPC beams were lower by 60%. Furthermore, the deflection of the
GPC beams was 48.7% higher due to their lower modulus of elasticity.
3. Increasing the beam depth significantly increases the beam ductility but using a higher
rebar ratio decreases the beam ductility. However, the toughness of the GPC beams
increased by increasing either beam depth or rebar ratio. Compared to the CC beams,
the ductility of GPC beams was 28% lower, and the toughness was 18.3% higher.
4. The crack distributions of the GPC beams occurred earlier, in more numbers and
longer than those appearing in the CC beams. As the rebar ratio increased, the
appearance of the cracks was retarded, and the average spacing of the developed
cracks on the GPC beams decreased and the number of cracks increased. Increasing
the GPC beam depth led to the delay in the occurrence of the cracks and the increase
in the average spacing of the developed cracks.
5. The Egyptian code of practice ECP203 and ACI318 should be applicable in predicting
the flexural moment capacity of under-reinforced GPC beams.

6. Future Recommendations
Though this study presents important results on the flexural behaviors of the slag-
based geopolymer concrete beams, the literature is still lacking. More studies on the
effects of different mix designs on the structural behaviors of geopolymer concrete ele-
ments. Beside the flexural behaviors, the shear behaviors of geopolymer concrete members
should also be investigated. Finally, the behaviors of other geopolymer concrete structural
members, e.g., slabs, columns, etc., should be studied.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, A.F.D. and H.M.; methodology, A.M.A. and M.A.O.;
software, N.M.A.; validation, A.F.D. and H.M.; formal analysis, A.M.A. and M.A.O.; investigation,
A.M.A. and M.A.O.; resources, N.M.A.; data curation, A.M.A. and M.A.O.; writing—original draft
preparation, A.F.D. and H.M.; writing—review and editing, M.A.O. and N.M.A.; visualization,
N.M.A.; supervision, A.F.D. and H.M.; project administration, A.F.D. and H.M.; funding acquisition,
A.F.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: All data related to the study was reported within the study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors state that they have no known competing financial interests or
personal ties that would appear to have influenced the work presented in this study.

References
1. Van Deventer, J.S.J.; Provis, J.L.; Duxson, P. Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement. Miner. Eng.
2012, 29, 89–104. [CrossRef]
2. Luan, C.; Shi, X.; Zhang, K.; Utashev, N.; Yang, F.; Dai, J.; Wang, Q. A mix design method of fly ash geopolymer concrete based on
factors analysis. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 272, 121612. [CrossRef]
3. Ashour, A.Z.; Gallab, A.H.; Khafaga, M.A.; Rashad, A.; Kohail, M. Using metakaolin and ground granulated blast furnace slag in
production of geopolimer concrete. J. Tianjin Univ. Sci. Technol. 2021, 54, 84–112. [CrossRef]
4. Hadi, M.N.S.; Farhan, N.A.; Sheikh, M.N. Design of geopolymer concrete with GGBFS at ambient curing condition using Taguchi
method. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 140, 424–431. [CrossRef]
5. Amer, I.; Kohail, M.; El-Feky, M.S.; Rashad, A.; Khalaf, M.A. Characterization of alkali-activated hybrid slag/cement concrete.
Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12, 135–144. [CrossRef]
6. Fernandez-Jimenez, A.M.; Palomo, A.; Lopez-Hombrados, C. Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete. Mater. J.
2006, 103, 106–112. [CrossRef]
7. Zhang, H.Y.; Kodur, V.; Wu, B.; Yan, J.; Yuan, Z.S. Effect of temperature on bond characteristics of geopolymer concrete. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2018, 163, 277–285. [CrossRef]
8. Amer, I.; Kohail, M.; El-Feky, M.S.; Rashad, A.; Khalaf, M.A. A review on alkali-activated slag concrete. Ain Shams Eng. J. 2021, 12,
1475–1499. [CrossRef]
Buildings 2022, 12, 1554 17 of 17

9. Aziz, I.H.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Mohd Salleh, M.A.A.; Azimi, E.A.; Chaiprapa, J.; Sandu, A.V. Strength development of solely
ground granulated blast furnace slag geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 250, 118720. [CrossRef]
10. Sumajouw, D.; Hardjito, D.; Wallah, S.E.; Rangan, B.V. Behaviour and strength of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer concrete
beams. Civ. Eng. Dimens. 2005, 6, 1020.
11. Adak, D.; Sarkar, M.; Mandal, S. Structural performance of nano-silica modified fly-ash based geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2017, 135, 430–439. [CrossRef]
12. Ferdous, W.; Manalo, A.; Khennane, A.; Kayali, O. Geopolymer concrete-filled pultruded composite beams—Concrete mix design
and application. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2015, 58, 1–13. [CrossRef]
13. Du, Y.; Wang, J.; Shi, C.; Hwang, H.J.; Li, N. Flexural behavior of alkali-activated slag-based concrete beams. Eng. Struct. 2021,
229, 111644. [CrossRef]
14. Moazzenchi, S.; Oskouei, A.V. A comparative experimental study on the flexural behavior of geopolymer concrete beams
reinforced with FRP bars. J. Rehabil. Civ. Eng. 2023, 11, 21–42. [CrossRef]
15. Zinkaah, O.H.; Alridha, Z.; Alhawat, M. Numerical and theoretical analysis of FRP reinforced geopolymer concrete beams. Case
Stud. Constr. Mater. 2022, 16, e01052. [CrossRef]
16. Kumar, P.U.; Bendapudi, S. Flexural behaviour of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beams with GGBS and metakaoline. Int. J. Civ.
Eng. Technol. 2016, 7, 260–277.
17. Hutagi, A.; Khadiranaikar, R.B. Flexural behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams. Int. Conf. Electr. Electron. Optim. Tech.
ICEEOT 2016, 2016, 3463–3467. [CrossRef]
18. Vithiyaluxmi, V.B.; Senthamilselvi, P. Flexural behaviour of geopolymer reinforced concrete beam with partial replacement of
coarse aggregate by using steel slag. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2021, 8.
19. Ahmed, H.Q.; Jaf, D.K.; Yaseen, S.A. Flexural capacity and behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with glass
fibre-reinforced polymer bars. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2020, 14, 1–16. [CrossRef]
20. Kumaravel, D.; Thirugnanasambandam, S. Flexural behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Stud. 2013, 3,
2249–8974.
21. Subramanian, N.; Solaiyan, E.; Sendrayaperumal, A.; Lakshmaiya, N. Flexural behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams reinforced
with BFRP and GFRP polymer composites. Adv. Struct. Eng. 2022, 25, 954–965. [CrossRef]
22. Maranan, G.B.; Manalo, A.C.; Benmokrane, B.; Karunasena, W.; Mendis, P.; Nguyen, T.Q. Flexural behavior of geopolymer-
concrete beams longitudinally reinforced with GFRP and steel hybrid reinforcements. Eng. Struct. 2019, 182, 141–152. [CrossRef]
23. Mo, K.H.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z. Structural performance of reinforced geopolymer concrete members: A review. Constr.
Build. Mater. 2016, 120, 251–264. [CrossRef]
24. De Azevedo, A.R.G.; Cruz, A.S.A.; Marvila, M.T.; De Oliveira, L.B.; Monteiro, S.N.; Vieira, C.M.F.; Fediuk, R.; Timokhin, R.; Vatin,
N.; Daironas, M. Natural fibers as an alternative to synthetic fibers in reinforcement of geopolymer matrices: A comparative
review. Polymers 2021, 13, 2493. [CrossRef]
25. Yanou, R.N.; Kaze, R.C.; Adesina, A.; Nemaleu, J.G.D.; Jiofack, S.B.K.; Djobo, J.N.Y. Performance of laterite-based geopolymers
reinforced with sugarcane bagasse fibers, Case stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 15, e00762. [CrossRef]
26. BS EN 197-1; Cement—Part 1 Composition, Specifications and Conformity Criteria for Common Cements; British Standards
Institution (BSI): London, UK, 2011.
27. BS EN 12390-1; Concrete—Part 1: Shape Dimensions and Other Requirements for Specimens and Moulds; British Standards
Institution (BSI): London, UK, 2011.
28. ASTM C293; Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Center-Point Loading; American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2002.
29. ASTM C469/C469M-14; Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression;
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
30. ASTM C143/C143M; Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic Cement Concrete; American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM): West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2015; pp. 1–4.
31. Antony, J.C.; Saravanan, G.; Salahuddin, M.; Thirugnanasambandam, S. Development of fly ash based geopolymer precast
concrete elements. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2013, 14, 605–615.
32. ECP Committee. ECP 203 Egyptian Code for Design and Construction of Concrete Structures (ECP 203-2020), 5th ed.; Housing and
Building National Research Center: Cairo, Egypt, 2020.
33. Ren, J.; Chen, H.; Sun, T.; Song, H.; Wang, M. Flexural behaviour of combined FA/GGBFS geopolymer concrete beams after
exposure to elevated temperatures. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017. [CrossRef]
34. Yost, J.R.; Radlińska, A.; Ernst, S.; Salera, M.; Martignetti, N.J. Structural behavior of alkali activated fly ash concrete.
Part.Structural testing and experimental findings. Mater. Struct. Constr. 2013, 46, 449–462. [CrossRef]
35. Köksal, F.; Rao, K.S.; Babayev, Z.; Kaya, M. Effect of steel fibres on flexural toughness of concrete and RC beams. Arab. J. Sci. Eng.
2022, 47, 4375–4384. [CrossRef]
36. ACI 318; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-19) and Commentary (ACI 318R-19); The American
Concrete Institute (ACI): Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.

View publication stats