Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Case study

Study and predicting the stress-strain characteristics of geopolymer

T
concrete under compression
⁎
Sreenivasulu Chitralaa, , Guru Jawahar Jadaprolub, Sashidhar Chundupallia
a
Department of Civil Engineering, Jawaharlal Nehru Technological University, Anantapur, 515002, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Annamacharya Institute of Technology and Sciences, Tirupati, 517520, India

AR TI CLE I NF O AB S T R A CT

Keywords: The present investigation is mainly focused on studying the complete stress-strain characteristics
Geopolymer concrete of geopolymer concrete (GPC) with different fine aggregate blending. In this study, granite fines
Granite fines (GF) were used as a partial replacement of fine aggregate. Sand and GF were used as fine ag-
Stress-strain characteristics gregates blended in different proportions (100:0, 80:20, 60:40 and 40:60) (sand:GF) by weight.
Proposed models
GPC cylindrical specimens were tested under compression and the results obtained from the
Regression analysis
tested data were analyzed to determine the compressive strength (fcm), stress-strain relationship,
peak strain (εp), linearity of the stress-strain curve, ultimate strain (εu), various modulus of
elasticity (MOE) values, and Poisson’s ratio (μ) of GPC after a period of 7, 28 and 90 days re-
spectively. From the results, it is concluded that the increasing trend was observed in the
properties till 40% (60:40) of GF replacement and then these values were decreased. So, optimum
fine aggregate was blended at 60:40. Based on the test results, new models were developed for
predicting the stress-strain characteristics of GPC under compression by using regression analysis.
The results of proposed models were then compared with the experimental values and the pre-
dicted equations by various codes and past research.

1. Introduction

It is known that the global consumption of cement is approximately more than 2.2 billion tons per year [1] which leads to
emission of equal quantity of carbon dioxide [2]. To minimize this effect, an alternative binder for the concrete technology was
proposed in the year 1978 i.e., geopolymer technology by Davidovits [3]. Rangan [4] reported that fly ash based GPC showed
excellent performance by activating the Si-Al minerals present in fly ash under alkaline activator solution (AAS). Supraja and Kanta
Rao [5] studied on GPC incorporating ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) with different molarities of NaOH for improving
the strength of concrete, because it consists of Si-Al minerals present in the composition, which reacts with AAS to contribute
additional formation of geoploymeric chain bonds (Si-O-Al-O) and depicted in Fig. 1. From Mustofa and Pintowantoro [6], the
compressive strength of ferronickel Slag based GPC was mainly depended on Si-Al ratio and concluded that the strength was in-
creased up to the ratio of 3.5. On the other hand, GPC also influenced by fine aggregate [7,8], super plasticizer [9] and temperature
[10,11]. So, from the past research [4–8], it is concluded that the GPC mainly depends on Si-Al content present in the materials like
fly ash, GGBS and fine aggregate also.

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: sreenivas.ce.aitt@annamacharyagroup.org (S. Chitrala), gurujawahar.ce.aitt@annamacharyagroup.org (G.J. Jadaprolu),
sashidhar.civil@jntua.ac.in (S. Chundupalli).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.01.010
Received 1 October 2017; Received in revised form 19 December 2017; Accepted 19 January 2018
2214-5095/ © 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/BY-NC-ND/4.0/).
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 1. Polymeric chain and ring structure.

1.1. Unit weight

As per ACI 237R-07 [12], unit weight and cylindrical compressive strength (fcm) of concrete are the basic parameters for de-
termining the MOE of concrete. AASHTO LRFD [13] and ACI 363R [14] proposed an equation for secant modulus of elasticity
(SMOE) of concrete is related to cylindrical compressive strength and unit weight. Sreenivas et al. [7] concluded that the unit weight
and hardened mechanical properties were influenced by the different fine aggregate blending in the GPC.
It is revealed from many codes and past research, the unit weight plays a major role for studying properties of concrete.

1.2. Cylindrical compressive strength

According to ASTM C39/C39M-17 [15], compressive strength primarily depends on the specimen size and shape, aggregates
(coarse and fine), age of concrete. Split tensile strength, flexural strength and bond strength of concrete can be predicted using the
compressive strength and it also a dependent variable for prediction of the modulus of elasticity [16]. The characteristic compressive
strength of GPC was also influenced by the fine aggregate present in the concrete [7]. The local micro properties viz., voids and cracks
of an interfacial transition zone (ITZ) should influenced by the macro and transport properties of concrete [17].
So, from the codes and past research, it is concluded that the compressive strength was influenced by the fine aggregates and ITZ
in that concrete.

1.3. Stress-strain behavior

The stress-strain behavior of GPC was slightly better than that of conventional concrete due to higher compressive strength of GPC
which leads to higher value of MOE [18]. Hardjito et al. [18] studied stress-strain behavior of fly ash based GPC under 60–90 °C heat
cured temperature and proposed an analytical model as shown in Eq. (1). Ganesan et al. [19] also proposed a model, which is similar
to that of Eq. (1) for studying the stress-strain behavior of confined GPC and concluded that the ductility of GPC is better than
conventional concrete (CC). Noushini et al. [20] concluded that the stress-strain relationship of low calcium based GPC under
compression is a function of peak stress (fcm), peak strain (ϵp) and SMOE. On the other side, the stress-strain behavior of concrete was
mainly affected by the pores (voids) and micro-cracks present in ITZ [21]. So, it is revealed from past research [18–20], the stress-
strain behavior of GPC can easily assess by using an analytical model and it is a function of fcm, ϵp and SMOE. For that, from stress-

Fig. 2. Stress strain curve.

173
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

strain curve of GPC, some of the parameters were studied viz., peak stress [19,22], strain at peak stress or peak strain [22,23],
ultimate strain [22] and linearity coefficient [24] (Fig. 2).
As per ASTM E111-04 [25], the concrete is nonlinear material; four methods are used to determine modulus of elasticity such as
initial modulus of elasticity (IMOE) for initial behavior of concrete, tangent modulus of elasticity (TMOE) for stiffness of that material
at a particular point, secant modulus of elasticity (SMOE) for ITZ characteristics and finally chord modulus of elasticity for finding
behavior of concrete between two specified points. In this study, IMOE, TMOE and SMOE were found and test results compared with
the existing models given by codes and past research. In this study, a new parameter ultimate tangent modulus of elasticity (UMOE)
has been introduced to study the effect of GF on damage behavior of GPC.

ε n
σc = f cm ⎜⎛ c ⎟⎞
ε
⎝ ⎠p n− 1 + (εc/ εp)nk (1)

Where,
fcm = Peak stress, εp = Strain at peak stress, εc and σc are the strain and stress values at any point on the stress-strain curve.
n = 0.8 + (fcm/17)
k = 0.67 + (fcm/62) when εc/εp > 1
= 1.0 when εc/εp ≤ 1

2. Experimental study

2.1. Experimental program

The objective of the study is to investigate the stress-strain characteristics of GPC under compression and develop the prediction
models. In this study, four mixes of GPC were prepared with different fine aggregate blending i.e., sand and GF. The hardened
properties that were determined are unit weight (ρ), cylindrical compressive strength (fcm) [15,26], stress-strain characteristics,
various modulus of elasticity (MOE) [25,26] values and Poisson’s ratio (μ) of GPC were determined. These properties were found on
the cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm dia and 300 mm length after 7, 28 and 90 days of ambient curing. Three cylinders were cast
for each period and each mix and average of three specimens was calculated. Test setup and details of instrumentation is shown in
Fig. 3. Several predicted models were developed by using regression analysis and evaluated with the experimental results and the
existing equations given by codes and past research.

2.2. Materials

In this study, two different source materials were used as binders in the manufacturing of GPC viz., fly ash (ASTM C 618 − 15
Class F) sourced from Rayalaseema Thermal Power station in Muddanur, India and GGBS purchased from ASTRRA chemicals in
Chennai, India. The properties of source materials (binders) and GF are presented in Table 1 and 2. Two types of alkaline activators
were used for activating the binders viz., NaOH (8 M) and Na2SiO3 and the combined activator solution is termed as AAS. A nominal
size of 20 mm and 10 mm aggregates were used in 60:40 (20 mm:10 mm) [27] proportions. The 20 mm and 10 mm aggregate gra-
dation was presented in Tables 3 and 4, and the graphical representation as shown in Fig. 4. Sand and GF were used as a fine
aggregate and blended in different proportions (100:0, 80:20, 60:40 and 40:60) (Sand:GF). GF, collected from granite cutting in-
dustry and the detailed chemical composition of GF as presented in Table. 1. The fine aggregate gradation (sand and GF) was

Fig. 3. Test setup and details of instrumentation.

174
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Table 1
Chemical properties of fly ash, GGBS and GF (%).

Particulars SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO TiO2 SO3 Na2O K2 O LOIa

Fly ash 65.6 28.0 3.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 – – 0.29
GGBS 30.61 16.24 0.584 34.48 6.79 – 1.85 – – 2.1
GF 63.5 14.42 5.23 3.62 0.68 0.62 – 5.94 5.17 –

a
LOI: loss of ignition.

Table 2
Physical properties of fly ash and GGBS.

Particulars Specific gravity Fineness (m2/kg)

Fly ash 2.26 360

GGBS 2.84 400

Table 3
Sieve analysis of 20 mm Coarse aggregate.

Sieve size (mm) Cumulative percent passing

20 mm IS 383 (1970) limits

20 92.84 85–100
16 44.28 N/A
12.5 19.3 N/A
10 7.66 0−20
4.75 0.14 0–5

Table 4
Sieve analysis of 10 mm Coarse aggregate.

Sieve size (mm) Cumulative percent passing

10 mm IS 383 (1970) limits

10 99.68 85–100
4.75 8.76 0–20
2.36 2.4 0−5

Fig. 4. Sieve analysis of 20 mm and 10 mm coarse aggregates.

175
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Table 5
Sieve analysis of fine aggregate.

Sieve No/size Cumulative percent passing

Sand GF IS 383 (1970) – Zone II requirement

3/8” (10 mm) 100 100 100

No.4 (4.75 mm) 97.8 100 90–100
No.8 (2.36 mm) 95.3 100 75–100
No.16 (1.18 mm) 80.7 84.5 55–90
No.30 (600 μm) 45.5 59 35–59
No.50 (300 μm) 16.2 28.5 8–30
No.100 (150 μm) 3.0 8.3 0–10

Fig. 5. Sieve analysis of fine aggregates.

presented in Table 5 and depicted in Fig. 5. The fine aggregate properties such as bulk specific gravity [28], water absorption [28]
and fineness modulus [29] are presented in Table 6. In this study, Conplast SP420 was used as a super plasticizer. The overall mix
design details of GPC mixes are represented in Table 7.

2.3. Curing of test specimens

After casting and demoulding, the GPC cylindrical specimens were kept for curing at ambient temperature and tested after a
period of 7, 28 and 90 days respectively.

3. Results and discussions

3.1. Cylindrical compressive strength

Table 8 gives the cylindrical compressive strength results of GPC mixes after a period of 7, 28 and 90 days of curing. It was noticed
that there was a significant improvement in cylindrical compressive strength, from 0% to 40% of GF in all curing periods. The mix

Table 6
Physical properties of aggregates.

Particulars Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate

20 mm 10 mm Sand GF

Bulk specific gravity 2.58 2.54 2.62 2.86

Water absorption (%) 0.3 0.3 1 1.2
Fineness modulus 7.35 5.89 2.61 2.19

176
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Table 7
Mix proportions of constituent materials (kg/m3 and lit).

Mix type Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate Fly ash GGBS Na2SiO3 NaOH Extra water SP

20 mm 10 mm Sand GF

a
100:0 774 516 549 0 204.5 204.5 102 41 (8 M) 92.5 2.86
80:20 774 516 439.2 109.8 204.5 204.5 102 41 (8 M) 92.5 2.86
60:40 774 516 329.4 219.6 204.5 204.5 102 41 (8 M) 92.5 2.86
40:60 774 516 219.6 329.4 204.5 204.5 102 41 (8 M) 92.5 2.86

a
100:0: Where 100 is the percentage of sand and 0 is the percentage of GF by weight.

Table 8
Summary of test results.

Mix Type Days ρ (kg/m3) fcm (MPa) Area under σ–ε εp (micro εu (micro Linearity Ei (GPa) Et (GPa) Ec (GPa) Eu (GPa)
curve (MPa) strains) strains) coefficient

100:0 7 2305.17 23.27 0.0360 1111.19 1696.44 0.81 23.09 25.38 23.11 6.15
80:20 2311.92 25.58 0.0498 1092.22 2039.21 0.83 24.27 30.18 24.32 7.21
60:40 2328.85 27.18 0.0505 1123.05 1665.29 0.84 24.78 27.93 25.09 7.30
40:60 2243.74 17.91 0.0317 907.17 1859.17 0.81 20.26 22.97 20.42 7.04
100:0 28 2377.45 36.69 0.1219 1339.56 4677.84 0.81 29.06 31.33 29.92 8.20
80:20 2378.30 38.46 0.1705 1350.52 3748.74 0.85 29.70 33.60 30.45 8.69
60:40 2412.36 40.91 0.1797 1400.20 4941.60 0.87 30.62 33.52 31.89 8.91
40:60 2275.25 26.90 0.0514 1125.58 1572.84 0.82 24.84 27.84 25.23 8.63
100:0 90 2412.95 42.82 0.1631 1432.56 18039.36 0.83 31.34 30.37 32.25 8.40
80:20 2450.43 45.62 0.1718 1447.34 4814.37 0.86 32.36 36.66 33.64 8.92
60:40 2471.98 47.94 0.1880 1533.28 6434.31 0.89 33.16 37.59 34.28 10.68
40:60 2356.71 30.84 0.0794 1287.56 2306.38 0.84 26.52 29.31 27.19 6.27

Note: Where, ρ is unit weight, fcm is cylindrical compressive strength or Peak stress, σ is stress, ε is strain, εp is peak strain, εu is ultimate strain, Ei is initial modulus of
elasticity, Et is tangent modulus of elasticity, Ec is secant modulus of elasticity, Eu is ultimate modulus of elasticity.

with 60:40 proportions exhibited 16.80%, 11.50% and 11.95% higher compressive strength values than the GPC mix (100:0) i.e.,
without GF replacement, after a period of 7, 28 and 90 days respectively. It is to be noted that the significant improvement in
compressive strength of GPC mix (60:40) is mainly due to filling of voids in GPC. It is known that GF acts as inert filling material
which fills the voids of the concrete and hence makes the concrete dense [30,31]. However, when the percentage GF was increased to
60% (40:60) a drastic fall in compressive strength was evidenced irrespective of the time of curing. The compressive strength values
of the mix 40:60 were found to be 17.91 MPa, 26.90 MPa and 30.84 MPa respectively after 7, 28 and 90 days of curing. The fall in the
compressive strength at 60% GF can be explained presumably due to the excessive content of fine material in concrete, which may
not be contributed to strength development. The experimental values obtained are depicted in Fig. 6. Similar type of trend has been

Fig. 6. Compressive strength versus Age of GPC.

177
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 7. Relationship between compressive strength and unit weight.

seen in the unit weight, stress-strain behavior as well as the MOE results. Sreenivas et al. [7] and Shohana [32] revealed that the
compressive strength influences the unit weight of concrete [7,32]. Hence, a model has been proposed between fcm and ρ with the
experimental data through the regression analysis which is shown in Eq. (2).

fcm = 0.134 × ρ − 284.26 (2)

The results of compressive strength (fcm) and unit weight (ρ) of concrete from this investigation and the predicted compressive
strength values proposed by Shohana [32] are drawn as scatter points as shown in Fig. 7. It is clearly seen that the experimental
compressive values are nearer to the trend line with an average percentage error of prediction of 5.9%. Sohana model [32] un-
derestimates the values when compared to that of proposed model. This is due to the fact that Sohana developed the model for
conventional concrete (CC) whose compressive strength values are approximately ranging from 15 MPa to 35 MPa. Whereas, the
present model developed for GPC whose compressive strength values are approximately ranging from 18 MPa to 48 MPa.

3.2. Stress-strain behavior of GPC

3.2.1. Stress-strain relationship

The stress-strain curves of GPC mixes (100:0, 80:20, 60:40 and 40:60) at different curing periods are presented in Table 8 and
depicted in Fig. 8. The whole stress-strain curve of GPC consists of two stages i.e., ascent and descent stages. In ascent stage, the stress
increases with the increasing strain, whereas in descent stage, the stress decreases with the increasing strain. From the results, it is
observed that the increasing percentage of GF up to 40% in GPC mixes increased the slope of the curves. It is already known that the
increase of stress-strain curve slope increases the IMOE and SMOE values and thereby increases the ductility of concrete [33]. So, it is
concluded that the GPC shows good ductility up to 40% (60:40) of GF and minimize the catastrophic failures, if accidental over-
loading is occurred.
The area under stress-strain curve of concrete in compression gives toughness and energy absorption [34] and presented in
Table 8. From Table 8 and Fig. 8, it is noticed that, when GF increased from 0% to 20% and 40%, the average area under stress-strain
curve values of all curing periods were increased by 22.14% and 30.28% respectively. From Fig. 8, it is also noticed that the area
under the curve of 60:40_90 days is significantly larger than that of remaining mixes irrespective of age, which indicates that the
toughness and energy absorption capacity of GPC increases with increase in percentage of GF up to 40%. The area under the curve of
40:60_7 days is observed minimum as compared to all mixes due to excessive content of fine material (GF) in GPC which may not be
contributed to strength development.
The dimensionless coordinates were calculated from the GPC stress-strain curves in order to analyze the linearity in the stress-
strain curve as shown in Fig. 9. Here, the x and y coordinates are strain/peak strain and stress/peak stress respectively. From Fig. 9, it
is clearly seen that the stress-strain curve was approximately linear within 80–90% of peak stress which demonstrates that the
concrete was still in the elastic stage and can be said that large strain energy stored in the GPC. When further load increased till peak
stress, the slope of curve decreased which demonstrates the plastic deformation of GPC. In the descending stage, the stress slowly
decreased with the increase in the strain of concrete.
From Fig. 9, the descending stage of the stress-strain curve of 40:60 GPC became steeper, which meant that the ductility of GPC
became lower with the increase of GF.
The calibration curves (proposed model curves) for stress versus strain at any point of GPC are shown in Fig. 8. Having fit the
experimental stress-strain curves, a best nonlinear curve has been established with the proposed model shown below (Eq. (3)).

178
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 8. Stress strain curves of GPC mixes.

Fig. 9. Dimensionless stress strain curves.

179
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Table 9
Stress-strain model parameters of all GPC mixes.

GPC mixes a × 10−5 b0 × 10−5 b1 b2 Adj. R square (R2)

100:0_7a −3.39 3.66 −0.006 17.26 0.984

100:0_28 −7.12 2.19 0.006 5.49 0.969
100:0_90 −8.74 1.41 0.015 1.35 0.944
80:20_7 34.90 21.40 −0.238 89.23 0.987
80:20_28 −3.52 3.24 −0.011 11.14 0.987
80:20_90 −4.07 2.93 −0.009 8.31 0.988
60:40_7 −0.30 4.74 −0.030 24.28 0.992
60:40_28 −6.77 2.32 0.002 6.09 0.975
60:40_90 −3.91 2.93 −0.010 8.44 0.987
40:60_7 −0.76 5.61 −0.041 43.33 0.991
40:60_28 −1.24 4.37 −0.023 20.99 0.989
40:60_90 −3.73 3.34 −0.008 13.05 0.985

100:0_7a; Where, 100 and 0 are the% of sand and GF in GPC_7 is a curing period.

εc + a
σc =
b0 + b1 (εc + a) + b2 (εc + a)2 (3)

Where,
σc and εc are the stress and strain values at any point on the stress-strain curves of GPC mixes and a, b0, b1 and b2 are constants
obtained from data fitting.
In the above equation, the constants could be obtained through data fitting and presented in Table 9 and the relative coefficient R2
is also given in Table 9.

3.2.2. Peak strain

The peak strain (εp) of GPC mixes at different curing periods of 7, 28 and 90 days are presented in Table 8. Setunge and Attard
[35] revealed that the high strength concrete attained a maximum peak strain (εp) value of 0.002. In this study, the peak strains of
GPC mixes were observed within a range from 907.17 to 1533.28 micro strains (0.000907 to 0.00153) which are smaller than that of
the high strength concrete. The maximum (0.00153) and minimum strain (0.000907) values were obtained for the mix proportions
60:40_90 days and 40:60_7 days as shown in Table 8.
From past research [36–45], the predicted equations of peak strain is a linear expression and it is a function of cylindrical
compressive strength of concrete and are listed in Table 10. Fig. 10 represents the experimental results and relationship between the
peak strain (εp) and compressive strength (fcm) of GPC. Based on the experimental results, a regression analysis was performed to
attain a relationship between εp and fcm of GPC and the derived expression is shown in Eq. (4).

εp = 18.97fcm + 623.60 (4)

Where, εp and fcm are peak strain (micro strains) and compressive strength (MPa) respectively.
The results obtained from the past models and proposed model are shown in Fig. 11. From Fig. 11, it can be observed that the
proposed model gives the results lower than that of other models. Whereas the results obtained from Lee model [45] are closely
similar to the values of proposed model. This is due to the fact that the models proposed by past researchers were developed for
conventional concrete (CC) which possesses a higher strain at peak stress when compared to that of the GPC.

3.2.3. Linearity of the stress-strain curve

The present investigation is also aimed to assess the linear region of the stress-strain curves of GPC. The coefficient of linearity of
curve is defined as the ratio of stress at the given point to the peak stress [24]. The linearity coefficient values of all GPC mixes were

Table 10
Strain at peak stress equations proposed by other researchers.

Researchers Strain at peak stress (εp)

Liebenberg [36] εp = (0.0546 + 0.003713fcm) x 10−2

Saenz [37] εp = 1.491 × 10−5 fcm + 0.00195
Tadros [38] εp = (1.6 + 0.01fcm) x 10−3
Popovics [39] εp = 735 x (fcm)0.25 × 10−6
Tomaszewicz [40] εp = 700 x (fcm)0.31 × 10−6
Carreira and Chu [41] εp = 0.71 × 10−5 fcm + 0.00168
Ahmad and Shah [42] εp = 1.65 × 10−5 fcm + 0.001648
Nicolo et al. [43] εp = 0.00076 + [(0.626fcm − 4.33) x 10−7]0.5
Wee et al. [44] εp = 780 x (fcm)0.25 × 10−6
Lee [45] εp = fcm/(46.886 + 2.6fcm)2.6fcm)

180
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 10. Peak strain versus compressive strength of GPC.

Fig. 11. Comparison of proposed model with other researchers.

Fig. 12. Linearity coefficient versus Age of GPC.

181
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 13. Ultimate strain versus compressive strength of GPC.

represented in Table 8. From Table 8, it is observed that the coefficient of linearity lies in the range between 0.81 and 0.89 and the
same is depicted in Fig. 12.The average linearity coefficient values of stress-strain curves of different mixes (100:0, 80:20, 60:40 and
40:60) are 0.82, 0.85, 0.87 and 0.82 respectively.
It can be found out Table 8, the curve linearity coefficient is proportional to the compressive strength of GPC and increased with
the increase in percentage of GF from 0% to 40% in all curing periods.

3.2.4. Ultimate strain

In this study, the ultimate strain (εu) value of GPC is taken on descending stage of the curve at 0.5fcm [46]. The ultimate strain,
which is a function of peak strain (εp) and compressive strength of concrete (fcm), has been used in the concrete ductility calculations.
An expression proposed for predicting the ultimate strain of concrete by Attard and Setunge [35] is given as follows Eq. (5);
εu
= 2.5 − 0.3ln(fcm )
εp (5)
The ultimate strain values of GPC mixes are presented in Table 8. Regression analyses have been performed on the experimental
data between the ultimate strain and compressive strength of GPC and a model has been developed as shown in Eq. (6).
εu
= 2.8 − 0.05ln(fcm )
εp (6)
The experimental ultimate strain values and the values predicted by the proposed model and Attard and Setunge [35] are depicted
in Fig. 13. From Fig. 13, it can be observed that the values obtained by proposed and Attard and Setunge [35] models are closely
similar to that of experimental values, except at the compressive strength of 42.82 MPa.

3.3. Modulus of elasticity

In this section, IMOE, TMOE, SMOE and UMOE were determined while applying the compressive load on cylindrical concrete
specimens in longitudinal direction and measured the longitudinal deformation by using dial gauges with a least count of 0.01 mm.
Here, TMOE and SMOE were found at 40% of compressive strength (0.4fcm). Using the recorded load and deformation data, the
IMOE, TMOE, SMOE and UMOE were calculated and depicted in Table 8. These results are then compared with the existing models
given by various codes [13,14,47–60] and past research [61–69].

3.3.1. Initial modulus of elasticity

The IMOE is widely used to calculate the elastic deflections in the structures and it also called as short term SMOE of concrete.
Mahdi Nematzadeh et al. [70], proposed an equation to predict the initial modulus of elasticity (Ei) of concrete under compression as
a function of compressive strength (fcm) as follows Eq. (7);

Ei = 3000 f cm + 13000 (MPa) (7)

Table 8 gives the experimental results of IMOE of GPC mixes at different curing periods.
The results of Ei and fcm of concrete from this investigation and previous research [70] are drawn as scatter points shown in
Fig. 14. After performing the regression analysis on the experimental data, the best fit line with R2 = 0.995 is observed as shown in
Fig. 14. A model has been proposed based on this fit line and shown in Eq. (8).

Ei = 0.422fcm + 13.27 (GPa) (8)

182
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 14. IMOE versus compressive strength of GPC.

From Fig. 14, it is seen that the studied results are lower than that of results obtained by Eq. (7), which clearly describes the initial
behavior of concrete is mainly based on the mix proportions. It is clearly noticed that the mix 40:60_7 days have attained lower IMOE
values due to larger strains when compared to that of 60:40_7 days as shown in Fig. 8.

3.3.2. Tangent modulus of elasticity

Generally, TMOE is taken as the slope of curve at any point of stress. Initial modulus is also known as a tangent modulus at the
origin point. In this study, TMOE is calculated at the point of stress 0.4fcm and TMOE values of all mixes are depicted in Table 8.
Having done the regression analysis on the experimental TMOE values (Fig. 15), a model has been proposed for predicting the slope
at 0.4fcm (TMOE) as shown in Eq. (9);

Et = 0.4fcm0.4fcm + 17.08 (GPa) (9)

Where, Et and fcm are the tangent modulus of elasticity (GPa) and cylindrical compressive strength (MPa).

3.3.3. Secant modulus of elasticity

From Table 8, it is observed that there was a significant improvement in SMOE with the increase in percentage of GF from 0% to
40% in all curing periods. GPC mix (60:40) exhibited the maximum SMOE values like 25.09 GPa, 31.89 GPa and 34.28 GPa after a
period of 7, 28 and 90 days of curing. It is mainly due to GF acts as inert filling material to fill the void spaces in GPC. Hence, optimum
replacement of GF densifies the mix and enhances the hardened properties viz., unit weight, compressive strength as well as secant
modulus of GPC. So it is concluded that, for a given GPC strength, higher the GF content, higher the unit weight of GPC and hence
higher is the secant modulus of concrete up to mix 60:40.

Fig. 15. TMOE versus compressive strength of GPC.

183
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 16. Proposed model for SMOE of GPC.

Fig. 17. Proposed model for SMOE of GPC.

Fig. 18. Proposed model for SMOE of GPC including unit weight.

Also, it is observed that the mix 40:60 proportion exhibited decreased SMOE values like 20.42 GPa (7 days), 25.23 GPa (28 days)
and 27.19 GPa (90 days) when compared to remaining mixes. It is mainly due to excessive content of GF present in the GPC which
may not contribute in enhancing the hardened properties of GPC.
In this study, regression analyses were performed on the experimental values of SMOE and developed three different models
(Figs. 16–18) which are in line with the models described in the codes IS 456:2000 [71], ACI 318-11 [60] and ACI 318 [13]

184
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Table 11
Expressions for SMOE by codes.

Code of Practice Expression Units

AS 3600 [47] Ec = ρ1.5 × (0.024 f cm + 0.12) Ec;(MPa), fcm;(MPa) and ρ;(kg/m3)

AIJ [48] 4
Ec = 2.1 × 10 × (ρ/2300) 1.5
× (f cm/20) Ec;(MPa), fcm;(MPa) and ρ;(kg/m3)
AASHTO LRFD/ACI 318 [49] Ec = 0.043 × ρ 1.5
× f cm Ec;(MPa), fcm;(MPa) and ρ;(kg/m3)
AASHTO LRFD [49] Ec = 33 × ρ 1.5
× f cm Ec;(PSi), fcm;(PSi) and ρ;(lb/ft3)
ACI 363R [14] Ec = (40000 f cm + 1000000)(ρ/2346)1.5 Ec;(PSi), fcm;(PSi) and ρ;(kg/m3)
ACI 363R [14] Ec = (3321 f cm + 6895)(ρ/2300) 1.5 Ec;(MPa), fcm;(MPa) and ρ;(kg/m3)
EN [50] Ec = 22000 × (fcm/10)0.3 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
TS 500 [51] Ec = 3250 f cm + 14000 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
NZS − 3101 [52] Ec = 4734 f cm + 6900 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
CEB 90 [53] Ec = 10000 × (fcm + 8)1/3 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
ACI 318 [54] Ec = 4734 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
ACI 318 [55] Ec = 4700 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
CSA A23.3 [56] Ec = 4500 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
EN [57] Ec = 9500 × (fcm + 8)0.3 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
NS 3473 [58] Ec = 9500 × (fcm)0.3 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
ACI 318 [59] Ec = 4730 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
ACI 318 [60] Ec = 57000 f cm Ec;(PSi) and fcm;(PSi)

Table 12
Expressions for SMOE by past researchers.

Literature Expression Units

Mohammed et al. [61] Ec = 2.8 f cm + 22 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)

Malaikah [62] Ec = 2090 f cm + 22680 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Nematzadeh & Naghipour [63] Ec = 3 f cm +13 Ec;(GPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Nematzadeh & Naghipour [63] Ec = 3.5 f cm + 15.9 Ec;(GPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Pintea and Onet [64] Ec = 9500(fcm + 8)1/3 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Ispir et al. [65] Ec = 4630 f cm + 2370 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Krizova and Hela [66] Ec = 4730 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Jones & McCarthy [67] Ec = 0.42 × fcm1.18 Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Swaddiwudhipong et al. [68] Ec = 6.8023 × fcm0.3442 Ec;(GPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Lizarazo et al. [69] Ec = 3496 f cm Ec;(MPa) and fcm;(MPa)
Lizarazo et al. [69] Ec = 0.028 × ρ1.5 × f cm Ec;(MPa), fcm;(MPa) and ρ;(kg/m3)

respectively as shown in Eqs. (10)–(12). The proposed models are shown in Eqs. (10) and (11) and these are developed as a function
of cylindrical compressive strength, whereas the proposed model shown in Eq. (12) is developed as a function of cylindrical com-
pressive strength and including its unit weight. From the various codes [13,14,47–60] and past research [61–69], models were
already developed for the prediction of SMOE of different concretes and are presented in Tables 11 and 12.

Ec = 4907.5 f cm (MPa) (10)

Ec = 4000 f cm + 5168.22 (MPa) (11)

Ec = 0.186(p)0.42 f cm (GPa) (12)

In order to evaluate the test results, the experimental values and the predicted values of different models are plotted in
Figs. 19–21. The test results and the predicted values of the code models which are considering compressive strength and unit weight
are plotted in Fig. 19. The test results and the predicted values of the code models which are considering only compressive strength
are plotted in Fig. 20. The test results and the predicted values of the past research models are plotted in Fig. 21. From Fig. 19, it is
seen that AS 3600 [47] equation predicted the higher values of SMOE as compared to that of experimental values. Because, AS 3600
[47] recommends the prediction of SMOE value within an error of ± 20%. Whereas, the remaining codes AIJ [48], AASHTO LRFD
(ACI 318) [13], AASHTO LRFD (2005) [49] and ACI 363R [14] predicted almost the same values of SMOE as compared to that of the
experimental values for all the mixes at 7, 28 and 90 days respectively. Because codes [12,13,49 & 50] included both cylindrical
compressive strength and unit weight of concrete as a function of SMOE. Hence, it is revealed that the codes which include both
cylindrical compressive strength and unit weight of concrete can predict the reasonable SMOE values.
As it can be seen from Fig. 20, the models EN [50], TS 500 [51], NZS 3101 [52] and CEB 90 [53] overestimated the SMOE values

185
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 19. Comparison of experimental results with codes including unit weight.

Fig. 20. Comparison of experimental results with codes.

when compared to that of the experimental values. The models ACI 318 [55,56], CSA [56] and EN [57] underestimated SMOE values
when compared to that of the experimental values. From Fig. 20, it can be pointed out that the predicted models which consider only
compressive strength don’t predict the reasonable values. Similar observation has also been noticed from Fig. 21. Because, the models
developed by the past research [61–69] don’t include the unit weight of concrete. Hence, it can be concluded that the models that are
developed on the basis of compressive strength and unit weight can understand the behavior of concrete and predict the reasonable
SMOE values. So, out of three proposed models (Eqs. (10)–(12)) of present investigation, the model (Eq. (12)) predicts the reasonable
SMOE values.
To clearly assess the models, a ratio has been calculated using Ec obtained from the available models and Ec obtained from the
present investigation models. These ratio values are presented in Table 13 and Table 14. The calculated average ratios are ranging
from 0.74 to 1.15 for codes, from 0.54 to 1.29 for past research. So, by obtaining the average ratios, the trend of SMOE of GPC can be
easily assessed for the given concrete strength. The average ratios of proposed Eqs. (10)–(12) are 1.00, 1.01 and 0.99 as shown in
Table 14. It is clear that the proposed models are best suitable for predicting the SMOE values of GPC using GF as sand replacement.

3.3.4. Ultimate modulus of elasticity

In this study, a new parameter ultimate tangent modulus of elasticity (UMOE, Eu) at ultimate strain has been introduced to study

186
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 21. Comparison of experimental results with past researchers.

the effect of GF on damage behavior of GPC, to avoid the possible prior damages in that concrete.
Table 8 and shows the UMOE of GPC mixes at different ambient curing periods 7, 28 and 90 days respectively. It is noticed that, a
significant improvement in UMOE with the increase in percentage of GF from 0% to 40% in all curing periods. These results are in
line with the compressive strength results of GPC mixes. The results indicate that the UMOE values were increased with the increasing
unloading strain up to 60:40 proportion and decreased thereafter, because the micro-cracks propagate into macro-cracks which in
turn leads to damage of the concrete.
By taking compressive strength as a function, a model has been proposed for predicting UMOE as follows; (Eq. (13) and Fig. 22).

E u = 1.393 f cm (GPa) (13)

Where, Eu and fcm are the ultimate tangent modulus of elasticity (GPa) and cylindrical compressive strength (MPa).

3.4. Poisson’s ratio

Table 8 lists the experimental results of the Poisson’s ratio (μ) of GPC and depicted in Fig. 23. It can be observed from Fig. 23, the
values of μ for all of the GPC mixes lie between 0.206 and 0.253, which are slightly higher than that of conventional concrete
(0.11–0.21). It is known that the value μ of high strength concrete generally ranges from 0.2 to 0.25 [72].
From the test results, it can be said that the increase of GF replacement up to 40% increased the compressive strength and hence
increased μ values. The reason behind the increase of μ values is the increase of GF replacement (up to 40%) densifies the concrete
and thereby increasing the compressive strength and Poisson’s ratio of GPC.

4. Conclusions

In the present investigation, the complete stress-strain characteristics of GPC under compression were experimentally and ana-
lytically studied, and the following conclusions have been drawn:

1. The compressive strength of GPC increased up to 40% of GF replacement in all curing periods. It is mainly due to further
contribution of silica and (SiO2) and alumina (Al2O3) content in GF. Similar type of increasing trend has been observed in the unit
weight, stress-strain behavior, MOE and Poisson’s ratio results of GPC up to 40% GF. Having seen all the results, it is revealed that
40% GF replacement can be set as the optimum replacement in the manufacturing of GPC mixes.
2. The area under the stress-strain curve of 60:40 mix after 90 days of curing is significantly larger than that of remaining mixes,
which indicates that the toughness and energy absorption capacity of GPC increases with increase in percentage of GF up to 40%.
3. It is observed that the increasing percentage of GF up to 40% increased the slope of the stress-strain curves which gives the
increased values of initial modulus of elasticity and secant modulus which in turn increases the ductility of concrete.
4. GF acts an inert filling material to fill the void spaces in GPC. So it is concluded that, for a given GPC strength, higher the GF
content, higher the unit weight of GPC and hence higher is the secant modulus of concrete up to mix 60:40.
5. The results indicate that the UMOE values were increased with the increasing unloading strain up to 60:40 proportion and
decreased thereafter, because the micro-cracks propagate into macro-cracks which in turn leads to damage of the concrete.
6. Several models are proposed to predict the compressive strength, peak strain, ultimate strain, IMOE, TMOE, SMOE and UMOE for
GPC under compression by using regression analysis.
7. Test results were compared to the existing models of GPC given by the codes and past research. It is concluded that the proposed
models can predict the reasonable values of GPC using GF as sand replacement.

187
 S. Chitrala et al.

Table 13
Comparison of SMOE values estimated from various codes to the test results.

Ec (GPa) ECAS3600 ECAIJ ECACI318 ECAASHTO ECACI363R ECACI363R ECACI318 − 11 ECEN − 92 ECACI318 − 08 ECCSA ECTS500 ECACI318 − 95 ECACI318 − 00 ECCEB90 ECNS3473 ECNS3101 ECEN − 95
Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec

23.11 1.13 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.97 0.99 0.99 1.23 0.98 0.94 1.28 0.99 0.99 1.36 1.06 1.29 0.88
24.32 1.07 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.92 0.95 0.94 1.17 0.93 0.89 1.22 0.94 0.94 1.30 1.00 1.22 0.84
25.09 1.04 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.92 0.91 1.13 0.90 0.87 1.18 0.91 0.91 1.26 0.97 1.19 0.81
20.42 1.28 1.11 1.12 1.12 1.09 1.13 1.12 1.39 1.11 1.06 1.45 1.12 1.12 1.54 1.20 1.46 1.00
29.92 0.87 0.76 0.77 0.76 0.75 0.77 0.76 0.95 0.76 0.73 0.99 0.76 0.76 1.05 0.82 0.99 0.68

188
30.45 0.86 0.75 0.75 0.75 0.73 0.76 0.75 0.93 0.74 0.71 0.97 0.75 0.75 1.03 0.80 0.98 0.67
31.89 0.82 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.70 0.72 0.72 0.89 0.71 0.68 0.93 0.72 0.72 0.99 0.77 0.93 0.64
25.23 1.03 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.88 0.91 0.90 1.12 0.90 0.86 1.18 0.90 0.91 1.25 0.97 1.18 0.81
32.25 0.81 0.70 0.71 0.71 0.69 0.71 0.71 0.88 0.70 0.67 0.92 0.71 0.71 0.98 0.76 0.92 0.63
33.64 0.78 0.68 0.68 0.68 0.66 0.68 0.68 0.84 0.67 0.65 0.88 0.68 0.68 0.94 0.73 0.88 0.61
34.28 0.76 0.66 0.67 0.67 0.65 0.67 0.67 0.83 0.66 0.63 0.87 0.67 0.67 0.92 0.71 0.87 0.60
27.19 0.96 0.84 0.84 0.84 0.82 0.85 0.84 1.04 0.83 0.80 1.09 0.84 0.84 1.16 0.90 1.09 0.75
Avg 0.95 0.83 0.84 0.83 0.81 0.84 0.83 1.03 0.83 0.79 1.08 0.83 0.83 1.15 0.89 1.08 0.74
Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192
 S. Chitrala et al.

Table 14
Comparison of SMOE values estimated from various past researchers to the test results.

Ec (GPa) EcEq(10) EcEq(11) EcEq(13) EcSwedd … EcNemat … 1 EcNemat … 2 EcPintea … EcIspir … EcMalai … EcLizar … 1 EcLizar … 2 EcKrizo … EcMoham … EcJones …
Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec Ec

23.11 1.02 1.06 1.00 0.87 1.19 1.42 1.30 1.07 1.42 0.73 0.65 0.99 1.54 0.75
24.32 1.02 1.04 1.00 0.83 1.13 1.35 1.23 1.02 1.35 0.69 0.61 0.94 1.46 0.71
25.09 1.02 1.04 1.00 0.80 1.09 1.31 1.19 0.98 1.31 0.67 0.60 0.91 1.42 0.69
20.42 1.02 1.08 0.98 0.98 1.35 1.61 1.47 1.21 1.60 0.83 0.73 1.12 1.74 0.84
29.92 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.67 0.92 1.10 1.00 0.83 1.09 0.56 0.50 0.76 1.19 0.58

189
30.45 1.00 0.98 0.99 0.66 0.90 1.08 0.98 0.81 1.08 0.55 0.49 0.75 1.17 0.57
31.89 0.98 0.96 0.98 0.63 0.86 1.03 0.94 0.77 1.03 0.53 0.47 0.72 1.11 0.54
25.23 1.01 1.03 0.98 0.80 1.09 1.30 1.19 0.98 1.30 0.67 0.59 0.90 1.41 0.68
32.25 1.00 0.97 0.99 0.62 0.85 1.02 0.93 0.77 1.02 0.52 0.46 0.71 1.10 0.53
33.64 0.99 0.96 0.99 0.60 0.82 0.97 0.89 0.73 0.97 0.50 0.44 0.68 1.06 0.51
34.28 0.99 0.96 1.00 0.59 0.80 0.96 0.87 0.72 0.96 0.49 0.44 0.67 1.04 0.50
27.19 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.74 1.01 1.21 1.10 0.91 1.20 0.62 0.55 0.84 1.31 0.63
Avg 1.00 1.01 0.99 0.73 1.00 1.19 1.09 0.90 1.19 0.61 0.54 0.83 1.29 0.63
Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

Fig. 22. Proposed model for UMOE of GPC.

Fig. 23. Poisson's ratio versus compressive strength.

Conflict of interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests regarding the publication of this paper.

References

[1] V.M. Malhotra, Making concrete greener with fly ash, Concr. Int. 21 (1999) 61–66.
[2] D. Hardjito, S. Wallah, Study on engineering properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, J. Aust. Ceram. Soc. 38 (2002) 44–47.
[3] Bisarya Abhishek, R.K. Chouhan, Mudgal Manish, S.S. Amritphale, Fly ash based geopolymer concrete a new technology towards the greener environment: a
review, Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Eng. Technol. (An ISO Certif. Organ. 4 (2015) 12178–12186, http://dx.doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0412089.
[4] B.V. Rangan, Fly Ash-based Geopolymer Concrete, Perth, Australia, 2008.
[5] V. Supraja, M. Kanta Rao, Experimental study on geopolymer concrete incorporating GGBS, Int. J. Electron. Commun. Soft Comput. Sci. Eng. 2 (2011) 11–15
http://www.ijecscse.org/papers/Aug2012/Experimental study on Geo-Polymer concrete incorporating GGBS.pdf (Accessed May 29 2017).
[6] S. Mustofa Pintowantoro, The effect of Si/Al ratio to compressive strength and water absorption of ferronickel slag-based geopolymer, 2nd Int. Semin. Sci.
Technol. 2 (2017) 2334, http://dx.doi.org/10.12962/j23546026.
[7] C. Sreenivasulu, J. Guru Jawahar, M. Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, D. Pavan Kumar, Effect of fine aggregate blending on short-term mechanical properties of geopo-
lymer concrete, Asian J. Civ. Eng. 17 (2016) 537–550.
[8] C. Sreenivasulu, A. Ramakrishnaiah, J. Gurujawahar, Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete using granite slurry as sand replacement, Int. J. Adv. Eng.
Technol. 8 (2015) 83–91.
[9] L.I. Aminul, B. Rajan, Effect of plasticizer and superplasticizer on workability of fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Proc. Int. Conf. Adv. Archit. Civ. Eng. (2012)
974–977.
[10] D.L.Y. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2012) 334–339.
[11] M.D. Sumajouw, B. Rangan, Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: reinforced beams and columns, in: curtin Univ, Curtin Univ. Technol. (2006).
[12] ACI 237R, Self-Consolidating Concrete, American Concrete Institute, 2007.
[13] AASHTO LRFD Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C, 2006.

190
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

[14] ACI Committee 363, State of the art report on high strength concrete, ACI J. 81 (1984) 364–411.
[15] ASTM C39/C39, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[16] T. Noguchi, F. Tomosawa, K. Nemati, B. Chiaia, A. Fantilli, A practical equation for elastic modulus of concrete, ACI Struct. J. 106 (2009) 690–696 http://faculty.
washington.edu/nemati/aci_str1.pdf (Accessed May 29 2017).
[17] C. Medina, W. Zhu, T. Howind, M.I.S. De Rojas, M. Frías, Influence of interfacial transition zone on engineering properties of the concrete manufactured with
recycled ceramic aggregate, J. Civ. Eng. Manag. 21 (2015) 83–93, http://dx.doi.org/10.3846/13923730.2013.802727.
[18] D. Hardjito, S. Wallah, D.M. Sumajouw, B. Rangan, Introducing fly ashbased geopolymer concrete: manufacture and engineering properties, 30th Conf Our
World Concr. Struct. (2005).
[19] N. Ganesan, R. Abraham, S. Deepa Raj, D. Sasi, Stress-strain behaviour of confined Geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 73 (2014) 326–331, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.09.092.
[20] A. Noushini, F. Aslani, A. Castel, R.I. Gilbert, B. Uy, S. Foster, Compressive stress-strain model for low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer and heat-cured Portland
cement concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 73 (2016) 136–146, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2016.07.004.
[21] P.C. Michael, D. Mitchell, J.G. Macgregor, Structural design considerations for high strength concrete, Concr. Int. 15 (1993) 27–34.
[22] W. Wang, L. Zhao, Y. Liu, Z. Li, Mechanical properties and stress-strain relationship in axial compression for concrete with added glazed hollow beads and
construction waste, Constr. Build. Mater. 71 (2014) 425–434, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.05.005.
[23] B. Da, H. Yu, H. Ma, Y. Tan, R. Mi, X. Dou, Experimental investigation of whole stress-strain curves of coral concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 122 (2016) 81–89,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.064.
[24] M. Nematzadeh, A. Salari, J. Ghadami, M. Naghipour, Stress-strain behavior of freshly compressed concrete under axial compression with a practical equation,
Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 402–423, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.045.
[25] ASTM E111-04, Standard Test Method for Young’s Modulus, Tangent Modulus, and Chord Modulus, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
[26] IS: 516-91, Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1991.
[27] J. Guru Jawahar, C. Sashidhar, I.V. Ramana Reddy, J. Annie Peter, Effect of coarse aggregate blending on short-term mechanical properties of self compacting
concrete, Mater. Des. 43 (2013) 185–194, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.063.
[28] IS 2386-III, Indian Standard Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete: Part-III Specific Gravity, Density, Voids, Absorption and Bulking, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India, 1963.
[29] IS 2386-I-63, Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete: Part-I: Particle Size and Shape, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 1963.
[30] T. Felixkala, P. Partheeban, Granite powder concrete, Indian J. Sci. Technol. 3 (2010) 311–317.
[31] C. Kanmalai Williams, P. Partheeban, T. Felix Kala, Mechanical properties of high performance concrete incorporating granite powder as fine aggregate, India
Int. J. Des. Manuf. Technol. 2 (2008) 67–73.
[32] Shohana Iffat, Relation between density and compressive strength of hardened concrete, Concr. Res. Lett. 6 (2015) 182–189.
[33] J.C. Lim, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Influence of concrete age on stress-strain behavior of FRP-confined normal- and high-strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 82
(2015) 61–70, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.02.020.
[34] D. Gao, L. Zhang, M. Nokken, Compressive behavior of steel fiber reinforced recycled coarse aggregate concrete designed with equivalent cubic compressive
strength, Constr. Build. Mater. 141 (2017) 235–244, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.02.136.
[35] M.M. Setunge, S. Attard, Stress strain relationship of confined and unconfined concrete, ACI Mater. J. 93 (1996) 432–442, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/9847.
[36] A.C. Liebenberg, A stress strain function for concrete subjected to short-term loading, Mag. Concr. Res. 14 (1962) 85–90.
[37] L.P. Saenz, Discussion of equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete by P. Desayi and S. Krishman, Am. Concr. Inst. J. 61 (1964) 1229–1235.
[38] G.S. Tadros, Plastic Rotation of Reinforced Concrete Members Subjected to Bending, Axial Load and Shear Ph.D Thesis, University of Calgary, 1970.
[39] S. Popovics, A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 3 (1973) 583–599.
[40] A. Tomaszewicz, A. Betongens, SINTEF Rep. No. STF 65A84605, Trondheim, (1984).
[41] D. Carreira, K.M. Chu, Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in compression, ACI J. 82 (1985) 797–804.
[42] S.H.A. Shah, P. Surendra, Behavior of hoop confined concrete under high strain rates, ACI J. Proc. 82 (1985) 634–647, http://dx.doi.org/10.14359/10373.
[43] B. De Nicolo, L. Pani, E. Pozzo, Strain of concrete at peak compressive stress for a wide range of compressive strengths, Mater. Struct. 27 (1994) 206–210, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02473034.
[44] T.H. Wee, M.S. Chin, M.A. Mansur, Stress strain relationship of high strength concrete in compression, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 8 (1996) 70–76, http://dx.doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(1996)8:2(70).
[45] I. Lee, Complete Stress-strain Characteristics of High Performance Concrete Ph.D Thesis, New Jersey Institute of Technology, 2002.
[46] Y. Liu, W. Wang, Y.F. Chen, H. Ji, Residual stress-strain relationship for thermal insulation concrete with recycled aggregate after high temperature exposure,
Constr. Build. Mater. 129 (2016) 37–47, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.11.006.
[47] Australian standard, Concrete Structures, Draft of The AS3600-200x, Standards Australia, 2005.
[48] Architectural Institute of Japan, Standard for structural calculation of reinforced concrete structures, Chapter 2, AIJ, 1985.
[49] AASHTO LRFD, Bridge Design Specifications, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington D.C, 2005.
[50] ENV 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2. Design of Concrete Structures—Part 1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings, (2004).
[51] TS 500, Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Turkish Standardization Institute, Ankara, 2000.
[52] NZS-3101-95, The Design of Concrete Structures (part − 1) and Commentary on the Design of Concrete Structures (part2), Wellington, New Zealand, 1995.
[53] CEB-FIP Model Code 90, CEB Bulletin No. 213/214, 1993.
[54] ACI 318-00, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 2000.
[55] ACI 318-08, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, 2008.
[56] CSA-A23. 3, Design of Concrete Structures, CSA, Canada, 2004.
[57] A.W. Beeby, R.S. Narayanan, Designers, Handbook to Euro − Code 2 Part1.1: Design of Concrete Structures, Thomas Telford Services Ltd, London, 1995.
[58] Norwegian Council for Building Standardization, Concrete structures design rules NS 3473 E, Stockholm, 1992.
[59] ACI 318-95, Building Code Requirements for Reinforced Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Michigan, 1995.
[60] ACI 318-11, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete and Commentary, American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, 2011.
[61] M.S. Mohammed, A.-A. Ali H, The ratio between static and dynamic modulus of elasticity in normal and high strength concrete, J. Eng. Dev. 10 (2006) 163–174.
[62] A.S. Malaikah, A proposed relationship for the modulus of elasticity of high strength concrete using local materials in riyadh, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, n.d.
[63] M. Nematzadeh, M. Naghipour, Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of freshly compressed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 34 (2012) 476–485.
[64] A. Pintea, T. Onet, Elastic deformation of concrete. Determination of secant modulus of elasticity in compression, Acta Technica Napocensis, Civ. Eng. Archit. 55
(2012) 189–204.
[65] M. Ispir, K.D. Dalgic, C. Sengul, F. Kuran, A. Ilki, M.A. Tasdemir, Modulus of elasticity of low strength concrete, 9th Int. Congr. Adv. Civ. Eng., Karadeniz
Technical University, Trabzon, Turkey, 2010, pp. 27–30.
[66] K. Krizova, R. Hela, Evaluation of static modulus of elasticity depending on concrete compressive strength, World Acad, Sci. Eng. Technol. Int. J. Civil, Environ.
Struct. Constr. Archit. Eng. 9 (2015).
[67] M.R. Jones, A. McCarthy, Behaviour and assessment of foamed concrete for construction applications, Proc. Int. Conf. Use Foam. Concr. Constr. London, 2005,
pp. 61–68.

191
S. Chitrala et al. Case Studies in Construction Materials 8 (2018) 172–192

[68] H.R. Swaddiwudhipong, S. Lu, T.H. Wee, Direct tension test and tensile strain capacity of concrete at early age, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 2077–2084.
[69] J. Lizarazo, L.G. Marriaga, López Yépez, Effect of sedimentary and metamorphic aggregate on static modulus of elasticity of high-strength concrete, DYNA 78
(2011) 235–242 http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0012-73532011000600028&nrm=iso.
[70] M. Nematzadeh, A. Salari, J. Ghadami, M. Naghipour, Stress-strain behavior of freshly compressed concrete under axial compression with a practical equation,
Constr. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 402–423, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.045.
[71] I.S. 456-2000, Plain and Reinforced Concrete − Code of Practice [CED 2: Cement and Concrete], Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India, 2000.
[72] M. Sofi, J.S.J. van Deventer, P.A. Mendis, G.C. Lukey, Bond performance of reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPC), J. Mater. Sci. 42 (2007)
3107–3116, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10853-006-0534-5.

192