STRENGTH AND DEFORMA TION BEHAVIOR OF … AND DEFORMA OF REINFORCED GEOPOL FLEXURAL ELEMENTS ... provided with 10 mm clear cover and beams reinforcements have 20mm clear cover

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)Volume 8, Issue 5, May 2017, pp.

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976

© IAEME Publication

STRENGTH AND DEFORMA

OF REINFORCED GEOPOL

FLEXURAL ELEMENTS

Amarnath .K

The Oxford College of Engineering, Bangalore

ABSTRACT

Even though Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) was invented 50 years back , still

Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (OPCC) holds the first place

activities. This is due to heat/steam curing required to develop the required strength,

in addition to other influencing factors like cost , time , space required. Addition of

slag fulfills the need of cast in situ applications by prov

temperature. The present research work outlines the efficacy of reinforced

geopolymer flexural components cured at ambient temperature.

and slabs reinforced with HYSD steel bars , steel fibers

temperature and tested for monotonically applied transverse loads.

computed load vs. displacement curves are studied to understand the strength

deformation characteristics inherent in slag based geopolymer concrete.

indicate reinforced geopolymer concrete follows

OPC based RCC components.

Key words: Geopolymer concrete, flexural behavior, Fly ash, GGBS,

solution.

Cite this Article: Mahantesh N B, Amarnath .K and Raghuprasad

Deformation Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Flexural Elements

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology

1121.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

1. SLAG BASED GEOPOLYMER CON

SYSTEM

With the ever increase in cement demand, the control on carbon emission is becoming a

difficult task day by day. This continuing trend would result in an increase of over 50% in

emission levels compared to the

developing alternative binding systems. The study on alternative binder system in concrete

IJCIET/index.asp 1108 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2017, pp. 1108–1121, Article ID: IJCIET_08_05_118


6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

Scopus Indexed

STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION BEHAVIOR

OF REINFORCED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

FLEXURAL ELEMENTS

Mahantesh N B

Alliance University, Bangalore

Amarnath .K and Raghuprasad .B K

The Oxford College of Engineering, Bangalore


Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete (OPCC) holds the first place in all construction

This is due to heat/steam curing required to develop the required strength,


slag fulfills the need of cast in situ applications by providing early strength at ambient


geopolymer flexural components cured at ambient temperature. The specimen beams

and slabs reinforced with HYSD steel bars , steel fibers are cured at

temperature and tested for monotonically applied transverse loads. The measured and


deformation characteristics inherent in slag based geopolymer concrete.

reinforced geopolymer concrete follows distinct stages of behavior similar to

OPC based RCC components.

Geopolymer concrete, flexural behavior, Fly ash, GGBS, alkaline

Mahantesh N B, Amarnath .K and Raghuprasad .B K Strength and

Deformation Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Flexural Elements

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 8(5), 2017, pp.


BASED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE AS NEW BINDER



emission levels compared to the current levels by 2020. This has necessitated


[email protected]

asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=5

TION BEHAVIOR

YMER CONCRETE


n all construction

This is due to heat/steam curing required to develop the required strength,


iding early strength at ambient


The specimen beams

are cured at room

The measured and


deformation characteristics inherent in slag based geopolymer concrete. The results

distinct stages of behavior similar to

alkaline

.B K Strength and

Deformation Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Flexural Elements.

, 8(5), 2017, pp. 1108–


CRETE AS NEW BINDER



current levels by 2020. This has necessitated the research in


Strength and Deformation Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Flexural Elements

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 1109 [email protected]

construction needs careful study and it needs to be highly eco-friendly. Presently, the major

eco-friendly binder systems based on industrial waste products fall under low calcium based

fly ash groups. Although these industrial waste products have shown promise, comprehensive

studies considering different parameters are yet to be synthesized and formulated to satisfy

different applications.

From the early researches during the past 15 years it was observed that low calcium fly

ash based geopolymer concrete (GPC) using activators like sodium silicate and sodium

hydroxide are becoming favorite combination of binder systems and develop strength in

proportion to the amount of heat or steam provided during its early stage of polymerization.

Although fly ash based GPC has appreciable structural skills, realization of these systems in

practice needs a high degree of quality control during manufacturing and heat/steam curing

which seems a difficult task for many sectors of concrete industry. And this issue has become

the major limiting factor in further developing the in-situ applications of reinforced

geopolymer concrete structural elements and seems to control the application of geopolymer

concrete to precast sectors only.

These issues are solved by replacing portion of fly ash by ground granulated blast slag

which provides early age strength in proportion to the amount of slag replaced. The

composite needs no curing and develops strength at ambient curing. Research works on

applications of these composite to flexural elements are extremely limited[5].The present

work is aimed at formulation of strength deformation behavior of reinforced geopolymer

concrete applications like beams and slab specimens prepared using slag based low calcium

fly ash concrete and cured at ambient temperature.

2. MATERIAS AND MIX PROPORTIONS USED.

The specifications of the geopolymer materials used for testing beam and slab specimens are

described in the following tables. The mix proportions used are based on several trials and

previous works of OPC.

2.1. Fly Ash

Low Calcium Fly Ash, calcium content less than 10%, having specific gravity 2.08 is

procured from RTPS-Raichur thermal power station Karnataka-India

Table 1 Chemical composition of Fly ash

Chemical SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3 MgO CaO SO3 Na2O LOI

% mass 60.98 28.92 4.98 94.88 0.80 2.74 0.20 0.93 0.48

IS3812:2003 35 --- --- 70 5 5 3 1.5 5

2.2. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)

Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) having specific gravity 2.59 is procured from

Bangalore based local source.

Table 2 Chemical composition of GGBS

Chemical Ins. residue S SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 Cao Mgo MnO2 Cl

% mass 0.84 0.72 33.88 18.02 1.52 34.98 9.62 0.32 0.030

Mahantesh N B, Amarnath .K and Raghuprasad .B K


2.3. Fine & Coarse Aggregates

The natural River sand having fineness modulus of 2.59 confirming to zone II of IS 383-1970

with specific gravity of 2.10 used in the present investigation as fine aggregates. Crushed

granite aggregate available from local sources have been used with a maximum size of 20mm

passing through 4.75 mm with different size proportions listed in Table .

2.4. Alkaline Solution

The ratio of sodium silicate to sodium hydroxide is kept 2.5 for all experiments. The sodium

silicate solution used is of A53 grade with Si02-to-Na20 ratio by mass of 2, i.e., Si02 =

29.4%, NazO = 14.7%& water = 55.9%. Sodium hydroxide flakes with 97% purity used to

prepare solution of 8 Molarity.

2.5. Fibers

Two types of fibers are used .The first one being crimped steel fibers (SF) having hook ended

type with aspect ratios 71 , the length /diameter being 50mm/0.7mm and mixed at 1.5% of

the binder weight. Polyester fibers (PF)of Triangular cross section with cut length of 3mm

are mixed at 0.5% of binder weight.

3. SPECIMEN DETAILS AND LOAD TESTING:

The size ,reinforcement details ,compressive strength of GPC of beam and slab concrete and

other relevant details of specimens are listed in Table 4 & 5 . Slab reinforcements were

provided with 10 mm clear cover and beams reinforcements have 20mm clear cover.

Concreting for all specimens were manually mixed as per the mix proportions mentioned in

Table 3. Compaction was done using mechanically operated needle vibrators. Then

specimens were cured at room temperature 16 degrees at night and 28 degrees Celsius during

peak time . Maximum temperature outside the room was 36 degrees during peak day time and

24 degrees celsius at night time.

All slab specimen were tested under monotonically increasing UDL system generated

through 50Mton self straining loading frame with electrically operated hydraulic jack while

all beams were subjected to two point load system.

Table 3 Mix Design

SN Materials Weight kg Specifications

1 Fly ash 286 70% of total fly ash

2 GGBS (30%) 122 30% of total fly ash

3 20mm to 4.75mm size CA 1294 70% of total TA

4 River sand 554 30% of total TA

5 Sodium Hydroxide of 8M 41 97% purity (26.20%)

6 Sodium Silicate(Na2Sio3) 103 Na2O14.7%,SiO229.4%

7 Extra water 4.0 Potable water

Total Weight 2404

NOTATIONS; FA : Fine Aggregates , CA: Coarse Aggregates

TA: Total Aggregates



Figure 1a Two Point Load System on Beams and

4. FLEXURALSTRESS STRAI

STEEL

Flexural members with free rotations at ends develop bending compressive stresses above the

neutral layer depending upon material flexural property. Below the

bottom edge first flexural crack appear after concrete reaches its flexural tensile strength.

Geopolymer concrete develops relation between its flexural tensile strength and direct

compressive strength similar to OPC i.e.,

compressive strength and modulus of elasticity i.e., for fly ash:slab at 70:30

the expressions Ec= 5000√fck after 28 days of ambient curing

Figure 1b UDL System on Slabs and Typical Reinfo

Testing of Slabs for uniformly distributed loads

using loading frame



Two Point Load System on Beams and Typical Reinforcement Details

FLEXURALSTRESS STRAIN BEHAVIOR OF CONCRE


neutral layer depending upon material flexural property. Below the neutral layer at extreme



compressive strength similar to OPC i.e.,fcr=(0.7±0.1)√fck. The relations between

modulus of elasticity i.e., for fly ash:slab at 70:30

√fck after 28 days of ambient curing[2].[18],[19]

UDL System on Slabs and Typical Reinforcement Details

Testing of Slabs for uniformly distributed loads

using loading frame

Slab Reinforcement 8mm diameter

Fe415 Grade at 100 mm c/c both ways


[email protected]

Typical Reinforcement Details

N BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE AND


neutral layer at extreme



The relations between axial

modulus of elasticity i.e., for fly ash:slab at 70:30 closely follow

.[18],[19]

rcement Details

Slab Reinforcement 8mm diameter

at 100 mm c/c both ways



All slab and beam details used for testing are summarized in Table 4 & 5 and

using conventional elastic theory for the applied loads

top compressive concrete follow distinct stages similar to OPC based RCC flexural

components. The basic flexural compressive stress strain relati

modified curve fitting factor suggested by Ganesan[5] used to predict the flexural behavior

of compression concrete. The failure loads corresponding to first appearance of tension crack

in concrete, yielding of tension steel

and 0.85fck are determined.

Typical Specimen analysis and structural design output after numerical computations are

described in following graphs using load deflection curves, stress and strains deve

edge of compressive concrete, stress and strains developed in steel .

Figure 2a Stress Vs Strain in C

Figure 2b



All slab and beam details used for testing are summarized in Table 4 & 5 and

theory for the applied loads. The flexural stress strain relations of


The basic flexural compressive stress strain relations proposed by popovics with



in concrete, yielding of tension steel and peak compressive stress corresponding to 0.67fck

analysis and structural design output after numerical computations are

described in following graphs using load deflection curves, stress and strains deve

edge of compressive concrete, stress and strains developed in steel .

Stress Vs Strain in Compressive Concrete-Beam No.1

Figure 2b Stress Vs Strain in Tension steel –Beam No. 1

[email protected]

All slab and beam details used for testing are summarized in Table 4 & 5 and are analyzed

. The flexural stress strain relations of


ons proposed by popovics with



and peak compressive stress corresponding to 0.67fck

analysis and structural design output after numerical computations are

described in following graphs using load deflection curves, stress and strains developed at top

Beam No.1



5. STRENGTH AND DEFORMATION BEHAVIOR

The measured Load vs Deflection relations at center bottom of slabs and beams are

represented in figure (3) to (6).The flexural stiffness of RGPC decreases with the gradual

increase in applied loads similar to OPC based RCC flexural elements. Linear elastic

behavior with noticeably low profile deflections are observed till the appearance of first crack

in tension concrete. Until the first crack whole section including reinforcements seems to be

fully effective in producing linear elastic behavior.

The stage between first crack and tension steel yielding is start of gradual loss of tension

concrete area affecting stiffness of the section and thereby causing increase in deflections.

the membrane action developed is taken into account by considering effective moment of

inertia recommended by Indian RC designer. Numerical computations indicate significant

shift in neutral axis once the tension steel yields. The loss of flexural stiffness similar to OPC

– RCC based sections. The close agreement between measured and calculated deflections

indicate a healthy bond strength between reinforcement and tension concrete justifying the

negligence of tensile strength in concrete.

The specimen is said to have failed structurally when compression concrete reaches

0.67fck with parabolic compressive stress distribution (IS456-2000) while it has already

crossed yield strength of tension steel as all slabs were under reinforced which is similar to

using rectangular stress block with peak stress up to 0.85fck. Post failure stage deflections

are slightly deviating from calculated ones based on effective moment of inertia.

For all the slabs UDL system is used for testing and therefore numerical computations do

not include shear deflections which are estimated to be less than 0.5% of flexural deflections .

But for all beams , as the loading is two point load system , shear deflections are included

while computing total deflections.

6. DUCTILITY OF REINFORCED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

MEMBERS

The Ductility Index(calculated ) = ∆u / ∆y where ∆u& ∆y are measured deflections

corresponding to computed yield load Fy& ultimate load Fu. Similarly Ductility Index

(measured ) = ∆um/ ∆y , ∆um is the maximum deflection the component under maximum

applied load Fum. Ductility Index(calculated) represents the minimum ductility the GPC will

develop and Ductility Index (measured) represents maximum ductility the GPC will develop.

7. CRACK WIDTHS AND PATTERNS

Developed crack widths within the range of strains in tension steel up to 0.87fy/Es (0.0023

for Fe415 steel having yield stress 533.87 N/mm2) are within the acceptable limits and are in

agreement with calculated ones based on Indian and BS RC Designers. Crack patterns follow

load type and boundary conditions used and are in consistency with similar OPC based RC

elements. Crack widths beyond strain in steel 0.87fy/Es are in excess of calculated ones.



8. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

In this research work GPC is prepared by manual mixing. Manual mixing up to 20 to 30

minutes increases workability for further concreting activities. This needs skilled supervision

to ensure that desired strength and workability are attained. River sand as fine aggregates is

normally based on sand stone origin has lower value of Modulus of Elasticity (1 to 20 GPa)

compared to granite based coarse aggregates (10 to 70 GPa) and has to have clean interaction

with coarse aggregates. This may be the reason for slightly less compressive strength and

corresponding ductilities.[20]

From the load deflection curves it is noted that all the specimens beams and slabs behaved

to produce strain hardening flexural deflections.

S.No. Details Beam 1 & 2 Beam 3 & 4 Beam 4 & 6

1 Span Side Length 1.75m 1.75m 1.75m

2 Size : L mm X B mm X D mm 1750 x 150 x 210 1750 x 150 x 210 1750 x 150 x 210

3 L/D 8.33 8.33 8.33

4 Fibers Nil 0.5% PF 1.5% SF

5 Self weight in kg 131.2 & 131.5 131.5 & 131.6 131.7 & 131.8

6 Ambient Curing days 14 14 14

7 fck 35.0 N/mm2

37.6 N/mm2

38.08 N/mm2

8 Main Reinforcement bottom & top B1: (02#-12 + 01# -10)

B2 : 03#-12

T:02#-8

B:(02#-12 + 01# -10)

T:02#-8

B:(03#-12 )

9 Reinforcement 1.10% ,1.23% 1.100% 1.230%

10 Yield Stress & Ultimate Stress 415 - 487 415 - 487 415 - 487

11 Test Results - Beams Subjected to 2PL B1 B2 B3

Support Conditions SS SS SS

First cracking load & deflection 23.82 kN - 1.1mm 23.86 kN - 1.0 mm 24 kN - 1.1 mm

Steel Yielding load &deflection 93.74 kN - 6.4 mm 88.68 kN - 4.6 mm 88.68 kN - 4.4 mm

Ultimate load &deflection 112.91kN - 9.6 mm 107.3 kN - 6.9 mm 107.3 kN - 6.8 mm

Max.applied load & delfection 138 kN - 13.6mm 135 kN - 10.20 134.0 kN - 10.9 mm

Crack width at ultimate load 1.4 mm 1.10 mm 1.2 mm

Ductility - Calculated - Measured 1.50 - 2.13 1.33 - 2.22 1.32 - 2.48

12 Test Results - Beams Subjected to 2PL B4 B5 B6

Support Conditions SS SS SS

First cracking load & deflection 23.36 kN - 1.1mm 24.36 kN - 1.0 24.36 kN - 0.90

Steel Yielding load &deflection 97.56 kN -7.8 mm 97.56 kN - 5.7 mm 97.56 kN - 5.4 mm

Ultimate load &deflection 116.6 kN - 12 mm 117.6 kN - 8 mm 117.6 kN - 8.1 mm

Max.applied load & delfection 143.9 kN - 15.8 mm 153 kN - 12.6 mm 156 kN - 12.90 mm

Crack width at ultimate load 1.2mm 0.8mm 0.8 mm

Ductility - calculated - measured 1.54 - 2.03 1.41 - 2.22 1.5 - 2.39

Table 4: Structural Details of Specimen Beams Tested

Notations Used: ASSS- All 4 Sides Simply Supported PF: Polyester Fibers SF: Crimped Steel Fibers



Figure 3a Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 1 (without fibers

Figure 3b Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 2 & 3 (with Polyester fibersat 0.5%



Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 1 (without fibers-Measured & Calculated)

Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 2 & 3 (with Polyester fibersat 0.5%

Calculated)


[email protected]

Measured & Calculated)

Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 2 & 3 (with Polyester fibersat 0.5% - Measured &



S.No. Details Slab 1 Slab 2 & 3 Slab 4 & 5

1 Span Side Length 1.0 m 1.0 m 1.0 m

2 Size : L mm X B mm X D mm 1000 x 1000 x 60 1000 x 1000 x 60 1000 x 1000 x 60

3 L/D 16.67 16.67 16.67

4 Fibers Nil 0.5% PF 1.5% SF

5 Aspect ratio 1 1 1

6 Self weight in kg 142.5 142.75 & 142.50 142.90 & 143.0

7 Ambient Curing days 14 14 14

8 fck 35.0 N/mm2

37.6 N/mm2

38.08 N/mm2

9Reinforcement Parallel to

Shorter & Longer Sides8mm-10 # both sides 8mm-10 # both sides 8mm-10 # both sides

10 Reinforcement 0.877% 0.877% 0.877%

11 Yield Stress & Ultimate Stress 415 - 487 415 - 487 415 - 487

12 Test Results - Slabs Subjected to UDL S1 S2 S3

Support Conditions ASSS ASSS ASSS

First cracking load & deflection 40.46 kN - 6.7 mm 41.69 kN - 8.4 mm 41.8kN - 8.0 mm

Steel Yielding load &deflection 67.34 kN - 12.0 mm 67.6 kN - 11.2 mm 69.6 kN - 10.7 mm

Ultimate load &deflection 81.86 kN - 14.3 mm 82.32 kN - 13.36 mm 82.3 kN - 12.7 mm

Max.applied load & delfection 103.62 kN - 19.6 mm 103.6 kN - 18.4 mm 104.5 kN - 17.6 mm

Crack width at ultimate load 1 mm 0.90 mm 1 mm

Ductility - Cal - Measured 1.19 -1.64 1.19 -1.64 1.19 -1.64

13 Test Results - Slabs Subjected to UDL S4 S5

Support Conditions ASSS ASSS

First cracking load & deflection 41.95 kN-7.1 mm 42.0 kN - 6.8 mm

Steel Yielding load &deflection 67.63 kN - 10.0 mm 67.63 kN - 9.6 mm

Ultimate load &deflection 82.40 kN - 11.2mm 82.7 kN - 10.7 mm

Max.applied load & delfection 104.00kN - 14.2 mm 104.9 kN - 13.90 mm

Crack width at ultimate load 0.7mm 0.7 mm

Ductility - Cal - Measured 1.12 - 1.42 1.12 - 1.45

Table 5: Structural Details of Specimen Slabs Tested

Notations Used: ASSS- All 4 Sides Simply Supported , UDL- Uniformly Distriubted Loads, PF: Polyester Fibers

SF: Crimped Steel Fibers



Figure 4a Load Vs Deflections Curves

(with 1.5% Steel fibers Measured & Calculated)

Figure 5a Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 1

(Measured & Calculated)

Figure 6a Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 4




Load Vs Deflections Curves of Slab 4 & 5


Figure 4bTypical slab Failur Pattern of Slab Number 5

ad Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 1


Figure 5b Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 2 & 3

(with 0.5% Polyester fibers -Measured & Calculated)

Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 4


Figure 6b Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beams 5 &



[email protected]

Typical slab Failur Pattern of Slab Number 5

ad Vs Deflections Curves of Beam 2 & 3


Load Vs Deflections Curves of Beams 5 & 6




Figure 7 Typical Beam Failure Pattern of beam Number 5

Since all slabs and beams were under reinforced , tension failure of the specimens were

noticed. The appearance of first crack was little earlier than the calculated ones indicating

slightly less flexural strength of concrete compared to IS Code i.efcr=0.7√fck. The average

peak strain in concrete at 0.67fck stress gives 0.002 to 0.0025 for parabolic stress block

suggested by Indian RC code and for 0.85fck stress it gives 0.003 to 0.0035 for rectangular

stress block.

The strength deformation behaviour reinforced geopolymer concrete members is

essentially a process of estimation of loss of flexural stiffness under increasing flexural

stresses. From these test results of slabs and beams it is observed that of all tested members

show distinct phases of change behavior pattern from linearly elastic to fully plastic state

similar to OPC based RCC flexural elements like appearance of first crack, yielding of

tension steel and peak stress failure of compressive concrete as seen from the Fig (3) to Fig

(6) .

However it is interesting to note that the measured deflections of slabs are slightly more

than calculated ones while for all beams measured deflections are slightly less than calculated

ones. This is due to inclusion of shear deflections in beams ( as the beams are subjected to

point loads) while for slabs they are being quite less are ignored in total deflections ( as slabs

are subjected to UDL)

The stress strain behavior of compression concrete in Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete

Sections under increasing flexural stresses are in line with popovics model with slight

modification to curve fitting factor.

9. CONCLUSIONS

Following conclusions are drawn based on the above research work

• Geopolymer concrete manufactured using low calcium based fly ash with slag and

natural river sand can be used for in situ applications of reinforced geopolymer

concrete flexural applications.

• The flexural behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete is similar to

Conventional RCC using OPC. Indian Code 456-2000 can be used to predict all

structural design related output. Especially this seems to be more valid for fly ash:

slag at 70:30 proportions.

• Use of fibers has the same influence on reinforced geopolymer concrete similar

to OPC based RCC flexural sections.



10. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The Authors wish to thank Management of Alliance University Bangalore And The Oxford

College of Engineering - Bangalore for their kind support while investigating this research

work.

REFERENCES

[1] Rajamane ‘et al’,” Flexural behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams”,

International Journal of Civil and structural Engineering, Vol 2, No 1, 2011

[2] Radhakrishna et al 2014,” Strength Characteristics of Open Air Cured Geopolymer

Concrete”,Transactions of The Indian Ceramic Society,Feb 2014

[3] Pradip Nath, Prabir Kumar Sarker (2014), “Effect of GGBFS on setting, workability and

early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition.”

Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Australia

[4] Vijay Rangan et al ,”Early Age Properties of low calcium fly ash geopolymer concrete

suitable for ambient curing”, The 5th International Conference of Euro Asia Civil

Engineering Forum,(EACEF-5),Sept 2015.

[5] N Ganesan ‘et al’,” Development of stress block parameters for geopolymer concrete

“,The Indian Concrete Journal, September 2015, vol 89,Issue 9,pp 47-56.

[6] Rangan B V ‘ et al”,” Modified Guide lines for Geopolymer Concrete Mix Design Using

Indian Standard “. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering( Building And Housing) Vol

13,No3(2012).

[7] Prakash Desai & K U Muthu,” A brief review on strength, deflection and cracking of

rectangular ,skew and circular reinforced concrete slabs”, Indian Institute of Science ,

Mar-Apr 1988,91-108

[8] Robert Park & Thomas Paulay,” Reinforced Concrete Structures”, John Wiley &

sons,2013

[9] INDIAN STANDARD 456-2000.

[10] DjwantoroHardjito,” Studies on Fly Ash based Geopolymer Concrete”, Thesis Report,

Curtain University of Technology , November 2005.

[11] Charles E Reynolds & James C Steedman, ”Reinforced Concrete Designer’s Hand

Book”,10th Edition

[12] Magdy I. Salma “ Analysis of slabs spanning in two directions under concentrated load”,

HBRC Journal (2012) 8,212-216

[13] Mahantesh et al,” Study on Flexural Behaviour of Fly Ash based reinforced rectangular

Geopolymer Concrete slabs “,International Journal of Engineering Research &

Technology (IJERT), ISSN: 2278-0181, Vol. 4 Issue 09, September-2015

[14] Mahantesh et al, ”Infleunce of Ambient Curing on Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete

Structural Elements “,International Journal of Engineering Trends and Technology,

Volume 28,Number 4,October 2015

[15] DaguangHan,”Experimental and Theoretical Invetsigation of the crack behavior of RC

Slabs subjected to biaxial bending”, Institute of Structural Engineering for structural

concrete, University of Armed Forces Munich, December 2011.

[16] Said M.Allan,” Evaluation of Tension Stiffening effect on the crack width calculation of

flexural RC member“,1110-

016,2013FacultyofEngineering,AlexandriaUniversity.Production and hosting by Elsevier

B.V http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.aej.2012.12.005

[17] Rajamane N P &Jayalakshmi R ,”Quantities of Sodium Hydroxide Solids And water to

prepare sodium hydroxide solution of given molarity for geopolymer concrete mixes

“,ICI technical paper



[18] Kadirnaikar ‘et al’, ”Stress strain Characteristics for GeopolymerConcrete-

AnExperimental Approach CACE Volume 2, Issue 2 Apr. 2014 PP. 44-47,American V-

King Scientific Publishing,2014

[19] Vijay Rangan,” Geopolymer Concrete for Environmental Protection”, The Indian

Concrete Journal, April 2014.

[20] Mahantesh et al , “ Flexural Behaviour of Fly Ash -Slag Based Reinforced Geopolymer

Concrete Slabs Cured at Room Temperature “, International Journal of Theoretical And

Applied Mechnics, Research INDIA Publications , May 2017 .

[21] K. Chandra Padmakar and B. Sarath Chandra Kumar, An Experimental Study on

Metakaolin and GGBS Based Geopolymer Concret. International Journal of Civil

Engineering and Technology, 8(1), 2017, pp. 544–557.

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=1.

[22] Balaraman R, Vinodh K.R, Nithiya R and Arunkumar S, Comparative Study of

Geopolymer Concrete in Flyash with Conventional Concrete. International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(4), 2016, pp.24–36.

[23] B. Sarath Chandra Kumar and K. Ramesh, Durability Studies of GGBS and Metakaolin

Based Geopolymer Concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,

8(1), 2017, pp. 17–28.



AUTHORS

Prof.Mahantesh N B

10 years of Industrial Experience as Design Manager & 20 years teaching

experience.He is a research scholar working on alternate concrete technology

Dr Amarnath .K

(TOCE), has 30 years of experience in Teaching & Industry. His research areas

include concrete technology & tall buildings.He is actively involved in guiding

Ph.D & M.Tech thesis, material testing and industry related consultations.

Dr Raghuprasad B K

College Bangalore(TOCE) .Formerly he was working as Professor at Indian

Institute of Science

thesis.His Areas of research

Dynamics, Earthquake Resistant Design, Finite Element and Boudary Element

methods.



Prof.Mahantesh N B,Associtae Professor, Alliance University Bangalore, has


experience.He is a research scholar working on alternate concrete technology

Dr Amarnath .K, Prof & HOD Civil Dept, The Oxford Engg college Bangalore




Dr Raghuprasad B K is working as Professor at The Oxford Engineering


Institute of Science – Bangalore. He has guided many Ph.D (27) & M.Tech

His Areas of research: Fracture Mechanics of Concrete,



[email protected]

University Bangalore, has


experience.He is a research scholar working on alternate concrete technology .

, Prof & HOD Civil Dept, The Oxford Engg college Bangalore




is working as Professor at The Oxford Engineering


Bangalore. He has guided many Ph.D (27) & M.Tech

Fracture Mechanics of Concrete, Structural


Documents

STRENGTH AND DEFORMA TION BEHAVIOR OF … AND DEFORMA OF REINFORCED GEOPOL FLEXURAL ELEMENTS ... provided with 10 mm clear cover and beams reinforcements have 20mm clear cover