Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume2,No 1,2011
Copyright2010AllrightsreservedIntegratedPublishingservices
Researcharticle
ISSN0976 4399
FlexuralbehaviourofreinforcedGeopolymerconcretebeams
1 2 1 1 3 DattatreyaJK ,RajamaneNP ,SabithaD ,AmbilyPS ,NatarajaMC 1Scientists,AdvancedMaterialsLaboratory, CSIRStructuralEngineeringResearchCentre(SERC),Taramani,Chennai 2FormerScientist,CSIRSERC,Chennai,600113,India 3Professor,Dept.ofCivilEngineering,SJCE,Mysore570006,India ambilypshanker@gmail.com
ABSTRACT Efforts are urgently underway all over the world to develop environmentally friendly construction materials,which makeminimumutilityof fastdwindlingnaturalresourcesand helptoreducegreenhousegasemissions.Inthisconnection,Geopolymersareshowinggreat potential and several researchers have critically examined the various aspects of their viabilityasbindersystem.Geopolymerconcretes(GPCs)arenewclassofbuildingmaterials that have emerged as an alternative to Ordinary Portland cement concrete (OPCC) and possess the potential to revolutionize the building construction industry. Considerable research has been carried out on development of Geopolymer concretes (GPCs), which involveheatcuring.AfewstudieshavebeenreportedontheuseofsuchGPCsforstructural applications. In this paper, studies carried out on the behaviour of room temperature cured reinforced GPC flexural members are reported. A total of eighteen beams were tested in flexure. Three conventional concrete mixes and six GPC mixes of target strength ranging from17to63MPaandhavingvaryingcombinationsofflyashandslaginthebinderphase were considered. The reinforcement was designed considering a balanced section for the expectedcharacteristicstrength.Allthespecimensweretestedundertwopointstaticloading. The studies demonstratedthatthe load carrying capacity of mostof the GPC beams was in mostcases marginally morethanthatofthecorrespondingconventionalOPCC beams.The deflectionsatdifferentstagesincludingserviceloadandpeakloadstagewerehigherforGPC beams. However, the ductility factor was comparable to that of OPCC beams. The studies showedthattheconventionalRCtheorycouldbeusedforreinforcedGPCC flexural beams forthecomputationofmomentcapacity,deflection,andcrackwidthwithinreasonablelimits. Keywords:Flexuralbehaviour,reinforcedconcrete,geopolymerconcrete,beams 1.Introduction The construction industry forms a vital sector of the nations economy. Utilization of the industrial byproducts in this sector could become an important route for largescale safe disposal of the industrial wastes and reduction of construction cost. In this regard, direct alkaline activation of industrial wastes, such as fly ash and GGBS, can be employed to produceGeopolymercementswhichcanbegainfullyutilizedtomanufacturenovelconcretes forconstructions(Davidovits,1991:Duxson,2007).Thiscanbeconsideredasasustainable approachto construction since the internal energy contentof these new concretes are much less than that of Ordinary Portland cement based concretes (OPCCs) and by this process Portland cement, one of the largest contributors to green house gas is completely eliminated(Duxson, 2007). OPCCs are found to be less durable in some of the very severe
ReceivedonJuly 2011publishedonSeptember2011
138
FlexuralbehaviourofreinforcedGeopolymerconcretebeams DattatreyaJK,RajamaneNP,SabithaD,AmbilyPS,NatarajaMC
environmentalconditionsthereforethereisaneedfordevelopmentofalternativeconcretes. Theextensiveresearchworkscarriedoutbyseveralinvestigatorscorroboratethepotentialof GPC as a prospective construction material (Davidovits, 1991: Duxson, 2007: Harjito and Rangan,2005,Bakharev,2005:Palomo,1999:VanJaarsveldetal.,2002a,Sofietal.,2006). The development of alternative concretes is of great relevance to India, where the construction industry is in a boom and large quantities of industrial wastes are being generated by the allied industries. Realizing this potential, the CSIRStructural Engineering Research Centre has carried considerable research on different aspects of Geopolymer concretes(GPCs)formorethan10years(Rajamaneetal.,2005,Dattatreyaetal.,2009).The use of GPC is slowly gaining acceptance, especially for chemical resistant structures and researchinthisareahasgainedsomemomentumtoextendtherangeofapplication.Infact, considerableamountofexperimentalworkhasbeenalreadycarriedoutinAustralia,USand Spain. The previous investigators were mainly engaged in identifying suitable source materials for GPC, their processing, mix design, mechanical properties, and durability aspects(Wallah and Rangan, 2006:Bakharev,2005a, c). The GPC was found to have a high degree of durability when it had inorganic binder based on alumina and silica containing materialslikeflyashandGGBS4 .But,asinconventionalreinforcedconcretes,theGPCalso needstobereinforcedwithsteelbarsforitslargescaleutilityincivilengineeringstructural applications. Hence, the investigations on behaviour of Reinforced GPC (RGPC) were undertaken. This paper considers reinforced GPC beams with different binder compositions and compressive strengths ranging from 17 to 63 MPa and produced by ambient temperature curing. The RPCC beams based on OPC were also prepared and tested for comparison of performance. A total of eighteen beams consisting of three GPC mixes and three OPCC mixesweretestedaspartofthisstudy.Thebeamsweredesignedwith1.82to3.33%tension reinforcement (82110% of corresponding balanced section reinforcement). Performance aspects such as load carrying capacity, moments, deflections, and strains at different stages werestudied.The failure modeswerealsorecordedforthebeams. Thepapercomparesthe performanceofRGPCbeamsvisavisreinforcedPortlandcementConcrete(RPCC)beams. 2. MaterialsandMethod 2.1 Materials Ordinary Portland cement conforming to IS 12269 (with specific gravity of 3.15), fine aggregates, coarse aggregates and potable water were used for the control RPCC test specimens. The RGPC was obtained by mixing different combinations of GGBS, Fly ash, fineaggregates,coarseaggregatesandalkalineactivatorsolution(AAS).Flyashconforming to grade 1 of IS 3812 and GGBS (ground granulated blast furnace slag) from Andhra Cements, Vishakhapatnam conforming to IS 12089 were used. River sand available in Chennaiwasusedasfineaggregates.TheyweretestedasperIS2386.Inthisinvestigation, locally available blue granite crushed stone aggregates of maximum size 12mm and down was used and characterization tests were carried out as per IS 2386. The properties of the materials used are shown in Tables 1 to 5. Potable water was used for the RPCC and distilledwaterwasusedfortheRGPCs.Highstrengthdeformedsteelbarswith0.2%proof stress of 450 MPa and nominal diameters of 8mm, 16mm were used as reinforcements in beams.
InternationalJournalofCivilandStructuralEngineering Volume2Issue12011
139
Table1:PhysicalpropertiesofCement,FlyAshandGGBS Sl.No. 1 2 3 Descriptions

2 Fineness(m /kg)
OPC 306 31
Flyash 419
GGBS 400
NormalConsistency(%) SettingTime(minutes) a)Initial b)Final
55 100 3.15
2.20
2.90
4 5
Specificgravity CompressiveStrength(MPa) 1d 3d 7d 28d
18.2 36.6 46.1 58.5 62* 71* 88* 87**
*Thepozzolanicactivityindex(%)ofcementflyashmixasperASTMC1240 **TheSlagactivityindexasperASTMC989 Table2:ChemicalAnalysisofFlyAshandGGBS Material LOI SiO2 FA GGBS Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K2O TiO2 Mn2O3 SO3 4.57 0.82 0.83 0.55 40.3 0.75 0.04 1.17 1.09 0.26 0.35 0.5 0.04 0.14 0.40 0.34
0.76 62.10 27.44 2.1 43.4 12.5
Table3:PropertiesofSuperplasticizer ConplastSP430(SP1) Brand:ConplastSP430 (FOSROC,Mumbai)

3 Density=1206kg/m
Colour=Colourless Freeflowingliquid Manufacturersrecommendeddosage=0.2 0.9kgper100kgofcement. Basechemical=SNFC pH=8.027
140
Table4:PropertiesofFineAggregates(Riversand) Specificgravity(SSD): 2.53 Bulkdensity(SSD):1.54 gm/cc Waterabsorption:0.83% Finenessmodulus:2.62 ZoneII ISSieveSize 4.75mm 2.36mm 1.18mm 600microns 300microns 150microns Pan FinenessModulus DeleteriousMaterials:Notpresent Mass Cumulative Cumulative% Cumulative Retainedon Mass Mass %Passing eachsieve, retained, Retained gm gm
70 98 985.5 726.5 95 25
70 168 1153.5 1880 1975 2000
3.5 8.4 57.68 94 98.75 100 2.62
96.5 91.6 42.33 6 1.25 0
Table5:PropertiesofCoarseAggregates Specificgravity(SSD):2.63,Bulkdensity(SSD):1.54gm/cc,Waterabsorption: 0.53% ISSieve MassRetained CumulativeMass Cumulative% Cumulative% Size oneachsieve,gm retained,gm MassRetained Passing 12.5mm 181.00 181.00 9.05 90.95 10mm 4.75mm 714.50 55.50 895.50 1987.00 44.78 99.35 55.23 0.65
The alkaline activator solution (AAS) used in GPC mixes was a combination of sodium silicate solution (SiO2/Na2O=2.2), sodium hydroxide pellets and distilled water.The role of AAS istodissolvethereactiveportionofsourcematerialsSiand Alpresent in flyashand GGBSandprovideahighalkalineliquidmediumforcondensationpolymerizationreaction. The sodium hydroxide was taken in the form of flakes of approximately 3mm in size. The sodium hydroxide(NaOH)solutionwithrequiredconcentrationwasprepared bydissolving thecomputedamountofsodiumhydroxideflakesindistilledwater. TheNaOHsolutionandsodiumsilicatesolutionwerepreparedseparatelyandmixedtogether atthetimeofcasting.Sincelotofheatisgeneratedwhensodiumhydroxideflakesreactwith water,thesodiumhydroxidesolutionwaspreparedadayearliertocasting.Itshouldbenoted herethatitisessentialtoachievethedesireddegreeofworkabilityoftheGPCconcretemix. However,excesswatercanresultinformationofporenetwork,whichcouldbethesourceof lowstrengthandlowdurability.
141
2.2MixProportions Unlike Ordinary Portland cement concretes GPCs are a new class of construction materials andthereforenostandardmixdesignapproachesareavailableforGPCs.WhileRanganand Hardjito havepresentedcertainguidelinesforflyashbasedGPCs,someofthetrialscarried outusingtheseproceduresindicatedthattheworkabilityandstrengthcharacteristicsofsuch mixes were notsatisfactory.Such athing ispossible becauseGPCconcrete involves more constituents in its binder (viz., FA, GGBS, sodium silicate, sodium hydroxide and water), whose interactions and final structure and chemical composition are strongly dependent on the source of the materials and their production process. Therefore, the chemistry and microstructure of GPC is more complex and is still a matter of research whereas the chemistry of cement and its structure and chemical composition are well established dueto extensiveresearchcarriedoutovermorethancentury.Whilethestrengthofcementconcrete isknowntobewellrelatedtoitswatercementratio,suchasimplistic formulation may not holdgoodforGPCs.Therefore,theformulationoftheGPC mixtureswasdonebytrialand errorbasis.Numeroustrialmixeswerecastandtestedforcompressivestrengthattheendof 28days.TheratioofAAStobindersolids(GPS)(designatedasl/b)andthecompositionof GPS(FA+GGBS)wasvariedsuitablytomeettheworkabilityandstrengthrequirements.The primary objective for performing the trial and error procedure was to obtain a range of compressive strength at the end of 28 days. The secondary objective was to obtain a good cohesive mix with satisfactory workability (slump of 75 to 100mm). The proportions and compositionofGPSandAASweresodecidedthatthetestspecimenscastweredemouldable after24hoursofinmouldcuringandtherequiredstrengthcouldberealized.Sincethreeof thesemixeshad75%offlyashtheyweredesignatedasFAB(FAbasedGPC)andtheother threemixeshad100%,75%and50%ofGGBS,theyweredesignatedasGGB(GGBSbased GPC). In order to compare the results of tests conducted using RGPC, additional conventional concrete mixes prepared with OPC and designed as per IS 102622009 and ACI 211.1 guidelines.Thedetailsofthemixproportionsaregiven inTable 6a & 6b.The mechanical propertiesofthemixesareshownin Table7. Table6a:MixComposition MixId. Binder(b), Mix H2O/Na2O SiO2 /Na2O Proportion (b:Sand:CA) 1:1.5:2.5 1:1.5:2.5 1:1.13:2.5 1:1.5:2.5 1:1.5:2.5 1:1.5:2.5 1:2.35:2.95 1:1.95:2.58 1:1.49:2.15 14.76 14.29 11.89 11.78 11.84 11.91 4.74 4.41 5.42 3.74 4.46 5.18 SiO2/ Al2O3 4.24 4.59 4.44 3.57 3.81 4.01
FAB1 FAB2 FAB3 GGB1 GGB2 GGB3 CC1 CC2 CC3
75%FA,25%GGBS 75%FA,25%GGBS 75%FA,25%GGBS 0%FA,100%GGBS 25%FA,75%GGBS 50%FA,50%GGBS OPC OPC OPC
142
Table6b:Mix Composition MixId. Na2O/(Al2O3+SiO2) l/b Na2O/GPS,% SiO2/GPS
FAB1 0.17 0.70 11.38 4.28 FAB2 0.19 0.70 12.47 8.06 FAB3 0.15 0.55 10.18 6.58 GGB1 0.21 0.55 9.18 3.45 GGB2 0.18 0.55 9.18 3.45 GGB3 0.15 0.55 9.18 3.45 CC1 0.55 CC2 0.48 CC3 0.40 Note:cu,28d Compressivestrength,l/b=liquid(AAS)/binderratio,GPS=binder+AAS Table7:StrengthCharacteristicsoftheMixes cu, ft, Ec, ft,MPa Ec,GPa Ec,GPa MPa MPa GPa (IS456) (IS456) (ACI318) CC1 OPC 35 4.03 24.9 3.62 25.86 24.9 CC2 OPC 41 4.32 26.9 4.01 28.61 26.9 CC3 OPC 52 4.85 30.3 4.63 33.07 30.3 FAB1 75%F,25%G 17 2.35 11.2 2.07 14.79 14.7 FAB2 75%F,25%G 49 4.65 20.8 4.47 31.92 25.0 FAB3 75%F,25%G 52 4.81 22.4 4.63 33.07 25.8 GGB1 0%F,100%G 63 5.53 28.3 5.18 37.00 28.4 GGB2 25%F,75%G 57 4.84 26.5 4.89 34.91 27.0 GGB3 50%F,50%G 52 4.86 22.7 4.63 33.07 25.8 Note:cu,,spt,ft Ec =Compressivestrength,splittensileand flexuraltensilestrengthand elasticmodulus 2.3SpecimenDetails The beam specimens were 100mm wide and 150mm deep in crosssection. They were 1500mminlengthandsimplysupportedoveraneffectivespanof1350mm.Theclearcover ofthebeamwas20mm.ThegeometryofthebeamspecimenisshowninFigure1. MixId. Binder
Figure1:Geometryofbeamspecimen (Alldimensionsareinmm)
Highyieldstrengthdeformedsteelbarsofdiameter16mm,12mmand8mmwereusedasthe longitudinal reinforcement in the specimens. Three different percentages of tensile reinforcement of 1.82to 3.33%tension reinforcement (82110%of corresponding balanced sectionreinforcement)wereused.ThereinforcementdetailsaregivenintheTable8forboth compression steel and tension steel. Two legged vertical stirrups of 8 mm diameter at a
143
spacing of 100 mm centre to centre were provided as shear reinforcement. Electrical resistancetypestraingaugeswere fastenedatthemidspan longitudinaltensionsteel,aday beforecasting. Table8:Reinforcementdetailsforbeamspecimens SpecimenID CC1 CC2 CC3 FAB1 FAB2 FAB3 GGB1 GGB2 GGB3 2.4PreparationofSpecimens Prior to casting, the inner walls of moulds were coated with lubricating oil to prevent adhesion with the hardening concrete. Both OPCC and GPC were mixed in a tilting drum mixer machine of 350kg capacity for about 58 minutes. The concrete was placed in the mouldsinthreelayersofequalthicknessandeachlayerwasvibrateduntiltheconcretewas thoroughlycompacted.Alongwith beamcasting,threenumbersof100mmcubeswerecast todeterminethe28daycompressivestrength.Specimensweredemouldedafter24hrs.The OPCCbeamswerewatercuredforaperiodof28dayswhiletheGPCbeamswerecuredwith wetburlapforadayandsubsequentlyaircured,inthelaboratoryforaperiodupto28days after casting. After curing, the test specimens were tested for compressive strength and structuralbehaviour.Thecompressivestrengthrangedfrom17to63MPaforGPCmixesand 3552MPaforOPCCmixes. 2.5TestSetup ThetestsetupfortheflexuraltestisshowninFigure2.Thetestspecimenwasmountedina UTMof1000kNcapacity.Thesupportsofthebeamrestedonastiffenedsteelboxgirderof length1700mm.Theeffectivespanofthebeamwas1350mm.Theloadwasappliedontwo pointseach225mmawayfromcentreofthebeamtowardsthesupport. Dialgaugesof0.001mmleastcountwereusedformeasuringthedeflectionsundertheload pointsandatmidspanformeasuringthedeflection.Thedialgaugereadingswererecordedat different loads. The strain in concrete was measured using a pfender gauge. The beam was instrumented to record the strain profile across the depth at mid span and under the load points.Thesteelstrainswererecordedbyamultichannelstrainmeter.Theloadwasapplied atintervalsof2.5kNuntilthefirstcrackwasobserved.Subsequently,theloadwasappliedin increments of 5 kN. The behaviour of the beam was observed carefully and the first crack
2 AreaofSteel(mm )
Asc 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Ast 226 339 402 226 339 402 402 402 402
144
wasidentifiedusingahandheldmicroscope.Thedeflectionsandstrainvalueswererecorded forrespectiveloadincrementsuntilfailure.Thefailuremodeofthebeamswasalsorecorded.
Figure2:Testsetupforflexuraltest 3.Testresultsanddiscussions Table 7givesthemechanicalpropertiesofthemixeswhilethe loadandmoment capacities ofRGPCbeamsatdifferentstagesarelistedinTable9aand9b.TheFigures3to5show the loaddeflection behavior at midspan for the OPCC and GPC beam specimens respectivelywhiletheFigures6to8showthecorrespondingmomentcurvaturerelationship. Figures 9 to 10 compare the load and deflection at different critical stages of member responsewhilethevariationofcrackwidthwith load isdepicted inFigure 11. Figure 12a and12b portraysthefailuremodeandfinalcrackpatternforthedifferentseriesofbeams. Table9a:Loadcarriedatvariousstagesbythebeams Specimen ID CC1 CC2 CC3 FAB1 FAB2 FAB3 GGB1 GGB2 GGB3 Firstcrackload, PCR (kN) 9.5 10 10 6.75 9.5 8.75 10 10 8 Serviceload, PSL (kN) 39 48 56 26 38 39 48 45 44 Yieldload, PyL(kN) 58.9 75.65 76.95 37.5 84.74 89.8 90.6 85.45 69.75 Ultimateload, PUL(kN) 58.9 75.65 76.95 37.5 84.74 89.8 90.6 85.45 69.75 145
Table9b:Momentcarriedatvariousstagesbythebeams Specimen ID CC1 Normalized Cracking Moment,Mcrn 0.040 Normalized Service Moment,Msln 0.163 Normalized Yield Moment,Myln 0.17 0.21 0.22 0.28 0.18 0.15 0.18 0.19 0.17 Normalized Ultimate Moment,Mun 0.246 0.270 0.224 0.323 0.253 0.261 0.217 0.227 0.203
CC2 0.036 0.171 CC3 0.029 0.163 FAB1 0.058 0.224 FAB2 0.028 0.113 FAB3 0.025 0.113 GGB1 0.024 0.115 GGB2 0.027 0.119 GGB3 0.023 0.128 2 NoteNormalizedmoment=M/(cubd )
Figure3:LoadversusmidspandeflectionforRPCCBeams
146
Figure4:LoadversusmidspandeflectionforFABSeriesRGPCBeams
Figure5:LoadversusmidspandeflectionforGGBseriesRGBCBeams
147
Figure6:M
relationforRPCCBeams
Figure7:M
relationforHVFRGPCBeams
148
Figure8:M
relationforHVGRGPCBeams
Figure9:NormalizedCrackingloadandServiceloadfordifferentseriesofbeams
149
Figure10:Normalizeddeflectionfordifferentseriesofbeams
Figure11:Variationofaveragecrackwidthwithload 3.1StrengthCharacteristics TheGPCmixesdevelopedcompressivestrengthof17to63MPacomparedto35to52MPa of OPCCs. One of the GPC mixes viz., FAB1 had a low compressive strength of 17 MPa, whichisattributedtoitshighl/bratio,lowSiO2/GPSandlowSiO2/Na2Oratio.Theflexural strength of GPC mixes is found to be close to that predicted from IS: 456 formula and compareswellwiththestrengthofOPCCspecimens(videTable 7).Theelasticmodulusis significantlylowerforGPCsandACI318predictionseemstobeclosertomeasuredelastic moduluscomparedtoIS:456.Thisisattributedtotheloweraggregatevolumefractionofthe GPCmixesused.
150
3.2LoaddeflectionBehaviour The Figures 3 to 5 showthe loaddeflection behavior at midspan forthe OPCC and GPC beamspecimensrespectively.Thechanges inthe loaddeflectioncurvesclearly indicatethe differenteventsoccurringduringthetest.Thefirstvisiblecrackformationoccurredataround 10kNload(about1316%ofultimateloadforRPCCand911%forRGPCvideTable 9) registering the first deviation or kink in the curve. Onset of profuse cracking beyond the service load (3956 kN or about 6372% for RPCC and 4363% for RGPC) caused pronouncednonlinearitywhilethe yieldingof maintensilereinforcement inthe loadrange of3274kN(6796%forCCseriesand5785%forRPCCbeams)ledtosofteningresponse in some cases and deflection hardening in certain cases depending on the area of reinforcement. The loaddeflection pattern was similar in case of RGPC beams as well as RPCCbeamsexceptspecimenFAB1,whichhadaverylowcompressivestrengthof17MPa. Aslightdropintheloadfollowedthepeakload,inalmostallthebeamsexceptFAB1which indicatesthedisintegrationofconcreteinthecompressionzoneasaresultofbucklingofthe longitudinalcompressionsteel. The deflection at first crack was less than 1% of ultimate deflection for RPCC beams and slightlymoreforRGPCbeams.Thedeflectionatserviceloadwas816%forRPCCand9to 20%forRGPC[Table12].Thedeflectionatyieldrangedfrom19to57%and32to57%at peakloadforboththeRPCCandRGPCbeams.ThebetterserviceabilityofRPCCisdueto theirhigherelasticmodulusandhigherflexuralstrength. InthecaseofFABseriesbeams(FAB2andFAB3),thedeflectionwasabout4172%more than the RPCC beams at first crack and 3352%higher at peak load obviously due totheir lowerelasticmodulus.However,thedifferencewasmuchlessincaseofGGBseriesdueto their higher compressive strength and hence higher elastic modulus. The deflection of the beamsundervariousloadssuchasserviceloadsandultimateloadshavebeensummarizedin Table9.Inthisstudy,theserviceloadwasreckonedastheloadcorrespondingtoadeflection ofspan/350orultimateloaddividedbyloadfactor1.5,whicheverisless. 3.3Momentcurvaturerelations Thecurvatureatmidspancanbecomputedfromsectionalanalysisbytwoapproachesviz., 1) Fromthemeasureddeflectionusingareamomenttheorem (1) Where, Fromthelinearstraindistributionatmidspanas, (2) While both the approaches give similar results, the second approach was used in the computationsinthestudyascontinuousmonitoringofallthedeflectionswasnotpossiblein thefailurestage.Thecurvesshownearlytrilinearbehaviorintheprepeakregimefollowed byasofteningresponseduetoyieldingofbothtensionandcompressionreinforcement.The changesinslopeariseduetoreductioninflexuralrigidityduetoinitiationofflexuralcracks in the constant bending moment zone and their vertical propagation. RPCC beams show nearly plastic behavior in the postpeak load stage with increasing curvature at almost constant moment where as RGPC beams showed considerable softening in the resisting momentwithincreaseindeflection/curvatureindicatingalowerresidualmomentcapacityin the post peak regime. The ratio of ultimate curvature (at failure) to curvature at peak load
151
ranged from1.38to2.33forRPCCbeamsto1.47to1.75forGPC,which is indicativeof lowerpostpeakductilityofRGPCcomparedtoRPCC. 3.4LoadCapacityatDifferentstagesofLoading Theloadcapacitiesatvariousstagessuchas,firstcrack,serviceloadandultimatestageare summarised in the Table 9 and Figure 9. It is seen thatthe load atthe appearance of first crackwasalmostthesameinthecaseofRPCCandRGPCbeams,despitetheslightlyhigher compressive strength of the RGPC beams. This could be attributed tothe marginally lower flexural strength of GPC compared to OPCC probably due to weaker aggregatepaste transitionzoneandpossible shrinkagecracking intheITZduetoitsrapidsetting.The first crackloadexpressedasafractionofthecorrespondingultimateloadwasdistinctlylowerfor RGPC beams as seen fromFigure 9. The RGPC beams also showed lower service load of 4369%of ultimate load carrying capacity against 6373% for RPCC beams dueto slightly lowerflexuralrigidityofRGPC.TheultimateloadcarryingcapacityofRGPCbeams,except FAB1 was found to be in the narrow range of 7790 kN. The ultimate load carrying capacities of the RGPC beams were about 1417% morethan RPCC beams. This could be attributed to their higher compressive strength. As seen from table 10, the normalized moment capacities for RGPC beams were significantly lower with respect to cracking and service load and marginally different in the case of ultimate moment with the exception of lowcompressivestrengthbeamFAB1.ThebeamGGB3showedlowermomentcapacitythan anticipatedandthiswasdiscoveredtobeduetoloweryieldstrengthandultimatestrengthof steel(330MPaand430MPa)usedfortheirproduction. 3.5Crackwidthandcrackspacing TheflexurecrackswerethefirsttoinitiateintheConstantBendingmomentZone99(CBMZ) asexpected.Astheloadincreased,theexistingcrackspropagatedandnewcracksdeveloped in the farther regions of CBMZ. In the shear span regions, the flexural cracks gave way to inclinedcrackswith increasing load.These inclinedcrackswereprominentincaseof beam specimens with higher percentage of tensile reinforcement [Figure 12a and 12 b]. The spacingofcracksvariedalongthespan.ThecrackpatternsobservedforRGPCbeamswere foundtobesimilartothatofRPCCbeams.
152
Figure12a:CrackpatternsandfailuremodeofRPCCbeamspecimens
Figure12b:Crackpatternsandfailuremodeof RGPCbeamspecimens Figure11showsthevariationinaveragecrackwidthwithloadforallthebeamspecimens. In general, the RGPC beam specimens developed the same order of crack width and total numberofflexuralcracks(around40)comparedtoRPCCbeamspecimensforagivenload as is observed fromTable 11 except for beam GGB3. The GGB3 specimen recordedthe maximumcrackwidthatpeakload(0.53mm)whilethespecimenGGB1recordedtheleast (0.32).ThespacingofthecracksintheflexuralzonewasalmostsimilarforbothRPCCand RGPCbeams. Table10:ComparisonofComputedandExperimental MomentCapacities Specimen MCR,E (kN) MCR,T(kN) MSL,E(kN) MSLt (kN) MUL,E(kN) MUL,T(kN) ID CC1 2.14 1.64 39 21.6 13.25 11.44 CC2 2.25 1.94 48 30.8 17.03 16.19 CC3 2.25 2.23 56 35.8 17.33 18.87 FAB1 1.52 0.88 26 20.4 8.44 10.25 FAB2 2.14 2.09 38 30.2 19.06 17.18 FAB3 1.97 2.45 39 35.3 20.21 19.22 GGB1 2.25 2.77 48 35.7 20.39 19.78
153
GGB2 GGB3
2.25 2.61 45 19.24 35.5 1.80 1.94 44 15.71 35.3 1 M cr,TTheoreticalcrackingmomentcapacityasperACI318 1 M SL,TTheoreticalservicemomentcapacityasperIS456 MUL,TTheoreticalultimatemomentcapacityasperIS456
19.41 14.62
Table11:CrackWidthandNo.offlexuralCracks Averagecrackwidtharound SpecimenID ServiceLoad(40kN),mm Totalno.offlexuralcracks 0.125 CC1 40 0.21 CC2 37 0.23 CC3 37 FAB1 23 0.13 FAB2 46 0.28 FAB3 48 0.18 GGB1 42 0.24 GGB2 40 0.45 GGB3 38 3.6FailureModeandcrackpattern Beyond the peak load, the no. of flexural cracks stabilized and the cracks at the midspan opened widely thereafter with the yielding of steel. At failure load, all the beams deflected significantly. The failure pattern of the beam specimens was found to be similar for both RPCCandRGPCbeams(Figure12aand12b).Thefailureinallthecaseswasinitiatedby yieldingofthetensilesteel(around4000m/m)followedbythecrushingofconcreteinthe compressionface. In general, there was no major difference in the failure modes of RGPC and RPCC beams andthecrackpatternatdifferentstageswerealsonearlyidentical.Therewasnoevidenceof inadequacy of bond leading to splitting of concrete along thetensile reinforcement (Figure 12aand12b). 4.ComparisonofTestResultsandTheoreticallyComputedResults 4.1FlexuralMomentCapacity Table10comparesthepredictedvaluesofflexuralmomentcapacityatcracking,serviceload andultimateloadforRPCCbeamsandRGPCbeams.Thepredictedvalueswereobtainedby theoretical analysis using the transformed section method and strain compatibility method specified in the codes of practice for reinforced cement concrete. The flexural strength requiredforthecomputationofcrackingmomentwasobtainedfromthecorrespondingcube strengthusingtheformulaerecommendedinthecodesofpractice.AsseenfromtheTable9, the cracking moment prediction by ACI 383 formula for flexural strength 0.498 (fcy) was foundtomatchbetterwiththeexperimentalresult(within2030%inmostofthecases).The comparisonwasslightlyunsatisfactoryforGGBseriesbeams,whichshowed lowerflexural
154
strengthcomparedtothatpredictedbythecodalformulae.Consideringthetypicalvariability in flexural strength data (Macgregor,1987), the predicted moments are reasonably close to actual moment.Theservice load momentwasobtainedusingthetransformedsection based on the allowable working stress permitted in IS: 4562000. The comparison with experimentalvaluesindicateslackofgoodagreement,especiallyincaseofRPCCbeamsand GGB series. This indicates that the factor of safety for allowable stresses and the effective modularratiotobeusedforcompressionandtensionsteel may needrevisiononthehigher side. Thetheoreticalultimate momentcapacity showedavariationof0.8to16.9%withthetest results and the agreement was in the range of 89 to 99% of experimental value for RGPC beams, which is on the conservative side. The moment capacities were computed at the midspansectionbystraincompatibilitymethodusingatrialanderrorapproach.Incaseof twoFABseries,theresultswereonthenonconservativeside.Thisindicatesaneedformore detailed investigation into the stress block shape and other parameters like reinforcement indexattheultimatestageforsuchmembers.Withmoreno.oftestresults,suchvariabilityis also likely to reduce. Figure 13(a) shows that the predicted moments cluster quite closely O aroundthe45 lineinthepredictedmomentVsexperimentalmomentcapacityandcompares favourablywiththeresultsofSumajouwandRangan[5].
4.2BeamDeflections Themidspandeflectionwaspredictedatcracking,yieldingmomentandultimatestages.In thefirstcrackstage,thegrossmomentofinertiawasusedandthedeflectionwascalculated using the expression given for the maximum elastic deflection of a simply supported homogeneousbeamsubjectedtotwopointloadingas, (3) Atthe service load stage,the effective momentof inertia expression given in IS: 4562000 wasutilized.Theeffective momentofinertiaIeff forthecalculationofthedeflectionsatthe crackedstageisgivenas, ButIr Ieff Igr (4)
Where,
Atthe,yieldmomentstage,theyieldingmomentatasectionisgivenby = Where, (5)
155
Asimilarapproachwasusedforthedeflectionatthepeakload.Comparisonbetweenthetest loadandthecorrespondingpredicteddeflectionsshowfairlygoodagreementwiththeactual measurements (Table 12). The agreement may be poor due to reliance of the approach on sectional analysis and ignoring the contribution of shear deflection besides extraneous deflection due to support settlement and load transfer yoke. There is a need for improved computationalmethodsandmoreaccuratemeasurementofdeflections. 5.Conclusions Based on the experimental and analytical investigations carried out on the reinforced GeopolymercementconcretebeamsandconventionalPortlandcementconcretebeams,itcan beconcludedthat: 1. The loaddeflectioncharacteristicsoftheRPCCbeamsandRGPC beamsarealmost similar. The cracking moment and service load moment were marginally lower for RGPCbeamscomparedtoRPCCbeams. 2. The valuesofcurvatureatthepeak loadfortheGGBbeamsandRPCCweresame, butFABseriesbeamshadmorecurvaturevaluesatsameorlessermoments. 3. The ultimate moment capacity of the RGPC beams investigated in the study was foundtobe morethanthatoftheRPCC beams becauseoftheir highercompressive 2 strength.However,intermsof normalized momentcapacity Mu/cu bd ,thecracking and service load moments were less for RGPC beams while the ultimate moment capacitywasofthesameorder. 4. The cracking, service and ultimate moment carrying capacity of the test beams calculated using the conventional reinforced concrete principles and strain compatibility approach showed good correlation between the test and predicted values. The studies showed that the computational methods used for evaluating the performanceparametersoftheRPCCbeamsatdifferentstagescanalsobeextended to RGPC beams. However, the predictions may not be conservative in all the cases andthereforeuseacapacityreductionfactormaybenecessaryfordesignpurposes. 5. Moreextensive investigationsarerequiredtodecideontheshapeandparametersof the stress block and maximum compressive strain in concrete to provide more accurateprediction. 6. The measured deflections of beams compared with the predicted deflections calculatedusingtheprovisionsofIS456:2000andconventionalRCtheoryshowfair agreementbutcallforimprovedprediction. 7. The crack patterns and failure modes observed for RGPC beams were found to be similar to the RPCC beams. The total number of the flexural cracks developed was almost same for all the beams. The beams failed initially by yielding of the tensile steelfollowedbythecrushingofconcreteinthecompressionface. 8. The crack widths, crack spacing and no.of cracks were comparable for both RPCC andRGPCbeams. Acknowledgement This paper is being published with the kind permission of Director, CSIRSERC, Chennai. The work was carried at the Advanced Materials Laboratory (AML) of CSIR SERC, ChennaiandtheauthorsacknowledgethehelpandcooperationrenderedbytheHead,AML, staff,scientists,andprojecttraineestudentsatAML. 6.References
156
1. Bakharev T. (2005a), Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions, Cement and Concrete Research, 35(6), pp 1233 1246. 2. Bakharev T., (2005), Geopolymeric materials prepared using Class Fly ash and elevatedtemperaturecuring,CementandConcreteResearch,35,pp12241232. 3. BakharevT.,(2005c),Resistanceofgeopolymermaterialstoacidattack,Cement andConcreteResearch,35(4),pp658670. 4. Bakharev T., Sanjayan J.G., Cheng J.B., (2003), Resistance of alkaliactivated slagconcretetoacidattack, CementandConcreteResearch,33,pp16071611. 5. Bakharev T., Sanjayan J.G., Cheng Y.B., (1999), Effect of elevated temperature curing on properties of alkaliactivated slag concrete, Cement and Concrete Research,29(10), pp16191625. 6. Dattatreya J.K., Ambily P.S., Madheswaran C.K., Sabitha D., Neelamegam M. (2010), Experimental Studies on Shear Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer ConcreteBeams,SERCResearchReportNo.RR2,June. 7. DattatreyaJ.K.,RajamaneN.P.,andAmbilyP.S.,(2009),StructuralBehaviourof Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams and Columns, SERC Research Report, RR6,May. 8. DavidovitsJ.(1991),Geopolymers:inorganicpolymericnewmaterials,Journalof ThermalAnalysis,37,pp16331656. 9. Duxson P., FernndezJimnez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC, Palomo A, Van Deventer,(2007),Geopolymertechnology,Thecurrentstateoftheart,Journalof MaterialScience,42(9),pp29172933. 10. FernndezJimnezA.,PalomoA.,(2003),Characterisationofflyashes,Potential reactivityasalkalinecements,Fuel,82(18),pp22592265. 11. FernndezJimnez A., Palomo A., LpezHambrados C.,(2006), Engineering Properties of AlkaliActivated Fly Ash Concrete, ACI Materials Journal103(2), MarApr,pp106112. 12. HardjitoD.,andRanganB.V.,2005,Developmentandpropertiesoflowcalcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete, Research report GC1, Curtin University of Technology,Perth,Australia.
rd 13. Macgregor J.G. (1987). Reinforced Concrete Mechanics and Design, 3 edition, PrenticeHall,NewJersey.
14. Palomo A., FernndezJimnez A., LpezHombrados C., Lleyda J.L.,2004, Precastelementsmadeofalkaliactivatedflyashconcrete,8thCANMET/ACI International Conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete.LasVegas,(U.S.A.),SupplementaryVolume,pp545558
157
15. Palomo A., Grutzeck M.W.,Blanco M.T.,(1999), Alkaliactivated Fly Ashes: A CementfortheFuture,CementandConcreteResearch,29,pp13231329. 16. Phair J.W., 2006, Green chemistry for sustainable cement production and use, GreenChem.,pp763780 17. Rajamane N.P., Dattatreya J.K., Ambily P.S., (2009), Bond Characteristics of SteelRebarsinGeopolymerConcrete,SERCResearchReport,RR7,May. 18. Rajamane N.P., P.S. Ambily, J.K. Dattatreya, D. Sabitha, (2010), Technical Feasibility Studies on Geopolymer Concrete Building Blocks / Pavers with NaturalandSyntheticAggregates,SERCTechnicalReport. 19. Rajamane N.P., P.S. Ambily, J.K. Dattatreya, D. Sabitha, C.K. Madheswaran, Neelamegam M., J. Annie Peter, (2009), Statistical Evaluation of Experimental Results,InternalReportRR9,October. 20. RajamaneN.P.,SabithaD.,(2005),Studiesongeopolymermortarsusingflyash andblastfurnaceslagpowder,InternationalCongressonFlyAsh,FlyAshIndia, Chapter6,pp17. 21. RajamaneN.P.,SabithaD.,andSajanaMaryJames,(2005),Potentialofindustrial wastes to produce geopolymeric mortar of practical utility a study, Indian ConcreteInstituteJournal,Vol.5,No4,JanMar,pp920. 22. Rajamane N.P., Sabitha D., Sajana Mary James, Gopalakrishnan S.,(2005), Studies on development of geopolymeric lowenergy cement from fly ash for structuralapplications,ProceedingsoftheInternationalConferenceonAdvances in Concrete Composites and Structures, ICAS, 68 January, SERC, Chennai, India,pp219226. 23. RanganB.V.,(2006),Flyashbasedgeopolymerconcrete,ResearchreportGC4, CurtinUniversityofTechnology,Perth,Australia. 24. Sofi D., Van Deventer J.S.J., Mendis P.A., Lukey G.C., (2006), Engineering propertiesofinorganicpolymerconcretes(IPCs),CementandConcreteResearch, 37,pp251257. 25. SumajouwM.D.J.,RanganB.V.,(2006),LowCalciumflyashbasedgeopolymer concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns, Research report GC3, Curtin UniversityofTechnology,Perth,Australia. 26. Swanepoel J.C., Strydom C. A., (2002), Utilisationof fly ash in a geopolymeric material,AppliedGeochemistry,17(8),pp11431148. 27. Van Jaarsveld J.G.S., van Deventer J.S.J., Lukey G.C., (2002a), The effect of composition and temperature on the properties of fly ash and kaolinitebased geopolymers,ChemicalEngineeringJournal,89(13),pp6373. 28. Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., van Deventer J. S.J., Lukey G.C., (2003), The characterisation of source materials in fly ashbased geopolymers, Materials Letters,57(7),pp12721280.
158
29. Wallah S.E., Rangan B.V., (2006), Lowcalcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete: long term properties. Research report GC2, Curtin University of Technology,Perth,Australia
159

Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

INTERNATIONALJOURNALOFCIVILANDSTRUCTURALENGINEERING Volume2,No 1,2011

Table1:PhysicalpropertiesofCement,FlyAshandGGBS Sl.No. 1 2 3 Descriptions

NormalConsistency(%) SettingTime(minutes) a)Initial b)Final

Specificgravity CompressiveStrength(MPa) 1d 3d 7d 28d

18.2 36.6 46.1 58.5 62* 71* 88* 87**

0.76 62.10 27.44 2.1 43.4 12.5

Table3:PropertiesofSuperplasticizer ConplastSP430(SP1) Brand:ConplastSP430 (FOSROC,Mumbai)

Colour=Colourless Freeflowingliquid Manufacturersrecommendeddosage=0.2 0.9kgper100kgofcement. Basechemical=SNFC pH=8.027

70 168 1153.5 1880 1975 2000

3.5 8.4 57.68 94 98.75 100 2.62

96.5 91.6 42.33 6 1.25 0

FAB1 FAB2 FAB3 GGB1 GGB2 GGB3 CC1 CC2 CC3

75%FA,25%GGBS 75%FA,25%GGBS 75%FA,25%GGBS 0%FA,100%GGBS 25%FA,75%GGBS 50%FA,50%GGBS OPC OPC OPC

Table6b:Mix Composition MixId. Na2O/(Al2O3+SiO2) l/b Na2O/GPS,% SiO2/GPS

Atthe,yieldmomentstage,theyieldingmomentatasectionisgivenby = Where, (5)

Anda mungkin juga menyukai