International Conference on Electrical, Electronics, and Optimization Techniques (ICEEOT) - 2016
Flexural Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer
Concrete Beams
Aslam hutagi
Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,
BEC Bagalkot, India
Email-aslam.hutagi@gmail.com
Abstract—The present investigation embodies the flexural
behavior of Geopolymer Concrete (GPC) beams cured under
ambient temperature. Twelve reinforced concrete beams of size
175mmx 250 mm x 1500 mm were tested. The beams were tested
under four point bending over an effective span of 1200mm. The
percentage of tensile reinforcement and compressive strength of
concrete were taken as the variables while maintaining the same
cross section. The behavior was studied with reference to first
crack load, service load and ultimate load. The results were
found to be similar to that of conventional cement concrete
reinforced beams.
Keywords— geopolymer concrete, flexural, ultimate load,
deflection and beam
Introduction
The fact that the production of cement adds to the
pollution of environment is well known to civil engineers and
environmentalists. The large scale production of cement is
posing environmental problems on one hand and unrestricted
depletion of natural resources on the other hand. Each ton of
Portland cement production results in loading about one ton of
CO2 into the environment and in 25 years, it is expected that
the demand for cement in the world will be doubled. This is
because of need for infrastructure in developing countries with
large population and rapid population growth. The majority of
Fly ash produced from thermal power stations in India is
disposed in landfills, ponds or rejected in river systems, which
may cause serious environmental problems for future
generations. some of the other waste material that are being
utilized are bottom ash, blast furnace slag etc. out of all these
materials Fly ash is the material that abundantly available and
cheaper.
Concrete usage around the world is second only to water.
Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) is conventionally used as the
primary binder to produce concrete. The environmental issues
associated with the production of OPC are well known. The
amount of the carbon dioxide released during the manufacture
of OPC due to the calcinations of limestone and combustion of
fossil fuel is in the order of one ton for every ton of OPC
produced. In addition, the extent of energy required to produce
OPC is only next to steel and aluminium. On the other hand,
the abundant availability of fly ash worldwide creates
opportunity to utilize this by-product of burning coal, as a
substitute for OPC to manufacture concrete. [1] When used as
a partial replacement of OPC, in the presence of water and in
ambient temperature, fly ash reacts with the calcium
hydroxide during the hydration process of OPC to form the
calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel. The development and
978-1-4673-9939-5/16/$31.00 ©2016 IEEE
Dr R B Khadiranaikar1
Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BEC,
Bagalkot, India.
Email-dr.rbnaikar@gmail.com
application of high volume fly ash concrete, which enabled the
replacement of OPC up to 60% by mass (Malhotra 2002[2];
Malhotra and Mehta 2002), is a significant development. [3]
The research work did by a few specialists substantiate the
capability of GPC as a forthcoming development material
(Davidovits, 1991[4], Duxson, 2007[5], Harjito and Rangan
2005[6], Bakharev 2005[7] Palomo, 1999[8], Van Jaarsveld
2002[9], Sofi 2006[10]). The advancement in cements is of
very importance to India, where the development business is
in a blast and substantial amounts of construction activities are
taking place. Understanding this potential, the CSIR-
Structural Engineering Research Center has conveyed
extensive exploration on various properties of Geopolymer
cements (GPCs) for more than 10 years (Rajamane 2005[11],
Dattatreya 2009[12]). The utilization of GPC is gradually
picking up acknowledgment, particularly for synthetic safe
structures and research here has increased some force to
broaden the scope of use. Actually, significant measure of test
work has been as of now completed in Australia, US and
Spain. The previous works were for the most part occupied
with distinguishing suitable source materials for GPC, their
preparing, blend outline, mechanical properties, and sturdiness
perspectives (Wallah and Rangan, 2006[13],
Bakharev,2005[14])
I. MATERIALS, MIXING AND MIXING
In this experiment, the constituents used in the GPC
mixtures are different from the conventional concrete
mixtures, which include Fly ash, GGBS, aggregates, alkaline
solution, superplasticizer, water. In the present study, Class F
flyash from Raichur Thermal Power Station is used as one of
the source materials. Ground granulated blast furnace slag
(GGBS) was supplied from jindal steel Station bellary,
Karnataka. Flyash alone delays the setting properties of GPC
and thus GGBS was added to GPC up to 40% which increased
the setting properties and to achieve high strength.
The coarse and fine aggregates used in this study were
brought from locally available quarries. It constitutes 75-80%
of the mass of GPC. Specific gravity of fine aggregate and
coarse aggregate are 2.6 and 2.72 Alkaline solution plays an
important role in geopolymer synthesis for the dissolution of
silica and alumina as well as for the catalysis of
polymerization reaction. Hence, in the present work, the
sodium hydroxide solution and sodium silicate solution is used
3463
as alkaline activator. In this research, the second generation of
super plasticizer called Glenium B-833 from BASF, India Ltd.
were used.

Mixing
For mixing, a rotating pan mixer of 80 litres capacity with
fixed blades was used. The solids constituents of the fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete, i.e. the aggregates and the fly ash,
were dry mixed in the pan mixer for about three minutes. The
liquid part of the mixture, i.e. the sodium silicate solution, the
sodium hydroxide solution, added water (if any), and the super
plasticiser, were premixed then added to the solids. The wet
mixing usually continued for another four minutes.

Curing
All the beam specimens were cured at room temperature of
about 240 to 320 C for the time of 28 days in the laboratory
conditions. The polymerisation process is generally
accelerated in the higher temperature than ambient. Fly ash Figure 1.Compaction using a needle vibrator
based geopolymers produced in ambient temperature achieves
lower strength in the early days as compared to heat cured
samples but in ambient curing the compressive strength
increases as the age of concrete increases from 7 days to 28
days.
II. PREPARATION OF SPECIMENS AND TEST SETUP

Preparation of Specimens

The steel forms were coated with oil on their inner

surfaces. The amount of flyash, sand and coarse aggregates
required for single beam, three cubes and three prisms were
weighed. The materials were first dry mixed thoroughly to
obtain uniform mix of concrete. Cover blocks of 25mm size
were provided to the reinforcement. On these cover blocks,
reinforcement cage was placed. Concrete was poured into the
moulds in layers. After each layer was poured it was
compacted using tamping rod and the needle vibrator. The top
surface was finished with a trowel. Three cubes were cast with
the same mix to find representative property of the same
concrete. The casting of beams is shown in figure 1 and 2 Figure 2. Beams of one grade of GPC casted at one time.
below. The steel planks which formed the sides of the beams,
were dismantled after 24 hours. The beams were cured in All the beams were tested with two point loads applied at
room temperature for 28 days. Beams were left in the 1/3 rd span points so as to have a pure bending zone in the
laboratory condition till the date of testing. middle of the beam. The beam was placed such that the center
of the beam and the center of the loading frame lie on the
The flexural specimens were tested by using a 500 kN same line as per the required effective span of 1200 mm.
capacity Flexure testing machine as shown in figure 3. Flexural tests conducted on nine beams of rectangular cross
Specimens were kept in flexure testing machine with steel section of 175mm X 250mm and 1.5m length, out of which
hinge-roller support with a clear span of 1200 mm. Test was three series of each having the grades M50, M60 and M70.
terminated after crushing of concrete in the constant moment Each series comprises of three beams having different tensile
zone. The two point loads to be applied and the center of the reinforcement ratios ranging from 0.75% to 1.89 %. All the
beams were marked. deflectometers were used having a beams tested under pure bending over middle third region.
magnetic base. Three deflectometers were set beneath the The properties of the beams for different tensile reinforcement
beam specimen as shown in figure 4. The points at which the ratios are tabulated below in table 2. The test observations and
LVDTs have to be fixed were cleaned and three LVDTs were results are presented in the form of graphs and bar charts
fixed on the beam surface where the strain has to be recorded below.
as shown in figure 4.

3464
 TABLE 1: CHEMICAL COMPOSITION OF FLY ASH AS SUPPLIED BY RTPS, RAICHUR
Iron Aluminium Calcium Magnesiu Titanium Phosphor Alkali Loss of
Characteristics Silica Sulphates
Oxide Oxide Oxide m Oxide Oxide ous Oxide ignition
Fly ash (% wt) 55 – 65 5–7 22 – 25 5–7 <1 <1 <1 0.1 <1 1-1.5

Figure 3. Test setup made for flexure test for beams in flexure machine

Considerations
Before discussing the test results the following points are
noted down:
1. Stirrups provided were closer than theoretically needed to
ensure the safety against shear.
2. Discussion is mainly carried out for deflection, cracking
load and the ultimate load.
3. The deflections were measured using the deflectometers
having a magnetic base.
Discussions are carried out in a following manner:
a) Load- deflection behavior
b) Cracking load
c) Service Load, first crack load and Ultimate load
The compressive strength and flexural strength of prisms
cast for reinforced geopolymer concrete beams (RGPCB) are
Figure 4. LVDTs set on the front face and deflectometers set underneath
shown in table 3.
TABLE 3. DETAILS OF CUBE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND
the specimen beams
FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF PRISMS CASTED FOR RGPC.
Compressive Flexural
Sl. Beam
TABLE 2: BEAM DESIGNATION AND PERCENTAGE strength test Strength
No Notation
REINFORCEMENT. (MPa) (N/mm2)
1 M50-1 54.32 6.22
Sl. Beam Percentage Reinforceme Curing 2 M50-2 52.22 6.12
No Notation Reinforcement nt Provided Period 3 M50-3 53.32 6.45
1 M50-1 0.75% 3#12mm 28 days 4 M60-1 67.69 8.21
2 M50-2 1.34% 3#16mm 28 days 5 M60-2 66.59 8.32
6 M60-3 65.50 8.56
3 M50-3 1.89% 3#20mm 28 days
7 M70-1 76.42 9.31
4 M60-1 0.75% 3#12mm 28 days 8 M70-2 75.12 9.42
5 M60-2 1.34% 3#16mm 28 days 9 M70-3 76.22 9.30
6 M60-3 1.89% 3#20mm 28 days
7 M70-1 0.75% 3#12mm 28 days
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
8 M70-2 1.34% 3#16mm 28 days
In the initial stages of loading, for all the beams, cracks
9 M70-3 1.89% 3#20mm 28 days
first appeared in the constant moment zone. As the load
increased, additional cracks developed in the mid span and
new vertical cracks formed in the shear span. With further

3465
increase in load in steel reinforced geopolymer concrete Hence M60-3series beam deflected by 42% less than M70-1
beams, one of the flexural crack in the constant moment zone and 16% less than the beam M70-2.
extended deep into the compression zone, reducing the area of
concrete in compression leading to crushing of concrete.
Hence, crushing of concrete was observed in beams reinforced
with steel rebar at the ultimate stage of loading. The cracks
developed in the test beams at the ultimate stage.
The first crack load, service load and ultimate load by
experimental programme on reinforced geopolymer concrete
beam is tabulated in table 4 above where PCR is first cracking
load and PU is the Ultimate load in kN. After the investigation,
we can see that the first crack load is 15.65 kN for the beam
series of M50-1 with 0.75% of percentage tensile
reinforcement ratio, and 30.21 kN for beam M50-3 with
1.89%of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio. Ultimate load
also found to be 97 kN for M50-1, 114 kN for M50-2, and
132.11 kN for M50-3.
The first crack load is 24.41 kN for the beam series of Figure 5. Load vs Deflection curve for M50 Grade RGPCB
M60-2 with 1.34% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio,
and 38.81 kN for the beam series of M60-3 with 1.89%of
percentage tensile reinforcement ratio and ultimate load is
104.20 kN for M60-1, 130.40 kN for M60-2 and 150kN for
M60-3. Thus, ultimate load increases by about 25.8% with
increase in tensile reinforcement ratio from 0.75% to 1.89%.
The first crack load is 26.5kN for the beam series of M70-
1 with 0.75% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio, the
first crack load is 50.6 kN for the beam series of M70-3 with
1.89%of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio and the
ultimate load is 136.12 kN for M70-1, 160.30 kN for M70-2
and 194.7 kN for M70-3.
Figure 5 shows the load versus mid span deflection of M50
grade reinforced geopolymer concrete beam. The beam of
M50-1 with 0.75% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio Figure 6. Load vs Deflection curve for M60 Grade RGPCB
deflected by 36mm at ultimate load i.e. 97kN and the beam of
M50-3 with 1.89%of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio
deflected by 24mm hence the deflection seems to decrease by
about 34% as the reinforcement ratio increases. Figure 6
shows the load versus mid span deflection of M60 grade
reinforced geopolymer concrete beam series. The beam of
M60-2 with 1.34% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio
deflected by 28 mm at ultimate load and the beam of M60-3
with 1.89% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio deflected
by 21 mm hence M60-3 series beam deflects 25% less.
Figure 7 shows the load versus mid span deflection of M70
series beam. The beam of M70-1 with 0.75%of percentage
tensile reinforcement ratio deflected by 26 mm and the beam
of M70-2 with 1.34% of percentage tensile reinforcement ratio Figure7. Load vs Deflection curve for M70 Grade RGPCB
deflected by 18 mm and the beam of M70-3 with 1.89%of
percentage tensile reinforcement ratio deflected by 15 mm.
TABLE NO. 4: RESULTS OF DEFLECTION BEHAVIOR OF REINFORCED GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE BEAMS
Experimental Values
Cube Compressive Percentage Tensile
Beam Designation 2 First crack load PCR Service l oad
Strength(N/mm ) Reinforcement Ratio Ultimate load PU (kN)
(kN) PSL (kN)
M50-1 57.69 0.75% 15.65 70.00 97.00
M50-2 56.59 1.34% 20.84 90.14 114.00
M50-3 55.50 1.89% 30.21 105.00 132.11
M60-1 66.42 0.75% 18.27 85.00 104.20
M60-2 65.12 1.34% 24.41 92.02 130.40
M60-3 66.22 1.89% 38.81 110.05 150.00
M70-1 76.42 0.75% 26.5 110.52 136.12
M70-2 75.12 1.34% 44.5 115.20 160.30
M70-3 76.22 1.89% 50.6 140.37 194.70

3466
Mode of Failure
Reinforced geopolymer concrete beams shows a few
cracks reaching the top compression fiber. The crack patterns
observed are shown in figures 8- 10. The flexural cracks
initiated as the loads increased in bending moment zone and
propagated further with new cracks upon further loading. As
expected the failure was same for all the series in its class,
which was a ductile mode of failure (a character of under
reinforced section).
References
Figure 8 Series M50 beam with 1.89% tensile reinforcement ratio
Figure 9 Series M60-2 beam with 1.34% tensile reinforcement ratio
Figure 10 Series M70 beam with 1.89% Tensile reinforcement ratio.
Conclusions
The following conclusions are made on the basis of the
experimental results obtained and analytically calculated
values.
1. Flexural strength of GPC increased by 24 to 33%
with the increase in compressive strength from 54.32
to 76.22 MPa.
2. All the RGPC beams have failed in a ductile way in
flexure mode by the crushing of concrete in
compression zone finally a property of under
reinforced sections.
3. Flexural capacity of all the RGPC beams was
influenced by the two expected parameters .i.e. the
Percentage tensile reinforcement ratio and the
concrete compressive strength.
4. From the experimental result it can be observed that
as the strength of beam and percentage tensile
reinforcement ratio increase the first crack load,
service load and ultimate load increases for M50,
M60 and M70 grade GPC.
5. As expected, the flexural capacity of GPC beams
increases as the longitudinal tensile reinforcement
ratio increase significantly.
6. The cracking loads and cracking moments increased
as the concrete compressive strength increased
significantly, and the cracking moments are greatly
influenced by the increase in longitudinal tensile
reinforcement ratio.
7. It can be concluded that the clauses and the design
provisions of IS 456 - 2000 for the design of flexure
suffices and holds good for the design of Reinforced
Geopolymer Concrete beams also.
1. Malhotra, V.M. 1999. Making concrete ‘greener’ with fly ash. ACI
Concrete Int., 21, 61–66.
2. Davidovits, J, 1991. “Geopolymers: Inorganic Polymeric New
Materials” Journal of Thermal Analysis, 37: 1633–1656.
3. Dattatrey a J.K., Ambily P.S., Madheswaran C. K., Sabitha
D., Neel amegam M. (2010), Experimental Studies on Shear
Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams, SERC
Research Report No. RR-2, June.
4. Dattatrey a J.K., Rajamane N.P., and Ambily P.S., (2009),
Structural Behaviour of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete
Beams and Columns, SERC Research Report , RR-6, May .
5. Duxson P., Fernández-Jiménez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC,
Palomo A, Van Deventer,(2007), Geopolymer technology , The
current state of the art , Journal of Material Science , 42
(9),pp 2917–2933.
6. Hardji to D., and Rangan B.V., 2005, Development and
properties of low calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete,
Research report GC-1, Curtin University of Technology , Perth,
Australia.
7. Palomo A., Fernández-Jiménez A., López-Hombrados C.,
Lleyda J.L.,2004, “Precast elements made of alkali activated
fly ash concrete”, 8th CANMET/ACI International
Conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural
pozzolans in concrete. Las Vegas, (U.S.A.), Supplementary
Volume, pp 545-558
8. Rajamane N.P., Dattatrey a J.K., Ambily P.S., (2009), Bond
Characteristics o f Steel Rebars in Geopolymer Concrete, SERC
Research Report, RR-7, May .
9. Rangan B.V., (2006), Fly ash based geopolymer concrete,
Research report GC-4, Curt in University of Technology ,
Perth, Australia.
10. Sofi D., Van Deventer J.S.J., Mendis P.A., Lukey G.C.,
(2006), Engineering properties of inorganic polymer concretes
(IPCs), Cement and Concrete Research, 37, pp 251-257.
11. Sumajouw M.D.J., Rangan B.V., (2006), Low-Calcium fly ash
based geopolymer concrete: Reinforced Beams and Columns,
Research report GC-3, Curt in University of Technology ,
Perth, Australia.
12. Wallah S.E., Rangan B.V., (2006), Low-calcium fly ash based
geopolymer concrete: long term properties. Research report
GC-2, Curt in University o f Technology ,Perth, Australia.
13. S. Kumaravel, S.Thirugnanasambandam, Kumaravel, Et Al
"Flexural Behaviour of Geopolymer Concrete Beams",
International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and
Studies Vol.3, September- 2006.
14. K.Kanappiran, T. Sujatha and S. Nagan, et al " Flexural Behaviour
of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beams", International Journal
of Civil and Structural Engineering Volume 2, June-2011.
15. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (1959). “Methods of test for
strength of concrete.”IS: 516, BIS, New Delhi, India.
16. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS). (2009).“Recommended
guidelines for concrete mix design.”IS: 10262, BIS, New Delhi,
India.
17. IS 456-2000, Plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice,
Fourth Revision, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, 2000,
107 pp.
3467