INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CIVIL AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

Volume 2, No 3, 2012
Copyright 2010 All rights reserved Integrated Publishing services

Research article

ISSN 0976 4399

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced

Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K1, Anuradha.R 2, Venkatasubramani.R3

1- PG student, Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Technology,
Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, TN, India
2- Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Technology,
Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, TN, India
3-Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Technology,
Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, TN, India
umakraj@gmail.com
doi:10.6088/ijcser.00202030010
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the flexural response of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete (RGPC) beam.
A commercial finite element computer program ANSYS 12.0 has been used to perform a
structural behavior of RGPC beam. Using various parameters like stress, strain and Poissons
ratio obtained from experimental results, a model has been created in ANSYS 12.0.
Experimental based analysis has been widely used as a means to find out the response of
individual elements of structure with reinforcement ratio of 0.87% and 1.75% for grades
M20, M25, M30 and M35 with companion specimens like cylinders. The results from both
ANSYS 12.0 modelling and experimental data were compared. The observation was mainly
focused on RGPC beam behavior at different points of interest which were then tabulated and
compared. Due to high stiffness of reactive geopolymer concrete, the actual deflections of the
beams were found to be slightly low allowable values under service loads. In ANSYS 12.0
the deflection obtained was found to be low due to meshing of elements in the modeling. The
comparative result gives 20% difference for experimental and ANSYS 12.0.
Keywords: Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Beam, ANSYS 12.0, Load deflection, Stress
strain behavior, Reinforcement ratio.
1. Introduction
Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world. Ordinary Portland
cement (OPC) has been traditionally used as the binding material for concrete. The
manufacturing of OPC requires the burning of large quantities of fossil fuel and
decomposition of limestone, which results in significant emissions of carbon-di-oxide (CO2)
to the atmosphere. This CO2 emission is the main cause for global warming, which have
become a major concern.
Thus many efforts are being made to reduce the usage of OPC in concrete. A new technology
materials like geopolymers that offer waste utilization and emissions reduction, in which fly
ash is used as a base material instead of OPC in geopolymer concrete.
The tensile strength of geopolymer concrete falls within the range predicted for OPC based
concrete. Also, the flexural strengths are generally higher than the standard model line for
OPC based concrete. This favorable behaviour can be attributed to the type of matrix

Received on December, 2011 Published on February 2012

817

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

formation in geopolymer concrete (Sofi, D et al., 2007). It has been reported that the stress
strain relationship of fly ash based geopolymer concrete is almost similar to that of OPC
concrete (Hardjito, D. and Rangan, B.V. 2006). Geopolymer show substantially superior
resistance to fire and acid attack and much less shrinkage than OPC concrete (Rangan, B. V.,
Hardjto, D. 2005). Geopolymer is produced by a polymeric reaction of alkaline liquid with
source material of geological origin or by product material such as fly ash. In terms of
reducing global warming, geopolymer technology could reduce approximately 80% of CO 2
emission to the atmosphere caused by cement and aggregate industry (Rangan, B.V., Wallah,
S.E. 2006).
In this paper investigation on Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete (RGPC) beam with different
grades (M20, M25, M30, M35) were produced under ambient curing. The percentages of
tension reinforcements adopted were 0.87 and 1.75. Performance aspects such as load
carrying capacity, deflection and strains at different stages were studied. In addition the use
of the finite element method for the analysis of RGPC beams was carried out and the results
were compared with the experimental values.
2. Experimental programme
2.1 Materials
The material consists of ASTM class F fly ash of fineness modulus 7.86 and Specific gravity
of 2.30 was obtained from Mettur power plant, Tamil Nadu. River sand (FA) of specific
gravity 2.64 and fineness modulus 2.15 conforming to zone II of IS 383:1970 and locally
available coarse aggregate (CA) passed through 20 mm IS sieve and retained on 10 mm sieve
was used. The coarse aggregate conforming to IS:2386-1968 part III, were found to have
specific gravity 2.83 and fineness modulus 6.4. The alkaline activators like sodium hydroxide
(NaOH) pellets (98% - 100% pure) and sodium silicate (Na2SiO3) solution (12% Na2O and
30% SiO2) were used. The sodium hydroxide pellets were dissolved in the required amount
of water according to the desired molarity. The grade of steel used was Fe 415.
2.2 Mix proportion
The compressive strength and the workability of geopolymer concrete are influenced by the
proportions and properties of the constituent materials. Table 1 shows the mix proportion of
geopolymer concrete.
Table 1: Mix proportion
Mix
M20
M25
M30
M35

Na2SiO3
kg/m3
142.86
188.57
239.64
279

NaOH kg/m3
57.14
75.43
95.86
111.6

Extra Water
kg/m3
12
13.2
16.5
18.9

Fly ash
kg/m3
400
440
550
630

FA kg/m3
745.54
680.27
575.86
497.54

CA
kg/m3
1113.21
1015.87
858.62
741.75

2.2 Mixing
All the materials were mixed manually in the laboratory at room temperature. The alkaline
solutions like sodium hydroxide solution and sodium silicate solution were prepared
818
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

separately prior to one day of casting to get the required strength and mixed together at the
time of casting. Since lot of heat is generated when sodium hydroxide pellets react with
water, the sodium hydroxide solution was prepared a day earlier to casting. The fly ash and
aggregates were first mixed homogeneously and then the alkaline solutions were added to it.
The mixing of total mass was continued until the mixture become homogeneous and uniform
in colour.
2.3 Casting
2.3.1 Cylinder
A set of twelve cylinders of dimensions 150 mm 300 mm were cast and tested to determine
its compressive strength and stress strain values. Each cylinder was cast in five layers, which
received 60 strokes of compaction by standard compaction rod. The specimens were kept at
atmospheric temperature for 28 days under ambient curing.
2.3.2 Beams
All beams were cast in steel moulds and the dimension of the beam specimens were 100 mm
x 200 mm x 2000 mm. The reinforcement detail of the beam was shown in figure 1. The
prepared mix was poured into the mould as three layers of equal thickness compacted until
the mix become homogeneous. GPC beams were cured in the laboratory for a period of 28
days after casting in the atmospheric temperature. The totally four number of specimens were
cast as shown in table 2. The specimens with 0.87% reinforcement were designated as B1,
where as specimens with 1.75% reinforcement were designated as RB1.
Table 2: Beam details
Mix Beam designation
M 20
B1, RB1
M 25
B2, RB2
M 30
B3, RB3
M 35
B4, RB4

Beam size in mm No. of beams

100 x 200 x 2000
2
100 x 200 x 2000
2
100 x 200 x 2000
2
100 x 200 x 2000
2

Figure 1: Reinforcement detail

819
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

3. Experimental testing
3.1 Cylinder testing
The cylinders were tested using Universal Testing Machine to determine the elastic modulus
and Poissons ratio. Three Linear Variable Differential Transducer (LVDTs) were fixed at the
mid height of the cylinder as shown in figure 2. The Two LVDTs in left and right sides were
used to measure the lateral deformation and the centrally placed LVDT was used to measure
the longitudinal deformation.

Figure 2: Test setup for cylinder

3.2 Beam testing
The test specimen was mounted in a loading frame of 1500 kN capacity. The load was
applied on two points of each 335 mm away from centre of the beam towards the support.
LVDT was used for measuring the deflections under the load points and at mid span. The
LVDT readings were recorded at different loads. The load was applied at intervals of 2.5 kN
until the first crack was observed. Subsequently, the load was applied in increments of 5 kN
until collapse occurs. The deflections and strain values were recorded for respective load
increments until failure. The failure mode of the beams was also recorded. The test setup for
the flexural test is shown in figure 3.

Figure 3: Test setup and Crack pattern of the beam

820
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

4. Analytical investigation
4.1 Concrete
Solid65 element was used to model the concrete material, since it has capability of both
cracking in tension and crushing in compression. Solid 65 element has 8 nodes with three
degrees of freedom at each node translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions (Ali L.
Abbas., 2010) (figure 4). For concrete, ANSYS requires input data for material properties as
shown in table 3.
Table 3: Material properties for ANSYS 12.0
Material property
Modulus of elasticity
Ultimate uniaxial compressive strength
Poissons ratio
Shear coefficient for open crack
Shear coefficient for closed crack

Symbol
E
fc

Values
22360MPa
20MPa

t
t

0.2
0.3

Values

4.2 Steel
The steel for the finite element models was assumed to be an elastic-perfectly plastic material
and identical in tension and compression. The LINK8, spar element, was used to represent
the reinforcing steel bar. Two nodes are required for this element such that each node has
three degrees of freedom, translations in the nodal x, y, and z directions. The element is also
capable of plastic deformation (figure 5).

Figure 4: Solid 65

Figure 5: Link 8

Figure 6, 7 & 8 shows the model of the beam, loading pattern and deflection of the beam in
ANSYS 12.0.

Figure 6: Reinforcement of beam in ANSYS Figure 7: Loading condition of beam in ANSYS

821
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

Figure 8: Deflection of M20 beam

5. Result and Discussion
5.1 Cylinder results
The stress strain curves were obtained from the test carried on cylinder specimen. Stress
strain curves are shown in the figure 9. It is observed that all the curves obtained for
geopolymer is similar to OPC concrete stress strain curve.
Table 4: Poissons ratio
Grade
Poissons
ratio
M20
0.232
M25
0.269
M30
0.224
M35
0.243
Figure 9: Stress strain curve
From the table 4. it is observed that the Poissons ratio of geopolymer concrete falls between
0.20 and 0.25. For Portland cement concrete, the Poissons ratio is usually between 0.11 and
0.21,with the most common value taken as 0.15 (Warner, R. F., B. V. Rangan, A.S. Hall, K.A.
Faulkes (1998) ) or 0.15 for high strength concrete and 0.22 for low strength concrete
(Neville 2000). These ranges are similar to those measured for the geopolymer concrete.
5.2 Beam results
The figure10 shows deflection of beam and the results were tabulated in table 5.
822
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

(a)

(b)

Figure 10: Crack pattern of beam with reinforcement ratio 0.87%

(a) M20 grade
(b) M25 grade

(c)

(d)

Figure 10: Crack pattern of beam with reinforcement ratio 1.75%

(c) M20 grade
(d) M25 grade
Table 5: Beam Test Results
For Reinforcement ratio 0.87%

20

B1

First
Crack
Load
kN
44

25

B2

30
35

For Reinforcement ratio 1.75%

56

6.52

RB1

First
Crack
Load
kN
40

40

48

5.89

RB2

B3

42

53

6.21

B4

46

59

7.05

Grade
Des.

Ultimate Mid Span

Load
Deflection
kN
(mm)

Des.

Ultimate Mid Span

Load
Deflection
kN
(mm)
51

7.25

38

52

6.35

RB3

43

54

8.5

RB4

45

56

8.55
823

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

5.3 Deflection plots

The experimental and numerical load-deflection curves obtained for the beams are illustrated
in figure 11. it is found to have good agreement in finite element analysis with the
experimental results throughout the entire range of behavior and failure mode. For all beams
the finite element model is stiffer than the actual beam in the linear range, this may be due to
several factors. The bond between the concrete and steel reinforcing is assumed to be perfect
in the finite element analysis, but for the actual beams the assumption would not be true, slip
occurs. Therefore the composite action between the concrete and steel reinforcing is lost in
the actual beams.

(a)

(b)

Figure 11: Load Deflection curve of beam with reinforcement ratio 0.87%
(a) M20 grade
(b) M25 grade

(c)

(d)

Figure 11: Load Deflection curve of beam with reinforcement ratio 0.87%
(c) M30 grade
(d) M35 grade

(e)

(f)
824

International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering

Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

Figure 11: Load Deflection curve of beam with reinforcement ratio 1.75%
(e) M20 grade
(f) M25 grade

(g)

(h)

Figure 11: Load Deflection curve of beam with reinforcement ratio 1.75%
(g) M30 grade
(h) M35 grade

5.4 Crack pattern

For each applied load step crack pattern was developed using ANSYS program. Figure 12.
shows comparison of crack patterns developed for beam. Crack patterns obtained from the
finite element analysis at the converged load steps and the failure modes of the experimental
beams agree very well. The finite element model show slightly more stiffness than the actual
beams in the linear range due to excluding the effects of bond slip (between the concrete and
steel reinforcing) and meshing of the model. Whereas in actual beams formation of micro
cracks lead to sudden failure.

Figure 12(a): Comparison of Crack pattern of beam with reinforcement ratio 0.87% for M20
grade

Figure 12(b): Comparison of Crack pattern of beam with reinforcement ratio 1.75% for M20
grade
825
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

5.5 Conclusions
1. From the experimental results, the stress strain curves for geopolymer concrete of
various mix proportions were developed.
2. The stress strain model developed for geopolymer concrete of various mix
proportions were found to be in close agreement with IS 456 2000.
3. The Poissons ratio of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with compressive strength
in the range of 20 to 35 MPa falls between 0.12 and 0.25. These values are similar to
those of OPC concrete.
4. Finite element models were developed using ANSYS 12.0 and the deformation
studies were carried out.
5. The difference in the value of experimental load-deflection and finite element loaddeflection for both reinforcement ratio of 0.87% and 1.75% of beams were due to
meshing. These values can be minimized by modifying the size of elements in
meshing.
6. The load deflection characteristics of RGPC beam using ANSYS 12.0 were found to
be marginally lower compare to experimental test results.
7. The measured deflections of beams and the predicted deflections using ANSYS 12.0
show fair agreement.
8. The total load is to be divided into a number of suitable load steps (load increment) by
conducting a few trial analysis until a smooth load deflection curves obtained.
9. Results obtained experimentally are conservative than the ANSYS 12.0 software. It is
due to more stiffness in ANSYS 12.0.
10. The accuracy of the results depends upon meshing of Finite element model.
11. In order to get more accurate behaviour, the tension reinforcements are to be precisely
incorporated using discrete modelling technique.
6. References
1. Ali L. Abbas., (2010), Non-linear analysis of reinforced concrete beams strengthened
with steel and CFRP plates, Diyala Journal of Engineering Sciences, ISSN 19998716, pp 249-256.
2. IS 383-1970 (reaffirmed 1997), Specifications for Coarse and Fine aggregates from
Natural Source for concrete, New Delhi.
3. IS 2386-1968 part III (reaffirmed 1997), methods of test for aggregates for concrete,
New Delhi.
826
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012

Experimental investigation and analytical modeling of reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam

Uma.K, Anuradha.R, Venkatasubramani.R

4. Ivan DiaZ Loya E.,Erez N. Allouche., and Saiprasad vaidya., (2011), Mechanical
properties of Fly ash based Geopolymer concrete, ACI Material Journal, 108-M32,pp
300-306.
5. Neville, A. M. (2000), Properties of Concrete, Prentice Hall.
6. Rangan, B. V., Hardjto, D. (2005), Development and properties of low calcium fly
ash based geopolymer concrete. Research report GC-1, Faculty of Engineering,
Curtins University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
7. Rangan, B.V., Wallah, S.E. (2006), Low-calcium fly ash based geopolymer concrete:
long term properties. Research report GC-2, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, Perth, Australia.
8. 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.
9. Warner, R. F., B. V. Rangan, A.S. Hall, K.A. Faulkes (1998), Concrete Structures,
Melbourne, Addison Wesley Longman Australia Ltd.

827
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering
Volume 2 Issue 3 2012