Shear Behavior of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Experimental Program
2.1. GC Mixture Design
2.1.1. Materials
2.1.2. GC Mixing Procedure
2.1.3. GC Mixing Proportions
2.2. GC Test Beams
2.2.1. Test Setup and Instrumentation
2.2.2. Properties of Beams
3. Results
3.1. Crack Pattern and Failure Mode
3.2. Peak Load and General Behavior
3.3. Load-Deflection Relationship
4. Shear Strength Predictions
4.1. Contribution of Transverse Reinforcement to the Shear Strength and Proposed Equation
4.2. Evaluation of the Proposed Equation
5. Conclusions
- It can be seen that the proposed shear strength equation, Equation (7), for GC beams with a/d values as small as 2.5 (which is generally considered as the boundary between slender and deep beams) resulted in the lowest coefficient of variation (COV) value of 0.305 for the test data from four different studies. Hence, Equation (7) provides better results than the six codes of practice and Zsutty’s equation, which were proposed for the prediction of the shear strength of GC beams (Table 7). However, further research is required to verify the quality and universality of the proposed equation, since the test data for GC beams are still very limited in the literature.
- The ratio of the experimental to the proposed shear strength does not seem to be affected by variations in the fc, a/d, wfyw, and d in a clear manner. However, again, it is important to note that the test data were not homogeneous and not controlled for parameter variations. Thus, a sensitivity analysis was not possible.
- It was observed that the strength of the GC over 28 days reached approximately 21~59% of the strength in 3 days and 71~76% in 7 days, respectively. In the OPC concrete, these values were approximately 40% in 3 days and 65% in 7 days. Thus, it is clear that GC gains strength more rapidly in the initial days compared to ordinary Portland cement concrete.
- Considering the strength, consistency, and workability, the M6 mixture with an alkaline liquid/binder ratio of 0.75 is the most suitable mixture for the production of slag-based geopolymer concrete. It manages to maintain its consistency for approximately 90 min and has a slump value of 270 mm, which is practical for structural element manufacturing.
- When the energy-dissipating capacities are examined, it is observed that the G25S10 beam has the highest ductility and the G25R beam has the lowest in the G25 series. As the distance between the transverse reinforcements decreases, the ductility level and ultimate load increases. While shear cracks dominated the failure mode in the G25R, G25S20, and G25S15 beams, shear-flexure cracks in the G25S10 beams caused their failure. It is seen that the failure mode changes from shear to bending as the transverse reinforcement spacing decreases in GC beams as well. These findings are similar to the behavior of OPC concrete beams, as reported in [19].
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Mohan, H.T.; Jayanarayanan, D.; Mini, K.M. A Sustainable approach for the utilization of PPE biomedical waste in the construction sector. Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 2022, 32, 101060. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferdous, W.; Manalo, A.; Siddique, R.; Mendis, P.; Zhuge, Y.; Wong, H.S.; Lokuge, W.; Aravinthan, T.; Schubel, P. Recycling of landfill wastes (tyres, plastics, and glass) in construction–A review on global waste generation, performance, application and future opportunities. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2021, 173, 105745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lim, Y.Y.; Thong, M.; Pham, T.M.; Kumar, J. Sustainable alkali activated concrete with fly ash and waste marble aggregates: Strength and Durability studies. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 273, 122795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Venkatarama, R.B.V. Sustainable materials for low carbon buildings. Int. J. Low-Carbon Technol. 2009, 4, 175–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Turner, L.K.; Collins, F. G Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 43, 125–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Malhotra, V.M. Introduction: Sustainable development and concrete technology. Concr. Int. 2002, 24, 7. [Google Scholar]
- Davidovits, J. False Values on CO2 Emission for Geopolymer Cement/Concrete published in Scientific Papers; Technical Paper #24; Geopolymer Institute Library: Paris, France, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Caijun, S.; Jiménez, A.F.; Palomo, A. New cements for the 21st century: The pursuit of an alternative to Portland cement. Cem. Concr. Res. 2011, 41, 750–763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Davidovits, J. Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 1991, 37, 1633–1656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Bakri, M.; Mohammed, M.; Kamarudin, H.; Niza, H.I.K.; Zarina, Y. Review on fly ash-based geopolymer concrete without Portland Cement. J. Eng. Technol. Res. 2011, 3, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ahmed, H.U.; Mahmood, L.J.; Muhammad, M.A.; Faraj, R.H.; Qaidi, S.M.; Sor, N.H.; Mohammed, A.S.; Mohammed, A.A. Geopolymer concrete as a cleaner construction material: An overview on materials and structural performances. Clean. Mater. 2022, 5, 100111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, G.; Ho, W.K.; Tu, W.; Zhang, M. Workability and mechanical properties of alkali-activated fly ash-slag concrete cured at ambient temperature. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 476–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patankar, S.V.; Jamkar, S.S.; Ghugal, Y.M. "Effect of water-to-geopolymer binder ratio on the production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Int. J. Adv. Technol. Civ. Eng. 2013, 2, 79–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Al Bakri, A.M.M.; Kamarudin, H.; Karem, O.A.K.A.; Ruzaidi, C.M.; Rafiza, A.R.; Norazian, M.N. Optimization of Alkaline Activator/fly ASH Ratio on The Compressive Strength of Manufacturing fly ashed-based Geopolymer. Appl. Mech. Mater. 2012, 110–116, 734–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, A.K.; Kumar, D.R. Effect of various alkaline binder ratio on geopolymer concrete under ambient curing condition. Mater. Today: Proc. 2020, 27, 1768–1773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chowdhury, S.; Mohapatra, s.; Gaur, M.; Dwivedi, G.; Soni, A. Study of various properties of geopolymer concrete–A review. Mater. Today: Proc. 2021, 46, 5687–5695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Feng, K.N.; Ruan, D.; Pan, Z.; Collins, F.; Bai, Y.; Wang, C.M.; Duan, W.H. Effect of strain rate on splitting tensile strength of geopolymer concrete. Mag. Concr. Res. 2014, 66, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chang, E.H. Shear and Bond Behavior of Reinforced Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete Beams. Ph.D. Thesis, Curtin University of Technology, Department of Civil Engineering, Perth, Australia, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, C.; Hwang, H.J.; Shi, C.; Li, N.; Du, Y. Shear tests on reinforced slag-based geopolymer concrete beams with transverse reinforcement. Eng. Struct. 2020, 219, 110966. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Choi, K.K.; Hong-Gun, P.; Wight, J.K. Unified shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams-Part I: Development. ACI Struct. J. 2007, 104, 142. [Google Scholar]
- Choi, K.K.; Hong-Gun, P. Unified shear strength model for reinforced concrete beams Part II: Verification and simplified method. ACI Struct. J. 2007, 104, 153. [Google Scholar]
- Madheswaran, C.K.; Ambily, P.S.; Dattatreya, L.J.K.; Sathik, S.A.J. Shear Behavior of Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete Thin-Webbed T-Beams. ACI Mater. J. 2014, 111, 1. [Google Scholar]
- ACI 318-08; ACI Committee 318, Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318-08) and Commentary. American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2008; 473p.
- Huang, Z.; Chen, W.; Hao, H.; Chen, Z.; Pham, T.M.; Tran, T.T.; Elchalakani, M. Shear behaviour of ambient cured geopolymer concrete beams reinforced with BFRP bars under static and impact loads. Eng. Struct. 2021, 231, 111730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Visintin, P.; Ali, M.M.; Albitar, M.; Lucas, W. Shear behaviour of geopolymer concrete beams without stirrups. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 148, 10–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aldemir, A.; Akduman, S.; Kocaer, O.; Aktepe, R.; Sahmaran, M.; Yildirim, G.; Almahmood, H.; Ashour, A. Shear behaviour of reinforced construction and demolition waste-based geopolymer concrete beams. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 47, 103861. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yacob, N.S.; ElGawady, M.A.; Sneed, L.H.; Said, A. Shear strength of fly ash-based geopolymer reinforced concrete beams. Eng. Struct. 2019, 196, 109298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hawileh, R.A.; Badrawi, H.A.; Makahleh, H.Y.; Karzad, A.S.; Abdalla, J.A. Behavior of reinforced concrete beams cast with a proposed geopolymer concrete (GPC) mix. Int. J. Appl. Sci. Eng. 2022, 19, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ACI 318-19; Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete—Commentary on Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (ACI 318R-19). American Concrete Institute (ACI): Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2019.
- EN 1992-1-1:2004; CEN. Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures, Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 2004.
- ENV 1992-1-1; CEN (Comité Européen de Normalisation). Eurocode 2: Design of Concrete Structures. Part 1-1: General Rules and Rules for Buildings. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
- TS–500; Requirements for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures. Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Turkey, 2000. (In Turkish)
- NZS 3101; New Zealand Standard Code of Practice for the Design of Concrete Structures (NZS 3101). NZS: Wellington, New Zealand, 1995.
- Arslan, G.; Keskin, R.S.O.; Birincioglu, M.I. Shear strength of steel-fibre-reinforced concrete beams with web reinforcement. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.-Struct. Build. 2019, 172, 267–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, G. Shear strength of reinforced concrete slender beams. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng. Struct. Build. 2010, 163, 195–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zsutty, T.C. Beam shear strength prediction by analysis of existing data. ACI J. 1968, 65, 943–951. [Google Scholar]
- Lee, K.M.; Choi, S.; Choo, J.F.; Choi, Y.C.; Yoo, S.W. Flexural and Shear Behaviors of Reinforced Alkali-Activated Slag Concrete Beams. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2017, 2017, 5294290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- TS-706 EN 12620+A1; Aggregates for Concrete. Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Turkey, 2009. (In Turkish)
- TS 15167-1; Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag for Use in Concrete, Mortar and Grout—Part 1: Definitions, Specifications and Conformity Criteria. Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Turkey, 2006. (In Turkish)
- TS 13515; Complementary Turkish Standard for Theimplementation of TS EN 206, Manufacturing and Conformity Assessment of Concrete Used In Situ and Precast Structures and Structural Precast Products for Buildings and Civil Engineering Structures. Turkish Standards Institute: Ankara, Turkey, 2021. (In Turkish)
- Cheng, H.; Lin, K.L.; Cui, R.; Hwang, C.L.; Cheng, T.W.; Chang, Y.M. Effect of solid-to-liquid ratios on the properties of waste catalyst–metakaolin based geopolymers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 88, 74–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, C.K.; Awang, A.Z.; Omar, W. Structural and material performance of geopolymer concrete: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 186, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, N.; Shi, C.; Zhang, Z.; Zhu, D.; Hwang, H.J.; Zhu, Y.; Sun, T. A mixture proportioning method for the development of performance-based alkali-activated slag-based concrete. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2018, 93, 163–174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yang, K.H.; Song, J.K.; Lee, K.S.; Ashour, A.F. Flow and Compressive Strength of Alkali-Activated Mortars. ACI Mater. J. 2009, 106, 50–58. [Google Scholar]
- Phoo-ngernkham, T.; Maegawa, A.; Mishima, N.; Hatanaka, S.; Chindaprasirt, P. Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions on compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 91, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- CEB-FIP Model Code 90. Structural Effects of Time-Dependent Behaviour of Concrete, Comite Euro International du Béton, 6th ed.; Thomas Telford: London, UK, 1993; ISBN 978-2-88394-019-2.
- Frosch, R.J. Behavior of large-scale reinforced concrete beams with minimum shear reinforcement. ACI Struct. J. 2000, 97, 814–820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zararis, P.D. Shear strength and minimum shear reinforcement of reinforced concrete slender beams. ACI Struct. J. 2003, 100, 203–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gemi, L.; Aksoylu, C.; Yazman, Ş.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Arslan, M.H. Experimental investigation of shear capacity and damage analysis of thinned end prefabricated concrete purlins strengthened by CFRP composite. Compos. Struct. 2019, 229, 111399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aksoylu, C.; Yazman, Ş.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Gemi, L.; Arslan, M.H. Experimental analysis of reinforced concrete shear deficient beams with circular web openings strengthened by CFRP composite. Compos. Struct. 2020, 249, 112561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özkılıç, Y.O.; Yazman, Ş.; Aksoylu, C.; Arslan, M.H.; Gemi, L. Numerical investigation of the parameters influencing the behavior of dapped end prefabricated concrete purlins with and without CFRP strengthening. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 275, 122173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Arslan, M.H.; Yazman, Ş.; Hamad, A.A.; Aksoylu, C.; Özkılıç, Y.O.; Gemi, L. Shear strengthening of reinforced concrete T-beams with anchored and non-anchored CFRP fabrics. Structures 2022, 39, 527–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Özkılıç, Y.O.; Aksoylu, C.; Gemi, L.; Arslan, M.H. Behavior of CFRP-strengthened RC beams with circular web openings in shear zones: Numerical study. Structures 2022, 41, 1369–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- AL-Shalif, S.A.; Akın, A.; Aksoylu, C.; Arslan, M.H. Strengthening of shear-critical reinforced concrete T-beams with anchored and non-anchored GFRP fabrics applications. Structures 2022, 44, 809–827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Allah, N.K.; El-Maaddawy, T.; El-Hassan, H. Geopolymer-and Cement-Based Fabric-Reinforced Matrix Composites for Shear Strengthening of Concrete Deep Beams: Laboratory Testing and Numerical Modeling. Buildings 2022, 12, 448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Typical Property | Standard Values 1 | Percentile (%) |
---|---|---|
SO3 | Maximum 2.5 | 0.15 |
Al2O3 | - | 14.83 |
Fe2O3 | - | 0.61 |
Na2O | - | 0.80 |
K2O | - | 1.10 |
Cl− | Maximum 0.10 | 0.01 |
CaO + MgO + SiO2 | Minimum 66.67 | 82.5 |
Compressive Strength (MPa) | % of 28-Day Strength | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mixture | NaOH (kg/m3)/Na2SiO3 (kg/m3) | Superplasticizer (kg/m3) | Slump (mm) | 3 Days | 7 Days | 28 Days | 3 Days | 7 Days |
M1 | 29.25/58.5 | 4.5 | Coagulated | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
M2 | 58.50/117.0 | 4.5 | 60 | 23.41 | 30.29 | 39.78 | 0.59 | 0.76 |
M3 | 58.50/117.0 | 81.0 | 210 | 6.37 | 21.63 | 30.61 | 0.21 | 0.71 |
M4 | 87.75/204.8 | 4.5 | 230 | 30.62 | 40.32 | 54.90 | 0.56 | 0.73 |
M5 | 102.38/263.3 | 4.5 | Segregated | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
M6 | 102.38/234.0 | 4.5 | 270 | 35.10 | 46.45 | 65.00 | 0.54 | 0.71 |
Beam | fc (MPa) | s (cm) | a/d | a (mm) | b (mm) | L (mm) | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
G25R | 56.0 | --- | --- | 2.5 | 525 | 175 | 1400 |
G25S10 | 69.5 | 10 | 0.67 | 2.5 | 525 | 175 | 1400 |
G25S15 | 64.0 | 15 | 0.45 | 2.5 | 525 | 175 | 1400 |
G25S20 | 70.0 | 20 | 0.34 | 2.5 | 525 | 175 | 1400 |
G35R | 48.26 | --- | --- | 3.5 | 735 | 365 | 2200 |
G45R | 62.39 | --- | --- | 4.5 | 945 | 155 | 2200 |
Reinforcement Diameter | 8 | 12 | 16 | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
fyw (MPa) | fyw (MPa) | fyw (MPa) | fyw (MPa) | fyw (MPa) | fyw (MPa) | |
609.80 | 788.34 | 506.18 | 662.39 | 595.65 | 739.83 |
Beams | First Crack | Ultimate Status | Final Note | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Pcr (kN) | δcr (mm) | Type | Location | Pmax. (kN) | δPmax. (mm) | Damage Type | ||
G25S20 | 72.68 | 2.42 | Shear | Shear Span | 209.01 | 15.78 | Shear | The experiment ended with a shear failure near the left support. The experiment ended with a shear failure near the left support. The experiment ended with a shear-flexure failure. The experiment ended with a shear failure near the right support. The experiment ended with a shear failure near the left support. The experiment ended with a shear failure near the left support. |
G25S15 | 65.52 | 1.94 | Shear | Shear Span | 213.43 | 16.04 | Shear | |
G25S10 | 69.20 | 1.72 | Flexure | Flexure Region | 221.06 | 16.66 | Shear-Flexure | |
G25R | 70.20 | 1.68 | Shear | Shear Span | 103.90 | 3.82 | Shear | |
G35R | 50.16 | 3.24 | Shear | Shear Span | 75.74 | 5.98 | Shear | |
G45R | 63.47 | 6.48 | Shear | Shear Span | 82.56 | 12.02 | Shear |
Reference | Equations 1 |
---|---|
ACI 318 | |
TS 500 | |
NZS | Beams without stirrups |
Beams with stirrups | |
EN 1992:2004 | , for , > 0.5 for , |
, | |
EN 1992 | , , , , , d in m, in MPa, |
ENV 1992 | , , , , , |
Zsutty’s |
Exp/Predictions | MV | SD | COV |
---|---|---|---|
1 Exp./2 Prop. | 1.457 | 0.444 | 0.305 |
Exp./ACI318 | 1.551 | 0.675 | 0.435 |
Exp./TS500 | 1.292 | 0.541 | 0.418 |
Exp./NZS | 1.127 | 0.378 | 0.336 |
Exp./EN1992 | 1.532 | 0.572 | 0.374 |
Exp./EN1992: 2004 | 1.604 | 1.021 | 0.637 |
Exp./ENV 1992 | 2.016 | 1.265 | 0.627 |
Exp./Zsutty’s | 1.289 | 0.470 | 0.365 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Ozturk, M.; Arslan, G. Shear Behavior of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams. Buildings 2022, 12, 2053. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122053
Ozturk M, Arslan G. Shear Behavior of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams. Buildings. 2022; 12(12):2053. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122053
Chicago/Turabian StyleOzturk, Mehdi, and Guray Arslan. 2022. "Shear Behavior of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag-Based Geopolymer-Reinforced Concrete Beams" Buildings 12, no. 12: 2053. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12122053