Behaviour of Geopolymer Reinforced Concrete Beams

GEOPOLYMERGEOPOLYMER

The term “geopolymer” was firstly applied to describe a family of

alkaline Aluminosilicate binders formed by the alkali activation of

alumino silicate minerals.

Geopolymer technology was introduced by Prof: Joseph Davidovits Joseph Davidovits

in 1978.

The formation of geopolymeric materials is the result of a complicated

heterogeneous chemical reaction occurring between Al-Si materials

and strongly alkaline silicate solutions.

Constituents of Geopolymer ConcreteConstituents of Geopolymer Concrete

Source materials

Materials which are rich in aluminum and silica can be used as source

material.

Ex: Fly ash, GGBS, Silica fumes, Rice husk ash etc..

Alkaline liquids

The most commonly used alkaline liquids are combinations of

sodium hydroxide with sodium silicate or potassium hydroxide with

potassium silicate.

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETEGEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

The oxides of silicon and aluminium present in the source material

reacts with alkaline liquids to form Geopolymer paste which binds

the coarse and fine aggregate to form Geopolymer concrete.

In present experimental work, Geopolymer concrete prepared by

using fly ash and GGBS as source material

Alkaline solution prepared by using Sodium hydroxide flakes and

sodium silicate solution (14M).

GEOPOLYMERIZATIONGEOPOLYMERIZATION

Geopolymerization can transfer large scale alumino-silicate wastes into value-

added geopolymeric products with sound mechanical strength and high acid,

fire and bacterial resistance

The average density of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete is similar to

that of OPC concrete.(Hardjito & Rangan B.V.)

The slump increases with increase in water content (Hardjito &

Rangan B.V.)

Higher the mixing time (up to 20 minutes) higher would be the

compressive strength. (Hardjito and Rangan.B.V)

The effective curing period of 24hours with temperature of 60°C

produces higher compressive strength of geopolymer concrete. The

temperature beyond the 60° C wouldn't find any significant increase in

strength. (Hardjito & Rangan B.V.)

General Properties of Geopolymer concrete

Alkali-activated fly ash mortars, regardless of the type of activator

used, are generally more durable than OPC mortars (P. Chindaprasirt;

T. Chareerat; S. Hatanaka; and T. CaoIn)

The optimal temperature duration of curing at 65°C for GPC was 20

hours beyond which the strength increase was marginal. (Ranganath,

R.V., and Mohammed Saleh)

The ratio of sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution

was varied from 0.5 to 4.5. The maximum strength was obtained

when the ratio was 2.5 at one, three and seven days. (Ranganath,

R.V., and Mohammed Saleh)

The Poisson’s 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. (Uma.K,

Anuradha.R and Venkatasubramani.R )

The indirect tensile strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete is a

fraction of the compressive strength, as in the case of Portland cement

concrete. (M. D.J. Sumajouw and B. V. Rangan)

As the longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio increased, the flexural

capacity of the beams increased significantly. (Sumajouw &

Rangan.B.V).

The flexural property and crack pattern is similar to portland cement

concrete (Sumajouw & Rangan.B.V).

Structural properties of Geopolymer concrete

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.

(Dattatreya, Rajamane, Sabitha, Ambily, and M.C. Nataraja)

The crack widths, crack spacing and no. of cracks were comparable

for both RPCC and RGPC beams. (Dattatreya, Rajamane, Sabitha,

Ambily, and M.C. Nataraja)

The measured deflections of beams and the predicted deflections

using ANSYS 12.0 show fair agreement. (Uma.K, Anuradha.R and

Venkatasubramani.R )

AIM OF THE RESEARCHAIM OF THE RESEARCH

The present study deals with the preparation of geopolymer concrete

using fly ash and GGBS.

To study the influence of binder content on compressive strength,

density & workability of GPC.

To study the optimum usage of GGBS along with fly ash to develop

GPC

To determine the compressive strength of GPC cubes and selecting the

value of optimum fck

Based on the above results the study was conducted on reinforced

geopolymer concrete beam for the optimum mix.

OBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCHOBJECTIVE OF THE RESEARCH

Casting of geopolymer concrete cubes, cylinders and prisms for the optimum value of fck

Testing for compressive strength, split tensile strength &flexural strength from cubes, cylinders and prisms specimens.

Casting of six simply supported RGPC beams for the optimum value with longitudinal tensile reinforcement as the variable.

To study the flexural behaviour, crack patterns, surface strain measurement and load deflection behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete beams under two point loading.

Materials required for developing GPC

Fly ash

GGBS

Coarse aggregate

Fine aggregate

Sodium hydroxide

Sodium silicate

Super plasticizer

Physical and chemical properties of fly ash Class F fly ash is used in this experiment is brought from RTPS Karnataka.

Sl No

Description ValuesRequirement as per 3812:2003

Physical property

1 Specific gravity 2.10 ------------

2Fineness (Blain’s air permeability) -m2/Kg

480 320

Chemical properties

3 SiO2 (% by mass) ) (Minimum) 61.98 35

4SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 (% by mass)

(Minimum)94.24 70

5 Mg O (% by mass) (Maximum) 0.79 5

6Total sulphur as sulphur trioxide SO3

(% by mass) (Maximum)0.14 3

7 LOI (% by mass) (Maximum) 0.31 5

Physical and chemical composition of GGBS GGBS used for the experimental work is brought from RMC plant of ultratech

in Bangalore.

Sl No Description Values

Physical Composition

1 Specific gravity 2.10

2Fineness (Blain’s air permeability) m2/Kg

480

3Wet sieve analysis % retained on (45µ)

2.9 %

Sl No

Description Values

Chemical Composition

1 SiO2 (silicon dioxide) 33.78%

2 Al2O3 (Aluminum oxide) 17.08%

3 CaO (Calcium oxide) 39.87%

4 Mg O (Magnesium oxide) 7.10%

Coarse aggregate

The locally available crushed granite of 20mm down size was used

as the coarse aggregate.

Specific gravity of coarse aggregate = 2.64

Water absorption = 0.27 %

Fine aggregate

Locally available clean river sand was used as fine aggregate

Fineness modules of fine aggregate = 3.07

Specific gravity = 2.62

Fine aggregate test confirm to Zone-II as per IS :383-1970

Sodium hydroxide

For this experiment sodium hydroxide is used in the form of flakes.

Sodium silicate

Commercially available sodium silicate was used for the

experimental work with water content of 39.42% and specific

gravity of 1.61.

Super plasticizer

Conplast SP 430 (FOSROC chemicals)

GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE MIX DESIGN GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

PARAMETERS PARAMETERS Wet density of geopolymer concrete- 2400 Kg/m3

Sodium silicate/ Sodium hydroxide- 2.5

Total water content- 140 Kg/m3

Water content in Sodium silicate- 39.42 %

Sodium hydroxide used- 14 Molar

Amount of binder used- 23 to 29%

Proportion of Coarse to fine aggregate =56%: 44%

DESIGN PARAMETERS VALUE UNIT Exp.. work

The wet density of geopolymer concrete 2400 Kg/m3 Constant

Ratio of Sodium silicate to Sodium Hydroxide

solution2.5 Constant Constant

The water content Chosen for Mix 140 Litres Constant

The water content in Sodium silicate 39.42% Percentage Constant

Amount of Binder used (Fly ash & GGBS) 23% to 29% Percentage Variable

Fly ash percentage 100% to 70% Percentage Variable

GGBS percentage 0% to 30% Percentage Variable

Coarse aggregate percentage 56% Percentage Constant

Fine aggregate percentage 44% Percentage Constant

Molarity of prepared Alkaline solution 14M Molarity Constant

Dosage of super plasticizer 2% Percentage Constant

Total water content - 140 lit/m3

Percentage variation of Fly ash and GGBS in the total binder content

29% Binder is used

Binder Content = 2098.26*0.29= 608.49 kg/m3

For 75% of Fly ash =0.75* 608.49 =456.37 kg/m3

For 25% of GGBS=0.25* 608.49 =152.12 kg/m3

The proportion of coarse aggregate to fine aggregate based on least void content

Therefore

Coarse aggregate = 0.56*1490= 834.4 kg/m3

Fine aggregate = 0.44*1490 = 655.6 kg/m3

And also 2% of super plasticizer (Conplast SP 430) was used

The final proportions for one cubic meter of Geopolymer concrete

Particulars Fly ash GGBS C.A F.A NaoH Na2Sio3

Super plasticizer dosage

Dosage ml

Kg/m3 456.38 152.12 834.4 655.6 86.21 215.53 2% 153

Ratio 1 0.33 1.83 1.44 0.19 0.47

MIX DESIGN OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETEMIX DESIGN OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Mix proportionsMix proportionsTotal Binder

content Kg/m3 Proportion of Binder Fly ash GGBSFine

AggregateCoarse

AggregateAlkali Solution(kg/m3)

23%

Fly ash GGBS Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 NaOH Na2Sio3

100% 0% 482.6 0 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.5395% 05% 458.47 24.13 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

90% 10% 434.34 48.26 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

85% 15% 410.21 72.39 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

80% 20% 386.08 96.52 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

75% 25% 361.95 120.65 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

70% 30% 337.25 144.78 710.89 904.77 86.21 215.53

Geopolymer concrete 140 liter mix

Total Binder content Kg/m3 Proportion of Binder Fly ash GGBS

Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate

Alkali Solution(kg/m3)

25%


100% 0% 524.6 0 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.5395% 05% 498.37 26.23 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53

90% 10% 472.14 52.46 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53

85% 15% 445.91 78.69 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53

80% 20% 419.68 104.92 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53

75% 25% 393.45 131.15 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53

70% 30% 367.22 157.38 692.41 881.25 86.21 215.53



Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate


27%


100% 0% 566.5 0 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

95% 05% 538.175 28.325 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

90% 10% 509.85 56.65 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

85% 15% 481.525 84.975 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

80% 20% 453.2 113.3 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

75% 25% 424.875 141.625 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53

70% 30% 396.55 169.95 673.97 857.79 86.21 215.53



Fine Aggregate

Coarse Aggregate


29%


100% 0% 608.49 0 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

95% 05% 578.066 30.425 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

90% 10% 547.641 60.85 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

85% 15% 517.217 91.274 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

80% 20% 486.792 121.698 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

75% 25% 456.368 152.123 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53

70% 30% 425.943 182.547 655.50 834.27 86.21 215.53


PREPARATION OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETEPREPARATION OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Preparation of Alkaline solution

Sodium hydroxide solution was added with sodium silicate solution

one day before the mixing of concrete.

Mixing

First aggregates and binder ( fly ash and GGBS) are mixed in tilting

drum mixer for about 3 minutes.

Then alkaline liquid is added to the dry mix and mixing is continued

for about 4 minutes.

TESTS ON FRESH GEOPOLYMER CONCRETETESTS ON FRESH GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE

Workability test

Slump test

Workability tests are conducted according to IS:1199-1959.

Workability test results for 140 lit mix Total Binder content

23%

Slumpmm

Total Binder content25%

Slumpmm

Proportion of Binder Proportion of Binder

Fly ash GGBS Fly ash GGBS

100% 0% 216 100% 0% 211

95% 05% 210 95% 05% 202

90% 10% 203 90% 10% 196

85% 15% 195 85% 15% 190

80% 20% 187 80% 20% 182

75% 25% 180 75% 25% 174

70% 30% 170 70% 30% 165


Slumpmm


Slumpmm

Proportion of Binder Proportion of Binder

Fly ash GGBS Fly ash GGBS

100% 0% 203 100% 0% 195

95% 05% 195 95% 05% 188

90% 10% 188 90% 10% 183

85% 15% 180 85% 15% 176

80% 20% 172 80% 20% 170

75% 25% 164 75% 25% 157

70% 30% 158 70% 30% 150

Slump test

Effect of 23% binder content on slump value Effect of 25% binder content on slump value

Effect of 27% binder content on slump value Effect of 29% binder content on slump value

Casting of specimens

Cube (150mmx150mmx150mm): 90 No’s

Prism (100mmx100mmx500mm) :9 No’s

Cylinder (150mmx300mm) :9 No’s

The fresh geopolymer concrete was cast into moulds immediately

after mixing.

Compaction is achieved by giving sixty manual strokes for each

layer by using tamping rod.

Rest period and CuringRest period and Curing

After casting, all the specimens were covered using plastic cover

to avoid the quick evaporation of water.

One days rest period was given for initial hardening of specimen.

After one day, specimens were kept in HACC (Hot air curing

chamber) and cured at 600 C for 24 hours.

After heat curing, specimens were kept in room temperature until

the date of testing.

Detailed arrangement of HACCDetailed arrangement of HACC

Circuit diagram of HACCCircuit diagram of HACC

The main features of HACCThe main features of HACC

Economical compared with Steam curing chamber.

Less maintenance.

Easy to carry, dismantle and install.

Specimen casting can done inside the chamber.

Chamber can place over the specimens.

Temperature source can place in any direction.

Uniformity in the temperature in all the direction.

Curing in HACC

Temperature checking in HACC Casting of specimens

Following tests were conducted on the harden geopolymer concrete

1. Compressive strength test

2. Split tensile strength test

3. Flexural strength test

Tests are conducted according to the IS: 516-1959

All the specimens were tested after 7th day from the date of casting the specimen.

Compression strength

Split tensile Strength

Flexural strength

Rest period- 1 Day

Binder content

Variation of fly ash to GGBS %DensityKg/m3

Load in KN

Compressive strength N/mm2

Average compressive

strength N/mm2Fly ash GGBS

23% 100 0

2328 640 27.9

29.792288 690 30.08

2297 720 31.39

23% 95 05

2316 950 41.42

39.672348 900 39.24

2308 880 38.37

23% 90 10

2308 1000 43.6

43.742316 970 42.29

2347 1040 45.34

23% 85 15

2270 1050 45.78

48.682334 1160 50.58

2310 1140 49.70

23% 80 20

2346 1180 51.45

53.342390 1290 56.24

2358 1200 52.32

23% 75 25

2374 1410 61.48

59.152344 1310 57.12

2345 1350 58.86

23% 70 30

2293 1100 47.96

51.302289 1180 51.45

2348 1250 54.50

23% binder content compressive strength

25% binder content compressive strength Rest period- 1 Day

Binder content

Variation of fly ash to GGBS %

Density

Kg/m3Load in KN

Compressive

strength N/mm2

Average

compressive


25% 100 0

2297 740 32.26

34.182288 830 36.19

2285 780 34.08

25% 95 05

2265 1010 44.04

41.422256 820 35.75

2266 1070 46.65

25% 90 10

2286 1080 47.09

46.072278 1050 45.78

2331 1040 45.34

25% 85 15

2308 1220 53.19

51.162324 1200 52.32

2307 1100 47.96

25% 80 20

2335 1460 63.66

58.862330 1330 57.99

2315 1300 56.68

25% 75 25

2320 1340 58.42

63.812351 1560 68.02

2322 1490 64.96

25% 70 30

2375 1430 62.35

56.542327 1210 52.76

2354 1250 54.50

27% binder content compressive strength

Binder content Variation of fly ash to GGBS % Density

Kg/m3

Load in KN Compressive

strength N/mm2

Average compressive


27% 100 0

2216 830 36.19

38.512297 900 39.24

2270 920 40.11

27% 95 05

2327 1100 47.96

45.492317 1050 45.78

2316 980 42.73

27% 90 10

2359 1070 46.65

49.562372 1260 54.94

2346 1080 47.09

27% 85 15

2267 1200 52.38

55.522281 1320 57.55

2276 1280 55.81

27% 80 20

2260 1360 59.30

62.672306 1520 66.27

2274 1430 62.35

27% 75 25

2262 1490 64.96

67.852297 1540 67.14

2334 1590 69.32

27% 70 30

2312 1390 60.60

60.172341 1480 64.53

2309 1270 55.37

Rest period- 1 Day

29% binder content compressive strength Rest period- 1 Day

Binder content

Variation of fly ash to GGBS %

Density

Kg/m3Load in KN

Compressive

strength N/mm2

Average

compressive


29% 100 0

2320 1000 43.60

41.562319 900 39.24

2316 960 41.85

29% 95 05

2286 1170 51.01

50.282246 1100 47.96

2346 1190 51.88

29% 90 10

2259 1230 53.63

53.632260 1190 51.88

2282 1270 55.37

29% 85 15

2253 1410 61.48

57.412245 1220 53.19

2273 1320 57.55

29% 80 20

2335 1490 64.96

64.092302 1450 63.22

2296 1470 64.09

29% 75 25

2394 1620 70.63

69.472352 1560 68.02

2372 1600 69.76

29% 70 30

2356 1490 64.96

62.782351 1440 62.78

2320 1390 60.60

Variation of compressive strength for varying % of fly ash & GGBS

Effect of binder content on compressive strength

Based on the higher compressive strength 29% binder content i.e., (75:25) mix were selected for the split tensile strength and flexural strength test.

Total Binder 29%

Mix Casted

Load P

(kN)

Split tensile

strength

fct=2P/πld

(N/mm2)

Average split

tensile

strength

(N/mm2)

Fly ash GGBS

75% 25%Before casting

of beam

280 4.46

4.46260 4.14

300 4.77

75% 25%Casted along

with beam

250 3.98

4.30290 4.62

270 4.29

75% 25%Casted along

with beam

300 4.77

4.98310 4.93

330 5.25

Split tensile strength of cylindrical specimens

Flexural strength of prism specimens

Total Binder

29%Mix Casted

Load P

(kN)

Flexural strength

fcr=PL/bd2

(N/mm2)

Average

Flexural

strength

(N/mm2)Fly ash GGBS

75% 25%Before casting of

beam

15 6.0

5.3314 5.6

11 4.4

75% 25%Casted along

with beam

16 6.4

5.6012 4.8

14 5.6

75% 25%Casted along

with beam

16 6.4

5.7315 6.0

12 4.8

Based on the higher compressive strength i.e., optimum fck was selected

and same mix is used for casting beam specimens.

Geometry and reinforcement arrangement

BeamMix used

29%Binder

Beam Dimension

ReinforcementTensile

Reinforcement ratio (%)Compression Tension

B1,B2,B3 75:25 125X200X1300 2 # 8 2 # 10 0.75

B4,B5,B6 75:25 125X200X1300 2 # 8 2 # 12 1.08

Beam details

Form work for casting the beam specimen

Casting of beams Beams curing in HACC

Beams after curing in HACC

Schematic diagram for flexure test on beam

Photographic view of the test specimen before testing Demec gauge reading

Beam after testing

Crack patterns of -B1,B2 and B3 beams

Crack patterns of –B4,B5 and B6 beams

Cracking moment of test beams

Beam% of tensile

Reinforcement

compressive

strength fck

(N/mm2)

Modulus of rupture

(N/mm2)

fcr= 0.7√fck

Moment at first crack

Mc (kN-m)

Theoretical Cracking

moment

Mr=(fcr x

Igr/Yt)

(kN-m)

Ratio

Mc/Mr

B1 0.75 69.17 5.82 8.82 4.85 1.82

B2 0.75 69.17 5.82 9.2 4.85 1.89

B3 0.75 69.17 5.82 9.2 4.85 1.89

B4 1.08 69.17 5.82 9.2 4.85 1.89

B5 1.08 69.17 5.82 11.12 4.85 2.29

B6 1.08 69.17 5.82 11.50 4.85 2.37

Effect of tensile reinforcement ratio on the cracking moment of beams

Load versus mid span deflections of beam-B1






Load versus mid span deflection of beams-B1,B2,B3

Beam% of tensile

Reinforcement

service load Ps

(kN)

Tested Mid span deflection at service load

δs(mm)

Maximum Deflection as

per IS :456:2000

δ

=le/250

(mm)

B1 0.75 72 4.602 4.6

B2 0.75 72 4.603 4.6

B3 0.75 84 4.550 4.6

Deflection of test beam

Load versus mid span deflection of beams-B4,B5,B6

Deflection of test beam

Beam% of tensile

Reinforcement

service load Ps

(kN)

Tested Mid span deflection at service load

δs(mm)

Maximum Deflection as

per IS :456:2000

δ

=le/250

(mm)

B4 1.08 92 4.578 4.6

B5 1.08 104 4.993 4.6

B6 1.08 100 5.030 4.6

Moment v/s Strain curve for Beam –B1






Surface strain at service load of RGPC Beams

Beam designation

Working load Surface strain

Compression Tension

B1 72 0.00858 0.00372

B2 72 0.000260 0.001329

B3 84 0.000651 0.001103

B4 92 0.000411 0.001111

B5 104 0.000595 0.002042

B6 100 0.000742 0.001751

Flexural capacity of test Beams

Beam% of tensile

Reinforcement

compressive

strength fck

(N/mm2)

Mid span deflection at failure(mm)

Theoretical ultimate moment

Muc

Tested ultimate

moment Mut

B1,B2,B3 0.75 69.17 17.125 9.0 22.10

B4,B5,B6 1.08 69.17 16.780 12.74 28.49

Effect of Tensile reinforcement ratio on the ultimate moment of beams

The average density of geopolymer concrete is very similar to that

of normal conventional concrete.

The slump value of the fresh geopolymer concrete decreases with

the increase in total binder content of the mixture.

The experimental investigation have shown that using Fly ash

along with GGBS as source material, it is possible to produce

geopolymer concrete of compressive strengths (7 days) in the

range of 44-70 N/mm2.

GGBS as a source materials results in early initial strength and it

makes possible to de-mould the specimen’s very early. This is an

important applications of geopolymer concrete in the industry.

As the total binder content increases the compressive strength

also increases.

By using 25% GGBS (75% fly ash) in the total binder content

The early strength development of geopolymer concrete under

HACC conditions showed better strength properties.

Reinforced geopolymer concrete beams crack pattern shows

most of the cracks in the pure bending zone and all the beams

failed in flexure.

As per IS 456:2000 provision, the maximum strain at working

load should not exceed 0.0035. The maximum strain in all the

geopolymer concrete beams is well within this range.

The experimental crack load is much higher than the calculated

crack loads for all the six beams tested.

The flexural capacity of the beam increases with the increase in

longitudinal tensile reinforcement ratio, the tested ultimate

moment capacity of beams were found 2.4 times more than

theoretical ultimate moment capacity.

The experimental value of the ultimate load is much higher than

the calculated load for all the geopolymer concrete beams.

The further study on the geopolymer concrete can be focused on

trying with different water content of the mix. For finding the

optimum percentage of binder content.

A detailed cost analysis can be done to determine the financial

and environmental impact on the production of GPC.

Investigation has to be made with the use of different fibers in

reinforced geopolymer concrete.

The work has to be carried out on the long term properties of the

geopolymer concrete.

The geopolymer concrete containing proportionate mixture of

GGBS and fly ash has to be studied under ambient curing

conditions.

The study can be conducted using 100% GGBS for the

manufacture of geopolymer concrete under ambient curing

conditions which could be an important practical application.

Investigation has to be made on the shear behavior of

geopolymer concrete beams.

The study can be conducted on geopolymer concrete slabs.

References Hardjito, 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.

Wallah, S.E., and Rangan, B.V. (2006). "Low calcium fly ash based

Geopolymer concrete: Long term properties." Research report GC2,

Curtin University of technology Perth, Australia.

Sumajouw, M.D.J., and Rangan, B.V. (2006). "Low calcium fly ash

based Geopolymer concrete: Reinforced beams and columns." Research

report GC 3, Curtin University of technology Perth, Australia.

Balaguru, P.N., Kurtz, s., and Jon Rudoph. (1997). "Geopolymer for

repair and rehabilitation of reinforced concrete beams." Rutgers the

state University of new jersey, USA.

Documents

Behaviour of Geopolymer Reinforced Concrete Beams