COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE WITH … · concrete and geo polymer concrete with and without steel fibers in beam column joints and the outcomes were analyzed. Geo polymer

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 234 [email protected]

International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) Volume 9, Issue 4, April 2018, pp. 234–247, Article ID: IJCIET_09_04_026

Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=4

ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316

© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GEOPOLYMER

CONCRETE WITH STEEL FIBERS IN BEAM

COLUMN JOINT

Megharima Datta

M. Tech, structural engineering,

SRM University, Kattanukulathur, Tamilnadu, India

G. Premkumar

Asst. Prof. Department of Civil engineering,

SRM University, Kattanukulathur, Tamilnadu, India

ABSTRACT

An equivalent test examination was done on the quality and strength of conventional

concrete and geo polymer concrete with and without steel fibers in beam column joints

and the outcomes were analyzed. Geo polymer concrete are selected building materials

which can be utilized as a part inplace of Ordinary Portland cement(OPC) and can

undoubtedly change the improvement of development industry without causing damage

to the nature. In geo polymer concrete we will utilize fly slag, GGBS, Alkaline activated

solution as an arrangement. The use of cement emits carbon dioxide which causes

pollution. This work has been done to research the Geo polymer concrete (GPCs) with

the utilization of steel fiber and compare it with conventional concrete with steel fibers.

By making Four GPC blends 1) fly ash remains 60% and 40% GGBS, 2) fly slag 50%

and GGBS 50%, 3) 40% fly ash and 60% GGBS, 4) 30% fly ash and 70% GGBS

alongside control GPC blend which is then included with snared steel fibers. In

conventional concrete we will assess utilizing with and without steel fi. The volume

portion of steel strands utilized was 0.75%, 1.5%, 2.5%. Four Geo polymer solid beam

column joints and conventional solid beam column joint were made and tried under half

cyclic loading to explore the execution of the shaft segment joints. The hysteriasis curve,

load deflection curve, history of cyclic load sequence, energy dissipation capacity,

stiffness degradation, ductility, crack pattern were assessed from the test outcomes. The

correlation of test outcomes uncovered that the quality and conduct of plain and fiber

fortified geo polymer solid beam column joints are possibly superior when compared

with conventional solid joints.

Key word: Geopolymer Concrete, Beam Column Joint, Ductility, Energy Dissipation

Capacity, Hysteriasis Curves, Stiffness.

Comparative Study of Geopolymer Concrete with Steel Fibers In Beam Column Joint


Cite this Article: Megharima Datta and G. Premkumar, Comparative Study of

Geopolymer Concrete with Steel Fibers in Beam Column Joint, International Journal of

Civil Engineering and Technology, 9(4), 2018, pp. 234–247.

http://www.iaeme.com/ijciet/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=9&IType=4

1. INTRODUCTION

We require regular material to make advancement with less cost and supportable change. The

essential component of regular concrete is Ordinary Portland cement (OPC). The standard

Portland concrete is involved with limestone and it is diminishing well ordered and as we are

using, it is harming the earth by emanating carbon dioxide (Bakri et. al. 2011). Geopolymers

are binders utilized as an option for cement. Davidovits recommended that fasteners are made

by a polymeric reaction of alkaline liquids with silica and aluminium in source symptom

materials, for instance, fly ash remains, GGBS, rice husk powder. He named these elective

binders as geopolymers. Concrete made by using geopolymers as binders are called geopolymer

concrete (GPC). The pulverised fuel cinder are of two sorts viz.class C and class F and these

fly ash remains based geopolymer concrete has pozzolanic properties like OPC based general

bond. Low-calcium fly ash debris stays based geopolymer concrete has astonishing

compressive quality and it perseveres no drying shrinkage and low creep, it has brilliant

insurance from sulfate attacks, and besides extraordinary destructive security. Since it uses

waste material like fly ash as the central settling, it can be seen as a reasonable green material

(Hardjito et. al.2004). Not withstanding whether the bar and section in a braced strong edge

remains strong still the whole structure will get impacted once the joint falls flat. As a result of

critical zone, the joint annihilation are suspected to demolition more faster than some other

building part. The interior joint doesn't get so much impacted yet the exterior one gets more

affected. So the ductility and energy dissipating capacity of the structures are basic parametres.

It is fundamental to affirm the shear protection and anchorage condition of the help

encountering the joints. A couple of Studies are investigated on the mechanical properties of

GPC and it showed that it has better mechanical properties and durability characteristics than

ordinary concrete (Ganesan et. al. 2015). Finds out about the examination of the fundamental

direct of GPC beams indicated better strength, enhanced load passing on confine and flexural

quality than conventional concrete beams (Dattatreya et. al. 2011). In the midst of shake in

different parts of the world, the arrangement of reinforced strong structures with high

adaptability and flexibility are more indispensable. Due to honest to goodness indicating of

fortification in joint the structures secure quality and adaptability. The joints get hurt in light of

the obliged subjected to it more than the arrangement controls in cyclic way. Under seismic

power, the section joint is subjected to even and vertical shear controls whose degrees are

generally higher than those inside the touching shafts and portions. Straightforwardly utilizing

fibers isn't new. By the 1960s, steel, glass (GFRC), and manufactured fibers for example

polypropylene, basalt fibers were utilized as a pieces in concrete, and research into new FRCs

proceeds with today. A couple of sorts of fibers convey more noticeable impact, abrasion, and

crush assurance in concrete. Two or three examinations investigated the relationship between

the split tensile and compressive nature of glass fiber strengthened concrete (GFRC) and

polypropylene fiber maintained concrete (PFRC). The examinations looked in with the general

mish-mash of trapped end steel filaments, metal secured (brass coated) steel strands and

polypropylene fibers in the outsiden joint under cyclic loading. Fiber invigorated strong restrict

more cycles loading even after crack. Development of steel fibers would improve stiffness,

energy dissipation capacity, harm resilience and damage protection of strong, which are most

fundamental properties for structures under seismic loading (Haach et. al. 2008). The test

examinations on the assistant direct of conventional joints exhibited that the nature of a joint

depends upon components, for instance, listing of help, security quality, scattering of

Megharima Datta and G. Premkumar


interfacing ties, geometry of bar and fragment, nature of strong, % of fibers (Ganesan et. al.

2014). In spite of the way that immense number of studies have been directed to fathom the

mechanical properties of GPC, attempts on the examination of geopolymer strong joints have

been keep running over anyway it showed variety comes to fruition.

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

The test comprises of making and testing of plain and fiber fortified geopolymer concrete in

exterior section joints (GBJ) and conventional concrete solid joints (CCJ) under half cyclic

loading. The diverse measurement of steel fibers utilized are the one with most noteworthy

compressive quality i.e 2.5%.

3. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The present work aims at the comparative study of the beam column joint made by conventional

concrete and geopolymer concrete with and without steel fib ers under half cyclic loading. In

this study we compared the mechanical properties such as compressive strength, split tensile

and young’s modulus and also we compared load deflection curve, hysteriasis curve, ductility,

stiffness, energy dissipation and crack pattern.

4. MIX DESIGN

The geopolymer concrete doesn't have any proper standard blend plan. There we went for trial

blends on which it acquire quality we will work with it. The review of GPC blend is M40. It

has been done as appeared in IS 10262 (2009). The blend proportion of M40 is

1:1.25:2.70:0.425. In geopolymer solid we influenced 4 to trail blend in which we have given

differing measurement of fly slag and GGBS. Trial blend 1- 60%: 40%, trial blend 2- 50%:

50%, trial blend 3- 40%: 60%, trial blend 4 - 30%: 70%. In the wake of testing we found that

blend 4 - 30% fly ash and 70% GGBS gives better quality then different blends. At that point

we began to work with it and in next system we have included steel fibers of various

measurement 0.75%, 1.5%, 2.5% in both the conventional and geopolymer concrete.

Table 1 Compressive strength of different geopolymer concrete mixes

FLYASH: GGBS 28 DAYS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

60:40 38.56

50:50 40.62

40:60 45.68

30:70 50.28

Table 2 Mix proportion of OPC

MIX PROPORTIONS OF OPC

Cement 450 kg/m3

Water 191.60 kg/m3

Fine aggregate 562 kg/m3

Coarse aggregate 1217.21 kg/m3

Water cement ratio 0.425

cement: FA: CA: water 1:1.25:2.70:0.425



Table 3 Mix proportion of GPC

MIX PROPORTION FOR GPC

Fly ash+ GGBS 280+90.84 kg/m3

Reaction generating liquid 0.45

Fine aggregate 562 kg/m3

Coarse aggregate 1217.17kg/m3

(fly ash+ GGBS): FA:CA: AAS (0.3+0.7):1.25:2.70:0.45

5. MATERIALS USED

GPC were made up of low calcium fly ash (Class F), GGBS, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,

alkaline solution (RGL). Crushed granite stones having nominal size 20 mm and natural river

sand were used as coarse aggregate and fine aggregate respectively. Both the coarse and fine

aggregate used were conforming to Zone II of IS 383(1970). The material properties of coarse

and fine aggregates are shown along with the geopolymer concrete we have used AAS (RGL1).

Ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade conforming to IS: 12269 (1987) was used for preparing

conventional concrete. Hooked end steel fibers with aspect ratio 58.33 (length 30 mm and

diameter 0.6 mm) were used to prepare the steel fiber reinforced concrete mix.

Table parameters of specimen

PARAMETRES COARSE AGGREGATE FINE AGGREGATE

Nominal maximum size 20mm 4.75mm

Specific gravity 2.85 2.36

Fineness modulus 3.07 4.23

5.1. FLY ASH

The waste material that we procured from the ignition of pummeled coal which is gathered by

mechanical means from the gases of thermal power plants. In this trial work, the fly ash remains

which we have utilized low calcium based fly ash. This fly ash helps in workability, opposing

substance and decrease thermal split. The compound arrangement of fly fiery debris is SiO2 =

49.45, Al2O3 = 29.61, Fe2O3 = 10.72, CaO= 3.47, MgO= 1.3, Na2O= 0.31, K2O = 0.54,TiO2 =

1.76, Mn2O3 = 0.17, SO3 = 0.27, P2O5 = 0.53. The particular gravity of fly powder is 2.1 and

the fineness modulus is 8%.

5.2. GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag)

The chemical composition of GGBS is SiO2 33.45, Al2O3 13.46 Fe2O3 0.31, CaO 41.7, MgO

5.99, Na2O 0.16, K2O 0.29, TiO2 0.84, Mn2O3 0.40, SO3 2.74. The specific gravity of GGBS is

2.8 and the fineness modulus is 14%.

5.3. CEMENT

In this experiment we have used OPC 53. The specific gravity of cement is 3.12 and the fineness

is 9%.

5.4. STEEL FIBERS

In this analysis we have utilized snared end steel filaments having RC 35/60 BN. The aspect

ratio proportion is 58.33. The specific gravity is 7.8 g/cc. We have utilized this snared end steel

strands in both the solid i.e concrete and geo polymer concrete. This fibers is utilized in light

of the fact that it has the property of opposing against crack and crack proliferation. By utilizing

steel fibers the ductility is expanded with expanding dose of steel fibers.



5.5. ALKALINE ACTIVATED SOLUTION

It is also known as AAS. AAS content is made by 1:1. For making AAS we need 50% lye

(caustic soda) = 1, Na2Si03 (sodium silicate) have molar ratio = 2, which comprises of SiO2 =

30%, Na2O = 15%, H2O = 55%. The final molar ratio Na2SiO3/NaOH = 0.56 as the alkaline

liquid to activate the source material and those are commercially available.

6. TESTING OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Before making, the wooden moulds are painted with oil or oil type material (grease). The

materials are blended in the tilting mixingmachine. The Geopolymer concrete are set up by

blending fly ash, GGBS, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and alkaline activated solution. Also,

similarly conventional concrete is made by blending cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate

and water. For compressive quality the solid cubes were thrown of 150mm x 150mm and for

split tensile and young’s modulus we cast cylinder of 300 mm x 150 mm and we will demould

it after 24 hrs. We will cure it for 7 days and 28 days. Aside from the plain traditional and

geopolymer solid we will include steel fibers of various measurements in both the conventional

and geopolymer concrete.

Table 5 Mechanical properties of specimens

MIX Compressive strength

(N/mm2 )

Split tensile

Strength (N/mm2 )

Youngs modulus

(N/mm2 )

OPC 49.11 2.80 26157

OPC 0.75%SF 52.33 3.58 -

OPC 1.5%SF 54.94 4.1 -

OPC 2.5% SF 58.66 4.56 31248

GPC 50.28 3.3 38246

GPC 0.75% SF 53 3.88 -

GPC 1.5% SF 55.48 4.04 -

GPC 2.5% SF 59.10 4.81 41135

Figure 1 compressive strength, split tesile, young’s modulus

7. DETAILS OF SPECIMEN The cross areas of pillar section joints are 1000mm x 150mm x 150mm and 600mm x 150mm

x 150 mm. The column was fortified with 4#12ϕ across high return quality twisted (HYSD)

bars and the pillar was furnished with 2#10 ϕ HYSD bars each at top and 2#12 ϕ at base. HYSD

bars of 8 mm diametres were utilized as transverse ties in segment and stirrups in beams. The

general measurements and support points of interest of joint examples are appeared.

Geopolymer and conventional solid shaft segment joints are assigned as GBJ and CCJ

separately. Fiber strengthened geopolymer concrete and conventional solid pillar segment joints

are assigned as SFRGPC and SFRCC individually. Those were demoulded after 24hrs and after



that cured under the water for 28 days and the geopolymer concrete BCJ example have been

cured in ordinary temperature.

Figure 2 Reinforcement details

Figure 3 Reinforcement with wooden mould and demoulding after 24 hrs.

8. TESTING OF BEAM COLUMN JOINT SPECIMEN

The examples following 28 days of casting were tried in a specific position in a loading outline

(frame). The column was settled in both the end where as the beam go about as a cantilever

one. The segment was scored by two steel plates. The beam end was subjected to half cyclic

loading utilizing 500 kN hydraulic jack associated with the load cell through the plunger of the

jack. The photo of the test setup is has been given in the figure below. In this experiment we

tested considerably cyclic loading. Half cyclic loading was connected at the end of the beam

which is loaded at first increment and then unloaded and after that again reloaded for the

following augmentation of loading which is drilled for different examples in a similar way. We

have augmented the beam for each 1 kN. The dial guage is utilized to gauge the redirection of

the beam where the column was fixed at both the end. The beam was connected 120 mm

separate from the free end of the beam. The LVDT's are set 16.5 mm and 12 mm from the free

end of the beam. With the assistance of crack detection magnifying lens we can discover the

small crack width with a minimum tally of 0.02mm. This strategy was rehashed till the failure

of the joints.



Figure 4 Schematic diagram of the test set up

Figure 5 TEST SET UP

9. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

9.1. HYSTERIASIS LOOPS

The load displacement hysteretic curves for the examples are appeared in Figures. It is seen

from Table that a definitive load carrying capacity is expanded with an expansion in load. A

relative correlation of the general load-displacement behavior of all examples are appeared in

Figure 6 (a), (b), (c), (d).



(a) Hysteriasis curve of OPC-BCJ (b) Hyteriasis curve of SFRCC-BCJ

(c) Hysteriasis curve of GPC-BCJ (d) Hysteriasis curve of SFRGPC-BCJ

Figure 6 Hysteriasis curve

9.2. LOAD DEFLECTION CURVE

Four pillar segment joint from both conventional and geopolymer concrete with and without

steel fibers of RC 35/60 BN and those are subjected to half cyclic load. The historical backdrop

of load arrangement is given in figure 7. From the estimations of load and deflection got from

every examples, the load deflection graph were plotted for ordinary and geopolymer concrete

with and without steel fibers in figure 8. In the examples the joints have about bombed on the

last cycles of loading. In the wake of including steel fibers it will expand the load deflection

gradually.



Figure 7 History of cyclic load sequence

(a) Load deflection graph of OPC-BCJ (b) load deflection graph of SFRCC-BCJ

(c) Load deflection graph of GPC-BCJ (d) load deflection graph of SFRGPC-BCJ

Figure 8 Load deflection graph

9.3. INITIAL LOAD AND ULTIMATE LOAD

The First split load was resolved from the load deflection plot. The principal split load of all

the tried examples are given. It has been watched that a definitive load limit of plain cc and gpc

joint are insignificantly same. In any case, the expansion of fibers enhanced the main break



load, which might be because of the increment in ductile strain conveying limit of concrete in

the area of fibers. The estimations of extreme load of tried examples are given. Expansion of

steel fibers in the concrete expanded a definitive load carrying limit of the joints, because of the

crossing over of miniaturized scale breaks by steel fibers.

Table 6 Initial and final crack load

SPECIMEN FIRST CRACK LOAD ULTIMATE LOAD

CC 6kN 36kN

GPC 6kN 30kN

SFRCC 8kN 42kN

SFRGPC 6kN 48kN

Figure 9 Crack load graph

9.4. DUCTILITY

The capacity to experience most extreme deformation past the yield deformation. It is

characterized as the proportion of greatest deflection to the underlying redirection. The ductility

relies on the mechanical property of the material. The fiber strengthened solid will have more

ductility than the customary concrete. The example which has fibers grow less break and results

the postpone at occurence of splits. In this chart we can see that the GPC and CC example is

having relatively same property. While between the fiber fortified traditional and geopolymer

solid example the SFRGPC is having more flexibility than the SFRCC. This expansion of

ductility in the SFRGPC demonstrates incredible conduct under half cyclic loading.

• Ductility ratio = ultimate deflection / initial yielding deflection

Figure 10 Typical load deflection plot for measurement of yield deflection



Figure 11 Ductility

9.5. ENERGY DISSIPATION CAPACITY

The essential parameter of the seismic properties of a structure is capacity of energy dissipation

of the specimen. The structure which is subjected to seismic tremor can withstand it by adequate

measure of dispersal vitality. This is the region of load deflection circle for each cycle of load.

The combined capacities of energy is computed by including the energy which we will get by

ascertaining the area of the load deflection graph. From the diagram we have seen that the

energy dissipation will have increment in ordinary concrete than geopolymer concrete. Be that

as it may, when we will add steel fibers to both the blends it indicates exceptional changes

where geo polymer concrete with steel fibers accomplishes more capacity at that point than

steel fibers strengthened regular concrete.

Figure 12 cumulative energy dissipation vs. deflection curve

9.6. STIFFNESS DEGRADATION

Utilization of half cyclic loading on the shaft segment joint causes diminishment in the firmness

of the joint. This decrease in stiffness can be evaluated by computing secant stiffness. The

secant firmness in each cycle were figured as the slant of the line joining the most extreme

positive displacement point. The firmness degradation of the examples is given here. Stiffness

can be estimated by the proportion of load and deflection. From the Figure it might be noticed

that SFRGPC and CC display the relatively same stiffness. From the chart we can see that GPC

has highest stiffness than SFRGPC, SFRCC, CC. The rate of diminishment of stiffness is

relatively same in CC and SFRCC. We can likewise see from the chart that SFRGPC has lowest

stiffness as compared to the other specimen.



Figure 13 The procedure applied for secant stiffness

Figure 14 Stiffness degradation

9.7. CRACK PATTERN AND CRACK WIDTH

Amid cyclic loading, compression and tension are produced in the shaft segment joints and the

bond between the reinforcement and the solid were diminished. The principal break in all the

example happened in the joints and bit by bit the underlying crack began to prolong. In

conventional solid beam column joints the primary break happened at 6 kN and the split width

at 6 kN is 0.7 mm, at 18kN is 0.3 mm, at a definitive load is 36 kN @ 1.8 mm. In plain

geopolymer solid shaft segment joint the principal break happened at the joint and the main

split load happen at 6 kN. What's more, the split width of the GPC shaft segment joint at 6 kN

is 0.6 mm and at a definitive load 30 kN is 2.1 mm. When we include the steel fibers in the

example in OPC the principal break happened at 8 kN and the split width is 1.9 mm and a

definitive load at 42 kN. The break width at a definitive load is 3.1 mm. At the point when steel

fibers are added to geopolymer concrete the primary break happened at 6 kN and the split width

is 1.3 mm, a definitive load was at 48 kN and the break width is 2.7 mm at 48 kN.

Table 7 crack load and crack width

MIX First crack load Crack width Ultimate crack load Crack width

CC 6 kN 0.7mm 36 kN 1.8 mm

GPC 6 kN 0.6 mm 30 kN 2.1 mm

SFRCC 8 kN 1.9 mm 42 kN 3.1 mm

SFRGPC 6 kN 1.3 mm 48 kN 2.7 mm



Figure 15 Crack width

Figure 16 Crack pattern of the specimen

10. CONCLUSION

The load deflection curve, hysteriasis curve, energy dissipation, ductility, stiffness, break

pattern and split width are investigated and looked at among the ordinary and geo polymer solid

beam column joint with and without steel fibers. This examination is done under half cyclic

loading. From every one of those correlation we can state that the utilization of geo polymer

concrete with steel fibers upgraded the quality and flexibility of the beam column joint

specimens insignificantly. The conduct of ordinary and fiber strengthened geo polymer segment

joint are almost same or else we can say it is bit better as that of traditional concrete with and

without steel fibers.



• First split load of OPC, GPC and SFRGPC are equivalent and a definitive load limit of OPC

and GPC are relatively equivalent though the SFRGPC is having most noteworthy extreme load

conveying limit.

• In ductility the specimen OPC is more bendable than GPC. Be that as it may, when we added

steel fibers to the SFRGPC achieves more ductility than SFRCC.

• Energy dissipation capacity of CC and SFRCC is imperceptibly same and the GPC example are

relatively same as that of CC and SFRCC yet SFRGPC bar section joint has accomplished most

noteworthy dissipation capacity.

• In the rate of diminishment of stiffness nearly CC, SFRCC, GPC example demonstrates the

same and the SFRGPC demonstrates that it has the ability to oppose in cyclic loading. The GPC

specimen has more stiffness compared to CC, SFRCC, SFRGPC.

• Based on a definitive load conveying limit SFRGPC has 1.14 times less split width than SFRCC.

REFERENCE

[1] Al Bakri, M.M.Mohammed, H.Kamarudin, H.Niza, I.K.Zarina (2011), “review on flyash

based geopolymer concrete without portland cement”, J.Eng. Tech. Res., Vol. 3 No. 1, 1-4.

[2] Hardjito, D.Wallah, S.E.Sumajouw, D.M.Rangan, (2004), “On the development of flyash

based geopolymer concrete”, ACI Mater.J.Am. Concrete Inst., Vol. 101 No. 6, 467-472.

[3] Ganesan N., Abraham R., Raj S.D. (2015) “ Durability characteristics of steel fibers

reinforced geopolymer concrete”, Construction building material, (93), 471-476.

[4] Dattatreya J.K., Rajamane N.P., Sabitha D., Ambily P.S., Nataraj M.C. (2011), “Flexural

behavior of reinforced geopolymer concrete beam”, J. Civil Structural engineering , Vol. 2

No. 1, 138.

[5] Haach V.G., El Debs, M.K. (2008), “Evaluation of the influence of the column axial load

on the behavior of monotonically loaded Reinforced concrete exterior beam-column joints

through numerical simulations”, Engineering Structural, Vol. 30, No. 4, 965-975.

[6] Ganesan N., Indira P.V. and Sabeena M.V. (2014), “Behaviour of hybrid fibre reinforced

concrete beam-column joints under reverse cyclic loads”, Material Des., (54), 686-693.

[7] S. Deepa Raj, N. Ganesan, Ruby Abraham and Anumol Raju (2016), “Behavior of

geopolymer concrete and conventional concrete beam column joint under reverse cyclic

loading”, Advances in Concrete Construction, Vol. 4, No. 3, 161-172.

[8] K.R. Bindhu, P.M. Sukumar and K.P. Jaya (2009), “Performance of exterior beam column

joints under seismic type loading”, ISET Journal of Earthquake Technology, Paper No. 503,

Vol. 46, No. 2, pp. 47–64.

[9] M. Keerthi and K. Prasanthi, Experimental Study On Coir Fibre Reinforced Fly Ash Based

Geopolymer Concrete For 10m. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology,

8(1), 2017, pp. 464–472

[10] P A N V L NarasimhaSwamy, U.VenuGopal and K Prasanthi, Experimental Study on Coir

Fibre Reinforced Flyash Based Geopolymer Concrete With 12m & 10m Molar Activator

[11] IS: 10262 (2009), “Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design”, Code of Practice,

BIS, New Delhi.

Documents

COMPARATIVE STUDY OF GEOPOLYMER CONCRETE WITH … · concrete and geo polymer concrete with and without steel fibers in beam column joints and the outcomes were analyzed. Geo polymer