Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030
DOI 10.1617/s11527-010-9683-8
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete
Prabir Kumar Sarker
Received: 8 April 2010 / Accepted: 21 October 2010 / Published online: 30 October 2010
Ó RILEM 2010
Abstract Geopolymer concrete (GPC) is an emerg-
ing construction material that uses a by-product
material such as fly ash as a complete substitute for
cement. This paper evaluates the bond strength of fly
ash based geopolymer concrete with reinforcing steel.
Pull-out test in accordance with the ASTM A944
Standard was carried out on 24 geopolymer concrete
and 24 ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete
beam-end specimens, and the bond strengths of the
two types of concrete were compared. The compres-
sive strength of geopolymer concrete varied from 25
to 39 MPa. The other test parameters were concrete
cover and bar diameter. The reinforcing steel was
20 mm and 24 mm diameter 500 MPa steel deformed
bars. The concrete cover to bar diameter ratio varied
from 1.71 to 3.62. Failure occurred with the splitting
of concrete in the region bonded with the steel bar, in
both geopolymer and OPC concrete specimens.
Comparison of the test results shows that geopolymer
concrete has higher bond strength than OPC concrete.
This is because of the higher splitting tensile strength
of geopolymer concrete than of OPC concrete of the
same compressive strength. A comparison between
the splitting tensile strengths of OPC and geopolymer
concrete of compressive strengths ranging from 25 to
89 MPa shows that geopolymer concrete has higher
P. K. Sarker (&)
School of Civil and Mechanical Engineering,
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, WA, Australia
e-mail: p.sarker@curtin.edu.au
splitting tensile strength than OPC concrete. This
suggests that the existing analytical expressions for
bond strength of OPC concrete can be conservatively
used for calculation of bond strength of geopolymer
concrete with reinforcing steel.
Keywords Bond strength
Geopolymer concrete

Pull-out test
Splitting tensile strength

Steel reinforcement
1 Introduction
Concrete is used more than any other building
material, and demand for concrete products increases
every day to maintain the ongoing development of
the world. Cement has traditionally been used as the
binding material which combines coarse and fine
aggregates to make concrete. Worldwide annual
cement production is estimated to be two billion tons
and is expected to increase to 4 billion tons in
30 years [1]. The amount of carbon dioxide released
in the manufacture of cement is about one ton for
every ton of cement produced; it is important to
search for alternative low-emission binding agents for
concrete in order to reduce its carbon footprint.
Geopolymer is one such alternative. The geopolymer
binder uses by-product materials instead of cement
and results in less carbon dioxide emission thus helps
1022
reduce the environmental impact of the cement
production.
Geopolymer is a type of alumino-silicate product,
and shows good bonding properties. Geopolymer
binders utilize material such as fly ash or metakaolin
as the source of silicon and aluminium for reaction
with an alkali. In a fly ash-based geopolymer binder,
fly ash reacts with an alkaline solution to create an
alumino-silicate binder; no cement is used. The
geopolymer binder binds aggregates to produce
geopolymer concrete. The basic ingredients of fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete are fly ash, sodium
hydroxide, sodium silicate, water, fine aggregates and
coarse aggregates; superplasticizer can be added to
improve workability of the fresh concrete. Geopoly-
mer concrete used in this study was cured by
applying heat and thus is a suitable material for
making pre-cast concrete products.
The properties of fly ash based geopolymer
concrete have been studied in recent research works
[2–6]. These studies have shown that geopolymer
concrete has properties favourable for its potential
use as a construction material. It has high compres-
sive strength, little drying shrinkage, low creep and
good resistance to acid and sulphate attacks. The
experimental and analytical works show that the
performance of geopolymer concrete structural mem-
bers such as beams and columns under load is similar
to that of OPC concrete members. Other recent
studies [7, 8] have reported similar engineering
properties of geopolymer concrete that are favourable
for its use as a construction material.
Bond in reinforced concrete members is described
as the transfer of force from the reinforcement to the
surrounding concrete. The force is transferred by
adhesion and friction between concrete and the
reinforcing bar, and the bearing of the ribs of
deformed bars against the concrete surface. It is
generally recognized that bond strength is governed
by different factors such as the strength of the
concrete, the thickness of the concrete surrounding
the reinforcing bar, the confinement of the concrete
due to transverse reinforcement and the bar geometry
[9–13]. The bar geometry includes factors such as
height, spacing and face angle of the ribs.
The bond between the concrete and the reinforcing
steel is an important mechanism for the performance
of reinforced concrete as a composite material.
Design of reinforced concrete members is based on
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030
adequate bonding between the concrete and the
reinforcing bar; therefore it is important to under-
stand the bond behaviour of geopolymer concrete in
order to use it as an alternative to OPC concrete in
reinforced concrete structures. Recent limited exper-
imental works using pull-out tests [7, 14] suggest that
geopolymer generally performs well in bond with
reinforcing steel. These tests were conducted mostly
on geopolymer mortar specimens that did not contain
coarse aggregates. For design of geopolymer concrete
structures, it is necessary to investigate the bond
behaviour of geopolymer concrete with reinforcing
steel so that the conservativeness of current analytical
expressions for bond strength of OPC concrete can be
evaluated for geopolymer concrete. This paper
presents the experimental results on bond strength
of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete with deformed
reinforcing steel bars. Comparison is made between
the bond strengths of geopolymer concrete and OPC
concrete using the ASTM A944 [15] beam-end
specimens. The influence of different parameters
such as concrete compressive strength, diameter of
reinforcing bar and the concrete cover is studied by
using the test results.
2 Experimental works
2.1 Specimens
The ASTM A944 [15] beam-end specimen provides a
relatively simple test for bond that produces the stress
states obtained in reinforced concrete members [12].
This type of specimen has the advantage that the
force in the bar is directly known from the experi-
ment and it is not necessary to determine the bar force
from flexural analysis of the beam. In this study, 24
geopolymer and 24 OPC concrete beam-end speci-
mens were manufactured and tested for bond
strength. The overall dimensions of the specimens
were 250 9 250 9 600 mm. For all specimens, the
bonded length was short enough to prevent yielding
of the bar before bond failure. PVC pipes were used
to de-bond the pull-out bar outside the bonded length.
The geometry of the specimens is shown in Fig. 1.
The values of the test parameters such as concrete
cover (c), bonded length (lb) and bar diameter (db) of
the geopolymer and OPC concrete specimens are
given in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030 1023

Pull-out bar Cover

Bonded length 50 mm lead unconfined against splitting during the pull-out test.
Longitudinal length
reinforcement The pull-out bars were either N20 or N24.
250 mm
Shear
reinforcement
250 mm 600 mm 2.2 Materials

Fig. 1 The beam-end specimen
In Tables 1 and 2, the specimens are designated by
using the concrete batch used to cast them and a
specimen number of that batch. For example, the
designation GPC2 S3 refers to specimen number 3
cast using geopolymer concrete from batch 2, and
OPC2 S3 is specimen number 3 cast by using OPC
from batch 2. To prevent the specimens from failing
by flexure or shear, as opposed to a splitting failure,
N16 and N12 bars were used as longitudinal and
shear reinforcements respectively. The shear rein-
forcement was configured as two separate legs, as
shown in Fig. 1, so that the cover concrete was
ASTM Class F [16] fly ash was used as the base
material for the geopolymer. The chemical compo-
sition of the fly ash is given in Table 3. Locally
available crushed granite coarse aggregates and fine
sand were used to produce the geopolymer concrete.
The size distributions of the aggregates are given in
Table 4. The aggregates were prepared to saturated-
surface-dry (SSD) condition before mixing of the
concrete. The alkaline liquid used was a combination
of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutions.
The sodium hydroxide solution was of 14 M con-
centration and was prepared by dissolving commer-
cial grade solid NaOH pellets in water. The sodium
silicate solution had a chemical composition of
14.7% Na2O, 29.4% SiO2, and 55.9% water by mass.

Table 1 Details of
Specimen Compressive Bar diameter, Cover, c/db Bonded length,
geopolymer concrete
strength, fc (MPa) db (mm) c (mm) lb (mm)
specimens
GPC1 S1 25.5 24 42 1.75 100
GPC1 S2 44 1.83 110
GPC1 S3 44 1.83 100
GPC1 S4 65 2.71 120
GPC1 S5 66 2.75 125
GPC1 S6 64 2.67 110
GPC2 S1 29.7 20 45 2.25 100
GPC2 S2 45 2.25 100
GPC2 S3 41 2.05 95
GPC2 S4 64 3.20 110
GPC2 S5 64 3.20 105
GPC2 S6 66 3.30 115
GPC3 S1 32.5 24 44 1.83 100
GPC3 S2 45 1.88 100
GPC3 S3 41 1.71 100
GPC3 S4 63 2.63 100
GPC3 S5 66 2.75 100
GPC3 S6 62 2.58 100
GPC4 S1 39.5 20 42 2.10 100
GPC4 S2 42 2.10 100
GPC4 S3 46 2.30 100
GPC4 S4 68 3.40 100
GPC4 S5 68 3.40 100
GPC4 S6 64 3.20 100
1024 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030

Table 2 Details of OPC

Specimen Compressive Bar diameter, Cover, c/db Bonded length,
concrete specimens
strength, fc (MPa) db (mm) c (mm) lb (mm)

OPC1 S1 42.3 20 45 2.25 100

OPC1 S2 42 2.10 95
OPC1 S3 65 3.25 100
OPC1 S4 63 3.15 100
OPC1 S5 24 45 1.88 95
OPC1 S6 65 2.71 145
OPC2 S1 37.2 20 45 2.25 100
OPC2 S2 45 2.25 100
OPC2 S3 45 2.25 100
OPC2 S4 65 3.25 100
OPC2 S5 65 3.25 100
OPC2 S6 65 3.25 100
OPC3 S1 34.0 24 45 1.88 100
OPC3 S2 45 1.88 100
OPC3 S3 45 1.88 100
OPC3 S4 65 2.71 100
OPC3 S5 65 2.71 100
OPC3 S6 65 2.71 100
OPC4 S1 55.3 24 65 3.25 100
OPC4 S2 45 1.88 100
OPC4 S3 45 1.88 100
OPC4 S4 65 2.71 100
OPC4 S5 65 2.71 100
OPC4 S6 65 2.71 100

Table 3 Chemical composition of fly ash (mass%)

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 MgO P2O5 SO3 H2O LOIa

48.0 29.0 12.7 1.76 0.39 0.55 1.76 0.89 1.69 0.5 – 1.61
a
Loss on ignition

A commercially available naphthalene sulphonated
superplasticizer and tap water were also added to
improve the workability of geopolymer concrete.
The mixture proportions of the geopolymer and
OPC concrete are given in Table 5. The geopolymer
mixtures were adopted from previous studies [3–5].
Specimens of series GPC1 and GPC2 were cast using
mixture proportions 1 and specimens of series GPC3
and GPC4 were cast using mixture proportions 2.
Mixture proportions 3 were used for OPC specimens
of series OPC1, mixture proportions 4 were used for
series OPC2 and OPC3, and mixture proportions 5
were used for series OPC4. The mean compressive
strengths of the concrete for different batches are
given in Tables 1 and 2. The reinforcing steel was
Australian normal ductility hot-rolled deformed
rebar. Samples of steel bars were tested in the
laboratory to obtain the actual yield and ultimate
strengths. These results are given in Table 6.
2.3 Manufacturing and testing of the specimens
The manufacturing and curing process for geopoly-
mer concrete was based on earlier research [2–5]. The
specimens were cast in a horizontal position and were
vibrated with a standard electrically operated poker
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030 1025

Table 4 Size distribution of aggregates Table 6 Properties of steel reinforcement

Sieve aperture % passing of aggregates Diameter, Nominal area Yield strength Ultimate strength
mm (mm2) (MPa) (MPa)
20 mm 10 mm 7 mm Sand
12 110 531 672
19 mm 83 100 – –
16 200 525 655
9.5 mm 1 75 100 –
20 310 570 662
4.75 mm 0 10 21 –
24 450 555 648
2.36 mm 0 3.5 4 –
1.18 mm 0 1.8 2 100
600 lm 0 1.2 1.4 81 3 Experimental results and discussions
300 lm 0 0.8 1 16
150 lm 0 0.5 0.7 1.6 The observed failure of the specimens and the effects
of different test parameters on bond strength were
vibrator. Standard 100 mm 9 200 mm cylinders studied using the test results. The effects of bar
were cast for compressive strength tests of the diameter, concrete cover and the concrete compres-
concrete. The geopolymer concrete specimens were sive strength on the bond strengths of OPC and
cured inside the steam curing chamber at 60°C for geopolymer concretes were compared.
24 h. Steam curing of the specimens of series GPC4
started one day after casting and curing of the other 3.1 Failure of the test specimens
specimens started on the same day of casting. The
specimens were de-moulded after curing and left in All specimens failed by splitting of the concrete in
ambient condition in the laboratory until the time of the region where the steel bar was bonded to the
testing. They were tested at 28 days after casting. The concrete. Typical photographs showing the cracks in
OPC concrete specimens were subjected to moist the front and top faces of the geopolymer and OPC
curing. A test rig was set up on the strong floor of the concrete specimens after failure are shown in Figs. 3,
laboratory to conduct the pull-out tests, and the 4, 5, and 6. It can be seen from these figures that
specimens were tested in accordance with the ASTM concrete splitting crack patterns observed in the
A944 Standard [15]. A schematic diagram of the load geopolymer concrete specimens were similar to those
reaction configuration of the test set up is shown in in the OPC concrete specimens. Failure occurred by
Fig. 2. The specimens were loaded using a hydraulic splitting of the cover concrete in a brittle manner in
jack until failure. both types of concrete specimens. The brittle nature

Table 5 Mixture proportions of concrete (kg/m3)

Ingredients Geopolymer concrete OPC concrete
Mixture 1 Mixture 2 Mixture 3 Mixture 4 Mixture 5
(GPC1, GPC2) (GPC3, GPC4) (OPC1) (OPC2, OPC3) (OPC4)

Cement – – 420 357 424

Fly Ash 408 408 – – –
20 mm aggregate – – 560 – –
10 mm aggregate 555 555 540 458 456
7 mm aggregate 647 647 549 547
Sand 647 647 740 760 697
Sodium hydroxide 41 41 – – –
Sodium silicate 103 103 – – –
Water 24.3 15 130 225 225
Superplasticizer 5.6 5.6 3 – –
1026
Tension support
550 mm
Load
Compression
support 120 mm
Support
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of load-reaction configuration
Fig. 3 Pull-out face cracks in the geopolymer concrete
specimens
Fig. 4 Pull-out face cracks in the OPC concrete specimens
of the splitting failure of geopolymer specimens has
also been observed by Sofi et al. [14]. The ultimate
pull-out load of each specimen is divided by the
surface area of the bonded length of the bar to
calculate the average bond strength, which is denoted
by u. The values of failure load and bond strength for
each test specimen are given in Table 7.
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030
Fig. 5 Top face cracks in the geopolymer concrete specimens
Fig. 6 Top face cracks in the OPC concrete specimens
3.2 Effect of the test parameters
Since bond strength varies with the test parameters,
the bond strength of geopolymer concrete is com-
pared with that of OPC concrete for the same test
parameter. The test parameters in this study are
concrete compressive strength, bar diameter and
concrete cover to the pull-out bar. The bond strengths
of the specimens with similar parameters are com-
bined to obtain a mean value of the bond strength for
a test variable. The bond strengths are then plotted
against the variable to compare its effect on the bond
strength of geopolymer and OPC concretes.
The effects of concrete cover on bond strength for
20 mm and 24 mm diameter bars are shown in Figs. 7
and 8 respectively. Since the concrete compressive
strengths of the specimens are different, the bond
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030 1027

Table 7 Bond strengths of

Geopolymer concrete OPC concrete
geopolymer and OPC
concrete specimens Specimen Pull-out Bond strength, Specimen Pull-out Bond strength,
load, P (kN) u (MPa) load, P (kN) u (MPa)

GPC1 S1 80 10.61 OPC1 S1 98 15.60

GPC1 S2 108 13.02 OPC1 S2 75 12.56
GPC1 S3 82 10.88 OPC1 S3 115 18.30
GPC1 S4 125 13.82 OPC1 S4 95 15.12
GPC1 S5 105 11.14 OPC1 S5 88 12.29
GPC1 S6 123 14.83 OPC1 S6 115 10.52
GPC2 S1 90 14.32 OPC2 S1 64 10.25
GPC2 S2 82 13.05 OPC2 S2 63 10.03
GPC2 S3 79 13.23 OPC2 S3 66 10.48
GPC2 S4 105 15.19 OPC2 S4 60 9.55
GPC2 S5 85 12.88 OPC2 S5 72 11.50
GPC2 S6 80 11.07 OPC2 S6 89 14.09
GPC3 S1 92 12.20 OPC3 S1 82 10.85
GPC3 S2 110 14.59 OPC3 S2 86 11.43
GPC3 S3 98 13.00 OPC3 S3 64 8.46
GPC3 S4 111 14.72 OPC3 S4 83 10.99
GPC3 S5 133 17.64 OPC3 S5 90 11.95
GPC3 S6 130 17.24 OPC3 S6 87 11.56
GPC4 S1 94 14.96 OPC4 S1 92 14.60
GPC4 S2 95 15.12 OPC4 S2 93 12.31
GPC4 S3 105 16.71 OPC4 S3 86 11.35
GPC4 S4 122 19.42 OPC4 S4 106 14.05
GPC4 S5 88 14.01 OPC4 S5 90 11.89
GPC4 S6 100 15.92 OPC4 S6 84 11.13

3
from these graphs that geopolymer concrete has
OPC
GPC higher bond strength than OPC concrete for the same
2.5 values of bar diameter and concrete cover.
(MPa 0.5 )

Similarly, the effect of concrete compressive

2 strength on the bond strengths of OPC and geopoly-
0.5

mer concrete are shown in Figs. 9 and 10. The

u / fc

1.5
specimens with similar concrete compressive strength
are combined to obtain a mean value of the bond
strength. It is seen from Figs. 9 and 10 that bond
1
30 40 50 60 70 strength increased with the increase of compressive
Cover (mm) strength in both types of concrete. In both the figures,
the trend line for geopolymer concrete is above the
Fig. 7 Variation of bond strength with concrete cover for trend line for OPC concrete. This shows that the bond
20 mm bar
strength of geopolymer concrete is higher than that of
strengths are normalized by f0.5
c . It can be seen that the OPC concrete for the same compressive strength.
normalized bond strength increased with the increase Finally, the bond strength normalized with respect
in concrete cover for both 20 and 24 mm bars. The to f0.5
c is plotted against the concrete cover to bar
trend is similar in both types of concrete. It is observed diameter ratio (c/db) as shown in Fig. 11. All the test
1028 Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030

3 3
OPC OPC
GPC GPC
(MPa 0.5 )

2.5 2.5

u / fc0.5
2
2
0.5
u / fc

1.5
1.5

1
30 40 50 60 70 1
1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
Cover (mm)
c / db
Fig. 8 Variation of bond strength with concrete cover for
24 mm bar Fig. 11 Influence of c/db ratio on bond strength

20

trend lines that normalized bond strength increases

Bond strength, u (MPa)

OPC
GPC
with the increase of c/db ratio in both types of
15 concrete. The trend line for geopolymer concrete is
similar to that of OPC. However the trend line of
geopolymer concrete is above that of OPC concrete;
10
therefore the test results show that the bond strength of
geopolymer concrete is generally higher than that of
OPC concrete. The reason for the higher bond strength
of geopolymer concrete than of OPC concrete is
5
25 30 35 40 45
attributed to the higher splitting tensile strength of
Compressive strength, fc (MPa) geopolymer concrete than of OPC concrete. A com-
parison between the splitting tensile strengths of
Fig. 9 Variation of bond strength with concrete compressive geopolymer and OPC concrete is made by using the
strength for 20 mm bar and 45 mm cover
experimental results of this study and those available
in the literature [17–19]. The splitting tensile strength
20 versus compressive strength of geopolymer and OPC
concrete are shown in Fig. 12. It can be seen from
Bond strength, u (MPa)

OPC
GPC Fig. 12 that the splitting tensile strength of geopoly-
15 mer concrete is generally higher than OPC concrete of
the same compressive strength. It was shown from
morphological study that the use of soluble silicates in
10 geopolymers results in a denser interfacial transition
zone (ITZ) between aggregates and geopolymer
matrix as compared to that with cement matrix [20].
5 Zhang et al. [21] showed that there is no obvious
25 30 35 40 45
difference between microstructures of the ITZ and the
Compressive strength, fc (MPa)
bulk geopolymer matrix. Thus, the ITZ in geopolymer
Fig. 10 Variation of bond strength with concrete compressive concrete is found to be stronger than that in cement
strength for 20 mm bar and 65 mm cover concrete. The stronger ITZ contributed to the higher
splitting tensile strength and bond strength of geo-
specimens of OPC and geopolymer concrete are used polymer concrete. The higher bond strength of
to obtain mean values of normalized bond strength geopolymer concrete suggests that the current bond
and c/db ratio for this graph. It can be seen from the strength equations [9–12] for OPC concrete can be
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030
8 strength. This suggests that the current analytical
Splitting tensile strength, fsts (MPa)
7 equations for bond strength of OPC concrete can
6
5 with reinforcing steel.
4 OPC
3 GPC
2 OPC trend
line
1 GPC trend
line
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Compressive strength, fc (MPa)
Fig. 12 Variation of splitting tensile strength with compres-
sive strength
used for conservative calculation of the bond strength
of geopolymer concrete.
4 Conclusions
This study has investigated the bond strength of
geopolymer concrete to steel reinforcing bars.
Twenty-four geopolymer and 24 OPC concrete
beam-end specimens were manufactured and tested
for bond strength in accordance with the ASTM A944
Standard [15]. From the experimental results, the
following conclusions are drawn:
1. Geopolymer concrete showed cracking patterns
similar to those of OPC concrete under pull-out
load. Both geopolymer and OPC concrete speci-
mens failed in a brittle manner by splitting of
concrete along the bonded length of the pull-out
bar.
2. In both types of concrete, bond strength
increased with the increase in concrete cover
and the concrete compressive strength.
3. In both types of concrete, the bond strength
normalized by the square root of compressive
strength showed an increasing trend with the
increase in concrete cover to bar diameter ratio.
4. Generally, geopolymer concrete showed higher
bond strength than OPC concrete for the same
test parameters. This is because of the higher
splitting tensile strength of geopolymer concrete
than OPC concrete of the same compressive
1029
be used for conservative calculation of the bond
strength of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete
Acknowledgments The author gratefully acknowledges the
contributions of Rocky Vasile, Aidan Grigg and the laboratory
technicians of the Department of Civil Engineering, Curtin
University of Technology, in carrying out the experimental
work.
120
References
1. Sakai K (2008) Environmental management of concrete
and concrete structures—toward sustainable development
in construction industry. In: Proceedings of the 6th inter-
national conference on analytical models and new concepts
in concrete and masonry structures, 9–11 June. Lodz,
Poland, pp 139–155
2. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ et al (2004) On
the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.
ACI Mater J 101(6):467–472
3. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ et al (2005) Fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete. Aust J Struct Eng
6(1):77–86
4. Rangan BV (2006) Studies on low-calcium fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete. Indian concrete institute journal,
October–December. ICI, India, pp 9–17
5. Sumajouw DMJ, Hardjito D, Wallah SE et al (2007) Fly
ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of slender columns.
J Mater Sci 42(9):3124–3130
6. Sarker PK (2009) Analysis of geopolymer concrete col-
umns. Mater Struct 42:715–724
7. Fernandez-Jimenez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C
(2006) Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash
concrete. ACI Mater J 103(2):106–112
8. Sofi M, van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA et al (2007) Engi-
neering properties of inorganic polymer concretes (IPCs).
Cement Concr Res 37:251–257
9. Orangun CO, Jirsa JO and Breen JE (1977) A re-evaluation
of test data on development length and splices. ACI J
74:114–122
10. Esfahani MR, Rangan BV (1998) Bond between normal
strength and high strength concrete (HSC) and reinforcing
bars in splices in beams. ACI Struct J 95(3):272–280
11. Zuo J, Darwin D (2000) Splice strength of conventional
and high relative rib area bars in normal and high strength
concrete. ACI Struct J 97(4):630–641
12. ACI Committee 408 (2003) Bond development of straight
reinforcing bars in tension (ACI 408R-03). American
Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, US, p 49
13. Ahlborn TM, DenHartigh TC (2003) A comparative bond
study of stainless and high-chromium reinforcing bars in
concrete. J Transp Res Board 88–95
14. Sofi M, van Deventer JSJ, Mendis PA et al (2007) Bond
performance of reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer
concretes (IPCs). J Mater Sci 42:3107–3116
1030
15. ASTM A 944-99 (1999) Standard test method for com-
paring bond strength of steel reinforcing bars to concrete
beam-end specimens. American Society for Testing and
Materials Standard, West Conshohocken, US
16. ASTM C 618 (2005) Standard specification for coal fly ash
and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete.
American Society for Testing and Materials Standard,
West Conshohocken, US
17. Hardjito D, Rangan BV (2005) Development and properties
of low calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.
Research report GC1. Faculty of Engineering, Curtin Uni-
versity of Technology, Western Australia. http://espace.
lis.curtin.edu.au/
Materials and Structures (2011) 44:1021–1030
18. Chang EH (2009) Shear and bond behaviour of reinforced
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete beams, PhD thesis.
Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Western Australia,
382 pp
19. Zain MFM, Mahmud HB, Ilham A et al (2002) Prediction
of splitting tensile strength of high performance concrete.
Cement Concr Res 32:1251–1258
20. Lee WKW, van Deventer JSJ (1005) The interface between
natural selicious aggregates and geopolymers. Cement
Concr Res 34:195–206
21. Zhang YS, Sun W, Li JZ (2005) Hydration process of
interfacial transition in potassium polysialate (K-PSDS)
geopolymer concrete. Mag Concr Res 57(1):33–38