Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Engineering Structures
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/engstruct

Shear strength of fly ash-based geopolymer reinforced concrete beams T

a a,⁎ a b
Noor S. Yacob , Mohamed A. ElGawady , Lesley H. Sneed , Aly Said
a
Department of Civil, Architectural and Environmental Engineering, Missouri University of Science and Technology, United States
b
Department of Architectural Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, United States

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Keywords: Geopolymer concrete (GC) is a synthetic material that combines sustainability and appropriate engineering
Reinforced concrete properties, and it is relatively cost-effective compared to Portland cement-based concrete, its traditional com-
Sustainable structures petitor. Most GC studies have analyzed the microstructure and the chemical composition of GC. However,
Geopolymer concrete studies on the structural behavior of GC are limited. Thus this research focuses on the shear behavior of fly ash-
Fly ash
based GC beams. Four GC beams and one conventional concrete beam were experimentally investigated to
Shear strength
Shear deformation
determine their shear strengths. The test variables included the shear span-to-effective depth ratio and the
Structural behavior transverse reinforcement ratio of the investigated beams. The strength, strains, deformations, and mode of
failure of the investigated beams are presented. The shear strengths of the investigated beams are comparable to
those of conventional concrete beams.

1. Introduction
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) production includes mining,
crushing, and grinding limestone followed by calcination process of
calcium carbonate into calcium oxide under very high temperatures
resulting in a massive carbon dioxide footprint on the atmosphere [1].
Over the past decades, numerous studies have been conducted to par-
tially or completely replace OPC in concrete with alternative binders
including industrial by-products to improve concrete sustainability.
Yet, none has been widely accepted as an alternative binder.
A more environmental friendly concrete material called geopolymer
concrete (GC) has been developed. GC consists of aluminosilicate-rich
material such as fly ash, blast furnace slag, and red mud and an alkaline
solution. The aluminosilicate and alkaline solution react together, per
Eq. (1), resulting in an inorganic amorphous three-dimensional poly-
meric chain and ring structure consisting of SieOeAleO bonds [2–6] in
a process known as geopolymerization.
(1a)
(1b)
Fly ash is the most common precursor material used to synthesize
GC. ASTM C618 [7] classifies fly ash to either class F or C depending on
the SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 content which must be greater than 70% for
class F and 50% for class C fly ashes. Class F fly ash has been used to
produce heat-cured GC, as it has a higher content of silicate and alu-
mina while class C has been used to produce ambient-cured GC, as it
has higher calcium content [8–10]. GC based on class F is typically
heat-cured at temperatures ranging from 60°–90 °C to accelerate
strength development [11].
The alkali solution activator plays an essential role in the properties
of GC. Sodium hydroxide with sodium silicate and potassium hydroxide
with potassium silicate were used as alkaline solutions [3]. The com-
bination of sodium silicate and sodium hydroxide resulted in higher
compressive strength compared to mixtures prepared using potassium
hydroxide with potassium silicate. Moreover, a sodium silicate-to-so-
dium hydroxide ratio of 2.5 resulted in relatively high compressive
strengths. Sodium hydroxide molarity ranging from 8 M to 14 M re-
sulted in acceptable strengths [10,11]. It should be noted that the al-
kaline activator represents significant portion of the cost of GC mix-
tures. Therefore, its content needs to be optimized for a given strength.
For example, Gomaa et al. [10] produced GC mixtures having com-
pressive strengths ranging from 25 MPa to 45 MPa with a cost 60% to
112% of that of the corresponding conventional concrete mixture.
Numerous researchers investigated the material performance of GC.
However, fewer investigations have been carried out at the structural
component level [12–16]. Visintin et al. [13] investigated the shear
friction and shear strength of unreinforced GC. The performance of GC

⁎
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: elgawadym@mst.edu (M.A. ElGawady).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109298
Received 23 August 2018; Received in revised form 27 May 2019; Accepted 11 June 2019
Available online 01 July 2019
0141-0296/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
N.S. Yacob, et al.
was found to be similar to that of CC. Yost et al. [14] investigated three
shear-critical beams, having shear-span-to-depth ratio (a/d) of 5.2,
subjected to four-point bending. The performance of GC beams was
compared to that of identical beams constructed using conventional
concrete (CC), i.e., ordinary Portland cement based concrete. It was
found that the performance of both sets of beams was very similar. Both
sets displayed the same crack pattern, failure mode, and shear strength.
Mourougane et al. [15] investigated the shear strength of six beams
having a/d of 1.6 subjected to four-point bending and reported that GC
beams displayed slightly higher shear strength but similar crack pat-
tern. The shear strength of GC beams having different flexural and shear
reinforcement ratio were determined using different codes [16]. It was
found that the Australian Standards AS-3500 [17] and ACI 318 code
[18] were able to conservatively predict the shear strength of the in-
vestigated beams.
Most GC studies have analyzed the microstructure and the chemical
composition of GC. However, studies on the structural behavior of GC
are limited [13]. Therefore, this research represents one of the pioneer
studies to investigate the shear strength of GC beams, which will help
design engineers to implement GC in their structural designs. The test
variables were the shear span-to-effective depth ratio and the transverse
reinforcement ratio of the investigated beams. The strength, strains,
deformations, and mode of failure of the investigated beams are pre-
sented. The shear strengths of the investigated beams are compared to
those obtained using Response 2000 [19].
2. Experimental program
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Geopolymer concrete
2.1.1.1. GC mixture design. The GC mixture was designed considering
the performance of different trial mixtures. Eight trial mixtures were
prepared with different NaOH molarity (i.e., 8 M, 14 M, or 16 M), type
of sodium silicate solution (i.e., N®or D™), rest time period between
casting and curing (i.e., zero or 5 hrs), mixing process (i.e., A: mixing fly
ash with dry ingredients, then adding the chemicals; or B: mixing fly
ash directly with the liquid activators; then. adding the remaining
solids), and source of class F fly ash (i.e., 1 or 2). The combination of
parameters included in each of the trial mixtures is summarized in
Table 1.
For all trial mixtures, the coarse aggregate was crushed dolomite
with nominal maximum aggregate size of 13 mm (1/2 in.). The fine
aggregate was natural river sand taken from Missouri River. To mini-
mize the water and chemical liquid absorption, the aggregate moisture
condition was kept as close as possible to the saturated-surface-dry
conditions.
The alkali activator was a combination of sodium hydroxide (NaOH)
and sodium silicate (Na2O3Si) solution. The NaOH solids were com-
mercial grade with purity more than 99% in pellet form. Two different
types of sodium silicate solution were investigated. Type N® with sili-
cate acid and sodium salt of 37.5%, water content of 62.5%, and
Table 1
Trial GC mixtures.
Mixture no. Rest time (hours) Sodium hydroxide (molarity) Sodium silicate (type)
1 ——— 8M N®
2 5 8M N®
3 5 14 M N®
4 0 16 M D™
5 0 14 M D™
6 0 14 M D™
7 0 14 M N®
8 0 14 M N®
2
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298
Fig. 1. Compressive strength and slump flow of GC trial mixtures.
specific gravity of 1.39 g/cm3 at 20 °C (86.8 lb/ft3 at 68°F). Type D™
with silicate acid and sodium salt of 44.1%, water content of 55.9%,
and specific gravity of 1.53 g/cm3 at 20 °C (95.5 lb/ft3 at 68°F). The
NaOH solution was prepared 24 h prior to the concrete mixing to allow
the solution to reach room temperature before concrete mixing.
A high-range water-reducing (HRWR) admixture, MasterGlenium-
7500, was added to improve the workability. The activators were mixed
together on the mixing day in plastic pails, and the HRWR along with
the extra-added water were mixed in a separate pail.
As shown in Fig. 1, increasing the alkalinity of the mixture through
increasing the NaOH molarity, or using Na2O3Si type N® instead of type
D® increased the compressive strength. Increasing the alkalinity in the
mixture increased the rate of leaching of the alumina and calcium in the
fly ash leading to higher compressive strengths. Similarly, using mixing
process B instead of A allowed more leaching of the alumina and cal-
cium to occur. Therefore, mixtures 6 through 8 displayed the highest
compressive strengths. However, cutting the water in mixture 8 or
HRWR in mixture 7 led to reduced workability. Therefore mixture
number 6 had the best combination of compressive strength at 7 days
and best workability. Hence, this mixture was used in the remainder of
this research.
For mixture number 6, the required NaOH molarity was obtained by
adding 404 g of sodium hydroxide pellets to 596 g of distilled water to
create one kilogram of NaOH solution of 14 M. The chemical compo-
sition and physical properties of the fly ash used in the remainder of this
study are shown in Table 2. The fly ash had a low calcium oxide content
of 8.30%. Table 3 summarizes the mixture proportions used for the GC
in this study.
2.1.1.2. GC mixing procedure. A gravity mixer of 0.17 m3 (6 ft3) was
used for the mixtures. The fly ash was mixed with the activator solution
first for one minute to ensure full contiguity, and then the fine and
coarse aggregates were added along with the extra-added water and the
HRWR. The mixing continued for five minutes. The liquids-to-fly ash
ratio was 0.43 by weight. The average slump flow measured per ASTM
C1611 [20] was 605 mm (23.8 in.) in diameter (Fig. 2). The flowability
of the mixture is attributed to the spherical shape of the fly ash particles
in combination with the lubricating effect of sodium silicate solution.
No signs of segregation were observed, which complies with the mixing
requirements of GC.
Extra-added water HRWR Mixing process (type) Fly ash (source)
Yes Yes A 1
Yes Yes A 2
Yes Yes A 2
Yes Yes A 2
Yes Yes A 2
Yes Yes B 2
Yes No B 2
No Yes B 2
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Table 2
Chemical composition and physical properties of fly ash.
SiO21, % 59.27
Al2O32, % 22.09
Fe2O33, % 5.15
Sum of 1′2′3, % 86.51
CaO, % 8.30
MgO, % 1.62
SO3, % 0.44
Na2O, % 0.15
K2O, % 1.08
LOI 0.30
Retained on #325 Sieve, % 29.22
Specific Gravity 2.25
Moisture Content, % 0.03

2.1.1.3. Optimization of curing time. Curing is crucial for the

compressive strength of GC [9]. To determine the curing time that
yields an acceptable strength in this study, a set of GC cylinders was
prepared using the selected GC mixture (Table 3) and the mixing
procedure described in the previous section. The cylinders were cured
in an oven at 65 °C (150°F) for different periods of time ranging from 1
to 28 h. Fig. 3 shows the effect of curing period on the compressive
strength of the cylinders, where each value represents the average of
three test cylinders. The concrete gained most of its strength within the
first four hours of curing when the strength reached approximately
20 MPa (3000 psi). After four hours, the rate of strength gain rate was
relatively smaller, and the GC reached about 35 MPa (5000 psi) at 24 h
of curing. Hence, when constructing the beam specimens, a curing time
of 24 h at 65 °C (150°F) was used.
2.1.2. Conventional concrete
The mixture proportions of the conventional concrete are sum-
marized in Table 4. Aggregate similar to that used in the GC mixture
was used for the conventional concrete mixture. Type I cement and fly
ash class C obtained from a local power plant were used.
2.1.3. Reinforcing steel bars
ASTM A615M [21] Grade 420 deformed reinforcing steel bars were
used as flexural and shear reinforcement for the beams. The average
yield strength, yield strain, ultimate strength, and modulus of elasticity,
along with the corresponding coefficient of variation (COV), de-
termined by testing three specimens per the ASTM A370 [22], are
presented in Table 5 for each bar size.
2.2. Test specimens
2.2.1. Test variables
Four GC beams and one CC beam were investigated during this
study. Each beam had a span length of 2134 mm (84 in.). All beams had
a rectangular cross section of 203 mm (8 in.) in width and 305 mm
(12 in.) in height with variable shear reinforcement in the form of U-
shaped stirrups (Figs. 4 and 5).
The nomenclature of the test specimens consists of four terms
(Table 6). The first term indicates the type of the concrete: G for geo-
polymer and C for conventional concrete. The second term denotes the
existence of and spacing between shear reinforcement in the shear span
region: N for no shear reinforcement, L for large spacing of 254 mm
(10 in.), and S for small spacing of 191 mm (7.5 in.). The third term
Fig. 2. Slump flow of GC.
indicates the diameter of the longitudinal reinforcement bar in US
customary units: 6 for 19 mm diameter bars. The last term indicates the
value of the shear span-to-effective depth ratio, a/d.
Beam GN6-2 had no shear reinforcement within the shear span re-
gion, while the remaining four beams had 10 mm diameter (No. 3)
stirrups spaced at either 191 mm (7.5 in.) or 254 mm (10 in.) (Table 6
and Figs. 4 and 5). Four beams had a shear span-to-effective depth ratio
(a/d) of 2.0, whereas the fifth beam, GL6-2.4, had a/d of 2.4. All beams
had a longitudinal flexural reinforcement ratio , defined as the ratio of
the longitudinal tension reinforcement area-to-the effective cross-sec-
tional area, of 1.57% corresponding to 0.54 to 0.65 times the balance
reinforcement ratio, b, (Table 6). It is worth noting that there is a slight
difference in b values as the concrete compressive strength for each
specimen was slightly different (Table 6).
2.2.2. Fabrication and curing
The GC mixture was prepared and cast into steel formwork (Fig. 6).
Then, the specimens were placed into an environmental chamber at
65 °C (150°F) for 24 h (Fig. 7). Three thermocouple wires Type T
[Copper/Constantan; reads from −270 to 370 °C (−454 to 700°F)]
were installed at three locations along the beam centerline to monitor
the temperature along the length of each beam (Fig. 6). Companion
cylinders confronting to ASTM C39 [23] were cast and cured using the
same regime and tested on the same day of testing the corresponding
beams. Table 7 presents the fresh and hardened concrete properties
determined using 100 × 200 mm (4 × 8 in.) and per the appropriate
ASTM standards. The unit weight of the fresh GC mixture was 1623 kg/
m3 (100 lb/ft3) as determined per ASTM C138 [24].
After the structural testing, disk specimens were cored from two GC
beams that had different compressive strengths and from the CC beam.
The air-content values of the hardened GC and CC were measured per
ASTM C457 [25] using an air-void analyzer (RapidAir-457). The results
are summarized in Table 7, and image of the air void distribution in
beam GL6-2 is shown in Fig. 8. As shown in the table, both beams GL6-2
and CL6-2 had the same compressive strength; however, the GC had
lower air-void ratio compared to CC. Furthermore, for the GC beams,
higher compressive strength is associated with lower air-void content.
All the values of the air-void content in the hardened concrete comply
with ASTM C457 [25].

Table 3
GC mixture proportions (kg/m3).
Class F Fly Ash Sodium Hydroxide Solution Sodium Silicate Solution Extra Added Water Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate HRWR*

406 41 103 25.6 643 1194 6.1

* MasterGlenium-7500.

3
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Fig. 3. Heat curing effect for GC.

2.2.3. Test setup and procedure Table 5

The tested beams were simply supported using a roller on one end Longitudinal and transverse steel reinforcement properties.
and pin on the other end. The load was applied by two 490-kN (110- Bar no. ϕ 10 (#3) ϕ 19 (#6)
kip) servo-hydraulic actuators affixed to a stiff steel beam that applied
the load at two loading points to the beam creating a four-point load *
Modulus of Elasticity , MPa (ksi) 196,500 (28,500) 194,000 (28,300)
configuration (Figs. 5 and 9). The applied load bearing plates were COV, % 0.011 0.001
Yield Strength*, MPa (ksi) 490 (71) 561 (81)
152 mm (6 in.) wide, and the support bearing plates were 127 mm
COV, % 1.88 3.62
(5 in.) wide (i.e., in the longitudinal direction of the beam). The load Yield Strain*, 2.5 × 10−3 2.9 × 10−3
was applied to each beam by controlling the displacement of the ac- COV, % 4.16 10.71
tuators at a rate of 0.5 mm/min (0.02 in./min) until failure occurred. Ultimate Strength*, MPa (ksi) 714 (104) 797 (116)
COV, % 1.86 0.12
Two linear variable differential transformers (LVDTs) were fixed to
the mid-span of the beam on both sides, and two LVDTs were located * Average of three specimens.
under the applied load points to measure vertical displacement of the
beam. Four additional LVDTs were installed on the side face of the
beam at each end within d distance from the support (Fig. 9) to measure
the shear deformation. Uniaxial electrical resistance strain gauges were
mounted on the longitudinal reinforcing steel bars at the beam mid-
span and at the mid-shear span to measure the axial strains at these
locations during the test. Strain gauges were also installed on both legs
of each stirrup within each shear span (Fig. 5).

3. Experimental results GL6-2 GN6-2

GL6-2.4
3.1. Peak load and general behavior GS6-2
CL6-2

Table 8 summarizes the test results in terms of the peak load (Ptest ),
which is the maximum total load applied to the beam by the two ac-
tuators, peak shear force (Vtest =Ptest /2 , assuming perfect symmetry and
disregarding the effects of the beam self-weight), average shear stress at
failure (vtest = Vtest /b w d ), and vtest normalized by the square root of the
concrete compressive strength for the beam without shear reinforce-
ment.
Crack formation and propagation in the GC beams were similar to
those typically observed in conventional reinforced concrete beams.
Flexural cracks initiated in the constant moment region followed by
minor flexural cracks in the shear span regions between the supports
and the loading points. Most flexural cracks propagated upward toward
the compression zones of the beams upon increasing the applied dis-
placement. Furthermore, web-shear cracks and/or flexural-shear cracks
appeared near the supports and propagated upward toward the loading
Fig. 4. Cross-sections of beam specimens.
plates. The shear cracks widened with increasing applied displacement.
In addition, splitting cracks were observed along the longitudinal ten-
sion reinforcement near the supports in beams GN6-2 and GL6-2.4
(Fig. 10).
For beam GN6-2, without shear reinforcement, failure occurred
when an inclined shear crack penetrated the compression zone of the
beam near the loading plate leading to shear compression failure
(Fig. 10). Crushing and spalling of concrete struts was observed at
failure. In general, the cracks propagated through the aggregate and
created a relatively smooth surface. This indicates that the paste was
sufficiently strong to fully transfer the shear stress to the aggregate
sections due to the good bond between the paste and the aggregate. The

Table 4
Conventional concrete mixture proportions in kg/m3 (lb/yd3).
Water -to-cement ratio Cement Fly Ash Water Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate HRWR*

0.50 350 (590) 100 (170) 225 (380) 850 (1430) 850 (1430) 1.1 (1.9)

* MasterGlenium-7500.

4
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

/2 /2 /2 /2

(a) GN6-2

/2 /2 /2 /2

Fig. 5. Loading pattern and location of strain gages in the test beams.

Table 6
Test matrix.
*
Section Flexural tension Flexural b Shear a/d
reinforcement compression reinforcement
reinforcement

GN6-2 3 ϕ19 2 ϕ10 (2#3) 0.0240 _ 2.0

(3#6)
GL6-2 3 ϕ19 2 ϕ10 (2#3) 0.0290 ϕ10@254 mm 2.0
(3#6) (#3@10 in.)
GL6-2.4 3 ϕ19 2 ϕ10 (2#3) 0.0290 ϕ10@254 mm 2.4
(3#6) (#3@10 in.)
GS6-2 3 ϕ19 2 ϕ10 (2#3) 0.0270 ϕ10@191 mm 2.0 Fig. 7. Geopolymer concrete test specimens after curing.
(3#6) (#3@7.5 in.)
CL6-2 3 ϕ19 2 ϕ10 (2#3) 0.0290 ϕ10@254 mm 2.0
(3#6) (#3@10 in.) difference. Beam GL6-2 had an accidental eccentricity while placing it
in the testing rig resulting in torsional load and causing premature
* Balance reinforcement ratio considering the actual compressive strength of torsion–shear failure (Fig. 11). Crushed and spalled concrete due to
each beam, see Table 7. compression-shear failure was observed in both beams along the diag-
onal struts and extended toward the loading plates (Fig. 10). The tor-
peak load of beam GN6-2 was 418 kN (94.0 kips). sional effect on beam GL6-2 caused it to have the lowest peak load
Regarding the beams with shear reinforcement, crack progression in among the GC beams with shear reinforcement (Table 8).
beams GL6-2 and CL6-2 was nearly identical with one important For beams GL6-2.4 and GS6-2, diagonal web-shear and flexural-

Fig. 6. Steel formwork (left), heat-curing (middle), and thermocouple wire (right).

5
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Table 7
Fresh and hardened concrete properties.
Beam ID Slump Flow a, mm (in.) Compressive Strength, f′c c,d
, MPa (ksi) Modulus of Elasticity d, MPa (ksi) Splitting Tensile Strength e, MPa (psi) Air-void content f (%)

GN6-2 609.6 (24) 37.2 (5.4) 29,600 (4300) 2.65 (380) 3.26
GL6-2 584.2 (23) 43.4 (6.3) 30,000 (4350) 2.15 (310) 2.05
GL6-2.4 584.2 (23) 43.4 (6.3) 30,600 (4450) 2.35 (340) ————
GS6-2 584.2 (23) 41.2 (6.0) 28,000 (4075) 2.30 (335) ————
b
CL6-2 114.3 (4.5) 43.4 (6.3) 31,800 (4,600) 2.95 (425) 3.39

a
Slump flow per ASTM C1611 [20].
b
Slump per ASTM C143 [26].
c
Compressive strength per ASTM C39 [23].
d
Modulus of elasticity per ASTM C469 [27].
e
Splitting tensile strength per ASTM C496 [28].
f
Air-void content per ASTM C457 [25].

Fig. 8. Image of disk specimen cored from beam GL6-2 indicating air-voids.
(Traversed area: 100 × 100 mm. Magnification: 768 × 576 pixels – using a
2.00 mm scale.)

Fig. 9. Test setup and instrumentation. Fig. 10. Concrete crack pattern and mode of failure.

Table 8
Test results summary.
Beam ID Ptest kN (kips ) Vtest *=
Ptest
kN (kips ) vtest =
Vtest
MPa (psi)
vtest
MPa ( psi ) Toughness factor, TF
2 bw d f 'c

GN6-2 418 (94.0) 209 (47.0) 3.85 (559.5) 0.63 (7.61) 0.73
GL6-2 372 (83.4) 186 (41.7) 3.43 (496.4) ———— 0.75
GL6-2.4 406 (91.2) 203 (45.6) 3.75 (542.8) ———— 2.83
GS6-2 474 (106.6) 237 (53.3) 4.37 (634.5) ———— 3.10
CL6-2 428 (96.0) 214 (48.0) 3.95 (571.4) ———— 1.00

*Self-weight was not included.

6
N.S. Yacob, et al.
Fig. 11. Failure mode of beam GL6-2, the arrow shows the direction of the compression strut and the shear crack of the tested beams.
shear cracks developed during the test. However, the existence of more
than one stirrup in the shear critical region allowed shear load redis-
tribution to occur. Both beams failed due to crushing of the concrete in
the compression zone at mid-span accompanied by significant deflec-
tion. Beam GS6-2 had a peak load of 474 kN (106.6 kN), which is the
highest among the investigated beams. The peak load of beam GL6-2.4
was 406 kN (91.2 kips).
3.2. Axial strains in the reinforcing bars
The applied load versus reinforcing bar strain responses of the beam
without stirrups and the beams with stirrups are shown in Figs. 12 and
13, respectively. Strains in the longitudinal tension reinforcement are
shown at mid-span and at mid-length of the shear span. For the beams
with stirrups, each stirrup within each shear span had two strain
gauges, one on each leg (designated as north leg and south leg in
Fig. 13).
For beam GN6-2 without stirrups, Fig. 12 shows that the maximum
measured axial strains in the longitudinal tension reinforcement at mid-
span barely exceeded the yield strain reaching 3.25 × 10−3, i.e., 1.1
times the yield strain. The absence of stirrups led to brittle failure once
the beam reached its shear strength.
For beams GL6-2 and CL6-2, which had one stirrup in the shear
span, the stirrup within the shear span yielded and reached maximum
strains of 12 × 10−3 and 4 × 10−3 (4.8 and 1.6 times the yield strain),
respectively (Fig. 13). The strains in the longitudinal bars were just at
or slightly smaller than the yielding strains. However, the strain gauges
Fig. 12. Strain in longitudinal tension reinforcement at mid-length of shear
span “a” and mid-span.
7
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298
on the longitudinal reinforcing bars malfunctioned just before failure of
both beams.
For beams GL6-2.4 and GS6-2, which had two stirrups in the shear
span, the stirrups yielded at load levels approximately 53% and 63% of
the peak load, respectively, followed by yielding of the flexural tension
bars. Stirrup strains measured at the peak load were 6.7 × 10−3 for
beam GL6-2.4 (2.7 times the yield strain) and 6.7 × 10−3 for beam
GS6-2 (2.7 times the yield strain). The strain measured in the flexural
reinforcement at mid-span at the peak load was 7.1 × 10−3 for beam
GL6-2.4 and 11.9 × 10−3 for beam GS6-2 (2.4 and 4.1 times the yield
strain, respectively). The strain measurements confirm the visual de-
velopment of shear cracks accompanied by flexural cracks.
3.3. Load deflection behavior
Fig. 14 shows the load-deflection response of the beams. The de-
flection was measured using the average readings of the two LVDTs
located at the mid-span of each beam. The curves show that the be-
havior of the specimens varied based on the mode of failure of each
specimen. Beams GN6-2, GL6-2, and CL6-2 displayed a brittle behavior
with relatively small mid-span deflection values of 13 mm (0.5 in.),
14 mm (0.6 in.), and 17 mm (0.7 in.) corresponding to span-to-deflec-
tion ratios of 164, 152, and 126 and peak loads of 418 kN (94.0 kips),
372 kN (83.4 kips), and 428 kN (96.0 kips), respectively. It is worth
noting that both beams GL6-2 and CL6-2 displayed the same stiffness up
to an applied load of approximately 360 kN (80.9 kips), beyond which
point the accidental eccentricity became more pronounced leading to
early failure and stiffness degradation of beam GL6-2.
Beams GL6-2.4 and GS6-2 exhibited a relatively ductile behavior
with mid-span deflection values of 32 mm (1.3 in) and 26 mm (1.0 in)
corresponding to span-to-deflection ratios of 67 and 82 and peak loads
of 406 kN (91 kip) and 475 kN (107 kips), respectively. Beam GL6-2.4
followed closely the behavior of beam GL6-2 but with lower stiffness;
however, the higher bending moment-to-shear ratio in the case of GL6-
2.4 compared to GL6-2 combined with the accidental eccentricity im-
posed on beam GL6-2 led to more ductile behavior of beam GL6-2.4.
Beam GS6-2 displayed the largest peak load due to the closely spaced
stirrups in the shear span region. The high shear reinforcement led the
beam to carry higher loads imposing higher strain demand on the
flexural reinforcement leading to larger deflection and a more ductile
failure.
3.4. Toughness
The toughness of a material is the ability to absorb energy without
rupture, and it represents the balance between strength and ductility; a
material that has high fracture toughness will probably undergo ductile
failure [29]. The toughness of the investigated beams was calculated as
the area under the load-deflection curve of each beam (Fig. 14). The
toughness factor, TF, (Table 8) was taken as the ratio of the toughness
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Fig. 13. Strain in longitudinal tension reinforcement at mid-span and transverse reinforcement within the shear span “a” for beams with stirrups.

Fig. 14. Load mid-span deflection response of the beam specimens.

of the beam to that of beam CL6-2, which is considered as the reference

in this comparison. GN6-2 had a toughness factor of 0.73 indicating
more brittle failure of beam GN6-2 compared to the reference beam
CL6-2 due to the absence of stirrups. The TF was larger for the beams
that failed in shear-flexure, i.e., beams GL6-2.4 and GS6-2, which
reached values of 2.83 and 3.10, respectively, due to the relatively
Fig. 15. Deformed configuration reproduced after Jirawattanasomkul et al.
[30], the solid lines represent the shear deformation and the dotted lines re-
present combined flexural and shear deformations.

8
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Fig. 16. Shear stress vs. shear deformation.

ductile failure of these beams compared to the reference CL6-2. The TF deformations at the top and bottom of the beam are identical, i.e.,
for beam GL6-2 was 0.75 which suffered from the accidental eccen- yf = yf 1 = yf 2 . The total deformation, yt , along line BC can be obtained
tricity. as follows:

( 2 (l + x2 )2 2 (l + x1)2
sd2 ) ( sd1 )
3.5. Evaluation of shear deformations and strains of the test specimens yt = ys + yf =
2 (4)
The average shear deformations, s , at the ends of the test specimens
where sd1and sd2 are the measured diagonal deformations due to the
were calculated using the attached diagonal LVDTs (Fig. 9). Fig. 15
combined flexure and shear actions, and x1and x2 are the measured
shows the end of a beam segment having a length of l and height of h
horizontal displacements at the top and bottom fibers of the beam
before and after deformation; both segment lengths were taken equal to
segment, respectively. It should be noted that elongation in the mea-
d . The beam segment is subjected to flexural and shear deformations,
sured deformations is considered as positive values and vice versa.
where the shear deformation can be calculated as follows:
The flexural deformation ( yf ) is attributed to the rotation of the
2 horizontal cords of the top and bottom fibers of the beam (Fig. 15) and
( s2 ) l2 ( s1 )
2 l2
yS1 = can be evaluated as follows:
2 (3)
x1 x2
The shear deformations at the top and bottom of the beam can be =
sd
h (5)
considered equal, i.e., yS = yS1 = yS 2 . Similarly, the flexural

9
N.S. Yacob, et al. Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298

Fig. 17. Average principle shear strain vs. shear stress.

Table 9 yf = l sd (6)
Ratios of experimental to analytical strengths
of the test specimens. where is a factor that describes the distance from the top of the
Beam Ptest/PAna section to the centroid of the sectional curvature distribution. The
center of rotation is located at the centroid of the beam segment in the
GN6-2 2.98 case of no flexural effect, and was assumed equal to 0.5 [36 and 37].
GL6-2 1.06
The values of sd1 , sd2 , x1, and x2 were obtained from readings of the
GL6-2.4 1.16
GS6-2 1.13 LVDTs. The shear stresses vs. shear deformation of the test specimens
Average 1.12 are shown in Fig. 16.
COV (%) 4.59 The average shear strain within a shear region can be calculated as
CL6-2 1.22 follows [31]:
COV = coefficient of variation.
2 1
=
h2 + l2 (7)

10
N.S. Yacob, et al.
where 1 and 2 are the displacements in the direction of the compres-
sion strut and across the shear crack (Fig. 11) assuming 45° shear crack,
respectively. Both were measured using the diagonal LVDTs (Fig. 9).
Fig. 17 shows the relationship between the shear stress and the average
calculated shear strain. It also shows the initiation of diagonal shear
crack (I.D.C.) determined at the point where the strain increased with
relatively constant stress.
As shown in Figs. 16 and 17, all beams displayed the same shear
stiffness until the I.D.C. Beyond the I.D.C., the different test parameters
affected the performance of the beams. As shown in Figs. 16(a) and
17(a), both GC and CC beams displayed the same shear stiffness.
However, the accidental torsion demand on beam GL6-2 significantly
increased the shear deformation compared to beam CL6-2. In addition,
the shear deformation calculation of beam CL6-2 was stopped at 0.1%
due to the loss of LVDT readings. Furthermore, the lack of stirrups in
beam GN6-2 decreased the I.D.C. and increased the corresponding
shear deformation compared to beam GL6-2 (Figs. 16(b), 17(b));
however, due to the accidental torsion the shear demand increased on
beam GL6-2 leading to larger shear deformations. Decreasing the spa-
cing between stirrups increased the shear stiffness (Figs. 16(c) and
17(c)). However, since the mode of failure of beam GS6-2 was shear-
flexural, the shear deformation beyond the peak load significantly de-
creased since the beam deformation was mainly from flexural de-
formations. Similarly, beam GL6-2.4 displayed smaller shear deforma-
tion beyond the peak load (Figs. 16(d) and 17(d)).
3.6. Comparison of test results with predicted values
The measured material properties and the dimensions of each beam
were used to calculate the strength of each beam using the software
Response 2000 [19] based on the modified compression field theory
(MCFT) [32]. The calculated strengths (PAna) were compared to those
measured during the experimental work (Ptest), and results are pre-
sented in Table 9. As shown in the table, for beam GN6-2 without shear
reinforcement, the experimental strength was 2.98 times the calculated
value. For the GC beams with shear reinforcement, Response 2000 was
quite accurate in predicting the strengths of the beams. The experi-
mental strength ranged from 1.06 to 1.13 time the calculated strength
with an average of 1.12. For the CC beam, the experimental strength
was 1.22 that of the value calculated value. Generally, Response 2000
was better predictor of the strength of the beams with shear re-
inforcement because of the better predictability of the shear strength
contribution provided by the stirrups.
4. Conclusions and recommendations
This paper evaluated the shear strength of a class F fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete. The study included testing four GC beams and
one CC beam. The beams had different transverse (shear) reinforcement
and shear span-to-effective depth ratio (a/d ). The shear behavior was
examined in terms of crack morphology and progression, load-deflec-
tion response, failure mechanism, longitudinal reinforcement tensile
strains at failure, shear deformation, and average shear strain in con-
crete. Measured values were compared with values predicted by
Response 2000 [19]. Based on the results, the following conclusions are
presented:
1) The crack progression in the case of GC beams was similar to that of
CC beams. Different crack patterns were observed during testing the
GC beams including shear and shear-flexural cracks due to the dif-
ferent test variable considered.
2) The parameters that affect the shear strength of CC beams, i.e., shear
reinforcement, a/d, and concrete compressive strength, also influ-
enced the shear strength of GC beams.
3) For the GC beams in this study, the variation in shear span-to-ef-
fective depth ratio from 2.0 to 2.4 changed the mode of failure from
11
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298
shear failure to shear-flexure failure. Similarly, increasing the shear
reinforcement from no stirrups to ϕ10@191 mm (#3 @ 7.5 in.)
changed the mode of failure from shear failure to shear-flexure
failure.
4) In terms of the load-deflection response, the GC beam showed al-
most the same ductility as the CC beam with similar reinforcement.
5) The shear deformation and the average principle strain were sig-
nificant in the beams that failed in shear and torsion-shear, whereas
they were less significant in the beams that failed in shear-flexure.
6) Response 2000 was able to predict conservatively the strengths of
the investigated beams. Better predictions were achieved for beams
with shear reinforcement. The beam without shear reinforcement
displayed a strength 2.98 that of the calculated strength, while
beams with shear reinforcement displayed strength that was on
average 1.12 times the calculated value.
It is worth noting that the investigated beams presented in this
manuscript had shear span-to-depth ratios less than 2.5. Therefore, the
shear strength values of these beams are higher than those of more
slender beams having similar reinforcement due to arching action.
Therefore, future research is recommended to investigate the effect of
slenderness on shear strength of beams constructed out of GC.
Acknowledgements
The authors gratefully acknowledge Boral Technologies, San
Antonio, TX for donating the second type of fly ash class F used during
this study. Appreciation is also extended to PQ Corporation, Malvern,
PA for donating type D™ sodium silicate liquid. The conclusions and the
opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not
necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the aforementioned
corporations.
Appendix A. Supplementary material
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.engstruct.2019.109298.
References
[1] Struble L, Godfrey J. How sustainable is concrete. International workshop on sus-
tainable development and concrete technology. 2004. p. 201–11.
[2] Aydın S, Baradan B. Mechanical and microstructural properties of heat cured alkali-
activated slag mortars. Mater Des 2012;35:374–83.
[3] Davidovits J. June. Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology. Geopolymer
1999;99:9–40.
[4] Lloyd N, Rangan V. Geopolymer Concrete-Sustainable Cementless Concrete. In:
Gupta Pawan R, Holland Terence C, Malhotra VM, editors. Tenth ACI International
Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology and Sustainability Issues.
Seville, Spain: American Concrete Institute; 2009. p. 33–53.
[5] Van Jaarsveld JGS, Van Deventer JSJ, Lorenzen L. The potential use of geopoly-
meric materials to immobilise toxic metals: part I. Theory and applications. Miner
Eng 1997;10(7):659–69.
[6] Komnitsas K, Zaharaki D. Geopolymerisation: a review and prospects for the mi-
nerals industry. Miner Eng 2007;20(14):1261–77.
[7] ASTM International, 2017. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or cal-
cined natural pozzolan for use in concrete (ASTM C618-17a). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[8] Gomaa E, Sargon S, Kashosi C, ElGawady M. Fresh properties and compressive
strength of high calcium alkali activated fly ash mortar. J. King Saud Univ-Eng Sci
2017;29(4):356–64.
[9] Sargon S, Gomaa E, Kashosi C, ElGawady MA, Gheni A. Effect of curing tempera-
tures on zero-cement alkali-activated mortars. 16th International Congress on
Polymers in Concrete (ICPIC 2018) Washington DC. 2018. p. 549–55.
[10] Gomaa E, Sargon S, Kashosi C, ElGawady M. Fresh Properties and Early
Compressive Strength of Alkali-Activated High Calcium Fly Ash Paste. In: Tran-
Nguyen HH, Wong H, Ragueneau F, Ha-Minh C, editors. Proceedings of the 4th
Congrès International de Géotechnique - Ouvrages -Structures. CIGOS 2017. Lecture
Notes in Civil Engineering. Singapore: Springer; 2018.
[11] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DM, Rangan BV. On the development of fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mat J 2004;101(6):467–72.
[12] Visintin P, Mohamed MS, Albitar AM, Lucas W. Shear behaviour of geopolymer
concrete beams without stirrups. Constr Build Mater 2017;148:10–21.
N.S. Yacob, et al.
[13] Mo K, Alengaram U, Jumaat M. Structural performance of reinforced geopolymer
concrete members: a review. Constr Build Mater 2016;120:251–64.
[14] Yost JR, Radlinska A, Ernst S, Salera M, Martignetti NJ. Structural behavior of alkali
activated fly ash concrete. Part 2: structural testing and experimental findings.
Mater Struct 2013;46:449–62.
[15] Mourougane R, Puttappa CG, Sashidhar C, Muthu KU. Shear behaviour of high
strength GPC/TVC beams. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in
Architecture and Civil Engineering, 21–23 June 2012, Bangalore, India, 2012.
2012. p. 142–5.
[16] Chang EH. Shear and bond behaviour of reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete beams. PhD thesis, Curtin University, Perth, Australia. 2009.
[17] AS3600, A.S., 2001. Concrete structures. AS3600-2001. Sydney: Standards
Australia.
[18] ACI Committee 318, 2014. Building code requirements for structural concrete (ACI
318-14) and commentary. American Concrete Institute.
[19] Bentz, E.C. and Collins, M.P., 1998. RESPONSE-2000: Reinforced concrete sectional
analysis using the modified compression field theory.
[20] ASTM International, 2014. Standard Test Method for Slump Flow of Self-
Consolidating Concrete (ASTM C1611/C1611M-14). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
[21] ASTM International, 2018. Standard Specification for Deformed and Plain Carbon-
Steel Bars for Concrete Reinforcement (ASTM A615/A615M-18e1). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[22] ASTM International, 2017. Standard Test Methods and Definitions for Mechanical
Testing of Steel Products (ASTM A370-17a). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
[23] ASTM International, 2018. Standard test method for compressive strength of
12
Engineering Structures 196 (2019) 109298
cylindrical concrete specimens (ASTM C39/C39M-18). ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA.
[24] ASTM International, 2017. Standard Test Method for Unit Weight, Yield, and Air
Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete (ASTM C138/C138M-17a). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[25] ASTM International, 2016. Standard test method for microscopical determination of
parameters of the air-void system in hardened concrete (ASTM C457/C457M-16).
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[26] ASTM International, 2015. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement
concrete (ASTM C143/C143M-15a). ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[27] ASTM International, 2014. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity
and Poisson's Ratio of Concrete in Compression (ASTM C469/C469M-14). ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA.
[28] ASTM International, 2017. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of
Cylindrical Concrete Specimens (ASTM C496/C496M-17). ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA.
[29] Hertzberg, R., 1995. Deformation and Fracture Mechanics of Engineering Materials
(4 Ed.). Wiley. ISBN 0-471-01214-9.
[30] Jirawattanasomkul T, Dai JG, Zhang D, Senda M, Ueda T. Experimental study on
shear behavior of reinforced-concrete members fully wrapped with large rupture-
strain FRP composites. J Compos Constr 2013;18(3):A4013009.
[31] Khaja MN, Sherwood EG. Does the shear strength of reinforced concrete beams and
slabs depend upon the flexural reinforcement ratio or the reinforcement strain? 1.
Can J Civ Eng 2013;40(11):1068–81.
[32] Vecchio FJ, Collins MP. The modified compression field theory for reinforced
concrete elements subjected to shear. ACI J 1986;83(2):219–31.