Accepted manuscript doi:

10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Accepted manuscript
As a service to our authors and readers, we are putting peer-reviewed accepted manuscripts
(AM) online, in the Ahead of Print section of each journal web page, shortly after acceptance.

Disclaimer
The AM is yet to be copyedited and formatted in journal house style but can still be read and
referenced by quoting its unique reference number, the digital object identifier (DOI). Once
the AM has been typeset, an ‘uncorrected proof’ PDF will replace the ‘accepted manuscript’
PDF. These formatted articles may still be corrected by the authors. During the Production
process, errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers
that apply to the journal relate to these versions also.

Version of record
The final edited article will be published in PDF and HTML and will contain all author
corrections and is considered the version of record. Authors wishing to reference an article
published Ahead of Print should quote its DOI. When an issue becomes available, queuing
Ahead of Print articles will move to that issue’s Table of Contents. When the article is
published in a journal issue, the full reference should be cited in addition to the DOI.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Submitted: 19 December 2017
Published online in ‘accepted manuscript’ format: 12 July 2018
Manuscript title: Behaviour and design of air cured GFRP-reinforced geopolymer concrete
square columns
Authors: M. Elchalakani1, M. Dong1, A. Karrech1, G. Li2, M. S. Mohamed Ali3 and A.
Manalo4
Affiliations: 1School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering, The University of
Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia; 2Department of Chemical Engineering, The
University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia; 3Department of Civil Engineering, The
University of Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia; 4Centre for Future Materials (CFM), University
of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Queensland 4350, Australia
Corresponding author: M. Dong, School of Civil, Environmental and Mining Engineering,
The University of Western Australia, WA 6009, Australia; G. Li, Department of Chemical
Engineering, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
E-mail: minhao.dong@uwa.edu.au, li.g@unimelb.edu.au

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Abstract

The conventional steel reinforced Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete is prone to corrosion. Geopolymer

concrete is a new durable cementitious material and the glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) is an attractive

alternative to steel because of GFRP’s compelling physical and mechanical properties, corrosion resistance, and

electromagnetic transparency. This study investigates the structural properties of eleven air cured square

geopolymer concrete columns reinforced with GFRP bars at various stirrup spacings of 50, 100 and 150mm.

The specimens were tested under varying loading conditions to generate interaction diagrams for comparison

with theoretical predictions from existing codes and standards. Effective confinement and higher ductility was

achieved by reducing the stirrup spacing. High strains indicating buckling or rupture of the longitudinal GFRP

bars and confinement of the core were measured. The comparison between the experimental data and design

codes showed that the load carrying capacity of the columns were favourably underpredicted from a design

viewpoint when the compressive GFRP bars were excluded. The strength of the concentrically loaded columns

was up to 39.6% higher than the code predictions. The GFRP reinforced geopolymer concrete columns showed

10.8% average increment in the load carrying capacity over their plain concrete sections.

Keywords: Concrete structures; Composite structures; Failure.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 General

The conventional steel reinforced Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) concrete is found in

nearly every construction project. Geopolymer concrete (GPC) was considered an alternative

to the OPC concrete with better durability performances (Duxson et al. 2007; Singh et al.

2015). Glass fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) has also become an attractive alternative to

steel because of GFRP’s compelling physical and mechanical properties, corrosion resistance,

and electromagnetic transparency (Zadeh and Nanni 2013). The use of GFRP reinforcement

is particularly relevant as it is especially appropriate for structures that operate in aggressive

environments, such as the coastal regions in Australia. However, limited studies have been

carried out on the performance of the GFRP reinforced GPC structural members. Currently,

there is no Australian standard for the use of GFRP in reinforced concrete structures.

International standards, such as American standard ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) and

Canadian standard CAN/CSA S806-12 (CAN/CSA, 2017), provide recommendations for the

use of GFRP as reinforcement material for concrete. However, the compression capacity of

the GFRP bars is not recognised by those design codes due to the GFRP bar’s inherent

vulnerability to buckling.

1.2 Geopolymer

Geopolymer is a term that describes the polymerisation reaction of the alumina and silica rich

by-product materials from geological origins with the alkaline activator (Davidovits 1994).

The geopolymer utilises waste by-products such as fly ash and GGBS as the binder, which

reduces raw material extraction and the waste disposal. Unlike the OPC which relies on the

formation of calcium-silicate-hydrate (C-S-H) gels to gain structural strength, the calcium-

aluminate-silicate-hydrates (C-A-S-H) and sodium-aluminate-silicate-hydrates (N-A-S-H)

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
matrix is found in geopolymer due to the polycondensation of the precursors. The dense gel

structure greatly improved the chloride resistance of the fly ash and GGBS based GPC

(Ismail et al. 2013), making it a suitable construction material in the highly corrosive coastal

zones. The amorphous zeolite-like material formed during the polymerisation process was

also shown to allow the geopolymer to remain stable for up to 270 days in aggressive fluids

(Palomo et al. 1999). While it is possible to achieve comparable strength to OPC, the elastic

modulus of the geopolymer composites is generally smaller than that of the OPC concrete

(Pan et al. 2011).

1.3 Longitudinal GFRP reinforcement

Deitz, Harik and Gesund (2003) tested forty-five GFRP rebars in compression to establish

their ultimate strength and stiffness. It was found that for non-slender rebars, the ultimate

compressive strength is equal to approximately 50% of the ultimate tensile strength, whilst

the Young’s modulus in compression can be considered equal to the Young’s modulus in

tension. However, the maximum strength contribution of compressive GFRP bars can only be

taken advantage of if buckling is prevented. Elchalakini et al. (2016) warned that the low

elastic modulus of GFRP bars makes it especially susceptible to buckling and lateral restraint

of longitudinal reinforcement is therefore critical.

Several studies have shown compressive GFRP reinforcement to contribute to OPC

reinforced concrete column capacity to varying degrees. For example, De Luca, Matta and

Nanni (2010) concluded that compressive GFRP bars contributed close to 5% of column

capacity and therefore could be ignored when evaluating the nominal capacity of an axially

loaded reinforced concrete column. Alternatively, Elchalakini et al. (2016) demonstrated that

theoretical capacities are a much better representation of experimental results when including

the strength and stiffness of compressive GFRP reinforcement. Issa, Metwally and Elzeiny

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
(2011) found the capacity calculations to be conservative when the compressive GFRP was

excluded when compared to experimental results.

1.4 Transverse GFRP reinforcement

Typically, transverse reinforcement in reinforced concrete columns consist of stirrups

perpendicular to longitudinal reinforcement or a circular spiral configuration. As previously

mentioned, longitudinal GFRP reinforcement is especially susceptible to buckling due to its

low Young’s modulus. This dictates that to achieve maximum strength, GFRP longitudinal

reinforcement must be appropriately laterally restrained. A small stirrup spacing is necessary

to effectively restrain the longitudinal GFRP bars and confine the concrete core due to the

smaller elastic modulus of the GFRP stirrups.

For the GFRP reinforced concrete columns, De Luca, Matta and Nanni (2010) found that

stirrup spacing had limited effect on the peak capacity but strongly influenced the failure

mode by delaying the buckling of longitudinal GFRP bars. Mander et al. (1988) found a

decrease in stirrup spacing increases concrete core confinement, allowing the concrete core to

reach a higher ultimate strain and therefore increasing peak capacity.

For the GFRP reinforced concrete beams, the smaller stirrup spacing also gave higher shear

resistance enhancement due to the better confinement, improved aggregate interlocking and

effectively controlled the shear cracks in OPC concrete beams (Ahmed et al. 2010; Mahmoud

and El-Salakawy 2014). The well confined GFRP reinforced concrete rectangular columns

had stable hysteresis behaviour up to failure, which indicated satisfactory seismic

performances (Ali and El-salakawy 2015).

1.5 GFRP-OPC concrete columns

Several studies have been conducted on GFRP reinforced columns under pure axial load.

Elchalakini et al. (2016) tested 260x160mm rectangular GFRP and steel reinforced columns

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
with stirrup spacing of either 75mm or 150mm. The concentrically loaded columns failed in

different manners, depending on their stirrup spacing. The 150mm spaced concentrically

loaded specimens failed due to buckling of the longitudinal reinforcement, whilst their

smaller spaced counterparts failed due to rupture of shear reinforcement and concrete core

crushing. De Luca, Matta and Nanni (2010) tested concentrically loaded columns on a larger

scale compared to most testing reviewed, utilising a 610×610mm cross-section. It was found

that stirrup spacing did not contribute to the column’s peak capacity, but heavily influenced

the failure mode. The larger stirrup spacing utilised of 305mm resulted in failure due to

lateral deflection of longitudinal bars, followed by concrete core crushing and buckling of

longitudinal bars. In contrast to this, the smaller spaced columns of 75mm failed due to

stirrup rupture. Sreenath, Balaji and Saravana Raja Mohan (2017) loaded two otherwise

identical specimens concentrically, one reinforced with GFRP and one with steel. They

discovered that under axial loading, the yield point load for the steel specimen was 37% more

than that of its GFRP counterpart. It was also seen that the GFRP reinforcement resulted in

better ductile behaviour than steel.

Whilst there have been quite a few studies into the behaviour of concentrically loaded GFRP

reinforced columns, there is a limited amount of research on combined loading. King (2016)

found that increasing the loading eccentricity resulted in a decrease in axial capacity, as

would be expected, but also an increase in column ductility. Elchalakini et al. (2016)

established that bending moments can significantly reduce the ultimate capacity of

compression members due to non-uniform stress distributions. They also found that

eccentrically loaded columns are especially susceptible to buckling due to the lateral

deflection caused by bending moments. Issa, Metwally and Elzeiny (2011) tested six square

concrete columns, four reinforced with GFRP bars and the remaining two with steel rebars.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
They concluded that GFRP bars reinforced columns suffer greater deformations than steel

and that the deformation increase associated with the increase in stirrup spacing is more

profound for GFRP than for steel. It was also shown that the longitudinal GFRP bars

experienced a greater strain than steel under the same loading conditions and the strain

suffered for both bars was larger with an increase in stirrup spacing. Tobbi, Farghaly and

Benmokrane (2014) tested eight specimens, one with no reinforcement, two with steel and

five rebars with GFRP bars. They found that early spalling of the concrete cover resulted in a

reduction in axial capacity prior to any effect of lateral confinement. They also calculated that

the longitudinal GFRP bars contributed 10% of column capacity, not significantly less than

the 12% that steel rebars contributed. They concluded that with GFRP contributing almost as

much as steel, therefore proves that GFRP could be used as compression members provided

there was adequate transverse reinforcement to eliminate longitudinal bar buckling. A

number of studies on circular concrete members reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups

under concentric and eccentric loading conditions also showed that the circular GFRP-OPC

concrete columns had comparable axial capacities (7% less than the steel reinforcement

counterpart) and satisfactory bending and shear capacities (Afifi et al. 2014a; b; Ali et al.

2016; Hadhood et al. 2016).

1.6 GFRP-GPC columns

As the use of geopolymer concrete (GPC) as a structural material is relatively new, there are

a limited number of studies involving geopolymer concrete columns. Rahman and Sarker

(2013) tested twelve steel reinforced geopolymer concrete columns at different combinations

of biaxial load eccentricities. The load-deflection relationships and failure modes similar to

those usually exhibited by OPC concrete columns. As expected, axial capacity increased with

the increase in both concrete compressive strength and reinforcement ratio, as well as a

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
decrease in capacity with increasing load eccentricity. Experimental results were 18% higher

than calculated capacities which promotes the suitability of using the same predictive

methods for both geopolymer and OPC concrete. Maranan et al. (2015) concluded the

calculations in ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) and CAN/CSA S806-12 (CAN/CSA, 2017) were

conservative for the GPC beams reinforced with various types of GFRP bars. The load-

deflection curve of the beams consists of the combination of linear and nonlinear segments

that correspond to cracking and crushing of the concrete, respectively. The only published

study on the GPC columns reinforced solely by GFRP bars and stirrups, to the authors

knowledge, was carried out by Maranan et al. (2016). A total of 8 full-scale circular columns

were constructed. They concluded the GFRP bars contributed to on average 7.6% of the

overall capacity. The spiral confined columns were found to be more ductile than the hoop

confined columns.

1.7 Research significance

An experimental investigation was warranted due to the lack of studies on square GPC

columns fully reinforced by GFRP bars and stirrups. Square columns have the advantages of

being equally strong in both minor and major axes due to the geometry and tending to have

larger confined area for the same cross section than rectangular columns. They are widely

used as internal columns, especially for buildings in areas with no prevailing wind directions.

This study also examined the contribution of the longitudinal GFRP bars in compression

towards the load carrying capacity of the column. This project’s experimental program

involved testing eleven square geopolymer concrete columns reinforced with GFRP at

various stirrup spacings of 50 mm, 100 mm and 150 mm. Specimens were tested under

varying loading conditions to generate interaction diagrams for comparison with theoretical

predictions from the existing design codes.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
2. TEST PROGRAMME

2.1 Materials

The GFRP used for both longitudinal and transverse reinforcement is the MateenBar donated

by Pultron Composites, New Zealand (King 2016). MateenBar is manufactured using the

pultrusion process where glass fibres are pulled through a resin bath and then through a

heated die to cure. This process uniformly aligns the continuous glass fibres resulting in a bar

with high tensile stress. Longitudinal bars have an ultimate tensile strength of 930 MPa,

whilst due to bending the bar, the stirrups have a reduced ultimate tensile strength of 650

MPa as shown in Table 1. Reinforcement cages were built using 100×2.5mm cable ties to

attach stirrups to the longitudinal bars. Stirrup positions were measured and marked on each

longitudinal bar and then attached one at a time starting from the mid-span, followed by the

construction of end caps where necessary.

A fly ash and GGBS based geopolymer concrete mix, as shown in Table 2, was used for the

specimens. The binder consisted of 50% ASTM Class C (ASTM, 2015) fly ash and 50%

GGBS. The chemical composition of the two materials is shown in Table 3. The fly ash has a

basicity coefficient ( , (Leong et al. 2016)) of 0.19 and

the hydration modulus ( , (Leong et al. 2016)) of 0.84.

The GGBS has = 1.03 and HM = 1.87, indicating a higher calcium content. The activator

solution was produced by mixing 12 M sodium hydroxide solution and N-grade sodium

silicate solution with a SiO2/Na2O ratio of 3.2 at a ratio by weight of 1:2.5. The activator to

binder ratio was 0.4. To prevent flash setting of the geopolymer, 6.1% of water and 0.1% of

Viscocrete 10 superplasticiser (Sika 2013), courtesy of Sika, Australia, were added.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
2.2 Specimens

This study tested eleven GFRP reinforced geopolymer concrete specimens, 9 of which were

tested as columns under various loading conditions and the remaining two as beams as per

the four-point bending test. Three of the columns were concentrically loaded, whilst the

remaining six were tested at various eccentricities of 35mm, 50mm and 65mm. The three

eccentricities were chosen to optimise results around the “balance point” of the predicted

interaction diagram using the design codes. The two beams, with stirrups spaced at 50mm or

100mm, were tested in pure bending and the four-point flexural test was utilised to encourage

bending failure in close proximity to the mid-span. All specimens were 1200mm in length,

with a square cross-section of 180x180mm. These dimensions were selected to ensure the

specimens were representative as ½-scale members, whilst still small enough to be tested

within the capabilities of the UWA Structural Laboratory. The Amsler machine used to load

the specimens is capable of loading up to 2000kN and as such, the columns were designed to

ensure failure occurred below such value.

All eleven specimens were reinforced with four 14mm GFRP longitudinal rebars, providing a

longitudinal reinforcement ratio of 2.18%. All specimens were transversely reinforced with

8mm GFRP stirrups, with five specimens reinforced at 50mm spacing, five at 100mm

spacing and one specimen at 150mm spacing. The volumetric ratio of GFRP to concrete was

4.13% for 50mm spacing, 3.02% for 100mm spacing and 2.65% for 150mm spacing.

A concrete cover of 15mm to the stirrup surface was used due to GFRP’s high corrosion

resistance. As the largest aggregate size used in the concrete mix was 10mm, a concrete cover

of 15mm was deemed satisfactory.

All nine columns were constructed with enlarged ends to initiate failure in the mid-span

where observations during loading could be easier viewed. Concentrically loaded columns

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
were built with a 200mm region at each end where the column expands to a 280×280mm

cross-section. The “end caps” were reinforced with three additional 250×250mm perimeter

GFRP stirrups, as well as four additional 170mm long 14mm GFRP vertical rebars (Fig. 1a,

2b). Eccentrically loaded columns were similarly designed, however at each end the column

was enlarged to a rectangular cross-section of 180×280mm. The width of each end cap was

increased by 100 mm in the direction of eccentricity. The eccentrically loaded end regions

were also reinforced with 2 additional large perimeter GFRP stirrups, two 150×200mm and

one 150×250mm section. Two 330mm bent G14 diagonal bars in each end cap were used in

the corbel to assist load transfer through the end caps (Fig. 1b, 2a). The pure bending

specimens maintained a 180×180mm cross-section throughout the beam length with either 50

mm or 100 mm uniform spacing between the stirrups (Fig. 1c, 2c).

2.3 Construction method

The GFRP cages (Fig. 2) and plywood formworks were first constructed. The GFRP bars

were cut and tied together using 4mm cable ties. Stirrups laps were alternated to be

positioned on opposite corners of the specimens. A 5 mm long strain gauge was labelled and

attached to each GFRP bar using super glue. An araldite seal was applied to prevent moisture

ingress to the strain gauges. The GFRP cages were then inserted into the formworks to have

uniform 15 mm cover all around.

The activator solution was produced 24 hours prior to mixing. All dry materials were

weighed and placed into the pan mixer. After dry mixing at 60 rpm for two minutes, the

activator solution, free water and superplasticiser were added and mixed at 60 rpm for 6

minutes. The specimens and the cylinders were air cured in the open spaces in the Structural

Laboratory. The exposed area was covered with wet fabrics for the first 7 days to prevent

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
shrinkage cracking. The formworks were disassembled 3 days after casting to allow sufficient

hardening to support the specimen’s self-weight.

2.4 Testing procedure

All specimens were tested using the Amsler machine in the UWA Structures Laboratory. The

Amsler machine consists of a height-adjustable steel crosshead to cater for various specimen

geometries, and a hydraulic base plate with a loading limit of 2000 kN. The machine is

controlled manually by adjusting hydraulic flow and provides a digital reading of load and

displacement to maintain linear loading rates. Fig. 3 demonstrates the experimental setup

graphically.

The concentrically loaded columns were placed directly onto the Amsler base plate using

suspended slings, centred to deliver a uniform concentric loading without any moment

induced as shown in Fig. 4a. The loading rate was kept at 20 kN/min throughout the entire

test until failure. The testing procedure for eccentrically loaded columns was similar to that of

the concentrically loaded specimens. The difference was that a 25mm thick steel plate welded

to an 80mm diameter solid steel cylindrical rod was placed in between the column end and

testing apparatus at each end (Fig. 4b). The steel cylindrical rod allowed the column ends to

rotate freely, therefore inducing uniform moment along the column (Fig. 3a). On each steel

plate, a backstop was welded on the base plate to prevent the column sliding during testing.

Loading was again applied at a rate of 20 kN/min. The four-point flexural test in accordance

to AS 1012.11-00 (AS, 2014) was used to test the beams in pure bending. The beams were

1200mm in total length, however they were supported 50mm from each end, resulting in an

effective span of 1100mm (Fig. 3b). As per the four-point flexural test, the two loading points

were located at the one-third and two-third points of the effective span, which was 367mm

from each support (Fig. 4c). This results in the maximum moment occurring in between the

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
two loading points, and can be calculated knowing the location of the load points and the

total load. Supports and loading points were provided by 80mm diameter steel cylinders.

Loading was kept at a steady rate of 2 kN/ min until failure.

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Load carrying capacity

Table 4 shows the experimental results of all the eleven GPC specimens and accompanying

ten OPC specimens by King (2016). Table 5 shows the reinforcement details of the

specimens in these two studies. The GFRP stirrups used in the two studies are shown in Fig.

5. The average compressive strength (f’c) was 24.2 MPa at 28 days for the air cured GPC

cylinders, which is 36% lower than the OPC concrete cylinders (f’c = 37.9 MPa). The

specimens were named and labelled according to their respective stirrup spacing and loading

conditions. The first character in the labelling scheme, “G”, represents geopolymer concrete,

or “O”, represents OPC concrete, whilst the second term, either “50”, “100” or “150”,

represents the stirrup spacing. The third and final term, either “C”, “35”, “50”, “65” or “F”,

represents the loading condition, whether that to be “C” for concentrically loaded columns, a

number corresponding to the loading eccentricity in millimetres, or “F” for flexure. The

predicted ultimate compression capacity of the GPC plain concrete column with the same

cross section area is Pu=784 kN (=24.2×180×180×10-3). The concentrically loaded columns

(G50-C, G100-C and G150-C) had an average load carrying capacity of 865 kN, which

corresponds to 10.4% increment over the plain concrete section. The OPC columns fully

reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups achieved a similar 10.1% improvement as shown in

Table 5. ρs (max volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement at 50mm spacing) = 2.83%

and ρc (longitudinal reinforcement ratio) = 2.71% for the concentrically loaded GPC and ρs =

4.00% and ρc = 1.83% for OPC concrete columns. A reinforcing cage volumetric ratio ρv =

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
ρs+ρc could be adopted to explain the similarity in the load carrying capacity of the two

columns. Note, ρv was 5.54% and 5.83% for the GPC and OPC concrete columns,

respectively (Table 5). Concentrically loaded column G50-C was 2.6% higher than G100-C

and 3.9% higher than G150-C in load carrying capacity due to the larger amount of transverse

reinforcement in the former.

The eccentrically loaded GPC columns and beams with 50 mm stirrup spacing showed

similar load capacities to those with 100 mm stirrup spacing. This unexpected response was

possibly due to the colder climate when the specimens with 50 mm stirrup spacing were

poured. The hardening of the GPC was sensitive to the ambient temperature, which may have

resulted in the slightly reduced load carrying capacities. Another reason that may have caused

this low performance is that the failure mode for eccentrically loaded GPC columns was due

to loss of bond (slip) where the stirrups spacing has negligible effect in the load carrying

capacity. The beam G50-F still showed a 21% increase in the moment capacity over G100-F,

indicating the better restraint to the longitudinal GFRP bars. In previous tests on geopolymer

rectangular columns reinforced with GFRP, the average increments by halving the stirrup

spacing from 150 mm were 13.7% for the concentrically loaded columns, 18.5% for

eccentrically loaded columns and 38.7% for the beams (Elchalakani et al. 2018).

3.2 Column ductility

The ductility index, adopted from Elchalakani and Ma (2017) as shown in Eq. 1, was used to

quantify the ability of the specimen to absorb energy after the peak load. The method is

visualised in Fig. 6.

(1)

Where ABCDH is the area enclosed by the axial load-axial deflection curve up to the point on

the post peak segment where the post peak load equals 0.85Pu (Point D in Fig. 6, Pu is the

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
peak load) and ABG is the area enclosed by the curve up to the first point where the load

reaches 0.75Pu (Point B in Fig. 6). The results obtained from this study and by King (2016)

are presented in Table 4. By comparing the concentrically loaded GPC columns, namely

G50-C, G100-C and G150-C, it is obvious that as the stirrup spacing increases, the ductility

of the column decreases despite of the similar load carrying capacities. The smaller stirrup

spacings resulted in more effectively confined concrete and better restraint longitudinal

GFRP bars. Column G50-C is 11% more ductile than G100-C and 50% more ductile than

G150-C, which implies a higher ability of absorbing energy. The same trend is also observed

in the eccentrically loaded columns. For example, column G50-35 is 30% more ductile than

G100-35. Note, the load-displacement data was lost for G50-50 and G50-65 but Pu was

recorded. It is also seen that the ductility index of the eccentrically loaded columns (G100-35,

G100-50 and G100-65) increases as the eccentricity increases. The ductility indices of the

beams, namely G50-F and G100-F, were similar which may be due to both have the same

longitudinal GFRP reinforcement configuration. All the GPC columns were more ductile by

up to 61% than their OPC concrete counterparts due to the better transverse restraint provided

by stronger stirrups and higher longitudinal reinforcement ratio ρc. For example, I=4.31 for

G50-C, which is 61% higher than I=2.67 for O50-C-1. The GPC beams had ductility

increments over the OPC concrete beams of up to 22% due to the larger longitudinal GFRP

bars as shown in Table 4. By providing sufficient transverse reinforcement, the specimens

showed greatly improved ductility, which is favourable for applications in building and

construction, especially in areas with high seismic activity.

3.3 Columns with 50 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 6 shows a schematic of the generic four-phase loading response that is typically observed

in the GFRP reinforced concrete columns. Fig. 7 shows all the eleven specimens after testing.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Fig. 8 shows distinct failure mechanisms of the columns with 50 mm stirrup spacings. Phase I

(Segment A-B in Fig. 6) is the elastic range with micro-cracking. Phase II (Segment B-C in

Fig. 6) is the inelastic range. Cracks would develop in the longitudinal direction in the

concentrically loaded columns concentrated at mid-height and also form in the transverse

direction in the eccentrically loaded columns and beams. Phase III (Segment C-E in Fig. 6)

consists of the column failure and the sudden loss in load carrying capacity. Heavy spalling in

the concrete cover is observed in the concentrically loaded columns. For the eccentrically

loaded columns with favourable uniform plasticity (cracking) distribution along the height of

the column (for example, Fig. 8a), the failure mode at Point C represents spalling of the

concrete cover and crushing of concrete on the compression face. For the eccentrically loaded

columns with the formation of the undesired plastic hinge near the end caps, slip failure

happens after localised spalling and crushing of concrete on the compression face, which

usually corresponds to a larger loss of capacity (for example, Fig. 8b, c, d). Point C is the

shear failure by critical diagonal cracks in the GPC beams. Phase IV (Segment E-F in Fig. 6)

represents the steady reduction of load carrying capacity as the stirrups open before rupture or

buckling of the longitudinal GFRP bars.

The behaviours of GPC columns G50-C, G50-35, G50-50 and G50-65 are discussed in this

section. Fig. 9 shows the axial load-axial displacement graphs of the GPC specimen G50-C

and G50-35, along with the two corresponding OPC concrete specimens (O50-C-1 and O50-

30) constructed by King (2016). Initially, the load in the concentrically loaded column G50-C

(Fig. 8a) continued to increase as micro-cracking occurred at the microscopic scale. Inelastic

behaviour was observed when vertical cracks started to develop near the mid-height of the

column. At the point of failure, heavy spalling occurred in the concrete cover. After spalling

of the cover, the GFRP stirrups (Fig. 5a) were exposed and therefore were no longer

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
effectively restrained. The lapped segment of the stirrups began to open up. As a result, the

longitudinal GFRP bars were not adequately confined. Therefore, they buckled or ruptured

depending on the compressive strains in the bars, followed by the explosive core shear failure

took place shortly after. The loading continued until the eventual collapse of the whole

column. For the eccentrically loaded column G50-35 (Fig. 8b), tensile cracks in the

transverse direction propagated from the tension face. Initial spalling of the concrete cover on

the compression face centralised at mid-height and gradually spread to the end cap. The

column collapsed due to concrete crushing on the compression face. A large portion of

confined concrete remained intact after testing for G50-35. The columns G50-50 and G50-65

with medium to high load eccentricities (Fig. 8c, d, respectively) were seen to have cracking

and crushing of the concrete on the compression face in a reduced area than G50-35,

indicating large damage in G50-35. Critical shear cracks were observed in all the three

eccentrically loaded columns with 50 mm stirrup spacing at failure, which indicated the

inability of the lapped stirrups to resist high shear loads.

The distinct phases described in Fig. 6 are clearly seen for all the four curves in Fig. 9. After

the elastic and inelastic ranges, the vertical cracks on the surface of the concentrically loaded

GPC column G50-C progressed into spalling of concrete cover. As the column gradually lost

its cover, the load carrying capacity slowly decreased until the longitudinal GFRP bars could

no longer sustain the compressive strain and ruptured, which led to an explosive failure at

peak load. The loss of capacity at the prolonged third phase was very large and a negligible

residual capacity was recorded. At low eccentricities of 35 mm, column G50-35 behaved

similarly to G50-C. Again, spalling of concrete cover on the compression face was well

distributed over more than half of the height of the column (Fig. 8b). After a significant

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
proportion of the concrete cover had spalled and the deformation reached the critical limit,

concrete crushing occurred on the compression face and the compressive GFRP bars ruptured.

It is seen in Fig. 9 that for the two OPC concrete columns with stirrup spacing of 50 mm, due

to the much higher unconfined compressive strength of the concrete (f’c = 37.9 MPa), both

O50-C-1 and O50-30 had stiffer elastic response than their respective GPC columns (f’c =

24.2 MPa). Concentrically loaded column O50-C-1 collapsed immediately at sharp peak load

(Point C in Fig. 6) due to the sudden brittle crushing of the concrete core. Eccentrically

loaded column O50-30 was seen to have a clear Phase IV after the concrete crushing failure

on the compression face. The column steadily lost capacity as the stirrups ruptured since the

beginning of Phase IV. After the stirrups had ruptured, the longitudinal GFRP bars were no

longer adequately restrained therefore ruptured in compression at high strains. The two drops

in the load carrying capacity of O50-30 (2 kinks in the post collapse curve in Fig. 9) indicated

separate rupturing of the compressive GFRP bars. Comparing the four GPC and OPC

concrete columns, it is obvious that GPC columns absorbed a substantial amount of energy

post failure, which is not seen for the OPC concrete columns. This was due to (i) the GPC

was softer (f’c = 24.2 MPa); (ii) the tensile capacity of the GFRP stirrups of the GPC columns

was much higher; and (iii) the longitudinal GFRP bars were larger in the GPC columns. The

longitudinal GFRP bars and the concrete remained well confined for much longer, losing

minimal load carrying capacity. This favourable failure behaviour is essential in building

designs, especially those in the seismic zones.

Fig. 10 shows the axial load-strain graphs recorded using the strain gauges attached to the

longitudinal GFRP bars of columns G50-C and G50-35. After the peak load was reached, the

strains in the bars of G50-C steadily increased as the cover concrete spalled. Bar rupture

occurred at εfrp,c = 0.01 (εfrp,c represents the compressive strain in the GFRP bar), resulting in

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
the explosive collapse of the entire column. The strains were close to the assumption made by

Elchalakani and Ma (Elchalakani and Ma 2017), that εfrp,c = 0.5εfrp,t, which was 0.0085 for the

MateenBar GFRP bars used in this study. Note, εfrp,t is the tensile strain in the GFRP bar. For

the eccentrically loaded column G50-35, the GFRP bars on the tension face experienced

compressive strains at the beginning of loading due to the relatively small eccentricity of 35

mm. As the loading continued, the strains in those bars progressively reverted into tensile

strains. Tensile cracks formed on the tension face of the column. Concrete cracking and then

crushing occurred on the compression face. The compressive GFRP bars ruptured at high

strain of εfrp,c = 0.0085. Again, this confirmed that the compressive limit of εfrp,c = 0.5εfrp,t was

a valid assumption for the GFRP bars. Due to the linear nature of the GFRP bars, their

capacity may be interpolated using ffrp,c = 0.5ffrp,t, where ffrp,c and ffrp,t are the compressive and

tensile strengths of the GFRP bars, respectively.

3.4 Columns with 100 mm and 150 mm stirrup spacing

The behaviours of columns G100-C, G100-35, G100-50 and G100-65 and G150-C are

discussed in this section. Fig. 11 shows these specimens after testing. Concentrically loaded

columns G100-C and G150-C exhibited similar responses to G50-C. However, due to the

larger stirrup spacing and therefore less amount of transverse reinforcement, the failure was

less abrupt in the latter column. Fig. 11(a) shows a rupture of one of the GFRP bars located at

mid-height of the G100-C. Minor stirrup opening was observed, meaning the stirrup spacing

of 100 mm was still sufficient in providing transverse restraint to the bars after collapse.

However, the majority of the core concrete was crushed at mid-height after failure. Fig. 11(b)

shows the buckling of the longitudinal GFRP bars in G150-C. The stirrups opened

completely and were detached from the longitudinal bars. The crushing of the core concrete

spread further away from mid-height of G150-C than G100-C, indicating severe damage.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
G50-C, G100-C and G150-C had a decreasingly less core concrete remaining intact after

testing. Eccentrically loaded column G100-35 (Fig. 11c) behaved similarly to G50-50 and

G50-65. The spalling was concentrated at the top half of the column. The compressive GFRP

bars ruptured after severe spalling and crushing of the concrete on the compression face. Both

GPC columns G100-50 (Fig. 11d) and G100-65 (Fig. 11e) with medium to high eccentricities

of 50 and 65 mm had localised failure near the top and bottom end cap, respectively. The

crushing of concrete and cracking on the tension side were localised due to the formation of a

plastic hinge with concrete crushing and a widely opened diagonal shear crack. The

longitudinal GFRP bars slipped due to the large deformation.

Fig. 12 shows the axial load-axial displacement curves for G100-C, G100-35, G100-50 and

G100-65. The four loading phases illustrated in Fig. 6 were again clearly seen in this figure

for the columns with 100 mm stirrup spacing. There is an increasing trend in ductility that

could be observed as the load eccentricity increased, similarly in Table 4. Crushing of the

core concrete occurred at failure after spalling of concrete cover. The load carrying capacity

of the column reduced gradually as the concrete core crushed. The column eventually

collapsed due to rupture of the longitudinal GFRP bars. At the start of Phase III in Fig. 6, the

failure of G100-35 was initiated by severe spalling of the concrete cover on the compression

face. The column continued to deform and the strains in the GFRP bars progressively

increased. The longitudinal bars ruptured, which resulted in a large displacement in the

column. The failures of G100-50 and G100-65 were less drastic. Plastic hinges formed near

the end caps. The slip failure occurred when the interfacial bond between concrete and GFRP

bar was insufficient of sustaining the localised bending deformation. The steady loss of

capacity (Phase IV of Fig. 6) was due to the gradual opening of the diagonal shear crack.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Fig. 13 shows the axial load-axial strain curves for specimen G100-C, G100-35, G100-50 and

G100-65. The peak load occurred when the strains in the longitudinal bars reached 0.004 to

0.005 for the concentrically loaded column G100-C, indicating noticeable core confinement.

Then crushing of concrete core occurred as the load steadily declined and the column

continued to deform. The strains in the GFRP bars reached 0.008 before rupture occurred in

the bars, which resulted in the collapse of G100-C. Similarly to G50-35 (Fig. 10),

compressive strains initially developed in the tensile GFRP bars in G100-35. As loading

continued, tensile cracks started to form on the tension face of the column. The longitudinal

GFRP bars in compression ruptured at a strain of 0.007-0.009, which led to the entire

collapse of G100-35. Plastic hinges developed near the caps of the eccentrically loaded

columns G100-50 and G100-65. The unfavourable slip failure occurred when the tensile

strains in the tension bars reached approximately 0.004, which was well under the tensile

strain capacity of the MateenBar GFRP bars (εfrp,t = 0.017, Table 1). This led to the undesired

premature failure of the column. The load decreased as the strains gradually reduced in the

bars and the diagonal shear crack widened. However, the minimum ultimate compressive

strains among the four columns with 100 mm stirrup spacing of 0.004 of peak load was

measured for G100-65, which was still above the assumed strain at peak load of the GPC, i.e.

0.003, indicating the transverse reinforcement was still successful in confining the concrete

and delaying the failure.

The axial load-axial displacement curves and axial load-strain curves of G150-C compared

with G50-C, G100-C and O50-C-1 are shown in Fig. 14a and Fig. 14b, respectively. The

failure of G150-C in Fig. 14a was much more explosive than G50-C and G100-C, indicating

the reduced ductility from the reduced transverse reinforcement. The ultimate compressive

strains in the longitudinal bars of G150-C only reached 0.005 to 0.006, which was much

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
lower than those in G50-C and G100-C. Thus, the GFRP in G150-C buckled as a result of the

opened stirrups. The strains were still within the assumed limit of 0.0085, therefore it

confirmed the bars would not rupture below that limit.

3.5 Beam behaviour

The two beam specimens G50-F and G100-F were constructed with the same tension

reinforcement ratio (Afrp,t/bd) of 1.09% at 50 mm and 100 mm stirrup spacings, respectively.

Similar failure modes were observed for the two specimens as shown in Fig. 15. Tensile

cracks started to appear initially on the tension face. Both beams failed in shear after

developing significant critical diagonal cracks accompanied with excessive bending of the

longitudinal bars and global curvature of the beam. Fig. 16 shows the load-displacement

curves of G50-F, G100-F and two OPC concrete beams with 50 mm stirrup spacing (O50-F-1

and O50-F-2). G50-F and G100-F had an identical ascending branch followed by a sudden

reduction of up to 60% in the load carrying capacity. The ultimate load carrying capacity of

G100-F was smaller than G50-F by 18.38 kN, which corresponds to a 21.0% reduction in the

moment capacity. The OPC concrete beams showed similar behaviour despite of having a

slightly higher elastic modulus. The collapse in load carrying capacity was also less

devastating. After the peak load, a second peak could be observed after continued loading for

both GPC and OPC concrete beams. The GPC beams could sustain a much higher level of

residual strength post failure for longer than their OPC counterparts due to the better

longitudinal reinforcement (refer to Table 5). For the same reason, the OPC concrete beams

(O50-F-1 and O50-F-2) had on average 6.5% lower ultimate capacity than the GPC beams

(G50-F and G100-F). Fig. 17 shows the strains in specimen G50-F. Initial tensile cracks first

formed on the tension face at about 20 kN. G50-F collapsed due to the development of a

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
critical diagonal shear crack which resulted in the localised bending and slip of the

longitudinal GFRP bars on the tension face at εfrp,t = 0.007 – 0.009.

4. INTERACTION DIAGRAMS

Three international design standards, AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009), ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015)

and CAN/CSA S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017), were compared against the experiment results

obtained in this study and by King (2016). AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009) is the Australian standard

intended for design of steel reinforced OPC concrete structures. The mechanical properties of

the GFRP bars (Table 1) and GPC were used to replace steel rebars and OPC concrete,

respectively. ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) and CAN/CSA S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017) are

design codes for GFRP reinforced OPC concrete structures. However, these two codes do not

allow the compressive strength of the longitudinal GFRP bars to be used in the capacity

calculations. This paper investigated the outcomes of two different methods of capacity

calculation being the compressive strength of the longitudinal bars (ffrp,c) equal to zero,

recommended by ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) and CAN/CSA S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017),

and equal to half of the tensile strength of the longitudinal GFRP bars, recommended by

Elchalakani and Ma (2017) (ffrp,c = 0.5ffrp,t). The GFRP bars were assumed to have the same

elastic modulus in compression as in tension. Additionally, to account for the difference in

the mechanical properties between GPC and OPC concrete, the modified method in AS 3600-

09 (AS, 2009) specified in the research report by Berndt et al. (2017) – referred to as

“Geopolymer Handbook” – was used as a separate curve. The parameters, γ and α2, in the

rectangular stress block method (illustrated in Fig. 18) were calculated based on Eq. 2 and Eq.

3, respectively. ffrp,t was obtained from the manufacturer as shown in Table 1 and ffrp,c was

interpolated based on the assumed ratio (0 or 0.5) to ffrp,t given the linear nature of the GFRP

bars. Equivalent parameters are found in AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009), ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015)

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
and CAN/CSA S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017). The values of γ and α2 equivalent in the four

design curves for the specific experimental setup used in this study are all presented in Table

6.

(2)

(3)

Fig. 19 shows the comparison of normalised interaction diagrams of GPC (circles) and OPC

concrete (triangles) specimens and their corresponding design curves (thick lines and thin

lines, respectively) calculated with or without the compressive strength of GFRP bars. The

axial load was normalised by Nu while the bending moment was normalised by Mu as

specified in the design standards. The solid curves in Fig. 19, with no inclusion of

compressive GFRP bars, were recommend by ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) and CAN/CSA

S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017). The dashed curves in Fig. 19, with ffrp,c = 0.5ffrp,t, were

recommended by Elchalakani and Ma (2017). The calculation by the Geopolymer Handbook

(Fig. 19d) was the most conservative in terms of bending moment capacity and CAN/CSA

S806-12 (CAN/CSA, 2017) (Fig. 19c) was the most conservative code in terms of axial load

capacity. Elchalakani and Ma (2017) showed that when ρc ≥ 3%, the interaction diagrams do

not have a distinct balanced point. The design curves for the OPC concrete specimens appear

more rounded than the curves for the GPC specimens due to the much lower longitudinal

reinforcement ratio ρc = 1.83% as opposed to ρc = 2.71% for GPC specimens.

The GPC specimen test results are shown in Fig. 19 as circles. It is clear that all the design

curves that exclude the compressive GFRP bars favourably underestimated the capacities of

the specimens except for the beam G100-F. The large spacing of the stirrups was

demonstrated to be unsafe in bending by all the design codes except Geopolymer Handbook

(Berndt et al., 2017). The underprediction was especially observed for the concentrically

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
loaded columns, where the difference could be as much as 39.6% for G50-C. At zero

eccentricity, the three concentrically loaded GPC columns, namely G50-C, G100-C and

G150-C, were still reasonably higher than all the design curves that include the compressive

GFRP bars. All the eccentrically loaded GPC columns lie within the region enveloped by the

two design curves that exclude (solid) and include (dashed) the compressive GFRP bars,

indicating the inclusion of compressive GFRP bars was overestimated. Beam G50-F was still

safe, especially for the calculation in the Geopolymer Handbook (Fig. 19d).

The OPC concrete specimens by King (2016) are shown as triangles in Fig. 19. It is seen that

all the test data were significantly higher than all of the design curves, except for the

specimens loaded at high eccentricity or in flexure. This was due to the GFRP slices cut from

GFRP 150SHS (square hollow section) shear stirrups used in the specimens were insufficient

in providing shear resistance due to the lower tensile capacity (ffrp,t = 280 MPa as shown in

Table 5), which resulted in the undesired shear failure mode. The concentrically loaded OPC

concrete columns (O50-C-1 and O50-C-2) had an increment up to 38.8% over the design

curves with no compressive GFRP bars and up to 28.7% over the design curves with

compressive GFRP bar included in the calculation. All the eccentrically loaded OPC concrete

columns except for O50-75, which collapsed due to premature shear failure, were safe from a

design viewpoint. The experimental results for the OPC concrete specimens were better

represented when the compressive strengths of the longitudinal GFRP bars were included.

For the concentrically loaded columns, the similarity in the results of GPC and OPC concrete

columns was due to the similar reinforcing cage volumetric ratios (ρv=ρs+ρc) of 5.54% and

5.83%, respectively, as discussed in the section titled “Load carrying capacity”. For the

eccentrically loaded columns, the OPC concrete columns in general were safer than the GPC

columns due to the much higher f’c of 37.9 MPa against 24.2 MPa for the GPC. The safety

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
factor for the eccentrically loaded OPC concrete columns gradually reduced as the load

eccentricity increased as seen in Fig. 19. This was due to insufficient tensile strength of the

GFRP stirrups to support the increasing moments developed in the columns as the

eccentricity increased. In contrast, the eccentrically loaded GPC columns had smaller

moment capacities than the design curves that include the GFRP bars in compression. It was

caused by the lower elastic modulus and lower f’c of the GPC. This was consistent with the

assumptions made by the Geopolymer Handbook (Berndt et al., 2017), which reduces the

value of the parameter γ (Eq. 2) to accommodate the smaller rectangular stress block when

the column is subjected to combined bending and axial loading. For the beams tested in pure

flexure, the GPC concrete beams performed better than the OPC concrete beams due to larger

tensile reinforcement ratio, which is equal to 0.5ρc, and the low tensile strength of the GFRP

stirrups. All the four over-reinforced beams (G50-F, G100-F, O50-F-1 and O50-F-2) failed in

shear. Finally, it is recommended to include the compression capacities of the longitudinal

GFRP bars for OPC concrete specimens but exclude them for GPC specimens. These

recommendations are only valid for the range of parameters list in Table 5.

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

5.1 Conclusions

The study investigated the structural properties of a durable composite material made of the

GPC and GFRP reinforcement. Eleven square ½-scale GFRP reinforced GPC specimens

(180×180×1200 mm3) were tested under various loading conditions. Three stirrup spacings

(50, 100 and 150 mm) and three eccentricities (35, 50 and 65 mm) as well as flexural beams

were examined. The experimental results were then compared with the experimental study by

King (2016), three international design codes, AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009), ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI,

2015) and CAN/CSA S806-02 (CAN/CSA, 2017) and a modified version of AS 3600-09 (AS,

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
2009) proposed by Berndt et al. (2017). The following conclusions were drawn based on the

experimental outcomes and only applicable to the specific GPC mix and the range of

parameters listed in Table 5:

1. Concentrically loaded GPC columns with a smaller stirrup spacing reached a higher load

and had a greatly improved ductility. Inspection of the specimens after testing showed that

specimens with closer stirrups had a larger and a better confined concrete core remaining

intact.

2. High strains (>0.003) were observed in the strain gauges attached to the longitudinal GFRP

bars, indicating that effective confinement was achieved through transverse restraint. Bar

buckling was observed at ε = 0.005 – 0.006 whereas bar rupture in compression was observed

at ε = 0.008 – 0.01. A small GFRP stirrup spacing was required to prevent the buckling

failure of the longitudinal GFRP bars due to the GFRP stirrup’s low elastic modulus.

3. Slip failure was observed in the columns loaded at higher eccentricities. The reduction in

load carrying capacity was due to the formation of a localised plastic hinge with concrete

crushing and a widely opened diagonal shear crack near the end caps.

4. A new parameter termed cage reinforcement volumetric ratio (v) was defined as the sum

of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcement volumetric ratios (v=s+c). This parameter

was used to compare the GPC and OPC results.

5. The concentrically loaded GFRP reinforced GPC and OPC concrete columns (King 2016)

exhibited 10.4% and 10.1% average increase in strength with respect to the plain concrete

columns with the same cross section area, respectively. This was due to the comparable

reinforcing cage volumetric ratios, where v =5.54% and 5.83%, for GPC and OPC

respectively.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
6. A reduced moment capacity was seen for the columns loaded at higher eccentricities due to

the smaller rectangular stress block of the GPC. The comparison between the experimental

data of GPC specimens and the provisions in the international design codes showed that safe

designs could be made when excluding the compressive strength of the GFRP bars.

7. The experimental results for the OPC concrete specimens were better represented when the

compressive strength of the longitudinal GFRP bars were included. Thus, it is recommended

to include the compression capacities of the longitudinal GFRP bars for OPC concrete

specimens.

5.2 Recommendations

This study focused on the square column with one reinforcement configuration. Alternative

reinforcement configurations could be explored in the future. High strength GPC can be used

in the future to improve the bond capacity between the GFRP bars and concrete, which may

prevent the localised slip failure in G100-50 and G100-65. A large database may also be

established for different types of GPC fully reinforced with GFRP bars and stirrups.

The study also highlighted the effect of transverse reinforcement on confinement and load

carrying capacity. The 8 mm diameter GFRP lapped stirrups used in this study (Fig. 5a) had a

tendency to open up, which could ultimately cause premature failure. In the future, it is

recommended to increase the overlapping distance to at least half of the circumference length

or to provide hooked ends. The latter option may be difficult to achieve for GFRP bent bars.

Continuous stirrups (such as spiral) could be used in the future to achieve better confinement

and higher capacities.

The study showed the calculations in the standards that excludes GFRP bars in compression

underestimate the load carrying capacity of the concentrically loaded GPC columns by as

much as 39.6% while have reasonable accuracy in predicting the eccentrically loaded

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
columns and beams. The OPC concrete specimens were generally safe even when the

compressive GFRP bars were included, except for columns loaded at high eccentricity and

beams in pure flexure. This was due to the insufficient tensile capacity of the GFRP stirrups

cut from 150SHS in Fig. 5b, which led to the premature shear failure. A large experimental

database could be developed to introduce new design factors to fully utilise the capacities of

the GPC specimens and to accommodate the effect of different transverse reinforcement.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The authors thank the donations and support provided by Pultron Composites, New Zealand.

The authors acknowledge the support received from Gary Boon and Anthony Miles from

Sika in Australia. Thanks are also given to former student Mr Sean Trombetta and laboratory

technicians Mr Jim Waters, Mr Brad Rose and Mr Matt Arpin for the help with the many

practical aspects of this project.

Notation list
b Width of the cross-section
d Depth of the cross-section
dn Depth of the neutral axis from the compression face
e Load eccentricity
f’c 28-day concrete compressive strength
ffrp,c Compressive strength of the FRP bar
ffrp,t Tensile strength of the FRP bar
HM Hydration modulus
I Ductility index
Kb Basicity coefficient
Mu Ultimate moment
Nu Load carrying capacity
Pres Residual load
Pu Peak load
α2 Rectangular stress block parameter
γ Rectangular stress block parameter
δ Axial displacement
δ75 Displacement at 0.75Pu before peak
δ85 Displacement at 0.85Pu post peak
δres Displacement at Pres
ε Strain
εfrp,c Strain in the compression FRP bar
εfrp,t Strain in the tension FRP bar

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
εu Ultimate strain
ρc Longitudinal reinforcement ratio
ρs Max volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement
ρv Reinforcing cage volumetric ratio

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
REFERENCES

ACI 440.1R-15. (2015). Guide for the Design and Construction of Concrete Reinforced with

FRP Bars. American Concrete Institute.

Afifi, M. Z., Mohamed, H. M., and Benmokrane, B. (2014a). “Strength and Axial Behavior

of Circular Concrete Columns Reinforced with CFRP Bars and Spirals.” Journal of

Composites for Construction, 18(2), 04013035.

Afifi, M. Z., Mohamed, H. M., and Benmokrane, B. (2014b). “Axial Capacity of Circular

Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Spirals.” Journal of Composites for

Construction, 18(1), 04013017.

Ahmed, E., El-Salakawy, E. F., and Benmokrane, B. (2010). “Performance Evaluation of

Glass Fiber-Reinforced Polymer Shear Reinforcement for Concrete Beams.” ACI

Structural Journal, 107(1), 53–63.

Ali, A. H., Mohamed, H. M., and Benmokrane, B. (2016). “Shear Behavior of Circular

Concrete Members Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Spirals at Shear Span-to-Depth

Ratios between 1.5 and 3.0.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 20(6), 04016055-

1-04016055-16.

Ali, M. A., and El-salakawy, E. (2015). “Seismic Performance of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete

Rectangular Columns.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 20(3), 1–12.

AS 1012.11. (2014). AS 1012.11-2000 Methods of testing concrete - Determination of the

modulus of rupture. Standards Australia.

AS 3600-09. (2009). Concrete structures. Standards Australia.

ASTM C618-15. (2015). Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined

Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA.

Berndt, M. (2017). Guide to Specification and Use of Geopolymer Concrete with Case

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Studies.

CAN/CSA S806-12. (2017). Design and Construction of Building Components with Fibre-

Reinforced Polymers. Canadian Standards Association, Ontario.

Davidovits, J. (1994). “High-Alkali Cements for 21st Century Concretes.” American

Concrete Institute, 144, 383–398.

Deitz, D., Harik, I., and Gesund, H. (2003). “Physical properties of glass fiber reinforced

polymer rebars in compression.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 7(4), 363–366.

Duxson, P., Fernández-Jiménez, A., Provis, J. L., Lukey, G. C., Palomo, A., and Van

Deventer, J. S. J. (2007). “Geopolymer technology: The current state of the art.” Journal

of Materials Science, 42(9), 2917–2933.

Elchalakani, M., Karrech, A., Dong, M., Mohamed Ali, M. S., and Yang, B. (2018).

“Experiments and Finite Element Analysis of GFRP Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete

Rectangular Columns Subjected to Concentric and Eccentric Axial Loading.” Structures,

Elsevier, 14(April), 273–289.

Elchalakani, M., Karrech, A., Hassanein, M. F., and Yang, B. (2016). “Plastic and yield

slenderness limits for circular concrete filled tubes subjected to static pure bending.”

Thin-Walled Structures, Elsevier, 109, 50–64.

Elchalakani, M., and Ma, G. (2017). “Tests of glass fibre reinforced polymer rectangular

concrete columns subjected to concentric and eccentric axial loading.” Engineering

Structures, Elsevier Ltd, 151, 93–104.

Hadhood, A., Mohamed, H. M., and Benmokrane, B. (2016). “Experimental Study of

Circular High-Strength Concrete Columns Reinforced with GFRP Bars and Spirals

under Concentric and Eccentric Loading.” Journal of Composites for Construction,

3(2014), 04016078.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Ismail, I., Bernal, S. A., Provis, J. L., San Nicolas, R., Brice, D. G., Kilcullen, A. R., Hamdan,

S., and Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2013). “Influence of fly ash on the water and chloride

permeability of alkali-activated slag mortars and concretes.” Construction and Building

Materials, Elsevier Ltd, 48, 1187–1201.

Issa, M. S., Metwally, I. M., and Elzeiny, S. M. (2011). “Influence of fibers on flexural

behavior and ductility of concrete beams reinforced with GFRP rebars.” Engineering

Structures, Elsevier Ltd, 33(5), 1754–1763.

King, B. (2016). “GFRP Composite Concrete Columns Under Combined Loading.” The

University of Western Australia.

Leong, H. Y., Ong, D. E. L., Sanjayan, J. G., and Nazari, A. (2016). “Suitability of Sarawak

and Gladstone fly ash to produce geopolymers: A physical, chemical, mechanical,

mineralogical and microstructural analysis.” Ceramics International, Elsevier, 42(8),

9613–9620.

De Luca, A., Matta, F., and Nanni, A. (2010). “Behavior of full-scale glass fiber-reinforced

polymer reinforced concrete columns under axial load.” ACI Structural Journal, 107(5),

589–596.

Mahmoud, K., and El-Salakawy, E. (2014). “Shear Strength of GFRP-Reinforced Concrete

Continuous Beams with Minimum Transverse Reinforcement.” Journal of Composites

for Construction, 18(1), 04013018.

Mander, J. B., Priestley, J. N., and Park, R. (1988). “Theoretical Stress-Strain Model for

Confined Concrete.” Journal of Structural Engineering, 114(8), 1804–1826.

Maranan, G. B., Manalo, A. C., Benmokrane, B., Karunasena, W., and Mendis, P. (2015).

“Evaluation of the flexural strength and serviceability of geopolymer concrete beams

reinforced with glass-fibre-reinforced polymer (GFRP) bars.” Engineering Structures,

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Elsevier Ltd, 101, 529–541.

Maranan, G. B., Manalo, A. C., Benmokrane, B., Karunasena, W., and Mendis, P. (2016).

“Behavior of concentrically loaded geopolymer-concrete circular columns reinforced

longitudinally and transversely with GFRP bars.” Engineering Structures, Elsevier Ltd,

117, 422–436.

Palomo, A., Blanco-Varela, M. T., Granizo, M. L., Puertas, F., Vazquez, T., and Grutzeck, M.

W. (1999). “Chemical stability of cementitious materials based on metakaolin.” Cement

and Concrete Research, 29(7), 997–1004.

Pan, Z., Sanjayan, J. G., and Rangan, B. V. (2011). “Fracture properties of geopolymer paste

and concrete.” Magazine of Concrete Research, 63(10), 763–771.

Rahman, M. M., and Sarker, P. K. (2013). “Geopolymer Concrete Columns Subjected to

Axial Load and Biaxial Bending.” (September).

Sika. (2013). Sika at Work. Switzerland.

Singh, B., Ishwarya, G., Gupta, M., and Bhattacharyya, S. K. (2015). “Geopolymer concrete:

A review of some recent developments.” Construction and Building Materials, Elsevier

Ltd, 85, 78–90.

Sreenath, S., Balaji, S., and Saravana Raja Mohan, K. (2017). “Behaviour of axially and

eccentrically loaded short columns reinforced with GFRP bars.” IOP Conference Series:

Earth and Environmental Science, 80.

Tobbi, H., Farghaly, A. S., and Benmokrane, B. (2014). “Behavior of concentrically loaded

fiber-reinforced polymer reinforced concrete columns with varying reinforcement types

and ratios.” ACI Structural Journal, 111(2), 375–385.

Zadeh, H. J., and Nanni, A. (2013). “Design of RC Columns Using Glass FRP

Reinforcement.” Journal of Composites for Construction, 17(3), 294–304.

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Table 1 Physical properties of GFRP bars and stirrups as provided by Pultron Composites (King, 2016).
Outside Root Ultimate Tensile
Area Tensile Elastic Ultimate Strain in
Bar Diameter Diameter Strength
( ) Modulus ( ) Tension
( ) (mm) ( )
Longitudinal Bars 14.0 13.2 136.8 59 930 0.017
Stirrups 8.2 7.4 40.3 55 650 0.012

Table 2 GPC mix design

Constituent % (by weight)
Fly Ash 7.5
GGBS 7.5
Activator Solution 6.5
Course Aggregate 47.4
Fine Aggregate 24.9
Water 6.1
Superplasticiser 0.1

Table 3 Chemical compositions of fly ash and GGBS

Oxide (weight %) Al2O3 BaO CaO Cr2O3 Fe2O3 K2O MgO MnO Na2O P2O5 SO3 SiO2 TiO2 Total
Fly ash 25.31 0.07 12.25 0.01 9.9 0.64 1.14 0.14 0.32 0.51 0.57 46.04 1.46 99.64
GGBS 13.8 0.06 42.13 0 0.58 0.32 5.76 0.27 0.2 0.034 3.33 32.92 0.57 96.63

Table 4 Column test results

Eccentricity Axial Load Bending Moment Ductility
Specimen ID
(mm) (kN) (kNm) (I)
G50-C 0 883.76 0 4.31
G100-C 0 861.78 0 3.87
G150-C 0 850.48 0 2.88
G50-35 35 429.64 15.04 3.33
G50-50 50 326.87 16.34 N/A
GPC specimens
G50-65 65 288.76 18.77 N/A
(This study)
G100-35 35 428.92 15.01 2.57
G100-50 50 352.85 17.64 3.03
G100-65 65 272.58 17.72 3.24
G50-F N/A 105.87 19.41 2.47
G100-F N/A 87.49 16.04 2.45
O50-C-1 0 1355.27 0 2.67
O50-C-2 0 1356 0 2.77
O50-25 25 867.68 21.69 2.44
O50-30 30 820.55 24.62 2.34
OPC concrete specimens O50-50 50 546.99 27.35 2.58
(King, 2016) O50-60 60 464.16 27.85 2.56
O50-75 75 294.43 22.08 5.02
O50-90 90 285.83 25.73 3.06
O50-F-1 N/A 83.68 15.34 2.19
O50-F-2 N/A 97.14 17.81 2.03

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Table 5 Column reinforcement details of the OPC-GFRP columns and the GPC-GFRP columns in this study
OPC concrete
GPC columns
columns (King,
(this study)
2016)
Concrete column dimensions (mm) 180×180×1200 180×180×1200
Stirrup spacings (mm) 50 50, 100, 150
Average cylinder compressive strength, f’c (MPa) 37.9 24.2
GFRP stirrup tensile strength (MPa) 280* 650*
GFRP long bars, Diameter (mm) 12a 14a
2
GFRP long bars, Cross section area (mm ) 95 136.8
GFRP stirrups, Cross section (mm) 6×12b 8a
Max volumetric ratio of the transverse reinforcement, ρs at 50mm spacing 4.00% 2.83%
Longitudinal reinforcement ratio, ρc 1.83% 2.71%
Reinforcement Cage max volumetric ratio, ρv at 50mm spacing 5.83% 5.54%
% increase in load carrying capacity over the corresponding plain concrete 10.4% 10.1%
*: Manufacturer data
a
: GFRP bars and stirrups from Pultron Composites, New Zealand (King, 2016)
b
: 12 mm thick cut section from GFRP 150×150×6 SHS manufactured by Argos FRP, Australia (King, 2016)

Table 6 Comparison of the rectangular stress block parameters equivalent to α2 and γ in AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009) in the four
design curves
α2 γ
Geopolymer Handbook (Berndt et al., 2016) 0.85 0.69
AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009) 0.85 0.83
ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015) 0.85 0.82
CAN/CSA S806-12 (CAN/CSA, 2017) 0.80 0.89

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Fig. 1 Specimen design details (50 mm stirrup spacing and 15 mm cover), (a): concentrically

loaded columns; (b): eccentrically loaded columns; (c): beams

Fig. 2 Cage construction with strain gauges, (a): concentrically loaded columns; (b):

eccentrically loaded columns; (c): beams

Fig. 3 The experimental setup for (a): eccentrically loaded columns; (b): beams

Fig. 4 Typical experimental setups. (a): concentrically loaded columns; (b): eccentrically

loaded columns; (c): beams

Fig. 5 The GFRP stirrups used in (a) this study, and (b) the experimental study by King

(2016)

Fig. 6 Ductility index (I) and the typical four-phase failure for the specimens

Fig. 7 The 11 column and beam specimens after testing

Fig. 8 Photos of the GPC columns with 50 mm stirrup spacing after testing. (a): longitudinal

GFRP bar ruptured in G50-C; (b): G50-35; (c): G50-50; (d): G50-65

Fig. 9 Load vs. displacement graphs for GPC (this study) and OPC concrete (King, 2016)

columns with 50 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 10 Load vs strain graphs for GPC columns with 50 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 11 Photos of the GPC columns with 100 mm and 150 mm stirrup spacing after testing.

(a): longitudinal GFRP bar ruptured in G100-C; (b): longitudinal GFRP bar buckled in G150-

C; (c): G100-35; (d): G100-50; (e): G100-65

Fig. 12 Load vs. displacement graphs for GPC columns with 100 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 13 Load vs strain graphs for GPC columns with 100 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 14 (a): axial load-axial displacement graph for G150-C compared with G50-C, G100-C

and O50-C-1; (b) axial load-strain graph for G150-C

Fig. 15 Photos of the GPC beams after testing, (a) G50-F; (b) G100-F

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534
Fig. 16 Load vs. displacement graphs for GPC (this study) and OPC concrete (King, 2016)

beams with 50 mm stirrup spacing

Fig. 17 Load vs. strain graphs for G50-F

Fig. 18 Parameters and γ from the rectangular stress block method in AS 3600-09 (AS,

2009). εfrp,c: strain in the GFRP bars in the compression face, εfrp,t: strain in the GFRP bars in

the tension face, εu: the ultimate strain of the unconfined concrete, ffrp,c: compressive stress in

the bars in the compression face, ffrp,t: tensile stress in the bars in the tension face, d: distance

from the compressive concrete surface to the centre of the tensile GFRP bars, dn: distance

from compressive concrete surface to the neutral axis.

Fig. 19 Comparisons between experimental results, study on OPC concrete columns

reinforced with GFPR bars and stirrups (King, 2016) and various international design codes.

(a): AS 3600-09 (AS, 2009); (b): ACI 440.1R-15 (ACI, 2015); (c) CAN/CSA S806-12

(CAN/CSA 2017); (d) Geopolymer Handbook (Berndt et al., 2016). f’c, unconfined

compressive strength of the concrete, ffrp,c, compressive strength of the longitudinal GFRP

bars, ffrp,t, tensile strength of the longitudinal GFRP bars

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research

 Accepted manuscript doi:
10.1680/jmacr.17.00534

Magazine of Concrete Research