Predicting compressive strength of geopolymer concrete using NDT techniques

Original Paper
  • 2 Downloads

Abstract

The present investigation is mainly focused on predicting compressive strength of geopolymer concrete (GPC) using non-destructive testing (NDT) techniques viz., Schmidt rebound hammer (SRH), ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) and combined method. The NDT techniques were performed to compare the accuracy between the SRH, UPV and combined method in estimating the compressive strength of GPC. In this study, four mixes of GPC were prepared with different fine aggregate blending. Sand and granite slurry or granite fines (GF) are blended in different proportions (100:0, 80:20, 60:40 and 40:60). Coarse aggregates of size 20 and 10 mm are blended in proportions 60:40. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and fly ash (class F) were used at 50:50 ratio as geopolymer binders. Combination of sodium hydroxide (8M) and sodium silicate solution was used as an alkaline activator. Prior to compressive strength of test specimens, SRH, UPV and combined method were recorded after 7, 28 and 90 days of curing at ambient room temperature. From the results, it is revealed that the compressive strength, SRH, UPV and combined method results were increased up to fine aggregate blending of 60:40. Different equations were proposed correlating the compressive strength of concrete to SRH, UPV and combined method. Statistical analysis includes type of fit, sum of square residuals and standard errors were determined for the proposed equations. The measured compressive strength of all mixes was compared with predicted equations developed by past researchers.

Keywords

Geopolymer concrete Compression strength Non-destructive testing Schmidt rebound hammer Ultrasonic pulse velocity Combined method 

References

  1. Abhishek, B., Chouhan, R. K., Manish, M., & Amritphale, S. S. (2015). Fly ash based geopolymer concrete a new technology towards the greener environment: a review. International Journal of Innovative Research in Science, Engineering and Technology (An ISO Certified Organization), 4(12), 12178–12186.  https://doi.org/10.15680/IJIRSET.2015.0412089.Google Scholar
  2. Aminul, L. I., & Rajan, B. (2012). Effect of plasticizer and superplasticizer on workability of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Architecture and Civil Engineering, 2, 974–977.Google Scholar
  3. ASTM C 618-03. (2003). Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concrete. West Conshohocken: ASTM International.Google Scholar
  4. BS 1881-202. (1986). Testing concrete recommendations for surface hardness testing by rebound hammer. UK: BSI.Google Scholar
  5. Dallshad, B., & Muhammed, A. (2004). Estimating strength of scc using non-destructive combined method. In Third international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies.Google Scholar
  6. Davidovits, J. (1999). Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology. In Geopolymere’99 International Conference. Saint-Quentin, France.Google Scholar
  7. Erdal, Mursel. (2009). Prediction of the compressive strength of vacuum processed concretes using artificial neural network and regression techniques. Scientific Research and Essay, 4(10), 1057–1065.Google Scholar
  8. Gonnerman, H. F. (1925). Effect of size and shape of test specimen on compressive strength of concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials, 25, 237–250.Google Scholar
  9. Gul, Rustem, Demirboga, Ramazan, & Guvercin, Tekin. (2006). Compressive strength and ultrasound pulse velocity of mineral admixture mortars. Indian Journal of Engineering and Material Sciences, 13, 18–24.Google Scholar
  10. Guru Jawahar, J., Sashidhar, C., Ramana Reddy, I. V., & Annie Peter, J. (2013). Effect of coarse aggregate blending on short-term mechanical properties of self compacting concrete. Materials and Design, 43, 185–194.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.06.063.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gyengo, T. (1938). Effect of type of test specimen and gradation of aggregate on compressive strength of concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials, 33, 269–283.Google Scholar
  12. Hacene, S. M. E. A. B., Ghomari, F., & Khelidj, A. (2009). Compressive strengths of concrete formulated with Algerian local materials. Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, 3(2), 103–117.Google Scholar
  13. Hannachi, S., & Nacer Guetteche, M. (2014). Review of the rebound hammer method estimating concrete compressive strength on site. In Proceedings of International Conference on Architecture and Civil Engineering, (ICAACE’14) (pp. 118–127).Google Scholar
  14. Hardjito, D., & Rangan, B. (2005). Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  15. Hardjito, D., & Wallah, S. (2002). Study on engineering properties of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Journal of the Australian Ceramic Society, 38(1), 44–47.Google Scholar
  16. Hassan, R. H. (2012). Correlation between destructive and non-destructive strengths of concrete cubes using regression analysis. Contemporary Engineering Sciences, 5(10), 493–509.Google Scholar
  17. IS 13311-1. (1992). Method of non-destructive testing of concret, part 1: ultrasonic pulse velocity. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  18. IS 13311-2. (1992). Method of non-destructive testing of concrete-methods of test, part 2: rebound hammer. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  19. IS 516. (1959). Indian standard code of practice methods of test for strength of concrete. New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  20. Isam, H. N., Hameed A’bour, S., & Abdullah Sadoon, A. (2005). Finding an unified relationship between crushing strength of concrete and non-destructive tests. In Middle East Nondestructive Testing Conference and Exhibition. Bahrain, Manama.Google Scholar
  21. Jain, A., Kathuria, A., Kumar, A., Verma, Y., & Murari, K. (2013). Combined use of non-destructive tests for assessment of strength of concrete in structure. Procedia Engineering, 54, 241–251.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kaplan, M. (1958). Compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity relationships for concrete in columns. ACI Journals, 54(2), 675–688.Google Scholar
  23. Karaiskos, G., Deraemaeker, A., Aggelis, D. G., & Van Hemelrijck, D. (2015). Monitoring of concrete structures using the ultrasonic pulse velocity method. Smart Materials and Structures, 24(11), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kheder, G. (1998). Assessment of in situ concrete strength using combined nondestructive testing. In Proceedings of the First International Arab Conference on Maintenance and Rehabilitation of Concrete Structures (pp. 59–75). Cairo.Google Scholar
  25. Kong, D. L. Y., & Sanjayan, J. G. (2012). Effect of elevated temperatures on geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 40(2), 334–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mahmoudipour, M. (2008). Statistical case study on Schmidt hammer, ultrasonic and core compression strength tests’ results performed on cores obtained from Behbahan cement factory in Iran. Tehran: Geotechnical Department,SANO Consulting Engineers, No.11, Tavanir St.,Valiasr St.Google Scholar
  27. Malhotra, V. M. (1999). Making concrete greener with fly ash. Concrete International, 21(5), 61–66.Google Scholar
  28. Malhotra, V., & Carino, N. (2004). Handbook on nondestructive testing of concrete (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  29. Meynink, P., & Samarin, A. (1979). Assessment of compressive strength of concrete by cylinders, cores and non-destructive tests. In RILEM Symp. Proc. on Quality Control of Concrete Structures, Session 2.1 (pp. 127–134). Sweden: Swedish Concrete Research Institute Stockholm.Google Scholar
  30. Murdock, J. W., & Kesler, C. E. (1957). Effect of length to diameter ratio of specimen on the apparent compressive strength of concrete. American Society for Testing and Materials, 221, 68–73.Google Scholar
  31. Neville, A. (1995). Properties of concrete. Essex: Addition-Wesley Longman Ltd.Google Scholar
  32. Noguchi, T., Tomosawa, F., Nemati, K., Chiaia, B., & Fantilli, A. (2009). A practical equation for elastic modulus of concrete. ACI Structural Journal, 106(5), 690–696. Retrieved from http://faculty.washington.edu/nemati/aci_str1.pdf.
  33. Qasrawi, H. Y. (2000). Concrete strength by combined nondestructive methods simply and reliably predicted. Cement and Concrete Research, 30(5), 739–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rangan, B. V. (2008). Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete.Google Scholar
  35. Seong-Tae, Y., Eun-Ik, Y., & Joong-Cheol, C. (2006). Effect of specimen sizes, specimen shapes, and placement directions on compressive strength of concrete. Nuclear Engineering and Design, 236(2), 115–127.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nucengdes.2005.08.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Shariati, M., Ramli-Sulong, N. H., Mohammad Mehdi Arabnejad, K., Shafigh, P., & Sinaei, H. (2011). Assessing the strength of reinforced concrete structures through ultrasonic pulse velocity and schmidt rebound hammer tests. Scientific Research and Essays, 6(1), 213–220.Google Scholar
  37. Somna, K., Jaturapitakkul, C., Kajitvichyanukul, P., & Chindaprasirt, P. (2011). NaOH-activated ground fly ash geopolymer cured at ambient temperature. Fuel, 90(6), 2118–2124.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fuel.2011.01.018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sreenivasulu, C., Guru Jawahar, J., Vijaya Sekhar Reddy, M., & Pavan Kumar, D. (2016). Effect of fine aggregate blending on short-term mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (BHRC), 17(5), 537–550.Google Scholar
  39. Sreenivasulu, C., Ramakrishnaiah, A., & Gurujawahar, J. (2015). Mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete using granite slurry as sand replacement. International Journal of Advances in Engineering & Technology, 8(2), 83–91.Google Scholar
  40. Sumajouw, M. D., & Rangan, B. (2006). Low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: reinforced beams and columns. Perth: Curtin University of Technology.Google Scholar
  41. Supraja, V., & Kanta Rao, M. (2011). Experimental study on geopolymer concrete incorporating GGBS. International Journal of Electronics, Communication & Soft Computing Science and Engineering, 2(2), 11–15. Retrieved from http://www.ijecscse.org/papers/Aug2012/Experimental%20study%20on%20Geo-Polymer%20concrete%20incorporating%20GGBS.pdf.
  42. Sutan, N. S., & Meganathan, M. A. (2003). Comparison between direct and indirect method of ultrasonic pulse velocity in detecting concrete defects. Journal of Nondestructive Testing, 8(5), 1–9.Google Scholar
  43. Teodoru, G. (1988). The use of simultaneous nondestructive tests to predict the compressive strength of concrete. In: Dctroit: H.S. Lew (Ed.), Nondestructive testing, ACI SP-112.Google Scholar
  44. Turgut, P. (2004). Research into the correlation between strength and UPV values.Google Scholar
  45. Xu, H., & Van Deventer, J. S. J. (2000). The geopolymerisation of alumino-silicate minerals. International Journal of Mineral Processing, 59(3), 247–266.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0301-7516(99)00074-5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil EngineeringJawaharlal Nehru Technological UniversityAnantapurIndia
  2. 2.Department of Civil EngineeringAnnamacharya Institute of Technology and SciencesTirupatiIndia

Personalised recommendations