Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Pull-out behavior of different fibers in geopolymer mortars: effects of alkaline solution concentration and curing

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Materials and Structures Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Reinforcing geopolymer materials with fibers can enhance tensile and flexural strengths and fracture toughness. The bond between fiber and geopolymer matrix is a critical factor that needs to be investigated to optimize the performance of the fiber reinforced composite. In this study, single fiber pull-out tests are conducted on steel and polypropylene fibers embedded in geopolymer matrices; in addition, OPC mortars are tested as control condition. The following parameters are investigated: fiber type (i.e. steel and polypropylene) and shape, concentration of alkali solution in the geopolymer matrix, and curing conditions. Bond-slip performance, failure modes, and slip resisting mechanisms of different matrices and fibers are compared and discussed. The fiber deformation ratio, a novel parameter, is introduced to quantitatively investigate the effect of fiber shape on the mortar performance. In case of steel fibers, the geopolymer-fiber composite performs better for lower fiber deformation ratios, where the full fiber pull-out mechanism can be exploited. For higher deformation ratios, the strong bearing forces developed, combined with the high adhesion strength of the geopolymer-steel fiber interface, lead to more brittle failure mechanisms, such as fiber breakage or matrix failure, as observed in end-deformed and length-deformed steel fibers, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hendriks CA, Worrel E, De Jager D, Blok K, Riemer P (1998) Emission reduction of greenhouse gases from the cement industry. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on greenhouse gas control technologies, 30 Aug–2 Sept, Interlaken, 939–944

  2. World Buisness Council for Sustainable Development (2012) The cement sustainability initiative. 10 years of progress—moving on to the next decade. http://www.wbcsdcement.org/

  3. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV (2004) On the development of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. ACI Mater J 101(6):467–472

    Google Scholar 

  4. Davidovits J (1997) Geopolymers—inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 37(8):1633–1656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Wastiels J, Wu X, Faignet S, Patfoort G (1994) Mineral polymer based on fly ash. J Resour Manag Technol 22:135–141

    Google Scholar 

  6. Provis J, Van Deventer J (2014) Alkali activated materials: state-of-the-art report. RILEM TC 224-AAM, Springer

  7. Palomo A, Grutzeck MW, Blanco MT (1999) Alkali-activated fly ashes: a cement for the future. Cem Concr Res 29:1323–1329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Alomayri T, Shaikh FUA, Low IM (2014) Synthesis and mechanical properties of cotton fabric reinforced geopolymer composites. Compos B Eng 60:36–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Dias DP, Thaumaturgo C (2005) Fracture toughness of geopolymeric concretes reinforced with basalt fibers. Cement Concr Compos 27(1):49–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Ohno M, Li VC (2014) A feasibility study of strain hardening fiber reinforced fly ash-based geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater 57:163–168

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Nematollahi B, Sanjayan J, Shaikh FUA (2014) Comparative deflection hardening behavior of short fiber reinforced geopolymers composites. Constr Build Mater 70(15):54–64

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Shaikh FUA (2013) Review of mechanical properties of short fiber reinforced geopolymer composites. Constr Build Mater 43(15):37–49

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Shaikh FUA (2013) Deflection hardening behavior of short fiber reinforced fly ash based geopolymer composites. Mater Des 50:674–682

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Bernal S, Gutierrez RD, Delvasto S, Rodriguez E (2010) Performance of an alkali-activated slag concrete reinforced with steel fibers. Constr Build Mater 24:208–214

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Puertas F, Amat T, Fernandez-Jimenez A, Vazquez T (2013) Mechanical and durable behavior of alkaline cement mortars reinforced with polypropylene fibers. Cem Concr Res 33:2031–2036

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Wongpa J, Kiattikomol K, Jaturapitakkul C, Chindaprasirt P (2010) Compressive strength, modulus of adhesionality and water permeability of inorganic polymer concrete. Mater Des 31:4748–4754

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Sarker K, Haque R, Ramgolam KV (2013) Fracture behavior of heat cured fly ash based GP concrete. Mater Des 44:580–586

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Sakulich AR (2011) Reinforced GP composites for enhanced material greenness and durability. Sustain Cities Soc 1(4):195–210

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. ASTM Standard (2005) C 618, Standard specification for coal fly and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use as mineral admixture in concrete, Annual Book of ASTM Standards. ASTM International, West Conshohocken

    Google Scholar 

  20. Hussin MW, Bhutta MAR, Azreen M, Mahmood MT (2015) Performance of blended ash geopolymer concrete at elevated temperatures. Mater Struct 48(3):709–720

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Banthia N (1990) A study of some factors affecting the fiber-mortar bond in steel fiber reinforced concrete. Can J Civ Eng 17:610–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. ASTM C39/C39M (2015) Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens

  23. ASTM C496/C496M (2011) Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of cylindrical concrete specimens

  24. Banthia N, Krishnadev MR (1990) Steel-fiber cementitious mortar load relaxation studies using a screw-driven testing machine. Exp Tech 42:41–43

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Li Z, Mobasher B, Shah S (1991) Characterization of interfacial properties in fiber reinforced cementitious composites. J Am Ceram Soc 74(9):2156–2164

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Redon C, Li VC, Wu C, Hoshiro H, Saito T, Ogawa A (2001) Measuring and modifying interface properties of PVA fibers in ECC mortar. J Mater Civ Eng 13(6):399–406

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Singh B, Ishwarya G, Gupta M, Bhattacharyya SK (2015) Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments. Constr Build Mater 85:78–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Pachego-Torgal F, Castro-Gomes J, Jalali S (2008) Alkali-activated binders: a review, Part 1. Constr Build Mater 22:1305–1314

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lee WKW, Van Deventer JSJ (2004) The interface between natural siliceous aggregates and geopolymers. Cem Concr Res 34(2):195–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Zhang YS, Sun W, Li JZ (2005) Hydration process of interfacial transition in potassium polysialate (K-PSDS) geopolymer concrete. Mag Concr Res 57(1):33–38

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Yong SL, Feng DW, Luckey GC, Van Deventer JSJ (2007) Chemical characterization of the steel-geopolymeric gel interface. Colloids Surf A 302(1–3):411–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kim DJ, El-Tawil S (2009) Rate-dependent tensile behavior of high performance fiber reinforced cementitious composites. Mater Struct 42:399–414

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Xu H, Van Deventer JSJ (2000) The geopolymerization of alumino-silicate minerals. Int J Miner Process 59:247–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Armelin HS, Banthia N (1997) Predicting the flexural post-cracking performance of steel fiber reinforced concrete from the pullout of Single Fibers. ACI Mater J 94(1):18–31

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the financial support of Canada-India Research Center of Excellence (IC-IMPACTS). The assistance of Jane Wu (Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science, University of British Columbia) during the SEM samples preparation and analysis is appreciated.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Applied Science, The University of British Columbia, 6250 Applied Science Lane, Vancouver, BC, V6T 1Z4, Canada

    Aamer Bhutta, Mohammed Farooq, Cristina Zanotti & Nemkumar Banthia

Authors
  1. Aamer Bhutta
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Mohammed Farooq
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Cristina Zanotti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Nemkumar Banthia
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Aamer Bhutta.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bhutta, A., Farooq, M., Zanotti, C. et al. Pull-out behavior of different fibers in geopolymer mortars: effects of alkaline solution concentration and curing. Mater Struct 50, 80 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0889-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1617/s11527-016-0889-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation