Advertisement

Performance of Laced Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete (LRGPC) Beams Under Monotonic Loading

  • C. K. MadheswaranEmail author
  • G. Gnanasundar
  • N. Gopalakrishnan
Conference paper

Abstract

This paper describes the ductility behavior of Laced Reinforced Geopolymer concrete beam (LRGPC). Laced Reinforced Concrete (LRC) construction techniques are widely used in blast resistant design and seismic resistant design of structures. LRC structural element consists of equal reinforcement in tension and compression faces along with lacings. Lacing is a form of continuous shear reinforcements as compared to the form of conventional stirrup reinforcement. It is placed in the plane of principal bending and anchored in position by means of transverse bars. LRC enhances the ductility and provide better concrete confinement. In general, ductile failure of Reinforced Concrete (RC) beams with conventional stirrups is not possible when the shear span-to-depth ratio is less than 2.5 due to the influence of severe diagonal cracking. Improved ductile failure of such members can be achieved by proper detailing of reinforcement with inclined bars in the case of normal concrete mix, and also by improving the tensile strength and ultimate strain of concrete with help of steel fibers. Portland cement (PC) is widely used as binder material for concrete in a wide variety of constructions. However, this cement is proving to be ecologically hazardous material due to its inherent high internal energy content besides occurrence of emission of large quantities of carbon dioxide during its production. Therefore, there has been search for alternative binder material. Geopolymer is a type of binder that can be obtained by activating silicon dioxide and aluminium oxides present in industrial wastes such as blast furnace slag powder and fly ash, to form inorganic polymer binder system. Monotonic load testing on two specimens with 45° lacing are conducted. Experimental results indicate that both the beams exhibit almost similar strength performance. Response of LRGPC, LRC and conventional RC beams are compared.

Keywords

Concrete Geopolymer Laced reinforcement 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This paper is being published with the permission of the Director, CSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre, Chennai. The cooperation and guidance received from, Dr K. Muthumani Advanced Seismic Testing and Research laboratory and the technical staff of Advanced Materials Laboratory of CSIR-SERC are gratefully acknowledged.

References

  1. 1.
    Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Therm Anal 37:1633–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hardjito D, Rangan BV (2005) Development and properties of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Research report GC-1, Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology, Curtin, AustraliaGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    IS 12089 (1987) Specification for granulated slag for manufacture of Portland slag cement, (R2008). BIS, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    IS 2386 (Part I) (1963) Indian standard code for methods of tests for aggregates for concrete. BIS, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    IS 3812 (2003) Indian standard code for specification for fly ash for use as pozzolana and ad-mixture. BIS, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    IS 456 (2000) Indian standard code for plain and reinforced concrete-code of practice, 4th revision. BIS, New Delhi, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Keiger SA, Woodson SC, Dallriva FD (1989) Role of shear reinforcement in large-deflection behavior. ACI Struct J 86(6):664–671Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lakshmanan N, Parameshwaran VS, Krishnamoorthy TS, Balasubramanian K (1991) Ductility of flexural member reinforced symmetrically on the tension and compression faces. Indian Concr J 84–93Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    TM 5-1300 (1984) Structures to resist the effects of accidental explosions. Department of Army, Navy and the Air force, Washington, DC, USAGoogle Scholar

Bibliography

  1. 10.
    Anandavalli N, Lakshmanan N, Iyer NR, Prakash A, Ramajaneyulu K, Rajasankar J (2010) Design of a laced reinforced concrete (LRC) storage structure based on unit risk principle with reduced separation distance. In: National conference on safety technology and management in defence (NCSTM-10), CFEES, New DelhiGoogle Scholar
  2. 11.
    Lakshmanan N (2008) Laced reinforced concrete construction technique for blast resistant design of structures. Sixth structural engineering convention (SEC2008), Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  3. 12.
    Rao SB, Sarma BS, Lakshmanan N, Stangenberg F (1998) Damage model for reinforced concrete elements under cyclic loading. ACI Mater J 95(6):682–690Google Scholar
  4. 13.
    Rao SP, Sharma BS, Lakshmanan N, Stangeneberg F (1996) Seismic behavior of laced reinforced concrete beams. In: 11th world conference on earthquake engineering, Paper no. 1740Google Scholar
  5. 14.
    Sarma SB (1997) Investigations on laced reinforced concrete beams with normal and fibre reinforced concrete under monotonic and cyclic loading. Ph.D. thesis, Indian Institute of Technology Madras, Chennai, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  6. 15.
    Sujatha K, Nagan K (2013) Strength and behaviour of reinforced geopolymer concrete short columns. J Struct Eng 39(6):657–663 (Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer India 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • C. K. Madheswaran
    • 1
    Email author
  • G. Gnanasundar
    • 2
  • N. Gopalakrishnan
    • 1
  1. 1.Advanced Seismic Testing and Research LaboratoryCSIR-Structural Engineering Research Centre (SERC)Taramani, ChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Sree Sastha Institute of Engineering and TechnologyChembarambakkam, ChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations