Bond strength evaluation of palm oil fuel ash-based geopolymer normal weight and lightweight concretes with steel reinforcement
Source abstract
Abstract
This article presents a comparison of the bond behaviour between palm oil fuel ash (POFA)-derived geopolymer and conventional cement-based normal weight and lightweight concretes. A total of 16 variables were tested, which includes concrete cover (50 and 100 mm), bar diameter (12 and 16 mm) and types of concrete (POFA-based geopolymer normal/ lightweight concrete and cement-based normal/lightweight concrete). Results showed that the bond strength of cement-based concretes had higher critical bond stress and ultimate bond strength as well as lower slip at the ultimate bond strength compared to the corresponding POFA-based geopolymer concretes. The cement-based and geopolymer lightweight concrete specimens also exhibited greater bond strength than the normal weight concrete specimens. All of the concrete specimens generally exhibited similar bond stress-slip curves. Besides that, bond strength models proposed in the past predicted satisfactory match (difference of up to 35%) to the experimental ultimate bond strength values in the case of cement-based normal weight concrete and geopolymer concrete whereas a difference in the range of 16–138% was found for the case of lightweight concrete.
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Innovative concrete reinforcement materials · Concrete Corrosion and Durability
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
Affiliations
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Funding
Universiti Malaya · University of Malaya
References (31)
Show source-provided references
1. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.02310.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.01.023 ↗
2. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.09410.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.094 ↗
3. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.12510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.125 ↗
4. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.02910.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.12.029 ↗
5. 10.1617/s11527-010-9683-810.1617/s11527-010-9683-8 ↗
6. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2015.02.01610.1016/j.cemconres.2015.02.016 ↗
7. Fernandez-Jimenez AM · ACI Mater J · 2006 · 103 · 106
8. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.07110.1016/j.conbuildmat.2013.02.071 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.00110.1016/j.matdes.2013.06.001 ↗
10. 10.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.02910.1016/j.enbuild.2013.12.029 ↗
11. 10.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.06410.1016/j.engstruct.2016.08.064 ↗
12. 10.1617/s11527-016-0934-110.1617/s11527-016-0934-1 ↗
13. Bondar D · ACI Mater. J · 2011 · 108 · 1
14. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.06510.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.12.065 ↗
15. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.03210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.032 ↗
16. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.05710.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.06.057 ↗
17. 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.16210.1016/j.jclepro.2016.05.162 ↗
18. Mathey RG · ACI J Proc · 1961 · 57 · 1071
19. Mor A · ACI Mater J · 1992 · 89 · 76
20. 10.12989/sem.2004.17.2.14110.12989/sem.2004.17.2.141 ↗
21. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.04010.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.03.040 ↗
22. CEB-FIP · 1992
23. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.12210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.122 ↗
24. 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.000115710.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001157 ↗
25. 10.1007/s10853-006-0534-510.1007/s10853-006-0534-5 ↗
26. Chang EH · 2009
27. 10.1016/j.msea.2011.04.04410.1016/j.msea.2011.04.044 ↗
28. 10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:6(503)10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002)14:6(503) ↗
29. 10.1080/01694243.2012.68755210.1080/01694243.2012.687552 ↗
30. Mitchell DW · ACI Struct J · 2007 · 104 · 22
31. Bae S. Formwork pressure and bond characteristics of special self-consolidating concrete [master thesis]. Toronto: Ryerson University; 2006.