International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)

International Journal of Engineering Science Invention
ISSN (Online): 2319 – 6734, ISSN (Print): 2319 – 6726
www.ijesi.org Volume 2 Issue 7 ǁ July. 2013 ǁ PP.51-68
www.ijesi.org 51 | Page
A Study on Geopolymer Concrete Restrained One Way Slabs
Hamidreza Allahdadi
Biography:Acimember,Hamidreza Allahdadi, A Civil Engineer Of Iranian Nationality. He Has Completed
M.Tech Course In Structural Engineering, M.S.Ramaiah Institute Of Technology,Bengaluru-560054, India In
2012. He Received BS Course From Islamic Azad University-Zahedan,Iran In 2004.
ABSTRACT: It is widely recognized that cement is among the most energy intensive construction material and
has been traditionally used as the binding agent in concrete. However, it is alsonecessary to search for
alternative low-emission binding agents for concrete to reduce the environmental impact caused by
manufacturing of cement. Many efforts are being made to reduce the Portland cement in concrete in order to
address the global warming issues. In the recent past, investigations were reported regarding the production of
geopolymer concrete. Geopolymer, also known as inorganic polymer, is one such material that uses by-product
material such as fly ash instead of cement. The mechanism involved is that the silicon and the aluminum in the
low calcium fly ash react with an alkaline liquid to form the geopolymer concrete that binds the aggregates and
other unreacted materials. Recent research has shown that fly ash based geopolymer concrete has suitable
properties for its use as a construction material.
KEYWORDS: TVC = Traditionally Vibrated Concrete , GPC = Geopolymer Concrete
I. INTRODUCTION
The global use of concrete is second only to water. As the demand for concrete as a construction
material increases, so also the demand for Portland cement. It is estimated that the production of cement will
increase from 1.5 billion tons in 1995 to 2.2 billion tons in 2010. The production of cement is increasing about
3% annually. The production of one ton of cement liberates about one ton of CO2 to atmosphere. Among the
green house gases, CO2 contributes about 65% of global warming. Aside from that, cement is among the most
energy intensive construction material. Furthermore, it has been reported that the durability of ordinary Portland
cement concrete is under examination, as many concrete structures; especially those built in corrosive
environments start to deteriorate after 20 to 30 years, even though they have been designed for more than 50
years of service life.
Although the use of Portland cement is unavoidable in the foreseeable future, many efforts are being
made to reduce the use of Portland cement in concrete in order to address the global warming issues. These
include the utilization of supplementary cementing materials such as fly ash, silica fume, granulated blast
furnace slag, rice-husk ash and metakaolin, and the development of alternative binders to Portland cement. In
this respect another achievement is the development of geopolymer i.e. inorganic alumino-silicate polymer
synthesized from materials of geological origin or by-product materials such as fly ash, GGBS, etc that are rich
in silicon and aluminium[3]. In this case, geopolymer concrete is produced by totally replacing the OPC.
Palomo[12] suggested that pozzoloans such as blast furnace slag might be activated using alkaline liquids to
form a binder and hence totally replace the use of OPC in concrete.The tradable emissions refer to the economic
mechanisms that are expected to help the countries worldwide to meet the emission reduction targets established
by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol. Speculation has arisen that one ton of the emission can have a trading value of
about US$10[5,7].Global dimming is associated with the reduction of the amount of sunlight reaching the Earth
due to pollution particles in the air blocking the sunlight. With the effort to reduce the air pollution that has been
taken into implementation, the effect of global dimming may be reduced; however it will increase the effect of
global warming[10].
The production of cement is increasing about 3% annually[8]. The production of one ton of cement
liberates about one ton of CO2 to the atmosphere, as the result of decarbonation of limestone in the kiln during
manufacturing of cement and the combustion of fossil fuels.(Fortune, J)[10], suggested that the amount of
carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions by the cement industries can be reduced by decreasing the amount of calcined
material in cement, by decreasing the amount of cement in concrete, and by decreasing the number of buildings
using cement.In order to produce environmentally friendly concrete[9], suggested the use of few natural
resources, less energy, and minimize carbon dioxide emissions. He categorized these short-term efforts as
industrial ecology.According to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) Committee 116R, fly ash is defined as
the finely divided residue that results from the combination of ground or powdered coal and that is transported
by the flue gases from the combustion zone to the particle removal system[2

A Study On Geopolymer Concrete Restrained…
The colour of fly ash can be tan to dark grey, depending upon the chemical and mineral constituents[1].
By the year 2010, the amount of fly ash produced worldwide is estimated to be about 780 million tons annually
[6]. The utilization of fly ash, especially in concrete production, has significant environmental gas production,
reduced amount of fly ash that must be disposed in landfills, and saving of the other natural resources and
materials[1].
The polymerization process involves a substantially fast chemical reaction under alkaline condition on
Si-Al minerals that result in a three-dimensional polymeric chain and ring structure consisting of Si-O-Al-O
bonds[4].Metakaolin or Calcined kaolin3,14 ,low calcium ASTM Class F fly ash[15], natural Al-Si
minerals[16], combination of calcined mineral and non-calcined minerals[16], combination of fly ash and
metakaolin[15], and combination of granulated blast furnace slag and metakaolin[11] have been studied as
source materials. The presence of calcium in high amount may interfere with the polymerisation process and
alter the microstructure[13].
II. RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
An experimental program has been designed to cast and test, eight M60 grade TVC and eight M60
grade GPC one way restrained slabs under flexure for different percentage of reinforcement. The ultimate load
capacity of GPC and TVC slabs were calculated using IS-456:2000, ACI-318:2011, EN-1992 and BS8110. The
ratios of calculated ultimate load to the experimental ultimate load given by different codes are reasonable. The
load deflection behavior and cracking characteristics were studied. The deflection at service loads were
computed using ACI-318:2011, BS 8110, IS 456:2000 and EN 1992. The results show that the codes are
conservative in estimating the same
2.1.Experimental Work Experimental Aims
Aim of the experimental programme is to study the flexural behavior of Normal concrete and
Geopolymer concrete Slabs:To study the ultimate strength of Geopolymer concrete and Traditionally Vibrated
slabs and compare with that obtained by the models proposed in various codes.To obtain the actual load
deflection plot up to failure load (under short-term loading) of Geopolymer concrete and Traditionally Vibrated
slabs and compare with that obtained by the deflection models proposed in various codes.To perform a
parametric study on the influence of certain parameters that causes load enhancement beyond yield line load.
PART-A TRADITIONALLY VIBRATED CONCRETE MATERIALS USED :
The constituent materials used in the present investigation were:
Cement
Fine Aggregate
Coarse Aggregate
Silica Fume
Water
Superplasticizer (SP)
2.2.MIXING :
Cement and aggregates were dry mixed in the 100 kg, (1KN/220 (lb)) capacity pan mixer for about 3
minutes. Super plasticizer and water was added into the blend and mixed for about 2 minutes.Casting:At this
stage two important steps were taken before going through the actual casting process, first was to prepare a
proper form work to cast the slabs and, second to prepare the steel cages.Wooden frames of 50mm, (1.96
in/0.16ft) as well as 65mm height, , (2.5 in/0.2 ft) 500mm width, (19.6 in/1.6 ft) and 1080mm , (42.5 in/3.5 ft)
in length was used as the formwork to cast the slabs . Cover blocks of 15 , (0.6 in/0.05 ft) thickness were made
using a high strength mortar, so that they wouldn‟t appear as weakness points after hardening of the concrete, to
act as concrete clear cover.When the fresh concrete was ready to place into the formwork, the Traditionally
vibrated concrete was poured into the formwork layer by layer. Compaction was done by 20mm (0.7 in/0.06
ft)needle vibrator and levelled. Along with each slab, three specimen cubes ( mm),(3.9*3.9*3.9 in)
(375*0.325*0.325 ft) were cast to obtain the specified compressive strength of concrete of each individual slab.
2.3.Curing:Cubes were cured in curing tank. The slabs were cured continuously for 28 days, (672 hr) using wet
gunny bags.
2.4.Part-B Geopolymer Concrete Materials: The materials used for making fly ash-based geopolymer
concrete specimens are low-calcium dry fly ash as the source material, ground granulated blast furnace slag,
aggregates, alkaline liquids, water, and super plasticizer.

2.5.Mix Design Procedure:
Following ranges were selected for the constituents of the mixture.
Low calcium (ASTM Class F) dry fly ash.
Alkaline liquid.Ratio of sodium silicate solution-to-sodium hydroxide solution, by mass, of 0.4 to 2.5. This ratio
was fixed at 2.5 for most of the mixtures because the sodium silicate solution is considerably cheaper than the
sodium hydroxide solution.Molarity of sodium hydroxide (NaOH) solution was 10M (314 grams).Ratio of
activator solution-to-fly ash, by mass, in the range of 0.3 and 0.45.Coarse and fine aggregates, approximately
75% to 80% of the entire mixture by mass. This value is similar to that used in OPC concrete.
2.6.Preparation of Liquids:The sodium silicate solution and the sodium hydroxide solution were mixed
together at least one day prior to use to prepare the alkaline liquid. On the day of casting of the specimens, the
alkaline liquid was mixed together with the super plasticizer and the extra water to prepare the liquid component
of the mixture.
2.7.Mixing:The fly ash, GGBS and aggregates were dry mixed in the hundred litre capacity pan mixer for about
3 minutes, (180 seconds). The alkaline solution that was prepared one day prior to usage along with super
plasticizer and extra water was added into the blend and mixed for about 4 minutes, (240 seconds).Casting
Wooden frames of 50mm, (1.96 in/0.16 ft) as well as 65mm, (2.5 in/0.2 ft) height, 500mm, (19.6 in/1.6 ft) width
and 1080mm in length was used as the formwork to cast the slabs.Cover blocks of 15 , (0.6 in/0.05 ft) thickness
were made using a high strength mortar, so that they wouldn‟t appear as weakness points after hardening of the
concrete, to act as concrete clear cover. Cover blocks of 20 mm, (0.7 in/0.06 ft) thickness were made to act as
concrete clear cover. When the fresh concrete was ready to place into the formwork, the Portland cement
concrete was poured into the formwork layer by layer. Compaction was done by 20mm, (0.7 in/0.06 ft) needle
vibrator and levelled.Along with each slab, three specimen cubes ( mm), (3.9*3.9*3.9 in) (0.325 *0.325*0.325
ft) were cast to obtain the specified compressive strength of each individual slab.
2.8Curing:After casting, the slab specimens were demoulded. A curing chamber was prepared to stop the steam
from escaping and for the proper curing of the specimen. The slabs and the respective cubes were kept inside the
curing chamber and the steam boiler is set. Steam curing is then continued uninterrupted for 24 hours (1440
minutes), keeping the average temperature inside the chamber at 60°C (140 F).
III. STRENGTH TESTS:
3.1.Compression test:
Cube moulds of 100×100×100mm, (3.9*3.9*3.9 in) (0.325 *0.325*0.325 ft) were used to cast cube
specimens for each trial mix. The moulds were lubricated with oil before casting in order to make the
demoulding process easier. A number of cubes were cast for each trial mix both for Traditionally vibrated
concrete and Geopolymer Concrete. After taking the cubes out of the moulds they were cured as per the
respective curing methods and tested in the compression testing machine.Testing of TVC and GPC slabs The
loading area was divided into four equal areas. The center of gravity of each area acted as loading point as
shown in Figure (1,2) The following observations were made during the testing of the specimen viz, Downward
central deflections of the slab at different stages of loading. Crack pattern and crack widths at different stages of
loading. Strain in steel is measured while testing specimen. The deflections were measured using dial gauges.
The least count of dial gauge was 0.001 (10^-5 in), with a travel of 25 , (0.98 in/0.08 ft). An attempt has been
made to measure the width of the crack at any stage of the loading. For this purpose Brinnel‟s microscope
having a magnification of 100X, range of 1 , (0.04 in/3.3 * 10^-3 ft) (3.9 *10^-4 in) and a least count of 0.01mm
was used.
3.2.DIGITAL STRAIN INDICATOR AND STRAIN GAUGE: Strain in steel is measured using digital strain
indicator. The specification is shown in table and figure 4 shows the digital strain indicator and strain gauge.
Strain gauge have Gauge factor of 2.05 0.5 and Resistance of 350 0.5Ω.
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
Test results of auxiliary specimens:The cubes were tested for compressive strength and the prisms were
tested for flexure. The results are as tabulated in table 1.Load deflection behavior of slabs:The vertical
deflection increases linearly with respect to the load up to cracking stage. Afterwards a non-linear behavior was
observed. The deflections in the descending portion of the load deflection curve could not be measured for the
specimens because of the instability of the loading system within the range. All the slabs failed by snapping of
wires.

Cracking Behavior :First crack for all the slabs formed at the center and in the next increment of load,
the crack extended parallel to the width of the slab. New cracks formed with increase in load and finally crack
pattern failure mechanism was observed. At loads slightly less than ultimate load, the bottom crack penetrated to
the top and cracks were seen in compression face also, which ensured the development of tensile membrane
action. Final failure was due to snapping of wires.
RESULTS AND COMPARISON ULTIMATE LOADS OF GPC & TVC SLABS Ultimate
Loads: In case of the ultimate loads, comparison was done using ACI 318: 2011, BS 8110, IS 456: 2000, and
EN 1992,(table2,3).
ACI 318: 2011
To have an accurate idea about the ultimate strength of a section it is first important to have a proper picture of
the concrete stress distribution block.
As per principles of ACI 318-11
Mu = ultimate moment carrying capacity of the section, N.mm
b = breadth of the section, mm
d = effective depth of the section, mm
fy = characteristic tensile strength of reinforcement, MPa
f 'c = specified cylinder compressive strength of concrete, MPa
ρ = steel ratio
Ast = area of the tension reinforcement, mm2
IS 456: 2000
According to the guidelines of IS 456:2000, the ultimate moment carrying capacity of a concrete section can be
calculated as follows:













ck
yst
sty
bdf
fA
dAfMu 187.0 (2)
Mu = ultimate moment carrying capacity of the section, N.mm
d = effective depth of the section, mm
fy = characteristic tensile strength of reinforcement, MPa
fck = specified cube compressive strength of concrete, MPa
Ast = area of the tension reinforcement, mm2
BS 8110

Comparis
On Of Calculated Load V/S Experimental Load Using IS 456, ACI 318, EN 1992 And BS 8110(Figure 59-62)
LOAD DEFLECTION BEHAVIOUR OF GPV & TVC SLABS AT WORKING LOAD Deflections
Calculation Of Deflections At Various Stages Of Loading Was Done Using Different Codes Of Practices Viz;
ACI 318: 2011, IS 456: 2000, And EN 1992,(Table4,5).
ACI 318: 2011

Pcr = Cracking Load N/mm2
Pw = Working load in N/mm2
fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete, MPa
Ig = moment of inertia of gross concrete section about centroidal axis,
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm4/mm
BS 8110
Icr = moment of inertia of cracked section transformed to concrete, mm4
/mm
bw = breadth of web section, mm
m = modulus of elasticity (Es/Ec)
Es = modulus of elasticity of reinforcement, 210000 MPa
Ec = modulus of elasticity of concrete, MPa
Ast = area of longitudinal tension reinforcement, mm2
d = effective depth of section, mm
D = overall depth of section,mm
ρ = ratio of tension reinforcement (Ast/bd)
fck = characteristic cube compressive strength of concrete, MPa
fy = yield strength of concrete, MPa
Mu = Ultimate moment, kN-m
Mw = Working moment, kN-m
Mnet w = Ultimate net working moment, kN-m

COMPUTATION OF CRACK WIDTH OF GPC & TVC SLABS: The experimental results of the width of
crack were stated in the third chapter. For comparison purpose, it is mandatory to investigate in various
expressions given in different code books regarding the calculation of the crack width.
Crack Width Calculation as per IS 456: IS 456 defines the expression to calculate the maximum surface crack
width as follows:

















xD
ca
a
w
cr
mcr
cr
min
21
3 
where,
Wcr = maximum design surface crack width, mm
acr = distance from the point considered to the surface of the nearest longitudinal bar, mm
εm = average steel strain at the level considered
Cmin = minimum cover to the longitudinal bar, mm
D = overall depth of the member, mm
x = depth of the neutral axis, mm (Equation 7.3)
Comparison of Results of Crack width Calculations using Various Codal Provisions :After computation of
the crack width using various codes as mentioned above the results of the comparison of same and experimental
tests is tabulated below. Besides, in order to have a better comparison, tables of the ratios of „calculated crack
width‟ by „experimental crack width have been provided.(table 6)
COMPUTATION OF LOAD ENHANCEMENT V/S PERCENTAGE OF REINFORCEMENT OF GPC
& TVC SLABS :Due to compressive membrane action there will be enhancement of load. This enhancement
has been calculated using the Equation (10). The computed values are given in the table 7.
Load Enhancement = (10)
where,
Pue = experimental ultimate load, kN
Puc = calculated ultimate load, kN
Parametric Study :The Analysis Has Been Used To Study The Influence Of Certain Parameters On The Load
Enhancement Of Restrained One Way Slabs. The Parameters Considered Are:
1. Percentage Of Reinforcement
2. Concrete Strength
Effect Of Percentage Of Reinforcement :Figure 9 To 12 Show The Variation Of The Load Enhancement With
Percentage Of Reinforcement. It Is Noted That Load Enhancement Decreases With Increase In Percentage Of
Reinforcement. The Lesser The Quantity Of Steel For A Given Section The Load Is More. The Trend Fairly
Agrees With All The Graphs.
Effect Of Concrete Strength:Figure13 To 16 Show The Variation Of The Load Enhancement With Concrete
Strength. It Is Noted That Load Enhancement Increases With Increase In Concrete Strength. The Trend Fairly
Agrees With All The Graphs.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The Ultimate Loads Of The Tested Slabs Point Out That All The Codes Of Practice Are Conservative
In Estimating The Same. (Refer Table 2 And 3)The Computations Of Deflections At Service Loads Of Tested
Slabs By IS 456:2000, ACI:318-2011, EN1992:2002, And BS8110 Codes Indicates That The Relevant Codal
Expressions Are To Be Modified To Predict The Experimental Deflections Satisfactorily. (Refer Table 4 And 5
).Load Enhancement Was Plotted Against Percentage Of Reinforcement And Concrete Strength. The Trend
Shows The Decrease In Load Enhancement With Increase In Percentage Of Reinforcement Contrarily Load
Increases With Increase In Concrete Strength. (Refer Fig 13-16).The IS 456:2000 Predicts A Lower Crack
Width Compared To The Experimental Crack Width. (Refer Table 6 ).

REFERENCES
[1] ACAA. “Fly Ash Facts for Highway Engineers”. Aurora, USA, American Coal Ash Association: 74,2003.
[2] ACI Committee 232 “Use of Fly Ash in Concrete”. Farmington Hills, Michigan, USA, American Concrete Institute: 41, 2004.
[3] Davidovits, J. “Chemistry of Geopolymeric Systems, Terminology”. Geopolymer ‟99 International Conference, France. (1999).
[4] Davidovits, J., M. Davidovits, N. Davidovits “Process for Obtaining a Geopolymeric Alumino-silicate and Products thus
Obtain”. US Patent. USA. 5,342,595. (1994).
[5] Malhotra, V. M. "Making Concrete "Greener" With Fly Ash." ACI Concrete International 21(5): 61-66. (1999).
[6] Malhotra, V.M. “High-Performance High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete”. ACI Concrete International, 24(7), 2002,pp1-5.
[7] Malhotra, V.M. “Role of supplementary Cementing Materials and Superplasticizers in Reducing Greenhouse Gas Emission
ICFRC, Chennai, India, Allied Publishers Private Ltd , 2004.
[8] McCaffrey, R. “Climate Change and the Cement Industry”, Global Cement and Lime Magazine (Environmental Special Issue),
2002,pp15-
[9] Mehta, P.K , “Greening of the concrete Industry for Sustainable Development” , ACI Concrete International, 24 (7), 2002,pp 23-
28.
[10] Fortune, J. (2005). “Global Dimming”, BBC: 22 March 2005.
[11] Cheng, T. W. and J. P. Chiu "Fire-resistant Geopolymer Produced by Granulated Blast Furnace Slag." Minerals Engineering
16(3),2003,pp 205-210.
[12] Fernández-Jiménez, A. and A. Palomo , "Characterisation of Fly Ash: Potential Reactivity as Alkaline Cements." Fuel 82(18),
2259-2265,2003.
[13] Gourley, J. T. Geopolymers; “Opportunities for Environmentally Friendly Construction Materials”. Materials 2003 Conference:
Adaptive Materials for a Modern Society, Sydney, Institute of Materials Engineering Australia ,2003.
[14] Barbosa, V. F. F., K. J. D. MacKenzie, C. Thaumaturgo. "Synthesis and Characterisation of Materials Based on Inorganic
Polymers of Alumina and Silica: Sodium Polysialate Polymers." International Journal of Inorganic Materials 2(4): 309-317.
(2000).
[15] Swanepoel, J.C. and C.A. Strydom. “Utilization of Fly ash in geo-polymeric material”. Applied Geochemistry 17(8):1143-
1148,2002
[16] Xu, H and J.S.J. van Deventer. “Geopolymerisation of Multiple Minerals”. Minerals Engineering 15(12):1131-1139 ,2002
2002
TABLES AND FIGURES
List of Tables:
Table 1: Test Results of Auxiliary Cubes, Prisms and Slabs
Table 2: Ratios of Experimental Ultimate load (Pue) to Calculated Ultimate loads (Puc) of TVC slabs using
various codes.
Table 3: Ratios of Experimental Ultimate load (Pue) to Calculated Ultimate loads (Puc) of GPC slabs using
various codes.
Table 4: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated Deflections at service Loads of TVC Slabs using various codes.
Table 5: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated Deflections at service Loads of GPC Slabs using various codes.
Table 6: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated crack widths at service Loads of GPC & TVC Slabs using IS
456-2000 code.
Table 7: Computation of load enhancement of GPC & TVC slabs
List of Figures:
Figure 1: Plan and Cross Section of the Location of Loading Points
Figure 2: 3-D View of Location of Loading Points
Figure 3:Experimental Setup
Figure 4: Digital strain indicator and Strain gauge
Figure 5: Calculated Load v/s Experimental Load using IS 456
Figure 6: Calculated Load v/s Experimental Load using ACI 318
Figure 7: Calculated Load v/s Experimental Load using EN1992
Figure 8: Calculated Load v/s Experimental Load using BS 8110.
Figure 9: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s % steel for all 65mm thick GPC slabs
Figure 10: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s % steel for all 50mm thick GPC slabs
Figure 11: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s % steel for all 65mm thick TVC slabs
Figure 12: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s % steel for all 50mm thick TVC slabs
Figure 13: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s Concrete strength for all 65mm thick TVC slabs
Figure 14: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s Concrete strength for all 50mm thick TVC slabs
Figure 15: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s Concrete strength for all 65mm thick GPC slabs
Figure 16: Plot showing Load Enhancement v/s Concrete strength for all 50mm thick GPC slabs
Table 1: Test Results of Auxiliary Cubes, Prisms and Slabs

Slab no
D (mm)
(in/ft)
fck
(N/mm2)
% of Main
Steel
Spacing in mm
(in/ft)
Pcr (kN)
(kg/lb)
PU (kN)
(kg/lb)
TVC-65-1
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
64
0.47
75
(2.9 in/0.24 ft)
20
(2000kg/4400lb)
50
(5000kg/11000lb)
TVC-65-2
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
58
0.34
95
(3.7 in/0.3 ft) 28
(2800kg/6160lb)
40
(4000kg/8800lb)
TVC-65-3
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
60
0.27
125
(4.9 in/0.4 ft) 12
(1200kg/2640lb)
36
(3600kg/7920lb)
TVC-65-4
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
62
0.20
150
(5.9 in/0.49 ft) 12
(1200kg/2640lb)
30
(3000kg/6600lb)
TVC-50-1
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
68
0.61
75
(2.9 in/0.24 ft)
10
(1000kg/2200lb)
46
(4600kg/10120lb)
TVC-50-2
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
65
0.44
95
(3.7 in/0.3 ft) 10
(1000kg/2200lb)
30
(3000kg/6600lb)
TVC-50-3
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
64
0.35
125
(4.9 in/0.4 ft) 12
(1200kg/2640lb)
26
(2600kg/5720lb)
TVC-50-4
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
66
0.26
150
(5.9 in/0.49 ft) 8
(800kg/1760lb)
26
(2600kg/5720lb)
GPC-65-1
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
61
0.47
75
(2.9 in/0.24 ft)
10
(1000kg/2200lb)
56
(5600kg/12320lb)
GPC-65-2
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
59
0.34
95
(3.7 in/0.3 ft) 6
(600kg/1320lb)
22
(2200kg/4840lb)
GPC-65-3
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
60
0.27
125
(4.9 in/0.4 ft) 10
(1000kg/2200lb)
40
(4000kg/8800lb)
GPC-65-4
65
(2.5in/0.2 ft)
58
0.20
150
(5.9 in/0.49 ft) 6
(600kg/1320lb)
22
(2200kg/4840lb)
GPC-50-1
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
60
0.61
75
(2.9 in/0.24 ft)
8
(800kg/1760lb)
54
(5400kg/11880lb)
GPC-50-2
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
58
0.44
95
(3.7 in/0.3 ft)
6
(600kg/1320lb)
46
(4600kg/11880lb)
GPC-50-3
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
60
0.35
125
(4.9 in/0.4 ft)
12
(1200kg/2640lb)
42
(9240kg/4800lb)
GPC-50-4
50
(1.96 in/0.16
ft)
57
0.26
150
(5.9 in/0.49 ft)
12
(1200kg/2640lb)
36
(3600kg/7920lb)
L= 1080 mm, (42.5 in/3.5ft); B= 500 mm, (19.6 in/1.6 ft).
Table 2: Ratios of Experimental Ultimate load (Pue) to Calculated Ultimate loads (Puc) of TVC slabs using
various codes

Ratio of (Pue/Puc)
Slab no
Pue (kN)
(kg)
IS 456
(kg)
ACI 318
(kg)
BS 8110
(kg)
Euro Code
(kg)
TVC-65-1
50
(5000)
1.52
(152)
1.30
(130)
1.52
(152)
1.30
(130)
TVC-65-2
40
(4000)
1.68
(168)
1.45
(145)
1.68
(168)
1.45
(145)
TVC-65-3
36
(3600)
1.88
(188)
1.62
(162)
1.88
(188)
1.62
(162)
TVC-65-4
30
(3000)
2.07
(207)
1.79
(179)
2.07
(207)
1.79
(179)
TVC-50-1
46
(4600)
1.83
(183)
1.57
(157)
1.83
(183)
1.56
(156)
TVC-50-2
30
(3000)
1.65
(165)
1.42
(142)
1.65
(165)
1.41
(141)
TVC-50-3
26
(2600)
1.77
(177)
1.53
(153)
1.77
(177)
1.53
(153)
TVC-50-4
26
(2600)
2.34
(234)
2.03
(203)
2.34
(234)
2.02
(202)
Mean
1.84
(184)
1.59
(159)
1.84
(184)
1.58
(158)
SD
3.82
(382)
4.36
(436)
3.82
(382)
4.35
(435)
CV 2.07 2.74 2.07 2.75
(207) (274) (207) (275)
Table 3: Ratios of Experimental Ultimate load (Pue) to Calculated Ultimate loads (Puc) of GPC slabs using
various codes
Ratio of (Pue/Puc)
Slab no
Pue (kN)
(kg)
IS 456
(kg)
ACI 318
(kg)
BS 8110
(kg)
Euro Code
(kg)
GPC-65-1
56
(5600)
1.70
(170)
1.46
(146)
1.70
(170)
1.46
(146)
GPC-65-2
22
(2200)
0.92
(92)
0.80
(80)
0.92
(92)
0.79
(79)
GPC-65-3
40
(4000)
2.09
(209)
1.80
(180)
2.09
(209)
1.80
(180)
GPC-65-4
22
(2200)
1.52
(152)
1.32
(132)
1.52
(152)
1.31
(131)
GPC-50-1
54
(5400)
2.17
(217)
1.85
(185)
2.16
(216)
1.84
(184)
GPC-50-2
46
(4600)
2.54
(254)
2.19
(219)
2.54
(254)
2.17
(217)
GPC-50-3
42
(4200)
2.87
(287)
2.48
(248)
2.87
(287)
2.47
(247)
GPC-50-4
36
(3600)
3.26
(326)
2.81
(281)
3.26
(326)
2.81
(281)
Mean
2.13
(213)
1.84
(184)
2.13
(213)
1.83
(183)
SD
1.32
(132)
1.53
(153)
1.32
(132)
1.54
(154)
CV
0.62
(62)
0.83
(83)
0.62
(62)
0.84
(84)
Table4: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated Deflections at service Loads of
TVC Slabs using various codes.

Ratio of (δc/δe)
Slab no
δe (mm)
(in)
456IS
(in)
ACI318
(in)
BS 8110
(in)
Euro Code
(in)
TVC-65-1
7.00
(0.2)
0.15
(5.9*10^-3)
0.12
(4.7*10^-3)
0.14
(5.5*10^-3)
0.14
(5.5*10^-3)
TVC-65-2
4.78
(0.18)
0.09
(3.5*10^-3)
0.06
(2.3*10^-3)
0.17
(6.6*10^-3)
0.03
(1.1*10^-3)
TVC-65-3
7.51
(0.29)
0.19
(7.4*10^-3)
0.14
(5.5*10^-3)
0.09
(3.5*10^-3)
0.18
(7*10^-3)
TVC-65-4
5.43
(0.21)
0.25
(9.8*10^-3)
0.13
(5.1*10^-3)
0.08
(3.1*10^-3)
0.24
(9.4*10^-3)
TVC-50-1
8.08
(0.31)
0.26
(0.01)
0.25
(9.8*10^-3)
0.17
(6.6*10^-3)
0.25
(9.8*10^-3)
TVC-50-2
8.94
(0.35)
(0.35)
0.18
(7*10^-3)
0.16
(6.2*10^-3)
0.14
(5.5*10^-3)
0.18
(7*10^-3)
TVC-50-3
7.96
(0.3)
0.18
(7*10^-3)
0.11
(4.3*10^-3)
0.13
(5.1*10^-3)
0.16
(6.2*10^-3)
TVC-50-4
5.78
(0.22)
0.41
(0.016)
0.31
(0.012)
0.15
(5.9*10^-3)
0.40
(0.015)
Mean
0.21
(8.2*10^-3)
0.16
(6.2*10^-3)
0.13
(5.1*10^-3)
0.20
(7.8*10^-3)
SD
10.36
(0.4)
12.29
(0.48)
30.62
(1.2)
9.33
(0.36)
CV
48.70
(1.9)
76.52
(3.01)
232.08
(9.1)
46.92
(1.8)
Table 5: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated Deflections at service Loads of GPC Slabs using various codes
Ratio of (δc/δe)
Slab no
δe (mm)
(in)
IS 456
(in)
ACI 318
(in)
BS 8110
(in)
Euro Code
(in)
GPC-65-1
7.15
(0.28)
0.22
(8.6*10^-3)
0.21
(8.2*10^-3)
0.13
(5.1*10^-3)
0.21
(8.2*10^-3)
GPC-65-2
6.68
(0.26)
0.11
(4.3*10^-3)
0.10
(3.9*10^-3)
0.12
(4.7*10^-3)
0.11
(4.3*10^-3)
GPC-65-3
6.72
(0.26)
0.26
(0.01)
0.22
(8.6*10^-3)
0.10
(3.9*10^-3)
0.26
(0.01)
GPC-65-4
5.12
(0.2)
0.24
(9.4*10^-3)
0.18
(7*10^-3)
0.08
(3.1*10^-3)
0.24
(9.4*10^-3)
GPC-50-1
5.79
(0.23)
0.46
(0.02)
0.43
(0.018)
0.23
(9*10^-3)
0.42
(0.016)
GPC-50-2
8.14
(0.32)
0.39
(0.015)
0.36
(0.014)
0.15
(5.9*10^-3)
0.36
(0.014)
GPC-50-3
5.52
(0.21)
0.54
(0.021)
0.48
(0.018)
0.19
(7.4*10^-3)
0.53
(0.02)
GPC-50-4
7.77
(0.3)
0.41
(0.016)
0.30
(0.011)
0.11
(4.3*10^-3)
0.40
(0.015)
Mean 0.33
(0.012)
0.29
(0.011)
0.14
(4.3*10^-3)
0.32
(0.015)
SD
7.00
(0.27)
7.70
(0.3)
19.87
(0.78)
7.31
(0.28)
CV
21.27
(0.83)
26.89
(1.03)
142.38
(5.6)
23.14
(0.4)
Table 6: Ratios of Experimental and Calculated crack widths at service Loads of GPC & TVC Slabs using IS
456-2000 code

Slab no
Wcr
Exp
(in)
Wcr
(IS 456)
(in)
(Wcr IS)/(Wcr Exp)
(in)
TVC-65-1
0.08
(3.1*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.15
(5.9*10^-3)
TVC-65-2
0.06
(2.3*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.09
(3.5*10^-3)
TVC-65-3
0.05
(1.9*10^-3)
0.02
(2.8*10^-4)
0.47
(0.018)
TVC-65-4
0.05
(1.9*10^-3)
0.06
(2.3*10^-4)
1.13
(0.04)
TVC-50-1
0.08
(3.1*10^-3)
0.02
(7.8*10^-4)
0.25
(9.8*10^-3)
TVC-50-2
0.06
(2.3*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.17
(6.6*10^-3)
TVC-50-3
0.06
(2.3*10^-3)
0.00
(0.00)
0.04
(1.57*10^-3)
TVC-50-4
0.06
(2.3*10^-3)
0.02
(7.8*10^-4)
0.37
(0.014)
GPC-65-1
0.04
(7.4*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.29
(0.011)
GPC-65-2
0.06
(7.4*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.09
(3.5*10^-3)
GPC-65-3
0.08
(7.4*10^-3)
0.02
(7.8*10^-4)
0.29
(0.011)
GPC-65-4
0.01
(7.4*10^-3)
0.06
(2.3*10^-4)
5.61
(0.22)
GPC-50-1
0.05
(7.4*10^-3)
0.02
(7.8*10^-4)
0.40
(0.015)
GPC-50-2
0.06
(7.4*10^-3)
0.01
(3.9*10^-4)
0.17
(6.6*10^-3)
GPC-50-3
0.03
(1.18*10^-3)
0.03
(3.9*10^-3)
1.00
(0.039)
GPC-50-4
0.08
(3.1*10^-3)
0.02
(7.8*10^-4)
0.28
(0.011)
Table 7: Computation of load enhancement of GPC & TVC slabs
Slab no
Pue (kN)
(kg)
Puc (IS 456)
(kg)
Pue/Puc
(IS 456)
(kg)
Load
Enhancement
(kg)
TVC-65-1
50
(5000)
32.97
(3297)
1.52
(152)
0.52
(52)
TVC-65-2
40
(4000)
23.77
(2377)
1.68
(168)
0.68
(68)
TVC-65-3
36
(3600)
19.16
(1916)
1.88
(188)
0.88
(88)
TVC-65-4
30
(3000)
14.48
(1448)
2.07
(207)
1.07
(107)
TVC-50-1
46
(4600)
25.12
(2512)
1.83
(183)
0.83
(83)
TVC-50-2
30
(3000)
18.19
(1819)
1.65
(165)
0.65
(65)
TVC-50-3
26
(2600)
14.66
(1466)
1.77
(177)
0.77
(77)
TVC-50-4
26
(2600)
11.09
(1109)
2.34
(234)
1.34
(134)

GPC-65-1
56
(5600)
32.90
(3290)
1.70
(170)
0.70
(70)
GPC-65-2
22
(2200)
23.78
(2378)
0.92
(92)
0.08
(8)
GPC-65-3
40
(4000)
19.16
(1916)
2.09
(209)
1.09
(109)
GPC-65-4
22
(2200)
14.46
(1446)
1.52
(152)
0.52
(52)
GPC-50-1
54
(5400)
24.93
(2493)
2.17
(217)
1.17
(117)
GPC-50-2
46
(4600)
18.10
(1810)
2.54
(254)
1.54
(154)
GPC-50-3
42
(4200)
14.63
(1463)
2.87
(287)
1.87
(187)
GPC-50-4
36
(3600)
11.05
(1105)
3.26
(326)
2.26
(226)
Figure 1: Plan and Cross Section of the Location of Loading Points
Figure 2: 3-D View of Location of Loading Points

Figure 3:Experimental Setup

International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)

Empfohlen

Empfohlen

Weitere ähnliche Inhalte

Was ist angesagt?

Was ist angesagt? (20)

Andere mochten auch

Andere mochten auch (7)

Ähnlich wie International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)

Ähnlich wie International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI) (20)

Kürzlich hochgeladen

Kürzlich hochgeladen (20)

International Journal of Engineering and Science Invention (IJESI)