Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681

DOI 10.1617/s11527-014-0322-7

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Mechanical behavior of geopolymer concrete subjected

to high strain rate compressive loadings
Ke Nan Feng • Dong Ruan • Zhu Pan •
Frank Collins • Yu Bai • C. M. Wang •
Wen Hui Duan

Received: 10 February 2014 / Accepted: 23 April 2014 / Published online: 23 January 2015
Ó RILEM 2015

Abstract The effect of strain rate on the compres-
sive behaviours of geopolymer concrete and mortar is
reported. Split Hopkinson pressure bar was adopted
for the high strain rate testings. The dynamic increase
factors for compressive strength (DIFfc ) and critical
strain (DIFec ) were measured and compared with
Concrete Comite Euro-international du Beton (CEB)
recommendations. The results show that alkaline
activators have significant influence on the quasi-
static compressive strength of geopolymer concrete.
With high strain rate loading, the DIFfc of geopolymer
concrete and mortar mixes increase with respect to
increasing strain rates and in agreement with CEB
recommendations. In addition, the coarse aggregates
in geopolymer concrete mixes play important role in
the increase of compressive strength. However, CEB
recommendations underestimate the DIFec of critical
strain for geopolymer concrete in the high strain rate
K. N. Feng  Z. Pan  F. Collins  Y. Bai 
W. H. Duan (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University,
Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
e-mail: wenhui.duan@monash.edu
D. Ruan
Faculty of Engineering & Industrial Sciences, Swinburne
University of Technology, Hawthorn, VIC, Australia
C. M. Wang
Engineering Science Programme and Department of Civil
and Environmental Engineering, National University of
Singapore, Kent Ridge, Singapore 119260, Singapore
loading. It is found that for the quasi-static loading and
low strain rate loading, cracks propagate along
interface transition zone (ITZ) and matrix of geopoly-
mer concrete specimens whereas cracks occur at both
the aggregates and ITZ under high strain rate loading.
Keywords Geopolymer concrete  Strain rate effect 
SHPB  Compressive strength
1 Introduction
Geopolymers, as ceramic materials, are produced by
alkali activation of aluminosilicate raw materials (fly
ash or metakaolin), which are transformed into a
reaction product by polymerization in a high pH
environment and hydrothermal conditions at relatively
low temperatures (up to 120 °C) [1, 2]. As fly ash is an
by-product from power stations, the use of fly ash to
make concrete can significantly reduce greenhouse
emissions due to the production of cement [3].
Therefore, geopolymer concrete has received increas-
ing interest in research community.
There are many experimental work conducted on
quasi-static mechanical properties of geopolymer
based materials, including Young’s modulus, Pois-
son’s ratio, compressive strength, splitting tensile
strength, and fracture energy [4–9]. It is found that
these mechanical properties could be affected by a
number of mixing parameters [4]. Specifically, the
672
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete can be
increased by using a high ratio of sodium silicate-to-
sodium hydroxide liquid, a high curing temperature in
the range of 30–90 °C, or a long curing time.
Moreover, it is found that the constitutive relation
for conventional ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
concrete can be applied to geopolymer concrete with
minor modifications [10]. It is worth mentioning that
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete is suitable for
structural applications and the current standards (the
Australian Standard AS3600 and the American Con-
crete Institute Building Code ACI318-02) can be used
for the design of geopolymer concrete structures [7].
In comparison with OPC-based materials, geopoly-
meric materials generally exhibit superior performance
when they are exposed to extreme and aggressive
conditions. The geopolymer exposed to the action of
high temperatures (up to 800 °C) increased strength
(due to a further geopolymerization) whilst the OPC
paste fully deteriorated due to the rehydration of the
dissociated Ca(OH)2 following cooling [11, 12]. At
elevated temperatures, geopolymer concretes have less
potential to suffer from spalling in comparison with
OPC concrete [13]. The durability of geopolymeric
materials was investigated by Garcı́a-Lodeiro et al. [14],
who found that the potential for, and severity of, alkali-
aggregate reaction (ASR) in geopolymeric materials is
lower than in OPC equivalents. The reason for this is
attributed that low calcium fly ash based geopolymer
matrix is lack of readily available calcium which acts as
an instigator for ASR.
While most papers are focused on the quasi-static
mechanical properties, only a few studies have been
conducted on the dynamic properties of geopolymer
concrete. Pan et al. [15] tested the damping of
geopolymer pastes by using a cantilever beam. It is
shown that overall damping capacities of geopolymer
pastes have comparable performance with OPC
pastes. The damping mechanisms in geopolymer
concrete are the combination of (a) moisture move-
ment in the geopolymer matrix (b) sliding friction
within geopolymer gels, and (c) movement between
fly ash particles and the matrix. In addition, strain rate
effect on materials, induced by high-amplitude short-
duration loads, was identified as an important dynamic
property in the design and analysis of structures to
resist dynamic loads from conventional weapons
explosions, accidental explosions and high-speed
impact [16]. Khandelwal et al. [17] investigated the
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
effect of low strain rates, i.e. 10-5, 5 9 10-5, 10-4
and 5 9 10-4 s-1, on Young’s modulus, Poisson’s
ratio and compressive strength of geopolymer mortar.
It is found that these properties of geopolymer mortar
increase with respect to the strain rate. Li and Xu [18]
explored the effect of high strain rate on the basalt
fibre reinforce geopolymer concrete. The dependency
on the strain rate increases approximately linearly
from the strain rate of 30–100 s-1.
Compared with the limited research on the strain
rate effect of geopolymer concrete, OPC concrete has
been extensively studied. The strain rate effect can be
assessed by the dynamic increase factor (DIF, ratio of
dynamic strength/strain to static strength/strain). Con-
crete Comite Euro-international du Beton (CEB)
recommendations are commonly used to predict the
DIF of the compressive strength of OPC concrete
under the high strain rate loading [19]. The empirical
equations of DIFfc . (for compressive strength) and
DIFec (for critical compressive strain) by CEB recom-
mendations are given by
DIFfc ¼ rd =rs ¼ ðe_d =e_s Þ1:026as e_d  30 s1
ð1Þ
¼ rd =rs ¼ cðe_d =e_s Þ1=3 e_d [ 30 s1
DIFec ¼ ecd =ecs ¼ ðe_d =e_s Þ0:02 ð2Þ
where e_d is the strain rate (s ); e_s = 30 9 10 s-1;
-1 -6
as ¼ ð5 þ 9fcm =fcm0 Þ1 ; logc ¼ 6:156as  2; fcm is the
concrete compressive strength; fcm0 is the reference
strength of 10 MPa.
The current paper reports an experimental study on
the effect of strain rate on the compressive behaviours
of geopolymer concrete and mortar. For comparison
purposes, OPC concrete was tested as well. The
geopolymer concrete was prepared by using three
alkaline activators, i.e. NaOH/Na2SiO3, KOH/K2SiO3
and KOH/Na2SiO3. A Shimadzu AG–X 300 kN
testing machine was adopted to measure the compres-
sive behaviours at quasi-static strain rate (10-6 s-1)
and low strain rates (10-5 to 10-4 s-1), while split
Hopkinson pressure bar (SHPB) techniques were used
at high strain rates (from 20 to 370 s-1). DIFfc and
DIFec of geopolymer mixes were calculated and
compared with the values predicted by CEB recom-
mendations. The mechanisms for the increase in the
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete speci-
mens were discussed with regards to the different
strain rates.
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681 673

2 Experimental programme Table 1 Chemical composition of OPC and fly-ash

Constituent OPC (%) Fly ash (%)
2.1 Materials
Al2O3 4.7 30.6
ASTM Types I of OPC was used for making the OPC SiO2 19.9 48.4
concrete. Dry ASTM types F (low calcium) fly ash was CaO 63.9 2.7
used for all geopolymer concrete and mortar in this Fe2O3 3.4 12.1
investigation. The chemical composition of OPC and K2O 0.5 0.3
fly ash, as determined by X-ray fluorescence (XRF) MgO 1.3 1.3
analysis, is summarized in Table 1. Na2O 0.2 0.2
Nominal 10 mm single-size angular shaped basalt SO3 2.6 0.3
crushed rock was used as the coarse aggregate for mixing Loss on ignition 3.0 1.7
of concrete. Locally available river sand was adopted as
fine aggregate for all mixes of concrete and mortar.
The alkaline liquid used in geopolymer mixes
consisted of a mixture of silicate solution and hydrox- Table 2 Mix designs
ide solution. Two types of silicate solution were Mass: kg m-3
selected. One was commercially available grade D OPC NaGC KGC Na/ NaGM
sodium silicate solution with a specific gravity of 1.53 KGC
and a modulus ratio (Ms = SiO2/Na2O) of 2
10 mm 1,294 1,294 1,294 1,294 –
(Na2O = 14.7 % and SiO2 = 29.4 % by mass) while
aggregates
the other was potassium silicate solution with a specific
Fine sand 554 554 554 554 554
gravity of 1.39 and a modulus ratio (Ms = SiO2/K2O)
Cement 382 – – – –
of 3 (K2O = 13.5 % and SiO2 = 27 % by mass). The
Fly ash – 382 382 382 382
hydroxide solutions were prepared by dissolving the
Water 191 – – – –
commercial-grade sodium hydroxide (NaOH) and
NaOH – 55 – – 55
potassium hydroxide (KOH) pellets (98 % purity) in
KOH – – 55 55 –
distilled water. All alkaline solutions were prepared
Na2O2SiO2 – 136 – 136 136
and mixed together one day prior to usage.
K2O3SiO2 – – 136 – –
2.2 Mixing, synthesis procedure and curing Water/binders 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
method OPC ordinary Portland cement, NaGC Na-based geopolymer
concrete, KGC K-based geopolymer concrete, Na/KGC Na/K-
based geopolymer concrete, NaGM Na-based geopolymer
2.2.1 Mix designs
mortar

Four concrete mixes (one OPC mix and three

geopolymer mixes) and one geopolymer mortar mix
were used in the investigation. For all the concrete
mixes, the binder content was fixed at 20 % of the total
mass of dry materials; the reminder consisted of
aggregates. The proportion of the coarse and fine
aggregate was fixed at 2.34. The ratio of water to
binder is 0.5 for all mixes. The proportion of raw
materials and mix design variables are summarised in
Table 2.
Three types of alkaline liquid were mixed as shown
in Table 2, which were denoted as NaGC, KGC, and
Na/K GC. NaGM, which contained the same ingredi-
ents of NaGC without coarse aggregate, was prepared
to investigate the influence of coarse aggregates on
mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete sub-
jected to different strain rate loading.
2.2.2 Mixing procedure
The mixing procedures to make OPC and geopolymer
materials were similar. The binders (cement or fly ash)
and the liquid component (water or alkaline liquid)
were mixed in a conventional pan mixer for 5 min.
The cement and aggregates or the fly ash and
aggregates were dry mixed for 3 min. The water or
alkaline liquid then was added and wet mixing was
674
carried out for 4 min. The mixture was poured into
moulds (depending on the test for which they were
intended) in three equal layers. Each layer was
vibrated for 15–30 s on a vibration table.
2.2.3 Curing conditions
The OPC concrete specimens were cured under poly-
ethylene sheets for 24 h in a laboratory environment.
They were then removed from the moulds and trans-
ferred to a tank of saturated limewater at 23 ± 2 °C as
the moist-curing regime to satisfy ASTM C192
requirements [20]. Specimens were cured for 28 days.
The geopolymer specimens in moulds were sealed
using plastic sheets to prevent moisture loss during
curing. The covered moulds were placed in a pre-
heated oven at 60 °C for 24 h. The specimens were
then demoulded.
After curing, both OPC and geopolymer specimens
were stored in a controlled environment kept at
relative humidity 50 ± 3 % and temperature
23 ± 2 °C. This environment meets the International
Organization Standardization requirements as a stan-
dard atmosphere for conditioning and testing of
materials known to be sensitive to variations in
temperature or relative humidity. The specimens were
subjected to various tests after 28 days. In order to
obtain smooth and parallel ends, the specimens were
polished with a rock-grinding machine before testing.
2.3 Quasi-static and low strain rate compressive
tests
Density was calculated using the mass and dimensions
of cylinders (45 mm diameter and 90 mm height for
concrete specimens and 22.5 mm diameter and 45 mm
height for mortar specimens) in accordance with
ASTM C1688 [21]. For each specimen, two cylinders
were measured for obtaining the average density of
each mix, and a third specimen was introduced if the
first two densities differed by more than 5 %.
The quasi-static and low strain rate tests were
conducted in accordance with ASTM C39-94 [22],
which recommends a quasi-static loading rate of
0.14 MPa to 0.34 MPa per second. For typical concrete
(the modulus of elasticity is between 20 and 40 GPa), test
strain rates should be between 3 9 10-6 and
17 9 10-6 s-1 when considering the linear part of the
stress–strain curve [23]. Therefore, a quasi-static loading
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
condition was assumed as 10-6 s-1 in this investigation.
In addition, two strain rates, i.e. 10-5 and 10-4 s-1 were
selected to test the effect of low strain rate. A Shimadzu
AG–X 300 kN testing machine was used for the quasi-
static loading and low strain rate loading. Three speci-
mens were tested under each strain rate loading.
2.4 Setup of SHPB compressive tests
The experimental setup of SHPB consists of two long
slender steel bars with a short specimen sandwiched in
between (Fig. 1). When strike bar impacts the incident
bar, a stress wave was generated and travelled through
the bar towards the specimen. When the wave reached
the specimen, part of the stress wave reflected back
down the incident bar and the remainder transmitted
through the specimen into the transmitter bar. Remain-
ing energy in the transmitter bar was absorbed by the
momentum bar.
As shown in Fig. 1a, b, two SHPB testing systems
were adopted for mortar and concrete specimens,
respectively. SHPB tests on mortar specimens
(12.5 mm diameter 9 12.5 mm height) were tested by
a 14.5 mm (diameter of incident bar and transmitted bar)
SHPB testing system. Because the ratio of maximum
aggregate size to specimen diameter should be smaller
than 0.33 [24], a 50 mm SHPB testing system was
adopted for the concrete specimens (45 mm diameter and
45 mm height). Specimen arrangement in the compres-
sion test is shown in Fig. 1c. Both end surfaces of
specimens were carefully grounded in order to assure the
parallelism of the end surfaces. In order to minimise the
contact surface friction, grease was applied evenly on the
interfaces between specimens and bars [25]. Strain rate
loading of 50–370 and 300–1,500 s-1 were generated for
concrete and mortar specimens, respectively.
2.5 Data processing of SHPB tests
Two sets of data were acquired at 1 ls interval,
corresponding to a sampling rate of 106 Hz, by oscillo-
scope connected with strain gauges (SG1 and SG2 in
Fig. 1a, b) on the incident bar and transmitter bar,
respectively. Stress correction factor and strain correction
factor were calibrated to eliminate the effect of minor
misalignment of the strain gauges and the effect of
adhesives used to bond the strain gauges to the bar
surface. In addition, dispersion corrections were con-
ducted for the test data of 14.5 mm SHPB and 50 mm
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681 675

Fig. 1 SHPB testing

system (dimensions are in
(a)
millimeter): a 50 mm bars,
b 14.5 mm bars, and
c schematic of specimen
arrangement in SHPB,
where DS is the diameter of
the specimen; HS0 is the
length of the specimen; SG1
and SG2 are strain gauges

(b)

(c)

SHPB systems. It was shown that there was no significant eT(t) are the reflected tensile wave and the transmitted
dispersion effect of the stress waves within bars [26]. compressive wave, respectively.
1D wave propagation is the key assumption in the One typical raw data set of geopolymer concrete
data processing, which assumes that the stress of a specimen (NaGC with strain rate of 150 s-1) is shown
long bar (homogeneous, isotropic and uniform in cross in Fig. 2a. It consists of incident wave, reflected wave
section over the entire length) is in a linear elastic and transmitted wave. The stress history and the strain
state. For the compressive test, strain rate, engineering history of specimens can be calculated by using Eqs.
stress and engineering strain of the specimens for (4–5). The combination of the stress history and strain
1-wave analysis are given by history results in the stress–strain relationship as
  shown in Fig. 2b. DIFfc can be calculated by the ratio
2c0B
_ ¼
eðtÞ  eR ðtÞ ð3Þ of dynamic strength to quasi-static strength while
Hs0
DIFec can be calculated by the ratio of critical dynamic
  strain to quasi-static strain. Critical compressive strain
AB EB
rS ðtÞ ¼  eT ðtÞ: ð4Þ is defined as the stain where the stress reaches the
AS0
peak. Its corresponding strain rate was calculated by
  Zt the average strain rate, which is the strain over the time
2c0B duration of the reflected wave.
eS ðt Þ ¼  eR ðt Þ ð5Þ
Hs0 Derivation of Eq. (4) from 1D stress wave propaga-
0
tion theory requires the force equilibrium condition, i.e.
where c0B is the elastic wave speed of the bar, Hs0 is F1 = F2. F1 and F2 are forces at the two ends of the
the length of the specimen; AB and AS0 are the cross specimen and can be calculated according to 1-wave
section area of the bar and the specimen, respectively; analysis and 2-wave analysis respectively [26]. As an
EB is the Young’s modulus of the bar; eR(t) and example, the force equilibrium condition for
676
Fig. 2 Data analysis for a (a)
compressive SHPB test:
a measured strain gauge
signals, b a typical stress–
strain curve of NaGC mix
(b)
Fig. 3 Force equilibrium condition
geopolymer concrete specimen (NaGC with strain rate
of 150 s-1) is presented in Fig. 3. It is shown that, in
general, F1 is close to F2 over the whole range of data
indicating that the force equilibrium condition is
satisfied.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Density and quasi-static compressive strength
The densities and quasi-static compressive strength of the
concrete and mortar mixes are summarized in Table 3.
The density of concrete primarily depends on the density
of aggregates used in the mix. Since the type of
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
aggregates in all the concrete mixes are the same, the
density of the concrete mixes varied only marginally,
between 2,384 and 2,464 kg m-3. By contrast, geopoly-
mer mortar has a lower density (1,995 kg m-3) than
concrete mixes due to lack of coarse aggregates.
Table 3 shows that the alkaline solutions have
significant influence on the quasi-static compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete. Specifically, KGC
mix has the lowest compressive strength (25.6 MPa)
while NaGC mix shows the highest compressive
strength (64.3 MPa). Na/KGC mix has the values in
between, i.e. compressive strength (47.6 MPa). This
may be due to the fact that the type of cation involved
in the activation reaction affects the microstructural
development of the geopolymer mixes [27].
NaGC mix shows a similar compressive strength
(64.3 MPa) when compared with NaGM mix while a
higher compressive strength when compared with
OPC mix. This is in agreement with the results from
previous work [9, 28, 29].
3.2 Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
subjected to low strain rate loading
Figure 4 presents the DIFfc of concrete and mortar
mixes subjected to the quasi-static loading (strain rate
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
Table 3 Quasi-static testing results for each mixes
OPC
Average density (kg m-3) 2,423 ± 42
Quasi-static compression strength (MPa) 36.4 ± 4.9
Fig. 4 DIFfc of concrete and mortar mixes subjected to quasi-
static and low strain rate loading
of 10-6 s-1) and low strain rate loading (strain rate of
10-5 and 10-4 s-1).
It can be seen that the DIFfc of all concrete and
mortar mixes are above/close to 1.0 with the increas-
ing strain rates. For example, the DIFfc of OPC mix
and Na/KGC mix increases approximately 12 and
14 % from 16 to 10-4 s-1, respectively. Similar trends
are found in the previous experimental work on OPC
concrete [30] and geopolymer concrete [17]. For OPC
mix at such low strain rates, it is widely acceed that the
increase in materials strength is related to viscous
phenomena due to the presence of free waver in the
nanopores of concrete [31]. For geopolymer mixes, the
similar viscous mechanism may be applied since
geopolymer concrete is also porous and have a similar
porosity with OPC mixes [15]. In addition, similar
DIFfc of NaGC and NaGM indicate that the sensitivity
in the low strain rate range is not affected by the
existence of coarse aggregates.
Comparing with geopolymer concrete mixes pre-
pared by using different alkaline solutions, the DIFfc of
KGC mix shows less sensitivity to strain rate than
other two mixes, i.e. NaGC and Na/KGC. Duxson
et al. [27] suggested that the type of cation may modify
the microstructures of the geopolymer concrete. The
modification of microstructures may affect the move-
ment of free water in the pores consequently the
viscous effect due to strain rates. However, the effect
of Na and K cations on the microstructures of
677
NaGC KGC Na/KGC NaGM
2,464 ± 37 2,384 ± 29 2,420 ± 38 1,995 ± 3
64.3 ± 6.5 25.6 ± 0.4 47.6 ± 5.7 68.3 ± 0.3
geopolymer concrete and its strain rate sensitivity
are unknown and further research is required.
3.3 Compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
subjected to high strain rate loading
Figure 5 shows the DIFfc of concrete and mortar mixes
with the function of the strain rate as well as CEB
recommendations for OPC concrete as shown in Eqs.
(1–2). It should be noted that there is no CEB
recommendations for geopolymer concrete available.
Figure 5a shows that current results of OPC mix fit
well with CEB recommendations, which confirms the
validity of current experimental program on SHPB
tests.
Comparing among OPC mix, NaGC mix and Na/
KGC mix in Fig. 5a–c, their DIFfc are within a similar
range, for example, 3.3 for OPC mix, 3.3 for NaGC
mix, and 3.5 for Na/KGC mix under the strain rate
loading of 320 s-1. For OPC concrete materials
subjected to high strain rate loading, the increment
of strength could be explained by two mechanisms, i.e.
(1) the inertial force of crack propagation and (2)
lateral confinement effect. Due to the inertial force of
crack propagation under high strain rate loading,
cracks propagate throughout both the coarse aggregate
and mortar matrix rather than only through interface
transition zone (ITZ) around coarse aggregate as the
case of quasi-static loading [32]. Consequently more
energy would be consumed by generating more cracks
in the mortar matrix and aggregate resulting in higher
strengths. In addition, the lateral confinement due to
lateral inertia may enhance the measured uniaxial
compressive stress for concrete-like materials [33].
These two mechanisms, i.e. microcrack inertial and
lateral confinement effect, may be applicable for
geopolymer concrete materials since both geopolymer
concrete specimens and OPC concrete specimens have
similar density, slightly different fracture toughness
[9] as well as the same geometry dimensions. There-
fore, both geopolymer concrete specimens and OPC
concrete specimens may have similar microcrack
678
(a)
(c)
(e)
Fig. 5 Strain-rate dependence of the compressive strength: a OPC; b NaGC; c KGC; d Na/KGC; e NaGM
inertia and lateral confinement effect. This statement
can be further confirmed by the comparison between
the experimental measurements and CEB recommen-
dations as shown in Fig. 5b–d. The comparison shows
that the DIFfc for geopolymer concrete are fitted well
with CEB recommendations. This tendency is inde-
pendent of the type of activator.
In Fig. 5e, the DIFfc of NaGM shows that high
strain rate sensitivity starts from 300 s-1, by contrast,
high strain rate sensitivity for NaGC starts from
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
(b)
(d)
20 s-1. In addition, NaGM has a lower DIFfc when
compared with CEB recommendations. These obser-
vations indicate that the crack propagation through the
aggregates played important role in the increases of
compressive strength in the high strain rate range.
3.4 Effect of strain rate on critical strain
The critical strain, which is considered as a key
parameter in the characterization of material
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
Fig. 6 Effect of strain rate on critical strain of concrete a critical strain determined by SHPB tests and b DIFec and CEB
recommendations
behaviour subjected to high strain rate loading, is
presented in Fig. 6a. It can be seen that the critical
strains of both OPC concrete specimens and geopoly-
mer concrete specimens are in a similar range and rise
with increasing strain rate, which is in agreement with
previous work [34, 35]. The increase in the critical
strain could be attributed to the significant amount of
cracks formed in the concrete under high strain rate
loading [34].
The effect of strain rate on the DIFec for the
concrete and mortar is shown in Fig. 6b. When
compared with CEB recommendations, it is shown
that CEB recommendations underestimate the DIFec
for both OPC concrete and geopolymer concrete,
especially in the range of high strain rate. Similar
conclusions for OPC concrete were obtained by Wang
et al. [34].
3.5 Effect of strain rate on failure pattern
All concrete mixes exhibited similar failure patterns
subjected to different strain rate loadings. As an
example, Fig. 7 shows the failure modes of NaGC
subjected to quasi-static loading (10-6 s-1), lower
strain rate loading (10-4 s-1) and high strain rate
loading (320 s-1).
In Fig. 7a, b, the specimens are failed as fragmen-
tation after losing the strength. However, they still
keep their integrity. A further observation of fracture
surfaces shows that most of cracks are propagated
along ITZ between the matrix and aggregates for both
quasi-static loading and lower strain rate loading. In
679
contrast, the specimen was pulverized into small
pieces with the size of about 10 mm when subjected to
high strain rate loading as shown within the red circle
of Fig. 7c. It is clearly shown that the crack goes
through both the aggregates and the matrix.
As mentioned above, no significant difference
could be observed from the failure modes of OPC
and geopolymer concrete mixes subjected to different
loading rates. Fracture process of OPC concrete mixes
could be applied to that of geopolymer concrete mixes.
Most cracks would propagate in ITZ and geopolymer
matrix under quasi-static loading and low strain rate
loading due to their relatively low strength when
compared with the aggregates. The final failure
happens due to the propagation and perforation of
one or more main cracks. However, at high strain rate,
lots of tiny cracks occur at the aggregates and ITZ
simultaneously. Therefore, more energy need be
consumed in the process of the generation and
propagation of cracks [36]. Consequently, higher
DIFfc of the specimens are expected, which is in
agreement with the observation in Fig. 7.
4 Conclusions
Mechanical behaviors of geopolymer concrete and
mortar as well as OPC concrete were investigated
experimentally using both Shimadzu AG–X 300 kN
testing machine and the SHPB technique, in the strain
rates range from 10-6 to 370 s-1. Five concrete and
mortar mixes were studied including one OPC
680
Failure modes
(a)
Failure at ITZ
Fracture surface
10mm
Fig. 7 Failure modes and fracture surfaces of NaGC mixes subjected to: a quasi-static loading, 10-6 s-1; b lower strain rate loading,
10-4 s-1; and c high strain rate loading, 320 s-1
concrete mix (OPC), three geopolymer concrete mixes
(NaGC, KGC, and Na/KGC) and one geopolymer
mortar (NaGM). The following conclusions can be
obtained:
(a) Geopolymer concrete and OPC concrete have
similar densities whereas geopolymer mortar
has a lower density due to the absence of coarse
aggregates. Alkaline activators have significant
influence on the quasi-static compressive
strength of geopolymer concrete, which may
be attributed to the modification of microstruc-
tures of geopolymer concrete.
(b) Under the low strain rate loading (from 10-5 to
10-4 s-1), the DIFfc of geopolymer concrete
and mortar mixes a slightly higher than 1.0 with
the increasing strain rates, which may attribute
to the viscous effect of free water in the
geopolymer matrix.
(c) With high strain rate loading (from 20 to
370 s-1), the DIFfc of geopolymer concrete
mixes increase with the increasing strain rates.
In addition, CEB recommendations underesti-
mate the DIFec of geopolymer concrete.
(d) For the quasi-static loading and low strain rate
loading, cracks propagate along ITZ and matrix
of geopolymer concrete specimens whereas
cracks occur at both the aggregates and ITZ
under high strain rate loading. This is believed
to be one of the mechanisms for the increase in
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
(b) (c)
Failure at ITZ
Cleavage of aggregate
10mm 3mm
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete
under high strain loading.
Acknowledgments The authors gratefully acknowledge the
financial support from the Australia Research Council in
conducting this study.
References
1. Davidovits J (1991) Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new
materials. J Therm Anal 37(8):1633–1656
2. Rahier H, Mele B, Biesemans M, Wastiels J, Wu X (1996)
Low-temperature synthesized aluminosilicate glasses.
J Mater Sci 31(1):71–79
3. Duxson P, Fernandez Jimenez A, Provis JL, Lukey GC,
Palomo A (2007) Geopolymer technology: the current state
of the art. J Mater Sci 42(9):2917–2933
4. 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
5. Sarker PK (2009) Analysis of geopolymer concrete col-
umns. Mater Struct 42(6):715–724
6. Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV (2005)
Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Aus J Struct Eng
6(1):77–86
7. Sumajouw DMJ, Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Rangan BV (2007)
Fly ash-based geopolymer concrete: study of slender rein-
forced columns. J Mater Sci 42(9):3124–3130
8. Rangan BV (2009) Chapter 11 in Geopolymers: structures,
processing, properties, and applications. In: Provis J, De-
venter JV (eds) Engineering properties of geopolymer
concrete. Woodhead Publishing Limited, London
9. Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Rangan BV (2011) Fracture properties
of geopolymer paste and concrete. Mag Concr Res 63(10):9
Materials and Structures (2015) 48:671–681
10. Sarker PK (2009) Analysis of geopolymer concrete col-
umns. Mater Struct 42(6):715–724
11. Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Collins F (2014) Effect of transient
creep on compressive strength of geopolymer concrete for
elevated temperature exposure. Cem Concr Res 56:182–189
12. Pan Z, Sanjayan JG (2012) Factors influencing softening
temperature and hot-strength of geopolymers. Cem Concr
Compos 34(2):261–264
13. Pan Z, Sanjayan JG, Kong DLY (2012) Effect of aggregate
size on spalling of geopolymer and Portland cement con-
cretes subjected to elevated temperatures. Constr Build
Mater 36:365–372
14. Garcı́a-Lodeiro I, Palomo A, Fernández-Jiménez A (2007)
Alkali–aggregate reaction in activated fly ash systems. Cem
Concr Res 37(2):175–183
15. Pan Z, Feng KN, Gong K, Zou B, Korayem AH, Sanjayan J
et al (2013) Damping and microstructure of fly ash-based
geopolymers. J Mater Sci 48(8):3128–3137
16. Ross CA, Tedesco JW, Kuennen ST (1995) Effects of
strain-rate on concrete strength. ACI Mater J 92(1):37–47
17. Khandelwal M, Ranjith PG, Pan Z, Sanjayan JG (2011)
Effect of strain rate on strength properties of low-calcium
fly-ash-based geopolymer mortar under dry condition. Arab
J Geosci 6(7):2383–2389
18. Li W, Xu J (2009) Mechanical properties of basalt fiber
reinforced geopolymeric concrete under impact loading.
Mater Sci Eng A 505(1–2):178–186
19. CEB Comite Euro-International Du Beton (1993) CEB-FIP
model code 1990: design code. Telford
20. ASTM (2007) C192. Standard practice for making and
curing concrete test specimens in the laboratory
21. ASTM (2011) C1688. Standard test method for density and
void content of freshly mixed pervious concrete
22. ASTM (2007) C39-94. Standard specification for ready-
mixed concrete
23. Malvar LJ, Crawford JE (1998) Dynamic increase factors
for concrete. DTIC Document
24. ASTM (2007) C31/C31M. Standard practice for making
and curing concrete test specimens in the field
681
25. Lu YB, Li QM (2011) About the dynamic uniaxial tensile
strength of concrete-like materials. Int J Impact Eng 38(4):
171–180
26. Gama BA, Lopatnikov SL, Gillespie JW (2004) Hopkinson
bar experimental technique: a critical review. Appl Mech
Rev 57(4):223–250
27. Duxson P, Mallicoat SW, Lukey GC, Kriven WM, Van
Deventer JSJ (2007) The effect of alkali and Si/Al ratio on
the development of mechanical properties of metakaolin-
based geopolymers. Colloids Surf A 292(1):8–20
28. Fernandez-Jimenez AM, Palomo A, Lopez-Hombrados C
(2006) Engineering properties of alkali-activated fly ash
concrete. ACI Mater J 103(2):106–112
29. Hardjito D, Rangan BV (2005) Development and properties
of low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. Curtin
University of Technology, Perth
30. Ranjith PG, Jasinge D, Song JY, Choi SK (2008) A study of
the effect of displacement rate and moisture content on the
mechanical properties of concrete: use of acoustic emission.
Mech Mater 40(6):453–469
31. Rossi P (1997) Strain rate effects in concrete structures: the
LCPC experience. Mater Struct 30(1):54–62
32. Rossi P, Toutlemonde E (1996) Effect of loading rate on the
tensile behaviour of concrete: description of the physical
mechanisms. Mater Struct 29(186):116–118
33. Li QM, Meng H (2003) About the dynamic strength
enhancement of concrete-like materials in a split Hopkinson
pressure bar test. Int J Solids Struct 40(2):343–360
34. Wang SS, Zhang MH, Quek ST (2012) Mechanical
behavior of fiber-reinforced high-strength concrete sub-
jected to high strain-rate compressive loading. Constr Build
Mater 31:1–11
35. Bischoff PH, Perry SH (1985) Compressive strain rate
effects of concrete. MRS Online Proceedings Library 64:
425–450
36. Ren ZG, Chen M, Lu ZA, Xu WG (2012) Dynamic
mechanical property of hybrid fiber reinforced concrete
(HFRC). J Wuhan Univ Technol Mater Sci Ed 27(4):783–
788