Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
h i g h l i g h t s
Bond between geopolymer concrete and rebar at elevated temperatures are quantified.
Bond characteristics of geopolymer concrete is compared with conventional concrete.
Temperature induced bond strength degradation in geopolymer concrete is evaluated.
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t
Article history: This paper presents experimental results on the bond behavior between geopolymer concrete and rebar.
Received 3 July 2017 Pull-out tests on geopolymer concrete specimens embedded with plain and ribbed rebars were carried
Received in revised form 4 November 2017 out at ambient temperature and after exposure to 100, 300, 500 and 700 °C. Two batches of geopolymer
Accepted 6 December 2017
concrete with compressive strength of 48 and 64 MPa respectively, and five rebar diameters (of 10, 12,
Available online 18 December 2017
14, 18 and 25 mm) were used for preparing the test specimens. Comparative benchmark tests were also
conducted on ordinary Portland cement (OPC) concrete specimens. Results from these tests show that
Keywords:
geopolymer concrete exhibits insignificant reduction in bond strength till exposure to 300 °C, but under-
Bond characteristics
Geopolymer concrete
goes significant degradation beyond 300 °C. Data from the tests indicate that rate of bond strength degra-
Rebar dation in geopolymer concrete is close to that of splitting tensile strength, but higher than that of
High temperature compressive strength. Also, results infer that geopolymer concrete exhibits similar or better bond prop-
Pull-out test erties than OPC concrete, both at ambient temperature and after exposure to elevated temperatures. Thus
geopolymer concrete can be a practical alternative to OPC concrete in reinforced concrete structures
when fire resistance is one of the main design considerations.
Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.043
0950-0618/Ó 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
278 H.Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 277–285
Table 1
Geometric characteristics and mechanical properties of rebars.
Group Surface Rib height/spacing Rib phase angle (°) Diameter (mm) Yield strength (MPa) Ultimate strength (MPa)
P-10 Plain – – 10 312.00 502.36
R-10 Ribbed 0.14 45 10 420.64 606.31
R-12 Ribbed 0.14 62 12 470.40 620.15
R-14 Ribbed 0.14 45 14 437.37 600.04
R-18 Ribbed 0.15 45 18 365.15 520.00
R-25 Ribbed 0.16 45 25 445.78 596.79
H.Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 277–285 279
Table 2
Batch mix proportions of geopolymer concrete and OPC concrete (unit: kg/m3).
Concrete Type Alkaline activator MK FA OPC Water Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate Super-plasticizer
GC1 417 219 219 – – 616 1434 –
GC2 343 226 226 – – 634 1477 –
CC1 – – – 468 145 702 1076 1
CC2 – – – 470 143 636 1181 5
mens were also tested at ambient and after exposure to target tem-
peratures. The sizes of test specimens for compressive and splitting
F tensile strengths were 100 mm 100 mm 100 mm cubes.
Table 3
Specimen configurations and test parameters.
Group No. Concrete type Surface of rebar Rebar diameter, d (mm) Concrete cover, c (mm) c/d Test temp. (°C)
GC1-P-10 GC1 Plain 10 70 7.00 25, 100, 300, 500, 700
GC1-R-10 GC1 Ribbed 10 70 7.00
GC1-R-12 GC1 Ribbed 12 69 5.75
GC1-R-18 GC1 Ribbed 18 66 3.67
GC1-R-25 GC1 Ribbed 25 62.5 2.50
CC1-R-12 CC1 Ribbed 12 69 5.75
GC2-R-14 GC2 Ribbed 14 68 4.86
CC2-R-14 CC2 Ribbed 14 68 4.86
Table 4
Compressive and splitting tensile strengths of geopolymer concrete and OPC concrete.
Type of concrete Test temperature Comp. strength Comp. strength retention ratio Tensile Strength Tensile strength retention ratio
T (°C) fcu (MPa) (%) ft (MPa) (%)
GC-1 25 48.13 100 4.85 100
100 48.12 100 4.29 88
300 50.92 106 4.42 91
500 39.90 83 2.69 55
700 26.98 56 1.76 36
CC-1 25 49.78 100 3.09 100
100 46.69 94 2.53 82
300 49.65 100 2.98 96
500 39.9 80 1.79 58
700 27.84 56 0.96 31
GC-2 25 63.92 – 4.24 –
CC-2 25 66.66 – 5.24 –
presented herein, since it is similar with that reported in Ref. [20]. Table 5
Similar to the trend in strength development of high strength OPC Failure modes in specimens at ambient and after exposure to elevated temperatures.
concrete, the temperature-induced strength degradation of
Group No. Test temperature (°C)
geopolymer concrete with higher strength level is more significant
25 100 300 500 700
than that with lower strength level.
GC1-P-10 B B B B B
GC1-R-10 B B B B B
3.2. Failure modes in pull-out tests GC1-R-12 B B B B B
GC1-R-18 S S S-B S-B B
Four types of failure modes were seen during pull-out tests on GC1-R-25 S S S S-B S-B
CC1-R-12 B B B B Spalling
geopolymer concrete specimens: typical splitting failure, bond fail- GC2-R-14 F F S-B S-B S-B
ure (pull-out failure), a combination of splitting and bond failure CC2-R-14 B F, B F, S-B S-B S-B, B
(splitting-bond failure), and rebar fracture. Typical splitting failure
Note: S, B, S-B and F denote splitting, bond, splitting-bond and rebar fracture failure
is characterized by the formation of radial cracks from the rebar respectively.
surface, and quick progression of these cracks in longitudinal direc-
tion, leading to sudden breakage of geopolymer concrete without
much slippage of the rebar. Bond failure is characterized by the in exposure temperatures. However, for specimens in Group
interfacial shear failure between geopolymer concrete and rein- GC2-R-14, the failure modes changed from rebar fracture at ambi-
forcing bar, with significant slippage of the rebar, but without ent temperature to splitting-bond failure when exposure tempera-
any visible splitting cracks. If a specimen failed with significant ture exceeded 300 °C.
slippage of rebar and visible splitting cracks, it was termed as The failure modes in pull-out tests is governed by the minimum
splitting-bond failure. Some specimens, made from high strength of the splitting capacity of geopolymer concrete, the bond capacity
geopolymer concrete (GC2) or OPC concrete (CC2), failed through between geopolymer concrete and rebar, and the tensile capacity
slight slippage and fracture of rebar, but without visible splitting of rebar. The splitting capacity is dependent on the thickness of
cracks. This type of failure was termed as rebar fracture failure. concrete cover and splitting tensile strength of concrete [27], while
The failure mode in each specimen type is listed in Table 5. It the bond capacity is related to the geometric characteristic of the
can be seen from the table that at ambient temperature, bond fail- rebar and compressive strength of concrete. With an increase in
ure occurs on the specimens with smaller rebar diameter and exposure temperature, the compressive and splitting tensile
thicker concrete cover. However, specimens with larger rebar strengths of geopolymer concrete decrease, as discussed above
diameter and thinner concrete cover are more susceptible to split- (see Table 4). In addition, the mechanical properties of rebar also
ting failure. degrade after exposure to elevated temperatures, but the strength
With an increase in the exposure temperature, a change in fail- loss of rebar is lower as compared to that of concrete [28]. There-
ure modes was seen in Group GC1-R-18, GC1-R-25 and GC2-R-14 fore, specimens in Group GC2-R-14 failed through splitting-bond
specimens. Fig. 3 compares relative failure modes in GC1-R-18 failure, when exposed to high temperatures, but not through rebar
specimens after exposure to different temperatures. It can be seen fracture as that at ambient temperature. For specimens in Groups
that the failure modes of GC1-R-18 changed from splitting failure GC1-R-18 and GC1-R-25 after exposure to elevated temperatures,
to splitting-bond failure, and even bond failure, with an increase a significant difference in deformation levels between geopolymer
H.Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 277–285 281
(a) 25oC (b) 100oC (c) 300oC (d) 500oC (e) 700oC
Fig. 3. Failure patterns in Group GC1-R-18 specimens after exposure to elevated temperatures.
bond strength after exposure to high temperatures to the bond no significant variation in bond stress but significant increase in
strength tested at ambient temperature, is only 22% and 8% for slippage.
GC1-P-10 specimens at 500 °C and 700 °C respectively, but that From Fig. 6(a), it can be seen that the s-s curves for specimens
of corresponding GC1-R-10 specimens is 44% and 35% respectively. GC1-R-10 at 100 and 300 °C are close to that at ambient tempera-
The lower bond strength retention for specimens embedded ture (25 °C), but the s-s curves at 500 and 700 °C are much differ-
with plain rebars can be explained by the bond mechanism ent. At 500 and 700 °C, the slips of rebars initiated at a lower
between geopolymer concrete and plain rebar. The resistance of loading, and the peak bond stresses are much lower than that at
a plain rebar against pull out is provided by chemical adhesion 25 °C, but the slips corresponding to the peak bond stresses are
and friction between rebar and concrete. Adhesion is lost at early greater.
stages of loading once slip gets initiated. Therefore, the bond The effect of temperature on s-s curves of GC1-P-10 specimens
strength between geopolymer concrete and plain rebar is mainly is slightly different with that of GC1-R-10. With the increasing
determined by the friction. As the exposure temperature is raised, exposure temperature, the peak bond stress and the residual stress
severe deterioration occurs on concrete and significant deforma- at the steady state stage decrease gradually. Compared to Fig. 6(a),
tion incompatibility between concrete and rebar gets developed, the peaks of the s-s curves of GC1-P-10 specimens in Fig. 6 (b) are
which makes the friction weakened. Thus, the resistance of plain sharper, and the slips corresponding to the peak bond stresses are
rebars to pull out decreases significantly with an increase in tem- much lower than those of GC1-R-10 specimens. This is due to the
perature. However, for the specimens embedded with ribbed fact that once the slip is initiated, the chemical adhesion between
rebars, apart from the chemical adhesion and friction, the mechan- geopolymer concrete and rebar is quickly lost, leading to the bond
ical bearing between rebar and concrete plays a prominent role in stress of GC1-P-10 specimens reaching a peak value at a lower slip,
the bond strength. Therefore, GC1-R-10 specimens experienced a and then s-s curves abruptly enter the descending stage. However,
lower degradation (rate) in bond strength. for specimens in Group GC1-R-10, the mechanical bearing is dom-
Fig. 6(a) and (b) present the typical bond stress-slip (s-s) curves inant for bond capacity, while the loss of chemical adhesion has no
of specimens in Groups GC1-R-10 and GC1-P-10 respectively, at significant effect on bond capacity, thus the peaks of s-s curves are
different temperatures. GC1-R-10 and GC1-P-10 specimens all flatter.
failed through pull-out of rebars. As shown in Fig. 6, bond behavior
of these specimens can be characterized under three stages, which
are the ascending stage with a steep increase in bond stress but lit- 3.4. Bond behavior of specimens with different rebar diameters
tle slippage, the descending stage with a quick decrease in bond
stress but a quick increase in slippage, and the steady stage with Bond strength between concrete and rebar is generally believed
to decrease with an increase of rebar diameter, when the specimen
sizes are kept constant [28]. However, there are few studies which
reported that the bond strength increases with rebar diameter
increasing [30]. The bond strength of geopolymer concrete speci-
mens with different rebar diameters is presented in Fig. 7, as a
function of exposure temperature. It can be seen that the bond
strength of specimens with rebar diameters of 10 and 12 mm is
higher than that of 18 and 25 mm, both at ambient and after expo-
sure to elevated temperatures. The specimens with rebar diameter
of 10 and 12 mm failed through pull-out, thus the bond strength of
these specimens is related to the geometric characteristics of
rebars, such as rib spacing, rib height and phase angle. As listed
in Table 1, R-12 rebars have the same rib height/spacing ratio as
R-10 rebars, but higher rib phase angle, which leads to higher bond
strength with geopolymer concrete than that of R-10 rebars. Spec-
imens in Groups GC1-R-18 and GC1-R-25 experienced splitting or
splitting-bond failure prior to the occurrence of bond failure, due
to lower ratio of concrete cover thickness to rebar diameter (c/d).
Therefore, the real bond strength could not be obtained, and the
24
GC1-R-10
GC1-R-12
Bond strength (MPa)
20 GC1-R-18
GC1-R-25
16 d=10
d=18
12
d=25 d=12
8
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
o
Temperature ( C)
Fig. 6. s-s curves of specimens in Groups GC1-R-10 and GC1-P-10. Fig. 7. Bond strength of specimens with different rebar diameters.
H.Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 277–285 283
calculated bond strength of GC1-R-18 and GC1-R-25 specimens is 3.5. Comparison of bond behavior of geopolymer concrete and OPC
lower than that of GC1-R-10 and GC1-R-12 specimens. concrete
As illustrated in Fig. 7, the variations of bond strength with
increasing temperature are similar for specimens with different To compare the bond behavior of geopolymer concrete and OPC
rebar diameters. The bond strength in these specimens has no sig- concrete, results from pull-out tests on two batches of geopolymer
nificant reduction when the exposure temperature is below 300 °C, concrete (GC1 and GC2) and two batches of OPC concrete (CC1 and
but exhibit significant degradation above 300 °C. CC2) are utilized. As listed in Table 4, GC1 and CC1 concretes exhib-
Fig. 8 plots the typical s-s curves of specimens in Groups GC1-R- ited similar level of compressive and splitting tensile strengths, but
18 and GC1-R-25, after exposure to elevated temperatures. The GC2 and CC2 concretes had only similar compressive strength but
trends of these curves are much different with those in Fig. 6, different splitting tensile strength. In addition, the compressive
due to different failure modes occurred in these specimens. The strength of GC2 and CC2 concretes was higher than that of GC1
specimens of GC1-R-18 at ambient temperature and after exposure and CC1 concretes.
to 100 °C, and GC1-R-25 at ambient temperature and after expo- Fig. 9 illustrates the bond strength of four groups of specimens,
sure to 100 °C and 300 °C, failed through splitting failure. Splitting including GC1-R-12, CC1-R-12, GC2-R-14 and CC2-R-14, as a func-
failure is characterized by brittle and abrupt failure, and thus the tion of exposure temperature. It can be seen that although GC1 and
s-s curves of these specimens have no descending segment, as well CC1 concretes exhibited similar compressive and splitting tensile
as steady segment. In specimens that experienced splitting-bond strengths, GC1 concrete exhibited higher bond strength than that
failure, such as GC1-R-18 specimens at 300 °C and GC1-R-25 spec- of CC1 concrete, both at ambient and after exposure to elevated
imens at 500 and 700 °C, although the three stages (ascending, temperatures. It should be noted that the pull-out tests were not
descending and steady stage) can be observed on their s-s curves, conducted on CC1-R-12 specimens after exposure to 700 °C, due
the descending stage in them developed in a very short time and to the spalling of OPC concrete in CC1-R-12 specimens during heat-
had higher decreasing rate than those specimens that failed ing. No temperature-induced spalling was seen in any of geopoly-
through pull-out mechanism. This is due to rapid growth of split- mer concrete specimens. Specimens GC2-R-14 and CC2-R-14
ting cracks from interior concrete to the surface, which leads to exhibited close bond strengths. These strengths were higher than
sudden decrease of bond stress and abrupt increase in slippage those of GC1-R-12 and CC1-R-12 specimens, due to the fact that
after the attainment of peak bond stress. In comparison to speci- GC2 and CC2 concretes had higher compressive strength than
mens failing through splitting, specimens experiencing splitting- GC1 and CC1 concretes.
bond failure could still sustain a certain portion of loading due to Fig. 10(a) and (b) compare retention ratio of compressive, split-
friction action, which leads to attaining a steady state on their ting tensile and bond strengths with ribbed rebar (R-12) of GC1
s-s curves. and CC1 concretes after exposure to elevated temperatures. It
can be seen that the trends of compressive, splitting tensile and
bond strengths of GC1 and CC1 concretes, with temperature, are
similar. When the exposure temperature is below 300 °C, there is
only slight degradation in compressive, splitting tensile and bond
strengths of GC1 and CC1 concretes; but when the temperature
exceeds 300 °C, significant degradation in corresponding strength.
Comparing the degradation rates of compressive, splitting tensile
and bond strengths, it can be seen that the degradation rates of
bond and splitting tensile strengths of GC1 and CC1 concretes are
higher than that of compressive strength. The degradation rates
of bond and splitting tensile strengths of GC1 concrete, after expo-
sure to elevated temperatures, are close, except that at 100 °C. Fol-
lowing 100 °C exposure, GC1 concrete has almost no reduction in
bond strength, but 12% reduction in splitting tensile strength.
Fig. 11(a) and (b) present the typical s-s curves of specimens in
Groups GC2-R-14 and CC2-R-14, at different temperatures. The
25
GC1-R-12
GC2 CC2 CC1-R-12
Bond strength (MPa)
20 GC2-R-14
CC2-R-14
GC1
15
CC1
10
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
o
Temperature ( C)
Fig. 9. Comparison of bond strength of geopolymer concrete with that of OPC
Fig. 8. s-s curves of specimens in Groups GC1-R-18 and GC1-R-25. concrete.
284 H.Y. Zhang et al. / Construction and Building Materials 163 (2018) 277–285
80
60
40 Compressive strength
Splitting tensile strength
20 Bond strength
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
o
Temperature ( C)
(a) GC1
Strength retention ratio (%)
100
80
60
40
Compressive strength
Splitting tensile strength
20
Bond strength
0
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800
o
Temperature ( C)
(b) CC1
Fig. 10. Strength retention ratio of GC1 and CC1 concretes after exposure to
Fig. 11. s-s curves of GC2-R-14 and CC2-R-14 test specimens.
elevated temperatures.
5. Conclusions [6] B.C. McLellan, R.P. Williams, J. Lay, A. van Riessen, G.D. Corder, Costs and
carbon emissions for geopolymer pastes in comparison to ordinary Portland
cement, J Clean Prod. 19 (2011) 1080–1090.
To evaluate the effect of temperature on bond characteristics of [7] A.M. Fernandez-Jimenez, A. Palomo, C. Lopez-Hombrados, Engineering
geopolymer concrete, pull-out tests were conducted on large num- properties of alkali-activated fly ash concrete, ACI Mater. J. 103 (2) (2006)
106–112.
ber of specimens with different concrete and rebar types, at ambi-
[8] R. Zhao, J.G. Sanjayan, Geopolymer and Portland cement concretes in
ent and after exposure to elevated temperatures. Based on the test simulated fire, Mag. Concr. Res. 63 (3) (2011) 163–173.
results, the following conclusions can be drawn: [9] Prabir Kumar Sarker, Sean Kelly, Zhitong Yao, Effect of fire exposure on
cracking, spalling and residual strength of fly ash geopolymer concrete, Mater.
Des. 63 (2014) 584–592.
(1) Geopolymer concrete exhibits significant temperature [10] M. Olivia, H. Nikraz, Properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete designed by
induced degradation in bond strength, when exposed to Taguchi method, Mater. Des. 36 (2012) 191–198.
temperatures above 300 °C. [11] D. Hardjito, S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, On the development of
fly ash-based geopolymer concrete, ACI Mater. J. 101 (6) (2004) 467–472.
(2) Bond strength of geopolymer concrete with ribbed rebar is [12] D. Adak, M. Sarkar, S. Mandal, Structural performance of nano-silica modified
more than twice of that with plain rebar of same diameter fly-ash based geopolymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 135 (2017) 430–439.
at ambient temperature. Also, degradation in bond strength [13] H.Y. Zhang, V. Kodur, B. Wu, L. Cao, S.L. Qi, Comparative thermal and
mechanical performance of geopolymers derived from metakaolin and fly ash,
of geopolymer concrete with ribbed rebar occurs at a lower J. Mater. Civil Eng. 28 (2) (2016) 1–10.
rate with temperature. [14] M. Sofi, J.S.J. van Deventer, P.A. Mendis, G.C. Lukey, Bond performance of
(3) Bond strength of geopolymer concrete decreases at the same reinforcing bars in inorganic polymer concrete (IPC), J. Mater. Sci. 42 (9) (2007)
3107–3116.
rate as that of splitting tensile strength with temperature, [15] P.K. Sarker, Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based
but this degradation is at a higher pace than that of com- geopolymer concrete, Mater. Struct. 44 (5) (2011) 1021–1030.
pressive strength. [16] A. Castel, S.J. Foster, Bond strength between blended slag and Class F fly ash
geopolymer concrete with steel reinforcement, Cem. Concr. Res. 72 (2015) 48–
(4) Geopolymer concrete exhibits similar or better bond proper-
53.
ties than ordinary Portland cement concrete with similar [17] R.D. Moser, P.G. Allison, B.A. Williams, C.A. Weiss, A.D. Diaz, E.R. Gore, et al.,
levels of compressive strength. Improvement in the geopolymer-to-steel bond using a reactive vitreous
enamel coating, Constr. Build. Mater. 49 (2013) 62–69.
[18] S. Songpiriyakij, T. Pulngern, P. Pungpremtrakul, C. Jaturapitakkul, Anchorage
of steel bars in concrete by geopolymer paste, Mater. Des. 32 (5) (2011) 3021–
3028.
Acknowledgements [19] H.Y. Zhang, J. Yan, B. Wu, Study on bond behavior between geopolymer
concrete and steel bars, China Civil Eng. J. 49 (7) (2016) 107–115 (In Chinese).
[20] H.Y. Zhang, V. Kodur, S.L. Qi, L. Cao, B. Wu, Development of metakaolin–fly ash
The research presented in this paper is supported by National based geopolymers for fire resistance applications, Constr. Build. Mater. 55
Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant No. 51478195), the (2014) 38–45.
Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities [21] National Standard of PRC, Standard Method for Testing of Concrete Structures
(GB 50152-92), China Building Industry Press, Beijing, 1992.
(2015ZZ071), and State Key laboratory of Subtropical Architecture [22] RILEM/CEB/FIP, RC6: Bond Test Reinforcement Steel-Pull Out Test, Georgi
Science, South China University of Technology (Grant No. Publishing Company, 1983.
2016KB15) and Michigan State University. Any opinions, findings, [23] D.L.Y. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, Damage behavior of geopolymer composites
exposed to elevated temperatures, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (10) (2008) 986–
and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this paper are 991.
those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of [24] Z.R. Jiang, Handbook of Construction Calculation, China Architecture &
the sponsors. Building Press, 2007.
[25] H.Y. Zhang, V. Kodur, B. Wu, L. Cao, F. Wang, Thermal behavior and mechanical
properties of geopolymer mortar after exposure to elevated temperatures,
Constr. Build. Mater. 109 (2016) 17–24.
References [26] D.L.Y. Kong, J.G. Sanjayan, K. Sagoe-Crentsil, Comparative performance of
geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash after exposure to elevated
[1] J.G.J. Olivier, G. Janssens-Maenhhout, M. Muntean, J.A.H.W. Peters, Trends in temperatures, Cem. Concr. Res. 37 (2007) 1583–1589.
Global CO2 Emissions; 2015 Report, PBL Netherlands Environmental [27] K. Hertz, The anchorage capacity of reinforcing bars at normal and high
Assessment Agency, The Hague, Netherlands, 2015. temperatures, Mag. Concr. Res. 34 (121) (1982) 213–220.
[2] F.U.A. Shaikh, Review of mechanical properties of short fibre reinforced [28] A. Ergun, G. Kurklu, M.S. Baspinar, The effects of material properties on bond
geopolymer composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 43 (2013) 37–49. strength between reinforcing bar and concrete exposed to high temperature,
[3] J. Davidovits, Geopolymers geopolymeric materials, J. Therm. Anal. 35 (2) Constr. Build. Mater. 112 (2016) 691–698.
(1989) 429–441. [29] T. Pothisiri, P. Panedpojaman, Modeling of bonding between steel rebar and
[4] P. Duxson, A. Fernandez-Jimenez, J.L. Provis, G.C. Lukey, A. Palomo, J.S.J. van concrete at elevated temperatures, Constr. Build. Mater. 27 (1) (2012) 130–
Deventer, Geopolymer technology: the current state of the art, J. Mater. Sci. 42 140.
(9) (2007) 2917–2933. [30] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, M. Gupta, S.K. Bhattacharyya, Geopolymer concrete: a
[5] S.A. Bernal, E.D. Rodriguez, R.M. de Gutierrez, M. Gordillo, J.L. Provis, review of some recent developments, Constr. Build. Mater. 85 (2015) 78–90.
Mechanical and thermal characterisation of geopolymers based on silicate- [31] Z. Huang, Modelling the bond between concrete and reinforcing steel in a fire,
activated metakaolin/slag blends, J. Mater. Sci. 46 (16) (2011) 5477–5486. Eng. Struct. 32 (11) (2010) 3660–3669.