Saranya P; Nagarajan, P and Shashikala, A P (2024) Fracture properties of ggbs-dolomite geopolymer concrete. Journal of Engineering, Design and Technology, 22(1), pp. 120-129. ISSN 1726-0531
Abstract
Purpose: This study aims to predict the fracture properties of geopolymer concrete, which is necessary for studying failure behaviour of concrete. Design/methodology/approach: Geopolymers are new alternative binders for cement in which polymerization gives strength to concrete rather than through hydration. Geopolymer concrete was developed from industrial byproducts such as GGBS and dolomite. Present study estimates the fracture energy of GGBS geopolymer concrete using three point bending test (RILEM TC50-FMC) with different percentages of dolomite and compare with cement concrete having same strength. Findings: The fracture properties such as peak load, critical stress intensity factor, fracture energy and characteristic length are found to be higher for GGBS-dolomite geopolymer concrete, when their proportion becomes 70:30. Originality/value: To the best of the authors' knowledge, this is an original experimental work.
| Item Type: | Article |
|---|---|
| Uncontrolled Keywords: | dolomite; fracture energy; geopolymer concrete; ggbs |
| Index terms: | estimate, geopolymer concrete, methodology, peak load |
| Subjects: | research methods, financial and cost management, energy systems, materials science |
| Topics: | Sustainability, Construction Materials, Research Practice, Cost Management |
| Descriptive scope: | 3 PCT |
N.B. Descriptive scope is a count of how many of the five facets of empirical research are indicated by the words used in title, abstract and keywords. It is not intended as a judgement on the research; merely a count of the kind of word we would expect to indicate Phenomenon, Concepts, Theoretical framing, Empirical techniques, Analytical techniques. If all five are present, then a code of “5 PCTEA” will indicate this. If you feel the coding for this record is questionable, we welcome discussion around the terms we matched or the way we categorized them. The facet you would expect may not be coded, or a facet may be coded inappropriately. This can also bear on a larger question, of which facets should be treated as defining in construction management research. Please get in touch, and we will look at it. More details here