Thermal Performance Modeling of Geopolymer Concrete

Farhad Aslani, M.ASCE 1

Abstract: Geopolymers are used for several applications due to their sustainability, low density, low cost, excellent thermal properties, and
fire resistance. Geopolymer concrete (GC) may possess superior fire resistance compared to conventional concretes with ordinary portland
cement (OPC). The proper understanding of the effects of elevated temperatures on the properties of GC is essential. In the research reported
in this paper, relationships are proven for normal and high-strength GCs at elevated temperatures to establish efficient modeling and specify
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

the fire-performance criteria for concrete structures. They are developed for unconfined GC specimens that consist of compressive strength,
modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, thermal strain, prestressed thermal strain, and the compressive stress–strain relationships at elevated
temperatures. The proposed relationships at elevated temperature are compared with experimental results and available OPC relationships.
These results are used to establish more accurate and general compressive stress–strain relationships. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533
.0001291. © 2015 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Geopolymer concrete; Fire resistance; Compressive strength; Modulus of elasticity; Flexural strength; Thermal strain;
Prestressed thermal strain; Stress-strain relationship.

Introduction Geopolymer concrete exhibits many of the characteristics of

Concrete is the single most widely used material in the world and it
has a carbon footprint to match. Manufacturing of ordinary portland
cement (OPC) involves mining, crushing, and grinding limestone and
shale, burning this raw material in a rotary kiln to convert the limestone
into lime via a process known as calcination, and finally grinding the
resulting cement clinker with gypsum. This production process is very
energy-intensive and involves the release of greenhouse gases such as
CO2 and N2 O into the atmosphere (Struble and Godfrey 2004). The
contribution of OPC manufacture to carbon emissions is second only
to fossil fuels and is estimated to be 8 million metric tons of CO2 per
year in Australia (IPCC 2007). Promoting low-emission concretes is
essential in order to face the crucial challenge to reduce the environ-
mental impact of the construction sector and the concrete industry and
to limit the impact of climate change. One way of reducing these CO2
emissions is the use of blended cements in which a part of the portland
cement clinker is replaced with supplementary cementitious materials
(SCMs). The most common SCMs used in high-volume applications
are fly ash (FA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS).
Fly-ash-based and GGBFS-based blended cements are extensively
used [AS3582.1 (AS 1998); AS3582.2 (AS 2001)], but limits are im-
posed on the OPC replacement. In most cases, blended cements still
contain more OPC clinker than SCM. Davidovits (1991) pioneered the
development of a new binder termed geopolymer which can com-
pletely replace OPC in concrete. This new binder is an inorganic
three-dimensional (3D) polymeric material made from the reaction
of any material rich in silica and alumina with a strong alkaline solution
that contains sodium silicate and/or sodium hydroxide (Komnitsas
and Zaharaki 2007). Aluminosilicate materials such as FA and
GGBFS have been already successfully used in the production of geo-
polymer concrete (GC) in Australia (Aldred and Day 2012).
1
Postdoctoral Research Fellow, Center for Infrastructure Engineering
and Safety, Univ. of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia.
E-mail: f.aslani@unsw.edu.au
Note. This manuscript was submitted on July 27, 2014; approved on
January 28, 2015; published online on May 13, 2015. Discussion period
open until October 13, 2015; separate discussions must be submitted for
individual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561/04015062(12)/$25.00.
traditional concretes, despite their vastly different chemical con-
stituents and reactions (Aly and Sanjayan 2010; Lloyd and Rangan
2010; Sagoe-Crentsil 2009). The mixing process, the workability
of freshly mixed GCs, and the mechanical characteristics of the
hardened material appear to be similar or better than those for
traditional ordinary portland cement concretes (OPCCs). The
hardening mechanism for geopolymers essentially contains the pol-
ycondensation reaction of geopolymeric precursors, regularly alu-
minosilicate oxides, with alkali polysilicates yielding a polymeric
silicon–oxygen–aluminium framework (Davidovits 1991). Due to
their inorganic basis, geopolymers are primarily fire resistant and
have been revealed to have outstanding thermal strength, with very
slight gel structural degradation detected up to 700–800°C (Duxson
et al. 2006). Therefore, GC might be put into a reasonable place
against OPCC in the construction of high fire risk infrastructures.
It is a crucial to recognize the modification in compressive strength
of geopolymeric materials during thermal exposure.
Research Significance
In the research reported in this paper, constitutive relationships are
proposed for normal-strength and high-strength GCs at elevated
temperatures that are compared to available OPCC relationships
and verified with previous experimental data. Regression analyses
are conducted on present experimental data to suggest compressive
strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural strength, thermal strain, and
prestressed thermal strain. In the research reported in this paper,
first, the proposed relationships for compressive strength, modulus
of elasticity, flexural strength, thermal strain, and prestressed ther-
mal strain are corroborated with experimental data. Second, com-
pressive stress–strain relationship for GCs at elevated temperatures
are proposed and verified with experimental data and available
OPCC relationships.
Previous Research
The GC and OPCC are different in the binder properties and type.
The OPCC binder is based on hydration reactions of calcium oxide

© ASCE 04015062-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 and silicon dioxide to form calcium silicate hydrates. Moreover,
the GC binder is manufactured by alkali activation of aluminosil-
icate raw materials, which are transformed into reaction product
by polymerization in a high pH environment and hydrothermal sit-
uations at moderately low temperatures. This chemical structure
provides GC benefits over its OPCC equivalent, such as a better
strength performance when GC materials are subjected to high-
temperature exposure (Davidovits 1991). Studies by Davidovits
(1991), Davidovits and Davidovics (1991), Davidovits et al.
(1994), and Barbosa and MacKenzie (2003) described very good
heat properties of materials prepared using sodium silicate, potas-
sium silicate, and metakaolin (MK), having thermal stability up to
1,200–1,400°C. Krivenko and Kovalchuk (2002) investigated heat
resistance of geopolymer materials manufactured using Class F FA,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
which had good thermal resistance properties up to 800°C.
The previous investigations that studied the thermal properties
of the FA geopolymers have described that these materials pos-
sessed low thermal shrinkage and good strength maintenance after
exposure to high temperatures (Bakharev 2006; Dombrowski et al.
2007; Kong et al. 2007; Kong and Sanjayan 2008). The residual
strength of geopolymers has been found to be influenced by raw
material type (Kong et al. 2007), alkali cation type (Bakharev
2006), different calcium-containing raw materials (Dombrowski
et al. 2007), curing temperatures, and activator-to-binders ratio
(Kong et al. 2008). The mechanisms affecting strength at elevated
temperatures have been explored by considering pore pressure
effects (Kong et al. 2007; Bakharev 2006) and phase transforma-
tions (Bakharev 2006; Dombrowski et al. 2007). In most cases the
residual strength of geopolymers was observed to be higher than
initial strength (tested before the thermal exposure). However, the
introduction of aggregates decreased the strength of GC (multi-
phase) after exposure to 800°C (Kong and Sanjayan 2008).
Pan et al. (2009) experimental results have shown that ductility
significantly affects the residual strength of geopolymer mortars
after exposure to 800°C. Hu et al. (2009) studied the fire resistance
of lightweight geopolymer mortar prepared by the alkali-activation
of MK via liquid alkaline activator consisting of Na2 SiO3 and
NaOH solutions and the resulted geopolymer used to bind the light-
weight fine aggregate of crushed shale haydite sand. The resulted
lightweight geopolymer mortars cured at 20°C for 28 days showed
a strength loss percentage up to 63% of the initial strength after
exposed to high temperature of 950°C for 30 min. Furthermore,
investigations have been recently focused on the following: (1) ex-
perimental study on the mechanical properties of geopolymer at
elevated temperatures (Pan and Sanjayan 2010; Pan et al. 2012),
(2) experimentally examine on the performances of various forms
of FA based geopolymer and geopolymer composites and their per-
formances under elevated temperatures (Kong and Sanjayan 2010;
Rickard et al. 2012; Abdulkareem et al. 2014), and (3) experimen-
tally discover the details for the different behaviors of GC and
OPCC in fire (Zhao and Sanjayan 2011).
Experimental Results Collection
An experimental results database from several distributed investi-
gations is an actual implement for studying the applicability of the
Normal-strength and high-strength GC


0 0
1.0
f GcT ¼ fGc
1.1112 − 0.0004T − 2 × 10−6 T 2
© ASCE
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
various high-temperature behaviors for GCs. To spread over the
models to a specific concrete mixture precisely, it is essential to use
only investigations that are sufficiently consistent with the applied
testing methodology. The GCs experimental results included in the
database were gathered mainly from papers presented at various
published articles. The database includes information regarding
the composition of the mixtures, fresh properties of GCs, testing
methodology, and conditions. Thermal characteristics have not
been investigated as much as the other characteristics of GCs.
Tables 1–4 include information about the experimental tests,
such as geopolymer resin composition, geopolymeric binder type,
type of aggregate, composition of geopolymeric binder, mechanical
properties specimens type, mechanical properties test age, temper-
atures and rate of heating, and duration of heat. Table 1 shows that
general type of geopolymer resin compositions that are used in the
most of the research are sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate.
Also, most common geopolymeric binder type is FA with different
SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ratio. Moreover, common fine aggregate that is used
in the database is natural river sand and type of coarse aggregate
is crushed basalt with different maximum aggregate size. Table 2
presents composition of geopolymeric binder collected in the
experimental database. Table 3 specifies mechanical properties
specimen type and mechanical properties test age are used for ther-
mal behavior analysis. Also, heating rate range is between 4 and
5°C=min. The temperature that is used for different research is
varied between 20 and 1,200°C. Table 4 summarizes the curing
regime of experimental results database.
Compressive Strength of GC at Elevated Temperatures
The residual compressive behavior of concrete has been under
investigation since the early 1960s [see the contributions by
Zoldners, Dougill, Harmathy, Crook, Kasami et al., Schneider,
and Diederiches, all quoted in Schneider (1985)]. Attention has
been focused mostly on the compressive strength (the strength at
room temperature after a specimen has been heated to a test temper-
ature and afterward cooled) as such, on the residual strain and on
strength recovery with time (fib Bulletin No. 46 2008). In the re-
search reported in this paper the efforts are focused on producing
compressive strength relationship for GC of different strength
classes which integrate different geopolymer resin composition
and geopolymeric binder, in order to investigate their performance
after exposure at gradually increasing temperature.
In the research reported in this paper, the relationship proposed
for the compressive strength of GC by considering SiO2 ∶Al2 O3
(i.e., Si:Al) ratio at the geopolymeric binder at elevated temperatures
is based on regression analyses on existing experimental data with
the results expressed as Eq. (1). Moreover, the proposed relation-
ship for the compressive strength of GC is compared with available
relationships for the compressive strength of OPCC developed by
Aslani and Bastami (2011) as Eqs. (2)–(6). The key purpose of re-
gression analyses is considering the changeable experimental com-
pressive strength of GC behaviors at different elevated temperatures
and developing the rational and simple relationships that can fit well
with experimental data. This proposed GC relationship is compared
with test results and OPCC relationships, as shown in Fig. 1.
20°C
ð1Þ
100°C ≤ T ≤ 1,000°C
04015062-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Table 1. Experimental Results Database of Geopolymer Resin, Geopolymeric Binder, and Aggregate Properties
References
© ASCE
Cheng and Chiu (2003)
Kong and Sanjayan (2008)
Pan et al. (2009)
Tie-Song et al. (2009)
Kong and Sanjayan (2010)
Pan and Sanjayan (2010)
04015062-3
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
He et al. (2010)
Zhao and Sanjayan (2011)
Pan et al. (2012)
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Geopolymer resin composition Geopolymeric binder type Aggregate type
Sodium silicate solution, Na2 SiO3 , weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ Granulated blast furnace slag, —
3.3% by weight; Na2 O ¼ 6–7% by weight; SiO2 ¼ 23–25% SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 2.37; and
Potassium hydroxide, KOH, with analytical grade metakaolin, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.22
Sodium silicate solution, Na2 SiO3 , weight ratio, Na2 O∶SiO2 ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.8 Crushed basalt and slag course aggregate with a
Potassium hydroxide, KOH, flakes of 90% purity was prepared maximum aggregate size of 14 mm
to a molarity of 7.0 M/ Lyndhurst sand is the fine aggregate with fineness
modulus of 1.82
Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash A, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 3.11 Fly River sand
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7 ash B, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.58
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Commercial grade sodium hydroxide, NaOH, pellets with 98%
purity in distilled water. Concentration of the NaOH solution
was 10 M
Dodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution ratio was
fixed at 2.5
Potassium silicate solution, 40% in mass fraction Metakaolin, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 5.88, —
KOH, 16% in mass fraction 1.96, and 1.20
Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.8 Crushed old basalt course aggregate with a
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7 maximum aggregate size of 20 mm
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Hydroxide solution needed for activation was prepared to a River sand is the fine aggregate
concentration of 7.0 M using potassium hydroxide, KOH, flakes
of 90% purity and distilled water
Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.58 —
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Commercial grade sodium hydroxide, NaOH, pellets with 98%
purity in distilled water. Concentration of the NaOH solution
was 10 M
Sodium silicate solution to sodium hydroxide solution ratio was
fixed at 2.5
Potassium silicate solution, prepared by dissolving amorphous Metakaolin, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.28 —
silica into a KOH solution
Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.80 Basalt course aggregate with a maximum
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7 aggregate size of 14 mm
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Hydroxide solution was prepared to 8 and 12 M concentrations Lyndhurst sand is the fine aggregate with fineness
using a mixture of distilled water and a commercial grade of modulus of 2.19
pellets with 90% purity
Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.58 Crushed old basalt course aggregate with a
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7 maximum aggregate size of 14 mm
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Potassium hydroxide solution was prepared by dissolving the River sand is the fine aggregate
commercial grade potassium hydroxide, KOH, pellets with 98%
purity in distilled water. The percentage of KOH by mass is
28.2%. Both alkaline solutions were prepared and mixed
together 1 day prior to usage
 Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 1. (Continued.)
References Geopolymer resin composition Geopolymeric binder type Aggregate type

© ASCE
Rickard et al. (2012) Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶NaOH ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 2.0, 2.5, 3.0 —
Weight percent NaOH ¼ 14.7
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Sodium aluminate weight ratio,
Weight percent NaOH ¼ 25.5
Weight percent Al2 O3 ¼ 19.0
Abdulkareem et al. (2014) Sodium silicate weight ratio SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 3.2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 2.85 River sand is the fine aggregate with fineness
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 9.4 modulus of 2.83
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 30.1
NaOH of 12 M was prepared by mixing sodium hydroxide
pellets of 97–99% purity with distilled water. Alkaline activator
prepared by mixing the Na2 SiO3 and 12 M NaOH solution at a
constant mass ratio of 1:1
Pan et al. (2014) Sodium silicate weight ratio, SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 2 Fly ash, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 1.58 Crushed old basalt course aggregate with a
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 14.7 maximum aggregate size of 14 mm
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 29.4
Sodium hydroxide solution was prepared by dissolving the River sand is the fine aggregate
commercial grade sodium hydroxide, NaOH, pellets with 98%
purity in distilled water
Khater (2014) Two different alkali activators are used, i.e., (1) sodium Water cooled slag, SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ Course aggregate with a maximum aggregate size
hydroxide, and (2) sodium silicate 3.69 Air-cooled slag, of 14 mm
Sodium silicate weight ratio SiO2 ∶Na2 O ¼ 1.88 SiO2 ∶Al2 O3 ¼ 2.99
Weight percent Na2 O ¼ 17
Weight percent SiO2 ¼ 32 River sand is the fine aggregate
Analytic grade concentrated nitric and hydrochloric acid was for

04015062-4
acid resistance testing in order to prepare 2, 4, and 6 M in an

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

equal ratio

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Table 2. Composition of Geopolymeric Binders
References Geopolymeric binder type SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO Na2 O K2 O TiO2 SO3
Cheng and Chiu (2003) Granulated blast furnace slag 34.39 14.47 0.63 41.67 6.49 0.22 0.36 0.53 —
Metakaolin 52.26 42.83 1.01 0.02 0.09 0.02 1.56 0.13 —
Kong and Sanjayan (2008) Fly ash 48.8 27.0 10.2 6.2 1.4 0.37 0.85 1.3 0.22
Pan et al. (2009) Fly ash A 72.2 23.2 0.6 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.4 — 0.1
Fly ash B 48.4 30.6 12.1 2.7 1.3 0.2 0.3 — 0.3
Tie-Song et al. (2009) Metakaolin —
Kong and Sanjayan (2010) Fly ash 48.8 27.0 10.2 6.2 1.4 0.37 0.85 1.3 0.22
Pan and Sanjayan (2010) Fly ash 48.3 30.5 12.1 2.8 1.2 0.2 0.4 — 0.3
He et al. (2010) Metakaolin 54.64 42.53 0.97 0.12 — — 0.48 0.80 0.11
Zhao and Sanjayan (2011) Fly ash 48.8 27.0 10.2 6.2 1.4 0.2 0.9 — 0.2
Pan et al. (2012) Fly ash 48.3 30.5 12.1 2.8 1.2 0.2 0.4 — 0.3
Rickard et al. (2012) Fly ash 57.15 6.47 1.36 1.37 0.29 0.09 0.55 0.61 —
— —
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Abdulkareem et al. (2014) Fly ash 26.4 9.25 30.13 21.6 2.58 3.07 1.3
Pan et al. (2014) Fly ash 48.3 30.5 12.1 2.8 1.2 0.2 0.4 — 0.3
Khater (2014) Water-cooled slag 36.95 10.01 1.48 33.07 6.43 1.39 0.74 0.52 3.52
Air-cooled slag 31.01 10.35 1.58 34.86 3.06 2.15 0.37 0.34 2.41

Table 3. Experimental Results Database of Mechanical Properties Specimens Type, Test Age, Temperatures and Rate of Heating, and Duration of Heat
Properties
Mechanical properties Duration
References specimens type Mechanical properties test age Temperatures and rate of heating of heat
Cheng and Chiu Cube, 50 mm Compressive strength at 1, 7, 14, Subjected to temperatures of up to 35 min
(2003) and 28 days 1,100°C
Kong and Sanjayan Cube, 25 mm Compressive strength at 3 and Subjected to temperatures of up to 1h
(2008) 7 days 800°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 5°C=min
Pan et al. (2009) Cylinder, 50-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 5 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 2h
100-mm high 800°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 4.4°C=min
Tie-Song et al. Prism, 4 × 3 × 36 mm Flexural strength Subjected to temperatures of 400, 2h
(2009) 600, 800, 1,000, and 1,200°C at a
gradual incremental rate of
approximately 5°C=min
Kong and Sanjayan Cylinder, 100-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 3 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 1h
(2010) 200-mm high and Cube, 25 mm 800°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 4.4°C=min
Pan and Sanjayan Cylinder, 24-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 1h
(2010) 48-mm high 680°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 5°C=min
He et al. (2010) Flexural strength: Prism, 4 × Flexural strength and Young’s Subjected to temperatures of 1,000, 1.5 h
3 × 36 mm and Young’s modulus at 28 days 1,100, 1,200, 1,300, and 1,400°C
modulus: Cylinder, 150-mm for 90 min in an argon atmosphere
diameter and 300-mm high
Zhao and Sanjayan Cylinder, 100-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 30 min
(2011) 200-mm high 850°C
Pan et al. (2012) Cylinder, 100-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 5h
200-mm high 800°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 5°C=min
Rickard et al. (2012) Cylinder, 15-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of up to —
30-mm high 1,000°C at a gradual incremental
rate of approximately 5°C=min
Abdulkareem et al. Cube, 100 mm Compressive strength at 27 days Subjected to temperatures of 400, 1h
(2014) 600 and 800°C at a gradual
incremental rate of approximately
5°C=min
Pan et al. (2014) Cylinder, 100-mm diameter and Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of up to 2h
200-mm high 550°C at a gradual incremental rate
of approximately 5°C=min
Khater (2014) Cube, 25 mm Compressive strength at 28 days Subjected to temperatures of 300 to 2h
1,000°C at a gradual incremental
rate of approximately 5°C=min

© ASCE 04015062-5 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Normal-strength OPCC

0 1
1.012 − 0.0005T ≤ 1.0 20°C ≤ T ≤ 100°C
B C
B 0.985 þ 0.0002T − 2.235 × 10−6 T 2 þ 8 × 10−10 T 3 C 100°C < T ≤ 800°C
0
fcT ¼ f c0 B
B 0.44 − 0.0004T
C
C ð2Þ
@ A 900°C ≤ T ≤ 1,000°C
0 T > 1,000°C

High-strength OPCC, 55.2 MPa ≤ fc0 ≤ 80 MPa (siliceous aggregate)

0 1
1.01 − 0.00068T ≤ 1.0 20°C ≤ T ≤ 200°C
B C
B 0.935 þ 0.00026T − 2.13 × 10−6 T 2 þ 8 × 10−10 T 3 C 200°C < T ≤ 400°C
B C
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

0 B C
fcT ¼ f c0 B 0.90 þ 0.0002T − 2.13 × 10−6 T 2 þ 8 × 10−10 T 3 C 400°C < T ≤ 800°C ð3Þ
B C
B 0.44 − 0.0004T C 900°C ≤ T ≤ 1,000°C
@ A
0 T > 1,000°C

High-strength OPCC, 80 MPa < f c0 ≤ 110 MPa (siliceous aggregate)

0 1
0.8 − 0.0005T ≤ 1.0 20°C ≤ T ≤ 500°C
B C
0B
B 0.96 − 0.0008T − 5.17 × 10−7 T 2 þ 4 × 10−10 T 3 C 500°C < T ≤ 800°C
0
fcT ¼ fc B C ð4Þ
C
@ 0.44 − 0.0004T A 800°C < T ≤ 1,00°C
0 T > 1,000°C

Calcareous aggregate OPCC

0 1
1.01 − 0.0006T ≤ 1.0 20°C ≤ T ≤ 200°C
0 B C
fcT ¼ fc0 @ 1.0565 þ 0.0017T þ 5 × 10−6 T 2 − 5 × 10−9 T 3 A 200°C < T ≤ 900°C ð5Þ
0 900°C < T

Lightweight aggregate OPCC

0 1
1.01 − 0.00037T ≤ 1.0 20°C ≤ T ≤ 300°C
0 B C
f cT ¼ fc0 @ 1.0491 − 0.00036T þ 10−6 T 2 − 2 × 10−9 T 3 A 300°C < T ≤ 900°C ð6Þ
0 T ≥ 1,000°C

0
where f Gc = normal compressive strength of GC; f c0 = normal com-
0 strength is decreased by 3.8% at 100°C, 13.5% at 300°C, 53%
pressive strength of OPCC; f GcT = compressive strength of GC at
0 at 600°C, and 96% at 1,000°C.
elevated temperatures; and f cT = compressive strength of OPCC
at elevated temperatures.
Fig. 1 makes an assessment between proposed GC and available
OPCC relationships for compressive strength against available un-
stressed experimental test results (unstressed tests are as described
next. The specimen is heated, without preload, at a constant rate to
the target temperature, which is maintained until a thermal steady
state is achieved) as per Pan et al. (2009) with Si∶Al ¼ 3.11, 1.58;
Kong and Sanjayan (2010) with Si∶Al ¼ 1.8; Pan and Sanjayan
(2010) with Si∶Al ¼ 1.58; Rickard et al. (2012) with Si∶Al ¼ 2.0,
2.5, or 3.0; and Pan et al. (2014) with Si∶Al ¼ 1.58. Experimental
results show that compressive strength of GC will be raised by in-
creasing the temperatures. Evaluation of proposed compressive
strength relationships of GC and OPCC shows that the GC com-
pressive strength is increased by 8.35% at 100°C, 14% at 300°C,
37% at 600°C, and 63% at 1,000°C; and OPCC compressive
Modulus of Elasticity of GC at Elevated Temperatures
The elastic modulus of concrete could be affected predomi-
nantly by the same factors that influence its compressive strength
(Malhotra 1982). A relationship is proposed to assess the elasticity
modulus of GC at elevated temperatures using regression analyses
conducted on experimental data and is stated as Eq. (7). Addition-
ally, the proposed relationship for the elasticity modulus of GC is
compared with available relationship for the elasticity modulus
of OPCC established by Aslani and Bastami (2011) as Eq. (8).
The regression analyses are considering the variable experimental
elastic modulus of GC behaviors at different elevated temperatures
and developing the rational and simple relationship that can fits
well with experimental data

© ASCE 04015062-6 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.



1.0 20°C
EGcT ¼ EGc −7 2
ð7Þ
0.9713 þ 0.0009T − 5 × 10 T 100°C ≤ T ≤ 1,000°C

0 1
1.0 20°C ≤ T < 100°C
B C
EcT ¼ Ec @ 1.015 − 0.00154T þ 2 × 10−7 T 2 þ 3 × 10−10 T 3 A 100°C < T ≤ 1,000°C ð8Þ
0 T > 1,000°C

where EGc = normal modulus of elasticity of GC; Ec = normal 14% at 100°C, 42% at 300°C, 77% at 600°C, and 99% at
modulus of elasticity of OPCC; EGcT = modulus of elasticity of 900°C.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

GC at elevated temperatures; and EcT = modulus of elasticity

of OPCC at elevated temperatures.
Fig. 2 shows comparison between proposed GC and avail-
able OPCC relationships for modulus of elasticity against pub-
lished unstressed experimental test results as per He et al. (2010)
with Si∶Al ¼ 1.28, and Pan et al. (2014) with Si∶Al ¼ 1.58.
Experimental results demonstrate that modulus of elasticity of
GC will be raised by increasing the temperatures. Evaluation of
proposed modulus of elasticity relationships of GC and OPCC
displays that the GC modulus of elasticity is increased by 5%
at 100°C, 16% at 300°C, 25% at 600°C, 27% at 1,000°C, and
20% at 1,400°C; and OPCC modulus of elasticity is reduced
Flexural Strength of GC at Elevated Temperatures
There are few studies on flexural strength. A relationship is sug-
gested to assess the flexural strength of GC at elevated temperatures
using regression analyses conducted on experimental data and is
expressed as Eq. (9). Likewise, the proposed relationship for the
flexural strength of GC is compared with existing relationship
for the flexural strength of OPCC developed by Aslani and Samali
(2014b, a) as Eq. (10). The regression analyses are considering
the changeable experimental flexural strength of GC behaviors
at different elevated temperatures and developing the coherent
and simple relationships that can fits well with experimental data


1.0 20°C
fGcrT ¼ fGcr ð9Þ
1.0866 − 0.0018T þ 1 × 10−6 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 1,400°C


1.0 20°C
f crT ¼ fcr ð10Þ
1.095 − 0.0012T þ 2 × 10−7 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 1,100°C

where fGcr = normal flexural strength of GC; f cr = normal flexu-
ral strength of OPCC; fGcrT = flexural strength of GC at elevated
temperatures; and fcrT = flexural strength of OPCC at elevated
temperatures.
Fig. 3 illustrates comparison between proposed GC and avail-
able OPCC relationships for flexural strength in contradiction
of unstressed experimental test results as per Tie-Song et al.
(2009) with Si∶Al ¼ 5.88, 1.96, 1.20; and He et al. (2010) with
Si∶Al ¼ 1.28. Experimental results show that flexural strength
of GC will be raised by increasing the temperatures. Evaluation
of proposed flexural strength relationships of GC and OPCC shows
that the GC flexural strength is increased by 5% at 100°C, 30% at
300°C, 54% at 600°C, 70% at 1,000°C, and increase to 57% at
1,400°C; and OPCC flexural strength is decreased 3% at 100°C,
25% at 300°C, 55% at 600°C, and 90% at 1,000°C.
Thermal Strain of Unstressed and Prestressed GC
Free thermal expansion is affected predominantly by the aggre-
gate type. It expansion is not linear with respect to temperature.
The presence of free moisture will affect the results below 150°C
since the water being driven off may cause net shrinkage. Con-
ventionally, it is stated by a linear function of temperature by
employing a thermal expansion coefficient, α (Li and Purkiss
2005)
εth ¼ αðT − 20°CÞ ð11Þ
For concrete with siliceous or carbonate aggregates, α can be
taken as equal to 18×10−6 =°C or 12×10−6 =°C (Purkiss 1996).
A relationship is proposed to calculate the thermal strain of
GC at elevated temperatures using regression analyses conducted
on experimental data and is expressed as Eq. (12). In addition, the
proposed relationships for the thermal strain of GC are compared
with available relationships for the thermal strain of OPCC devel-
oped by Aslani (2013) as Eqs. (13)–(15)


0 20°C
εG:th ¼
0.0001 − 2 × 10−5 T − 2 × 10−9 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 1,300°C
ð12Þ
Siliceous aggregate OPCC
εth ¼ 0.00045 þ 1 × 10−6 T þ 2 × 10−8 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C
ð13Þ

© ASCE 04015062-7 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 Table 4. Curing Regime of Experimental Database
References Curing
Cheng and Chiu (2003) Specimens were sealed and set at 60°C for 3 h in a sample-drying oven. After being removed from the molds, the
samples were kept at ambient temperature for another 21 h
Kong and Sanjayan (2008) Specimens were left to cure undisturbed under ambient temperature for 24 h before being subjected to an elevated
temperature of 80°C for an additional 24 h and finally they were slowly cooled
Pan et al. (2009) Within 1 h after the specimens were prepared, they were placed in an oven preheated to the specified temperature. For
mix with Fly Ash A, curing temperature and time were between 55–80°C and 24–96 h and for mix with Fly Ash B,
curing temperature and time were between 55–60°C and 2–18 h
Tie-Song et al. (2009) Heating of the specimens to the predetermined temperature was carried out at a rate of 5°C=min in a vacuum
atmosphere then the specimens were left at that temperature for a period of 2 h and finally they were slowly cooled
Kong and Sanjayan (2010) Specimens were left to cure undisturbed under ambient temperature for 24 h before being subjected to an elevated
temperature of 80°C for an additional 24 h and finally they were slowly cooled
Pan and Sanjayan (2010) Covered specimens were cured in an oven at 60°C for 18 h. After curing, specimens were demolded and kept in the
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

laboratory until testing

He et al. (2010) —
Zhao and Sanjayan (2011) Concrete in the cylinder molds was placed in an oven at 80°C for curing. Four batches of samples were cured in the
oven for 3, 8, 48, and 96 h, respectively, to reach the different target strengths. Then the samples were placed in a
constant-temperature room 23°C, 50% relative humidity
Pan et al. (2012) After casting, the specimens were kept in the molds and covered with polyethylene sheet and placed immediately in a
preheated oven. Specimens were cured at 60°C for 24 h. After curing, the specimens were demolded
Rickard et al. (2012) Specimens were sealed and samples cured for 24 h at 70°C. Samples were demolded and stored at ambient temperature
prior to testing
Abdulkareem et al. (2014) All wrapped moulds were cured undisturbed in oven at 70°C for 24 h after casting. Molds were taken out of the oven
and left to cool at room temperature before demolding. Sealed specimens were then stored under ambient conditions
Pan et al. (2014) Specimens were kept in the moulds and covered by a polyethylene sheet and placed immediately in a preheated oven.
After curing, specimens were stored in a controlled environment kept at 23  2°C and 50  3% relative humidity
Khater (2014) All mixes were left to cure undisturbed under ambient temperature for 24 h, and were then subjected to curing
temperature of 38°C under 100% relative humidity

Carbonate aggregate OPCC
εth ¼ 0.0001 þ 5 × 10−7 T þ 2 × 10−8 T 2
Lightweight aggregate OPCC
εth ¼ −0.00045 þ 8 × 10−6 T
where εG:th = thermal strain of GC; and εth = thermal strain
of OPCC.
Fig. 4 shows comparison between proposed GC and available
100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C
OPCC relationships for thermal strain contrary to unstressed
ð14Þ experimental test results as per Tie-Song et al. (2009) with
Si∶Al ¼ 5.88, 1.96, and 1.20; Kong and Sanjayan (2010) with
Si∶Al ¼ 1.8; He et al. (2010) with Si∶Al ¼ 1.28; Rickard et al.
(2012) with Si∶Al ¼ 2.0, 2.5, and 3.0; and Pan et al. (2014)
with Si∶Al ¼ 1.58. Experimental results display GC expanded
100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C ð15Þ at temperatures below 100°C while shrank at temperatures of

4.5 2
Pan et al. (2009), Si:Al=3.11 He et al. (2010), Si:Al=1.28
Pan et al. (2009), Si:Al=1.58 Pan et al. (2014), Si:Al=1.58
Kong and Sanjayan (2010), Si:Al=1.8 1.8
4 Proposed Relationship for OPCC
Pan and Sanjayan (2010), Si:Al=1.58 Proposed Relationship for GC
Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=2.0 1.6
3.5 Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=2.5
Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=3.0
Pan et al. (2014), Si:Al=1.58 1.4
3 Proposed Relationship for OPCC
Proposed Relationship for GC 1.2
(EGcT / EGc )
(f'GcT / f'Gc)

2.5
1
2
0.8
1.5
0.6

1 0.4

0.5 0.2

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature (°C) Temperature (°C)

Fig. 1. Comparison between compressive strength proposed relation- Fig. 2. Comparison between modulus of elasticity proposed relation-
ships of GC and OPCC with experimental test results ships of GC and OPCC with experimental test results

© ASCE 04015062-8 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 200–1,200°C. Comparison of the proposed thermal strain relation-
ships of GC and OPCC shows that the GC is shrank gradually
between 100 and 1,200°C and OPCC is expanded between 100
and 1,200°C.
In the research reported in this paper, relationships are proposed
as a function of preloading percentages of the GC compressive
0
strength at room temperature (f Gc ) to evaluate the thermal strain
of prestressed GC at elevated temperatures using regression analy-
ses conducted on experimental data as per Pan and Sanjayan (2010)
with Si∶Al ¼ 1.58, and 25 and 50% prestressed) and are expressed
as Eqs. (16) and (17). Moreover, the proposed relationships for the
prestressed thermal strain of GC are compared with available
OPCC relationships for the prestressed thermal strain developed
by Aslani (2013) and Aslani and Samali (2015) as Eqs. (18)–(21)

0
For 15–30% prestressed of the fGc
0 1
0 20°C
B 0.0027 − 0.00002T C 100°C ≤ T ≤ 300°C
B C
εG:th ¼ B C ð16Þ
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

@ −0.0512 þ 0.000165T A 300°C < T ≤ 500°C

0.31 − 0.0005T 500°C < T ≤ 800°C
0
For 30–60% prestressed of the fGc
0 1
0 20°C
B C 100°C ≤ T ≤ 300°C
B 0.0034 þ 0.0001T − 5 × 10−7 T 2 C
εG:th ¼ B C ð17Þ
@ −0.053 þ 0.00013T A 300°C < T ≤ 500°C
0.4644 − 0.0008T 500°C < T ≤ 800°C

For 10–15% prestressed of the fc0


0 20°C
εth ¼ ð18Þ
−0.0009 þ 1.3 × 10−5 T − 2 × 10−8 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C

For 15–30% prestressed of the fc0


0.0002 − 10−5 T 20°C ≤ T < 200°C
εth ¼ ð19Þ
−5
−0.0073 þ 5 × 10 T − 8 × 10 T −8 2 200°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C

For 30–45% prestressed of the fc0


0 20°C
εth ¼ ð20Þ
−0.00005 − 1 × 10−5 T − 1.5 × 10−9 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C

For 45–60% prestressed of the fc0


0 20°C
εth ¼ ð21Þ
−0.0004 − 3 × 10−6 T − 2.4 × 10−8 T 2 100°C ≤ T ≤ 800°C

Fig. 5 provides a comparison between the proposed relation- conducted recently by Aslani and Bastami (2011) and Aslani
ships for the thermal strain of prestressed GC against the experi- (2013). In the research reported in this paper, a compressive stress–
mental results of Pan and Sanjayan (2010) for 25 and 50% strain relationship for normal-strength and high-strength GC at
0
prestressed of the fGc cases, respectively. The proposed relation- elevated temperatures based on the Carreira and Chu (1985) model
ships of GC fit of the experimental results well, which indicates with several modifications is developed by using the proposed
that the GC is expanded between 20 and 200°C for both 25 and residual compression strength, modulus of elasticity, flexural
50% and shrank between 200 and 350°C for 25% and 200– strength, thermal strain, and prestressed thermal strain, which are
400°C for 50%, and expanded again between 350 and 650°C expressed as Eqs. (22)–(29)
for 25% and 400–550°C for 50%, and shrank again for both
prestressed specimens. Fig. 5 also indicates the trend of the ther- σGcT ηmT ðεεGcT
0 Þ
0 ¼ GcT
εGcT ηmT ð22Þ
mal strain–temperature curves, which is entirely a function of the f GcT ηmT − 1 þ ðε 0 Þ
GcT
preloading percentage.
ηmT ¼ ηmT;a ðfittedÞ ¼ ½1.02 − 1.17ðEp =EGcT Þ−0.74
Compressive Stress-Strain Relationship of GC at 0
Elevated Temperatures if εGcT ≤ εGcT ð23Þ

The most essential existing compressive stress-strain relationships

0
for concrete at high temperatures are summarized in research ηmT ¼ ηmT;d ðfittedÞ ¼ ηmT;a ðfittedÞ þ ðγ þ λtÞ if εGcT ≤ εGcT ð24Þ

© ASCE 04015062-9 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 2 0.04
Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=60:0
1.8 Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=5.88
0.02
Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=1.96
1.6 Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=1.20
0
He et al. (2010), Si:Al=1.28
1.4 Proposed Relationship for OPCC
-0.02

Thermal Strain
Proposed Relationship for GC
1.2
(fGcrT / fGcr)

-0.04
1

0.8 -0.06
Pan and Sanjayan (2010), Si:Al=1.58, 25%
0.6 Pan and Sanjayan (2010), Si:Al=1.58, 50%
-0.08
Proposed Relationship for OPCC, 15-30%
0.4 Proposed Relationship for OPCC, 45-60%
-0.1
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Proposed Relationship for GC, 15-30%

0.2 Proposed Relationship for GC, 45-60%
-0.12
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
0
Temperature (°C)
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature (°C)
Fig. 5. Comparison between thermal strain proposed relationships of
Fig. 3. Comparison between flexural strength proposed relationships prestressed GC and OPCC with experimental test results
of GC and OPCC with experimental test results

90

80
0.04
70
0.03
Compressive Stress (MPa)

60
0.02

0.01 50
Thermal Strain

0 40

-0.01 30

-0.02 Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=60:0 20

Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=5.88
Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=1.96
-0.03 Tie-song et al. (2009), Si:Al=1.20 Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 23,100& 200 C
Kong and Sanjayan (2010), Si:Al=1.8
10
He et al. (2010), Si:Al=1.28 Proposed Relationship for GC
-0.04 Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=2.0
Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=2.5 0
Rickard et al. (2012), Si:Al=3.0 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
-0.05 Pan et al. (2014), Si:Al=1.58
Proposed Relationship for OPCC Strain
Proposed Relationship for GC
-0.06
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Fig. 6. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain
Temperature (°C) relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and
Sanjayan (2010) at 23, 100, and 200°C
Fig. 4. Comparison between thermal strain proposed relationships of
GC and OPCC with experimental test results

Figs. 6–11 provide a comparison between the proposed high-

strength GC relationship against the experimental results of Pan
and Sanjayan (2010) at 23, 100, 200, 290, 380, 520, 575, and
γ ¼ 35 × ð12.4 − 1.66 × 10−2 f GcT
0
Þ−0.9 ð25Þ 680°C, which indicate that the proposed relationship has a good
agreement with the experimental results.
0
λ ¼ 0.75 expð−911=fGcT Þ ð26Þ
Conclusions
Ep ¼ 0
fGcT 0
=εGcT ð27Þ In this paper, constitutive relationships for the normal and high
strength GC exposed to fire are proposed, which are intended

0


0 f GcT ψ to provide efficient modeling and to specific fire-performance
εGcT ¼ ð28Þ criteria of the behavior of concrete structures. The major conclu-
EGcT ψ−1
sions resulting from the research reported in this paper are as
follows:
0
ψ¼
fGcT
þ 0.8 ð29Þ • The proposed relationships for the compressive strength, elas-
17 ticity modulus, and flexural strength of unstressed GC with

© ASCE 04015062-10 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 120 140

120
100

Compressive Stress (MPa)

100
Compressive Stress (MPa)

80
80

60
60

40 40

20 Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 520 C

20
Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 290 C Proposed Relationship for GC
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Proposed Relationship for GC 0

0 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Strain
Strain
Fig. 9. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain
Fig. 7. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and
relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and Sanjayan (2010) at 520°C
Sanjayan (2010) at 290°C
120

120
100

100
Compressive Stress (MPa) 80
Compressive Stress (MPa)

80
60

60
40

40
20
Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 575 C

20 Proposed Relationship for GC

Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 380 C 0
Proposed Relationship for GC 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0 Strain
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02
Strain Fig. 10. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain
relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and
Fig. 8. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain Sanjayan (2010) at 575°C
relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and
Sanjayan (2010) at 380°C
140

120
different geopolymer resin composition, geopolymeric binder
type, and aggregate type at elevated temperature are in good
Compressive Stress (MPa)

100
reasonable agreement with the experimental results;
• The free thermal strain relationships that are proposed for un- 80
stressed and prestressed GC at high temperatures are verified
well to the experimental results; 60
• The proposed compressive stress–strain relationship for GC is
made based on the well-established relationships for concrete 40
at elevated temperatures, which has a good conformity with
experimental test results of GC at different high temperatures 20 Pan and Sanjayan (2010), 680 C
(also, using these relationships in the FEM is more simple
Proposed Relationship for GC
and suitable); and 0
• The paper stressed the fact that additional tests at different 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
temperatures are needed to investigate the role of initial com- Strain
pressive and tensile stresses on the GC compressive strength,
Fig. 11. Comparisons between proposed compressive stress-strain
strain at peak stress, modulus of elasticity, free thermal strain,
relationship for GC against the experimental results from Pan and
load induced thermal strain, creep strain, transient strain, and
Sanjayan (2010) at 680°C
fire spalling.

© ASCE 04015062-11 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

 References
Abdulkareem, O. A., Al Bakri, A. M. M., Kamarudin, H., Nizar, I. K., and
Saif, A. A. (2014). “Effects of elevated temperatures on the thermal
behavior and mechanical performance of fly ash geopolymer paste,
mortar and lightweight concrete.” Constr. Build. Mater., 50, 377–387.
Aldred, J., and Day, J. (2012). “Is geopolymer concrete a suitable alterna-
tive technology to traditional concrete?” Proc., 37th Conf. on Our
World in Concrete and Structures, CI-Premier, Singapore.
Aly, T., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2010). “Effect of pore-size distribution on
shrinkage of concretes.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)0899
-1561(2010)22:5(525), 525–532.
AS (Australian Standards). (1998). “Supplementary cementitious materials
for use with portland and blended cement. Part 1: Fly ash.” AS3582.1,
Australia.
AS (Australian Standards). (2001). “Supplementary cementitious materials
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of Exeter on 07/22/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
for use with portland and blended cement. Part 2: Slag–ground granu-
lated iron blast-furnace.” AS3582.2.
Aslani, F. (2013). “Prestressed concrete thermal behavior.” Mag. Concrete
Res., 65(3), 158–171.
Aslani, F., and Bastami, M. (2011). “Constitutive relationships for normal-
and high-strength concrete at elevated temperature.” ACI Mater. J.,
108(4), 355–364.
Aslani, F., and Samali, B. (2015). “Constitutive relationships for self-
compacting concrete at elevated temperatures.” Mater. Struct.,
48(1–2), 337–356.
Aslani, F., and Samali, B. (2014a). “Constitutive relationships for steel fibre
reinforced concrete at elevated temperatures.” Fire Technol., 50(5),
1249–1268.
Aslani, F., and Samali, B. (2014b). “High strength polypropylene fibre
reinforcement concrete at high temperature.” Fire Technol., 50(5),
1229–1247.
Bakharev, T. (2006). “Thermal behaviour of geopolymers prepared using
class F fly ash and elevated temperature curing.” Cement Concrete Res.,
36(6), 1134–1147.
Barbosa, V. F. F., and MacKenzie, K. J. D. (2003). “Synthesis and thermal
behaviour of potassium sialate geopolymers.” Mater. Lett., 57(9–10),
1477–1482.
Carreira, D. J., and Chu, K. H. (1985). “Stress-strain relationship for plain
concrete in compression.” ACI J., 82(6), 797–804.
Cheng, T. W., and Chiu, J. P. (2003). “Fire-resistant geopolymer produced
by granulated blast furnace slag.” Miner. Eng., 16(3), 205–210.
Davidovits, J. (1991). “Geopolymers: Inorganic polymeric new materials.”
J. Therm. Anal., 37(8), 1633–1656.
Davidovits, J. (1994). “High-alkali cements for 21st century concretes.”
Proc., Malhotra Symp. on Concrete Technology: Past, Present and
Future, P. Kumar Metha, ed., 383–397.
Davidovits, J., and Davidovics, M. (1991). “Geopolymer. Ultra-high tem-
perature tooling material for the manufacture of advanced composites.”
SAMPE, 36(2), 1939–1949.
Dombrowski, K., Buchwald, A., and Weil, M. (2007). “The influence of
calcium content on the structure and thermal performance of fly ash
based geopolymers.” J. Mater. Sci., 42(9), 3033–3043.
Duxson, P., Lukey, G. C., and van Deventer, J. S. J. (2006). “Thermal
evolution of metakaolin geopolymers: Part 1—Physical evolution.”
J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 352(52–54), 5541–5555.
fib Bulletin No. 46. (2008). “Fire design of concrete structures—Structural
behaviour and assessment.” Chapter 6, Expertise and assessment of ma-
terials and structures after fire, fib (Fédération internationale du béton/
International Federation for Structural Concrete), Switzerland.
He, P., Jia, D., Lin, T., Wang, M., and Zhou, Y. (2010). “Effects of high-
temperature heat treatment on the mechanical properties of unidirec-
tional carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer composites.” Ceram. Int.,
36(4), 1447–1453.
Hu, S., Wu, J., Wen, Y., He, Y., Fa-Zhou, W., and Qing-Jun, D. (2009).
“Preparation and properties of geopolymer-lightweight aggregate re-
fractory concrete.” J. Cent. South Univ. Technol., 16(6), 914–918.
© ASCE 04015062-12
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). (2007). “The
fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change (IPCC).” Climate change 2007: The physical science basis,
S. Solomon, et al., eds., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge,
U.K., 129–234.
Khater, H. M. (2014). “Studying the effect of thermal and acid exposure on
alkali activated slag geopolymer.” Adv. Cement Res., 26(1), 1–9.
Komnitsas, K., and Zaharaki, D. (2007). “Geopolymerisation: A review and
prospects for the minerals industry.” Miner. Eng., 20(14), 1261–1277.
Kong, D. L. Y., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2008). “Damage behavior of geopol-
ymer composites exposed to elevated temperatures.” Cement Concrete
Compos., 30(10), 986–991.
Kong, D. L. Y., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2010). “Effect of elevated temperatures
on geopolymer paste, mortar and concrete.” Cement Concrete Res.,
40(2), 334–339.
Kong, D. L. Y., Sanjayan, J. G., and Sagoe-Crentsil, K. (2007). “Compar-
ative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin and fly ash
after exposure to elevated temperatures.” Cement Concrete Res.,
37(12), 1583–1589.
Kong, D. L. Y., Sanjayan, J. G., and Sagoe-Crentsil, K. (2008). “Factors
affecting the performance of metakaolin geopolymers exposed to
elevated temperatures.” J. Mater. Sci., 43(3), 824–831.
Krivenko, P. V., and Kovalchuk, G. Y. (2002). “Heat-resistant fly ash based
geocements.” 3rd Int. Conf. on Geopolymers, Melbourne, Australia.
Li, L., and Purkiss, J. A. (2005). “Stress-strain constitutive equations
of concrete material at elevated temperatures.” Fire Saf. J., 40(7),
669–686.
Lloyd, N. A., and Rangan, B. V. (2010). “Geopolymer concrete with fly
ash.” Proc., Second Int. Conf. on Sustainable Construction Materials
and Technologies, Università Politecnica delle Marche (UNIVPM),
Ancona, Italy, 1493–1504.
Malhotra, H. L. (1982). Design of fire-resisting structures, Surrey
University Press, London.
Pan, Z., Sanjayan, J., and Rangan, B. (2009). “An investigation of the
mechanisms for strength gain or loss of geopolymer mortar after expo-
sure to elevated temperature.” J. Mater. Sci., 44(7), 1873–1880.
Pan, Z., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2010). “Stress-strain behaviour and abrupt loss
of stiffness of geopolymer at elevated temperatures.” Cement Concrete
Compos., 32(9), 657–664.
Pan, Z., Sanjayan, J. G., and Collins, F. (2014). “Effect of transient creep on
compressive strength of geopolymer concrete for elevated temperature
exposure.” Cement Concrete Res., 56, 182–189.
Pan, Z., Sanjayan, J. G., and Kong, D. L. Y. (2012). “Effect of aggregate
size on spalling of geopolymer and portland cement concretes subjected
to elevated temperatures.” Constr. Build. Mater., 36, 365–372.
Purkiss, J. A. (1996). Fire safety engineering design of structures,
Butterworth Heinemann, Oxford, U.K.
Rickard, W. D. A., Temuujin, J., and van Riessen, A. (2012). “Thermal
analysis of geopolymer pastes synthesised from five fly ashes of
variable composition.” J. Non-Cryst. Solids, 358(15), 1830–1839.
Sagoe-Crentsil, K. (2009). “Role of oxide ratios on engineering perfor-
mance of fly-ash geopolymer binder systems.” Ceram. Eng. Sci. Proc.,
29(10), 175–184.
Schneider, U. (1985). “Properties of materials at high temperature–
Concrete.” Rep. Prepared for RILEM, Univ. of Kassel, Kassel,
Germany.
Struble, L., and Godfrey, J. (2004). “How sustainable is concrete?” Proc.,
Int. Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology,
Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA, 201–211.
Tie-Song, L., De-Chang, J., Pei-Gang, H., and Mei-Rong, W. (2009).
“Thermal-mechanical properties of short carbon fiber reinforced geo-
polymer matrix composites subjected to thermal load.” J. Cent. South
Univ. Technol., 16(6), 0881–0886.
Zhao, R., and Sanjayan, J. G. (2011). “Geopolymer and portland cement
concretes in simulated fire.” Mag. Concrete Res., 63(3), 163–173.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.