applied

sciences
Article
Assessment of Performance of Fiber Reinforced
Geopolymer Composites by Experiment and
Simulation Analysis
Khoa V. A. Pham 1 , Tan Khoa Nguyen 1 , Tuan Anh Le 2 , Sang Whan Han 3 , Gayoon Lee 1 and
Kihak Lee 1, *
1 Department of Architectural Engineering, Sejong University, Seoul 05006, Korea
2 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Vietnam National University of Ho Chi Minh City,
Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
3 Department of Architectural Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 04763, Korea
* Correspondence: kihaklee@sejong.ac.kr; Tel.: +82-10-9390-4005




Received: 16 July 2019; Accepted: 16 August 2019; Published: 20 August 2019


Abstract: In this work, the experimental and simulation analysis of the performance of geopolymer
composites reinforced with steel fiber and polypropylene fiber is investigated. By embedding hooked
end steel fiber and polypropylene fiber with various volume fractions of 0%, 0.5%, 1%, 1.5% to
the geopolymer concrete mixture, the mechanical behavior was enhanced significantly through
experimental results. The compressive strength was improved 26% with 0.5% of polypropylene fiber
and 46% with 1% of hooked end steel fiber while the increment of splitting tensile strength was 12%
and 28%, respectively. The flexural strength of specimens using two fiber types was also improved
when compared with the non-fiber geopolymer concrete. The highest increment obtained with 1.5% of
fiber volume content was from 26% to 42%. The compressive performance and flexural performance
of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete were also better than specimens without fiber, with a higher
load carrying capacity, higher stress, higher toughness and smaller strain. Using hooked end steel
fiber resulted in better mechanical strength than using polypropylene fiber, and the presence of fibers
is an important factor related to the strength improvements. A finite element analysis was modeled
by the ANSYS program, and this showed that the load–deflection response and crack patterns also
agreed quite well with experimental results.

Keywords: geopolymer composites; compressive performance; flexural performance; hooked end

steel fiber; polypropylene fiber; simulation analysis

1. Introduction
Concrete is one of the most popular materials used in modern construction, and cement is known
as the main binder of the concrete structure. However, using cement leads to a negative effect on
the environment due to the emission of carbon dioxide generated during the production of cement,
according to Davidovits [1]. As a consequence, the influence of climate change, greenhouse effect,
calamities have serious threats to human life and the environment. The demand for research regarding
friendly environmental construction materials, a decrement the carbon dioxide emissions into the
air, and a reduction of cost are important needs for sustainable development all around the world.
Therefore, many works have been carried out to develop a new eco-friendly and green material used
to alter cement in concrete.
“Geopolymers” was a term invented by Davidovits [2] in the 1970s which can be used to be
describe new materials or alternative binders in concrete. Geopolymers were investigated by combining
source materials such as slag, fly ash, and minerals to replace cement and alkaline solution. There are

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424; doi:10.3390/app9163424 www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 2 of 20

many advantages when using geopolymer composites, such as higher mechanical performance, low
production cost, good properties like low creep and drying shrinkage, excellent fire resistance, and a
low corrosion rate [3–8].
Though geopolymer composites have good performance, their poor flexural and tensile properties
are issues that need investigation. The combing of fibers in geopolymer mixtures is one of the best
solutions to enhance these properties. In terms of ordinary concrete, cement, steel, glass, polypropylene
and other fiber have been successfully used and applied in its structure. The embedding of fiber
in concrete leads to the improvement of strength properties as well as control of the development
of cracking in structural applications. Many works have indicated that the properties of concrete
reinforced with fiber, such as compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile strength, toughness,
ductility, fatigue behavior and creep behavior were improved significantly compared to concrete
without fibers.
Vijai et al. [9] presented the mechanical properties of glass fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete.
This work concludes that the presence of 0.03% glass fiber enhanced compressive strength and flexural
strength by 6% and 16%, respectively. Alomayri and Low [10] considered the influence of volume
fractions from 0% to 1% of cotton fiber on the characteristics of geopolymer composites. Their study
found that compressive strength of geopolymer paste increased at 0.5% and decreased at 0.7% and 1%
of volume fraction of fiber.
Bernal et al. [11] studied geopolymer concrete using slag as a source material and steel fiber.
There is a decrease in compressive strength and an increase in flexural strength and splitting tensile
strength when the volume fraction of fiber increases. The influence of steel fiber on geopolymer
concrete composites using boroaluminosilicate was also found by yje research of Nazari et al. [12] and
Al-mashhadani et al. [13]. Their results indicated that there was good adhesion between steel fiber,
geopolymeric paste, and mortar. The increase in the compressive and flexural strength depends on the
volume fractions of steel fibers used, and the microstructural analysis showed that there was a good
interfacial bonding of the embedded fiber and the geopolymeric binder.
In another study, the improvements in the strength of alkaline cement mortars reinforced with
polypropylene fiber were investigated. Puertas et al. [14] carried out an experiment with mortar
specimens with three types of source materials—slag, fly ash, and a fly ash/slag combination—to
evaluate the mechanical properties of the alkaline mortars. A slight decrease of mechanical properties
happened while using 0%, 0.5% and 1% of polypropylene fiber. In terms of the effect of other fibers
such as carbon fiber, polyvinylalcohol PVA fiber on fiber-reinforced geopolymer paste and concrete
were also investigated in related paper [15–18].
The corporation of fiber has been researched in some studies, however, the influences of fiber on the
performance of geopolymer concrete fabricated with fibers, especially types and geometry properties,
needs to be investigated fully. Only the performance of a single fiber reinforced in a geopolymer matrix
and mortar was considered, and there remains a question of the mechanical response of fiber-reinforced
geopolymer concrete. Thus, the main purpose of this work was to figure out the deeper understanding
of the effect of fiber on the mechanical performance of geopolymer concrete using fly ash as the main
source material. Performance aspects such as compressive performance, splitting tensile strength,
and flexural performance with both polypropylene fiber and hooked end steel fiber were studied. In
addition, a simulation analysis of geopolymer concrete was conducted, and a comparison between
experimental results and analytical results are shown in this study. Addtionally, the adhesion of fibers
and geopolymer paste was investigated through scanning electron microscope (SEM) photos.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Mix Proportions

The experiment was conducted by using fly ash, fibers, aggregate and an alkaline solution as
shown in Figures 1 and 2 and mix proportion of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete per mass is
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 3 of 20

Appl.
Appl.
shown Sci. 2019,
Sci.in
2019, 9,
9, xx FOR
Table FOR
1. InPEER
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW
a mixture of 33 of
of 20
geopolymer composites, fly ash class F, according to the classification 20
of standard ASTM C618 [19], was used as the main material with the chemical composition, as shown
composition,
composition,
in Table 2. The as shown
assilicon
shown in
in Table
dioxide and2.
Table The
The silicon
2.aluminum
silicon dioxide
dioxide
oxide mainlyand
and aluminum
aluminum
constitute oxide
oxide mainly
compositionmainly constitute
constitute
with 51.4% and
composition
composition with
with 51.4%
51.4% and
and 26.7%,
26.7%, respectively.
respectively. Coarse
Coarse aggerate
aggerate and
and fine
fine aggerate
aggerate in
in dry
dry conditions
conditions
26.7%, respectively. Coarse aggerate and fine aggerate in dry conditions with specific gravities of 2.70
with
with specific
specific
and 2.65 ton/mgravities
gravities of
of 2.70
3 was used for and
2.70 and 2.65
2.65 ton/m
ton/m33 was
the experiment. was used
used for
for the
the experiment.
experiment.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b) (c)
(c)
Figure
Figure 1.
1. Materials
Materials used
used for
for experiment.
experiment. (a)
(a)Fly
(a) Flyash,
Fly ash,and
ash, and(b)
and (b)coarse
(b) coarseaggregate,
coarse aggregate,and
aggregate, and (c)
(c) fine
fine aggregate.
aggregate.

(a)
(a) (b)
(b)
Figure
Figure 2.
2. Fibers.
Fibers.(a)
Fibers. (a)hooked
(a) hookedend
hooked endsteel
end steelfiber
steel fiberand
fiber and(b)
and (b)polypropylene
(b) polypropylenefiber.
polypropylene fiber.

Table 1. Mix proportion of geopolymer concrete.

Table
Table 1.
1. Mix
Mix proportion
proportion of
of geopolymer
geopolymer concrete.
concrete.

Fly Coarse FineAggregate

Aggregate Sodium Hydroxide
Fly Ash
Fly Ash (kg)Coarse
Ash Coarse Aggregate
Aggregate Fine
Fine Aggregate Sodium
Sodium Hydroxide
Hydroxide Water
GlassGlass
Water
Water Glass
(kg)
Aggregate (kg) (kg) Solution (kg)
(kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg) Solution
Solution (kg)
(kg) (kg)
(kg)
418 593 1709 213 86
418
418 593
593 1709
1709 213
213 86
86

Table 2.
Table
Table 2. Chemical composition
2. Chemical
Chemical composition of
composition of fly
of fly ash.
fly ash.
ash.
Oxide Oxide SiO2 SiO
Oxide SiO2Al O
2 2Al
Al322O Fe
O33 Fe O
Fe222O SO33SONa
O333 SO O Na
3 22O
Na 2 O on
Loss
Loss Loss on Ignition
on Ignition
Ignition
Percentage
Percentage
Percentage (%) (%)
(%) 51.4
51.4 51.4 26.726.7
26.7 7.81
7.81 0.48
7.81 0.480.480.34
0.34 0.34 3.03
3.03 3.03

To
To activate
activatethe
To activate the geopolymerization
thegeopolymerization
geopolymerization of of
flyfly
of ashash
fly ash geopolymer
geopolymer
geopolymer concrete,
concrete,
concrete, an
an alkaline
alkaline
an alkaline solution
solutionsolution
was mixedwas
was
mixed
mixed with
with the
the ratio
ratio of
of 0.7
0.7 to
to fly
fly ash.
ash. An
An alkaline
alkaline solution
solution is
is a
a combination
combination
with the ratio of 0.7 to fly ash. An alkaline solution is a combination of a sodium hydroxide solution of
of aa sodium
sodium hydroxide
hydroxide
solution
solution and
and aasilicate
and a sodium sodium silicate
silicate solution,
sodiumsolution, and this and
solution, and as
one this
this one
one as
preparedas prepared
prepared
one day beforeone
one day
day before
before
the the
the experiment.
experiment. experiment.
Mixing
Mixing ranges
Mixing ranges of
ranges of 0%,
of 0%, 0.5%,
0%, 0.5%, 1%
0.5%, 1%and
1% and1.5%
and 1.5%of
1.5% ofhooked
of hookedend
hooked endsteel
end steelfiber
steel fiberand
fiber andpolypropylene
and polypropylene fiber
polypropylene fiber were
fiber were
were
also
also embedded into the concrete mixture, according to the mass of concrete. The hooked end steel steel
also embedded
embedded into
into the
the concrete
concrete mixture,
mixture, according
according to
to the
the mass
mass of
of concrete.
concrete. The
The hooked
hooked end
end steel
fiber
fiber
fiber H1,
H1, H2
H2 had
had of
of 30
30 and
and 35
35 mm
mm in
in length
length and
and 0.5
0.5 mm
mm in
in diameter,
diameter,
H1, H2 had of 30 and 35 mm in length and 0.5 mm in diameter, along with the length to diameter L/dalong
along with
with the
the length
length to
to diameter
diameter
L/d
L/d ratios
ratios of 60of
ratios of 60
and and
60 70. 70.
70. Meanwhile,
andMeanwhile,
Meanwhile, polypropylene
polypropylene
polypropylene fiber
fiber
fiber P1, P2P1,P1,
were P2 were
P2used used
werewithused with
the L/dthe
with the
ratiosL/d
L/dofratios
ratios
200 andof
of 200
200
300,
and
and 300,
300, with
with aa 0.05
0.05 mm
mm in
in diameter,
diameter, 10
10 and
and 15
15 mm
mm in
in length,
length, respectively.
respectively.
with a 0.05 mm in diameter, 10 and 15 mm in length, respectively. The elastic modulus of steel fiber The
The elastic
elastic modulus
modulus of
of
steel
steel fiber
fiber and
and polypropylene
and polypropylene polypropylene
were 205 and were
were3.5205
205 and
GPa,and
and3.5 GPa,
3.5theGPa, and the
the tensile
andstrength
tensile tensile
werestrength
strength were
were
1100 and 7001100
1100
MPa,and
and 700
700 MPa,
MPa,
respectively.
respectively.
respectively. The
The mechanical
mechanical properties
properties and
and notations
notations of
of steel
steel fiber
fiber
The mechanical properties and notations of steel fiber and polypropylene fiber are described in Tablesand
and polypropylene
polypropylene fiber
fiber are
are3
described
described in in Tables
Tables 33 and
and 4.4. All
All specimens
specimens were were made
made and and cured
cured at at 80°C
80°C for
for 10
10 h,h, as
as shown
shown in in Figure
Figure
33 to
to activate
activate the
the geopolymerization
geopolymerization process process of of the
the geopolymer
geopolymer concrete concrete structure.
structure.

Table
Table 3.
3. Properties
Properties of
of fibers.
fibers.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 4 of 20

Appl. Sci.
and 2019,specimens
4. All 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
were made and cured at 80 ◦ C for 10 h, as shown in Figure 3 to activate 4 ofthe
20

geopolymerization process of the geopolymer concrete structure.

Elastic Tensile
Length Diameter L/d Density
Fiber Notation Properties of fibers. Modulus Strength
(mm)Table 3.(mm) Ratio (kg/m3)
(GPa) (GPa)
Elastic Tensile
Hooked end
Fiber
H1
Notation
30
Length 0.50
Diameter 60
L/d Ratio
9000
Density 205
Modulus
1.1
Strength
steel fiber H2 (mm)
35 (mm)
0.50 70 (kg/m3 )
9000 205 1.1
(GPa) (GPa)
Hooked end P1
H1 10
30 0.05
0.50 200
60 9109000 3.5
205 1.10.7
Polypropylene H2 35 0.50 70 9000 205 1.10.7
steel fiber P2 15 0.05 300 910 3.5
P1 10 0.05 200 910 3.5 0.7
Polypropylene
P2 15 0.05 300 910 3.5 0.7
Table 4. Notation of series specimens.

Volume Fraction
Fiber SeriesTable 4. Notation
Notation of series specimens.
L/d Ratio
of Fiber (%)
Fiber
Non-fiber Series
GC Notation
GC L/d Ratio
0 Volume Fraction
0 of Fiber (%)
Non-fiber GC GC
H1-05 0 0
0.5
H1 H1-10
H1-05 60 1.0
0.5
Hooked end H1 H1-10
H1-15 60 1.0
1.5
steel fiber H1-15 1.5
Hooked end steel fiber H2-05 0.5
H2 H2-05
H2-10 70 0.5
1.0
H2 H2-10 70 1.0
H2-15 1.5
H2-15 1.5
P1-05 0.5
P1-05 0.5
P1 P1-10 200 1.0
P1 P1-10 200 1.0
P1-15
P1-15 1.5
1.5
Polypropylene
Polypropylene P2-05
P2-05
0.5
0.5
P2 P2 P2-10
P2-10 300 300 1.0
1.0
P2-15
P2-15 1.5

Figure
Figure 3. Curing specimens.
3. Curing specimens.

2.2. Compressive Test and Splitting Tensile Test

2.2. Compressive Test and Splitting Tensile Test
For one mix proportion, three cylindrical specimens with 200 mm in height and 100 mm in
For one mix proportion, three cylindrical specimens with 200 mm in height and 100 mm in
diameter, and strain gauges were used for a compressive test. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the specimen
diameter, and strain gauges were used for a compressive test. Figures 4 and 5 illustrate the specimen
and the compressive test at a loading rate of 0.2 MPa per second. The compressive strength was
and the compressive test at a loading rate of 0.2 MPa per second. The compressive strength was
calculated according to ASTM Standard C39M [20].
calculated according to ASTM Standard C39M [20].
Appl.
Appl. Sci.
Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, x3424
FOR PEER REVIEW 55of
of 20
20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 20

(a) (b)
(a)
Figure 4. Specimens for the compressive (b) (b) specimen with strain
test. (a) Strain gauge and bond;
gauges.4. Specimens
Figure 4. Specimensfor
forthe
thecompressive
compressivetest.
test.(a)(a)
Strain gauge
Strain andand
gauge bond; (b) specimen
bond; withwith
(b) specimen strain gauges.
strain
gauges.

Compressive test.
Figure 5. Compressive
Figure 5. Compressive test.
The splitting
The splittingtensile strength
tensile of fiber-reinforced
strength geopolymer
of fiber-reinforced concrete
geopolymer was measured
concrete by recording
was measured by
the maximum
recording the applied
maximum load, as shown
applied in
load, ASTM
as C496
shown in [21],
ASTM with three
C496 specimens
[21] ,with for
three one mix proportion.
specimens
The splitting tensile strength of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete was measured by for one
Figure
mix 6 describes
proportion.
recording the splitting
Figure
the maximum tensile
6 describes
applied thetest
load, as in details.
splitting
shown tensile test inC496
in ASTM details.
[21] ,with three specimens for one
mix proportion. Figure 6 describes the splitting tensile test in details.

Figure
Figure 6.
6. Splitting
Splitting tensile
tensile test.
test.
Figure 6. Splitting tensile test.
2.3. Experiment of Poisson’s Ratio and Elastic Modulus
2.3. Experiment of Poisson’s Ratio and Elastic Modulus
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 6 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 20

2.3. Experiment of Poisson’s Ratio and Elastic Modulus

Figure 7 describes the experiment according to to ASTM

ASTM C469
C469 [22]
[22] to obtain the Poisson’s ratio and
elastic modulus. The experiment was carried out by a compression
elastic modulus. The experiment was carried out by a compression test test capable
capable of
of imposing
imposing aa load
load of
of
0.2 MPa/sec.
0.2 MPa/sec. After
Afterthat,
that,the
thePoisson’s
Poisson’sratio andand
ratio elastic modulus
elastic werewere
modulus obtained by measuring
obtained the stress,
by measuring the
longitudinal
stress, strain, strain,
longitudinal and transverse strain of
and transverse 100 ×
strain of200
100mm ofmm
× 200 specimens under under
of specimens loading.loading.

Figure
Figure 7.
7. Experiment
Experiment of
of Poisson’s
Poisson’s ratio
ratio and
and elastic
elastic modulus.
modulus.

2.4. Flexural
2.4. Flexural Test
Test
Based on
Based onASTM
ASTMC78 C78andand
ASTM C1609
ASTM [23,24],
C1609 the flexural
[23,24], test wastest
the flexural conducted by using specimens
was conducted by using
100 × 100 ×100
specimens 400×mm
100 in sizemm
× 400 withinasize
span length
with of 300
a span mmofas300
length shown
mm in as Figure
shown8. inIn this test,
Figure 8. Inthe
thislinear
test,
variable differential transformer LVDT was used to measure the mid-span deflection
the linear variable differential transformer LVDT was used to measure the mid-span deflection of of geopolymer
concrete beam.
geopolymer The flexural
concrete beam.performance
The flexuralwas evaluatedwas
performance by obtaining
evaluatedflexural strengths,
by obtaining load–deflection
flexural strengths,
curves, and the toughness
load–deflection curves, andofthe
fiber-reinforced
toughness of geopolymer
fiber-reinforcedconcrete.
geopolymer concrete.

Figure 8. Flexural test.

3. Simulation
3. Simulation Analysis
Analysis
A finite
A finite element
element modeling
modeling of of reinforced
reinforced geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concrete beam
beam was
was constructed
constructed by by ANSYS
ANSYS
software [25] in order to analyze the flexural performance. The nonlinear elasticity
software [25] in order to analyze the flexural performance. The nonlinear elasticity model wasmodel was adopted
for the polypropylene
adopted fiber andfiber
for the polypropylene steel and
fibersteel
geopolymer concrete specimens.
fiber geopolymer The response
concrete specimens. could be
The response
predicted numerically by using the eight-node element Solid 65, as shown in Figure 9.
could be predicted numerically by using the eight-node element Solid 65, as shown in Figure 9. InIn this simulation
analysis,
this the element
simulation withthe
analysis, three freedom
element withdegrees was chosen
three freedom for the
degrees structure
was chosen beam
for theand was suitable
structure beam
for considering cracking and flexural deformation.
and was suitable for considering cracking and flexural deformation.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 7 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 20

Figure 9. Schematic of Solid65 element.

The supported beams with 400 mm effective length and a cross-section of 100 × × 100 mm were
taken for simulation
simulation analysis
analysiswith
withthe
thedifferent
differentvolume
volumefractions
fractionsofofeach
eachembedded
embedded fiber, as as
fiber, shown
shown in
Figure
in Figure10.10.
The failure
The criterion
failure of von
criterion Mises
of von waswas
Mises used used for the definition
for the of the
definition of concrete failure,
the concrete as was
failure, as
William’s
was William’smodelmodel
[26]. The stress–strain
[26]. relationship
The stress–strain of specimens
relationship was determined
of specimens from the experiment,
was determined from the
as shown in Section
experiment, as shown 4.1.2, with the
in section various
4.1.2, with dosages
the variousof fiber. Equation
dosages
Figure 9. Schematic of Solid65 element. of (1)
fiber. shows
Equationhow
(1)to measure
shows howthe to
stress–strain relationship of the fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete model
measure the stress–strain relationship of the fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete model with stressε with stress f at strain
fand ultimate
at strain ε andcompressive
The supported ultimate
beams strength
compressive
with 400 f’cmmat strain
strength εf’oc [27].
effective atlength
strain andεo [27].
a cross-section of 100 × 100 mm were
taken for simulation analysis with the different volume fractions of each embedded fiber, as shown
in Figure 10. The failure criterion of von Mises f =wasEcused ε
2 for the definition of the concrete failure, as
1+( εεo )
was William’s model [26]. The stress–strain relationship 2f0c of specimens was determined from the (1)
εo = E c
experiment, as shown in section 4.1.2, with the various f dosages of fiber. Equation (1) shows how to
Ec = ε
measure the stress–strain relationship of the fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete model with stress
f at strain ε and ultimate compressive strength f’c at strain εo [27].

Figure 10. Modeling of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete.

E cε
f= 2
ε
1+  
 εo 
2f '
Figure 10. Modeling of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete. (1)
εo = c
Figure 10. Modeling of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete.
Ec
The material properties of the fiber geopolymer concrete
f model were defined by using experimental
Ec =
results, as shown in Section 4.1.2. These data were measured
ε E cε from flexural tests. The geopolymer
f= 2
concrete (GC) without fiber had an elastic modulus of 25.40 ε GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of 0.128, while
The material properties of the fiber geopolymer 1 +  concrete model were defined by using
the generated fiber had different properties depending on εo the volume fraction of fiber.
experimental results, as shown in section 4.1.2. These 'data were measured from flexural tests. The
There were a total of nine specimens with volume2ffractions ranging from 0.5% to 1.5%—the same (1)
geopolymer concrete (GC) without fiber had an elasticε = modulus
c
of 25.40 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of
as the experimental test. The elastic modulus of specimens
o
Ec P1 and P2 reinforced with polypropylene
0.128, while the generated fiber had different properties depending on the volume fraction of fiber.
fiber ranged from 21.32 to 26.10 GPa, and their Poisson’s f ratios ranged from 0.129 to 0.152. Meanwhile,
There were a total of nine specimens with volume
Ec = fractions ranging from 0.5% to 1.5%—the same
ε
as the experimental test. The elastic modulus of specimens P1 and P2 reinforced with polypropylene
fiber The
ranged from properties
material 21.32 to 26.10
of theGPa, andgeopolymer
fiber their Poisson’s ratios
concrete ranged
model from
were 0.129 by
defined to 0.152.
using
experimental results, as shown in section 4.1.2. These data were measured from flexural tests. The
geopolymer concrete (GC) without fiber had an elastic modulus of 25.40 GPa and a Poisson’s ratio of
0.128, while the generated fiber had different properties depending on the volume fraction of fiber.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 8 of 20

Meanwhile, for specimens H1 and H2, generated with steel fiber, the higher elastic moduli were
27.29–31.56 GPa, and Poisson’s ratios of 0.140–0.163 were input.
The boundary
for specimens H1 and conditions were simulated
H2, generated exactly
with steel fiber, thethe sameelastic
higher as themoduli
experiment
were set up, as shown
27.29–31.56 GPa,
in Figure
and 8. The
Poisson’s meshing
ratios size was were
of 0.140–0.163 5 mminput.
with over 30,000 elements. In the middle span beams, the
concentrated transverse
The boundary load was
conditions applied
were to specimens
simulated exactly and was divided
the same into a load increments
as the experiment called
set up, as shown
load
in steps.8.The
Figure Theload-deflection
meshing size wasrelationship
5 mm withwasover
obtained
30,000from the firstIn
elements. crack load up span
the middle to fully collapse.
beams, the
Additionally,transverse
concentrated the crack load
patterns
was of the geopolymer
applied to specimens composites beams were
and was divided into aalso
loaddetermined at the
increments called
last converged
load steps. The load steps.
load-deflection relationship was obtained from the first crack load up to fully collapse.
Additionally, the crack patterns of the geopolymer composites beams were also determined at the last
4. Results and
converged loadDiscussion
steps.

4.
4.1.Results and Discussion
Compressive Performance of Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete

4.1.
4.1.1.Compressive
CompressivePerformance
Strength of Fiber Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete

4.1.1.Table 5 and Figure

Compressive 11 show the compressive strengths of geopolymer concrete reinforced with
Strength
two types of fiber, including series P1, P2, H1, and H2. There were two results of compressive
Table 5 and Figure 11 show the compressive strengths of geopolymer concrete reinforced with two
strength when the volume fractions of fiber were changed. In terms of polypropylene fiber-reinforced
types of fiber, including series P1, P2, H1, and H2. There were two results of compressive strength when
geopolymer concrete (PFRGC), the strength was improved at 0% and 0.5% of fiber and decreased at
the volume fractions of fiber were changed. In terms of polypropylene fiber-reinforced geopolymer
volume fractions of 1.0% and 1.5%. Besides, the strength of hooked end steel fiber-reinforced
concrete (PFRGC), the strength was improved at 0% and 0.5% of fiber and decreased at volume fractions
geopolymer concrete (HFRGC) increased from 0% to 1.0% of fiber and decreased at a volume fraction
of 1.0% and 1.5%. Besides, the strength of hooked end steel fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete
of 1.5%. The greatest values were 43.33 and 59.30 MPa for PFRGC and HFRGC, respectively, with a
(HFRGC) increased from 0% to 1.0% of fiber and decreased at a volume fraction of 1.5%. The greatest
difference of 26.93%.
values were 43.33 and 59.30 MPa for PFRGC and HFRGC, respectively, with a difference of 26.93%.
Table 5. Compressive strength.
Table 5. Compressive strength.
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Volume Fraction of Fiber (%) Compressive Strength (MPa)
Volume Fraction of Fiber (%) P1 P2 H1 H2
P1
0.0 32.05 32.05 32.05 32.05 H2
P2 H1
0.0 0.5 32.05 32.05 38.59 32.05
43.33 43.89 45.20 32.05
0.5 43.33
1.0 36.18 35.50 57.02 59.30 45.20
38.59 43.89
1.0 36.18 35.50 57.02 59.30
1.5 1.5 32.45 32.45
27.13 27.13 43.33
43.33 49.44 49.44

Figure 11. Compressive strength.

Figure 11. Compressive strength.
When embedding 0.5% of fiber to a geopolymer concrete mixture, the difference between specimens
usingWhen embedding
polypropylene and0.5% of fiber
steel fibers wasto a geopolymer
small, concrete
and this difference mixture,
varied the difference
significantly at higherbetween
volume
specimensThese
fractions. usingcompressive
polypropylene and steel
strengths werefibers was small,
36.18–59.30 MPaandandthis differenceMPa
32.45–49.44 varied
withsignificantly at
differences of
higher volume fractions. These compressive strengths were 36.18–59.30 MPa and 32.45–49.44
34.36% and 38.99% at 1.0% and 1.5% of fiber, respectively. Steel fiber had better properties than those MPa
with
of differences offiber,
polypropylene 34.36%
andand
the38.99%
adhesionat 1.0% and steel
between 1.5% fiber
of fiber,
andrespectively. Steel fiber
the base material had better
was also better
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 20

properties than
Appl. Sci. 2019, those of polypropylene fiber, and the adhesion between steel fiber and the base
9, 3424 9 of 20
material was also better than polypropylene because of the special shape and rough surface of steel
fiber. As a consequence, the compressive strength of HFRGC was always higher than those of PFRGC,
asthan polypropylene
indicated because of the
by the experimental special shape and rough surface of steel fiber. As a consequence,
results.
the compressive strength of HFRGC was always higher than those of PFRGC, as indicated by the
experimental
4.1.2. Stress–Strainresults.
Relationship
ByStress–Strain
4.1.2. conducting aRelationship
compressive test and using strain gauges, geopolymer concrete embedded by
fibers exhibited compressive performance, including compressive stress, strain at peak stress,
By conducting
Poisson’s a compressive
ratio, and elastic modulus.test
All and
theseusing strain
values gauges,ingeopolymer
are shown Table 6. concrete embedded by
fibers exhibited compressive performance, including compressive stress, strain at peak stress, Poisson’s
ratio, and elastic modulus. All these
Tablevalues are shownperformance.
6. Compressive in Table 6.

Specimen Compressive StressTable

(MPa) Strain Poisson’s
6. Compressive Ratio Elastic Modulus E (GPa)
performance.
GC 32.61 0.0021 0.128 25.40
Specimen Compressive Stress (MPa) Strain Poisson’s Ratio Elastic Modulus E (GPa)
P1-05 43.33 0.0024 0.152 26.10
GC
P1-10 32.61
36.18 0.0021
0.0026 0.128
0.139 25.40
25.37
P1-05 43.33 0.0024 0.152 26.10
P1-15 32.45 0.0030 0.132 23.09
P1-10 36.18 0.0026 0.139 25.37
P2-05
P1-15 38.59
32.45 0.0022
0.0030 0.146
0.132 25.82
23.09
P2-10
P2-05 35.50
38.59 0.0027
0.0022 0.140
0.146 25.15
25.82
P2-10
P2-15 35.50
27.13 0.0027
0.0029 0.140
0.129 25.15
21.32
P2-15
H1-05 27.13
45.09 0.0029
0.0022 0.129
0.148 21.32
29.09
H1-05 45.09 0.0022 0.148 29.09
H1-10 57.02 0.0025 0.158 31.08
H1-10 57.02 0.0025 0.158 31.08
H1-15
H1-15 43.31
43.31 0.0030
0.0030 0.140
0.140 27.29
27.29
H2-05
H2-05 45.20
45.20 0.0024
0.0024 0.150
0.150 30.67
30.67
H2-10
H2-10 59.30
59.30 0.0025
0.0025 0.163
0.163 31.56
31.56
H2-15
H2-15 49.44
49.44 0.0027
0.0027 0.145
0.145 28.87
28.87

As
Asshown
shownin inFigure
Figure 12, geopolymer concretespecimens
geopolymer concrete specimensusing
usingpolypropylene
polypropylene fiber
fiber and
and hooked
hooked end
end
steelsteel
fiberfiber
hadhad a similar
a similar compressive
compressive performance.
performance. The stress–strain
The stress–strain curvescurves of series
of series P1, P2,P1,
H1P2,
andH1H2
and H2 had the same effect. However, hooked end steel fiber specimens had
had the same effect. However, hooked end steel fiber specimens had better results than polypropylene better results than
polypropylene
fiber specimens fiber
with specimens with a higher
a higher compressive compressive
stress and smallerstress and Among
strain. smaller four
strain. Among
series, four
the H2-10
series,
seriesthe H2-10 had
specimen series thespecimen had the highest
highest compressive stresscompressive
of 59.30 MPa, stress
and of
the59.30
P2-15MPa,seriesand the P2-15
specimen had
series specimen had the smallest compressive stress of 27.13 MPa. Compared with
the smallest compressive stress of 27.13 MPa. Compared with the research of Hardjito [6], the non-fiber the research of
Hardjito
geopolymer [6], the non-fiber
concrete hadgeopolymer
strain rangingconcrete had strain
from 0.0024 ranging
to 0.0026. From from 0.0024
Figure tocan
12, it 0.0026. From
be seen theFigure
strains
12,
at itpeak
can stress
be seenof the strains at peak
all specimens rangedstress
fromof 0.0022
all specimens ranged
to 0.0030. from most
However, 0.0022values
to 0.0030.
wereHowever,
within the
most
range values
from were within the range from 0.0024–0.0026.
0.0024–0.0026.

(a) (b)

Figure 12. Cont.

Appl. Sci.
Appl. Sci. 2019,
2019, 9,
9, x FOR PEER REVIEW
3424 10
10 of 20
of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 20

(c)
(c)
Figure 12. Stress–strain relationship. (a) At a volume fraction of 0.5%; (b) at a volume fraction of 1.0%;
Figure
Figure 12.
(c) at a12. Stress–strain
volume relationship.
fractionrelationship.
Stress–strain of 1.5%. (a)At
(a) Ataavolume
volumefraction
fractionof
of0.5%;
0.5%;(b)
(b)atataavolume
volumefraction
fractionof
of1.0%;
1.0%;
(c) at
(c) at aa volume
volume fraction
fraction of
of 1.5%.
1.5%.
4.1.3. Elastic Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio
4.1.3. Elastic
4.1.3. ElasticModulus
Modulusand andPoisson’s
Poisson’sRatio
Ratio
The behavior of a structure as well as its elastic deformation could be affected by many factors,
The behavior
behavior of of a structure as as well as
as its
its elastic
elasticdeformation
deformation couldbe be affectedby bymany
manyfactors,
factors,
and Theelastic modulusaisstructure
one of the well
most important factors. This could
value of affected
polypropylene fiber and
and
and elastic
elastic modulus is one of the most important factors. This value of polypropylene fiber and hooked
hooked endmodulus is one of the most
steel fiber-reinforced important
geopolymer factors.isThis
concrete value ofinpolypropylene
illustrated Figure 13. In fibertermsandof
end steelend
hooked fiber-reinforced
steelthe geopolymer
fiber-reinforced concrete is illustrated
geopolymer isinillustrated
Figure 13. In terms of 13.
specimens using
specimens using same 0.5% volume fraction ofconcrete
polypropylene in values
fiber, the Figure In terms
of elastic modulusof
the same 0.5%
specimens usingvolume
the samefraction
0.5% of polypropylene
volume fraction offiber, the values of
polypropylene elastic
fiber, the modulus
values were
elasticthe highest
were the highest and most similar—about 25–26 GPa. These values were theofmaximum modulus
elastic
and
were most similar—about
the highest 25–26 GPa. These values were the maximum elastic modulus, and they
modulus, and theyand most similar—about
decreased 25–26 GPa.
as the volume fraction Theseatvalues
increased 1.0% and were the maximum elastic
1.5%.
decreased as the volume fraction increased at 1.0% and 1.5%.
modulus, and they decreased as the volume fraction increased at 1.0% and 1.5%.

Figure 13. Elastic modulus.

Figure 13. Elastic modulus.
Figure 13. Elastic
Figure 13 also describes the compressive modulus.
performance with hooked end steel fiber-reinforced
Figure 13
geopolymer also describes
concrete throughthe compressive
elastic modulus E. performance
This modulus with hooked
had end steel
the greatest value fiber-reinforced
at specimens
Figure
geopolymer 13 also
concrete describes
through the compressive
elastic modulus performance
E. This modulus with hooked
using 1.0% and the smallest value at specimens using 1.5%. The greatest modulus obtainedat
had the end steel
greatest value fiber-reinforced
at specimens
specimens
geopolymer
using 1.5%
using concrete
1.0% fiber the through
and was smallest
31.56 GPa.elastic
value modulus
at specimens
By comparing E.two
This modulus
using
series 1.5%. had
Thethe
specimens, itgreatest
greatest valuethat
can bemodulus
seen atobtained
specimens
the higher at
using 1.0%
specimens and
using the
1.5%smallest
fiber value
was 31.56at specimens
GPa. By using
comparing 1.5%.
two The
seriesgreatest
elastic modulus was always measured at specimens reinforced with hooked end steel fiber. modulus
specimens, it can obtained
be seen at
that
specimens
the higher using 1.5%
elastic
For ordinary fiberwas
modulus
concrete, wasalways
31.56 standard
Australia GPa. By comparing
measured at specimens
(AS) twoproposed
3600 [28] series specimens,
reinforced it(2)can
with hooked
Equation to be steel
end seenfiber.
calculate that
the
the higher
For elastic
ordinary modulus
concrete, was always
Australia measured
standard at
(AS)specimens
3600 [28] reinforced
proposed with hooked
Equation
elastic modulus based on compressive strength, where Ec is the elastic modulus, fcm is the mean (2) end
to steel
calculatefiber.
the
For
elastic ordinary
modulus concrete,
based on Australia
compressivestandard (AS)
strength, 3600
where [28]
E c isproposed
the Equation
elastic
compressive strength, and ρ is the unit-weight of geopolymer concrete at about 2.35 ton/m . modulus, (2) to
f cmcalculate
is 3the the
mean
elastic modulus
compressive based and
strength, on compressive strength,
ρ is the unit-weight where Ec is concrete
of geopolymer the elastic modulus,
at about 2.35 fton/mcm is the3. mean
p
compressive strength, and ρ is the 1.5
Ec unit-weight
= ρ ×1.5(0.024 of geopolymer
fcm + 0.12) concrete
(MPa) at about 2.35 ton/m . 3
(2)
Ec = ρ ×(0.024 fcm + 0.12) (MPa) (2)
Ec = ρ1.5 ×(0.024 fcm + 0.12) (MPa) (2)
 For geopolymer concrete without fiber, Hardjito [6] also presented the following equation to
determine the elastic modulus:

E C = 2707 fcm + 5300 (MPa) (3)

Table
Appl. Sci. 2019,7 9,and
3424Figure 14 present a comparison of the elastic modulus between measured values11 of 20
from this study, and those of ordinary concrete and geopolymer concrete were calculated from
Equations (2) and (3). The elastic modulus of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete obtained from this
studyForiwageopolymer
smaller thanconcrete
those ofwithout
ordinaryfiber, Hardjito
concrete. The [6] also presented
difference the4.3%–23.6%.
was about following equation
However, to
determine the elastic modulus:
compared with non-fiber geopolymer concrete calculated by Equation (3), the measured modulus
was greater than 9%–23.4%. p
EC = 2707 fcm + 5300 (MPa) (3)
Table 7. Comparison of elastic modulus.
Table 7 and Figure 14 present a comparison of the elastic modulus between measured values from
Compressive
this study, and those Strength
of ordinary Measured E
concrete and geopolymer AS3600–E
concrete were Hardjito–E
calculated from Equations (2)
Specimen
(MPa)of fiber-reinforced geopolymer
and (3). The elastic modulus (GPa) (GPa)
concrete (GPa)
obtained from this study iwa
smaller
P1-05than those of ordinary
43.33 concrete. The difference
26.10 was about 4.3%–23.6%.
31.67 However, compared
23.12
with non-fiber geopolymer concrete calculated by Equation (3), the measured modulus was greater
P1-10 36.18 25.37 30.12 21.58
than 9%–23.4%.
P1-15 32.45 23.09 29.25 20.72
Table 7. Comparison of elastic modulus.
P2-05 38.59 25.82 30.65 22.12
Specimen Compressive Strength (MPa) Measured E (GPa) AS3600–E (GPa) Hardjito–E (GPa)
P2-10 35.50 25.15 29.96 21.43
P1-05 43.33 26.10 31.67 23.12
P2-15
P1-10 27.13
36.18 21.32
25.37 27.91
30.12 19.40
21.58
P1-15 32.45 23.09 29.25 20.72
H1-05
P2-05
45.09
38.59
29.09
25.82
32.03
30.65
23.48
22.12
P2-10
H1-10 35.50
57.02 25.15
31.08 29.96
34.32 21.43
25.74
P2-15 27.13 21.32 27.91 19.40
H1-15
H1-05 43.31
45.09 27.29
29.09 31.66
32.03 23.11
23.48
H1-10 57.02 31.08 34.32 25.74
H2-05
H1-15 45.20
43.31 30.67
27.29 32.05
31.66 23.50
23.11
H2-05
H2-10 45.20
59.30 30.67
31.56 32.05
34.72 23.50
26.15
H2-10 59.30 31.56 34.72 26.15
H2-15
H2-15 49.44
49.44 28.87
28.87 32.89
32.89 24.33
24.33

Figure 14. Compressive strength and elastic modulus relationship.

Figure 14. Compressive strength and elastic modulus relationship.
Another parameter obtained from compression test was the Poisson’s ratio, which wa also shown
Another parameter
in Table 6. Figure obtained
15 describes fromofcompression
the value the Poisson’stest was
ratio thefour
with Poisson’s
types ofratio, which wafibers
polypropylene also
shown in Table 6. Figure 15 describes the value of the Poisson’s ratio with four types of polypropylene
and hooked end steel fiber and three dosages of fiber. With series P1 and P2 cast with polypropylene
fibers andPoisson’s
fiber, the hooked ratio
end had
steela fiber
rangeand three dosages
of 0.129–0.152. of fiber. With
Additionally, seriesgenerated
specimens P1 and P2 cast
with with
hooked
polypropylene
end steel fiber hadfiber, the Poisson’s
higher values from ratio had
0.140 to a0.163.
rangeCompared
of 0.129–0.152. Additionally,
with previous studiesspecimens
[6] about
non-fiber geopolymer concrete, this ratio also rangee from 0.120 to 0.160.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 20

generated with hooked end steel fiber had higher values from 0.140 to 0.163. Compared with previous
studies [6] with
generated abouthooked
non-fiber
endgeopolymer concrete,
steel fiber had this ratio
higher values also
from rangee
0.140 fromCompared
to 0.163. 0.120 to 0.160.
with previous
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 12 of 20
studies [6] about non-fiber geopolymer concrete, this ratio also rangee from 0.120 to 0.160.

Figure 15. Poisson’s ratio.

Figure 15. Poisson’s ratio.
Figure 15.
4.2. Splitting Tensile Strength
4.2.
4.2. Splitting
Splitting Tensile
Tensile Strength
Strength
Table 8 and Figure 16 show the influence of fibers on the splitting tensile strength of geopolymer
Table
concrete. In8 and
the Figure
PFRGC,
Table 8 and Figure 16 16 show
alike the
the influence
compressive
show of
of fibers
strengths,
influence on
on the
there
fibers aresplitting
the tensile
two effects
splitting strength
of splitting
tensile of
of geopolymer
strengthtensile strength.
geopolymer
concrete.
From 0% In
to the
0.5% PFRGC,
of the alike compressive
volume fraction strengths,
of fiber, thethere are
splitting two effects
tensile of splitting
strength
concrete. In the PFRGC, alike compressive strengths, there are two effects of splitting tensile strength. tensile
increased strength.
gradually
From
from
From0.5%0%
0% toto 0.5%
to0.5% of the
1.5%,ofthis volume
thestrength
volumehas fraction of fiber,
a tendency
fraction of fiber, the
of the splitting
decrement.
splittingAttensile strength
the volume
tensile strength increased
fraction
increased gradually
0.5%, PFRGC
gradually
from 0.5%
specimens to
had 1.5%,
the this
higheststrength has
splitting a tendency
tensile of
strength decrement.
than GC At the
specimens volume
without
from 0.5% to 1.5%, this strength has a tendency of decrement. At the volume fraction 0.5%, PFRGC fraction
fiber. 0.5%, PFRGC
Compared to
specimens
the splittinghad the highest
tensile splitting
strength (3.70tensile strength
MPa) of GC than GC specimens
specimens, the without
strength
specimens had the highest splitting tensile strength than GC specimens without fiber. Compared to fiber.
of Compared
specimens to the
using
splitting tensiletensile
polypropylene
the splitting strength
fiber P1-05 (3.70
andMPa)
strength (3.70ofincreased
P2-05 GC specimens,
MPa) of toGC11.9%theand
strength of specimens
10%, the
specimens, along with 4.20
strength using
ofMPa polypropylene
and 4.11using
specimens MPa
fiber P1-05
respectively. and P2-05 increased to 11.9% and 10%, along with 4.20 MPa and
polypropylene fiber P1-05 and P2-05 increased to 11.9% and 10%, along with 4.20 MPa and 4.11 MPa 4.11 MPa respectively.
respectively.
8. Splitting
Table 8.
Table Splitting tensile
tensile strength.
strength.
Table 8. Splitting tensile strength.
Splitting
Splitting Tensile
TensileStrength (MPa)
Strength (MPa)
Volume
Volume Fraction
Fraction of Fiberof Fiber (%)
(%)
P1 P2 Tensile
P1 Splitting P2 H1
H1
Strength H2H2
(MPa)
Volume Fraction
0.0 of Fiber (%) 3.70
0.0 3.70 P1 3.703.70
P2 3.70
H1
3.70 3.70
H23.70
0.5 0.5
0.0 4.20 4.20
3.70 4.114.11
3.70 4.29
4.29
3.70 4.18
3.704.18
1.0 4.11 3.873.87 4.98
1.0
0.5 4.11
4.20 4.11 4.98
4.29 4.185.15
5.15
1.5 1.5 3.95 3.95 3.883.88 4.25
4.25 4.584.58
1.0 4.11 3.87 4.98 5.15
1.5 3.95 3.88 4.25 4.58

Figure
Figure 16.
16. Splitting tensile strength.
Figure 16. Splitting tensile strength.
In terms of specimens using steel fiber HFRGC, the splitting tensile strength increase with the
increment of volume fraction except at 1.5%. At 0.5% and 1% of volume fraction, compared to the GC
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 20

In 2019,
Appl. Sci. terms of specimens
9, 3424 using steel fiber HFRGC, the splitting tensile strength increase with 13 ofthe
20
increment of volume fraction except at 1.5%. At 0.5% and 1% of volume fraction, compared to the GC
specimens without fiber, the strength increases strongly from 11.48% to 28.16%, correspondingly to
specimens
4.18 MPa towithout
5.15 MPa. fiber,
Thethe strength
highest increases
values strongly by
were achieved from 11.48%
adding to hooked
1.0% 28.16%,endcorrespondingly
steel fiber to the to
4.18 MPa to 5.15 MPa. The highest values were achieved
mixture, with a value of 5.15 MPa of the H2-10 specimen series. by adding 1.0% hooked end steel fiber to the
mixture,
The with a value
highest of 5.15
splitting MPastrength
tensile of the H2-10 specimen
of PFRGC andseries.
HFRGC were 5.15 MPa and 4.20 MPa with
The highest splitting tensile strength of PFRGC and
disparity was 18.45%. The difference between the strength of PFRGC HFRGC wereand
5.15HFRGC
MPa andwas 4.20small
MPawhenwith
disparity was 18.45%. The difference between the strength of PFRGC and HFRGC
adding 0.5% fiber into the geopolymer concrete mixture. However, at volume fractions 1% and 1.5%, was small when
adding 0.5% of
the strength fiber into the using
specimens geopolymer
hookedconcrete
end steel mixture.
fiber was However, at volume
much higher than fractions
specimens 1%using
and
1.5%, the strength
polypropylene fiber. of specimens using hooked end steel fiber was much higher than specimens using
polypropylene fiber.
Australia Standard AS 3600 [29] revealed Equation (4) for evaluating the compressive strength
and splitting tensile strength3600
Australia Standard AS [29] revealed
relationship Equation
of ordinary (4) for cement
Portland evaluating the compressive
concrete, where fct is strength
splitting
and splitting tensile strength relationship
tensile strength and fcm is compressive strength: of ordinary Portland cement concrete, where fct is splitting
tensile strength and fcm is compressive strength:
fct = 0.4
p fcm (MPa) (4)
fct = 0.4 fcm (MPa) (4)
For geopolymer concrete, Hardjito recommended Equation (5) to determine the splitting tensile
strength:
For geopolymer concrete, Hardjito recommended Equation (5) to determine the splitting
tensile strength:
f = 0.7
p f (MPa) (5)
fct =ct0.7 fcmcm(MPa) (5)
Figure 17 shows compressive strength and splitting tensile strength relationship by using
Figure 17 shows compressive strength and splitting tensile strength relationship by using
Equations (4) and (5). For fly ash fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete, the splitting tensile strength
Equations (4) and (5). For fly ash fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete, the splitting tensile strength
had a greater value than those of ordinary concrete. Compared with non-fiber geopolymer concrete,
had a greater value than those of ordinary concrete. Compared with non-fiber geopolymer concrete,
this value was also small—approximately under 10%. Therefore, compressive strength and splitting
this value was also small—approximately under 10%. Therefore, compressive strength and splitting
tensile strength could be evaluated by Equation (5).
tensile strength could be evaluated by Equation (5).

Figure 17. Compressive strength and splitting tensile strength relationship.

Figure 17. Compressive strength and splitting tensile strength relationship.
4.3. Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete
4.3. Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Geopolymer Concrete
4.3.1. Flexural Strength
4.3.1.The
Flexural Strength
flexural test of fiber-reinforced geopolymer composites was carried out with 100 × 100 ×
400 mmTheof specimens
flexural test ofand a span lengthgeopolymer
fiber-reinforced of 300 mm. composites
The flexuralwasstrength
carriedofout
both specimens
with 100 × 100using
× 400
polypropylene fiber and steel fiber are improved significantly, as shown in Table
mm of specimens and a span length of 300 mm. The flexural strength of both specimens using9 and Figure 18.
polypropylene fiber and steel fiber are improved significantly, as shown in Table 9 and Figure 18.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 14 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 14 of 20
Table 9. Flexural strength.

Flexural Strength (MPa)

Table 9. Flexural strength.
Volume Fraction of Fiber (%)
P1 P2 H1 H2
Flexural Strength (MPa)
Volume Fraction of Fiber 0.0
(%) 5.89 5.89 5.89 5.89
P1 P2 H1 H2
0.0 0.5 5.89 6.45
5.89 6.30 6.82
5.89 7.02 5.89
0.5 6.45 6.30 6.82
1.0 7.45 7.17 8.48 9.78 7.02
1.0 7.45 7.17 8.48 9.78
1.5 1.5 7.98 7.98
7.32 7.32 9.65
9.65 10.22 10.22

.
Figure 18. Flexural strength.
Figure 18. Flexural strength.
When the volume fraction of fiber increased from 0.5% to 1.5%, the flexural behavior of PFRGC
Whenwere
specimens the volume
increased fraction of fiber
from 6.06% increased
to 26.19%. Atfrom
0.5%,0.5% to 1.5%,strengths
the flexural the flexuralof P1behavior of PFRGC
and P2 specimens
specimens
were 6.45 MPawereand increased
6.30 MPa, from 6.06% with
compared to 26.19%.
the 5.89 AtMPa0.5%, the flexural
of non-fiber strengths
specimen GC.ofAtP1 andand
1.0% P2
specimens were 6.45 MPa and 6.30 MPa, compared with the 5.89 MPa of
1.5%, the improvement of flexural strength was higher, from 10.08% to 26.19%, and the greatest value non-fiber specimen GC. At
1.0% and 1.5%, the improvement
was measured at series P2-15 with 7.98 MPa. of flexural strength was higher, from 10.08% to 26.19%, and the
greatest valueofwas
In terms HFRGCmeasured
usingatsteel
series P2-15
fiber, the with 7.98strength
flexural MPa. is also enhanced strongly from 13.64%
to 42.37%. With dosage of fiber at 0.5%, flexural strengths wereis6.82
In terms of HFRGC using steel fiber, the flexural strength alsoMPa
enhanced
and 7.02 strongly from 13.64%
MPa, according to
to 42.37%. With dosage of fiber at 0.5%, flexural strengths were 6.82 MPa and
13.64% and 16.10% of the difference. The flexural strength continued to increase with 1.0% and came to 7.02 MPa, according to
13.64% value
highest and 16.10%
at 1.5%. of The
the difference.
specimen H2-15 The flexural strength
using 0.15% steelcontinued to increase
fiber in concrete withhad
mixture 1.0%theand came
highest
to highest value at 1.5%. The specimen
strength of 10.22 MPa with a large difference of 42.37%. H2-15 using 0.15% steel fiber in concrete mixture had the
highest
Fourstrength of 10.22 MPa
series specimens with
P1, P2, H1a and
largeH2 difference
showed the of 42.37%.
best flexural performance when embedding
1.5% of fiber to the geopolymer concrete mixture. There werethe
Four series specimens P1, P2, H1 and H2 showed best
7.98, 7.32,flexural
9.65 and performance
10.22 MPa for whenP1,
P2, H1, H2, respectively. Between the highest strength of PFRGC and HFRGC, the difference 10.22
embedding 1.5% of fiber to the geopolymer concrete mixture. There were 7.98, 7.32, 9.65 and was
MPa for
21.9% P1, P2,
between 7.98 H1,
MPaH2,and respectively.
10.22 MPa. Between the highest
The properties as wellstrength of PFRGCofand
as the workability fiberHFRGC,
in concrete the
difference was 21.9% between 7.98 MPa and 10.22 MPa. The properties as well
mixture were the main reason for this difference. Based on the properties of steel fiber, including tensile as the workability of
fiber in concrete mixture were the main reason for this difference. Based
strength, elastic modulus, the specimens reinforced with steel fiber performed the higher behavior on the properties of steel
fiber,those
than including tensile strength,
of specimens elastic modulus,
using polypropylene fiber.the specimens
HFRGC reinforced
exhibited a goodwith steel fiber
influence performed
on geopolymer
composites, compared with PFRGC. Besides, hooked end steel fiber had a special shape at twoa ends,
the higher behavior than those of specimens using polypropylene fiber. HFRGC exhibited good
influence
and its roughon geopolymer
surface led tocomposites,
the increment compared
of adhesionwithbetween
PFRGC.steelBesides,
fiber hooked
and baseend steel fiber
material had a
(as shown
special shape at two ends, and its rough surface led to
in SEM photo analysis) and the improvement of significant flexural strength.the increment of adhesion between steel fiber
and base material (as shown in SEM photo analysis) and the improvement of significant flexural
4.3.2. Load–Deflection Relationship
strength.
Based on the results obtained from experiments, flexural performance, including flexural strength,
4.3.2. Load–Deflection Relationship
load carrying capacity, deflection at peak load and toughness are shown in Table 10. Figure 19a–c
Basedtheonload–deflection
describes the results obtained
curve offrom experiments,
the specimens flexural
using performance,
fiber with including
three volume flexural
fractions in a
strength, load carrying capacity, deflection at peak load and toughness are shown in Table 10. Figure
19a–c describes the load–deflection curve of the specimens using fiber with three volume fractions in
34 kN.

Table 10. Flexural performance.

Flexural Strength Deflection at Peak Peak Load Toughness

Specimen
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 15 of 20
(MPa) (mm) (N) (Nm)
GC 5.89 1.206 19,638.26 7.091
flexural test. All specimens perform the similar load–deflection relationship with the deflection at peak
P1-05 6.45 1.252 21,553.72 9.843
load, between the net 1/300 and 1/600 of span length, are 1–2 mm and the peak load from 21 to 34 kN.
P1-10 7.45 1.839 24,833.59 13.685
Table 10. Flexural performance.
P1-15 7.98 1.100 26,611.20 14.444
Specimen
P2-05 Flexural Strength
6.30 (MPa) Deflection at Peak (mm)
1.253 Peak21,096.30
Load (N) Toughness (Nm)
8.354
GC 5.89 1.206 19,638.26 7.091
P2-10
P1-05 7.17
6.45 1.691
1.252 23,901.60
21,553.72 12.740
9.843
P1-10
P2-15 7.45
7.32 1.839
1.392 24,833.59
24,409.17 13.685
13.461
P1-15 7.98 1.100 26,611.20 14.444
H1-05
P2-05 6.82
6.30 0.949
1.253 22,769.98
21,096.30 16.794
8.354
P2-10 7.17 1.691 23,901.60 12.740
H1-10
P2-15 8.48
7.32 1.892
1.392 28,412.16
24,409.17 19.138
13.461
H1-05
H1-15 6.82
9.65 0.949
1.488 22,769.98
32,188.80 16.794
23.330
H1-10 8.48 1.892 28,412.16 19.138
H2-05
H1-15 7.02
9.65 1.170
1.488 23,442.05
32,188.80 17.578
23.330
H2-05 7.02 1.170 23,442.05 17.578
H2-10
H2-10 9.78
9.78 1.765
1.765 32,592.00
32,592.00 21.126
21.126
H2-15
H2-15 10.22
10.22 1.628
1.628 34,070.40
34,070.40 24.191
24.191

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 19. Load–deflection relationship. (a) At a volume fraction of 0.5%; (b) at a volume fraction of
1.0%; (c) at a volume fraction of 1.5%.

The series of P1-15, P2-15, H1-15 and H2-15 in Figure 19c had the highest behavior of the flexural
test, which means that the loading capacity of these series were the best. The flexural performance
of hooked end steel FRGC was better than polypropylene FRGC, with the highest load carrying
capacity 34,070.4 N, compared with 26,611.2 N; the difference was 21.89%. The L/d ratio of the fibers
also influenced the flexural behavior, with 70 outperforming 60 to hooked end steel fiber and 300
 The series of P1-15, P2-15, H1-15 and H2-15 in Figure 19c had the highest behavior of the flexural
test, which means that the loading capacity of these series were the best. The flexural performance of
hooked end steel FRGC was better than polypropylene FRGC, with the highest load carrying capacity
34,070.4 N, compared
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 with 26,611.2 N; the difference was 21.89%. The L/d ratio of the fibers16also
of 20
influenced the flexural behavior, with 70 outperforming 60 to hooked end steel fiber and 300
outperforming 200 to polypropylene fiber. Because hooked end steel fiber had better properties than
outperforming 200 to polypropylene fiber. Because hooked end steel fiber had better properties than
polypropylene fiber, such as elastic modulus, tensile strength and surface properties. Moreover,
polypropylene fiber, such as elastic modulus, tensile strength and surface properties. Moreover, hooked
hooked end steel fiber had a special shape, different from the smooth shape of polypropylene fiber.
end steel fiber had a special shape, different from the smooth shape of polypropylene fiber. Thus, this
Thus, this shape leads to the increment of the adhesion between steel fiber and materials and the
shape leads to the increment of the adhesion between steel fiber and materials and the improvement of
improvement of strength under the impact of the load.
strength under the impact of the load.
4.3.3. Energy Absorption Capacity (Toughness)
4.3.3. Energy Absorption Capacity (Toughness)
The fibers used in the structure of concrete enhanced the mechanical properties of concrete like
The fibers used in the structure of concrete enhanced the mechanical properties of concrete like
the control of crack initiation under loading and the fracture toughness of concrete. Toughness
the control of crack initiation under loading and the fracture toughness of concrete. Toughness showed
showed the capacity of fiber in flexural test by energy absorption, control crack initiation and
the capacity of fiber in flexural test by energy absorption, control crack initiation and propagation.
propagation. Toughness was obtained by calculating the total area under the load–deflection curves
Toughness was obtained by calculating the total area under the load–deflection curves as described in
as described in ASTM C1609 23]. The effect of two fiber types with three volume fractions on
ASTM C1609 23]. The effect of two fiber types with three volume fractions on toughness is illustrated
toughness is illustrated in Figure 20.
in Figure 20.

Figure 20. Energy absorption capacity (toughness).

Figure 20. Energy absorption capacity (toughness).
With all specimens generated with fiber, the toughness increases with the increase in the volume
With all specimens generated with fiber, the toughness increases with the increase in the volume
fraction. For the specimens using polypropylene fiber, the value of toughness was from 7.174 to
fraction. For the specimens using polypropylene fiber, the value of toughness was from 7.174 to
13.461 N.m. The variation of toughness depended on the type of polypropylene fiber and volume
13.461 N.m. The variation of toughness depended on the type of polypropylene fiber and volume
fractions. With series P2 and 1.5% fiber, the toughness had the maximum value of 13.461 N.m. Similar
fractions. With series P2 and 1.5% fiber, the toughness had the maximum value of 13.461 N.m. Similar
to P series, the H series geopolymer concrete generated with steel fiber also had the same effect.
to P series, the H series geopolymer concrete generated with steel fiber also had the same effect. The
The highest toughness of HFRGC was 24.191 N.m when added with 1.5% of fiber into the concrete
highest toughness of HFRGC was 24.191 N.m when added with 1.5% of fiber into the concrete
mixture. Generally, HFRGC had always more flexural behavior than PFRGC, with a great difference of
mixture. Generally, HFRGC had always more flexural behavior than PFRGC, with a great difference
toughness, about 44.36%, in accordance with 24.191 and 13.461 N.m.
of toughness, about 44.36%, in accordance with 24.191 and 13.461 N.m.
4.4. Microstructural Photos of Geopolymer Matrix with Fibers
4.4. Microstructural Photos of Geopolymer Matrix with Fibers
Figure 21 shows SEM photos which describe the microstructures of geopolymer matrixes with
Figure
fibers. 21the
Inside shows SEM photos
geopolymer which
structure, describe
there the microstructures
was adhesion of geopolymer
between polypropylene fibermatrixes
in Figurewith
21a
fibers. Inside the geopolymer structure, there was adhesion
and hooked end steel fiber in Figure 21b with geopolymer paste. between polypropylene fiber in Figure
21a and hookedhigher
Therefore, end steel fiber inwere
strengths Figure 21b with
achieved whengeopolymer paste.
using fibers to improve mechanical properties of
geopolymer concrete. As obvious when comparing two figures, the adhesion between of hooked end
steel fiber and base materials was much more than those of polypropylene fiber—the paste around
steel fiber was denser and better. Thus, the geopolymer concrete reinforced with hooked end steel fiber
always had greater mechanical properties than specimens using polypropylene fiber.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 17 of 20
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 20

(a) (b)
Figure 21. SEM photos. (a) Specimen with polypropylene fiber; (b) specimen with steel fiber.

Therefore, higher strengths were achieved when using fibers to improve mechanical properties
of geopolymer concrete. As obvious when comparing two figures, the adhesion between of hooked
end steel fiber and base materials was much more than those of polypropylene fiber—the paste
around steel fiber was denser
(a) and better. Thus, the geopolymer concrete reinforced
(b) with hooked end
steel fiber always had greater mechanical properties than specimens using polypropylene fiber.
Figure
Figure 21.
21. SEM
SEMphotos.
photos.(a)
(a)Specimen
Specimenwith
withpolypropylene
polypropylenefiber;
fiber;(b)
(b)specimen
specimenwith
with steel
steel fiber.
fiber.
4.5. Comparison
4.5. Comparison of
of Experimental
Experimental Results
Results and
and Simulation
Simulation Results
Results
Therefore, higher strengths were achieved when using fibers to improve mechanical properties
The experimental
The experimental
of geopolymer results
concrete.results and simulation
As obvious
and simulation analysistwo
when comparing
analysis of fiber-reinforced
of fiber-reinforced
figures, geopolymer
the adhesion between
geopolymer concrete are
of hooked
concrete are
illustrated
end in
steel fiber
illustrated Figures
and base
in Figures 22 and 23 with
materials
22 and 23 withwasthe load-deflection
themuch response
more thanresponse
load-deflection and
those ofand crack patterns.
polypropylene Figure
fiber—the
crack patterns. 22a–d
paste
Figure 22a–d
showsthe
around
shows theload-deflection
steel load-deflection
fiber was denser curves of specimens
andofbetter.
curves theH1,
Thus,H1,
specimens H2,andP1P2,
geopolymer
H2, P1 and P2, respectively,
concrete reinforced
respectively, with
with
with the the volume
hooked
various various
end
volume
steel fractions
fiber always of
hadfiber, compared
greater with
mechanical non-fiber
properties geopolymer
than specimens
fractions of fiber, compared with non-fiber geopolymer concrete GC. concrete
using GC.
polypropylene fiber.

4.5. Comparison of Experimental Results and Simulation Results

The experimental results and simulation analysis of fiber-reinforced geopolymer concrete are
illustrated in Figures 22 and 23 with the load-deflection response and crack patterns. Figure 22a–d
shows the load-deflection curves of specimens H1, H2, P1 and P2, respectively, with the various
volume fractions of fiber, compared with non-fiber geopolymer concrete GC.

(a) (b)

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 22. Comparison the load–deflection behavior. (a) Specimen H1; (b) specimen H2; (c) specimen
P1; (d) specimen P2.

(c) (d)
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 20

Figure 22. Comparison the load–deflection behavior. (a) Specimen H1; (b) specimen H2; (c) specimen
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 18 of 20
P1; (d) specimen P2.

(a)

(b)
23. Crack patterns
Figure 23. patterns of
of experimental
experimental beams
beams and
and modeling.
modeling. (a) Specimen
Specimen using polypropylene
polypropylene
using hooked
fiber; (b) specimen using hooked end
end steel
steel fiber.
fiber.

Overall, there was a slight difference

difference between
between the
the experimental
experimental and
and analysis
analysis results.
results. The load of
specimen H1 in Figure 22a reached 23,200–32,000 N in modeling and 22,769–32,188 N in the flexural
test. Additionally, the peak deflection was similar in experimentexperiment and modeling, with 0.95–1.61 and
1.03–1.47, respectively,
respectively, and the difference of 0.5%–8% was small
and the difference of 0.5%–8% was small and
and acceptable.
acceptable. Compared with the
geopolymer
geopolymer concrete
concretewithout
withoutfiber GC, GC,
fiber Figure 22a shows
Figure 22a strength improvement.
shows strength The other The
improvement. specimens
other
H2, P1 and P2 also had the same effect of load-deflection behavior. The difference between
specimens H2, P1 and P2 also had the same effect of load-deflection behavior. The difference between testing and
analysis wasanalysis
testing and also reasonable.
was also reasonable.
In modeling, the performance of geopolymer composites enhanced with fibers was evaluated evaluated
and determined
determinedthrough
throughcrack
crackpatterns
patternsatat the last converged load steps. Figure 23a,b shows
the last converged load steps. Figure 23a,b shows the finite the
finite
elementelement modeling
modeling withwith the crack
the crack patterns
patterns of specimens
of specimens using
using polypropyleneand
polypropylene andsteel
steel fiber
fiber and
compared with the failure figures
figures of
of the
the test.
test. By comparing the crack appearance in flexural test and
simulation
simulation analysis,
analysis,ititcan
canbebeseen
seenthat
thatthe
thecrack
crackinitiation
initiationand
andpropagation
propagation occurred
occurredat at
thethe
midspan
midspan of
beam
of beamand showed
and showed thethe
same
sameshape.
shape.

5. Conclusions
5. Conclusions
The
The experimental
experimental results
results showed
showed aa clearer
clearer and
and deeper
deeper understanding
understanding of of the
the mechanical
mechanical
performance of geopolymer composites made from fly ash and generated with
performance of geopolymer composites made from fly ash and generated with steel and steel and polypropylene
fibers. The mechanical
polypropylene fibers. properties including
The mechanical compressive
properties performance,
including flexural
compressive performance,flexural
performance, tensile
strength, elastic
performance, modulus,
tensile Poisson’s
strength, ratio, and
elastic modulus, energy ratio,
Poisson’s absorption capacity
and energy were the
absorption important
capacity were
parameters
the important parameters which effect structural performance. Understanding the influenceisofuseful
which effect structural performance. Understanding the influence of fiber fiber
for applying
is useful for geopolymer compositescomposites
applying geopolymer in modern in construction and design. and
modern construction The design.
following conclusions
The following
can be obtained
conclusions can by
be obtaining
obtained by experimental results and simulation
obtaining experimental results andanalyses:
simulation analyses:
1. There was
There was significant
significant improvement
improvement of strength of geopolymer concrete, especially flexural
performance. The
performance. The compressive
compressive strength
strength and
and splitting
splitting tensile
tensile strength were also enhanced with
polypropylene and
polypropylene and hooked
hooked end
end steel
steel fibers. The
The suitable
suitable volume
volume fraction
fraction of
of fiber was 0.5% to
polypropylene
polypropylene fiber and 1.0% to hooked end steel fiber.
fiber.
2. Geopolymer concrete
Geopolymer concrete reinforced
reinforced with
with fibers exhibited a compressive performance similarly to
non-fiber geopolymer
non-fiber geopolymer concrete. The The compressive
compressive stress
stress of geopolymer concrete reinforced with
fibers was greater
fibers greaterthan
thanthose
thoseofofspecimens
specimens without
without fiber with
fiber thethe
with same strain,
same Poisson’s
strain, ratio,ratio,
Poisson’s and
elastic
and modulus.
elastic modulus.
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 19 of 20

3. The flexural performance of specimens fabricated with fibers exhibited a higher loading capacity,
higher energy absorption capacity, and lower deflection, compared to geopolymer concrete
without fiber.
4. Specimens embedded with hooked end steel fiber exhibited a better response than those of
specimens using polypropylene fiber. There was a significant difference between compressive
performance, splitting tensile strength, flexural performance between two series specimens.
5. The experimental result and analysis using Ansys software showed a good agreement in the
behavior of geopolymer concrete with a slight and acceptable difference. By comparing crack
appearance in flexural tests and simulation analyses, it can be seen the crack initiation and
propagation occurred at the midspan of the beam and showed the same behavior.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to this work. K.V.A.P. and T.K.N. designed the experiment,
K.V.A.P., G.L. and T.A.L. performed the experiments, analysis, K.V.A.P. and T.K.N. wrote the paper, and S.W.H.
and K.L. revised and finalized the paper.
Funding: This research was funded by Ministry of the Interior and Safety as Earthquake Disaster Prevention
Human Resource Development Project.
Acknowledgments: This study was funded by Ministry of the Interior and Safety as Earthquake Disaster
Prevention Human Resource Development Project. The authors would like to express sincere gratitude for
their support.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Davidovits, J. Global warming impact on the cement and aggregates industries. World Resour. Rev. 1994, 6,
263–278.
2. Davidovits, J. Geopolymer Chemistry & Applications, 4th ed.; Institut Geopolymere: Saint-Quentin, France,
2015.
3. Wallah, S.E.; Rangan, B.V. Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete: Long-Term Properties; Rearch Report
GC2; Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2006.
4. Strydom, C.A.; Swanepoel, J.C. Utilisation of fly ash in a geopolymeric material. Appl. Geochem. 2002, 17,
1143–1148.
5. Nguyen, K.T.; Ahn, N.; Le, T.A.; Lee, K. Theoretical and experimental study on mechanical properties and
flexural strength of fly ash-geopolymer concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 106, 65–77. [CrossRef]
6. Hardjito, D.; Rangan, B.V. Development and Properties of Low-Calcium Fly Ash-Based Geopolymer Concrete; Rearch
Report GC1; Faculty of Engineering, Curtin University of Technology: Perth, Australia, 2005.
7. Nguyen, K.T.; Le, T.A.; Lee, K. Investigation on properties of geopolymer mortar using preheated materials
and thermogenetic admixtures. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 130, 146–155. [CrossRef]
8. Nguyen, K.T.; Le, T.A.; Lee, K. Evaluation of the mechanical properties of sea sand-based geopolymer
concrete and the corrosion of embedded steel bar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 169, 462–472. [CrossRef]
9. Vijai, K.; Kumutha, R.; Vishnuram, B.G. Properties of glass fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete composites.
Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 13, 511–520.
10. Alomayri, T.; Low, I.M. Synthesis and characterization of mechanical properties in cotton fiber-reinforced
geopolymer composites. J. Asian Ceram. Soc. 2013, 1, 30–34. [CrossRef]
11. Bernal, S.; De Gutierrez, R.; Delvasto, S.; Rodriguez, E. Performance of an alkali-activated slag concrete
reinforced with steel fibers. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 208–214. [CrossRef]
12. Nazari, A.; Maghsoudpour, A.; Sanjayan, J.G. Flexural strength of plain and fibre-reinforced
boroaluminosilicate geopolymer. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 76, 207–213. [CrossRef]
13. Al-mashhadani, M.M.; Canpolat, O.; Aygörmez, Y.; Uysal, M.; Erdem, S. Mechanical and microstructural
characterization of fiber reinforced fly ash based geopolymer composites. Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 167,
505–513. [CrossRef]
14. Puertas, F.; Amat, T.; Fernández-Jiménez, A.; Vázquez, T. Mechanical and durable behaviour of alkaline
cement mortars reinforced with polypropylene fibres. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2003, 33, 2031–2036. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 3424 20 of 20

15. Lin, T.; Jia, D.; He, P.; Wang, M. In situ crack growth observation and fracture behavior of short carbon fiber
reinforced geopolymer matrix composites. Mater. Sci. Eng. A 2010, 527, 2404–2407. [CrossRef]
16. He, P.; Jia, D.; Lin, T.; Wang, M.; Zhou, Y. Effects of high-temperature heat treatment on the mechanical
properties of unidirectional carbon fiber reinforced geopolymer composites. Ceram. Int. 2010, 36, 1447–1453.
[CrossRef]
17. Natali, A.; Manzi, S.; Bignozzi, M.C. Novel fiber-reinforced composite materials based on sustainable
geopolymer matrix. Procedia Eng. 2011, 21, 1124–1131. [CrossRef]
18. Atahan, H.N.; Pekmezci, B.Y.; Tuncel, E.Y. Behavior of PVA fiber-reinforced cementitious composites under
static and impact flexural effects. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2013, 25, 1438–1445. [CrossRef]
19. ASTM C618. Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined Natural Pozzolan for Use in Concrete;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
20. ASTM C39/C39M. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
21. ASTM C496. Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens; ASTM
International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
22. ASTM C469. Standard Test Method for Static Elastic modulus and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression;
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2014.
23. ASTM C1609. Standard Test Method for Flexural Performance of Fiber-Reinforced Concrete (Using Beam with
Third-Point Loading); ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2019.
24. ASTM C78. Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete (Using Simple Beam with Third-Point Loading);
ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2018.
25. ANSYS. Swanson Analysis System; ANSYS: Canonsburg, PA, USA, 2018.
26. Willam, K.J.; Warnke, E.P. Constitutive model for triaxial behaviour of concrete. In Proceedings of the
Seminar on Concrete Structures Subjected to Triaxial Stressed, International Association of Bridge and
Structural Engineering Conference, Bergamo, Italy, 17–19 May 1974.
27. Wight, J.K.; MacGregor, J.G. Reinforced Concrete: Mechanics and Design, 5th ed.; Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle
River, NJ, USA, 2008.
28. Standards Australia AS 3600. Methods of Testing Concrete. Method 17: Determination of the Static Chord Elastic
Modulus and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete Specimens; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2005.
29. Standards Australia AS 2001. Concrete Structures, AS3600-2001; Standards Australia: Sydney, Australia, 2001.

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).