DOI 10.
1515/secm-2013-0012      Sci Eng Compos Mater 2015; 22(3): 331–341
Mohana Rajendran* and Nagan Soundarapandian
Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural
loading
Abstract: Efforts are needed to develop innovative and
environmental friendly materials in order to reduce green-
house gas emissions. An experimental investigation on
the flexural behavior of thin cementless composite pan-
els reinforced with welded rectangular wire mesh and
chicken mesh with varying number of mesh layers as well
as varying concentration of alkaline solution is presented.
A total of 30 panels have been tested under flexural load-
ing. The size of the panel is 1000  mm (length) × 200  mm
(width) × 25/35  mm (thickness). The parameters studied
in this investigation include varying the concentration of
NaOH (8, 10, 12, 14 m) and thickness of composite panels.
In this work, cement is replaced by geopolymer mix to
bind the ferrocement skeletal framework and its flexural
behavior is studied. It is concluded that the first crack and
ultimate loads increase with the increase in the thickness
of the element and the concentration of alkaline solution.
From the studies, it is observed that the load-carrying
capacities, energy absorption, and deformation at ulti-
mate load are high in the case of geopolymer ferrocement
element. Further, it is observed that there is reduction
in crack width, and increase in number of cracks in the
case of geopolymer ferrocement indicates delay in crack
growth.
Keywords: crack width; ferrocement; geopolymer; load
deformation; molarity.
*Corresponding author: Mohana Rajendran, Department of
Civil Engineering, Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai,
Tamil Nadu 6250015, India, e-mail: rmohanaselvan@gmail.com
Nagan Soundarapandian: Department of Civil Engineering,
Thiagarajar College of Engineering, Madurai, Tamil Nadu 6250015,
India
1 Introduction
Extensive consumption of natural sources, production of
massive amounts of industrial wastes, and environmen-
tal pollution require new solutions for a more sustainable
development. The use of modern-day cement contributes
to 2 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide (CO2) annually into
the atmosphere, which makes it the third largest man-
made source of CO2. The production of cement is respon-
sible for the production of 1 ton of CO2 per ton of cement
produced, and the cement manufacturing industry is
causative to contribution of 7% of global CO2 emission,
which is one of the greenhouse gases that causes climate
change due to global warming. Besides, production of
cement is energy intensive and is only succeeding to steel
and aluminum production [1]. Meanwhile, the growth of
the coal-fired power plant industry produces flue gases
from hydrocarbon combustion that generates extensive
particulate emissions such as fly ash and bottom ash as
waste products. These solid waste ashes from coal-fired
boilers have previously been dumped into landfills that
contribute to the subsequent environmental contami-
nation. Hence, green demands are raised for alternative
ways to utilize the ashes to mitigate further environmen-
tal pollution by copious uncontrolled disposal of the coal
ashes into the landfills [2].
Although the use of portland cement is still unavoid-
able in the foreseeable future, many efforts are being
made to reduce the use of portland cement in the concrete
industry. These efforts include the utilization of supple-
mentary cementing materials such as fly ash, silica fume,
granulated furnace slag, rice husk ash, and metakaolin,
and finding alternative binders to portland cement. Efforts
have therefore been made to promote the use of pozzolans
by complete replacement of cement that can be achieved
using geopolymer technology. Recently, another form of
cementitious materials using silicon and aluminum acti-
vated in a high-alkali solution was developed. This mate-
rial is usually based on fly ash as a source material and is
termed geopolymer or alkali-activated fly ash cement.
The term geopolymer was first applied by Davidovits
[3] to alkali aluminosilicate binders formed by the alkali
silicate activation of aluminosilicate materials. Geopoly-
mers are amorphous to semicrystalline equivalents of
certain zeolitic materials with excellent properties such as
high fire and erosion resistance and high-strength mate-
rials. The most used alkaline activators are a mixture of
sodium or potassium hydroxide (NaOH, KOH) with sodium
water glass or potassium water glass. The activator solu-
tion used in this work is NaOH and sodium water glass,
and the concentration of NaOH solution that can be used is
332      M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading
in the range of 8–14 m [4–6]. In recent years, geopolymers
have been extensively investigated due to their excellent
characteristics including fire resistance, high compres-
sive strength, and immobilization of hazardous, toxic,
and radioactive wastes [1, 7–11]. Prefabricated floor is used
in the construction industry as an alternative system to
overcome the formwork problems (cost and delay in con-
struction) in addition to getting better quality control. The
prefabricated elements made of reinforced concrete are
very heavy and difficult to transport, to place in position,
and to construct. Alternatively, thin ferrocement panels
are being used in floor construction for low-cost housing
due to their low cost and good structural performance [12].
Ferrocement is suitable for low-cost roofing, precast units.
and manhole covers. It is used for the construction of
domes, vaults, grid surfaces, and folded plates. It can be
used for making water tanks, boats, and silos. Ferrocement
is the best alternative to concrete and steel. Generally, fer-
rocement shells range from 10 to 25 mm in thickness and
the reinforcement consists of layers of steel mesh, usually
with steel reinforcing bars sandwiched midway between.
The resulting shell or panel of mesh is impregnated with
a very rich (high ratio of cement to sand) portland cement
mortar. The application of ferrocement panels/members
has been found attractive due to these reasons: (i) Its basic
raw materials are available in most countries; (ii) it can be
fabricated into almost any shape; (iii) it is more durable
than most woods and cheaper than imported steel; (iv) the
skills for ferrocement construction can be easily acquired;
and (v) ferrocement construction is less capital-intensive
but more labor-intensive [13, 14].
Ferrocement is a type of thin-wall reinforced concrete
commonly constructed of hydraulic cement mortar rein-
forced with closely spaced layers of continuous and rela-
tively small size wire mesh, which may be made of metallic
or other suitable materials [15]. Because ferrocement pos-
sesses certain unique properties, such as high tensile
strength-to-weight ratio, superior cracking behavior, light
weight, moldability to any shape, and certain advantages
such as utilization of only locally available materials and
semiskilled labor/workmanship, it has been considered to
be an attractive material and a material of good promise
and potential by the construction industry, especially in
developing countries. It has wide-ranging applications,
such as in the manufacture of boats and/barges; prefab-
ricated housing units; biogas structures; silos and tanks,
and recently in the repair and strengthening of structures.
Ferrocement is a highly versatile construction mate-
rial and possesses high performance characteristic,
especially in cracking, strength, ductility, and impact
resistance, as its reinforcement is uniformly distributed
in the longitudinal and transverse directions and closely
spaced through the thickness of the section [16]. Because
ferrocement lends itself to precasting, hence, precast fer-
rocement elements can be prepared to meet the strength
and serviceability conditions. There is an ample scope
for mass production and standardization together with
economy in construction.
The objective of this work is to develop a novel low-
cost composite material by geopolymer and ferrocement
(FC) technology together and determine the strength of
the prefabricated geopolymer ferrocement (GF) elements
by varying the alkaline concentration from 8 m to 14 m.
In the current scenario, new construction material and
technology have to be developed to enhance easy fabri-
cation, reducing the self-weight of material and eliminat-
ing greenhouse gas production by the cement industry.
Taking this into consideration, works are done on GF ele-
ments for its strength, stability and applicability.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Materials used
The following materials are employed in this work: ordi-
nary portland cement (53 grade), fine aggregate (sand),
pozzolan (low-calcium fly ash), alkaline activator
(NaOH+sodium silicate), chicken mesh with hexagonal
opening, and weld mesh with rectangular grid opening.
Ordinary Portland cement was used to produce a
control mix mortar in this paper. The physical properties
of the cement obtained from the tests conducted as per rel-
evant IS 4031 (Part 4 and 5)-1988 [17] are shown in Table 1.
The fine aggregate used is ordinary river sand passed
through sieve no. 8 (2.36 mm) with a specific gravity of
2.72, dry density of 1.6 g/cm3, and having a fineness
modulus of 2.56.
Table 1 Physical properties of cement.
SI no.  Physical property   Tested  Reference code
values
1  Specific gravity   3.15  Le-Chatelier flask IS
1727-1967
2  Standard consistency (%)  32  IS 4031-1988 part 4
3  Setting time (min)    
   Initial   45  IS 4031-1988 part 5
   Final   255  IS 4031-1988 part 5
4  Compressive strength   54.5  –
(28 days) (MPa)
 M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading      333

Table 2 Chemical composition of fly ash.

Composition   SiO2   Al2O3   Fe2O3   CaO   Na2O  K2O  TiO2   SO3   MgO

Mass (%)   65.43  20.67  6.18   1.26   –   –   –   Trace  0.82

The pozzolan used here is the low-calcium fly ash of 2.2 Volume fraction of reinforcement
class F obtained from the Tuticorin thermal power plant.
The chemical composition of the fly ash, as determined by When the same square or rectangular wire mesh is used
X-ray fluorescence analysis is given in Table 2. throughout the depth of an FC element then the volume
Geopolymer is a combination of the following com- fraction of reinforcement can be calculated from Eq. (1)
pounds: pozzolan (fly ash), activator solution (silicates [19]:
of sodium), alkali powder (hydroxides of sodium), a high-
N πdw2  1 1 
range water-reducing lignosulfonated normal super plas- Vr =  +  (1)
ticizer, and distilled water. 4h  Dl Dt 

In this research, analytical grade NaOH in pellet
form (NaOH with 98% purity) and sodium silicate solu- where Vr is the volume fraction of reinforcement, N is
tions (14.7% Na2O, 29.4% SiO2, and 55.9% water by mass) the number of layers of mesh, π = 3.14, dw is the diameter
were used as the alkaline activators. In order to avoid the of mesh wire, h is the thickness of FC element, Dl is the
effect of unknown contaminants in the mixing water, the
NaOH pellets were dissolved in distilled water. The activa-
tor solution was prepared at least 1 day prior to its use.
To improve the workability of fresh mortar, commercially
available naphthalene-based super plasticizer was used.
The constituents of geopolymer mortar are shown in
Figure 1.
Wire woven chicken meshes (Figure 2) with a hexago-
nal opening of size 12 mm and wire thickness of 0.72 mm
(20 gauge) are used. Machine-welded weld mesh (Figure 3)
having a rectangular grid opening of size 76.2 mm × 38.1 mm,
with a thickness of 2.45 mm in the transverse direction and
3.45  mm in the longitudinal direction are used. Ultimate
strength values of weld mesh and chicken mesh are 440
and 270 N/mm2 as per ASTM A 185 [18].

Figure 2 Chicken mesh.

Figure 1 Composition of geopolymer mortar. Figure 3 Weld mesh.

334      M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading

distance center to center between longitudinal wires, markings were made on the inside of the formwork and on
and Dt is the distance center to center between transverse all its sides to indicate levels of different volume fractions
wires. and different molar concentrations during casting.
For other types of mesh (hexagonal or chicken wire, Ordinary portland cement and river sand passing
expandable metal, fiber-reinforced plastic, or irregular through No. 8 (2.38 mm) sieve and having a fineness
meshes) Eq. (2) [19] is recommended to be used. modulus of 2.72 were used for casting. The geopolymer
mortar used in this study is composed of low-calcium fly
Nwr
Vr = (2) ash and alkaline solution composed of NaOH and sodium
hδr
 silicate combinations. NaOH is mixed with deionized
water at a required concentration and kept for at least
where Vr is the volume fraction of reinforcement, N is the 24  h prior to casting. All geopolymer mortar specimens
number of layers of mesh, wr is the unit weight of reinforc- were made with sand-to-geopolymer ratio in equal pro-
ing mesh, h is the thickness of FC element, and δr is the portion. The hydroxide-to-silicate ratio is kept constant
density of reinforcement material. as 1:1 Table 3. The fly ash and fine aggregate were dry
mixed together in a mixer machine for 5 min, followed
by the addition of activator solution containing hydrox-
2.3 Method of specimen preparation ide and silicate to the mixture, and mixed for another 10
min. The mixing was carried out at a room temperature of
Thirty FC panels (10 series, three in each series), each approximately 25–30°C (Figure 5).
of size 1000 mm × 200 mm × 25  mm and 35-mm thickness Ordinary mesh obtained from the market was cut
(Figure 4), were cast in steel molds with cement mortar (8, to obtain the required number of layers of desired size
10, 12, and 14 m), geopolymer mortar reinforced with four and orientation. The reinforcement was provided with a
layers of chicken mesh and one layer of weld mesh, which combination of chicken mesh and weld mesh. Chicken
were tied firmly together for volume fractions of 1.8% and mesh with 12-mm hexagonal opening and gauge 20
1.3%. were used. Weld mesh of rectangular opening of size
The molds were made in a form such that each of the
four side walls and the base of the formwork were detach-
Table 3 Mortar mix details.
able so that the mold could be easily separated from the
cast element after its initial setting. The contact surfaces of Specimen   Cement   8 m   10 m   12 m   14 m
the steel molds to the mortar were greased before casting
No. of specimens   3   3   3   3   3
the specimens to ease the demolding process. A minimum
Cement (kg)   18.94   –   –   –   –
cover of 5 mm on all sides was maintained when placing Sand (kg)   18.94   18.94   18.94   18.94   18.94
the reinforcement inside the mold, and a cover block was Fly ash (kg)   –   14.15   14.15   14.15   14.15
used to maintain a 5-mm cover at the base. Indelible ink NaOH (kg)   –   2.29   2.29   2.29   2.29
Sodium silicate (kg)   –   2.29   2.29   2.29   2.29
Water (kg)   5.682   –   –   0.14   0.283
Super plasticizer (kg)  0.37   0.14   0.283   0.35   0.42

Figure 4 Rectangular panel mold, 25/35-mm thickness. Figure 5 Mixing of mortar.

 M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading      335

Figure 6 Specimen under table vibration.

76.2  mm × 38.1  mm was placed in such a way that the

longer dimension was placed in the lengthwise direc-
tion of the panels. The reinforcements were tied firmly
Figure 8 Heat-curing chamber under operation mode.
together in specified layers for various volume fractions.
The geopolymer mortar was spread at the base of the
mold, and on this base layer the mesh layers were laid.
mixed dry in a mixer and then the required quantity of
The molds were placed on the vibrating table and the
water and super plasticizer were added gradually while
mortar was spread evenly until the thickness of the panels
the mix was continuously stirred.
was completely filled without voids (Figure 6). In each
Similarly, FC panels were prepared by using cement
casting, three GF panels along with three mortar cubes of
mortar instead of geopolymer mortar in the mold. The
size 70.6 mm × 70.6 mm × 70.6 mm were cast to test the char-
specimens were air-dried for 24  h for initial setting and
acteristic strength of the mortar mix (Figure 7). All these
then immersed in water for curing. The specimens were
geopolymer mortars and GF specimens were heat cured
removed from water after 28 days and were air-dried until
for 48 h at 75°C in a heat curing chamber (Figure 8).
the test was performed.
For all the FC specimens, the water-to-cement ratio
of 0.3 and equal proportion of sand and cement (in order
to compare with the geopolymer specimen) were taken
2.4 Testing of specimens
by weight. The required amount of sand and cement was

Two-point loading was used to conduct flexure tests. The

bed of the testing machine is provided with two steel
rollers on which the specimen is to be supported, and
these rollers are mounted in such a way that the distance
from center to center is 600 mm. The load is applied
through two similar rollers mounted at the third point of
the supporting span that is 200 mm center to center. The
load is divided equally between the two loading rollers,
and all rollers are mounted in such a manner that the load
is applied axially and without subjecting the specimen
to any torsional stress or restraints. For this experiment,
the manual operating system was used and the readings
were taken at an interval of 0.1 kN. The deflections were
measured with the dial gauges having at least a count of
0.01 mm at the midsection of the element. Figure 9 shows
the typical flexural test setup of GF panel. Before testing,
all the elements were painted white so that the cracks
could be easily observed and clearly photographed. The
load was applied in a vertically upward direction by
means of an electric jack. The load application was contin-
Figure 7 Cube mold. ued until the deflection became excessive (not exceeding
336      M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading

Figure 9 Flexure test setup.

30 mm). The deflections were measured for each interval

Figure 10 Typical failure of the specimen.
of load increment. On each day of testing, 70.6-mm mortar
cubes of the respective mortar mix were also tested on
the Universal testing machine to record the characteristic
compressive strength of the specimen. The crack patterns
3 Results and discussion
were monitored and crack width was measured by using
The results obtained from the experimental investigations
a microscope. The load at first crack, the maximum load,
are tabulated in tables and the comparisons are presented
and corresponding deflections were also recorded. Table 4
in the form of graphs.
shows the test results of all the tested specimens and
Figure 10 shows a typical failure of a test specimen. After
testing, the panels were removed from the test setup and
3.1 C
 ompressive strength of different
both top and bottom sides were examined to investigate
the sustained damage, such as yielding of reinforcement specimens
and cracking pattern at the bottom face.
The testing of 70.6-mm mortar cubes of the respective
mortar mix to record the characteristic compressive
Table 4 Flexural test results of GF panels.
strength of the specimen is shown in Table 5 and Figure 11.
Specimen ID   Vr (%)   Ductility   Stiffness   Energy absorption Figure 11 illustrates the effect of NaOH concentration on
factor μ (N /mm) ( × 106 J)

FC25   1.8   1.5   617.28   9.48 Table 5 Compressive strength.

8 m GF25     1.52   628.75   9.88
10 m GF25     1.53   704.08   12.19
Sample no.   Specimen   Compressive
12 m GF25     1.57   709.09   14.58
strength (MPa)
14 m GF25     1.58   724.19   16.39
FC35   1.3   1.32   683.33   14.89 1   Cement   32.72
8 m GF35     1.36   712.24   15.76 2   8m   35.67
10 m GF35     1.38   718.51   17.48 3   10 m   44.53
12 m GF35     1.40   780.00   19.67 4   12 m   52.01
14 mGF35     1.45   791.26   22.29 5   14 m   60.02
 M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading      337
70
60
Compressive strength (MPa)
50
40
30
20
10
0 forming new cracks. The final stage is named as failure of
Cement 8-molarity 10-molarity 12-molarity 14-molarity
Figure 11 Compressive strength relationships.
the compressive strength of mortar and demonstrates that
the compressive strength of geopolymer mortar increases
with the increase in the concentration of NaOH. The com-
pressive strength of geopolymer specimens increases as
NaOH concentration in the aqueous phase increases from
8 m to 14 m. The NaOH concentration in the aqueous phase
of the geopolymeric system acts on the dissolution process
as well as on the bonding of solid particles in the final
structure. The use of high concentration of NaOH leads
to greater dissolution of the initial solid materials and
increases geopolymerization reaction, and hence, higher
compressive strength is achieved [20, 21]. The increment
of sample strength is believed to be mainly due to the
increase in Na ions and water molecules, which are the
basic ingredients for geopolymerization that enhances the
dissolution and reaction of the geopolymer mortars that
eventually increases the final compressive strength. The
percentage increase in compressive strength compared
to the control specimen for 8, 10, 12, and 14 m geopoly-
mer mortars is 9.015%, 36.09%, 58.95%, and 83.43%,
respectively.
3.2 Load-deflection characteristics
Deflection characteristics have been considered as essen-
tial criteria in the design of FC structures by practitioners.
Deflection in FC is normally caused by the magnitude of
loading it carries and also due to time-dependent factors
such as shrinkage and creep [22]. One of the main advan-
tages of having meshed reinforcement in FC is that the
deflections due to shrinkage are significantly reduced
by the presence of uniformly distributed mesh. From
Figure  12A–E, the behavior of GF panels can be charac-
terized by three distinct stages. Stage I can be designated
as precracking of the specimen, wherein all the materials
are elastic and the load-deflection curve is linear with
the applied load. In this stage, the load is carried by the
geopolymer matrix. Cracking load can be predicted by
using the linear elastic theory. Stage II can be designated
as multiple cracking of the specimen wherein more cracks
occur after cracking of the geopolymer matrix. During
this stage, a transfer of load from mortar to the wire mesh
takes place. The wire mesh elongates under additional
load, transferring the load back to the mortar matrix,
the specimen wherein there is widening of existing cracks
with the increase of load. In this stage, the load is pre-
dominantly carried by the mesh. The specimen undergoes
more deflection, and cracks can extend deep through the
depth of the geopolymer matrix, reaching the top surface
of the specimen.
3.2.1 Displacement ductility
The ability of a member to deform without a signifi-
cant loss of its strength is known as ductility. One of the
methods of quantifying ductility is by using the ductility
factor (displacement ductility index) as defined by the
ratio of ultimate deflection to the deflection at yielding of
tensile reinforcement. The percentage increase in ductil-
ity factor compared to control specimen for 25-mm thick-
ness, 8, 10, 12, and 14 m GF specimens is 1.3%, 2%, 4.67%,
5.33% and 3.03%, 4.5%, 6.06%, 9.8% for 35-mm thick 8,
10, 12, and 14 GF specimens, respectively. The ductility of
GF specimen increases with increase in thickness of the
specimens and molarity of NaOH.
3.2.2 Energy absorption capacity
The percentage increase in energy absorption compared
to control specimen for 25-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and
14 m GF specimens is 4.22%, 28.58%, 53.79%, 72.89% and
6.83%, 28.80%, 41.55%, 64.80% for 35-mm thickness 8,
10, 12, and 14 m GF specimens, respectively.
3.2.3 Stiffness
The percentage increase in stiffness compared to control
specimen for 25-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and 14 m GF
specimens is 1.85%, 14.06%, 14.7%, 17.28% and 4.23%,
5.14%,14.14%, 15.79% for 35-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and
14 m GF specimens, respectively.
338      M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading

A 10 10
8.95
8 8.29 8
Load (kN)

Load (kN)
6.54 6.82
6 6 6.15
4.21 5 4.64 5.2
4 4.6 4
2 2.38 2 2.56

0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
FC25 5 layers FC35 5 layers FC25 6 layers FC35 6 layers

B 10 10
8.92 9.01
8 8
Load (kN)

7.2
6
6.8 Load (kN) 6
6.98

4.5 5 4.65 5.6

4 4
4.65
2 2.43 2 2.48
0 0
0 5 10 0 5 10
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
F25 5 layers F35 5 layers F25 6 layers F35 6 layers

C 15 15
9.8 10.3
Load (kN)

10 7.6 7.9
Load (kN)

10
4.98 5.58 7.76
6.9
5 5 6.2
5.62 3.87
3.12
0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
F25 5 layers F35 5 layers F25 6 layers F35 6 layers

D 15 15 11.7
10.7
8.4 8.4
Load (kN)

Load (kN)

10 10 6.94
5.92 8.97
7.8
5 6.7 6.8
5
3.98 4.05

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
F25 5 layers F35 5 layers F25 6 layers F35 6 layers

E 15
11.6 15 13.4
9.8 9.8
Load (kN)

10
Load (kN)

10 7.86 9.97
6.69 8.98
7.9
5 7.4
4.5 5 4.97

0 0
0 5 10 15 0 5 10 15
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)
F25 5 layers F35 5 layers F25 6 layers F35 6 layers

Figure 12 Load vs. mid-span deflection curve of (A) FC panels, (B) 8 m GF panels, (C) 10 m GF panels, (D) 12 m GF panels, and (E) 14 m GF
panels.
 M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading      339

3.3 Cracking behavior 3.3.2 Crack spacing

The failure of specimens results from the yielding of wire
mesh reinforcement followed by the crushing of mortar.
Initially, fine flexural cracks appeared at the bottom of
the specimen. With further increase in the load, regu-
larly spaced vertical cracks were observed, and they
extended from the bottom of the specimen toward the
top. The load was increased up to the ultimate stage and
cracking pattern is observed. It was observed that the
number of cracks formed in all specimens depended
on the volume fraction of reinforcement. Also from the
observations it is understood that a higher volume frac-
tion of reinforcement provides a better crack control
mechanism by the formation of a large number of
well-distributed cracks. Table  6 presents the details of
measured average crack width, number of cracks, and
average crack spacing.
The highest number of cracks developed at failure was
observed for 14 m GF panels followed by 12 m GF, 10 m GF,
8 m GF, and FC. Due to the large number of cracks devel-
oped, GF panels of 14 m GF exhibited the lowest magni-
tude of average crack spacing followed by a test panel 12
m GF, 10 m GF, 8 m GF, and FC (Table 6). This indicated that
the bond strength and the degree of interaction between
the steel reinforcements and the mortar matrix are the
highest for test panel 14 m GF followed by 12 m GF, 10 m
GF, 8 m GF, and FC. The high bond strength of 14 m GF,
12 m GF, 10 m GF, and 8 m GF as compared to control FC
panels can be attributed to the high compressive strength
and flexural strength of the mortar mixes. The high bond
strength of steel reinforcements in mortar matrices 14,
12, 10, and 8 m enabled the transfer of the tensile stress

A
3.3.1 Crack width

The variation of average crack width with various molar

concentrations and thickness of the specimens is shown
in Table 6. Average crack width is primarily a function
of tensile strain in the extreme layer of mesh and it is
found to decrease with an increase in the molar concen-
tration of NaOH and thickness of the specimens. Lowest
maximum crack width is observed in the case of 14 m GF
panels. The above phenomenon is due to the role of the
mesh in holding the matrix together and offering resist-
ance for widening of the crack in the matrix. In the GF
panels, spacing of tensile cracks was observed to be closer
and crack width smaller, which indicates that the crack- B
arresting mechanism is better and distributed through the
entire thickness than the FC panels.

Table 6 Cracking behavior.

Specimen ID  Vr (%)   Average crack   Average crack   Number

width (mm) spacing (mm) of cracks

FC25   1.8   0.33   41.45   3

8 m GF25     0.31   39.89   3
10 m GF25     0.30   28.32   4
12 m GF25     0.28   25.6   4
14 m GF25     0.25   22.87   6
FC35   1.3   0.28   22.0   5
8 m GF35     0.25   20.8   4
10 m GF35     0.23   19.2   6
12 m GF35     0.2   18.17   8 Figure 13 Cracking behavior of (A) 35-mm-thick 12 m GF panels and
14 m GF35     0.18   16.93   9 (B) 35-mm-thick FC panels with five layers of wire mesh.
340      M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading
induced at the mid-span to a larger extent of the adjacent
mortar matrices. Therefore, a higher number of cracks
with smaller widths and crack spacing were formed on
the test panels [23].
3.3.3 Crack pattern of GF panels and failure mode
Failures of tested GF panels were observed to occur when
the extreme layer of steel mesh failed under tensile stress.
No spalling of the mortar matrix was observed for any
tested GF panels. A major continuous crack joining the
bottom and top fibers was observed to be present on all
tested panels. From Figure 13A, large numbers of closely
spaced cracks were observed to be developed on test
panels 12 m GF. Meanwhile, the relatively smaller number
of cracks with larger intercrack spacings were detected on
FC panels (Figure 13B). Only flexural cracks were observed
on all tested GF and FC panels at ultimate failure. Hence, it
can be concluded that all the tested panels failed in pure
bending.
4 Conclusions
This work represents the results of a research study on
the effect of using geopolymer as a substitute for ordinary
portland cement in FC panels. Geopolymer specimens
are tested for compressive strength, load deflection,
cracking behavior for different molar concentrations,
and different thicknesses, and the following conclusions
are arrived at.
1. The initial cracking load and ultimate load of the
specimens in flexural testing increase with increasing
molarity.
2. The cracking behavior of the various specimen shows
that the cracking region and the cracking space are
References
[1] Hardjito D, Cheak CC, Lee ICH. Mod. Appl. Sci. 2008, 2, 3–11.
[2] Malhotra VM. ACI Concr. Int. 2002, 24, 22.
[3] Davidovits J. World Resour. Rev. 1994, 6, 263–278.
[4] Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan BV. ACI Mater. J.
2004, 10, 467–472.
[5] Chindaprasirt P, Chareerat T, Hatanaka S, Cao T. J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 2011, 23, 264–270.
[6] Sathonsaowaphak A, Chindaprasit P, Pimraksa K. J. Hazard.
Mater. 2009, 168, 44–50.
less in the geopolymer specimens and large number
of cracks compared with the control specimens.
3. Compared with the control specimen, the compressive
strength of the geopolymer specimens also increases
with increase in the molarity of the NaOH solution.
4. The percentage increase in compressive strength
compared to control cement mortar specimen for
8, 10, 12, and 14 m geopolymer mortars is 9.015%,
36.09%, 58.95%, and 83.43%, respectively.
5. Increase in the thickness and molarity concentration
in the GF panels increased the load-carrying capacity,
ductility, energy absorption, and stiffness of the
element and decreased the crack width and crack
spacing.
6. All the tested panels failed in pure bending.
7. The percentage increase in stiffness compared to
control specimen for 25-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and
14  m GF specimens are 1.85%,14.06%,14.7%,17.28%
and 4.23%, 5.14%, 14.14%, 15.79% for 35-mm thickness
8, 10, 12, and 14 m GF specimens, respectively.
8. The percentage increase in ductility factor compared
to control specimen for 25-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and
14 m GF specimens is 1.3%, 2%, 4.67%, 5.33% and
3.03%, 4.5%, 6.06%, 9.8% for 35-mm thickness 8, 10,
12, and 14 m GF specimens, respectively.
9. The percentage increase in energy absorption
compared to control specimen for 25-mm thickness
8, 10, 12, and 14 m GF specimens is 4.22%, 28.58%,
53.79%, 72.89% and 6.83%, 28.80%, 41.55%, 64.80%
for 35-mm thickness 8, 10, 12, and 14 m GF specimens,
respectively.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their gratitude
to the management of Thiagarajar College of Engineering
and to the department for facilitating this work.
Received January 9, 2013; accepted October 26, 2013; previously
published online December 9, 2013
[7] Comrie DC, Kriven WM. Ceram. Trans. 2003, 153, 211–225.
[8] Davidovits J. J. Therm. Anal. 1991, 37, 1633–1656.
[9] Chindaprasit P, Jaturapitakkul C, Rattanasak U, Chalee W.
Waste Management 2009, 29, 539–543.
[10] Yousef RI, El-Eswed B, Alshaaer M, Khalili F, Khoury H.
J. Hazard. Mater. 2009, 165, 379–387.
[11] Zhang YJ, Li S, Xu DL, Wang BQ, Xu GM, Yang DF, Wang N,
Liu HC, Wang YC. J. Mater. Sci. 2009, 45, 1189–1192.
 M. Rajendran and N. Soundarapandian: Geopolymer ferrocement panels under flexural loading      341
[12] Prakhya KVG, Rahul T, Adidam SR. J. Ferrocement 1988, 18,
405–411.
[13] Chandrasekhar Rao T, Gunneswara Rao TD, Ramana Rao NV.
Int. J. Mech. Solids 2008, 3, 195–203.
[14] Abdullah, Takiguchi K, Nishimura K, Hori S. Transactions of the
17th Conference on Structural Mechanics in Reactor Technology
(SMIRT), Prague, Czech Republic, August 17–22, 2003, pp. 4–7.
[15] ACI Committee 549R-97, State-of-the art report on ferrocement,
AC1 Committee 549.
[16] Thanoon WA, Yardim Y, Jaafar MS, Noorzaei J. Constr. Build.
Mater. 2010, 24, 2224–2230.
[17] IS 4031 (Part 4 and 5)-1988. Methods of physical test for
hydraulic cement. Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS): New Delhi,
1988.
[18] ASTM A185. Standard specification for steel welded wire fabric,
plain for concrete reinforcement. ASTM International: PA, USA,
2007.
[19] Ferrocement Model Code, reported by Internal Ferrocement
Society (IFS) Committee 10, published by Asian Institute of
Technology (AIT), International Ferrocement Information Centre
(IFIC): Bangkok, Thailand, 2001.
[20] Panias D, Giannopoulou IP, Perraki T. Colloids Surf. A: Physico-
chemical and Engineering Aspects 2007, 301, 246–254.
[21] Temuujin J, Williams RP, van Riessen A. J. Mater. Process.
Technol. 2009, 209, 5276–5280.
[22] Ramli M, Tabassi AA. Composites Part B 2012, 43, 447–456.
[23] Shannag MJ, Ziyyad T. Constr. Build. Mater. 2007, 21,
1198–1205.