Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Evaluation of the effects of high-volume fly ash on the flexural behavior

of reinforced concrete beams
Sung-Won Yoo a, Gum-Sung Ryu b, Jinkyo F. Choo c,⇑
a
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Woosuk University, Jinchon 355-803, Republic of Korea
b
Structural Engineering Research Division, Korea Institute of Civil engineering and building Technology, Goyang 411-712, Republic of Korea
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Konkuk University, 120 Neungdong-ro, Gwangjin-gu, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea

h i g h l i g h t s

 Flexural tests on reinforced concrete beams with 0–50% FA replacement ratios are presented.
 Objective evaluation of the effects of HVFA on the flexural performance of RC beams.
 Proposal of a nonlinear analysis model for flexural behavior based upon experimental data.
 Strain compatibility condition and elasticity loss of concrete are considered in the model.
 Accurate prediction of flexural behavior of RC beams with various contents in FA.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: High-volume fly ash (HVFA) concrete represents a promising solution for the construction industry to
Received 19 January 2015 deal with the issues related to the global emissions of greenhouse gases. Although numerous studies
Received in revised form 19 March 2015 were dedicated on the material properties of HVFA concrete, need is to study the flexural behavior and
Accepted 1 May 2015
performance of structures using HVFA concrete in order to promote further field applications.
Available online 19 May 2015
Therefore, this study presents the results of a series of tests conducted on reinforced concrete beam spec-
imens with various fly ash replacement ratios of 0%, 35% and 50%, various tensile steel ratios and concrete
Keywords:
compressive strengths to evaluate their flexural behavior. Moreover, based upon the experimental
High-volume fly ash (HFVA)
Reinforced concrete beam
results, an analysis model is proposed to predict the behavior of the reinforced concrete beams. The com-
Replacement ratio parison with the test data verifies that the analytic results predict accurately the behavior of the beams
Flexural behavior for all the considered replacement ratios in fly ash.
Structural performance Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Under the Kyoto protocol most developed nations committed
themselves to targets for cutting or slowing their emissions of
greenhouse gases like carbon dioxide (CO2) that cause climate
change. In response to such societal concern, the concrete industry
and construction sector concentrated efforts in two major direc-
tions to reduce the amount of the highly CO2 producing-cement
in the manufacture of concrete. One direction is the geopolymer
concrete which exploits cement-free material as binder. This
promising and innovative concrete relies on minimally processed
natural materials or industrial byproducts to reduce drastically
its carbon footprint [1–3]. However, the development of this
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +82 2 2049 6246; fax: +82 2 2201 0783.
E-mail addresses: imysw@woosuk.ac.kr (S.-W. Yoo),
(G.-S. Ryu), jfchoo@konkuk.ac.kr (J.F. Choo).
material is still in its infancy, and further advancements are still
needed to cope with the safety risk associated with the high alka-
linity of the activating solution and the extreme sensitivity of the
polymerization reaction to temperature [4–6]. The other direction
is the concretes using high volume of replacement materials to
substitute partially cement like high-volume fly ash (HVFA) con-
crete. Noting that a 25% fly ash replacement of cement reduces
the CO2 exhaust to about 300 kg/m3, the adoption of higher volume
of fly ash larger than 50% is indeed potentially interesting as an
alternative to deal with environmental concerns. Following, the
use of HVFA concrete has gained popularity as a sustainable option
to many types of Portland cement concrete applications [7].
Fly ash is an industrial byproduct generated by the electric
power industry that was formerly discarded in landfills but is
today partially recycled as supplementary cementitious material
in the production of Portland cement concrete. Fly ash content less
ryu0505@kict.re.kr
than 25% of the total cementitious content is now commonly used

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.05.021
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144 1133

in concrete owing to its ability to provide significant benefits to Table 2

concrete such as a gain in long-term strength, reduced hydration Physical properties of aggregates.

heat, improved resistance to chloride attack, and enhanced worka- Aggregates Max. grain size Density Absorption Fineness
bility [8,9]. Besides, there are shortcomings like the difficulty in (mm) (g/cm3) (%) modulus
quality control and the low early-age strength when using fly ash River sand – 2.58 1.01 2.90
content larger than 30% in the production of large quantities of Crushed gravel 25 2.64 0.82 6.87
ready mixed concrete.
Most of the previous studies focused nearly exclusively on the
material properties of HVFA concrete using replacement ratios of
50–70% by HVFA [7,10]. Siddique [11] discussed on the perfor- Table 3 lists the mix proportions of the 9 types of mixes used in
mance characteristics of HVFA concrete and concluded that fly the material tests. In Table 3, fck, W/B, and S/a indicate respectively
ash instead of cement can be used up to a 50% level replacement the compressive strength of concrete, the water-to-binder ratio,
ratio for application in precast elements and reinforced concrete and the proportion of sand to total aggregate. The W/B ratios were
members but his study was limited to tests on concrete cubes adjusted appropriately to favor the development of strength.
without considering actual members. Reports were published by The averaged results of the compressive strength test and
several institutions like the National Ready Mixed Concrete derived elastic moduli are plotted in Fig. 1 for the concrete design
Association [7] and National Institute of Standards and compressive strength of 40 MPa with respect to the duration of
Technology [12] to promote the application of HVFA on field but curing. Table 4 lists the material test results measured in the 9
focused essentially on the mix proportions of HVFA concrete mix- types of mixes. The results are presented in terms of the compres-
tures for acceptable performance. However, there is still no estab- sive strength measured after 14, 28 and 91 days of curing, and the
lished study providing appropriate analysis technique for the elastic modulus derived from the measurements.
evaluation of the structural behavior of structures using HVFA con- In Table 4, as compared to the design strengths of 20, 40 and
crete applicable for further field applications. 60 MPa, the strengths after 91 days of curing are 32.3, 35.9 and
Following, this paper presents the results of a series of tests 48.8 MPa for the specimens without HVFA, and these values
conducted on reinforced concrete beams using HVFA and proposes become 33.6, 45.8 and 51.3 MPa for the specimens with replace-
an analysis model to predict the behavior of the reinforced con- ment ratio of 35% in HVFA, and 24.4, 22.3 and 49.2 MPa for the
crete beams according to the content in HVFA. To that goal, 18 test specimens with replacement ratio of 50% in HVFA. As expected,
members were manufactured considering fly ash replacement there is slight loss of compressive strength with larger replacement
ratios of 0%, 35% and 50%, concrete compressive strengths of 20, ratio of HVFA. Despite of the variability of the results induced by
40 and 60 MPa and two different levels of tensile steel ratio, and unavoidable test errors, there was practically no difference in the
subjected to loading tests to evaluate their flexural behavior. compressive strength with respect to the content in fly ash.
Moreover, based upon the experimental results, an analysis model With regard to the ultimate strains measured in the tests, the
is proposed to predict the nonlinear behavior of the reinforced variation was observed according to the augmentation of the
HVFA concrete beams. The comparison with the test results verifies replacement ratio of HVFA. The averages of the ultimate strains
the accuracy of the proposed analysis model regardless of the according to the replacement ratio remained bounded between
replacement ratio of HVFA. 0.0025 and 0.003. This observation differs slightly with the
well-known Hognestad’s nonlinear model [15,16], which predicts
the decrease of the ultimate strength with larger replacement ratio
2. Material properties in Eq. (1) (Fig. 1).
 2 ! 00
Prior to the test on reinforced beam structures, preliminary 00 2e e fc 00
fc ¼ fc  where e0 ¼ 2 ; f ¼ 0:85f ck ð1Þ
experiments were conducted to identify the material properties e0 e0 Ec c
of HVFA concrete. To that goal, 9 mixes were manufactured with-
out alkali activator and with replacement ratios of 0%, 35% and 50% where fc = concrete stress; e = concrete strain corresponding to fc;
00
using 3 different concrete mixes with design compressive f c = peak concrete stress (MPa); e0 = ultimate strain or strain corre-
00
strengths of 20, 40 and 60 MPa. sponding to f c ; and, Ec = initial elastic modulus of concrete (MPa).
The tests were performed on eighty-one 100  200-mm cylin- In concern with the modulus of elasticity, the Concrete Design
ders made from the 9 mixes and the elastic modulus and compres- Code of the Korea Concrete Institute [17] specifies the following
sive strength were evaluated in compliance with the method formula:
suggested by FHWA for high strength concretes and considering qffiffiffiffiffiffi
Ec ¼ 0:077 c1:5
3
curing ages of 14, 28 and 91 days [13,14]. In this method, the mod- c f cu ð2Þ
ulus of elasticity is measured based on the values at 10% and 30% of
the ultimate strength. For the tests, ordinary Portland cement where Ec = elastic modulus (MPa); cc = density (kg/m3); and,
(OPC) and fly ash from power plant S in Korea are adopted. fcu = reference compressive strength at 28 days.
Table 1 arranges the properties of OPC and fly ash. River sand The comparison of the values predicted by Eq. (2) and test data
and crushed gravels are used as fine and coarse aggregates of in Fig. 2 reveals good agreement in the elastic modulus for HVFA
which physical properties are arranged in Table 2. concrete with density ranging between 2200 and 2300 kg/m3 and

Table 1
Properties of OPC and fly ash used in this study.

Material Chemical composition Physical properties

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Ig. loss Density (g/cm3) Blaine (cm2/g)
OPC 21.96 5.27 3.44 63.41 2.13 1.96 0.79 3.16 3214
Fly ash 55.66 27.76 7.04 2.70 1.14 0.49 4.3 2.19 3621
1134 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144

Table 3
Mix proportions of the mixes used in the material tests.

Mix Fly ash (%) fck (MPa) W/B S/a Unit weight (kg/m3) Water-reducing
agent (%)
Water Cement Fly ash Sand Gravel
00–20 0 20 0.58 0.47 185 319 – 812 946 0.5
00–40 0 40 0.45 0.42 170 380 – 719 1028 0.5
00–60 0 60 0.35 0.42 165 471 – 694 991 1.5
35–20 35 20 0.44 0.42 185 273 147 673 962 0.5
35–40 35 40 0.35 0.42 150 277 149 707 1012 0.5
35–60 35 60 0.30 0.42 150 320 172 684 975 0.5
50–20 50 20 0.40 0.45 125 156 156 827 1047 0.5
50–40 50 40 0.48 0.45 208 216 216 681 861 0.5
50–60 50 60 0.33 0.45 242 368 368 509 647 0.5

(a) Predicted and measured stress-strain curves (b) Predicted and measured ultimate strains according
to replacement ratio
Fig. 1. Comparison of measurement and Hognestad’s prediction.

Table 4
Material test results of 9 types of mixes according to duration of curing.

Mix 14 days of curing 28 days of curing 91 days of curing Slump (mm) Air amount (%)
Compr. Elastic Compr. Elastic Compr. Elastic
strength (MPa) modulus (MPa) strength (MPa) modulus (MPa) strength (MPa) modulus (MPa)
00–20 22.4 19,266 24.4 19,866 32.3 32,821 122 4.2
00–40 28.2 21,195 30.8 23,062 35.9 28,340 121 3.8
00–60 40.2 25,300 46.2 28,853 48.8 34,969 119 3.3
35–20 22.0 19,590 31.7 25,044 33.6 22,767 116 4.0
35–40 28.2 21,195 39.8 28,314 45.8 28,325 117 3.4
35–60 36.4 24,755 44.9 32,064 51.3 34,841 114 3.7
50–20 14.5 17,329 25.6 24,273 24.4 28,981 120 3.9
50–40 12.9 14,081 23.9 20,046 22.3 19,850 122 3.8
50–60 32.1 24,167 50.5 26,641 49.2 29,163 114 3.6

the necessity to consider a modification factor for HVFA concrete
with density falling out of this range.
3. Flexural test of reinforced concrete beams using HVFA
3.1. Test variables and test members
Eighteen test members were manufactured considering fly ash
replacement ratios of 0%, 35% and 50%, and concrete compressive
strengths of 20, 40 and 60 MPa, as selected in the material test.
In addition, two different levels of tensile steel ratio (L-series:
low, H-series: high) were also considered. These tensile steel ratios
correspond to the requirements of the Concrete Design Code [17]
that are (minimum steel ratio + maximum steel ratio)/3 and
2  (minimum steel ratio + maximum steel ratio)/3. The selection
of these two levels of tensile steel ratio was dictated by the will
to induce ductile failure within the range of the tensile reinforce-
ment. Table 5 arranges the specifications of the 18 test members.
The mix proportions are identical to those listed in Table 3.
Fig. 3 illustrates the dimensions of the test members and
arrangement of reinforcement. Shear reinforcement is arranged
at more than 100% of the design code to prevent shear failure
and induce failure through bending. The adopted reinforcing rebar
are made of SD400 steel with average yield strength of 412 MPa
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144 1135

Fig. 4. Flexural test of reinforced beam member using HVFA.

Fig. 2. Comparison between predicted and measured elastic moduli.

strength of concrete. And, the H-series members exhibiting larger
tensile steel ratio than the L-series members develop better load
resistance.
Table 5 In general, the ductility of a concrete structure can be quantified
Specifications of test members.
by the ductility index expressed in terms of the deformation char-
Test Fly ash fck Tensile steel Tensile acteristics like the deflection, rotational angle or curvature [13,18].
member (%) (MPa) ratio reinforcement In this study, the ductility index is defined as follows in terms of
00–20-L 0 20 0.00794 D16-2EA the deflection:
00–20-H 0 20 0.01548 D22-2EA
00–40-L 0 40 0.01548 D22-2EA Du
00–40-H 0 40 0.02570 D29-2EA l¼ ð3Þ
Dy
00–60-L 0 60 0.02027 D25-2EA
00–60-H 0 60 0.03176 D32-2EA
35–20-L 35 20 0.00794 D16-2EA where l = ductility index of member; Du = deflection at ultimate
35–20-H 35 20 0.01548 D22-2EA load; and, Dy = deflection at yield load.
35–40-L 35 40 0.01548 D22-2EA This ductility index is calculated for each of the member and the
35–40-H 35 40 0.02570 D29-2EA corresponding values are listed in Table 6. With regard to the
35–60-L 35 60 0.02027 D25-2EA
35–60-H 35 60 0.03176 D32-2EA
results of a previous study on the flexural ductility of high strength
50–20-L 50 20 0.00794 D16-2EA concrete [19], a minimum ductility index of 4.0 is necessary to pre-
50–20-H 50 20 0.01548 D22-2EA vent the brittle failure of the high strength concrete member. In
50–40-L 50 40 0.01548 D22-2EA view of the experimental data in Table 6, the ductility index of
50–40-H 50 40 0.02570 D29-2EA
L-series members with small tensile steel ratio is always larger
50–60-L 50 60 0.02027 D25-2EA
50–60-H 50 60 0.03176 D32-2EA than 4.0, which indicates that these members can prevent brittle
failure. Besides, even if some members show ductility index smal-
ler than 4.0, most of the H-series members have ductility index lar-
ger than 4.0 but relatively smaller than the L-series members.
Moreover, the ductility index is seen to decrease with higher com-
pressive strength. This phenomenon can be observed in all sets of
members regardless of the content in fly ash. Accordingly, it can be
stated that the structural behavior of the test members with fly ash
replacement ratio of 35% and 50% is similar to that of the member
made of ordinary concrete. This statement will be corroborated
through the following observation of the load–deflection curves
of the members, the load–strain curves of the steel reinforcement,
Fig. 3. Details of test members (unit: mm).
and the load–strain curves of concrete.
The results of the survey of the cracks observed in the test
obtained through direct tensile test. Note that compressive steel is members are also arranged in Table 6. All the cracks corresponded
also adopted with a ratio of about half of that of the tensile ratio, to flexural cracks with a number varying between 14 and 26 cracks
which corresponds to the common ratio used in general. and spacing ranging between 115 mm and 214 mm. Such number
and spacing of cracks are seen to be practically indifferent to the
compressive strength of concrete. In addition, even if there is no
3.2. Flexural test results clear relationship with the tensile steel ratio, the number of cracks
seems to increase and the spacing to reduce slightly with smaller
Flexural test was conducted on the 18 test members (Fig. 4) and tensile steel ratio.
the crack load, yield load and ultimate load were measured as Fig. 5 plots the load–deflection curves measured in the test
listed in Table 6. All the test members failed through flexure as members. The deflection of all the members increases linearly until
induced. the crack load after which the increase becomes nonlinear until the
As shown in Table 6, the results correspond to the behavior gen- ultimate load. Even if the overall behavior depends on the com-
erally observed in reinforced concrete beams. The ultimate pressive strength of concrete, it appears that tensile steel ratio
load-to-yield load ratio (Pu/Py) ranges between 1.10 and 1.46. The has larger influence on the flexural behavior of the members.
crack load occurs nearly proportionally to the compressive Nevertheless, here also the flexural behavior of the test members
1136 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144

Table 6
Crack, yield and ultimate loads measured in test members.

Test member Crack load Yield load, Py Yield displ., Dy Ultimate load, Pu Ultimate displ., Du Pu/Py Du /Dy Number of cracks
(kN) (kN) (mm) (kN) (mm) (crack spacing in mm)
00–20-L 6.1 61.5 11.2 72.5 47.8 1.18 4.22 18 (167)
00–20-H 8.9 92.9 13.8 103.7 55.5 1.12 4.02 21 (143)
00–40-L 9.0 94.8 10.5 108.1 46.3 1.14 4.42 14 (214)
00–40-H 10.7 135.2 12.8 157.5 68.9 1.16 5.38 26 (115)
00–60-L 12.6 108.8 12.2 125.1 61.2 1.15 5.03 19 (158)
00–60-H 21.1 147.9 11.2 182.2 46.0 1.23 4.11 23 (130)
35–20-L 6.1 55.1 8.0 75.1 52.2 1.36 6.52 18 (167)
35–20-H 11.9 86.9 9.4 102.1 52.0 1.17 5.53 19 (156)
35–40-L 9.5 99.6 10.7 113.0 48.4 1.13 4.53 24 (125)
35–40-H 12.4 144.6 11.2 160.4 45.0 1.11 4.02 21 (143)
35–60-L 13.3 103.1 8.0 123.6 31.8 1.20 4.00 20 (150)
35–60-H 16.2 167.1 10.6 183.4 41.9 1.10 3.95 25 (120)
50–20-L 6.8 64.3 8.2 74.6 47.4 1.16 5.79 16 (188)
50–20-H 8.6 92.4 11.1 101.7 49.6 1.10 4.47 19 (158)
50–40-L 9.2 95.9 11.7 110.2 59.1 1.15 5.04 25 (120)
50–40-H 18.4 136.4 11.8 154.6 42.5 1.13 3.61 20 (150)
50–60-L 16.2 98.8 9.8 144.2 61.1 1.46 6.23 24 (125)
50–60-H 22.1 168.0 11.3 197.9 40.1 1.18 3.55 21 (143)

(a) L-series, 40-MPa beams (b) H-series, 40-MPa beams

(c) L-series, 60-MPa beams (d) H-series, 60-MPa beams

Fig. 5. Comparison of load–displacement curves of test members.

with fly ash replacement ratio of 35% and 50% appears to be similar
to that of the member made of ordinary concrete without replace-
ment of cement by fly ash.
Fig. 6 compares the load-steel strain curves measured in the
tensile reinforcement. The behavior of the tensile reinforcement
is seen to be similar to that commonly observed in normal con-
crete. The strain in the steel reinforcement appears to be relatively
small before cracking and experiences clear increase with larger
loading after cracking. For the post-yielding behavior of the rein-
forcement, very large increase of the strain is observed even under
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144
(a) L-series, 40-MPa beams
(c) L-series, 60-MPa beams
Fig. 6. Comparison of load–steel strain curves of test members.
minimal augmentation of the load. Here also, the strain of the ten-
sile reinforcement exhibits similar pattern regardless of the con-
tent in fly ash.
Fig. 7 compares the load-concrete strain curves measured at the
top surface of the test members. The concrete strain is seen to
range between 0.0035 and 0.0055 without typical difference
caused by the content in fly ash.
These comparisons (Figs. 5–7) verify that the flexural behavior
of the test members with fly ash replacement ratio of 35% and
50% is similar to that of the member without fly ash. The density
of fly ash being 25% lighter than cement, the unit weight of con-
crete with HVFA is known to reduce by 2–3%. Such reduction of
the unit weight of concrete results in slight loss of the elastic mod-
ulus and in the increase of the deflection of the member made with
HVFA [20] as can be observed in Fig. 5.
3.3. Flexural behavior analysis of reinforced HVFA concrete beams
This study intends to propose an analysis model to evaluate the
nonlinear flexural behavior of the reinforced HVFA concrete mem-
bers using the strain compatibility conditions.
3.4. Proposed nonlinear flexural behavior analysis model
The concrete model adopted here is the nonlinear model pro-
posed by Hognestad [15,16] as expressed in Eq. (1). Bilinear model
1137
(b) H-series, 40-MPa beams
(d) H-series, 60-MPa beams
is used for the reinforcement so as to consider the post-yielding
elastic modulus of the tensile steel.
With regard to the strain compatibility conditions, the strain in
the compressive zone of the section is increased stepwise from
early loading to failure and, the corresponding stresses in steel
and concrete, the flexural strength, the curvature and the deflec-
tion are computed at each step. The concept is illustrated in
Fig. 8 and formulated in the following equations.
For the reinforced concrete cross section of height h and width b
shown in Fig. 8, the strain of the tensile steel, es, can be determined
iteratively through equilibrium by assuming the strain at the top of
the compressive zone of concrete, ec. The distance x between the
crack and the neutral axis, and the relation between es and the
strain at the crack, ecr, are expressed as follows:
ecr
x¼ kd ð4Þ
ec
d  kd
es ¼ ec ð5Þ
kd
where d = depth of tensile steel from top of cross section; and,
kd = depth of neutral axis from top of cross section.
The resultants of the compressive force C, the tension force Ts in
steel, and the tensile force Tc in concrete can be calculated by the
following Eqs. (6)–(8). For a given strain, the stress in concrete is
obtained using the concrete model of Hognestad in Eq. (1) and
1138 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144

(a) L-series, 40-MPa beams (b) H-series, 40-MPa beams

(c) L-series, 60-MPa beams (d) H-series, 60-MPa beams

Fig. 7. Comparison of load–concrete strain curves measured at top face of test members.

Fig. 8. Strain compatibility of cross section for analysis.

Z
the stress in the tensile steel can be obtained using the bilinear 1
Tc ¼ f t dAt ¼ ðEc ecr Þ xb ð8Þ
behavioral model. At 2
Z
C¼ f c dAc ð6Þ
A0 where A0 = area up to ec under the Hognestad model’s f–e curve of
concrete; As and fs correspond to es in f–e curve of steel; and,
Z At = area up to ecr under the Hognestad model’s f–e curve of concrete
Ts ¼ f s dAs ¼ As f s ð7Þ assuming linear relationship.
As
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144 1139

(a) Member 00-20-H

Fig. 9. Flowchart of proposed nonlinear flexural behavior analysis.

Accordingly, the resultant N of the compressive force C, the ten-

sion force Ts in steel, and the tensile force Tc is
Z
1
N¼ f c dAc  As f s  ðEc ecr Þ xb ¼ 0 ð9Þ (b) Member 35-20-H
A0 2
Moreover, the resisting moment M of the cross section can be
obtained by means of the moment in the tensile reinforcement
using the compressive force and tensile forces expressed above
in Eqs. (6)–(8).
 x
M ¼ T c d  kd  þ Cðd  c kdÞ ð10Þ
3
where c = centroid factor of concrete stress distribution.
Finally, the curvature /, deflection D and load P can be obtained
as follows using the span length L and the flexural strength.
ec
/¼ ð11Þ
kd
 
1 L/
D ¼ sin ð12Þ
2
(c) Member 50-20-H
4M Fig. 10. Comparison of predicted and measured load–deflection curves (H-series,
P¼ ð13Þ
L 20 MPa).
qffiffiffiffi
0
where the cracking load Pcr = 0:63 f c the yield strain of the rein-
forcement es ¼ f y =Es ; and, the elastic modulus of steel reinforce-
conduct nonlinear analysis considering the effect of the loss in
ment Es = 200,000 MPa. In addition, the ultimate load Pu is defined
the elastic modulus of concrete. Besides, the proposed method can-
as the largest value among those computed by Eq. (13).
not represent the behavior of the whole member.
The flowchart of the proposed analysis process for the flexural
behavior is arranged in Fig. 9. The symbols used in the flowchart
correspond to those defined in Fig. 8 and Eqs. (4)–(13). 3.5. Comparison of analysis and experimental results
As a technique among others, the analysis model proposed in
this study makes use of the strain compatibility condition in the This section compares the results of the analysis using the strain
concrete cross-section by adopting a bilinear model for the tensile compatibility conditions exposed in the precedent section with the
steel and the Hognestad’s model for concrete. The most important experimental data in terms of the load–deflection curves and load-
improvement achieved by this approach is the possibility to strain curves for all the 18 test members considered in Chapter 3.
1140 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144
(a) Member 00-40-H
(b) Member 35-40-H
(c) Member 50-40-H
Fig. 11. Comparison of predicted and measured load–deflection curves (H-series,
40 MPa).
Figs. 10–12 compare the analysis and experimental load–de-
flection curves for the H-series specimens. A slight difference in
the estimation of the elastic modulus can be observed in some
cases but the evaluation can reproduce the crack load with good
accuracy. At the whole, the analysis is seen to be in good agree-
ment with the experimental data regardless of the replacement
ratio of fly ash. The same observations hold for the L-series
specimens.
Figs. 13–15 compare the analysis and experimental results in
term of the load-steel strain curves and Figs. 16–18 in term of
the load-concrete strain curves. Here also, the analysis is in fair
(a) Member 00-60-H
(b) Member 35-60-H
(c) Member 50-60-H
Fig. 12. Comparison of predicted and measured load–deflection curves (H-series,
60 MPa).
agreement with the measured values and the same observations
hold for the L-series specimens.
In view of the comparisons conducted in Figs. 10–18, the pro-
posed nonlinear model using the strain compatibility conditions
was able to reflect the slight variation of the elastic modulus
caused by the density of fly ash. The analysis model enabled to con-
sider quantitatively this variation to produce results in good agree-
ment with the flexural test results performed on the 18 test
members with varying tensile steel ratio, replacement ratio of fly
ash and compressive strength of concrete.
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144
(a) Member 00-20-H
(b) Member 35-20-H
(c) Member 50-20-H
Fig. 13. Comparison of predicted and measured load–steel strain curves (H-series,
20 MPa).
Table 7 summarizes the results predicted by the analysis in
terms of the crack, yield and ultimate loads for all the test mem-
bers. The error is calculated with the corresponding measured val-
ues listed in Table 6.
From the values of Table 7, the errors in the analytically pre-
dicted crack load, yield load and ultimate load as compared to
the test results remain on the whole smaller than 10% except for
a very few cases. For the crack load, the largest error in the predic-
tion is seen to be 9.84% but it should be noted that the experimen-
tal values are not absolute since they depend on visual
observations and skill of the technician. For the yield load, the
1141
(a) Member 00-40-H
(b) Member 35-40-H
(c) Member 50-40-H
Fig. 14. Comparison of predicted and measured load–steel strain curves (H-series,
40 MPa).
largest prediction error appears to be 15.15% for the member with-
out fly ash and 12.65% for member 50–60-L. For the ultimate load,
the largest prediction error is 14.89% for member 35–60-L. Apart
from these largest errors, the remaining errors for the predicted
crack load, yield load and ultimate load are practically all below
10%. Therefore, the analytic results can be considered as predicting
the test values with very good accuracy. Here also, similarly to the
conclusions drawn from the observation of Figs. 9–17, it can be sta-
ted that proposed nonlinear model using the strain compatibility
conditions generates predictions in good agreement with the test
results for the considered tensile steel ratios, replacement ratios
of fly ash and compressive strengths of concrete.
1142 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144
(a) Member 00-60-H
(b) Member 35-60-H
(c) Member 50-60-H
Fig. 15. Comparison of predicted and measured load–steel strain curves (H-series,
60 MPa).
Consequently, the proposed analysis model using the strain
compatibility conditions can be used to evaluate and predict with
satisfactory accuracy the flexural behavior of reinforced concrete
beam members with various contents in fly ash and tensile steel
ratios.
4. Conclusions
This study evaluated experimentally and analytically the effects
of high-volume fly ash (HVFA) on the flexural performance of rein-
forced concrete beams based upon the results of flexural tests on
(a) Member 00-20-H
(b) Member 35-20-H
(c) Member 50-20-H
Fig. 16. Comparison of predicted and measured load–concrete strain curves
(H-series, 20 MPa).
18 test beams fabricated with fly ash replacement ratios of 0%,
35% and 50%, two levels of tensile steel ratios and concrete com-
pressive strengths of 20, 40 and 60 MPa. The following conclusions
can be derived from the experimental and analytic results.
(1) The ultimate load-to-yield load ratio of the test members
ranged between 1.10 and 1.46, and the crack load was
quasi-proportional to the compressive strength of concrete.
Moreover, the members with high tensile steel ratio
(H-series) developed naturally better load resistance than
the members with low tensile steel ratio (L-series).
 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144
(a) Member 00-40-H
(b) Member 35-40-H
(c) Member 50-40-H
Fig. 17. Comparison of predicted and measured load–concrete strain curves
(H-series, 40 MPa).
(2) The ductility index defined as the ratio of the ultimate
deflection to the yield deflection appeared to be larger than
4.0 for the L-series members, which indicated that these
members could prevent brittle failure. Besides, the H-series
members exhibited ductility index relatively smaller than
the L-series members. The ductility index was seen to
decrease with higher compressive strength regardless of
the content in fly ash.
(3) The deflection, strain, crack load, yield load and ultimate
load observed in the members were seen to be practically
indifferent to the content in fly ash since the structural
1143
(a) Member 00-60-H
(b) Member 35-60-H
(c) Member 50-60-H
Fig. 18. Comparison of predicted and measured load–concrete strain curves
(H-series, 60 MPa).
behavior of the test members with fly ash replacement ratio
of 35% and 50% was quasi-similar to that of the members
without fly ash.
(4) The prediction of the elastic modulus revealed good agree-
ment in the elastic modulus for HVFA concrete with density
ranging between 2,200 and 2,300 kg/m3 and the necessity to
consider a modification factor for HVFA concrete with den-
sity falling out of this range.
Consequently, the present study could evaluate objectively the
effects of HVFA on the flexural performance of reinforced concrete
beams and propose an accurate analysis model enabling to predict
1144 S.-W. Yoo et al. / Construction and Building Materials 93 (2015) 1132–1144

Table 7
Predicted crack, yield and ultimate loads of test members and corresponding errors.

Test Crack load Error in predicted crack load Yield load, Py Error in predicted yield load Ultimate load, Pu Error in predicted yield load
member (kN) (%) (kN) (%) (kN) (%)
00–20-L 5.7 6.56 56.0 8.94 66.5 8.28
00–20-H 8.7 2.25 96.7 4.09 107.3 3.47
00–40-L 8.9 1.11 103.5 9.18 117.7 8.88
00–40-H 10.7 0.00 151.3 11.91 168.0 6.67
00–60-L 12.4 1.59 113.7 4.50 143.7 14.87
00–60-H 22.9 8.53 170.3 15.15 197.0 8.12
35–20-L 6.7 9.84 56.2 2.00 74.2 1.20
35–20-H 12.8 7.56 84.1 3.22 104.1 1.96
35–40-L 9.6 1.05 87.7 11.95 124.3 10.00
35–40-H 13.1 5.65 140.4 2.90 165.0 2.87
35–60-L 13.3 0.00 113.2 9.80 142.0 14.89
35–60-H 15.4 4.94 172.2 3.05 201.0 9.60
50–20-L 6.8 0.00 72.3 12.44 81.4 9.12
50–20-H 8.0 6.98 98.4 6.49 110.4 8.55
50–40-L 9.0 2.17 88.2 8.03 110.3 0.09
50–40-H 19.2 4.35 126.2 7.48 149.0 3.62
50–60-L 17.3 6.79 111.3 12.65 134.8 6.52
50–60-H 23.3 5.43 155.9 7.20 184.3 6.87

the behavior of the reinforced concrete beams with various con-
tents in fly ash.
Acknowledgements
This work was supported by the Nuclear Research &
Development of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP) grant funded by the Korea gov-
ernment Ministry of Knowledge Economy (No. 20111010100030).
References
[1] Lloyd NA, Rangan BV. Geopolymer concrete: a review of development and
opportunities. In: 35th conference in our world in concrete & structures, 25–27
August 2010, Singapore. Article Online ID: 100035037.
[2] Fernández-Jiménez A, Palomo A, López-Hombrados C. Some engineering
properties of alkali activated fly ash concrete. ACI Mater J 2006;103(2):106–12.
[3] Delair E, Prud’homme E, Peyratout C, Smith A, Michaud P, Eloy L, et al.
Durability of inorganic foam in solution: The role of alkali elements in the
geopolymer network. Corros Sci 2012;59:213–21.
[4] Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). Geopolymer concrete. CPTP
TechBrief FHWA-HIF-10-014, March 2010.
[5] Mustafa Al Bakri AM, Kamarudin H, Bnhussain M, Khairul Nizar I, Rafiza AR,
Zarina Y. The processing, characterization, and properties of fly ash based
geopolymer concrete. Rev Adv Mater Sci 2012;30:90–7.
[6] Ryu GS, Lee YB, Koh KT, Chung YS. The mechanical properties of fly ash-based
geopolymer concrete with alkaline activators. Constr Build Mater
2013;47:409–18.
[7] Obla K, Upadhyaya S, Goulias D, Schindler AK, Carino NJ. New technology-
based approach to advance higher volume fly ash concrete with acceptable
performance. Final Report of RMC Research & Education Foundation Project
No. 07-09, National Ready Mixed Concrete Association 2008.
[8] Thomas MDA, Bamforth PB. Modelling chloride diffusion in concrete: effect of
fly ash and slag. Cem Concr Res 1999;29(4):487–95.
[9] Song HW, Kwon SJ. Evaluation of chloride penetration in high performance
concrete using neural network algorithm and micro pore structure. Cem Concr
Res 2009;39(9):814–24.
[10] Crouch LK, Hewitt R, Byard B. High volume fly ash concrete. 2007 World of
Coal Ash (WOCA), 7–10 May, Northern Kentucky, USA. 2007.
[11] Siddique R. Performance characteristics of high-volume class F fly ash
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:487–93.
[12] Bentz DP, Ferraris CF, Snyder KA. Best practices guide for high-volume fly ash
concrete: Assuring properties and performance. National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST) Technical Note 1812, US Department of
Commerce. September 2013.
[13] Graybeal BA. Material property characterization of ultra-high performance
concrete. Report No. FHWA-HRT-06-103. August 2006.
[14] Popovics JS, Ham S, Garrett S. State of practice for concrete cylinder match
curing and effect of test cylinder size. Report No. FHWA-ICT-14-003. January
2014.
[15] Hognestad E. Ultimate strength of reinforced concrete in American design
practice. In: Proc. symposium on the strength of concrete structures, London,
UK. May 1956.
[16] Abbasi AF, Siess CP. Effect of stress-strain characteristics of high-strength
reinforcement on the behavior of reinforced concrete beam-columns. In: Civil
Engineering Studies, Structural Research Series, vol. 354, September 1969.
[17] Korea Concrete Institute. Concrete Design Code and Commentary, Korea
Concrete Institute; 2007.
[18] Yang IH. An experimental study on flexural behavior of steel fiber reinforced
ultra high performance concrete. J Korea Concr Inst 2009;21(6):737–44.
[19] Shin SW, Ghosh SK, Moreno J. Flexural ductility of ultra high strength concrete
members. ACI Struct J 1989;86(4):394–400.
[20] Yoon S, Monteiro PJM, Macphee DE, Glasser FP, Imambi MSE. Statistical
evaluation of the mechanical properties of high-volume class F fly ash
concretes. Constr Build Mater 2014;54:432–42.