Architectural
Institute of Japan
Translated Paper
Flexural strength and load–deformation relationship
of fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete beams
Atsushi Shibayama1 and Minehiro Nishiyama2
1
Sustainable System Research Laboratory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry, Chiba, Japan 2Department of Architecture and Architectural
Engineering, Kyoto University, Kyoto, Japan
Correspondence
Atsushi Shibayama, Sustainable System Research Labora-
tory, Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry,
1646 Abiko, Abiko-shi, Chiba 270-1194, Japan.
Email: atushi@criepi.denken.or.jp
The Japanese version of this paper was published in
Volume 87 Number 798, pages 799–810, https://doi.org/
10.3130/aijs.87.799 of Journal of Structural and Construc-
tion Engineering (Transactions of AIJ). The authors have
obtained permission for secondary publication of the
English version in another journal from the Editor of
Journal of Structural and Construction Engineering
(Transactions of AIJ). This paper is based on the transla-
tion of the Japanese version with some slight modifica-
tions.
Received October 11, 2022; Accepted December 30, 2022
doi: 10.1002/2475-8876.12331
1. Introduction
To reduce CO2 emissions in the production of ordinary Port-
land cement concrete (OPC), the development of ecological
concrete that uses significantly less Portland cement or no
cement is currently underway. Ecological concrete for rein-
forced concrete (RC) members contributes to a sustainable
society; however, there have been few studies on RC members
made of ecological concrete. The 2019 edition of the ACI
Building Code (ACI 318) of the American Concrete Institute1
has added provisions regarding ecological concrete.2 However,
ACI 318 does not describe specific design formulas for RC
members using ecological concrete, stating that the mechanical
properties of ecological concrete should be experimentally ver-
ified. Thus, an expanded understanding of the mechanical
properties of ecological concrete is necessary.
Fly-ash (FA)-based geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been
studied to effectively utilize fly ash, whose emissions have
increased with increases in the coal-fired power generation
ratio since the Great East Japan Earthquake in 2011.3 GPC is
an ecological concrete. As GPC does not use cement, its CO2
emissions are less than those of OPC. GPC also allows the
effective use of industrial waste such as FA and blast furnace
slag (BFS).4 In Japan, GPC has been used as unreinforced con-
crete, such as in concrete blocks,5 but has not yet been applied
This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original
work is properly cited.
© 2023 The Authors. Japan Architectural Review published by John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd on behalf of Architectural Institute of Japan.
Abstract
Four-point bending tests were conducted to investigate the flexural properties of
fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete beams. Although geopolymer concrete has a
stress–strain relationship with brittle compressive softening behavior, it can be
used as a flexural member because it exhibits ductile bending moment–deflection
relationships when used with compression reinforcing bars and transverse rein-
forcement. The test results revealed that the conventional design method can be
used to estimate the bending moment–deflection relationship of geopolymer
concrete beams. However, the stiffness reduction ratio for yielding must be mod-
ified to consider the difference in the modulus of elasticity between geopolymer
concrete and ordinary Portland cement concrete.
Keywords
fly-ash, geopolymer concrete, load–deformation relationship, reinforced concrete,
sustainability, ultimate flexural strength
to structural members such as columns and beams because the
mechanical properties of GPC2 are unclear.
The modulus of elasticity of FA-based GPC is lower than that
of OPC.6,7 However, the authors experimentally studied the flex-
ural behavior of FA-based reinforced GPC beams (GPC beams)
up to the yielding strength and found that they can be used as
flexural members within the allowable stress design range.8
Regarding the flexural properties of GPC members in the
secondary design (ultimate strength design) range after yield-
ing of the reinforcement, Sagawa et al.9 conducted four-point
bending loading tests on two GPC beams and concluded that
the ultimate flexural strength of the beams could be calculated
using the stress-block method, as for OPC. However, no speci-
fic calculation method was reported. Tran et al.10 also con-
ducted four-point bending loading tests on GPC beams and
reported that the ultimate flexural strength of GPC beams can
be accurately evaluated by section analysis based on the
assumption that the plane sections remain plane. Although it
has been reported that the ultimate flexural strength of GPC
beams can be calculated using the same method as for OPC,
there are few examples; further investigation is required. Shi-
bayama and Kikuchi3 and Noushini et al.6 reported that the
compressive softening behavior in the stress–strain relationship
of FA-based GPC is more brittle than that of OPC. Thus, the
ductility of GPC beams must be studied.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023
 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

The purpose of this study is to investigate the applicability 60

of GPC beams as structural members. First, the effect of the GPC Test

Compressive stress (MPa)

stress–strain relationship of GPC on the bending moment–cur- GPC Proposed
50 OPC Popovics
vature relationship is discussed. Next, four-point bending load-
ing tests are conducted on GPC beams to investigate their
flexural behavior. The load–deformation relationships of GPC 40
beams are modeled using the evaluation formula of the Com-
mentary on Structural Regulations of the Building Standard 30
Law of Japan11 (hereinafter, Commentary on Structural Regu-
lations) referenced when calculating the lateral load-carrying 20
capacity. Regarding the ultimate flexural strength of GPC
beams, a comparative investigation is conducted using the 10
stress-block parameters derived from the stress–strain relation-
ship of GPC and those in ACI 318,1 and section analysis using 0
the stress–strain relationship of GPC, in addition to the Com- 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
mentary on Structural Regulations. Axial strain㻌 (µ)

2. Effect of Stress–Strain Relationship of GPC on Bending FIGURE 1. Stress–strain relationship

Moment–Curvature Relationship of Beam
2.1 Stress–strain relationship of GPC TABLE 1. Mechanical properties of GPC
The authors proposed a stress–strain relationship model3 for
FA-based GPC. The proposed model adds a coefficient “a” to f c (MPa) 29.9 50.1
the Popovics model12 to express the characteristics of the Ec (GPa) 18.5 23.3
stress–strain relationship of GPC, such as the strong linearity εcm (10−6) 2650 2810
in the ascending branch and brittle softening behavior in the fsp (MPa) 2.40 3.49
descending branch. The proposed model was calculated using Note: Ec is the modulus of elasticity of concrete in N/mm2; εcm is the
the following equations: strain at maximum compressive stress, and fsp is the splitting tensile
strength in N/mm2.


σc n εεcmc
¼
 (1)
f c n1 þ εc na
εcm GPC exhibits significant softening behavior compared with
  OPC after reaching the compressive strength. This difference
Ec in the stress–strain relationship may affect the deformation per-
n¼ (2)
Ec Esec formance of GPC members.
 
25 2.2 Stress-block parameters of GPC
a¼ 0:05 if εc ≤ εcm (3) To calculate the ultimate flexural strength of a beam, it is only
fc
necessary to know the compressive resultant force of the con-
a ¼ 2:0 if εc > εcm , (4) crete and its acting position, so the method using stress-block
parameters (k1, k2, k3) is widely used. In this section, k1 and k2
where σ c is the compressive stress in N/mm2; f c is the com- are calculated from the stress–strain relationship of GPC, as
pressive strength in N/mm2; εc is the compressive strain; εcm is shown in Figure 1, and compared with that of OPC. k3 is the
the strain at maximum compressive stress; Ec is the modulus ratio of the specimen concrete compressive strength to the
of elasticity in N/mm2; Esec is the secant stiffness between the standard cylinder compressive strength; k3 = 0.85. The stress-
maximum compressive stress point and the origin in N/mm2. block parameters were calculated using the following equa-
Figure 1 shows the stress–strain relationship of GPC calcu- tions:
lated using the proposed model. In using the Popovics model, R εc
the values in Table 1 were used for compressive strength and σ c ðεÞdε
k1 ¼ 0 (5)
strain at the maximum compressive stress. Table 1 presents the f c εc
material test results of the GPC used in the loading experi- Rε
ment. The Popovics model is proposed based on the initial 1 0 c σ c ðεÞεdε
modulus of elasticity. However, there is no established method k2 ¼ 1  R εc (6)
εc 0 σ c ðεÞdε
for calculating the initial modulus of elasticity. Thus, the
secant modulus of elasticity was used for the stress one-third
Equations (5) and (6) were used to obtain the stress-block
of the compressive strength specified by JIS. The secant modu-
parameters from the stress–strain relationship of GPC esti-
lus of elasticity for one-third stress of the compressive strength
mated from the proposed model shown in Figure 1 and the
of the GPC is shown in Table 1. For reference, the stress–
stress–strain relationship of OPC estimated from the Popovics
strain relationship of OPC, which has the same compressive
model. The ultimate bending moment of a beam reaches its
strength and strain at the maximum compressive stress as
GPC, as obtained by the Popovics model, is also shown in Fig- maximum when k1kk2 3 reaches its minimum value. Thus, εc was
ure 1. The modulus of elasticity of OPC was calculated using gradually increased to 10 000 μ, and k1  k3 ，k2 , and εc were
the formula in the AIJ RC Standard13 As shown in Figure 1, calculated when k1kk2 3 was at its minimum. Hereafter, εcc is

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 2

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA

TABLE 2. Stress-block parameters at εcc

α1 ¼ 0:85 (7)
GPC OPC
β1 ¼ 0:850:00714ð f c 28Þ (8)
f c (MPa) 29.9 50.1 29.9 50.1
Table 3 presents the stress-block parameters in ACI 318 and
k1  k 3 0.56 0.53 0.68 0.64
the stress-block parameters of GPC when the integration range
k2 0.37 0.36 0.42 0.40
of the strains in Equations (5) and (6) reaches 0.3%. In ACI
εcc (10−6) 2910 3070 3740 3790
318, α1 β1 corresponds to k1  k3 and 12 β1 corresponds to k2 .
The values in parentheses in Table 3 are the ratios of the GPC
stress-block parameters to the ACI 318 stress-block parame-
TABLE 3. Stress-block parameters at εc = 0.3%
ters. In Table 3, k1  k3 of GPC is smaller than that in ACI 318
in both compressive strength cases; k2 of GPC is smaller than
GPC ACI 318 that in ACI 318 for a compressive strength of 30 MPa but
slightly larger for 50 MPa. The difference between ACI 318
f c (MPa) 29.9 50.1 29.9 50.1 and GPC was greatest for k1  k3 with a compressive strength
k1  k 3 0.57 (0.80) 0.52 (0.89) 0.71 0.59 of 30 MPa at 20%. The effect of the GPC stress-block parame-
k2 0.38 (0.91) 0.36 (1.03) 0.42 0.35 ters derived in this section on the ultimate bending moment is
presented in Chapter 5.

2.3 Estimation of bending moment–curvature relationship using

defined as the compressive strain when k1kk2 3 is at its minimum
value. The results are presented in Table 2. The stress–strain
relationship of GPC is more linear in the ascending branch
than that of OPC; the softening behavior in the descending
branch is more brittle, resulting in smaller k1  k3 and k2 values
than for OPC for the same compressive strength. k1  k3 of
GPC was approximately 83% of that of OPC for both the 30
and 50 MPa compressive strength cases; k2 of GPC was
approximately 90% of that of OPC. The εcc values for GPC
were 2910 μ and 3070 μ, as shown in Table 2. These values
are similar to the strain at the maximum compressive stress
obtained in the material strength test (Table 1). To derive the
stress-block parameters of OPC, the values obtained from
the GPC material strength test were also used for the strain at
the maximum compressive stress. εcc of OPC was approxi-
mately 1000 μ greater than the strain at the maximum com-
pressive stress used in the Popovics model. For the conditions
in this study, there is a difference in the strain of the concrete
between GPC and OPC at the minimum k1kk2 3 .
In ACI 318,1 the following equations are proposed to cal-
culate the stress-block parameters when the ultimate strain
of OPC is assumed to be 0.3%; they are used to calculate
the ultimate flexural strength of the member. Equation (8) is
used to calculate compressive strengths between 28 and
55 MPa.
section analysis
In this section, a section analysis (fiber model) is performed to
reflect the stress–strain relationship of GPC; the effect of the
difference in the stress–strain relationships of GPC and OPC
on the bending moment–curvature relationship of the beam is
discussed.
The analysis was performed on beam specimens with con-
crete strengths of 30 and 50 MPa and double-reinforcement
ratios (0%, 30%, and 60%), as presented in Table 4.
In a section analysis, the member is sliced into layers in the
cross-sectional direction; the stress–strain relationship of the
concrete and steel is reflected in each of the divided elements.
Convergence calculations were performed to satisfy the equi-
librium of axial force based on the assumption that the plane
section remains plane. Tensile stresses in the concrete are
neglected, and the tension-stiffening properties are not consid-
ered. The compressive stress–strain relationships for GPC and
OPC are those of plain concrete shown in Figure 1, using the
proposed model for GPC and the Popovics model for OPC.
For both GPC and OPC, the values from the GPC material
strength test shown in Table 1 were used as the compressive
strength and strain at the maximum compressive stress. The
modulus of elasticity of the GPC was calculated from the
material strength test values in Table 1, and the modulus of
elasticity of the OPC was calculated using the AIJ RC

TABLE 4. Beam specimens

Specimen Reinforcing bars A-A cross-section Dimensions

GPC-fc30-00 pt ¼ 0:66%(3-D10)
GPC-fc50-00 γ ¼ 0%

GPC-fc30-03 pt ¼ 0:66%(3-D10)
GPC-fc30-03 γ ¼ 30%
Compression bar: 2-D6
GPC-fc30-06 pt ¼ 0:66%(3-D10)
GPC-fc50-06 γ ¼ 60%
Compression bar: 4-D6

Note: pt , ratio of longitudinal tensile reinforcement; γ, double-reinforcement ratio.

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 3

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

TABLE 5. Mechanical properties of reinforcing bars section analysis reflecting the stress–strain relationship, there
was little difference in the bending moment and curvature
f y (MPa) Es (GPa) f u (MPa)
when the extreme compression fiber strain reached 0.3%,
D6 (SD295) 413 218 530 which is often defined as the ultimate flexural strength point
D10 (SD295) 362 195 500 in the design. Thus, four-point bending loading tests were
conducted on GPC beams to investigate their flexural behav-
Note: fy, yielding strength in N/mm2; Es, modulus of elasticity of rein- ior.
forcing bar in N/mm2; fu, tensile strength in N/mm2.

3. Four-Point Bending Loading Tests of Beams

Standard formula. The values in Table 5 were used for the 3.1 Specimens
modulus of elasticity, yield strength, and strain at the yield The specimens were RC beams 2400 mm in length with a
strength of the reinforcement; a bilinear model was used in rectangular cross-section 150 mm wide and 250 mm high
which the second stiffness after yielding was 1/100 of the (Table 4). The experimental variables were the compressive
modulus of elasticity of the reinforcement. Table 5 presents strength of concrete and double-reinforcement ratio. In all
the material test results for the reinforcement used in the load- specimens, the tensile reinforcement ratio was less than the
ing tests. balanced reinforcement ratio to the ultimate state. The speci-
Figure 2 shows the bending moment–curvature relationship. mens were designed such that concrete crushing occurred
The point at which the extreme compression fiber strain after the yielding of the tension reinforcement. Dividing the
reached 0.3% is indicated by a circle (○). The bending tensile reinforcement ratio of the series with compressive
moment when the extreme compression fiber strain reached strength of 30 MPa and the series with compressive strength
0.3% and the curvature at that point was similar for the GPC of 50 MPa by the balanced reinforcement ratio produced val-
and OPC stress–strain relationships. As shown in Figure 2A–F, ues of 0.18 and 0.12, respectively. The balanced reinforce-
there were no clear differences in behavior until the extreme ment ratio in the ultimate state was calculated using the
compression fiber strain reached 0.3%. Differences in behav- stress-block parameters in ACI 318.1 Compression reinforce-
ior were observed when the extreme compression fiber strain ment was not considered. The test section was designed with
exceeded 0.3%. For the stress–strain relationship of GPC, the a constant bending moment of 250 mm to the left and right
bending moment tended to decrease after the maximum bend- of the center of the specimen. No shear force was generated
ing moment immediately after the extreme compression fiber in the test section, and the bending moment was uniform.
strain exceeded 0.3%. For OPC, the bending moment contin- For specimens with double-reinforcement ratios of 30% and
ued to increase after the extreme compression fiber strain 60%, hoop-shaped transverse reinforcements were placed at
reached 0.3% due to differences in the compressive softening 50-mm intervals to prevent buckling of the compression rein-
behavior of the concrete stress–strain relationships. In the forcement.

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5
GPC
OPC
0 0 0
-5 -4 -4 -4 -5 -4 -4 -4 -5 -4 -4 -4
0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10 0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10 0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)

A GPC-fc30-00 B GPC-fc30-03 C GPC-fc30-06

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
-5 -4 -4 -4 -5 -4 -4 -4 -5 -4 -4 -4
0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10 0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10 0 5 10 1 10 1.5 10 2 10
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)

D GPC-fc50-00 E GPC-fc50-03 F GPC-fc50-06

FIGURE 2. Bending moment–curvature relationships

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 4

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA

TABLE 6. Physical properties and chemical compositions of GPC materials

Chemical composition (%)

Density Specific surface
(g/cm3) area (cm2/g) Ig. Loss SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2O K2 O

FA 2.18 4070 3.65 60.4 20.4 2.66 1.14 0.54 0.01 0.14 1.13
BFS 2.92 3670 −2.15 36.5 12.9 0.16 42.2 6.38 0.01 0.15 0.32
SF 2.20 – – 96.5 0.51 0.12 0.18 0.41 0.35 – –

TABLE 7. GPC mixture properties

Design Coarse Fine

compressive W/P s/a FA BFS SF NaOH aggregate aggregate
strength (MPa) (%) (%) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)

30 34.0 46.0 360 128 26 174 38 733 864

50 32.0 166 68

Note: W/P is the water–powder ratio by weight, and s/a is the sand-to-total aggregate ratio by volume.

3.2 Mixture design and specimen production

Three powders were used in this study: FA, BFS, and sil-
ica fume (SF). The powder compositions are presented in
Table 6. In previous GPC studies, water glass has often
been used as an alkaline activator; in this study, NaOH
was used. The mix proportions of GPC are presented in
Table 7. Steel formwork was used to cast the GPC
beams; after casting, the beams were steam-cured at 85°C
for 5 h.

3.3 Material properties

The material test results are presented in Table 1; the stress–
strain relationships of the concrete are indicated by circles (○)
in Figure 1. In the material tests of concrete, the experimental
values in Figure 1 extend to the point of maximum strength;
measurement was not possible after the compressive strength
was reached owing to the performance limitations of the test-
ing machine. The proposed stress–strain relationship model
used in the section analysis is consistent with the experimental
results.
In Figure 1, the GPC modulus of elasticity is less than that
of OPC, and 70% of the modulus of elasticity is calculated
using the formula in the AIJ RC Standard, which uses the
GPC compressive strength, when the compressive strength was
30 MPa, and 74% when the compressive strength was
50 MPa. The material test results for the reinforcement are
presented in Table 5.
3.4 Loading method
In this experiment, four-point bending loading was per-
formed with the length of the uniform bending moment
section (the test section) set to 500 mm. Loading was per-
formed using a 1000-kN hydraulic jack via a steel loading
beam. Sliding supports were used at both ends of the beam
to prevent beam deformation toward one of the loading
points. Semi-circular uneven surfaces were combined, and
a Teflon sheet was sandwiched between the surfaces in
contact with the uneven surfaces to reduce friction, as
shown in Figure 3. Loading was static unidirectional incre-
mental loading by displacement control. The residual
deformation was measured by unloading the member sev-
eral times until it yielded. The results are presented in a
separate paper.
FIGURE 3. Measurement of extreme fiber strain
3.5 Measurements and methods
In this experiment, the jack load, vertical displacement of the
specimen, reinforcement strain, and concrete surface strain
were measured. The jack load was measured using a load cell;
specimen deflection was measured using a contact displace-
ment meter, and reinforcement strain was measured using an
electric resistance strain gauge (RSG in Table 4). The concrete
surface strain was measured using motion capture in the test
section. The reinforcement strain measurement locations are
presented in Table 4. The vertical displacements of the speci-
mens were measured at the left and right support points, at
loading points, and at the center of the span. Vertical displace-
ment was measured in the beam-height direction at the half-
way point of the beam height. ARAMIS,14 a noncontact 3D
displacement and strain measurement system, was used for
motion capture measurements. The ARAMIS system uses two
CCD cameras to measure the displacement at each position of
the specimen in three dimensions using a stereo method. The
CCD camera had a resolution of 4M pixels. The measured
concrete surface strains were the member axial strain at
extreme fiber compression and extreme fiber tension in the test
section. The displacement of the target sticker affixed at the
measurement position was measured from the start of loading,
and the strain was calculated. The initial spacing in the
member-axis direction between the target stickers was
500 mm, the same as that in the test section; the average strain
in the test section was measured.

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 5

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

A GPC-fc30-00 B GPC-fc30-03 C GPC-fc30-06

D GPC-fc50-00 E GPC-fc50-03 F GPC-fc50-06

FIGURE 4. Cracking patterns and failures of tested GPC beams

25 25 25
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

20 20 20

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 GPC-fc30-03 5 GPC-fc30-06
GPC-fc30-00
GPC-fc50-00 GPC-fc50-03 GPC-fc50-06
0 0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm) Deflection (mm)

γ=0% B γ=30%
A C γ=60%

ࠐ㸸Cracking, ‫ۃ‬㸸Steel yielding in tension, ‫ڹ‬㸸Steel yielding in compression, □㸸Maximum capacity

FIGURE 5. Bending moment–deflection relationships

4. Experimental Results
zone between the support points outside the test section and
the loading points; shear failure did not occur until the end of
4.1 Cracking pattern and failure mode the test.
Figure 4 shows the cracking patterns of each specimen at the
end of loading. The red lines on the specimen surfaces indicate 4.2 Bending moment–deflection relationship
the locations of the longitudinal and transverse reinforcements. The bending moment–deflection relationship for each specimen
The observed failure mode was as designed. In the test section, is shown in Figure 5. The figure shows the relative displace-
only flexural cracking occurred; typical bending failure leading ment between the center of the span and the support points.
to crushing of the compression-side concrete after the yielding Loading of specimens with compression reinforcement was ter-
of the tension reinforcement was observed. There were 2-3 minated when the deflection reached 70–80 mm without
more flexural cracks in the test section in specimens with 30% checking for a decrease in load to prevent the specimens from
and 60% double-reinforcement ratios with transverse reinforce- coming into contact with the frame of the testing apparatus as
ment than in specimens with a 0% double-reinforcement ratio deformation progressed. Table 8 presents the flexural crack
(without compression reinforcement and transverse reinforce- point, yield point, and maximum strength point of each speci-
ment). Regardless of the compressive strength of the concrete men. Ke and Ky in Table 8 represent the secant stiffness
and the amount of compression reinforcement, concrete crush- between the origin and the flexural crack point and flexural
ing was generally limited to the cover concrete as shown in yield point, respectively. The flexural crack point is defined as
Figure 4A–F. In specimens with compression reinforcement, the point at which the slope of the bending moment–deflection
buckling of the compression reinforcement was not observed relationship clearly decreases from the elastic stiffness in the
in any of the specimens in the visually confirmable range. No initial stage of loading. The flexural yield point is defined as
large shear cracks were observed in the shear force-generating the point at which the strain gauge value reaches the yield

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 6

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA

TABLE 8. Characteristic points on bending moment–deflection curves

Specimen Ke (kN/mm) Mcr (kNm) δcr (mm) Ky (kN/mm) My (kNm) δy (mm) α Mmax (kNm) δmax (mm)

GPC-fc30-00 39.4 5.9 0.30 12.4 16.8 2.71 0.32 19.3 29.2
GPC-fc30-03 34.3 5.2 0.30 12.8 16.9 2.64 0.37 19.6 23.4
GPC-fc30-06 35.1 7.1 0.41 13.3 17.6 2.64 0.38 20.3 23.6
GPC-fc50-00 46.1 7.7 0.34 15.5 17.5 2.26 0.34 20.3 31.4
GPC-fc50-03 37.8 7.9 0.42 14.8 16.8 2.26 0.39 21.2 36.9
GPC-fc50-06 43.0 7.9 0.37 15.5 17.8 2.29 0.36 21.0 25.4

Note: Ke, initial stiffness; Mcr, cracking moment; δcr, cracking deflection; Ky, yielding stiffness; My, yield moment; δy, yield deflection; α ¼ K y =K e ;
Mmax, maximum moment; δmax, deflection at maximum moment.

25 25 25

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Extreme compression fiber strain ( ) Extreme compression fiber strain ( ) Extreme compression fiber strain ( )

A GPC-fc30-00 B GPC-fc30-03 C GPC-fc30-06

25 25 25

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000 0 2000 4000 6000 8000
Extreme compression fiber strain ( ) Extreme compression fiber strain ( ) Extreme compression fiber strain ( )

D GPC-fc50-00 E GPC-fc50-03 F GPC-fc50-06

FIGURE 6. Bending moment–extreme compression fiber strain relationships

strain obtained from material testing. The displacements in not experience a rapid decrease in bearing capacity after reach-
Table 8 are the averages of the relative displacements between ing the maximum load-carrying capacity as shown in Fig-
the left and right loading points and the support points. The ure 5B,C. A bending moment–deflection relationship with high
displacement values do not match those in Figure 5 as the ductility was observed. In these specimens, the maximum
deflection is not the span center deflection. This is to match load-carrying capacity was reached; the compression reinforce-
the conditions with the calculation method discussed in Chap- ment yielded in compression after a slight decrease in load-
ter 5. This study compares the experimental results with the carrying capacity due to concrete crushing. Considering the
calculation method in the Commentary on Structural Regula- effect of the concrete compressive strength on the maximum
tions, which estimates deflection at the loading point using the bearing capacity, the maximum bearing capacity was greater
stiffness reduction rate. Therefore, Table 8 lists the relative for specimens with a compressive strength of 50 MPa than for
displacement at the loading points. those with a compressive strength of 30 MPa. However, the
In Figure 5A, the bearing capacity of the specimen without difference was only approximately 1 kNm. Considering that all
compression reinforcement decreases with concrete crushing specimens experienced flexural–tensile failure and that the
after the maximum load-carrying capacity. The specimen with a maximum load-carrying capacity was approximately 19–21
compressive strength of 50 MPa showed a more rapid decrease kNm, the effect was small.
in load-carrying capacity than the specimen with a compressive Considering the flexural properties in the allowable stress
strength of 30 MPa. This is considered to reflect the compressive design range, specimens with a compressive strength of
softening behavior of concrete, as shown in Figure 1. 50 MPa tended to have greater initial stiffness and flexural
From Table 8, compression reinforcement did not have a cracking moment than those with a compressive strength of
significant effect on the increase in maximum load-carrying 30 MPa, although there was some variation. A greater com-
capacity. The specimens with compression reinforcement did pressive strength indicates a greater modulus of elasticity and

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 7

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

tensile strength of the concrete. The flexural yield moment was In Figure 6, the extreme compression fiber strain at the maxi-
similar for the same reinforcement regardless of compressive mum bending moment of each specimen exceeded the compres-
strength. The yield point stiffness reduction rate of the speci- sive strength strain in the material test. The GPC-fc30-00
mens was 0.32–0.39. specimen (Figure 6A) had a large extreme compression fiber strain
As described in Chapter 2, GPC is characterized by more (5094 μ); the strains of the other specimens were generally 3000–
brittle compressive softening behavior in the descending 4000 μ as shown in Figure 6B–F. Figure 6 shows a dashed red line
branch than OPC. Section analysis showed that without com- representing 3000 μ, which is generally assumed to be the ultimate
pressive reinforcement, the load-carrying capacity of GPC strain for OPC design. In comparison, the GPC-fc30-03 specimen
decreases earlier than that of OPC. However, in the experi- exhibited an extreme compression fiber strain at the maximum
ment, a bending moment–deflection relationship with high duc- bending moment of approximately 3000 μ. The extreme compres-
tility was achieved without a rapid decrease in bearing sion fiber strain at the maximum bending moment exceeded
capacity after the maximum load-carrying capacity was 3000 μ for all specimens, including the GPC-fc30-03 specimen.
reached by placing compression and transverse reinforcements. Although GPC is characterized by more brittle compressive soft-
The specimens were designed such that the concrete stress– ening than OPC, the results of this experiment indicate no signifi-
strain relationship had little influence on the deformation per- cant problems if the GPC ultimate strain is set to 3000 μ, as with
formance of the beam owing to the tensile reinforcement ratio OPC. However, this conclusion is based only on the results of this
to balanced reinforcement ratio of 0.12 and 0.18, even in spec- experiment, which was limited to a small number of specimens.
imens without compression reinforcement. In the AIJ RC Stan- Further, data expansion is required to obtain values that can be
dard, the main beams are double-reinforced beams with applied generally to the ultimate strain of GPC.
compression reinforcement in all spans; beams without com-
pression reinforcement, such as the GPC-fc30-00 and GPC- 4.4 Bending moment–curvature relationship
fc50-00 specimens, are not typically designed. Motion capture was used to measure the axial strain of the test
section in the direction of the member axis, providing experi-
4.3 Ultimate strain of concrete mental values for the bending moment–curvature relationship of
The bending moment–extreme compression fiber strain rela- the GPC beams. The curvature was calculated by dividing the
tionship for each specimen is shown in Figure 6. The circle in sum of the absolute values of the extreme compression fiber
Figure 6 represents the maximum bending moment; the strains and extreme tension fiber strains in the test section, mea-
extreme compression fiber strain at that time is shown in the sured by motion capture with a beam depth of 250 mm, which
figure. For the GPC-fc50-00 specimen shown in Figure 6D, is the distance in the beam-height direction. The distance
the target sticker was hidden when the extreme compression between the two points at which the strain was calculated was
fiber strain approached 5000 μ (Figure 4D). As a result, part of 500 mm, resulting in an average strain over the test section.
the graph beyond approximately 5000 μ of extreme compres- Figure 7 shows a comparison of the experimental and ana-
sion fiber strain is missing; the specimen did not fail at this lytical results for the bending moment–curvature relationship
stage. of the specimens. A section analysis was performed using the

25 25 25

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 Test 5 5
SecAna-GPC
SecAna-OPC
0 0 0
0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4 0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4 0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)

A GPC-fc30-00 B GPC-fc30-03 C GPC-fc30-06

25 25 25

20 20 20
Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

Bending Moment (kNm)

15 15 15

10 10 10

5 5 5

0 0 0
0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4 0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4 0 5 10-5 1 10-4 1.5 10-4 2 10-4
Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm) Curvature (1/mm)

D GPC-fc50-00 E GPC-fc50-03 F GPC-fc50-06

FIGURE 7. Bending moment–curvature relationships

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 8

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3 SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA

TABLE 9. Experimental results versus analytical predictions

K e,exp Mcr,exp My,exp αy,exp
Specimen K e,cal (kN/mm) Mcr,cal (kNm) αy,cal My,cal (kNm) Mu,cal (kNm) K e,cal Mcr,cal My,cal αy,cal
Mmax
Mu,cal

GPC-fc30-00 43.0 4.8 0.18 15.1 15.1 0.92 1.24 1.12 1.74 1.28
GPC-fc30-03 0.80 1.08 1.12 2.06 1.30
GPC-fc30-06 0.82 1.48 1.17 2.09 1.35
GPC-fc50-00 51.5 6.2 0.16 0.90 1.25 1.16 2.05 1.35
GPC-fc50-03 0.73 1.27 1.11 2.39 1.41
GPC-fc50-06 0.84 1.27 1.18 2.20 1.39
Average 0.83 1.26 1.14 2.09 1.35

method described in Section 2.3. The stress–strain relationships
assumed in the analysis are for the plain GPC and OPC con-
crete shown in Figure 1. The point at which the extreme com-
pression fiber strain reached 0.3% is indicated by a circle (○)
in the analysis and the experiment. Whether the stress–strain
relationship of GPC or OPC is used, the section analysis shows
that the crack and yield points of all the specimens correspond
accurately to the experimental results. Although the difference
in ultimate curvature, where the extreme compression fiber
strain reached 0.3%, between the analysis and experiment was
larger for the GPC-fc50-00 specimen (Figure 7D), for the other
specimens (Figure 7A–C,E–F), the ultimate flexural strength
and the ultimate curvature were accurate.
As the loading test was conducted only for GPC beams in
this experiment, whether the deformation performance of GPC
beams was equivalent to that of OPC beams was not verified.
The section analysis suggests that GPC beams fail earlier than
OPC beams without compression reinforcement. However, the
deformation performance can be improved with compression
and transverse reinforcements arranged in an ordinary member.
This can be demonstrated by calculating the bending moment–
curvature relationship using a stress–strain relationship model
of confined GPC in the section analysis. However, modeling
the stress–strain relationship of confined GPC was not consid-
ered in this study and is a subject for future research.
5. Modeling of Load–Deformation Relationship for
Design
When calculating the lateral load-carrying capacity of an RC
member, a load–deformation relationship that appropriately con-
siders the nonlinear characteristics of the member is necessary.
In this chapter, the applicability of the calculation formulas
described in the Commentary on Structural Regulations to beam
members made of GPC is examined to propose a load–deforma-
tion relationship for members to be used in the calculation of
the load-carrying capacity of members in the analysis program.
5.1 Calculation method for each characteristic point
5.1.1 Flexural crack strength point
The initial stiffness and flexural crack strength of the beams
were calculated in accordance with the Commentary on Struc-
tural Regulations using the following equations.
1
Ke ¼
1
Kb þ K1s
pffiffiffiffi
M cr ¼ 0:56 f c Z e ,
where Ke is the initial stiffness of the beam; Kb is the flexural
stiffness of the beam; Ks is the shear stiffness of the beam;
M cr is the flexural crack strength of the beam; Z e is the section
modulus considering reinforcement.
In calculating the initial stiffness of the beam, the equivalent
section secondary moment considering reinforcement was used
as the section secondary moment, and the experimental value
was used as the respective modulus of elasticity of the con-
crete and reinforcement. As the Poisson’s ratio of the GPC
used in this study was approximately the same as that of
OPC,3 the Poisson’s ratio used to calculate the shear modulus
was set to 0.2 for both GPC and OPC.
5.1.2 Flexural yield strength point
The following equations were used to calculate the flexural
yield strength and stiffness reduction rate of the beams.
M y ¼ at f y 0:9d (11)

a  d 2
α ¼ 0:043 þ 1:64npt þ 0:043 þ 0:33η0 (12)
D D
where M y is the flexural yield strength of the beam; at is the
reinforcement cross-section; f y is the yield strength of the rein-
forcement in N/mm2; d is the effective depth; α is the stiffness
reduction rate at yield; n is the elastic modulus ratio; pt is the
tensile reinforcement ratio; Da is the shear span ratio; ηo is the
axial force ratio; D is the beam depth.
Equation (12) is the Sugano equation. The experimental
data15 that led to the Sugano equation did not include a four-
point bending loading test in which the bending moment was
constant. Thus, strictly speaking, this experiment was outside
the scope of application. The relative vertical displacements at
the support and loading point locations were compared using
the Sugano equation. The vertical displacements at the loading
point locations in this experiment included the vertical dis-
placement from the rotation of the cross-section at the loading
point.
5.1.3 Ultimate flexural strength point
The ultimate bending moment in the Commentary on Struc-
tural Regulations was calculated using the same equation as
for flexural yield strength. Equation (11) is henceforth referred
to as the simplified formula of the Commentary on Structural
Regulations.
(9) 5.2 Comparison with experimental results
Table 9 presents the characteristic values of the load–deforma-
tion relationship (initial stiffness, flexural cracking moment,
flexural yield moment, stiffness reduction rate, and ultimate
(10) bending moment) compared with the experimental results.

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 9

 24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3

TABLE 10. Modification of Equation (12) for GPC
Specimen Coefficient of npt
GPC-fc30-00 4.23
GPC-fc30-03 5.33
GPC-fc30-06 5.46
GPC-fc50-00 5.82
GPC-fc50-03 7.18
GPC-fc50-06 6.41
Average 5.74
For the initial stiffness estimation, the analytical values were
greater than the experimental values for all specimens. The
difference between the calculated and experimental values was
within 30%; the mean value of the experimental and analytical
values for all specimens was 0.83. A study by the Building
Research Institute,16 which compared the initial stiffness calcu-
lated using Equation (9) with a comprehensive body of experi-
mental results for RC beams made of OPC, stated that in
many cases, the experimental initial stiffness values are lower
than the analytical values. Although it is difficult to pinpoint
the causes of lower values in this experiment, drying shrinkage
and the fact that all loading and support points were sliding
supports may have been influences.
According to the Commentary on Structural Regulations, to
calculate the flexural cracking moment, Equation (10) produces
analytical values that are generally within 30% of the experi-
mental values. In this experiment, the average of the experi-
mental and analytical values for all test specimens was 1.26.
The difference between the analytical and experimental values
for the flexural yield moment was approximately 20% of the
experimental value for all specimens, which is generally within
the range of estimation accuracy of Equation (11).
The Sugano equation (Equation (12)) is reported to produce
analytical values that are generally within 30% of the experi-
mental values for OPC.17 For the GPC beams in this experi-
ment, the experimental values were, on average, approximately
twice the analytical values for all specimens. It was previously
reported that the Sugano equation does not correctly estimate
the rate of stiffness reduction in GPC beams without modifica-
tion.8 Although the number of previous experiments is too
small to propose a general value applicable to GPC members,
it was reported that the Sugano equation can be applied to
GPC members by modifying the coefficient in the second term
of Equation (12).8 Table 10 presents the coefficient values in
the second term of Equation (12) that produce analytical val-
ues that match the experimental values for the stiffness reduc-
tion rate of GPC beams in this experiment. The average value
for all specimens was 5.74. Although further study is required,
the stiffness reduction rate of GPC members can be estimated
by modifying the coefficient of the second term in the Sugano
equation, considering the difference in the modulus of elastic-
ity between GPC and OPC.
The ratio of the experimental value to the analytical value
for the ultimate bending moment according to the simplified
formula of the Commentary on Structural Regulations was
1.35 on average for all specimens; the experimental value
was approximately 30% greater. As there was almost no dif-
ference in the ultimate bending moment between GPC and
OPC in the section analysis, the simplified formula of the
Commentary on Structural Regulations commonly used in
secondary design(ultimate strength design) is also applicable
to GPC members.
Although the difference in the modulus of elasticity between
GPC and OPC with respect to the stiffness reduction rate must
be considered, the load–deformation relationship of GPC
beams can generally be estimated using the method described
in the Commentary on Structural Regulations.
5.3 Evaluation of ultimate bending moment
Table 11 compares the calculated and experimental values
for the ultimate bending moment. In addition to the simpli-
fied formula of the Commentary on Structural Regulations,
calculation methods using stress-blocks and section analysis
were used to calculate the ultimate bending moment. The
values obtained in the material tests were used to calculate
the ultimate bending moment. The calculation methods are
described as follows.
5.3.1 Stress-block method
Equations (13) and (14) are used for double-reinforced beams
when the compression reinforcement is in an elastic state.
Assuming a 0.3% ultimate extreme compression fiber strain
for concrete, the ultimate bending moment was calculated for
two cases: the GPC stress-block parameters derived from the
stress–strain relationship and the stress-block parameters in
ACI 318 (Table 3).
 
xn1 dc1
M u ¼ γpt ð1dc1 Þ Es εcu þ k1 k3 ð1k2 xn1 Þxn1 f c bd 2
xn1
(13)
qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
pt Ec εcu γf y þ
2
p2t Es εcu γf y þ 4k1 k3 f c Es εcu γpt dc1
xn1 ¼ ,
2k1 k3 f c
(14)

TABLE 11. Analytical moment capacity and experimental data

Mmax Mmax Mmax Mmax M0:3% M0:3% M0:3% M0:3%
Specimen Mmax (kNm) MCSR MGPC MACI MSecA M0:3% (kNm) MCSR MGPC MACI MSecA

GPC-fc30-00 19.3 1.28 1.22 1.21 1.08 18.2 1.21 1.15 1.14 1.02
GPC-fc30-03 19.6 1.30 1.24 1.22 1.10 19.4 1.29 1.22 1.21 1.08
GPC-fc30-06 20.3 1.35 1.27 1.26 1.13 20.2 1.34 1.27 1.25 1.13
GPC-fc50-00 20.3 1.35 1.25 1.25 1.06 19.0 1.26 1.17 1.17 0.99
GPC-fc50-03 21.2 1.41 1.28 1.27 1.10 20.3 1.35 1.23 1.22 1.05
GPC-fc50-06 21.0 1.39 1.26 1.24 1.09 19.8 1.32 1.19 1.17 1.03
Average – 1.35 1.25 1.24 1.09 – 1.29 1.21 1.19 1.05

Note: Mmax, experimental maximum bending moment; MCSR, flexural strength by Commentary on Structural Regulations of the Building Stan-
dard Law of Japan; MGPC, flexural strength by GPC stress-block; MACI, flexural strength by ACI stress-block; MSecA, flexural strength by section
analysis; M0.3%, experimental bending moment at compressive extreme fiber strain of 0.3%.

Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 10


wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
where d c1 ¼ ddc ; d c is the compression reinforcement height;
xn1 ¼ xdn ; xn is the neutral axis height; εcu is the ultimate strain
at the extreme compression fiber strain of concrete (0.3%).
5.3.2 Section analysis
The section analysis reflects the stress–strain relationship of
GPC described in Section 2.3. The bending moment when the
extreme compression fiber strain reached 0.3% was defined as
the ultimate bending moment in the section analysis.
Comparing the maximum bending moment in the experiment
with the analytical results, the average analytical value of all
specimens was 35% lower than the experimental value using
the simplified formula of the Commentary on Structural Regu-
lations, 25% lower using the stress-block method with parame-
ters derived from the stress–strain relationship, 24% lower
using the ACI 318 method, and 9% lower using section analy-
sis (Table 11). For the stress-block method (Table 3), the
stress-block parameters for GPC derived from the stress–strain
relationship were different from those in ACI 318. However,
the difference was extremely small when the ultimate bending
moment was calculated. For all calculation methods, the ana-
lytical value was smaller than the experimental value.
The stress-block method and section analysis used the bend-
ing moment when the extreme compression fiber strain of con-
crete reached 0.3% as the ultimate bending moment. However,
the experimental value was the maximum bending moment;
strictly speaking, different states were compared. Thus, the
experimental bending moment at the point where the extreme
compression fiber strain reached 0.3% was compared, as mea-
sured by motion capture. The extreme compression fiber strain
in the experiment was the average strain in the test section. In
Table 11, comparing the analytical ultimate bending moment
values obtained using the stress-block method and using sec-
tion analysis with bending moment values when the extreme
compression fiber strain reached 0.3%, the difference between
the analytical and experimental values was smaller than when
using the maximum bending moment. The averages of the
experimental and analytical values for all specimens were 1.25
and 1.21, respectively, using stress-blocks derived from the
GPC stress–strain relationship, 1.24 and 1.19, respectively,
using ACI stress-blocks, and 1.09 and 1.05, respectively, using
section analysis. Similarly, for the maximum bending moment
obtained with the simplified formula of the Commentary on
Structural Regulations, the average experimental values were
larger than the analytical values for all specimens. Thus, the
difference between the analytical and experimental values was
smaller for all calculation methods.
All ultimate bending moment calculation methods used for
OPC members were able to estimate the ultimate bending
moment of GPC members. With the low sensitivity of the
stress-block parameters to the ultimate bending moment of the
beams, there were no significant differences in the ultimate
bending moment in the calculations, despite the differences in
the stress-block parameters from the GPC stress–strain rela-
tionship and ACI 318.
6. Conclusions
Four-point bending tests were conducted on FA-based GPC
beams to experimentally investigate the flexural properties,
evaluate the ultimate flexural strength, and model the load–
deformation relationship required for secondary design
(ultimate strength design). The findings are described as
follows.
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 11
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA
1. For GPC beams without compression reinforcement, the
maximum flexural capacity was slightly greater for speci-
mens with a compression strength of 50 MPa than for spec-
imens with a compression strength of 30 MPa. In addition,
the load-carrying capacity decreased sharply due to con-
crete crushing, and stress–strain characteristics of GPC
were observed.
2. GPC is characterized by more brittle compressive concrete
softening behavior than OPC. However, the deformation
capacity can be increased using compression and transverse
reinforcements in ordinary members. Thus, GPC beams can
be used as flexural members in the secondary design(ulti-
mate strength design) range.
3. In the scope of this experiment, the ultimate bending
moment strain for calculation of the ultimate bending
moment of GPC beams could safely be assumed as 3000 μ,
as with OPC.
4. The bending moment–curvature relationship of the test sec-
tion in this experiment could be accurately evaluated from
the elastic region to the ultimate flexural strength point
using section analysis, reflecting the stress–strain relation-
ship of the GPC.
5. The applicability of the simplified formula of the Commen-
tary on Structural Regulations and the stress-block method
to the ultimate flexural strength of GPC beams was veri-
fied. The former underestimates the ultimate flexural
strength by approximately 30%, and the latter by approxi-
mately 20%. The conventional ultimate flexural strength
calculation methods can be applied to GPC beams as a sim-
plified formula for design.
6. The difference between the ultimate flexural strength
obtained using section analysis and the experimental value
was approximately 5% on average. The ultimate flexural
strength of GPC beams can be evaluated more accurately
using section analysis than using the simplified formula of
the Commentary on Structural Regulations or the stress-
block method.
7. The GPC stress-block parameters derived from the stress–
strain relationship differed from those of OPC. However,
the ultimate bending moment of the beams is not sensitive
to the stress-block and can be evaluated using existing
design codes, such as the stress-block parameters in ACI
318.
8. Regarding the stiffness reduction rate used to calculate the
flexural yield point, the difference between the moduli of
elasticity of OPC and GPC must be considered; however,
the calculation formula for OPC can be used for GPC with-
out changing the parameters. The load–deformation rela-
tionship for GPC beams can generally be modeled using
the method described in the Commentary on Structural
Regulations.
In the future, in addition to proposing the modulus of elas-
ticity ratios necessary for the flexural design of members, the
authors plan to propose stress–strain relationships for confined
GPC and a method for evaluating the shear strength of GPC
members, and to study their behavior under cyclic loading,
durability, long-term behavior, fatigue resistance, and fire
resistance.
Acknowledgments
The experiments in this study were conducted as part of the Low-
Carbon Technology Research and Development Program of the

SHIBAYAMA AND NISHIYAMA
Ministry of the Environment, Japan. Regarding specimen production,
we thank Nakagawa Humepipe Industry Co., Ltd., and Takeshi Yama-
moto, and Michio Kikuchi at the Central Research Institute of Electric
Power Industry (CRIEPI) for their cooperation.
Disclosure
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Data Availability Statement
The data supporting the findings of this study are available from the
corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
1 ACI Committee 318-19: Building Code Requirements for Structural Con-
crete and Commentary, 2019.
2 Becker RJ, Holland TC, Malits FS. Structural concrete using alternative
cements. Concr Int. 2019;41(6):39-44.
3 Shibayama A, Kikuchi M. Compressive stress-strain behavior of a fly ash-
based geopolymer concrete made without the use of water glass for alkali
activation. Proceedings of the fib Symposium 2019; 2019:407-414.
4 Hicks JK, Caldarone MA, Bescher E. Opportunities from alternative cemen-
titious materials. Concr Int. 2015;37(4):47-51.
5 Ichimiya K, Hatanaka S, Atarashi D. Current situation and future prospect of
geopolymers. Concr J. 2018;56(5):409-414. (in Japanese).
6 Noushini A, Aslani F, Castel A, Gilbert RI, Uy B, Foster S. Compressive
stress-strain model for low-calcium fly ash-based geopolymer and heat-cured
Portland cement concrete. Cem Concr Compos. 2016;73:136-146.
7 Hardjito D, Wallah SE, Sumajouw DMJ, Rangan B. The stress-strain beha-
viour of fly ash-based geopolymer concrete. In Development in Mechanics of
Structures and Materials. AA Balkema Publishers; 2004:831-834.
24758876, 2023, 1, Downloaded from https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/2475-8876.12331 by INASP/HINARI - PAKISTAN, Wiley Online Library on [07/12/2023]. See the Terms and Conditions (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/terms-and-conditions) on Wiley Online Library for rules of use; OA articles are governed by the applicable Creative Commons License
wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jar3
8 Shibayama A, Nishiyama M. Flexural behavior of fly-ash based geopolymer
concrete beam and its potential for structural members. J Struct Constr Eng.
2021;86(789):1202-1212. (in Japanese).
9 Sagawa Y, Ota S, Goda H, Ohnishi S. A fundamental study on flexural
behavior of geopolymer concrete beam. Proc Jpn Concr Inst. 2017;39
(1):2095-2100. (in Japanese).
10 Tran TT, Pham TM, Hao H. Experimental and analytical investigation on
flexural behaviour of ambient cured geopolymer concrete beams reinforced
with steel fibers. Eng Struct. 2019;200:109707.
11 National Institute of Land and Infrastructure Management and Building
Research Institute: Commentary on Structural Regulations of the Building
Standard Law of Japan 2015 Edition, 2015. (in Japanese).
12 Popovics S. A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of
concrete. Cem Concr Res. 1973;3(5):583-599.
13 Architectural Institute of Japan: AIJ Standard for Structural Calculation of
Reinforced Concrete Structures, 2010. (in Japanese).
14 Miyashita S. ARAMIS: 3D deformation measuring system based on digital
image correlation. J. Light Met Weld. 2018;56(5):28-31. (in Japanese).
15 Sugano S. Studies on restoring-force characteristic of reinforced concrete
members. Concr J. 1973;11(2):1-9. (in Japanese).
16 Mukai T, Tajiri S, Tani M, et al. Investigation on structural performance
evaluation of RC members using comprehensive experimental database.
Build Res Data. 2016;175:3-60-3-65.
17 Architectural Institute of Japan: AIJ Standard for Lateral Load-Carrying
Capacity Calculation of Reinforced Concrete Structures, 2021. (in Japanese).
How to cite this article: Shibayama A, Nishiyama M.
Flexural strength and load–deformation relationship of
fly-ash-based geopolymer concrete beams. Jpn Archit
Rev. 2023;6:e12331. https://doi.org/10.1002/2475-
8876.12331
Jpn Archit Rev | 2023 | 12