Performance of Substrate Reinforced Concrete Slabs with Geopolymer Concrete Overlay

Document Type : Original Article


1 Prof, Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

2 Assoc. Prof. Structural Engineering Dept., Faculty of Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt

3 Demonstrator, Tanta Higher Institute for Engineering & Technology, B. Sc. Civil Engineering, Tanta University, Tanta, Egypt


Geopolymer concrete (GPC) has been used increasingly in recent years and has been applied to various structural components. Considerable interest has been developed in using geopolymer in concrete to increase the load carrying capacity of the structural members in service. It has been used recently to increase the flexural capacity of concrete slabs by applying overlay layer of GPC onto an existing slab, a technique known as cement base bonded overlay. The objective of this research is the investigation of the flexural behavior of substrate cement reinforced concrete (RC) slabs with a GPC overlay. Seven RC slabs with 300 x 1700 x 100 mm, 33 MPa compressive strength after 28 days and reinforced with steel with a diameter of 8 mm. Because the performance of these composite slabs depends on the bonding between the substrate and overlay concrete, six different techniques were used for preparing the RC substrate surfaces including, (as smooth as cast (AS), carving 2mm width and 1 mm deep (Carv), dowels 8 mm Z section (DZ), painting with epoxy resin on the surface (ER), surface roughened by a stiff brush in both the transverse and longitudinal directions (T&L) D and surface roughened in the transverse directions by a stiff brush (TD). The evaluated properties were load-deflection relationship, strain distribution curves and the interface slip.
Based on the experimental tests, the ductile performance of the slab depends not only on adding GPC to the topping but mainly on the type of interface roughness. Moreover, the ductility ratio may be arranged in desponding order as (TD), (T&L) D, (ER), (Carv), (DZ) and (AS). The biggest slip happened for slab control at 0.25mm, signifying poor bonding strength at the interface. Slab (L&T) D, with zero mm of slippage, showed the best interface slip.


 [1] Turner L. K and Collins F. G, “Carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2-e) emissions: A comparison between geopolymer and OPC cement concrete”, Construction and Building Materials Vol. 43, 2013,pp 125–130.
[2] Behfarnia K, Jon-nesari H and Mosharaf A , “The bond between repair materials and concrete substrate in marine environment”, Asian journal of civil engineering (building and housing) vol. 6, 2005, pp 267-272.
[3] Beushausen H, “The influence of concrete substrate preparation on overlay bond strength”, Magazine of Concrete Reasearch, Vol. 11, 2010, pp 845-852.
[4] Phoo-ngernkham T, Maegawa A, Mishima N, Hatanaka S and Chindaprasirt P, “Effects of sodium hydroxide and sodium silicate solutionson compressive and shear bond strengths of FA–GBFS geopolymer”, Construction and Building Materials Vol. 91, 2015, pp 1–8.
[5] Zhang Z, Provis J. L, Reid A and Wang H, “Mechanical, thermal insulation, thermal resistance and acoustic absorption properties of geopolymer foam concrete”, Cement & Concrete Composites Vol. 62, 2015, pp 97–105
[6] Sarker P. K, “Bond strength of reinforcing steel embedded in fly ash-based geopolymer”, Materials and Stuctures Vol. 44, 2011, pp 1021-1030.
[7] EN 196-1:2016 "Methods of Testing Cement - Part 1: Determination of strength"
[8] ES 4756-1: Cement Part:( 1) "Composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common cements"
[9] ECP 203-2007 " Egyptian Code for Design and Construction of Reinforced Concrete Structures, Annual Book for Testing of materials, Part 3, Ministry of Housing and Urbanization, Housing and Building Research Center, Cairo, Egypt.
[10] ASTM C33 / C33M - 18 "Standard specification for concrete aggregates"
[11] Farnoud R. M, Suhaimi A. B, Izni S. I., Abdul K. M, Bahram .M, "Flexural performance of a precast concrete slab with steel fiber concrete topping" Construction and Building Materials Vol. 75 (2015), pp 112–120.
Tech. Rep. No. 54, 1973.
Volume 43, Issue 2
Volume 43(2) issued on 1/4/2020 in 3 Parts (PART 1: Mechanical Eng., PART 2: Civil Eng., PART 3: Architecture Eng.)
April 2020
Pages 139-147