AbstractThis paper presents the effects of various cooling methods on residual mechanical properties of geopolymer concrete and fiber reinforced geopolymer concretes (FRGC) after exposure to 200, 400, 600, and 800°C temperatures. Three types of cooling methods are considered namely, ambient air cooling, water spray cooling and rapid water cooling. Results show that irrespective of cooling methods, the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete decreases significantly after exposure to 400, 600, and 800°C temperatures compared to 200°C where only 10–15% reduction is observed. Among the three cooling methods, the compressive strength loss is slightly higher in rapid cooling and water spray cooling than the ambient air cooling at 400 to 800°C. However, at 200°C that loss is about 20–25%. In the case of indirect tensile strength, however, at 200°C no reduction in strength is observed due to rapid cooling and water spray cooling compared to ambient air cooling. Significant reduction in indirect tensile strength is observed in those two cooling methods at 400, 600, and 800°C. Strong correlations between indirect tensile strength and compressive strength of geopolymer concretes at all cooling methods are also observed. Rapid cooling and water spray cooling methods do not cause any significant cracking in geopolymer concretes at 200 and 400°C, followed by minor and significant cracking at 600 and 800°C, respectively. However, at 800°C the rapid cooling caused more cracking than those two cooling methods. Rapid cooling also showed higher reduction in compressive strength than ambient air cooling in both steel fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete (steel‐FRGC) and polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced geopolymer concrete (PVA‐FRGC) after exposure to 400 and 600°C temperatures. PVA‐FRGC exhibited more brittle failure behavior in compression than steel‐FRGC irrespective of cooling methods. The existing Eurocode overestimates the residual compressive and indirect tensile strengths of geopolymer concrete at 400 and 600°C temperatures compared to other temperatures. The same is also true in PVA‐FRGC. However, in steel‐FRGC the Eurocode 4 overestimates at 400°C but underestimates at 600 and 800°C.
Read full abstract