Pull-out strength of rebar in concrete mixed with bagasse ash

Main Article Content

Pakdee Khobklang
Piyanuch Jaikaew
Vanissorn Vimonsatit

Abstract

Pozzolan has been widely used as a supplementary cementitious material to improve concrete properties such as workability and shrinkage. Bagasse ash (BA) is an industrial waste that has pozzolanic properties like fly ash (FA), but its cost is relatively lower. Research conducted on concrete mixed with BA (CBA) were primarily on the properties of CBA, investigation on the bonding strength of steel rebars in CBA was still limited. This paper aims to investigate the effect of BA on the overall bonding strength of reinforced concrete using a pull-out testing method. Based on the range of the parameters considered in the present work, the results revealed that the bonding strength was inversely proportional to the BA content in concrete. The bonding strength of rebar in CBA was compared with that in ordinary cement concrete. It was found that the bonding strength of rebar in CBA was lower than that in concrete without BA at 28-day age. When the concrete age was more than 90 days, and BA content was not greater than 20% cement replacement, the difference in the bonding strength was insignificant. This outcome indicates that the current standard for designing the development length of rebars in CBA is still valid when the BA content is not greater than 20% of the cement. Further experiments are required to investigate any size effect.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Khobklang, P. ., Jaikaew, P. ., & Vimonsatit, V. . (2022). Pull-out strength of rebar in concrete mixed with bagasse ash . Engineering and Applied Science Research, 49(4), 562–573. Retrieved from https://ph01.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/easr/article/view/246260
Section
ORIGINAL RESEARCH

References

Bentur A. Cementitious materials-nine millennia and a new century: past, present, and future. J Mater Civ Eng. 2002;14(1):2-22.

Neville AM. Properties of concrete: fourth and final edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons; 1997.

Davidovits J. Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, terminology. Geopolymer '99 2nd International Conference; 1999 Jun 30 - Jul 2; Saint-Quentin, France. p. 9-39.

Ganesan K, Rajagopal K, Thangavel K. Evaluation of bagasse ash as supplementary cementitious material. Cem Concr Compos. 2007;29(6):515-24.

Cook JD. Rice husk ash. In: Swamy RN, editor. Concrete technology and design cement replacement material. London: Surrey University Press; 1986. p. 171-95.

Mehta PK. Properties of blended cement made from rice husk ash. J Am Concr Inst. 1977;74(9):440-2.

Mehta PK. Rice husk ash-a unique supplementary cementing material. In: Malhotra VM, editor. Proceeding of the international symposium on advances in concrete technology; 1992 Oct 11-12; Athens, Greece. p. 407-30.

Biricik H, Aköz F, Berktay II, Tulgar AN. Study of pozzolanic properties of wheat straw ash. Cem Concr Res. 1999;29(5):637-43.

Demirbas A, Asia A. Effect of ground hazel nutshell, wood and tea waste on the mechanical properties of cement. Cem Concr Res. 1998;28(8):1101-4.

Boating AA, Skeete DA. Incineration of rice hull for use as a cementitious materials: the guyana experience. Cem Concr Res. 1990;20(5):795-802.

Chindaprasirt P, Kroehong W, Damrongwiriyanupap N, Suriyo W, Jaturapitakkul C. Mechanical properties, chloride resistance and microstructure of portland fly ash cement concrete containing high volume bagasse ash. J Build Eng. 2020;31:101415.

Ferguson PM. Reinforced concrete fundamentals. 4th ed. New York: Wiley; 1981.

Somma G, Vit M, Giada F, Pauletta M, Pitacco I, Russo G. A new cracking model for concrete ties reinforced with bars having different diameters and bond laws. Eng Struct. 2021;235:112026.

Nilson AH, Darwin D, Dolan CW. Design of concrete structures. 15th ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill; 2015.

Rabi M, Cashell KA, Shamass R, Desnerck P. Bond behaviour of austenitic stainless steel reinforced concrete. Eng Struct. 2020;221:111027.

du Beton FN. Fib model code for concrete structures. Berlin: Ernst & Sohn; 2013.

Song X, Wu Y, Gu X. Bond behaviour of reinforcing steel bars inv early age concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2015;94(6):209-17.

Bompa DV, Elghazouli AY. Bond-slip response of deformed bars in rubberised concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2017;154:884-98.

The Engineering Institute of Thailand. Standard for reinforced concrete building using strength design method. Bangkok: The Engineering Institute of Thailand; 2015. (In Thai)

Sureshbabu N, Mathew G. Influence of temperature on bond-slip characteristics of concrete containing fly ash. Asian J Civ Eng. 2020;21:1013-23.

Gomaa E, Gheni AA, Kashosi C, ElGawady MA. Bond strength of eco-friendly class C fly ash-based thermally cured alkali-activated concrete to portland cement concrete. J Clean Prod. 2019;235:404-16.

Manjunath R, Narasimhan MC, Suryanarayana LR. Bond strength characteristics of fly ash admixed self-compacting alkali activated concrete mixes. Indian Concr J. 2020;94(7):50-8.

Zhou Q, Lu C, Wang W, Wei S, Xi B. Effect of fly ash and corrosion on bond behavior in reinforced concrete. Struct Concr. 2020;21(5):1839-52.

Namarak C, Tangchirapat W, Jaturapitakkul C. Bar-concrete bond in mixes containing calcium carbide residue, fly ash and recycled concrete aggregate. Cem Concr Compos. 2018;89:31-40.

Li Q, Huang X, Huang Z, Yuan G. Bond characteristics between early aged fly ash concrete and reinforcing steel bar after fire. Constr Build Mater. 2017;147:701-12.

Liang JF, Hu MH, Gu LS, Xue KX. Bond behavior between high volume fly ash concrete and steel rebars. Comput Concr. 2017;19(6):625-30.

Zhao J, Cai G, Yang J. Bond-slip behavior and embedment length of reinforcement in high volume fly ash concrete. Mater Struct. 2016;49:2065-82.

Arezoumandi M, Looney TJ, Volz JS. Effect of fly ash replacement level on the bond strength of reinforcing steel in concrete beams. J Clean Prod. 2015;87(1):745-51.

Hu X, Niu D, Zhang Y. Experimental research on bond performance of early-age fly ash concrete. J Build Struct. 2013;34(4):152-7.

Arezoumandi M, Wolfe MH, Volz JS. A comparative study of the bond strength of reinforcing steel in high-volume fly ash concrete and conventional concrete. Constr Build Mater. 2013;40:919-24.

ASTM. ASTM C150: Standard specification for Portland cement. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2021.

ASTM. ASTM C188-17: Standard test method for density of hydraulic cement. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2017.

ASTM. ASTM C128-15: Standard test method for relative density (Specific Gravity) and absorption of fine aggregate. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2015.

ASTM. ASTM C127-07: Standard test method for relative density (Specific Gravity) and absorption of coarse aggregate. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2015.

ASTM. ASTM E11-20: Standard specification for woven wire test sieve cloth and test sieves. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2017.

ASTM. ASTM C117: Standard test method for materials finer than 75-μm (No. 200) sieve in mineral aggregates by washing. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2017.

ASTM. ASTM D854-14: Standard test methods for specific gravity of soil solids by water pycnometer. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2014.

ASTM. ASTM C39/C39M-17: Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical concrete specimens. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2017.

ASTM. ASTM E8/E8M: Standard test methods for tension testing of metallic materials. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2021.

ASTM. ASTM C900: Standard test method for pullout strength of hardened concrete. West Conshohocken: ASTM International; 2001.

Batool F, Masood A, Ali M. Characterization of sugarcane bagasse ash as pozzolan and influence on concrete properties. Arab J Sci Eng. 2020;45(5):3891-900.

Loganayagan S, Mohan NC, Dhivyabharathi S. Sugarcane bagasse ash as alternate supplementary cementitious material in concrete. Mater Today Proc. 2021;45:1004-7.

Jha P, Sachan AK, Singh RP. Agro-waste sugarcane bagasse ash (ScBA) as partial replacement of binder material in concrete. Mater Today Proc. 2021;44:419-27.

Most read articles by the same author(s)