STRENGTH AND DURABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF ...

STRENGTH AND DURABILITY CHARACTERISTICS

OF GGBFS BASED SCC

Sabeer Alavi.C#1

, I.Baskar#2

, Dr.R.Venkatasubramani #3

#1 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of

Technology, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

#2 Assistant Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of

Technology, Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

#1 Professor and Head of Civil Engineering, Sri Krishna College of Technology,

Kovaipudur, Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu, India.

ABSTRACT

Self-compacting concrete (SCC) is a highly flowable concrete which is able to fill the

formwork and the areas of congested reinforcement completely under its own weight and

without the need for vibration. Here Portland cement (PC) is replaced with 10%, 20%, 30%,

40% and 50% of GGBFS. The w/p ratio is kept constant throughout the investigation as 0.45.

Super plasticizer known as Glenium B233 is used. Since there is no standard method of mix

design is available for SCC. Hence the mix proportion is obtained as per the guidelines given

by European Federation of producers and contractors of special products for structure

(EFNARC).Marsh cone test was used to find the saturation point of different type of cements

by adding the dosage of super plasticizer accordingly. This paper presents an experimental

investigation on strength aspects like compressive, flexural and split tensile strengthand the

workability tests (slump, L-box, U-box and T50). The result of fresh property test satisfies the

limits specified by EFNARC. It is observed that when the cement is replaced with mineral

admixture, the amount of Super plasticizer to be used can be reduced thereby maintaining the

required flowability.Also, the resilience study for SCC after 28 days curing was done by

conducting some of the tests such as saturated water absorption, porosity, carbonation depth

and alkalinity measurement.

Key words: SCC, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace slag, Super plasticizer, fresh property,

compressive, flexural and split tensile strength.

Corresponding Author: SabeerAlavi.C

INTRODUCTION

Concrete is the most extensively used material in civil engineering construction so

that considerable attention is taken for improving the properties of concrete with respect to

International Journal of Emerging trends in Engineering and Development Issue 3, Vol.2 (March 2013)

Available online on http://www.rspublication.com/ijeted/ijeted_index.htm ISSN 2249-6149

Page 510

mailto:[email protected]



strength and durability. Numerous types of concrete have been developed to enhance the

different properties of concrete. So far, this development can be divided into four stages. The

earliest is the traditional normal strength concrete which is composed of only four constituent

materials, which are cement, water, fine and coarse aggregates. With a fast population growth

and a higher demand for housing and infrastructure, accompanied by recent developments in

Civil Engineering, such as high-rise buildings and long-span bridges, higher compressive

strength concrete was needed. Thus, here comes a concrete that meeting special combinations

of performance and uniformity requirements that cannot be always achieved routinely by

using conventional constituents and normal mixing called High Performance Concrete

(HPC).HPC is of five types namely High-Early Strength Concrete, High-Strength Concrete,

High-Durability Concrete, Self-Compacting Concrete and Reactive Powder Concrete.

Inspiteof different types of concrete available like High Strength Concrete, High Performance

Concrete, Air Entrained Concrete, Light Weight Concrete, Shotcrete, Pervious Concrete

etc…, Self compacting Concrete has its own advantages and applications in the field of Civil

Engineering.

Self-compacting concrete (SCC) first developed in Japan, represents one of the most

significant advances in concrete technology for decades. It can flow and compact in the

formwork under its own self weight without the need for vibration. Use of Self-compacting

concrete offers substantial benefits in enhancing construction productivity, reducing overall

cost, improving working environment and in sustainability. The first generation of SCC used

in the UK and Europe, such as the one developed in a large European research project, which

investigated the practicability of using self-compacting concrete in both civil engineering and

in building structures, contained a high dosage of powder, as well as a high dosage of super

plasticizer (SP), to ensure adequate filling ability and passing abilities and segregation

resistance. Savings in labor costs might offset the increased cost related to the use of more

cement and SP, but the use of mineral admixtures, such as could increase the fluidity of the

concrete, without any increase in the cost. The incorporation of FA, or GGBFS or SF reduced

the requirement of SP necessary to obtain a similar slump flow compared with the same

concrete containing only cement. These supplementary materials also enhanced the

rheological parameters and reduced the risk of the cracking of concrete due to the heat of

hydration, and therefore improved the durability.

The important aspect in achieving SCC is cement- Superplasticizercompactability.

Polycarboxylate are the most effective of all the chemicals used in concrete. The admixture

can cause a reduction in water content of as much as 40%. Generally this chemical exhibit

good slump retention characteristic and do not cause any delay in the gain of strength of

concrete. PCE can work at lower dosage than SNF and Lignosulphonate.In this study, it is

aimed to investigate the effect of GGBFS as mineral admixtures on the fresh and hardened

properties of SCC. Fresh concrete tests such as slump-flow, L-box, T500, U-box.Also, the

resilience study for SCC after 28 days curing was done by conducting some of the tests such

as saturated water absorption, porosity, carbonation depth and alkalinity measurement.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Ordinary Portland cement of grade 43 conforming to IS: 12269-1987 was used.

Locally available river sand conforming to grading zone II of IS: 383-1970 was used and

crushed stones of nominal size 12.5mm conforming to IS 383-1970 was used. The Specific

gravity of coarse aggregate was 2.77.The specific gravity of cement and sand was 3.15 and

2.65 respectively. Besides this the byproduct ground granulated blast-furnace slag from



Page 511

Agnisteel plant, Erodeconforming toASTM C 1240 as mineral admixture in dry dandified

form.A new generation based Polycarboxylic ether (PCE) was usedas chemical admixture to

enhance the workability of the concrete which is known as GLENIUM B-233,obtained from

BASF-The Chemical Company, PeelameduPudur, Coimbatore.GLENIUM STREAM 2 is a

premier ready-to-use, liquid, organic, viscosity-modifying admixture (VMA) specially

developed for producing concrete with enhanced viscosity and controlled rheological

properties, Obtained from BASF-The Chemical Company, PeelameduPudur

Coimbatore.The characteristic properties and mineralogical composition of these three

mineral admixtures and the cement are given in Table1.

Table1. Properties of Portland cement and mineral admixture.

Component (%) Slag cement Cement

Chemical composition (%)

Loss of ignition(LOI) 1.2 2.0

SiO2 10-19 20

Magnesium oxide(MgO) 11 2.5

Al2O3 1-3 4.85

Fe2O3 22-30 0.6

Calcium Oxide(CaO) 40-52 62.56

MIX PROPORTIONS

One control and five SCC mixes with different replacements of mineral admixture

were prepared and examined to quantify the properties of SCC. Table 2 presents the

composition of SCC mixtures. The replacement was done at levels of 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%

and 50% of cement content. After iterative trial mixes the water/powder mass ratio (w/p) was

selected as 0.45. The total powder content was varied as 400kg/m3, 450 kg/m

3, 500 kg/m

3 as

iterative values and finally is fixed as 500 kg/m3. Polycarboxylate based high range water

reducing admixture (HRWRA) was used along with these mixes. No single method has been

found which characterizes all the relevant workability aspects so each mix design should be

tested by more than one test method in order to obtain different workability parameters.

Water/powder ratio is usually accepted between 0.9 and 1.0 in volume, depending on the

properties of the powder.

Table2. PROCEDURE ADOPTED TO ARRIVE AT MIXPROPORTION-

(Water/Powder ratio = 0.45)



Page 512

0

5

10

15

20

0.1 0.2 0.4 0.8 0.87 0.9 1Flo

w t

ime

(sec

)

Superplasticizer dosage (%)

(OPC-43)

TRIAL CEMENT

Kg/m3

GGBFS

Kg/m3

C.A

Kg/m3

WATER

Kg/m3

SP

ml

VMA

ml

MIX

RATIO

1 3.25 4.94 4.55 1.46 28.30 2.66 1:1.52:1.4

2 3.42 4.86 4.10 1.54 29.75 2.80 1:1.42:1.30

3 3.62 5.14 3.98 1.63 31.49 2.97 1:1.42:1.10

4 3.50 5.08 4.42 1.58 30.45 2.87 1:1.45:1.26

5 3.58 5.23 3.94 1.61 31.15 2.95 1:1.46:1.10

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

In this study, fresh and hardened properties of SCC were investigated by replacing the

cement Ground Granulated Blast Furnace slag.

MARSH CONE TEST

The Marsh cone test is a simple approach to get some data about cement pastes

rheological behavior. It has already been used in cement based materials mix design in order

to define the super-plasticizer saturation point, i.e. the dosage beyond which the flow time

does not decrease appreciably.Below shows the reading (Table3) and graph (Fig 1).

Table3.Marsh cone test Fig 1: Marsh cone graph

Super plasticizer

dosage

Flow time in

second

(as a percentage

of cement mass)

0.1 16.32

0.2 12.94

0.4 12.69

0.8 12.6

0.87 12.7

0.9 12.75

1 12.72



Page 513

610

620

630

640

650

660

670

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%Slu

mp

Flo

w in

dia

(m

m)

GGBFS replacement(%)

Slump Vs Mix proportions

SLUMP FLOW TEST

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Tim

e Fl

ow

(sec

)


T50 Vs Mix proportions

FRESH PROPERTIES

Table 4 shows the values of fresh properties of different SCC mixes. In terms of

slump flow, all SCC mixtures exhibited satisfactory slump flows in the range of 690–750

mm, which is an indication of a good deformability. When cement is replaced by GGBFS, a

lower dosage of Superplasticizer is required to maintain the same filling ability. Fig 2 shows

the slump value of different SCC mix. T50 times indicates the viscosity of highly flowable

concrete mixes. Lower time indicates greater flowability. The T50 was influenced by the

dosage of water and superplasticizer. V funnel test was performed to assess the flowabilty

and stability of the SCC. Fig 3,4,5,6 shows the test resultsfor T50, V-Funnel, L-Box, and U-

Box. The increase in coarse aggregate causes the increase in V-Funnel time. L-box ratio

indicates the filling and passing ability of each mixture. L-box test is more sensitive to

blocking. There is a risk of blocking of the mixture when the L-box blocking ratio is below

0.8.The obtained L-box values are tabulated in Table4.

Table4. Fresh Properties of SCC Mixes

MIX Slump Flow

(mm)

T50 (sec) V-funnel

(sec)

U-Box

(h2-h1)mm

L-Box

(h2/h1)

M CONTROL 550 5 12.0 30 0.82

MGGBFS-10% 635 4 10.8 27 0.87

MGGBFS-20% 650 3.8 9.2 24 0.92

MGGBFS-30% 660 3.5 8.5 22 0.93

MGGBFS-40% 655 3.5 8.3 23 0.93

MGGBFS-50% 640 3.9 8.2 25 0.92

Fig 2: Slump Vs Mix proportions Fig 3: T50Vs Mix proportions



14

0

5

10

15

0%

10

%

20

%

30

%

40

%

50

%

Tim

e fl

ow

(sec

)


V-Funnel Vs Mix proportions

V-FUNNEL TEST

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

(H2/H

1)

mm


L-BOX TEST

L-BOX TEST

Fig 4: V-Funnel Vs Mix proportions Fig 5 L-Box Height ratio Vs Mix proportions

Fig 6: Mix Vs U-Box Height Ratio (H2-H1)

DURABILITY PROPERTIES

The durability study for SCC after 28 days curing was done by conducting

some of the tests such as saturated water absorption, porosity, carbonation depth and

alkalinity measurement.Tables 5,6,7,8 show the values of durability properties of different

SCC mixes. When cement is replaced by GGBFS, a lower dosage of Superplasticizer is

required to maintain the same filling ability. Fig 7 shows the saturated water absorption test

of different SCC mix. Fig 8,9,10 shows the test resultsforporosity, carbonation depth,

alkalinity measurement on concrete respectively.

Table5.Saturated water absorption test result

Replacement of

cement with GGBFS

(percentage)

Wet weight (Ws)

(kg)

Dry weight (Wd)

(kg)

Water absorption at

24 hours (%)

0% 2.17 2.05 5.85

10% 2.16 2.03 6.40

20% 2.04 1.89 7.93

30% 1.82 1.665 8.70

40% 1.80 1.63 10.42

50% 1.78 1.59 11.94

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

H2-H

1(m

m)


U-Box Vs Mix proportions

U-BOX TEST

Page 515

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Wa

ter a

bso

rpti

on

(%)

GGBFS replacement( %)

SATURATED WATERABSORPTION TESTRESULT

0

5

10

15

20

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Effe

ctiv

e P

oro

sity

(%

)

GGBFS replacement( %)

POROSITY TESTRESULT

Table6. Porosity test result

Replacement of

cement with

GGBFS

(percentage)

Wet weight

(Ws)

(kg)

Dry weight

(Wd)

(kg)

Submerged

weight (Wsub)

(kg)

Effective porosity

(%)

0% 2.17 2.05 1.07 10.90

10% 2.07 1.94 1.03 12.50

20% 1.87 1.74 0.94 13.97

30% 1.67 1.54 0.77 14.40

40% 1.39 1.26 0.57 15.85

50% 1.30 1.16 0.44 16.27

Table7.Carbonationdepth

Replacement of cement with GGBFS(%) Depth of penetration(mm)

0% 50

10% 47

20% 42

30% 40

40% 37

50% 35

Table8. Alkalinity measurement results

Replacement of cement with GGBFS(%) pH

0% 11.3

10% 11.0

20% 10.1

30% 9.64

40% 9.23

50% 9.19

Fig 7:Saturated water absorption test graph Fig 8:Porosity test result graph



Page 516

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

CONTROL 30% 40% 50%

SPLI

T TE

NSI

LE S

TREN

GTH

SCC MIX

7 days

28 days

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

Dep

th o

f p

enet

rati

on

(m

m)

GGBFS replacement (%)

CARBONATION DEPTH

Fig 9:Carbonationdepth graph Fig 10:Alkalinity measurement

MECHANICAL PROPERTIES

Table 9 shows the mechanical strength obtained for different mixes. The compressive,

split and flexure studies at different ages are shown in the figures (11, 12, and 13). At the

early stage, pozzolanic reaction GGBFS was not sufficient to increase compressive strength.

Table9. Table of GGBFS Concrete Mixes

Compressive Strength Split Tensile Strength Flexural Strength

w/p Mixture no 7days 28 days 7days 28 days 7days 28 days

0.45 Control 20 30 1.08 1.74 2.14 3

0.45 GGBFS-30 24.1 32.44 1.14 1.89 2.24 3.2

0.45 GGBFS-40 21.4 31.8 1.15 2.01 2.8 3.3

0.45 GGBFS-50 18.2 31.55 1.16 2.09 3.12 3.44

Fig 11: SCC Mix Vs Flexural Strength Fig 12: SCC Mix Vs Split Tensile

3 3.2 3.3 3.44

00.5

11.5

22.5

33.5

4

FLEX

UR

AL

STR

ENG

TH (

Mp

a)

SCC MIX

7days

28 days

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%

pH

GGBFS replacement (%)

ALKALINITYMEASUREMENTON CONCRETE



Page 517

Fig 13: SCC Mix VsCompressive Strength

CONCLUSION

Based on the experimental the following conclusion is drawn within

the limitation of test result.

From the above experimental work, it is concluded that when the coarse aggregate

content is reduced better flow in SCC can be achieved due to the less blocking effect.

The volume of coarse aggregate content was reduced to 46% instead of 50% to avoid

segregation.

In this study it has been found that with increase in superplasticizer dosage the

workability is increased. So that the required slump value can be obtained thus full

filling the criteria of EFNARC.

For 30% GGBFS replacement, the fresh properties observed were good as compared

to 10%, 20%, 40% and 50% GGBFS replacement. Hence if we increase the GGBFS

replacement we can have a better workable concrete.

The dosage of VMA should be properly designed as it may change the basic criterion

of SCC. In other words, the flow ability may fall below 500 mm slump if the dosage

of VMA is more than desired.

The locally available Viscosity Modifying Admixture (VMA) has a substantial

influence on the fresh properties of SCC. A small change in VMA dose makes a

substantial change in SCC properties; i.e., flowing ability, passing ability, stability

and segregation resistance.

REFERENCE

[1] Bassuoni, M.T. Nehdi, M.L.(2009) “Durability of self-consolidating concrete to

different exposure regimes of sodium sulfate attack” Materials and Structures Vol.

42 pp. 1039–57.

[2] Bonen, D. Shah, S.P.(2005) “Fresh and hardened properties of self-consolidating

concrete construction”. Progress in Structural Engineering Materials Vol. 7 pp. 14–

26.

20

24.1 21.4

18.2

30 32.44 31.8 31.55

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

CONTROL 30% 40% 50%

CO

MP

RES

SIV

E ST

REN

GTH

SCC MIX

7days

28 days



Page 518

[3] Brooks, J.J. Johari, M.A.M. Mazloom, M. (2000) “ Effect of admixtures on the

setting times of high-strength concrete” Cement and Concrete Composites Vol. 22

pp. 293–301.

[4] EFNARC, Specification and guidelines for self-compacting concrete. UK, 2002.

pp.32, ISBN 0953973344.

[5] Gesoglu, M. Güneyisi, E. Özbay, E. (2009) “Properties of self-compacting concretes

made with binary, ternary, and quaternary cementitious blends of fly ash, blast

furnace slag, and silica fume” Construction and Building Materials Vol. 23 pp.1847–

1854.

[6] MuctebaUysal , Mansur Sumer, (2011). “Performance of self-compacting concrete

containing different mineral admixtures” Construction and Building materials Vol. 25

No. 11 pp. 4112-4120.

[7] An Cheng, Ran Huang, Jiann-Kuo Wu, Cheng-Hsin Chen, (2005) „Influence of

GGBS on durability and corrosion behavior of reinforced concrete‟. Materials

Chemistry and Physics 93, pp. 404–411.

[8] BIS 1989 IS-455 -1989 „Portland Slag Cement-Specification‟.

[9] BIS 1959 IS 516-1959 (reaffirmed 1997), “Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete,

Bureau of Indian Standards”, New Delhi.

[10] BIS 1970 IS 383-1970 (reaffirmed 1997), “Specification for Coarse and Fine

Aggregates from Natural Source for Concrete”, New Delhi.

[11] BIS 2000 IS 456-2000 (reaffirmed 2005), “Plain and Reinforced Concrete – Code of

Practice”, Fourth Revision, pp.14, 2000.

[12] Rajamane N.P, J Annie Peter, J K Dattatreya, M Neelamegam, S Gopalakrishnan.

(2003) ‘Improvement in Properties of High Performance Concrete with Partial

Replacement of Cement by Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag’ IE (I) Journal.

CV, pp 38-42.

[13] Shetty, M.S (2003) „Concrete Technology – Theory and Practice‟, 5th Edition,

S.Chand& Company Ltd.

[14] Sylvain Murgier , Hélène Zanni , Daniel Gouvenot (2004) “Blast furnace slag cement:

Si and Al NMR Study‟, C. R. ChimieVol 7 pp 389–394.

[15] Oner. A, Akyuz. S, (2007) „An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for

the compressive strength of concrete‟. Cement & Concrete Composites Vol 29, pp.

505–514.



Page 519

STRENGTH AND DURABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF ...

Documents

Transcript of STRENGTH AND DURABILITY CHARACTERISTICS OF ...