Workability studies on concrete with ggbs as a replacement material for cement with and without superplasticiser
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Workability studies on concrete with ggbs as a replacement material for cement with and without superplasticiser

on

  • 4,683 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
4,683
Views on SlideShare
4,683
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
1
Downloads
154
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Workability studies on concrete with ggbs as a replacement material for cement with and without superplasticiser Workability studies on concrete with ggbs as a replacement material for cement with and without superplasticiser Document Transcript

  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSNIN – INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY (IJARET)ISSN 0976 - 6480 (Print)ISSN 0976 - 6499 (Online)Volume 3, Issue 2, July-December (2012), pp. 11-21© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijaret.html IJARETJournal Impact Factor (2012): 2.7078 (Calculated by GISI)www.jifactor.com ©IAEME WORKABILITY STUDIES ON CONCRETE WITH GGBS AS A REPLACEMENT MATERIAL FOR CEMENT WITH AND WITHOUT SUPERPLASTICISER V.S.TAMILARASAN Research Scholar &Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Dr.Sivanthi Aditanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur - 628 215. (Email: vstamil@yahoo.com) Dr.P.PERUMAL Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Salem – 636011. (Email: perumal2012@yahoo.co.in) DR.J.MAHESWARAN Principal, Dr.Sivanthi Aditanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur –628 215. (Email: sacoeprincipal@gmail.com) ABSTRACT Concrete is the most widely used man-made construction material in the construction world. It is obtained by mixing cement, aggregates and water in required proportion. With increase in demand of concrete, more and more new methods and new materials are being developed for production of concrete. Sometimes certain additives are added to it to improve or alter some properties. Making concrete is an art which has to be perfectly done, otherwise that will end up with bad concrete. Hence as a Civil Engineer one should be thorough with the entire factors from which a good concrete is produced. A concrete using cement alone as a binder requires high paste volume, which often leads to excessive shrinkage and large evolution of heat of hydration, besides increased cost. An attempt is made to replace cement by a mineral admixture, (i.e.), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in concrete mixes to overcome these problems. This paper presents the workability study of concrete with GGBS as a replacement material for cement with and without the addition of Superplasticiser. Concrete grades of M20 and M25have been taken for the work. The mixes were designed using IS Code method. GGBS replacement adopted was 0% to 100% in steps of 11
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME5%. Slump test, Compaction factor test, Vee Bee Consistometer test and Flow test wereconducted. Effect of replacement of cement by GGBS at various percentages and on thegrades of concrete chosen with and without Superplasticiser and their comparison arepresented in this paper.Key word: Cement, Concrete, Plasticiser, Slag, slump, vee bee time, flow value1. INTRODUCTION In India, we produce about 7.8 million tons of Ground Granulated blast furnaceslag as a bye product obtained in the manufacture of pig iron in the blast furnace. It is anon-metallic product consisting essentially of silicates and aluminates of calcium andother bases. The molten slag is rapidly chilled by quenching in water to form a glassysand like granulated material. The disposal of such slag even as a waste fill is a problem and may cause seriousenvironmental hazards with the projected economic growth and development in the steelindustry, the amount of production is likely to increase many folds and environmentalproblem will thus pose a large threat. It is seen that high volume eco-friendly replacement by such slag leads to thedevelopment of concrete which not only utilises the industrial wastes but also saves a lotof natural resources and energy. This in turn reduces the consumption of cement. This paper presents the various study of the workability of concrete with GGBSas replacement material for cement. Workability is one of the important factors of freshconcrete. For this study the mix proportions M20 and M25 were considered with andwithout Superplasticiser. Slump test, Compaction factor test, Flow table test and Vee beeConsistometer test were carried out.2. WORKABILITY Workability is defined as that property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar thatdetermines the ease and homogeneity with which it can be mixed, placed and compacteddue to its consistency, the homogeneity with which it can be made into concrete and thedegree with which it can resist separation of materials. Workability is the most importantproperty of concrete in the plastic stage. A workable concrete mix does not result inbleeding and segregation. Workability of concrete mix largely depends upon its water content. Withincrease of water, the workability also increases. But too much water results into concreteof low strength and poor durability.3. MATERIALS USED3.1 Cement Ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade was used, which has the fineness modulus1.5, Specific gravity 3.08, Consistency 37%, Initial setting time 2hrs 30min and Finalsetting time 3hrs 30min. 12
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME3.2 Coarse aggregate Angular shape aggregate of size of 20 mm was used and it has the followingproperties: Specific gravity2.935, Fineness modulus 7.72, Flakiness index100%,Abrasion value20.4%, Crushing value30.02%, Impact value23.6%, Bulk density1.42 x103 Kg/m3 and Water absorption1.01%.3.3 Fine aggregate River sand conforming to zone III of IS: 383 – 1970 was used and its propertiesare found as follows: Specific gravity 2.68, Moisture content 0.71 and Fineness modulus2.75.3.4 GGBS Physical properties of GGBS are: Specific gravity 3.44 and Fineness modulus3.36, and the chemical composition of GGBS is Carbon (C) 0.23%, Sulphur (S) 0.05%,Phosphorous (P) 0.05%, Manganese (Mn) 0.58%, Free silica 5.27% and Iron (Fe)93.82%.4. METHODOLOGY A number of different empirical test are available for measuring the workabilityof fresh concrete, but none of them is wholly satisfactory. Each test measures only aparticular aspect of it and there is really no unique method which measures theworkability of concrete in its totality. However, by checking and controlling theuniformity of the workability, it is easier to ensure a uniform quality of concrete andhence uniform strength for a particular job. The empirical test widely used areCompacting factor test, Slump test, Vee Bee Consistometer test and Flow test0 to 100%at intervals 5% of cement was replaced by GGBS and the mix grades M20(1:1.6:3.559:0.5) and M25 (1:1.326:3.11:0.44) were used.4.1. Compaction factor Test The compaction factor test gives the behaviour of fresh concrete under the actionof external forces. It measures the compatibility of concrete which is important aspect ofworkability, by measuring the amount of compaction achieved for a given amount ofwork. The test has been more popular in laboratory conditions. For concrete of very lowworkability of the order of 0.70 or below, the test is not suitable because this concretecannot be fully compacted for comparison in the manner described in the test.Compaction factor is the ratio of partially compacted weight of concrete in the containerto the weight of concrete filling the same container after full compaction.4.2. Slump Test The slump test indicates the behaviour of a compacted concrete cone under theaction of gravitational forces. The slump test is essentially a measure of consistency orthe wetness of the mix. The test is suitable only for concretes of medium to highworkability. For very stiff mixes having zero slumps, the slump test does not indicate anydifference in concrete of different work abilities. It must be appreciated that the differentconcretes of the same slump may, indeed, have different work abilities under the siteconditions. However, the slump test has been found to be useful in ensuring theuniformity among different batches of supposedly similar concrete under field conditions.The slump test is limited to concrete with maximum size of aggregate less than 38mm. 13
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME4.3. Vee-Bee Consistometer Test In this test compaction is achieved by vibration instead of jolting. This method issuitable for very dry concrete whose slump value cannot be measured by slump test. Thetime required for the shape of the concrete to turn from conical to cylindrical shape isnoted down in seconds is noted as Vee bee degree.4.4. Flow Table Test The flow test measures the horizontal spread of concrete cone specimen afterbeing subjected to jolting. The test is applicable to a wide range of concrete workabilityand is especially appropriate for highly fluid mixtures that exhibit a collapsed slump.5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS The compacting factor, slump value, vee bee time and flow value for M20 and M25grade GGBS concrete with and without Superplasticiser are given in table 1 and table 2respectively. The variation of compacting factor value with respect to percentage ofreplacement levels of GGBS is shown in Fig 1 & Fig 2. Fig 3 & Fig 4 shows the variationof slump value with respect to percentage of replacement levels of GGBS. The variationof Vee Bee time with respect to percentage of replacement levels of GGBS is shown infig 5 & fig 6 and fig 7 & fig 8 shows the variation of flow value with respect topercentage of replacement levels of GGBS. For M20 grade GGBS Concrete with and without Superplasticiser, the compactingfactor value increases up to 55% replacement levels after that the value decreases, theslump value increases up to 60% then the value decreases, the flow value increases up to55% replacement levels after that the value decreases in both cases also and up to 45%replacement levels the Vee Bee time decreases after that the time increases. For M25 grade GGBS Concrete with and without Superplasticiser, the compactingfactor value increases up to 60% replacement levels after that the value decreases in bothcases, the slump value increases up to 55% and 60% with and without Superplasticiserrespectively and then the value decreases, the flow value increases up to 60%replacement levels after that the value decreases in both cases and up to 50% replacementlevels the Vee Bee time decreases after that the time increases. 14
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEMETable 1 Workability of M20 grade GGBS Concrete with and withoutSuperplasticiser (SP) Compacting Slump Value Vee - bee TimePercentage Flow value (%) Factor (mm) (sec) of Cementreplacement Without With Without With Without With Without With SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP 0 0.83 0.86 25 29 15.31 13.78 14.43 16.63 5 0.84 0.86 25 30 13.56 12.13 15.80 17.62 10 0.85 0.87 26 31 12.34 10.47 17.21 19.31 15 0.86 0.88 28 34 11.32 9.34 18.57 21.63 20 0.87 0.89 29 34 10.34 8.47 20.31 22.71 25 0.88 0.89 31 35 9.67 8.12 22.34 24.61 30 0.89 0.9 33 38 9.12 7.46 23.79 26.83 35 0.89 0.91 35 40 8.76 7.11 25.32 28.24 40 0.9 0.92 36 41 8.14 6.87 27.12 30.16 45 0.9 0.93 38 42 8.03 6.24 29.84 31.85 50 0.91 0.93 38 43 8.97 6.98 30.45 33.72 55 0.92 0.94 39 45 9.67 7.68 31.25 34.75 60 0.91 0.92 40 45 10.57 8.97 30.73 33.12 65 0.9 0.91 39 44 11.43 9.37 29.73 32.52 70 0.89 0.9 35 41 12.21 10.48 28.24 31.67 75 0.87 0.89 31 36 13.56 11.67 27.47 30.79 80 0.86 0.88 28 34 14.76 12.78 26.73 29.45 85 0.85 0.87 25 30 16.23 14.35 25.67 27.81 90 0.84 0.86 22 28 18.21 16.45 24.72 26.78 95 0.83 0.85 20 25 20.05 18.97 23.45 25.78 100 0.82 0.85 15 22 21.67 20.56 22.76 24.49 15
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEMETable 2 Workability of M25 grade GGBS Concrete with and withoutSuperplasticiser (SP) Compacting Slump Value Vee - bee Time Percentage Flow value (%) Factor (mm) (sec) of Cementreplacement Without With Without With Without With Without With SP SP SP SP SP SP SP SP 0 0.85 0.87 29 35 14.79 13.31 22.34 24.69 5 0.85 0.88 30 35 12.36 10.78 25.30 26.84 10 0.86 0.88 30 37 11.21 9.21 26.74 28.60 15 0.88 0.89 32 38 10.45 7.87 27.83 30.03 20 0.89 0.9 33 38 9.56 7.21 29.24 31.02 25 0.89 0.91 35 40 8.78 6.87 30.70 33.77 30 0.9 0.91 37 42 7.89 6.42 32.90 35.72 35 0.9 0.92 40 45 6.89 6.12 34.62 36.52 40 0.91 0.93 42 46 6.43 5.61 36.21 37.86 45 0.91 0.94 43 48 6.13 5.43 37.78 39.24 50 0.92 0.94 44 49 6.87 5.05 39.21 41.03 55 0.93 0.95 45 50 7.69 5.47 40.89 42.87 60 0.93 0.95 44 50 8.97 6.36 41.57 43.56 65 0.92 0.94 42 47 9.57 6.89 39.64 42.31 70 0.91 0.92 40 45 10.47 7.83 37.23 41.17 75 0.9 0.91 36 42 11.59 8.65 36.81 40.51 80 0.88 0.91 33 40 12.87 9.39 35.46 39.50 85 0.87 0.9 30 36 13.69 10.93 34.61 37.93 90 0.86 0.89 27 32 15.21 13.24 33.51 35.21 95 0.85 0.88 24 30 16.82 15.87 31.69 34.23 100 0.84 0.87 20 26 18.97 17.86 29.87 32.56 16
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME 1.2 Without Superplasticiser Compaction Factor 1.1 With Superplasticiser 0.94 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.87 0.9 0.9 0.86 0.86 0.86 1 0.85 0.85 0.9 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.89 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.8 0.87 0.87 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.84 0.83 0.83 0.82 0.7 0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 1 Variation of Compaction Factor Value of M20grade GGBS concrete with&without Superplasticiser 1.2 Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser Compaction Factor 1.1 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.94 0.94 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.88 1 0.87 0.87 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.89 0.89 0.88 0.88 0.87 0.8 0.86 0.86 0.85 0.85 0.85 0.84 0.7 0.6 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 2 Variation of Compaction Factor Value of M25grade GGBS concrete with &without Superplasticiser 50 43 45 45 44 41 40 41 42 Slump Value (mm) 45 38 40 34 34 35 36 34 35 29 30 31 30 28 38 38 39 40 39 25 30 35 36 35 22 25 29 31 33 31 20 25 25 26 28 28 25 15 Without Superplasticiser 22 20 10 With Superplsticiser 15 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 3 Variation of Slump Value of M20grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser 17
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME 55 Without Superplasticiser 48 49 50 50 47 50 With Superplsticiser 45 46 45 Slump Value (mm) 45 42 42 40 38 38 40 40 35 35 37 45 44 36 35 40 42 43 44 42 40 32 30 30 35 37 36 26 25 29 30 30 32 33 33 30 20 27 24 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 4Variation of Slump Value of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser 30.00 21.67 Without Superplasticiser 20.05 18.21 25.00 With Superplasticiser 16.23 15.31 14.76 13.56 13.56 12.34 12.21 20.00 Vee - bee Time 11.43 11.32 10.57 10.34 20.56 9.67 9.67 18.97 9.12 8.97 8.76 15.00 8.14 8.03 16.45 14.35 13.78 10.00 12.78 12.13 11.67 10.48 10.47 9.34 9.37 8.97 8.47 5.00 8.12 7.68 7.46 7.11 6.98 6.87 6.24 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 5 Variation of Vee - bee Time of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser 30.00 Without Superplasticiser 18.97 25.00 16.82 15.21 With Superplasticiser 14.79 13.69 12.87 12.36 20.00 11.59 11.21 Vee - bee Time 10.47 10.45 9.57 9.56 8.97 8.78 15.00 17.86 7.89 7.69 6.89 6.87 15.87 6.43 6.13 13.31 13.24 10.00 10.93 10.78 9.39 9.21 8.65 5.00 7.87 7.83 7.21 6.89 6.87 6.42 6.36 6.12 5.61 5.47 5.43 5.05 0.00 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 6 Variation of Vee - bee Time of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser 18
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME 50 Without Superplasticiser 34.75 33.72 33.12 With SuperPlasticiser 32.52 31.85 31.67 30.79 30.16 29.45 28.24 27.81 40 26.83 26.78 25.78 24.61 24.49 22.71 Flow Value % 21.63 19.31 30 17.62 16.63 31.25 30.73 30.45 29.84 29.73 28.24 27.47 27.12 26.73 25.67 25.32 20 24.72 23.79 23.45 22.76 22.34 20.31 18.57 17.21 15.80 10 14.43 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 7 Variation of Flow Value of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser 50 37.86 39.24 39.21 41.03 40.89 42.87 41.57 43.56 39.64 42.31 41.17 40.51 39.50 37.93 36.52 35.72 35.21 34.23 33.77 32.56 31.02 30.03 28.60 40 26.84 24.69 Flow Value % 37.78 37.23 36.81 36.21 35.46 30 34.62 34.61 33.51 32.90 31.69 30.70 29.87 29.24 27.83 26.74 25.30 20 22.34 10 Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement LevelFig 8 Variation of Flow Value of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & withoutSuperplasticiser6. CONCLUSION The degree of workability of concrete was improved with the addition of GGBSin concrete up to 45% replacement level for M20 grade concrete and degree of workabilityof concrete was improved up to 50% replacement for M25 grade concrete. From theresults obtained it is known that M25 grade concrete has better workability compared toM20 grade concrete. So GGBS can be used as a substitute for cement which will reducethe cost of cement in concrete and also reduces the consumption of cement. Since weutilise industrial waste, it product from the environmental pollution and also saves a lot ofnatural resources. 19
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME7. REFERENCES 1. Rajamane N.P, et.al (2003) “Improvement in Properties of High Performance Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag”, IE (I) Journal-CV, 84, pp.38-41. 2. Oner A,Akyuz S(2007) “An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete”, Cement & Concrete Composites 29pp.505–514. 3. Adakhar(2001) “Compatibility of super plasticizer slag added concrete in sulphate resistance and chloride penetration”, Advances in Civil Engineering Materials and construction technology, 33, pp. 4. Alexander MG, Milne TI, Influence of cement Blend and aggregate type of stress – strain behaviour and elastic modulus of concrete, AC1 Materials Journal, 92, no.3, pp227-235. 5. Annie peter, Rajamane N.P (1997), “Bond strength of reinforcement in High performance concrete: The role of GGBS, casting position and super plasticizer dosage”, Indian concrete Journal, pp. 6. Kyong YunYeau, EunyumKi(2005) “An experimental study on corrosion resistance of concrete with ground granulate blast - furnace slag” Cement and Concrete Research, 35, pp1391 – 1399. 7. Dr. John Munguikunethar (2003) “Innovative use of GGBS in construction”, ACI materials journal, vol.92, pp. 8. Wang Timi (2002) “Cracking tendency and drying shrinkage of GGBS using concrete for bridge deck application”, ACI materials journal, vol.27, pp. 9. Manoj, K Jain and S.C.Pal (1998) “Utilisation of Industrial slag in Making High Performance Concrete Composites”, The Indian Concrete Journal, pp 307 – 315. 10. Odd E.Gjrv (1995) “Influence of silica fume replacement of cement on physical properties and resistance to sulphate attack, freezing and thawing, and alkali-silica reactivity”, ACI materials journal, vol.92, No.6, pp591-598. 11. D.Etrodedroit D, Michigan (1994) ACI 2026 IR 87 “GGBS as a cementeous constituent in concrete”, ACI manual of concrete practice, Part-I materials and general properties of concrete. 12. EtrodedroitD., Michigan (1994) ACI 212.3R-91, Chemical admixtures of concrete, ACI manual of concrete practice, Part I: Materials and general properties of concrete, 31. 13. SakaiK. (1992) “Properties of GGBS cement concrete in fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete”, Volume –II V.M.Malhodra, ACI SP132 D.Etrodedroit, Michigan. 14. L.Zeghichi (2006) “The Effect of Replacement of Naturals Aggregates by slag products on the strength of concrete”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol 7, Nov, pp 27-35. 15. M.Shariq et.al (2008) “Strength Development of Cement Mortar and Concrete incorporating GGBFS”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol 9, No 1, pp 61-74. 16. Reportby ACI committee 226, IR 87 “GGBF Slag as cementitious constituent in concrete”. 20
  • International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 –6480(Print), ISSN 0976 – 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), © IAEME 17. IS: 456-2000, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 18. IS: 10262-2004, Code of Practice for Concrete Mix Design, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 19. IS: 12269-1987, Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 20. M.S.Shetty (2003) “A Text Book of Concrete Technology”, S.Chand& Co, New Delhi. 21. Gambhir (2003) “A Text Book of Concrete Technology”, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. 22. A.M.Neville (2004) “A Text Book of Concrete Technology”, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. 21