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

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
IJARET
Journal 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 –

5%. Slump test, Compaction factor test, Vee Bee Consistometer test and Flow test were
conducted. Effect of replacement of cement by GGBS at various percentages and on the
grades of concrete chosen with and without Superplasticiser and their comparison are
presented in this paper.

Key word: Cement, Concrete, Plasticiser, Slag, slump, vee bee time, flow value

1. INTRODUCTION

In India, we produce about 7.8 million tons of Ground Granulated blast furnace
slag as a bye product obtained in the manufacture of pig iron in the blast furnace. It is a
non-metallic product consisting essentially of silicates and aluminates of calcium and
other bases. The molten slag is rapidly chilled by quenching in water to form a glassy
sand like granulated material.
The disposal of such slag even as a waste fill is a problem and may cause serious
environmental hazards with the projected economic growth and development in the steel
industry, the amount of production is likely to increase many folds and environmental
problem will thus pose a large threat.
It is seen that high volume eco-friendly replacement by such slag leads to the
development of concrete which not only utilises the industrial wastes but also saves a lot
of natural resources and energy. This in turn reduces the consumption of cement.
This paper presents the various study of the workability of concrete with GGBS
as replacement material for cement. Workability is one of the important factors of fresh
concrete. For this study the mix proportions M20 and M25 were considered with and
without Superplasticiser. Slump test, Compaction factor test, Flow table test and Vee bee
Consistometer test were carried out.

2. WORKABILITY

Workability is defined as that property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar that
determines the ease and homogeneity with which it can be mixed, placed and compacted
due to its consistency, the homogeneity with which it can be made into concrete and the
degree with which it can resist separation of materials. Workability is the most important
property of concrete in the plastic stage. A workable concrete mix does not result in
bleeding and segregation.
Workability of concrete mix largely depends upon its water content. With
increase of water, the workability also increases. But too much water results into concrete
of low strength and poor durability.

3. MATERIALS USED

3.1 Cement
Ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade was used, which has the fineness modulus
1.5, Specific gravity 3.08, Consistency 37%, Initial setting time 2hrs 30min and Final
setting time 3hrs 30min.

12


3.2 Coarse aggregate
Angular shape aggregate of size of 20 mm was used and it has the following
properties: Specific gravity2.935, Fineness modulus 7.72, Flakiness index100%,
Abrasion value20.4%, Crushing value30.02%, Impact value23.6%, Bulk density1.42 x
103 Kg/m3 and Water absorption1.01%.
3.3 Fine aggregate
River sand conforming to zone III of IS: 383 – 1970 was used and its properties
are found as follows: Specific gravity 2.68, Moisture content 0.71 and Fineness modulus
2.75.
3.4 GGBS
Physical properties of GGBS are: Specific gravity 3.44 and Fineness modulus
3.36, 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 workability
of fresh concrete, but none of them is wholly satisfactory. Each test measures only a
particular aspect of it and there is really no unique method which measures the
workability of concrete in its totality. However, by checking and controlling the
uniformity of the workability, it is easier to ensure a uniform quality of concrete and
hence uniform strength for a particular job. The empirical test widely used are
Compacting 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 action
of external forces. It measures the compatibility of concrete which is important aspect of
workability, by measuring the amount of compaction achieved for a given amount of
work. The test has been more popular in laboratory conditions. For concrete of very low
workability of the order of 0.70 or below, the test is not suitable because this concrete
cannot 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 container
to 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 the
action of gravitational forces. The slump test is essentially a measure of consistency or
the wetness of the mix. The test is suitable only for concretes of medium to high
workability. For very stiff mixes having zero slumps, the slump test does not indicate any
difference in concrete of different work abilities. It must be appreciated that the different
concretes of the same slump may, indeed, have different work abilities under the site
conditions. However, the slump test has been found to be useful in ensuring the
uniformity 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


4.3. Vee-Bee Consistometer Test
In this test compaction is achieved by vibration instead of jolting. This method is
suitable for very dry concrete whose slump value cannot be measured by slump test. The
time required for the shape of the concrete to turn from conical to cylindrical shape is
noted 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 after
being subjected to jolting. The test is applicable to a wide range of concrete workability
and 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 M25
grade GGBS concrete with and without Superplasticiser are given in table 1 and table 2
respectively. The variation of compacting factor value with respect to percentage of
replacement levels of GGBS is shown in Fig 1 & Fig 2. Fig 3 & Fig 4 shows the variation
of slump value with respect to percentage of replacement levels of GGBS. The variation
of Vee Bee time with respect to percentage of replacement levels of GGBS is shown in
fig 5 & fig 6 and fig 7 & fig 8 shows the variation of flow value with respect to
percentage of replacement levels of GGBS.
For M20 grade GGBS Concrete with and without Superplasticiser, the compacting
factor value increases up to 55% replacement levels after that the value decreases, the
slump value increases up to 60% then the value decreases, the flow value increases up to
55% 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 compacting
factor value increases up to 60% replacement levels after that the value decreases in both
cases, the slump value increases up to 55% and 60% with and without Superplasticiser
respectively 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% replacement
levels the Vee Bee time decreases after that the time increases.

14


Table 1 Workability of M20 grade GGBS Concrete with and without
Superplasticiser (SP)
Compacting Slump Value Vee - bee Time
Percentage Flow value (%)
Factor (mm) (sec)
of Cement
replacement 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


Table 2 Workability of M25 grade GGBS Concrete with and without
Superplasticiser (SP)
Compacting Slump Value Vee - bee Time
Percentage Flow value (%)
Factor (mm) (sec)
of Cement
replacement 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


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 Level
Fig 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
Fig 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
Fig 3 Variation of Slump Value of M20grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser

17


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
Fig 4Variation of Slump Value of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser
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
Fig 5 Variation of Vee - bee Time of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser
30.00
Without Superplasticiser

18.97
25.00 16.82
15.21

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
Fig 6 Variation of Vee - bee Time of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser

18



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
Fig 7 Variation of Flow Value of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser
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

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Fig 8 Variation of Flow Value of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & without
Superplasticiser
6. CONCLUSION

The degree of workability of concrete was improved with the addition of GGBS
in concrete up to 45% replacement level for M20 grade concrete and degree of workability
of concrete was improved up to 50% replacement for M25 grade concrete. From the
results obtained it is known that M25 grade concrete has better workability compared to
M20 grade concrete. So GGBS can be used as a substitute for cement which will reduce
the cost of cement in concrete and also reduces the consumption of cement. Since we
utilise industrial waste, it product from the environmental pollution and also saves a lot of
natural resources.

19


7. 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


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

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

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (15)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (20)

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

Similar to Workability studies on concrete with ggbs as a replacement material for cement with and without superplasticiser (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

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