effect of partial replacement of ggbs slag as fine …were later investigated by michaelis,...

Mhatre Deepak S; International Journal of Emerging Research & Development

© 2018, www.IJERND.com All Rights Reserved Page | 26

(Volume 1, Issue 6)

Available online at: www.ijernd.com

Effect of partial replacement of GGBS slag as fine aggregate and

fly ash as cement on strength of concrete Deepak S Mhatre

[email protected]

B R Harne College of Engineering and Technology, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, Maharashtra

ABSTRACT

This paper aims to study experimentally, the effect of partial

replacement of fine aggregate by Steel Slag (SS), on the

various strength and durability properties of concrete by

using the mix designs .the optimum percentage of

replacement of fine aggregate by steel slag is found.

Workability of concrete gradually decreases, as the

percentage of replacement increases which is found using

slump test. Compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural

strength and durability tests such as acid resistant’s, using

HCL, H2SO4 and rapid chloride penetration, are

experimentally investigated. The results indicate that for

conventional concrete, partial replacement of concrete by

steel slag improves the compressive, tensile, flexural

strength. The mass loss in cubes after immersion in acids is

found to be very low. Deflection in the RCC beams gradually

increases, as the load on the beam increases, for the

replacement. The degree of fluoride ion penetrability is

assessed based on the limits given in ASTM C 1202. The

viability of the use of steel slag in concrete is found. Waste

management is one of the most common and challenging

problems in the world. The steelmaking industry has

generated substantially solid waste. Steel slag is a residue

obtained in steelmaking operation. This paper deals with the

implementation of steel slag as an effective replacement for

sand. Steel slag, which is considered as the solid waste

pollutant, can be used for road construction, clinker raw

materials, filling materials etc. In this work, steel slag used

as a replacement for sand, which is also a major component

concrete mixture. This method can be implemented for

producing hollow blocks, solid blocks, paver blocks, concrete

structures etc. Accordingly, advantages can be achieved by

using steel slag instead of natural aggregates this will also

encourage other researchers to find another field of using

steel slag.

Keywords— GGBF slag, Replacement, Durability, Rapid

chloride permeability

1. INTRODUCTION Concrete is the most widely used man-made construction

material in the world and is second only to water as the most

utilized substance on the planet. It is obtained by mixing

cementitious materials, water, and aggregates in required

proportions. The mixture when placed in forms and allowed to

cure hardens into a rock-like mass known as concrete. The

hardening is caused by a chemical reaction between water and

cement and it continues for a long time, and consequently, the

concrete grows stronger with age.

The trend of inflation in the economy of developing countries

and depletion of their foreign monetary reserves have led to an

increase in the prices of traditional building materials.

Moreover, Portland cement is a highly energy-intensive

product. The considerable effort is made to find substitute

replacement of cement in concrete. Fly ash, silica fume,

metakaolin, rice husk ash etc are some materials among them.

During the 20th century, there has been an increase in the

consumption of mineral admixture by the cement and concrete

industries. This rate is expected to increase. The increasing

demand for the cement and concrete is met by the partial

cement replacement. Substantial energy and cost savings can

results when industrial by-products are used as a partial

replacement for the energy-intensive Portland cement. The

presence of mineral admixture is known to impart significant

improvements in workability and durability. The use of by-

products in the environmentally friendly method of disposal of

large quantities of materials that would otherwise pollute land,

water, and air. The current cement production rate of the

world, which is approximately 1.2 billion tons per year, is

expected to grow exponentially to about 3.5 billion ton per

year by 2015. Most of the increase in cement demand will be

met by the use of supplementary cementing materials, as each

ton of Portland cement clinker production is associated with

the similar amount of Co2 emission. [15]

Over the years cementitious composites have undergone

several changes, keeping pace with demands of the

construction industry. The advent of admixtures, particularly,

superplasticizer to reduce the water required for the adequate

workability and pozzolans to impart high strength and/or

performance (utilized appropriately) have given a new lease of

life to concrete as a structural material. However, the

inadequate performance of the constructed facilities of

yesteryears and the earlier perception that concrete structures

are maintenance free, necessitated a relook at the materials and

the methods of producing concrete leading to the concepts of

high-performance cementitious composites.

2. GROUND GRANULATED IRON BLAST-

FURNACE (GGBF) SLAG The use of iron blast-furnace slag as a constituent of concrete,

either as an aggregate or as a cementing material, or both, is

well known. The use of ground granulated blast furnace

https://www.ijernd.com/

https://www.ijernd.com/?utm_source=pdf&utm_medium=edition&utm_campaign=OmAkSols&utm_term=V1I6-1149

mailto:[email protected]



(GGBF) slag in the production of blended cement began in

1905 in the United States. Recent attention has been given to

the use of GGBF slag as a separate cementations constituent of

concrete. This report primarily addresses the use of GGBF

slag as a separate cementitious material added along with

Portland cement in the production of concrete. Other slags

derived from the smelting of materials other than iron ores are

not discussed in this report. The reader should be aware that

the material characteristics described and the

recommendations for use pertain solely to ground granulated

iron blast-furnace (GGBF) slag. [7]

2.1 History

The use of ground granulated blast furnace (GGBF) slag as a

cementitious material dates back to 1774 when Loriot made a

mortar using GGBF slag in combination with slaked lime

(Mather 1957). In 1862, Emil Langen proposed a granulation

process to facilitate removal and handling of iron blast-furnace

slag leaving the blast furnace. Glassy iron blast-furnace slags

were later investigated by Michaelis, Prussing, Tetmayer,

Prost, Feret, and Green. Their investigation, along with that of

Pasow, who introduced the process of air granulation, played

an important part in the development of iron blast-furnace slag

as a hydraulic binder (Thomas 1979). This development

resulted in the first commercial use of slag-lime cements in

Germany in 1865. In France, these slag cements were used as

early as 1889 to build the Paris underground metro system

(Thomas 1979). The use of GGBF slags in the production of

blended cements accounted for nearly 20 percent of the total

hydraulic cement produced in Europe (Hogan and Meusel

1981). The first recorded production of Portland blast-furnace

slag cement was in Germany in 1892; the first United States

production was in 1896. Until the 1950s, GGBF slag was used

in the production of cement or as a cementitious material in

two basic ways: as a raw material for the manufacture of

Portland cement, and as a cementitious material combined

with Portland cement, hydrated lime, gypsum, or anhydrite

(Lewis 1981). Since the late 1950s, use of GGBF slag as a

separate cementitious material added at the concrete mixer

with Portland cement has gained acceptance in South Africa,

Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan, Canada, and the United

States. Separate grinding of GGBF slag and Portland cement,

with the materials combined at the mixer, has two advantages

over the inter-ground blended cement:

(1) Each material can be ground to its own optimum fineness

and

(2) The proportions can be adjusted to suit the particular

project needs.

Production capacity for GGBF slag is estimated to be

approximately two million metric tons annually in North

America. A part of this is used stabilizing mine tailings and

industrial waste materials. There are five companies providing

GGBF slag in North America. According to the 1991 Bureau

of Mines Annual Report, 13,293,000 metric tons of blast-

furnace slag were sold or used in the United States during that

year (Solomon 1991). Today, much of this material could be

used for the production of cementitious material if granulating

facilities were available at all furnace locations. Additional

sources of GGBF slag may become available for energy and

environmental reason [7]

3. A BRIEF REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE There have been several studies reporting the utilization of

waste materials such as GGBS J. Selwyn Babu1, Dr. N.

Mahendran2 [1] “Experimental Studies on Concrete Replacing

Fine Aggregate with Blast Furnace slags. Thereafter, many

researchers worked on the theme. Some of the significant

works are reviewed briefly in this section. Dr. Jino John ,

Aswathy M. Indu M. Sumana K. K., Sreeja P. P. [2]

“Replacement of Fine Aggregate by Granulated Blast Furnace

Slag (GBFS) in Cement Mortar’’ M C Nataraja, P G Dileep

Kumar, A S Manu1 and M C Sanjay [3] “USE OF

GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG AS FINE

AGGREGATE IN CEMENT MORTAR’’, K.G. Hiraskar and

Chetan Patil [4] Use of Blast Furnace Slag Aggregate in

Concrete, Prem Ranjan Kumar1, Dr. Pradeep Kumar T.B.2 [5]

“Use of Blast Furnace Slag as an Alternative of Natural Sand

in Mortar and Concrete’’, Mohammed Nadeem, Arun D.

Pofale [6] “ Utilization of Industrial Waste Slag as Aggregate

in Concrete Applications by Adopting Taguchi ’s Approach

for Optimization’’ Huiwen Wan,ZhongheZongs Shui and hou

Lin [7] “Analysis of geometric characteristics of GGBS

particles and their influences on cement properties” K. A.

Paine and L. Zheng [8] “Experimental study and modelling of

heat evolution of blended cements” Jun-Wu Xia [9] “Study of

strength and bond characteristics of ggbs concrete” De.

Sensale[10] “Strength Development on Concrete with RHA in

Cement and Concrete composites” A. Oner and S. Akyuz [11]

“An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the

compressive strength of concrete” Mohammad H.B. ,Hamid

[12] “Mechanical properties and Durability of High Strength

concrete containing RHA By Adding RHA in concrete. Prem

Ranjan Kumar, Dr. Pradeep Kumar T.B. [13] “Use of Blast

Furnace Slag as an Alternative of Natural Sand in Mortar and

Concrete”

Based on the aforementioned review of the literature, an effort

is made in this investigation to study the effect of GGBS as a

fine aggregate replacing materials in concrete for different %

ratio on the compressive, split tensile and flexural strengths of

the concrete. This work involved the experimental study to

assess the effect of pozzolanic waste materials such as GGBS

when used as a fine aggregate replacing materials on the

strengths of concrete.

4. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME The particulars of the materials used in the present

investigation along with the methodology of investigation are

described in this section.

4.1 Materials

The materials used in the study include cement, sand,

aggregates, water, admixtures and fine aggregates replacing

materials such as GGBS. The cement used in the said

investigation comprised of Portland Slag cement (JSW

Cement). While the sand brought from Mahad Gophan

(Raigad) was used in the study, the coarse aggregates (Metal I

and II) procured from the local quarry at Kharpada in Pen. The

fresh GGBS (Pozzocrete 60) (Source: Dolvi, PEN, JSW steel

LTD Blast furnace plant) made available taken from special

permission for the purpose of this study. The potable water

was added for obtaining concrete mix. The physical properties

of the constituents of concrete obtained through various

laboratory tests are summarized in Table 1.

Table 1: Properties of materials Salient

Properties Value

Cement

Fineness (IS: 4031 Part II) 305 (Minimum225 cm2/gm)

Consistency 28 %

Specific Gravity 3.15g/cc

Setting Time

Initial Setting Time 130 Min (Minimum 30 Min)

Final Setting Time 221 Min (Maximum 600 Min)




Compressive strength

3 Days’ curing 29 MPa



Aggregates

Specific Gravity of Fine Aggregate 2.72

Specific Gravity of Coarse aggregate- 20 mm 2.82

Specific Gravity of Coarse aggregate- 10 mm 2.7

Materials

Cement: ultra Tech 43 grade (Ordinary Portland Cement)

Fly Ash (Used as a Partial Replacement of Cement)

GBFS (Used as a Partial Replacement of fine aggregate)

Fine Aggregate (Natural river sand)

Coarse Aggregate (20 downsize)

The objectives set in the present study will be accomplished as

follows.

The materials such as Fly ash and GGBFS as a Fine

aggregate, sand, and coarse aggregates are suitable for

structural purposes will be Chosen.

Concrete Cubes, using Fly ash as a partial replacement of

Cement and GGBFS as a partial Replacement of Fine

aggregate will be cast, and to study the Compressive

Strength of concrete & Durability properties.

Concrete Cylinder, using Fly ash as a partial replacement

of Cement and GGBFS as a partial Replacement of Fine

aggregate will be cast, and to study the Split Tensile

Strength of concrete & Durability properties.

Concrete Beams, using Fly ash as a partial replacement of

Cement and GGBFS as a partial Replacement of Fine

aggregate will be cast, and to study the Flexural Strength

of concrete.

The compressive strength of the concrete was obtained using

150 mm cube concrete specimens. The specimens were tested

at 7 and 28 days age. The specimens were tested on a 200 tons

capacity hydraulic type compression-testing.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The effect of Fine aggregates replacing materials such as

GGBS when used in varying proportions in conjunction with

PSC for the different water-cement ratio is studied on the

engineering behavior of concrete made from the pozzolanic

waste, in the context of the results obtained following different

tests on fresh and hardened concrete and discussed in the

subsequent sections.

5.1 Compressive strength

Cubes are used for testing compressive strength. The cubes are

tested in a compressive testing machine of the capacity of 200

tonnes. The load is applied in such a way that the two opposite

sides of the cubes are compressed. The load at which the

specimen ultimately fails is noted. Compressive strength is

calculated by dividing the load by area of the specimen.

Fc = P/A

Where,

Fc= Cube compressive strength in ‘N/mm2’

P = Cube compressive load causing failure in ‘Newton’

A= Cross-sectional area in ‘mm2’

These cubes are tested for each curing period say, 3 days, 7

days and 28 days. The average of the three specimen strength

is calculated and then taken the compressive strength of one

set. The same procedure is adopted for lightweight aggregate

concrete.

Table 2: Details of trial mixes Compressive Strength of

Concrete with Percentage Replacement of GGBFS (M30

grade) in n/mm2

Percentage

Replacement

of GGBFS

The weight of

Cube in kg

Compressive

Strength in

N/mm2

0% 8.95 44.02

10% 8.8 43.42

20% 8.73 42.8

30% 8.7 41.42

40% 8.51 40.98

50% 8.465 40.59

60% 8.23 35.99

70% 8.165 32.47

80% 7.843 31.19

90% 7.527 30.24

100% 7.425 26.71

Fig. 1: Compressive Strength in N/mm2 v/s Percentage

Replacement of GGBFS (M30 grade)

Table 3: Details of trial mixes and Compressive Strength of

Concrete with Percentage Replacement of Fly Ash (M30

grade) in n/mm2

Percentage

Replacement

of Fly Ash

The weight of

Cube in kg

Compressive

Strength in

N/mm2

0% 8.95 44.02

10% 8.80 40.45

20% 8.730 39.26

30% 8.700 38.22

40% 8.465 35.75

Fig. 2: Compressive Strength in N/mm2 v/s Percentage

Replacement of Fly Ash (M30 grade)




From table 3 It is observed that the compressive strength of

Fly Ash replacement from 0% to 40% and observed that up to

30% replacement of Fly Ash gained the Target Strength,

Table 4: Compressive strength of concrete with percentage

replacement of GGBFS and Fly Ash (M30 grade)

Percentage

Replacement

The weight

of Cube in

kg

Compressive

Strength in

N/mm2

GBFS Fly Ash 7 days 28 days

% 0% 8.95 23.544 44.02

5% 5% 8.715 23.108 42.292

10% 10% 8.66 22.236 41.42

15% 15% 8.39 20.63 40.984

20% 20% 8.295 19.47 39.96

25% 25% 8.230 17.876 39.676

30% 30% 7.810 17.29 38.94

Fig. 3: Compressive strength in N/mm2 v/s percentage


Fig. 4: Compressive strength in N/mm2 v/s percentage


The cube specimens of mix M30 were tested for compressive

strength as per IS: 516, the results of the compressive strength

tests are shown in Table-4.1. when the 28 days compressive

strength are compared with reference concrete, the

compressive strength decreases with the increase in percentage

replacement of Ground granulated blast furnace slag.

From table 2 the compressive strength of M30 grade concrete

gradually decrease as a percentage of GGBFs (10% TO 100%)

increase and strength ranges from 43.42 to 26.71 N/mm2. It is

observed that compressive strength of GGBFs replacement

from 0% to 100% and observed that up to 50% replacement of

GGBFs gained the Target Strength. Also it is observed that the

replacement of fine aggregate by GGBFs, decreases the

compressive strength. A reduction of 1.4% for 10% GGBFs

concrete,2.8% for 20%, 5.9 for30%,7% for 40%, 7.8% for

50%,18% for60%,26% for70%,29% for80%,31% for

90%,39% for100% of GGBFs Concrete

From table 3 It is observed that the compressive strength of

Fly Ash replacement from 0% to 40% and observed that up to

30% replacement of Fly Ash gained the Target Strength,

replacement of fine aggregate by GGBFs and Cement by Fly

Ash (5% to 30%) and results are observed that compressive

strength ranges from 41.42 to 38.94 N/mm2

From table 4 it is observed that the replacement of fine

aggregate by GGBFs and Cement by Fly Ash, decreases the

compressive strength. A reduction of 4% for 5% GGBFs

concrete,5.9% for10%,6.8% for 15%,9.3% for20%, 9.8 %

for25%,11.5% for30 % of GGBFs and Fly Ash concrete,

In figure 4 compressive Strength value decreases with

replacement percentage increases in (GGBFS 0% to 100%)

and (GGBFS & Fly Ash 0% to 30%) both concrete, but we

achieved the workability in (GGBFS & Fly Ash 0% to 30%)

concrete.

5.2 Split Tensile Strength

Table 5: Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2 v/s Percentage

Replacement of GGBFS and Fly Ash (M30 grade)

Percentage Replacement

Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2

GGBFS

Fly Ash

7days

28 days

0% 0% 2.8 4.99

5% 5% 2.68 4.25

10% 10% 2.49 4.02

15% 15% 2.45 3.747

20% 20% 2.31 3.51

25% 25% 2.12 3.33

30% 30% 2.035 3.23

Fig. 5: Split tensile strength in N/mm2 v/s percentage


The Cylinder specimens mix (M30) were tested as IS:5816 and

the results of the split tensile strength tests are shown in Table

7.9




The rate of decrease, however, depends on the type of

replacement material, when 28 days split tensile strength are

compared with reference concrete the split tensile decrease

with increase in replacement percentage of GGBFs (10% to

100%)


aggregate by GGBFs and Cement by Fly Ash, decreases Split

Tensile strength. A reduction of 14.8% for 5% GGBFs

concrete,19.4% for10%,25% for 15%,29% for20%, 33 %

for25%,35.2% for30 % of GGBFs and Fly Ash concrete

In figure 5 Split Tensile Strength value decreases with

replacement percentage increases in (GGBFS 0% to 100%)

and (GGBFS & Fly Ash 0% to 30%) both concrete, but we

achieved the workability in (GGBFS & Fly Ash 0% to 30%)

concrete.

5.3 Durability of concrete

Sorptivity: Sorptivity Test on Concrete with Percentage

Replacement of GGBFS and Fly Ash (M30 grade)

Table 6: Replacement of fine aggregate by GGBFs and

cement by Fly Ash

Particulars

M30

The rise

of water

level I

(mm)

Time is

taken for

this rise

(min)

Sorptivity

S=i/ √t

(mm/

√(min)

Avg value of

sorptivity

√t (mm/

√(min GGBFS Fly

Ash

0% 0% 9.2 360 0.484 0.484

9.1 360 0.47

9.3 360 0.490

5% 5% 9.2 360 0.484 0.489

9.3 360 0.490

9.4 360 0.495

10% 10% 9.4 360 0.495 0.495

9.5 360 0.500

9.3 360 0.490

15% 15% 9.6 360 0.505 0.503

9.5 360 0.500

9.6 360 0.505

20% 20% 9.7 360 0.511 0.510

9.8 360 0.516

9.6 360 0.505

25% 25% 9.8 360 0.516 0.52

9,9 360 0.521

10 360 0.527

30% 30% 10.2 360 0.537 0.542

10.3 360 0.542

10.4 360 0.548

Fig. 6: Rate of Water absorption in % v/s Percentage

The capillary water absorption behavior of concrete is similar

to the behavior as in the case water absorption by weight.


aggregate by GGBFs and Cement by Fly Ash, increases the

rise of water level as a result of Sorptivity value increase with

an increase in percentage replacement GGBFs and Fly Ash.

An increase of 1% for 5% GGBFs concrete, 2.22% for 10%,

3.77% for 15%, 5% for20%, 6.92 % for 25%, 10.70% for30 %

of GGBFs and Fly Ash concrete

In figure 6 Capillary water absorption behavior (GGBFS 0%

to 100%) and (GGBFS & Fly Ash 0% to 30%) both concrete

are shown. There is no significant rise in capillary water

absorption capacity between 0 % to 50% replacement ratios.

5.4 High-Temperature Test

Test Results of Durability against high Temperature at 500o C

at 4hr heating

Table 7: Compressive strength on concrete with

percentage replacement of GGBFS and Fly Ash

Percentage

replacement of

The average

compressive

strength of control

specimen N/mm2

Average

compressive

strength after

burning, N/mm2 GGBFS Fly Ash

0% 0% 44.02 40.11

5% 5% 42.292 39.24

10% 10% 41.42 37.93

15% 15% 40.984 36.62

20% 20% 39.96 34.88

25% 25% 39.676 34

30% 30% 38.94 32.7

Compressive Strength of concrete against High-Temperature

v/s Percentage Replacement of GGBFS and Fly Ash (M30

grade), high Temperature at 500o C at 4hr heating.

The results from the test of durability against high temperature

are presented in table 7 and it is observed that compressive

strength after burning also decreases.

Table 7 shows the results of decrease of compressive strength

after burning and percentage decrease of compressive strength,

high Temperature at 500o C at 4hr heating.

5.5 Rapid Chloride Permeability Test

Rapid Chloride Permeability Test of concrete since the ability

of concrete to resist chloride penetration is an essential factor

in determining concrete performance, chloride permeability of

concrete must be measured in any concrete durability study.

This property of concrete can be measured by an RCPT.

In this test method, a water-saturated concrete cylindrical

specimen of 2” (51 mm) thickness and 4” (102 mm) diameter,




is subjected to DC voltage of 60 V across its thickness for a 6

hours period between two cells containing sodium chloride

(3% NaCl –ve) and sodium hydroxide (0.3N NaOH +ve)

solutions.

The Line diagram of RCPT is shown in figure 7.

Table 8: Compressive strength of percentage replacement

of GGBFS

Percentage

Replacement

of GGBFS

The weight

of Cube in

kg

Compressive

Strength in

N/mm2

RCPT

(coulombs)

0% 8.95 44.02 1780

10% 8.8 43.42 1735

20% 8.73 42.8 1570

30% 8.7 41.42 1240

40% 8.51 40.98 1020

50% 8.465 40.59 1150

60% 8.23 35.99 960

70% 8.165 32.47 770

80% 7.843 31.19 880

90% 7.527 30.24 1100

100% 7.425 26.71 1250

Fig. 7: Percentage replacement of GGBFS

Table 9: Compressive strength percentage replacement of

Fly Ash

Percentage

Replacement

of Fly Ash

The weight

of Cube in

kg

Compressive

Strength in

N/mm2

RCPT

(coulombs)

0% 8.95 44.02 1760

10% 8.80 40.45 1757

20% 8.730 39.26 1655

30% 8.700 38.22 1630

40% 8.465 35.75 1590

Fig. 8: Percentage replacement of Fly Ash

Table 10: Percentage replacement of GGBS and Fly Ash

Percentage

Replacement

The

weight of

Cube in

kg

Compressive

Strength in N/mm2 RCPT

(coulombs)

GGBFS Fly

Ash 7 days 28days

0% 0% 8.95 23.544 44.02 1780

5% 5% 8.715 23.108 42.292 1750

10% 10% 8.66 22.236 41.42 1660

15% 15% 8.39 20.63 40.984 1570

20% 20% 8.295 19.47 39.96 1340

25% 25% 8.230 17.876 39.676 1120

30% 30% 7.810 17.29 38.94 1050

Percentage Replacement of GGBS & Fly Ash

Fig. 9: Percentage Replacement of GGBS & Fly Ash

6. CONCLUSIONS

The effect of using GGBFS as a fine aggregate on the

properties of concrete was investigated, Based on the results of

this experimental investigation, the following conclusion is

drawn

(1) GGBFS/sand ratio is the governing criteria for the effects

on the workability, strength and durability characteristics;

(2) Sand particles are a nearly spherical shape which is

having ball bearing effect which increases workability as

compared to GGBFS,

(3) Increase in GGBFS content decreases the workability of

concrete due to which is having irregular or angular in

shape due to which the decreases the workability, also

initially the mix with GGBFS exhibits segregation and

noncohesive leading to decrease in workability

(4) The workability gradually increases for every percentage

increase of fly ash as a mineral admixture.

(5) The formation of small pores close to the aggregate

surfaces prevents the excellent bonding with aggregate.

Therefore, the transition zone between aggregate and

cement paste is getting relatively weak then as in the

control concrete specimen

(6) The compressive strength of M30 grade concrete gradually

decrease from 43.42 to 26.71 N/mm2 as a percentage of

GGBFs from 10% to 100%

(7) The compressive strength of M30 grade concrete gradually


GGBFS as fine aggregate and Fly ash as a mineral

admixture from 5% to 30%

(8) Split Tensile strength of M30 grade concrete gradually


GGBFs from10% to 100%

(9) Split Tensile strength of M30 grade concrete gradually


GGBFS as fine aggregate and Fly ash as a mineral

admixture from 5% to 30%




(10) Flexural Strength also slightly gradually decrease with

increase in percentage replacement of GGBFs as fine

aggregate and Fly Ash as a mineral admixture

(11) It is observed that the replacement percentage of 10% to

100% fine aggregate by GGBFs, increases water

absorption. An increase of .89% for 10% GGBFs concrete

18.88% for100% of GGBFs Concrete


30% fine aggregate by GGBFs and Fly Ash, as a mineral

admixture increases the water absorption. An increase of

2.47% for 5% GGBFs and Fly ash as a mineral admixture

of concrete, 13.36% for30 %


30% fine aggregate by GGBFs and Cement by Fly Ash

increases the rise of water level as a result of Sorptivity

value gradually increase with an increase in percentage

replacement GGBFs and Fly Ash. An increase of 4.1% for

5% GGBFs concrete to,13.2% for30 % of GGBFs and Fly

Ash concrete

(14) In many concrete members, such as concrete bricks and

blocks, durability characteristics are more important than

strength characteristics. GGBFS-replaced concrete can be

used to manufacture such members

(15) If the 10% decrease in compressive strength with respect

to the reference concrete is assumed to be the maximum

tolerable decrease, then it is suitable to replace GGBFS up

to 40% instead of natural sand in concrete

7. REFERENCES [1] Isa Yüksel, Ömer Özkan, and Turhan Bilir “ Use of

Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag in Concrete as Fine

Aggregate” ACI Materials Journal, V. 103, No. 3, May-

June 2006.

[2] Isa Yuksel and Ayten Genc “properties of concrete

containing Nonground Ash and slag as fine aggregate”

ACI Materials Journal, V. 104, No. 4, July-August 2007

[3] Ilker Bekir Topçu and Turhan Bilir “Effect of Non-

Ground-Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag as Fine Aggregate

on Shrinkage Cracking of Mortars” ACI Materials

Journal, V. 107, No. 6, November-December 2010

[4] S.J. Barnett, M.N. Soutsos, S.G. Millard, J.H. Bungey “

Strength development of mortars containing ground

granulated blast-furnace slag: Effect of curing temperature

and determination of apparent activation energies”

Cement and Concrete Research 36 (2006) 434 – 440

Department of Civil Engineering, University of Liverpool,

Brownlow Street, Liverpool, L69 3GQ, UK Received 9

February 2005; accepted ,7 November 2005

[5] S. C. Pal, Abhijit Mukherjee, and S. R. Pathak “

Corrosion Behavior of Reinforcement in Slag Concrete”

ACI Materials Journal, V. 99, No. 6, November-

December 2002

[6] Turhan Bilir1, İsa Yükse, and İlker Bekir Topçu “Effects

of the Replacement of Industrial By-Products as Fine

Aggregate in Concrete on Chloride Penetration” Eskişehir

Osmangazi University, Department of Civil Engineering,

26480, Eskişehir, Turkey.

[7] ACI Committee 233, “Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace

Slag as a Cementitious Grout in Concrete (ACI 233R-

95),” American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills,

Mich., 1995, 18 pp.

[8] M S Shetty, “concrete technology theory and practice

”S.Chand Publication, Fifth Revised Edition 2002

[9] AM Navelle “Properties of Concrete, Fourth Edition,

Pearson Education, Second India Reprint 2003”

[10] Coutinho J Sousa (2003), “The combined benefits of CPF

and RHA in improving the Durability of Concrete

Structures”- Cement & Cement Composites Page- 51-59.


effect of partial replacement of ggbs slag as fine …were later investigated by michaelis,...

Documents