issn 2320 -5083 journal of international · 2014. 4. 1. · journal of international academic...

Journal of International Academic Research for Multidisciplinary

ISSN 2320 -5083

A Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, Monthly, Open Access, Online Research Journal

Impact Factor – 1.393

VOLUME 1 ISSUE 10 NOVEMBER 2013

A GLOBAL SOCIETY FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY RESEARCH

www.jiarm.com

A GREEN PUBLISHING HOUSE

Editorial Board

Dr. Kari Jabbour, Ph.D Curriculum Developer, American College of Technology, Missouri, USA.

Er.Chandramohan, M.S System Specialist - OGP ABB Australia Pvt. Ltd., Australia.

Dr. S.K. Singh Chief Scientist Advanced Materials Technology Department Institute of Minerals & Materials Technology Bhubaneswar, India

Dr. Jake M. Laguador Director, Research and Statistics Center, Lyceum of the Philippines University, Philippines.

Prof. Dr. Sharath Babu, LLM Ph.D Dean. Faculty of Law, Karnatak University Dharwad, Karnataka, India

Dr.S.M Kadri, MBBS, MPH/ICHD, FFP Fellow, Public Health Foundation of India Epidemiologist Division of Epidemiology and Public Health, Kashmir, India

Dr.Bhumika Talwar, BDS Research Officer State Institute of Health & Family Welfare Jaipur, India

Dr. Tej Pratap Mall Ph.D Head, Postgraduate Department of Botany, Kisan P.G. College, Bahraich, India.

Dr. Arup Kanti Konar, Ph.D Associate Professor of Economics Achhruram, Memorial College, SKB University, Jhalda,Purulia, West Bengal. India

Dr. S.Raja Ph.D Research Associate, Madras Research Center of CMFR , Indian Council of Agricultural Research, Chennai, India

Dr. Vijay Pithadia, Ph.D, Director - Sri Aurobindo Institute of Management Rajkot, India.

Er. R. Bhuvanewari Devi M. Tech, MCIHT Highway Engineer, Infrastructure, Ramboll, Abu Dhabi, UAE Sanda Maican, Ph.D. Senior Researcher, Department of Ecology, Taxonomy and Nature Conservation Institute of Biology of the Romanian Academy, Bucharest, Romania Dr. Reynalda B. Garcia Professor, Graduate School & College of Education, Arts and Sciences Lyceum of the Philippines University Philippines Dr.Damarla Bala Venkata Ramana Senior Scientist Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture (CRIDA) Hyderabad, A.P, India PROF. Dr.S.V.Kshirsagar, M.B.B.S,M.S Head - Department of Anatomy, Bidar Institute of Medical Sciences, Karnataka, India. Dr Asifa Nazir, M.B.B.S, MD, Assistant Professor, Dept of Microbiology Government Medical College, Srinagar, India. Dr.AmitaPuri, Ph.D Officiating Principal Army Inst. Of Education New Delhi, India Dr. Shobana Nelasco Ph.D Associate Professor, Fellow of Indian Council of Social Science Research (On Deputation}, Department of Economics, Bharathidasan University, Trichirappalli. India M. Suresh Kumar, PHD Assistant Manager, Godrej Security Solution, India. Dr.T.Chandrasekarayya,Ph.D Assistant Professor, Dept Of Population Studies & Social Work, S.V.University, Tirupati, India.

JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL ACADEMIC RESEARCH FOR MULTIDISCIPLINARY Impact Factor 1.393, ISSN: 2320-5083, Volume 1, Issue 10, November 2013

328 www.jiarm.com

EFFECTS OF THE USAGE OF FLY ASH AS PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT ON THE MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

JAYESHKUMAR PITRODA*

DR. L.B.ZALA** DR.F.S.UMRIGAR***

*Assistant Professor & Research Scholar, Dept. of Civil Engineering, B.V.M. Engineering College, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Gujarat, India

**Head & Professor, Dept. of Civil Engineering, B.V.M. Engineering College, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Gujarat, India ***Principal, B.V.M. Engineering College, Vallabh Vidhyanagar, Gujarat, India

ABSTRACT The fly ash is a residue resulting from combustion of pulverized coal in thermal power plants.

The utilization of thermal industry waste fly ash (Class-F) can reduce the consumption of

natural resources, reduce the quantity of expensive cement, reduce environmental pollution

and make cement concrete structures denser and thus improve their durability. In recent

years, many researchers have established that the use of supplementary cementitious

materials (SCMs) like fly ash, blast furnace slag, silica fume, metakaolin, rice husk ash and

hypo sludge etc. can, not only improve the various properties of concrete - both in its fresh

and hardened states, but also can contribute to economy in construction costs. This research

work describes the feasibility of using the fly ash (Class-F) in concrete production as partial

replacement of cement by weight. The use of fly ash in concrete formulations as a

supplementary cementitious material was tested as an alternative to conventional concrete.

The cement has been replaced by fly ash accordingly in the range of 0% (without fly ash),

10%, 20%, 30% and 40% by weight of cement for M-25 and M-40 mix. Concrete mixtures

were produced, tested and compared in terms of compressive and split strength to the

conventional concrete. These tests were carried out to evaluate the mechanical properties for

the test results for compressive strength up to 90 days and split strength for 90 days are taken. KEY WORDS: Fly Ash, Compressive Strength, Split Strength, Supplementary Cementitious Materials, Cost INTRODUCTION Incorporating fly ashes in cementitious systems is nowadays considered a common

practice in the construction industries. However, the fly ash quantities that are produced

globally are steadily increasing, exceeding the utilization rates that in most countries remain

low. Modern concrete often includes the use of supplementary cementitious materials

(SCM).These materials are often co-products of other processes or natural materials. Some

require further processing before they are suitable for concrete. fly ash is the most common

SCMs used in concrete. Most concrete produced today includes these materials. For this


329 www.jiarm.com

reason their properties are frequently compared to each other by mix designers seeking to

optimize concrete mixtures.

The burning of harder, older anthracite and bituminous coal typically produces Class F fly

ash. This fly ash is pozzolanic in nature, and contains less than 20% lime (CaO). Possessing

pozzolanic properties, the glassy silica and alumina of Class F fly ash requires a cementing

agent, such as Portland cement, quicklime, or hydrated lime, with the presence of water in

order to react and produce cementitious compounds. Alternatively, the additions of a

chemical activator such as sodium silicate to a Class F ash can lead to the formation of a

geopolymer.

Fly ash is the finely divided mineral residue resulting from the combustion of ground or

powdered coal in electric power generating thermal plant. Fly ash is a beneficial mineral

admixture for concrete. The hydration reactions are similar to the reactions occurring during

the hydration of Ordinary Portland Cement. Thus, concrete containing Fly Ash pozzolan

becomes denser, stronger and generally more durable long term as compared to straight

Ordinary Portland Cement concrete mixtures.

The present day world is witnessing the construction of very challenging and aesthetic

structures. Fly Ash is economical. The cost of Fly Ash is generally less than Ordinary

Portland Cement depending on transportation. Significant quantities may be substituted for

Ordinary Portland Cement in concrete mixtures and yet increase the long term strength and

durability. Thus, the use of Fly Ash may impart considerable benefits to the concrete mixture

over a plain concrete for less cost. There are main reasons to use fly ash in concrete:

Reducing cost of concrete production, Improve the quality of fresh and hardened concrete,

Extend the concrete lifetime. In the present experimental investigation on effects of the usage

of fly ash as partial replacement of cement on the mechanical properties of concrete on M25

and M40 grades of concrete.

DESIGN MIX MATERIALS

a) Supplementary cementitious material: Fly Ash

Fly ash is composed of the non-combustible mineral portion of coal. Particles are glassy,

spherical ‘ball bearings’ finer than cement particles. Sizes of particle are 0.1µm-150 µm. It is

a pozzolonic material which reacts with the free lime in the presence of water, converted into

calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) which is the strongest and durable portion of the post in


330 www.jiarm.com

concrete. The fly ash is procured from Maize Products (A division of Sayaji Industries Ltd)

Power plant. This plant is located near kathwada in Ahmedabad District in Gujarat State.

b) Cement

The most common cement used is an Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). The Ordinary

Portland Cement of 53 grades conforming to IS:8112-1989 is used. Many tests were

conducted on cement; some of them are specific gravity, consistency tests, setting time tests,

compressive strengths, etc.

TABLE 1 PROPERTIES OF ORDINARY PORTLAND CEMENT 53 GRADES

Sr. No.

Physical properties of cement Result Requirements as per IS:8112-1989

1 Specific gravity 3.15 3.10-3.15 2 Standard consistency (%) 28% 30-35

3 Initial setting time (hours, min) 35 min 30 minimum 4 Final setting time (hours, min) 178 min 600 maximum

5 Compressive strength- 7 days 38.49 N/mm2 43 N/mm2 6 Compressive strength- 28 days 52.31 N/mm2 53 N/mm2

c) Aggregate

Aggregates are the important constituents in concrete. They give body to the concrete,

reduce shrinkage and effect economy. One of the most important factors for producing

workable concrete is a good gradation of aggregates. Good grading implies that a sample

fractions of aggregates in required proportion such that the sample contains minimum voids.

Samples of the well graded aggregate containing minimum voids require minimum paste to

fill up the voids in the aggregates. Minimum paste means less quantity of cement and less

water, which is further mean increased economy, lower shrinkage and greater durability.

d) Coarse Aggregate

The fractions from 20 mm to 4.75 mm are used as coarse aggregate. The Coarse Aggregates

from crushed Basalt rock, conforming to IS: 383 are used. The Flakiness Index and

Elongation Index were maintained well below 15%.

e) Fine aggregate

Those fractions from 4.75 mm to 150 microns are termed as fine aggregate. The river

sand and crushed sand are used in combination as fine aggregate conforming to the

requirements of IS: 383. The river sand is washed and screened, to eliminate deleterious

materials and oversize particles.


331 www.jiarm.com

TABLE 2 PROPERTIES OF AGGREGATES

Property Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate 20 mm down 10 mm down

Fineness modulus 3.35 7.54 3.19 Specific Gravity 2.38 2.76 2.69 Water absorption (%) 1.20 1.83 1.35 Bulk Density (gm/cc) 1753 1741 1711

f) Water

Water is an important ingredient of concrete as it actually participates in the chemical

reaction with cement. Since it helps to from the strength giving cement gel, the quantity and

quality of water are required to be looked into very carefully. Water cement ratio used is 0.50

for M25 and 0.38 for M40 concretes.

DESIGN MIX METHODOLOGY

a) Design Mix

A mix M25 and M40 grade were designed as per IS 10262:2009 and the same was used to

prepare the test samples. The design mix proportion is shown in Table 3

TABLE 3 CONCRETE DESIGN MIX PROPORTIONS

Sr.No.

Concrete Mix

Concrete Design Mix Proportion (By Weight in kg)

Cement Replacement

by Fly ash

W/ C ratio

C F. A. C. A.

1 A1 0.50 372.00 558.60 1251.90 - 2 B1 0.50 334.80 558.60 1251.90 37.20 3 B2 0.50 297.60 558.60 1251.90 74.40 4 B3 0.50 260.40 558.60 1251.90 111.60 5 B4 0.50 223.20 558.60 1251.90 148.80 6 A2 0.38 473.68 341.91 1419.30 - 7 B5 0.38 426.31 341.91 1419.30 47.37 8 B6 0.38 378.94 341.91 1419.30 94.74 9 B7 0.38 331.58 341.91 1419.30 142.10 10 B8 0.38 284.21 341.91 1419.30 189.47

W/C = Water/Cement, C= Cement, F. A. = Fine Aggregate, C. A. = Coarse Aggregate


332 www.jiarm.com

b) Compression and Split Test

Standard metallic cube moulds (150*150*150 mm) were casted for compressive and split

strength. A table vibrator was used for compaction of the hand filled concrete cubes. The

specimens were demoulded after 24 hours and subsequently immersed in water for different

age of testing. For each age three specimens were tested for the determination of average

compressive and split strength. The test was performed on compression testing machine

having capacity of 200 MT. Figure 1and2 shows the setup of compressive and split strength

testing machine.

Fig.1. Setup of Compressive Strength Test

Fig.2. Setup of Split Strength Test

RESULTS

Thecompressive strength results are compiled in Table-4 and split strength in Table-5. The

compressive strength v/s % replacements of cement results are graphically shown in figure 3

and 4. The same for split strength is in figure 5 and 6.


333 www.jiarm.com

TABLE 4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AND % CHANGE OF STRENGTH AT 7, 14, 28, 56 AND 90 DAYS FOR M25 AND M40 Concrete

Mix

Average Compressive Strength at % Change in Compressive Strength at

7days

[N/mm2]

14 days

[N/mm2]

28 days

[N/mm2]

56 days

[N/mm2]

90 days

[N/mm2]

7

days

14

days

28

days

56

days

90

days

A1 28.76 32.00 38.52 40.30 42.52 0 0 0 0 0

B1 21.33 30.90 34.67 35.41 36.30 (-) 25.83 (-) 3.43 (-) 9.99 (-) 12.13 (-)14.62

B2 16.15 23.78 24.30 25.63 26.07 (-) 43.84 (-) 25.68 (-) 36.91 (-) 36.40 (-) 38.68

B3 13.04 15.11 22.37 23.26 24.74 (-) 54.65 (-) 52.78 (-) 41.92 (-) 42.28 (-) 41.81

B4 9.93 14.81 17.33 22.22 23.56 (-) 65.47 (-) 53.71 (-) 55.00 (-) 44.86 (-) 44.59

A2 34.81 45.04 50.81 52.89 53.93 0 0 0 0 0

B5 29.33 34.96 38.22 40.74 42.52 (-) 15.74 (-) 22.38 (-) 24.77 (-) 22.97 (-) 21.15

B6 23.79 25.48 27.70 30.81 33.78 (-) 31.65 (-) 43.42 (-) 45.48 (-) 41.74 (-) 37.36

B7 18.10 18.37 22.52 25.48 26.52 (-) 48.00 (-) 59.21 (-) 55.67 (-) 51.82 (-) 50.82

B8 14.61 16.44 21.63 23.70 25.33 (-) 58.02 (-) 63.49 (-) 57.42 (-) 55.19 (-) 53.03

28.7621.33 16.15 13.04 9.93

32.00 30.9023.78 15.11 14.81

38.52 34.6724.30 22.37 17.33

40.30 35.4125.63 23.26 22.22

42.52 36.3026.07 24.74 23.56

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.00

A1 (0%) B1 (10%)

B2 (20%)

B3 (30%)

B4 (40%)

CO

MPR

ESS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

HT

OF

CO

NC

RET

E (N

/mm

2 )

% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH

% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH V/S COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE (N/mm2)

SPECIMEN AT 7, 14, 28, 56 AND 90 DAYS FOR M25

7 DAYS14 DAYS28 DAYS56 DAYS90 DAYS

Fig.3. % Replacement of Cement by Fly AshV/S Compressive Strength of Concrete (N/mm2)

Specimen at 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 Days for M25


334 www.jiarm.com

34.8129.33 23.79 18.10 14.61

45.0434.96 25.48 18.37 16.44

50.8138.22

27.70 22.52 21.63

52.8940.74

30.81 25.48 23.70

53.9342.52

33.7826.52 25.33

0.0010.0020.0030.0040.0050.0060.00

A2 (0%)

B5 (10%)

B6 (20%)

B7 (30%)

B8 (40%)

CO

MPR

ESS

IVE

ST

RE

NG

HT

O

F C

ON

CR

ET

E (N

/mm

2 )


% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH V/S COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE (N/mm2)

SPECIMEN AT 7, 14, 28, 56 AND 90 DAYS FOR M40

7 DAYS

14 DAYS28 DAYS

Fig.4. % Replacement of Cement by Fly AshV/S Compressive Strength of Concrete (N/mm2) Specimen at 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 Days for M40 TABLE 5 SPLIT STRENGTH AND % CHANGE OF STRENGTH AT 28, 56 AND 90 DAYS FOR M25 AND M40 Concrete

Mix

Average split Strength for cubes at % Change in split strength at

28 days [N/mm2]

56 days [N/mm2]

90 days [N/mm2]

28 days 56 days 90 days

A1 3.87 3.93 4.10 0 0 0 B1 3.44 3.59 3.70 (-) 11.11 (-) 8.65 (-) 9.75 B2 2.41 2.55 2.64 (-) 37.72 (-) 35.11 (-) 35.60 B3 2.26 2.31 2.44 (-) 41.60 (-) 41.22 (-) 40.48 B4 1.84 2.21 2.38 (-) 52.45 (-) 43.76 (-) 41.95 A2 5.14 5.30 5.42 0 0 0 B5 3.82 4.08 4.28 (-) 25.68 (-) 23.01 (-) 21.03 B6 2.78 3.05 3.41 (-) 45.91 (-) 42.45 (-) 37.08 B7 2.32 2.56 2.69 (-) 54.86 (-) 51.69 (-) 50.36 B8 2.13 2.40 2.53 (-) 58.56 (-) 54.71 (-) 53.32

3.87 3.44 2.41 2.26 1.843.93 3.59

2.55 2.31 2.21

4.10 3.70 2.64 2.44 2.38

0.002.004.006.00

A1 (0%) B1 (10%) B2 (20%) B3 (30%) B4 (40%)

SPLI

T ST

RE

NG

HT

OF

CO

NC

RET

E (N

/mm

2 )


% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH V/S SPLIT STRENGTH OF CONCRETE (N/mm2) SPECIMEN AT 28, 56

AND 90 DAYS FOR M25

28 DAYS56 DAYS90 DAYS

Fig.5. % Replacement of Cement by Fly AshV/S Split Strength of Concrete (N/mm2) Specimen at 28, 56 and 90 Days for M25


335 www.jiarm.com

5.14

3.822.78

2.32 2.13

5.30

4.083.05

2.56 2.40

5.42

4.283.41

2.69 2.53

0.001.002.003.004.005.006.00

A2 (0%) B5 (10%) B6 (20%) B7 (30%) B8 (40%)

SPL

IT S

TR

EN

GH

T O

F C

ON

CR

ET

E (N

/mm

2 )


% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH V/S SPLIT STRENGTH OF CONCRETE (N/mm2) SPECIMEN AT 28, 56

AND 90 DAYS FOR M40

28 DAYS56 DAYS90 DAYS

Fig.6. % Replacement of Cement by Fly AshV/S Split Strength of Concrete (N/mm2) Specimen at 28, 56 and 90 Days for M40 COST IMPACT ON CONCRETE

The basic market rates of materials are given in table 6. The change in cost due to addition of fly ash replacing cement is worked out in table 7. Cost decrease due to reduction in

cement.

TABLE- 6 COST OF MATERIALS Sr. No. Materials Rate (Rs/Kg)

1 Cement (OPC 53 grade) 6.40 2 Fly Ash 0.46 3 Fine aggregate 0.60 4 Coarse aggregate 0.65 5 Grit 0.65

TABLE-7 MATERIALS FOR DESIGNED M25 AND M40 CONCRETE Concrete

Mix %

Reduction in cement

Designed Materials for Concrete Total Cost [m3]

% Change in Cost Cement

[kg/m3] Fine

aggregate [kg/m3]

Coarse aggregate

[kg/m3]

Grit [kg/m3]

Fly ash [kg/m3]

A1 0 372.00 558.60 751.14 500.76 - 3529.70 0 B1 10 334.80 558.60 751.14 500.76 37.20 3308.73 (-) 6.26 B2 20 297.60 558.60 751.14 500.76 74.40 3087.76 (-) 12.52 B3 30 260.40 558.60 751.14 500.76 111.60 2866.79 (-) 18.78 B4 40 223.20 558.60 751.14 500.76 148.80 2645.82 (-) 25.04 A2 0 473.68 341.91 751.14 500.76 - 4159.24 0 B5 10 426.31 341.91 851.58 567.72 47.37 3877.87 (-) 6.76 B6 20 378.94 341.91 851.58 567.72 94.74 3596.49 (-) 13.53 B7 30 331.58 341.91 851.58 567.72 142.10 3315.17 (-) 20.29 B8 40 284.21 341.91 851.58 567.72 189.47 3033.79 (-) 27.05


336 www.jiarm.com

3529.70

3308.73 3087.762866.79 2645.82

4159.243877.87

3596.493315.17

3033.79

0500

10001500200025003000350040004500

0% 10% 20% 30% 40%

CO

ST O

F C

ON

CR

ET

EC

ON

CR

ET

E (R

s/m3 )


% REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY FLY ASH V/S COST OF CONCRETE (Rs/m3) SPECIMEN FOR M25 AND M40

COST OF CONCRETE FOR M25 COST OF CONCRETE FOR M40

Fig.7. % Replacement of Cement by Fly AshV/S Cost of Concrete (Rs/m3) Specimen for M25 and M40 CONCLUSIONS

Based on limited experimental investigations concerning the compressive and split

strength of concrete, the following conclusions are drawn:

(a) The 10% replacement of cement by fly ash in M25 grade of concrete gives compressive

strength of 35.41 N/mm2 and 36.30 N/mm2for 56 days and 90 days respectively and 20%

replacement of cement by fly ash in M40 grade of concrete gives compressive strength of

25.63 N/mm2 and 26.07 N/mm2for 56 days and 90 days respectively. This is lower than

traditional concrete but similar to the required strength.

(b) The 10% replacement of cement by fly ash in M40 grade of concrete gives compressive

strength of 40.74 N/mm2 and 42.52 N/mm2 for 56 days and 90 days respectively. This is

lower than traditional concrete but similar to the required strength.

(c) The 10% replacement of cement by fly ash in M25 grade of concrete gives split strength

of 3.59 N/mm2and 3.70 N/mm2 for 56 days and 90 days split strength respectively and

20% replacement of cement by fly ash in M40 grade of concrete gives split strength of

4.08 N/mm2 and 4.28 N/mm2 for 56 days and 90 days respectively. This is lower than

traditional concrete but similar to the required strength.

(d) Cement replaced by 40% fly ash in M25 grade of concrete at 28 days and 90 days, %

change in compressive strength in N/mm2 decreases from 55.00% to 44.59% and for M40


337 www.jiarm.com

grade of concrete at 28 days and 90 days, % change in compressive strength in

N/mm2decreasesfrom 57.42% to 53.03% shown in Table-4.

(e) Cement replaced by40% by fly ash in M25 grade of concrete at 28 days and 90 days, %

change in split strength in N/mm2 decreases from 52.45% to 41.95% and for M40 grade

of concrete at 28 days and 90 days, % change in compressive strength in N/mm2decreases

58.56% to 53.32% shown in Table-5.

(f) Compressive strength and split strength reduces when cement replaced by fly ash.

(g) For M25 grade of concrete 20% fly ash replacement and for M40 grade of concrete 10%

fly ash replacement gives required compressive strength.

(h) Cement replaced by40% by fly ash in M25 grade of concrete, % change in cost decreases

25.04% for M40 grade of concrete, % change in cost decreases 27.05% shown in Table-7.

REFERENCES 1. A.K. Jain “Use Of Industrial By-Products In Concrete And Quality Assurance In Production Of

Blended Cements”, 29th Conference on Our World In Concrete & Structures, Singapore , Article

Online Id: 100029038 pp. 312–320, 25 - 26 August 2004.

2. Bhatty, JI., J Gajda, PE., Botha, F. and MM Bryant, PG. Utilization of Discarded Fly Ash as a Raw

Material in the Production of Portland cement. Journal of ASTM International, Vol. 3, No. 10, 2006.

3. Dr. B. H. Narendra, “Compressive strength development of fly ash concrete for different cement

replacement levels” International journal of inventive engineering and science (IJIES), Volume-1,

Issue-6, pp.1-12, May 2013.

4. Dr S L Pati1, J N Kale , S Suman, “Fly Ash Concrete: A Technical Analysis For Compressive

Strength” ,International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies, E-ISSN2249–8974,

IJAERS/Vol. II/ Issue I/128-129, Oct.-Dec.,2012.

5. Ganesh Babu. K.,Siva Nageshwara Rao , “Efficiency of Fly Ash Concrete with Age” Cement and

Concrete Research , Vol. 26, No. 3, pp. 465-474, 1996.

6. IS 456:2000 “Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (fourth revision)”

7. IS 10262:2009 “Code of concrete mix proportioning – guidelines (first revision)”

8. J.Alam and M.N Akhtar , “Fly Ash Utilization in Different Sectors in Indian Scenario”, International

Journal of emerging trends in engineering and development ISSN 2249-6149, RS Publication Issue 1,

Vol.1, pp. 1-14, August-2011.

9. John Mungai Kinuthia, Linus Asanji Mofor, Uphie Chinje Melo, Demetri Djialli “From Ashes to

Riches: Utilization of waste materials for sustainable development in Africa” pp. 1-13

10. Cannon, R. W., “Proportioning Fly Ash Concrete Mixes For Strength And Economy”, Journal of The

American Concrete Institute; V. 65; No. 11; November 1968.

11. Mullick. A. K (2005), “Use of Fly ash in Structural Concrete: Part I - Why?”, The Indian Concrete

Journal, Vol. 79, pp.13-22,2005.


338 www.jiarm.com

12. Mullick. A. K (2005), “Use of Fly ash in Structural Concrete: Part II - How Much?”, The Indian

Concrete Journal, Vol. 79, pp. 10-14, 2005.

13. Nataraja. M. C., Ramalinga Reddy. B. M., Bhavanishankar. S., and Bharathraj Y. B, “Mix Design and

Some Properties of Cement Replacement by Large Volumes of Fly ash”, Proceedings of the Second

International Symposium as Concrete Technology for Sustainable Development, February - March

2005.

14. Oner , S. Akyuzb, R. Yildiza “An experimental study on strength development of concrete containing

fly ash and optimum usage of fly ash in concrete” Cement and Concrete Research , Vol.35, Issue 6, pp

1165117, 2004

15. P. Kumar Mehta, “High-Performance, High-Volume Fly Ash Concrete For Sustainable Development”,

International Workshop on Sustainable Development and Concrete Technology, pp. 3-14

16. Suresh Chandra Pattanaik , Dr. Akshaya Kumar Sabat, “A Study Of Nalco Fly Ash On Compressive

Strength For Effective Use In High Volume Mass Concrete For A Sustainable Development”,

International Conference on Sustainable Technologies for Concrete Constructions” by India Chapter of

American Concrete, Institute at Hotel ITC, The Maratha, Mumbai on 3rd & 4th September, pp. 1-

11,2010.

17. SEMSI YAZICI, HASAN ¸SAHAN AREL, “Effects of fly ash fineness on the mechanical properties

of concrete”, Indian Academy of Sciences, Sadhana , Vol. 37, Part 3, pp. 389–403, June 2012.

18. Santhakumar A R (2008) Concrete Technology, Oxford University Press, New Delhi.

19. Shetty M S (2003) Concrete Technology, S.Chand and Company Ltd, New Delhi.

20. Lovewell, C. E. and Hyland, Edward J., “Proportioning Concrete Mixes - A Method of Proportioning

Structural Concrete Mixtures With Fly Ash And Other Pozzolans”, American Concrete Institute

Publications SP-46-8.

21. Lovewell, C. E. and Washa, G. W., “Proportioning Concrete Mixes Using Fly Ash”, Journal of The

American Concrete Institute; V. 54; No. 12; June 1958.

22. Ujjwal Bhattacharjee, Tara Chandra Kandpal (2002), “Potential of fly ash utilisation in India”, Energy

27, 151-166, 2002.

23. Vimal Kumar, Mukesh Mathur, Shashank Shekhar Sinha, “A Case Study: Manifold Increase In Fly

Ash Utilisation In India”, Fly Ash Utilization Programme (FAUP), TIFAC, DST, New Delhi – 110016

I 1.1- I 1.8, 2005.

24. Vimal Kumar, Mukesh Mathur, Shashank Shekhar Sinha, “Fly Ash: An Environment Saviour”, Fly

Ash Utilization Programme (FAUP), TIFAC, DST, New Delhi – 110016, IV 1.1 – IV 1.4, 2005.

issn 2320 -5083 journal of international · 2014. 4. 1. · journal of international academic...

Documents