Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1303
The Study of Elastic & Mechanical Properties of
GGBS-Cement Concrete.
Miss. Sonali Govind Pawar
PG Student,
Civil Engg.Dept
SNDCOE & Rc Yeola
tuwar.sonali@gmail.com
Prof.Ansari U.S
Asst.Professor
Civil Engg.Dept
SNDCOE & Rc Yeola
ansariubaids@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
In recent years, rate of environmental pollution is increase due to increase in industrialization among the world. For production of cement required for construction industry give rise to increase in pollution of environment. In last few years various researches is conducted on ground granulated blast furnace slab (which is a byproduct of steel manufacturing industry) as a cement replacing material. It gives good results to some extent but it is get clear that it require further research work to minimize its weakness and established it as a effective cement replacement material. The investigation aimed to study the elastic and mechanical properties of GGBS-Cement concrete. The concrete M35 grade is used and various proportion of replacing Cement by GGBS is done. These experimental studies were carried out to determine the Elastic property such as modulus of elasticity and mechanical properties for 7, 28 and 56 days curing. Test results indicate that replacement of cement by GGBS up to the 20 to 30% gives good results.
Keywords
Digital Elastic properties, modulus of elasticity, GGBS-Cement concrete, compressive strength, various mixes, M35grade, ordinary Portland cement.
1. INTRODUCTION
The use of industrial waste material has encouraged the production of the cement and concrete in construction field. Various by-products and waste materials are being generated by various industries. Health problems are associated with disposal of waste material. Therefore, recycling of various waste materials is a great challenge in concrete industry. For many years ago, by-products such as fly ash, silica fume and iron industry slag were considered as waste materials. Concrete prepared by using such waste materials showed improvement in workability, strength and durability compared to normal concrete and has been used at the various places such as construction of power, chemical plants and under-water structures. From the recent history, intensive research studies have been carried out to explore all possible reused method and characteristics. Now the Construction waste, GGBS, steel slag, fly ash and have been accepted in many places as alterable aggregates in embankment, pavements, foundation and building construction, raw material in the manufacture of ordinary Portland cement. In past few years, there is an increasing awareness regarding environment pollution due to domestic waste and industrial waste. Now a
day’s pollution control board is formed to regulate environmental pollution due to industrial waste.GGBS is byproduct obtained from the iron manufacturing industry which may be used as partial replacement of concrete due to its inherent cementing properties. GGBS is non-metallic product having of silicates and aluminates of calcium and other bases. In India, where the development of the infrastructure projects are either being constructed or in completion of their planning and design stage such uses of water material in cement concrete will not only reduce the emission of the greenhouse gases but also will be the sustainable way of management of waste. The Fly ash, GGBS, Silica fume is some of the pozzolanic materials which can be used in concrete as partial replacement of cement. These materials include fly ash and GGBS used separately or in combination. The strength, durability and other characteristics of concrete depends on the ingredients, proportion mix, method of compaction and other controls during placing and curing.
GGBFS slag is a nonmetallic material obtained from the combination of the calcium and magnesium in calcareous stone with the aluminates and silicates in iron ore. The chemical and minerological composition of GGBS depends only on the characteristics of the metallurgical process and materials. GGBS is a mineral admixture and can be used as cement replacing materials in concrete composites. GGBS is a latent hydraulic material. Then C-S-H gel produces after reacting with water. The reaction is enhanced in the presence of CaOH that is formed from the primary hydration of OPC. A GGBS or FA-based binder using a power of typed activator can be widely applied as environment friendly materials in civil engineering because it involves the recycling of by-product material, low carbon oxide emissions and low energy consumption, and easier handling.
There are two reasons to use byproduct in concrete:
Decreasing cement consumption by the replacement of cement with these pozzolanic materials.
Enhancing the fresh and hardened concrete properties.
Concrete using GGBS cement which consists of GGBS and OPC has high resistance to chloride attack, chemical erosion and other deterioration. As well as the GGBS concrete has some disadvantages compared to ordinary Portland cement concrete, such as lower initial strength and very higher dry shrinkage. Hence, for wider use of GGBS in the construction field of concrete structures, it is needed to avoid such problems.
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1304
2. EXPERIMENTAL DETAILS
A For this experimental study ingredients used such as cement, GGBS, aggregate, sand, steel fibers, water. Here ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade was used and cement is replaced by GGBS in varying percentage by weight of cement. Hence the concrete is called as cement-GGBS concrete. Eight various mixes were prepared having variation in GGBS percentage such as 20%, 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, 70%, opc with steel fibers and 100% ordinary Portland cement.
2.1 Concrete Mix Design
The For this experimental study M35 grade of concrete used.mix design is done as per Indian Standard code of practice
2.2 Preparation Of Specimen
For the detailed study concrete cube having size 150mm*150mm*150mm, Cylindrical specimen having size 150m* 300mm and concrete beam of 150mm*50mm*50mm.
2.3 Details Of Different Type Of Mix
Table No 1details of different type of mix. SR.NO MIX NOTATION % OPC CEMENT % GGBS 1 opc 100 Nill 2 opc-sf 100 Nill 3 ma 80 20 4 mb 70 30 5 mc 60 40 6 md 50 50 7 me 40 60 8 mf 30 70
3. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND
DISCUSSION
A To determine the Elastic and Engineering properties of concrete having various percentages of GGBS, various test are conducted and the results obtained are good and satisfactory. Following results obtained by testing of specimens at different age of concrete specimen.
3.1 Engineering Properties
3.1.1 .Compressive Strength
This test is conducted on all eight concrete mixes at 3days, 7 days, 28days, 56 days. For each concrete mix three specimens are tested and average results interoperated.
Table No 2- Experimental test results for compressive strength
Sr.No Mix Type
Compressive Strength (MPa) 3 Day 7 Day 28Day 56Day 1 OPC 15.15 23.55 34.89 37.78 2 OPC-SF 16 24.44 36 39.56 3 MA 16.22 26 35.37 38.08 4 MB 18.44 27.11 39.42 43.33 5 MC 16.44 25.42 33.33 37.33 6 MD 14.15 24.80 32.67 36.22 7 ME 13.7 8 24.00 32.22 35.78 8 MF 12.8 9 23.38 31.24 36.06
Graph No 1: 28 Day Compressive strength all concrete mixes
Discussion:
for 28days compressive strength, results seems to similar as that of 7th day test results.
For mixes having replacement of GGBS beyond 30% shows slight reduction in compressive strength further but these decreasing rates of strength is 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
Tested Concrete Samples
opc opc -sf ma mb mc md me mf
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1305
minimum. No sudden or very abrupt fall incompressive strength of all the mixes specimens. 30% replacement shows good results at this stage
and it seen that it can used up to 20 to 30% replacement in cement concrete.
Graph No 2-Compressive strength of 56 Days all concrete mixes
Discussion
Compressive strength for 56days are satisfactory for all the mixes of concrete with GGBS
GGBS shows development of strength in concrete for various proportion is much more differ by strength developed in case of 100% OPC concrete as the day passes.
From the all experimental data, GGBS shows good results up to 30% replacement of concrete till the 56 days age.
3.1.2 .Split Tensile Strength
Table No 3 Split tensile strength test results.
Sr No Mix Proportion Split Tensile Strength(Mpa) Remark 7Days 28days 1 opc 3.85 4.28 As per clause No. 6.2.2 from page no. 16 of IS:456-2000 Split tensile strength of M35 grade concrete is 4.14 Mpa 2 opc- sf 3.80 4.20 3 Ma 3.72 4.25 4 Mb 3.70 4.05 5 Mc 3.76 4.17 6 Md 3.75 4.22 7 Me 3.70 4.20 8 Mf 3.68 4.35
Graph No 3 Split tensile strength representations of all mixes
Discussion:
Result obtained by testing for all replacement of all percentage of GGBS is somewhat less than the split tensile strength of OPC concrete.
GGBS with cement does not shows satisfactory results in split tensile strength test.
Further more detailed investigation is needed in this area to find out more improvement in split tensile strength with GGBS replacement.
3.1.3 .Flexural Strength
Table No 4 Flexural strength test result
Sr No Mix Proportion flexural Strength(Mpa) Remark 7 Days 28 days
1 opc 4.55 4.65 As per clause No. 6.2.2 from page no. 16 of IS:456-2000 flexural strength of M35 grade concrete is 4.14 Mpa 2 opc- sf 4.59 4.70 3 ma 4.50 4.50 4 mb 4.50 4.55 5 mc 4.40 4.68 6 md 4.04 4.09 7 me 4.15 4.25 8 mf 4.20 4.37 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
Tested Concrete Samples
opc opc -sf ma mb mc md me mf 3.2 3.4 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 S p il t te n si le s tr en g th o f c o n cr et e (Mp a )
Tested concrete samples
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1306
Graph No 4 Flexural strength test results for all mixesDiscussion:
Results of experimental data show that flexural strength of mix opc-sf having steel fibers with the plain concrete increases slightly.
Mixes having 20% GGBS and 30% GGBS replaced by cement shows moderate results.
It is clear that when percentage replacement of GGBS increases above 30%, flexural strength get reduced.
3.1.4.PULL OUT TEST
Pull out test is conducted on universal testing machine for M35 grade concrete with cubical specimen of 150 mm dimension and there is bar is inserted at centre of cube. This specimen is cured for 28 days under water.
Table No 5- Showing Results for Pull out Test
Sr. No. Mix Notation Pull out Strength (MPa) Remark
1 opc 12.17 As per IS456:2000, Clause No.26.2.1.1, Page No.43,Design Bond Stress of M35 grade concrete for deformed bar is 1.7 MPa 2 opc- sf 12.12 3 Ma 12.85 4 Mb 13.20 5 Mc 13.70 6 Md 12.05 7 Me 12.30 8 Mf 11.35
Graph No 5 Pull out of various concrete mixes Discussion
For the mix ma shown results are good it shows that bar embedded in concrete is having high fixing capacity. They show very good bond strength between concrete and steel bar. Hence replacement of cement by GGBS up to 20% cannot create any problem at all so it is safe to use.
3.1.5 .Ultrasonic Puise Velocity Test
This test is conduct to study the quality of concrete by ultrasonic pulse velocity method as per IS: 13311 (Part I)-1992.For this test three specimen are tested after 28 days curing under water.
Graph No 6 Ultrasonic pulse velocity of various concrete grades 3.6 3.8 4 4.2 4.4 4.6 4.8
Tested concrete samples
7 Days 28 Days Pu ll o u t S tr en g th in M Pa
Tested Concrete Samples
Design Bond Stress 1.7 Mpa 0 5 10 15 20 25 opc opc-sf ma mb mc md me mf P u lse V elo cit y in k m /se c
Tested concrete sampie
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1307
3.1.6. Water Absorption Test
Table No 6 Experimental test results for the water absorption test Sr. No. Mix Notation Wet weigh (gm) Dry weight (gm) Water absorbed (gm) % Water Absorption 1 opc 8070 8238 168 2.08 2 opc- sf 8079 8233 154 1.91 3 Ma 8075 8240 165 2.04 4 Mb 8079 8235 156 1.93 5 Mc 8085 8238 147 1.83 6 Md 8045 8220 175 2.17 7 Me 8057 8207 150 1.86 8 Mf 8065 8220 155 1.92
Graph No 7 Water absorption test results of various concrete mixes
3.2 Elastic Properties Modulus of Elasticity
To determine modulus of elasticity for each mix six specimen of cylinder are tested after 28 days and 56 days curing underwater. This test is conducted on universal testing machine.The Table no 4B and Graph no 4B shows the results obtained from modulus of elasticity test for different mix of M35 grade concreteTable No 7 Experimental test results for Modulus of elasticity
Sr. Mix Modulus of Remark
No. Notatio n
elasticity
28 days 56 days
1 opc 30.8 32.43 As per clause no.6.2.3 page no. 16 of IS: 456-2000 Modulus of elasticity of M35 grade concrete is 29.58 MPa 2 opc- sf 32.4 34.44 3 ma 31.75 33.44 4 mb 24.49 26.46 5 mc 21.54 21.72 6 md 24.49 26.46 7 me 22.12 24.51 8 mf 23.21 24.30
Graph No 8 showing comparison of 28 day Modulus of Elasticity of OPC concrete with all other mixes having replacement by GGBS 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 2 2.1 2.2 opc opc-sf ma mb mc md me mf % Wate r A b so rp ti o n Tested concrete specimen
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 opc-sf ma mb mc md me mf M od u lu s of E last ic it y of c on c r e te ( M p a)
Tested concrete samples 28 Days OPC 28 Days of mixes 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 o p c o p c-sf ma mb mc md me mf M o d u lu s o f E la st ic it y o f c o n cr et e (M p a )
Tested concrete samples
56 Days of all mixes
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1308
Graph No 7 -showing comparison of 28 days modulus ofelasticity of OPC concrete with all other mixes having replacement by GGBS.
Discussion
Result for the mix proportion of ma having 20%GGBS and 80% opc showing good results of modulus of elasticity at 28days and also at 56 days because very less percentage of cement is replaced by GGBS.2. Here the mix proportion of mb having 30% GGBS and 70% opc shows moderate result therefore we can go up to 20% replacement of GGBS in concrete
CONCLUSION
Modulus of elasticity of mix concrete of various mix proportion shows very good results. It is very important observation of this experimental study. This study shows Elastic properties such as modulus of elasticity of concrete having GGBS with cement is satisfactory. Due to this result purpose of experimental study fulfill.
Compressive strength results obtained by 20 to 30 % replacement of cement by GGBS for 3 days and 7 days curing period shows good results.
This GGBS replacement at 28 and 56 th day also shows satisfactory results. From this experimental study it is concluded that GGBS in some extent like up to 20 % of cement by weight can be used for structure which is not exposed to severe environment.
The crack patterns observed during test on GGBS replace concrete which does not exhibit typical compression failure behavior. The normal concrete shows a clean split of sample into two halves, whereas rubber aggregate tends to produce a less well defined failure. This may be an indication more ductility in rubberized concrete than the normal concrete.
Here split tensile strength shows very good results at 20% GGBS r]eplacement than opc concrete. Flexural strength test shows moderate results for 20
and 30 % replacement of cement with GGBS. Pull out test conducted show good bonding between
cement and GGBS particles and sufficient bond stress get developed up to the 28 day age.
Water absorption test shows mix result of water absorbed for all mixes of various replacements and it is within the permissible limit.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity test shows good quality of concrete because GGBS is very fine powder and it helps in making more dense concrete.
In this study, early age strength gain by partially replaced cement with GGBS is high as compared to OPC concrete
.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Oner, S. Akyuz, “An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete” Dept of civil engineering,Faculty of engineering Kocaely University,41010 Kocaely, Turkey , Cement and concrete composites, Jan 2007, pp-505-514 [2] Atteshamuddin sayad ans subhash patankar, “Effect
of steel fibres and low calcium fly ash on mechanical and elastic properties of Geopolymer concrete composites”,Dept of civil engineering SRES Coe, Kopargaon, Maharashtra,423601, India, Nov 2013, article id 357563.
[3] S.Arivalagan, “Sustainable studies of concrete with GGBS as a replacement material in cement” Professor & HOD, Dept of civil engineering, educational and research institute, Dr. M.G. R. University, Chennai, Tamilnadu, India, Vol.8 March 2014,pp 263-270.
[4] PradipNath,Prabir Saeker, “Effect of GGBFS on setting, Workability and early strength properties of fly ash geopolymer concrete cured in ambient condition”, Dept of civil engineering, Curtin University GEPO Box U1987,pearth, W6845,Austrilia.June 2014 pp 163-171
[5] N.Ganesan, Ruby Abraham, S.deepa Raj, “ Durability characteristics of reinforced geopolymer concrete” Department of Civil Engineering, NIT Calicat, Keral, Department of Civil Engineering, Coe Trivendram, Keral, India, Construction and bulding material 93 (2015), 471-476
[6] Cheah Chee Ban,Chung Yaw,Mahyuddin Ramli,Lim Keat, “The engineering properties and microstructure developement of cement mortor containing high volume of intergrinded GGBS and PFA cured at ambient temperature” Shool of housing , Bulding and planning university, Sans,Malesia,11800 Penag, Malesia, School of chemical sciences university, Sans,Malesia,11800, Minden pulau Pinag Malesia, Construction and building material,122 (2016) 683-693.
[7] Mohd.Shariq, Jagdish Prasad,H.Abbas, “Effect of GGBS on age dependant static modulus of elasticity of Concrete,Civil engineering section, university polytechnic, faculty of engineering and technology, Aligarh muslim university, Aligarh, India, Construction and building material 41 (2013) 411-418
.
[8] Sonali Gadpalliwar, R.S.Deotale, Abhijeet Narde, “ to study the partial replacement of GGBS and RHA and natural Sand in concrete”, Civil engineering dept, Yashwantrao chavan coe Nagpur, India,Volume11, Apr-2014,pp69-77.
[9] Kamal Neupane, “ fly ash and GGBS based powder activated geopolymer binders: A viable sustainable alternative of Portland cement in concrete industry”, masters of engineering by research, BE civil university of technology of Sydney. Austrilia mechanics of material 103( 2016) 110-122
Resincap Journal of Science and Engineering
Volume 5, Issue 3, April 2021
ISSN: 2456-9976
1309
[10] Piyush Chaunsali, Sulapha Peethamparan , “Evolution of strain, Micro structure and mineralogical composition of a CKD-GGBFS binders”, Dept of Civil, and environmental engineering, Clarkson university, Potsdam, NY13699,USA,cement and concrete research 41(2011) 197-208
[11] Wen-Ten Kuo, Her-Yung Wang, Chun-Ya Shu,” Engineering properties of cementless concrete produced from GGBFS abd recycled desulfurization Slag”, Department of civil engg,National Kaohsiung
University of Applied
Sciences,Kaohsiung807,Taiwan, Construction and Building Material 63(2014)189-196
[12] Hailong Wang, Qingbin Li,” Prediction of elastic modulus and poisons ratio for unsaturated concret”, Department of Hydraulic Engineering, State Key Laboratory of Hydroscience and Engineering, Tsinghua University,Beijing 100084, PR China, International Journal of Solids and Structure 44(2007) 1370-1379.
[13] Norazman Mohmad Nor, Mohd Hanif Ahmad Borstaman, Mohammed Alias Yusof,” Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer as Reinforcement For Concrete Beam”,University Pertahanan Nasional Malaysia,57000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, International Journal of Emerging Technology and Advanced Engineering.
About Authors:
Miss. Sonali G Pawar, she received her BE from P.D.V.V.P College of Engineering and currently perusing ME from SND College of Engineering and research centre, Yeola, Savitribai phule University, Pune, India.. Her main area of interest is to study the GGBS and its outcome when it used as replacement material of cement and to find the modulus of elasticity of GGBS-cement concrete.
Prof. Ansari U. S, Asso. Professor, Department of Civil Engg, SND College of Engineering and research centre, Yeola, Savitribai Phule Pune University,India.
