You are on page 1of 11

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ADVANCED RESEARCH 0976 International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSNIN 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 Journal Impact Factor (2012): 2.7078 (Calculated by GISI) www.jifactor.com

IJARET
IAEME

WORKABILITY STUDIES ON CONCRETE WITH GGBS AS A REPLACEMENT MATERIAL FOR CEMENT WITH AND WITHOUT SUPERPLASTICISER
V.S.TAMILARASAN Research Scholar &Assistant Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Dr.Sivanthi Aditanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur - 628 215. (Email: vstamil@yahoo.com) Dr.P.PERUMAL Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Government College of Engineering, Salem 636011. (Email: perumal2012@yahoo.co.in) DR.J.MAHESWARAN Principal, Dr.Sivanthi Aditanar College of Engineering, Tiruchendur 628 215. (Email: sacoeprincipal@gmail.com) ABSTRACT Concrete is the most widely used man-made construction material in the construction world. It is obtained by mixing cement, aggregates and water in required proportion. With increase in demand of concrete, more and more new methods and new materials are being developed for production of concrete. Sometimes certain additives are added to it to improve or alter some properties. Making concrete is an art which has to be perfectly done, otherwise that will end up with bad concrete. Hence as a Civil Engineer one should be thorough with the entire factors from which a good concrete is produced. A concrete using cement alone as a binder requires high paste volume, which often leads to excessive shrinkage and large evolution of heat of hydration, besides increased cost. An attempt is made to replace cement by a mineral admixture, (i.e.), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) in concrete mixes to overcome these problems. This paper presents the workability study of concrete with GGBS as a replacement material for cement with and without the addition of Superplasticiser. Concrete grades of M20 and M25have been taken for the work. The mixes were designed using IS Code method. GGBS replacement adopted was 0% to 100% in steps of
11

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

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

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

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

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

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

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Table 1 Workability of M20 grade GGBS Concrete with and without Superplasticiser (SP) Compacting Percentage Factor of Cement replacement Without With SP SP 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 0.83 0.84 0.85 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.9 0.9 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.9 0.89 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 0.83 0.82 0.86 0.86 0.87 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.9 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.9 0.89 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.85 Slump Value (mm) Without SP 25 25 26 28 29 31 33 35 36 38 38 39 40 39 35 31 28 25 22 20 15 With SP 29 30 31 34 34 35 38 40 41 42 43 45 45 44 41 36 34 30 28 25 22 Vee - bee Time (sec) Without SP 15.31 13.56 12.34 11.32 10.34 9.67 9.12 8.76 8.14 8.03 8.97 9.67 10.57 11.43 12.21 13.56 14.76 16.23 18.21 20.05 21.67 With SP 13.78 12.13 10.47 9.34 8.47 8.12 7.46 7.11 6.87 6.24 6.98 7.68 8.97 9.37 10.48 11.67 12.78 14.35 16.45 18.97 20.56 Flow value (%) Without SP 14.43 15.80 17.21 18.57 20.31 22.34 23.79 25.32 27.12 29.84 30.45 31.25 30.73 29.73 28.24 27.47 26.73 25.67 24.72 23.45 22.76 With SP 16.63 17.62 19.31 21.63 22.71 24.61 26.83 28.24 30.16 31.85 33.72 34.75 33.12 32.52 31.67 30.79 29.45 27.81 26.78 25.78 24.49

15

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Table 2 Workability of M25 grade GGBS Concrete with and without Superplasticiser (SP) Percentage of Cement replacement 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 Compacting Factor Without SP 0.85 0.85 0.86 0.88 0.89 0.89 0.9 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.93 0.92 0.91 0.9 0.88 0.87 0.86 0.85 0.84 With SP 0.87 0.88 0.88 0.89 0.9 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.93 0.94 0.94 0.95 0.95 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.9 0.89 0.88 0.87 Slump Value (mm) Without SP 29 30 30 32 33 35 37 40 42 43 44 45 44 42 40 36 33 30 27 24 20 With SP 35 35 37 38 38 40 42 45 46 48 49 50 50 47 45 42 40 36 32 30 26 Vee - bee Time (sec) Without SP 14.79 12.36 11.21 10.45 9.56 8.78 7.89 6.89 6.43 6.13 6.87 7.69 8.97 9.57 10.47 11.59 12.87 13.69 15.21 16.82 18.97 With SP 13.31 10.78 9.21 7.87 7.21 6.87 6.42 6.12 5.61 5.43 5.05 5.47 6.36 6.89 7.83 8.65 9.39 10.93 13.24 15.87 17.86 Flow value (%) Without SP 22.34 25.30 26.74 27.83 29.24 30.70 32.90 34.62 36.21 37.78 39.21 40.89 41.57 39.64 37.23 36.81 35.46 34.61 33.51 31.69 29.87 With SP 24.69 26.84 28.60 30.03 31.02 33.77 35.72 36.52 37.86 39.24 41.03 42.87 43.56 42.31 41.17 40.51 39.50 37.93 35.21 34.23 32.56

16

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

1.2 1.1 1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

Compaction Factor

0.93

0.92

0.93

0.94

0.91

0.92

0.89

0.89

0.91

0.88

0.89

Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser


0.88 0.87 0.9 0.86 0.84 90 0.89 0.86 90 0.85 0.83 0.88 0.85 0.85 100 100 0.84 0.87 0.82

0.87

0.86

0.86

0.9

0.91

0.92

0.91

0.9

0.9

0.89

0.89

0.9

0.87

0.88

0.89

0.86

0.87 0.91 0.9

0.85

0.86 80 0.91 0.88 80

0.83

0.84

10

20

30

% of Replacement Level

40

50

60

70

Fig 1 Variation of Compaction Factor Value of M20grade GGBS concrete with &without Superplasticiser
1.2

Compaction Factor

0.95

0.94

0.94

0.95

0.92

0.93

0.94

0.91

0.88

0.87

0.9

0.93

0.92

0.93

0.91

0.91

0.92

0.89

0.88

0.89

0.91

0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6

0.9

0.9

0.85

0.85

10

0.86

20

30

% of Replacement Level

40

50

60

70

Fig 2 Variation of Compaction Factor Value of M25grade GGBS concrete with & without Superplasticiser
50 43 45 45 44 41 40 41 42 45 38 36 34 40 34 34 35 31 30 28 35 29 30 38 38 39 40 39 25 30 35 36 35 22 31 33 31 25 29 28 20 25 25 26 28 25 22 20 Without Superplasticiser 15 10 15 With Superplsticiser 5 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Slump Value (mm)

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

17

0.87

0.9

0.88

0.89

0.91

0.92

1.1

Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser

0.85

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

Without Superplasticiser 55 48 49 50 50 47 50 45 46 45 With Superplsticiser 42 42 40 45 38 38 40 36 40 35 35 37 45 44 32 30 42 43 44 42 40 35 40 37 26 36 30 35 33 32 33 25 29 30 30 30 27 20 24 15 20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 % of Replacement Level

Fig 4Variation of Slump Value of M25 grade GGBS concrete with & without Superplasticiser
25.00 18.21 90 16.45 15.21 90 13.24 20.05 18.97 16.82 15.87

Slump Value (mm)

15.31

13.56

12.34

Vee - bee Time

11.32

10.34

10.57

11.43

9.12

8.14

8.03

15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 13.78

8.76

8.97

12.13

10.47

8.47

8.12

7.46

7.11

6.87

10

20

30

% of Replacement Level

40

6.24

50

6.98

7.68

60

70

10.48

9.34

8.97

9.37

11.67

80

12.78

14.35

100

Fig 5 Variation of Vee - bee Time of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & without Superplasticiser
30.00 14.79 25.00 20.00 15.00 10.00 5.00 0.00 0 10 13.31 12.36 12.87 13.69

Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser


11.21 10.45 9.56 8.78 8.97 9.57 10.47 11.59 7.89 6.89 6.43 6.13 6.87 7.69

Vee - bee Time

10.78

9.21

7.87

7.21

6.87

6.42

6.12

5.61

5.43

20

30

40

50

5.05

5.47

60

6.36

6.89

70

7.83

8.65

80

10.93

9.39

100

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

18

17.86

18.97

20.56

20.00

9.67

9.67

12.21

13.56

14.76

16.23

Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser

21.67

30.00

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

33.72

34.75

50 40

33.12

31.85

32.52

31.67

30.16

30.79

28.24

29.45

Without Superplasticiser With SuperPlasticiser


26.83 24.61 16.63 17.62 19.31 21.63 22.71

27.81

26.78

25.78 23.45 34.23 31.69

Flow Value %

31.25

29.84

30.45

30.73

30 20 10 0

29.73

28.24

27.12

27.47

26.73

25.32

25.67

23.79

24.72

14.43

15.80

10

17.21

18.57

20

20.31

22.34

30

% of Replacement Level

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Fig 7 Variation of Flow Value of M20 grade GGBS concrete with & without Superplasticiser
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 35.72 36.52 37.93 33.77 35.21 50 28.60 30.03 31.02 32.56 100 29.87

Flow Value %

24.69

26.84

40 30 20 10 0

37.78

37.23

36.21

36.81

34.62

35.46

34.61

22.34

25.30

26.74

27.83

29.24

30.70

32.90

Without Superplasticiser With Superplasticiser


10 20 30

% of Replacement Level

40

50

60

70

80

90

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

33.51

22.76

24.49

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

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.505514. 3. Adakhar(2001) Compatibility of super plasticizer slag added concrete in sulphate resistance and chloride penetration, Advances in Civil Engineering Materials and construction technology, 33, pp. 4. Alexander MG, Milne TI, Influence of cement Blend and aggregate type of stress strain behaviour and elastic modulus of concrete, AC1 Materials Journal, 92, no.3, pp227-235. 5. Annie peter, Rajamane N.P (1997), Bond strength of reinforcement in High performance concrete: The role of GGBS, casting position and super plasticizer dosage, Indian concrete Journal, pp. 6. Kyong YunYeau, EunyumKi(2005) An experimental study on corrosion resistance of concrete with ground granulate blast - furnace slag Cement and Concrete Research, 35, pp1391 1399. 7. Dr. John Munguikunethar (2003) Innovative use of GGBS in construction, ACI materials journal, vol.92, pp. 8. Wang Timi (2002) Cracking tendency and drying shrinkage of GGBS using concrete for bridge deck application, ACI materials journal, vol.27, pp. 9. Manoj, K Jain and S.C.Pal (1998) Utilisation of Industrial slag in Making High Performance Concrete Composites, The Indian Concrete Journal, pp 307 315. 10. Odd E.Gjrv (1995) Influence of silica fume replacement of cement on physical properties and resistance to sulphate attack, freezing and thawing, and alkali-silica reactivity, ACI materials journal, vol.92, No.6, pp591-598. 11. D.Etrodedroit D, Michigan (1994) ACI 2026 IR 87 GGBS as a cementeous constituent in concrete, ACI manual of concrete practice, Part-I materials and general properties of concrete. 12. EtrodedroitD., Michigan (1994) ACI 212.3R-91, Chemical admixtures of concrete, ACI manual of concrete practice, Part I: Materials and general properties of concrete, 31. 13. SakaiK. (1992) Properties of GGBS cement concrete in fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete, Volume II V.M.Malhodra, ACI SP132 D.Etrodedroit, Michigan. 14. L.Zeghichi (2006) The Effect of Replacement of Naturals Aggregates by slag products on the strength of concrete, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol 7, Nov, pp 27-35. 15. M.Shariq et.al (2008) Strength Development of Cement Mortar and Concrete incorporating GGBFS, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), Vol 9, No 1, pp 61-74. 16. Reportby ACI committee 226, IR 87 GGBF Slag as cementitious constituent in concrete.
20

International Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET), ISSN 0976 6480(Print), ISSN 0976 6499(Online) Volume 3, Number 2, July-December (2012), IAEME

17. IS: 456-2000, Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 18. IS: 10262-2004, Code of Practice for Concrete Mix Design, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 19. IS: 12269-1987, Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi. 20. M.S.Shetty (2003) A Text Book of Concrete Technology, S.Chand& Co, New Delhi. 21. Gambhir (2003) A Text Book of Concrete Technology, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi. 22. A.M.Neville (2004) A Text Book of Concrete Technology, Tata McGraw Hill, New Delhi.

21