Introduction to Concrete: History, Composition and Uses

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Concrete is a composite material comprising of fine and coarse aggregate bonded
together with a fluid cement (cement paste) that hardens over time. Most concretes used are
lime-based concretes such as Portland cement concrete or concretes made with other
hydraulic cements, such as calcium aluminate cements. However, asphalt concrete, which
is frequently used for road surfaces, is also a type of concrete, where the cement material is
bitumen, and polymer concretes are sometimes used where the cementing material is a
polymer.
Cement is a binder, a substance used for construction that sets, hardens and adheres
to other materials, binding them together. Cement is seldom used on its own, but rather to
bind sand and gravel (aggregate) together. Cement is used with fine aggregate to produce
mortar or with sand and gravel aggregates to produce concrete. Cements used in
construction are usually inorganic, often lime or calcium silicate based, and can be
characterized as being either hydraulic or non-hydraulic, depending upon the ability of the
cement to set in the presence of water (see hydraulic and non-hydraulic lime plaster). Non-
hydraulic cement will not set in wet conditions or under water; rather, it sets as it dries and
reacts with carbon dioxide in the air. It is resistant to attack by chemicals. Hydraulic
cements (e.g., Portland cement) become adhesive due to a chemical reaction between the
dry ingredients and water. The chemical reaction results in mineral hydrates that are not
very water-soluble and so are quite durable in water and safe from chemical attack. This
allows setting in wet conditions or under water and further protects the hardened material
from chemical attack. The chemical process for hydraulic cement found by ancient
Romans used volcanic ash (pozzolana) with added lime (calcium oxide).
The word "cement" can be traced back to the Roman term opuscaementicium, used
to describe masonry resembling modern concrete that was made from crushed rock with
burnt lime as binder. The volcanic ash and pulverized brick supplements that were
added to the burnt lime, to obtain a hydraulic binder, were later referred to as cementum,
cimentum, cäment, and cement. In modern times, organic polymers are sometimes used as
cements in concrete.
CMRCET-MTECH
(Structural Engineering) 1 Department of Civil Engineering
When aggregate is mixed together with dry Portland cement and water, the mixture
forms a fluid slurry that is easily poured and molded into shape. The cement reacts
chemically with the water and other ingredients to form a hard matrix that binds the
materials together into a durable stone-like material that has many uses. Often, additives
(such as pozzolans or super plasticizers) are included in the mixture to improve the
physical properties of the wet mix or the finished material. Most concrete is poured with
reinforcing materials (such as rebar) embedded to provide tensile strength, yielding
concrete. Famous concrete structures include the Hoover Dam, the Panama Canal and the
Roman Pantheon. The earliest large- scale users of concrete technology were the ancient
Romans, and concrete was widely used in the Roman Empire. The Colosseum in Rome
was built largely of concrete, and the concrete dome of the Pantheon is the world's largest
unreinforced concrete dome. Today, large concrete structures (for example, dams and
multi-storey car parks) are usually made with reinforced concrete.
1.2 HISTORY
1.2.1 Pre History
Small-scale usage of concrete has been documented to be thousands of years old.

Concrete-like materials were used since 6500BC by the Nabataea traders or Bedouins, who
occupied and controlled a series of oases and developed a small empire in the regions of
southern Syria and northern Jordan. They discovered the advantages of hydraulic lime,
with some self-cementing properties, by 700 BC. They built kilns to supply mortar for the
construction of rubble-wall houses, concrete floors, and underground waterproof cisterns.
They kept the cisterns secret as these enabled the Nabataea to thrive in the desert. Some of
these structures survive to this day.
1.2.2 Classic Era
In the Ancient Egyptian and later Roman eras, builders re-discovered that adding
volcanic ash to the mix all owed it to set under water. German archaeologist Heinrich
Schliemann found concrete floors, which were made of lime and pebbles, in the royal
palace of Tiryns, Greece, which dates roughly to 1400– 1200 BC. Lime mortars were used
in Greece, Crete and Cyprusin800BC. The Assyrian Jerwan Aqueduct (688 BC) made use
of waterproof concrete. Concrete was used for construction in many ancient structures. The
Romans used concrete extensively from 300 BC to 476 AD, a span of more than seven
CMRCET-MTECH
hundred years. During the Roman Empire, Roman concrete (or opuscaementicium) was
made from quicklime, pozzolana and an aggregate of pumice. Its widespread use in
many Roman structures, a key event in the history of architecture termed the Roman
Architectural Revolution, freed Roman construction from the restrictions of stone and
brick materials. It enabled revolutionary new designs in terms of both structural complexity
and dimension.
Concrete, as the Romans knew it, was a new and revolutionary material. Laid in the
shape of arches, vaults and domes, it quickly hardened into a rigid mass, free from many of
the internal thrusts and strains that troubled the builders of similar structures in stone or
brick. Modern tests show that opuscaementicium had as much compressive strength as
modern Portland-cement concrete (ca. 200 kg/cm2 [20 Mpa; 2,800 psi]). However, due to
the absence of reinforcement, its tensile strength was far lower than modern reinforced
concrete, and its mode of application was also different.
Modern structural concrete differs from Roman concrete in two important details.
First, its mix consistency is fluid and homogeneous, allowing it to be poured into forms
rather than requiring hand-layering together with the placement of aggregate, which, in
Roman practice, often consisted of rubble. Second, integral reinforcing steel gives modern
concrete assemblies great strength in tension, whereas Roman concrete could depend only
upon the strength of the concrete bonding to resist tension.
The long-term durability of Roman concrete structures has been found to be due to
its use of pyroclastic (volcanic) rock and ash, whereby crystallization of strätlingite and the
coalescence of calcium–aluminum-silicate–hydrate cementing binder helped give the
concrete a greater degree of fracture resistance even in seismically active environments.
Roman concrete is significantly more resistant to erosion by seawater than modern
concrete; it used pyroclastic materials which react with seawater to form Al-tobermorite
crystals over time. The widespread use of concrete in many Roman structures ensured that
many survive to the present day. The Baths of Caracalla in Rome are just one example.
Many Roman aqueducts and bridges, such as the magnificent Pont du Gard in southern
France, have masonry cladding on a concrete core, as does the dome of the Pantheon.
CMRCET-MTECH
1.2.3 Middle Ages
After the Roman Empire, the use of burned lime and pozzolana was greatly reduced
until the technique was all but forgotten between 500 and the 14th century. From the 14th
century to the mid-18th century, the use of cement gradually returned.
1.2.4 Industrial Era
Perhaps the greatest driver behind the modern use of concrete was Smeaton's
Tower, the third Eddystone Lighthouse in Devon, England. To create this structure,
between 1756 and 1759, British engineer John Smeaton pioneered the use of
hydraulic lime in concrete, using pebbles and powdered brick as aggregate. Developed in
England in the 19th century, a method for producing Portland cement was patented by
Joseph Aspdin in 1824. Aspdin named it due to its similarity to Portland stone which was
quarried on the Isle of Portland in Dorset, England. His son William Aspdin is regarded as
the inventor of "modern" Portland cement due to his developments in the 1840s.
Reinforced concrete was invented in 1849 by Joseph Monier. In 1889 the first concrete
reinforced bridge was built, and the first large concrete dams were built in 1936, Hoover
Dam and Grand Coulee Dam concrete production is the process of mixing together the
various ingredients—water, aggregate, cement, and any additives—to produce concrete.
Concrete production is time-sensitive. Once the ingredients are mixed, workers must put
the concrete in place before it hardens. In modern usage, most concrete production takes
place in a large type of industrial facility called a concrete plant, or often a batch plant. In
general usage, concrete plants come in two main types, ready mix plants and central mix
plants. A ready mix plant mixes all the ingredients except water, while a central mix plant
mixes all the ingredients including water. A central mix plant offers more accurate control
of the concrete quality through better measurements of the amount of water added, but
must be placed closer to the work site where the concrete will be used, since hydration
begins at the plant.
A concrete plant consists of large storage hoppers for various reactive ingredients
like cement, storage for bulk ingredients like aggregate and water, mechanisms for the
addition of various additives and amendments, machinery to accurately weigh, move, and
mix some or all of those ingredients, and facilities to dispense the mixed concrete, often to
a concrete mixer truck. Modern concrete is usually prepared as a viscous fluid, so that it
CMRCET-MTECH
may be poured into forms, which are containers erected in the field to give the concrete
its desired shape. Concrete formwork can be prepared in several ways, such as Slip forming
and Steel plate construction. Alternatively, concrete can be mixed into dryer, non-fluid
forms and used in factory settings to manufacture Precast concrete products.
A wide variety of equipment is used for processing concrete, from hand tools to
heavy industrial machinery. Whichever equipment builders use, however, the objective is
to produce the desired building material; ingredients must be properly mixed, placed,
shaped, and retained within time constraints. Any interruption in pouring the concrete can
cause the initially placed material to begin to set before the next batch is added on top. This
creates a horizontal plane of weakness called a cold joint between the two batches. Once
the mix is where it should be, the curing process must be controlled to ensure that the
concrete attains the desired attributes. During concrete preparation, various technical
details may affect the quality and nature of the product.
When initially mixed, Portland cement and water rapidly form a gel of tangled
chains of interlocking crystals, and components of the gel continue to react over time.
Initially the gel is fluid, which improves workability and aids in placement of the material,
but as the concrete sets, the chains of crystals join into a rigid structure, counteracting the
fluidity of the gel and fixing the particles of aggregate in place. During curing, the cement
continues to react with the residual water in a process of hydration. In properly formulated
concrete, once this curing process has terminated the product has the desired physical and
chemical properties. Among the qualities typically desired, are mechanical strength, low
moisture permeability, and chemical and volumetric stability.
1.3 SILICA FUME
Silica fume, also known as micro silica, (CAS number 69012-64-2, EINECS
number 273-761-1) is an amorphous (non-crystalline) polymorph of silicon dioxide, silica.
It is an ultrafine powder collected as a by-product of the silicon and ferrosilicon alloy
production and consists of spherical particles with an average particle diameter of 150 nm.
The main field of application is as pozzolanic material for high performance
concrete..Silica fume is an ultrafine material with spherical particles less than 1 μm in
diameter, the average being about 0.15 μm. This makes it approximately 100 times smaller
than the average cement particle. The bulk density of silica fume depends on the degree of
CMRCET-MTECH
densification in the silo and varies from 130 (undensified) to 600 kg/m3. The specific
gravity of silica fume is generally in the range of 2.2 to 2.3. The specific surface area of
silica fume can be measured with the BET method or nitrogen adsorption method. It
typically ranges from 15,000 to 30,000 m2/kg. Silica fume is added to Portland
cement concrete to improve its properties, in particular its compressive strength, bond
strength, and abrasion resistance. These improvements stem from both the mechanical
improvements resulting from addition of a very fine powder to the cement paste mix as
well as from the pozzolan reactions between the silica fume and free calcium hydroxide in
the paste. Addition of silica fume also reduces the permeability of concrete
to chloride ions, which protects the reinforcing steel of concrete from corrosion, especially
in chloride-rich environments such as coastal regions and those of humid
continental roadways and runways (because of the use of deicing salts)
and saltwater bridges.
Fig: 1.1: Silica Fume

1.4 ROLE OF ROBO SAND
Fine aggregate is an essential component of concrete. The global consumption of
natural river sand is very high due to the extensive use of concrete. In particular, the
demand for natural river sand is quite high in developed countries owing to infrastructural
growth. In this situation some developing countries are facing a shortage in the supply of
natural sand. The non-availability of sufficient quantity of ordinary river sand for making
cement concrete is affecting the growth of the construction industry in many parts of the
CMRCET-MTECH
country. Therefore, the construction industries in developing countries are under stress to
identify alternative materials to reduce the demand on river sand. In order to reduce the
dependence on natural aggregates as the main source of aggregates in concrete, artificially
manufactured aggregates and artificial aggregates generated from industrial wastes provide
an alternative for the construction industry . Some alternative materials have already been
used in place of natural river sand. For example, fly ash, slag and lime stone, siliceous stone
powder, rock dust and quarry waste, robo sand were used in concrete mixture as a partial
replacement of natural sand. Important role of Robo sand for construction materials instead
of natural sand given as follows:
1.4.1 Replacement of Robo sand in concrete
It is obvious the available quantity of natural sand is decreasing during the past
decades. This seems to be a global trend, except some locations is relatively abundant with
natural sand. The reasons of natural sand absence is also similar all over the world, existing
natural sand deposits are being exhausted due to rapid urbanization, and new deposits are
located either underneath or too close to already built-up areas, or too far away from the
areas where the material is needed.
Environmental concerns are also being raised against uncontrolled extraction of
natural sand, with arguments mostly relating to protecting river beds against erosion and
the importance of natural sand acting as filter for ground water. All the above, combined
with issues of preserving areas of natural beauty, recreational value and biodiversity, are
now an integral part of the process of most local government agencies around the world
when granting permission for rock, minerals or natural sand extraction. Because of the
situation facing the construction industry today, which most agree will not change
dramatically in the foreseeable future, crushed aggregates are now replacing natural sand
and gravel in many countries.
In recent years, however, a change has taken place, driven by the sometimes acute
need to find a product which can match the properties of natural sand in concrete. A lot of
research and development projects have been initiated on a national basis by
manufacturers’ associations and by individual companies wishing to be at the forefront of
developments. It is impossible to quickly summarize all the results of this vast body of
work, but in general the findings point towards good possibilities of replacing natural sand
CMRCET-MTECH
with crushed fine aggregates. Recent research implies that robosand offers other positive
effects on concrete. An often- noted conclusion in various research and debate forums is
that a change of view and mindset is needed. In order to succeed, aggregate producers need
to move away from trying to use the ‘waste’ from an aggregate plant as a direct
replacement for natural sand in concrete, and instead look at the complete process that is
needed to produce a sand with the correct properties. The term ‘Robo sand’ has emerged as
a more fitting description to material which has been produced to meet the quality
requirements of the concrete (and asphalt) industry. For the aggregate producer, however, it
is not always easy to know exactly how to define the quality requirements for Robo sand.
While there is a well- defined set of standards describing the properties of coarse aggregate
(shape index, elongation index, PSV value etc.), the requirements for fine aggregate are not
so easy to define. For example, particle shape – which is crucial for fresh concrete
workability – is not easy to measure and describe for particle sizes from 0.063– 0.5mm.
1.4.2 The level of fineness for Robo sand
Another important issue is the fines content of Robo sand. This is often much higher
in Robo sand than in natural sand, due to the fact that the fines produced during nature’s
‘sand production process’ have been washed away. Industry standards allow only limited
amounts of fines (0.063–0.125mm particles) in the fine aggregate. Even if recent research
and a growing number of commercial examples point towards the advantages of using
higher amounts of fines, the optimum amount of fines will vary depending on what type of
concrete the sand is intended for. Hence, there is a need to remove the fines and then blend
them back in, regardless of the level required.
1.4.3 Advantages of Robo sand
 It is well graded in the required proportion.
 It does not contain organic and soluble compound that affects the setting time and
properties of cement, thus the required strength of concrete can be maintained.
 It does not have the presence of impurities such as clay, dust and silt coatings,
increase water requirement as in the case of river sand which impair bon between
cement paste and aggregate. Thus, increased quality and durability of concrete.
CMRCET-MTECH
1.5 OBJECTIVES
The main objectives of this project are as follows
1. To investigate the effect of 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% of silica fume on strength
parameters and 15% replacement of fine aggregate by Metakaolin on strength of
specimens.
2. To determine the suitable percentage replacement of Metakaolin and Silica fume
with respect to strength characteristics.
1.6 SCOPE OF STUDY
 To make use of locally available admixtures like Metakaolin and Robo Sand as
partial replacement of cement and fine aggregate.
CMRCET-MTECH
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
This chapter gives brief review about the various journals regarding silica fume and
Metakaolin which were used as partial replacement either in cement or fine aggregate.
2.2 LITERATURE REVIEW
Hanumesh et al. (2015) observes the Mechanical Properties of Concrete

Incorporating Silica Fume as Partial Replacement of Cement. The main aim of this work is
to study the mechanical properties of M20 grade control concrete and silica fume concrete
with different percentages (5, 10, 15 and 20%) of silica fume as a partial replacement of
cement. The result showed that the compressive strength of concrete is increased by the use
of silica fume up to 10% replacement of cement. From 10% there is a decrease in
compressive strength and the split tensile strength of concrete is increased by the use of
silica fume up to 10% replacement of cement. From 10% there is a decrease in split tensile
strength. The optimum percentage of replacement of cement by silica fume is 10% for M20
grade of concrete.
Kumar & Dhaka (2016) wrote a Review paper on partial replacement of cement
with silica fume and its effects on concrete properties. The main parameter investigated in
this study M-35 concrete mix with partial replacement by silica fume with varying 0, 5, 9,
12 and 15% by weight of cement. It presents a detailed experimental study on compressive
strength, flexural strength and split tensile strength for 7 days and 28 days respectively.
The results of experimental investigation indicate that the use of silica fume in concrete has
increased the strength and durability at all ages when compared to normal concrete.
Ghutke & Bhandari (2014) examine the Influence of silica fume on concrete.
Results showed that the silica fume is a good replacement of cement. The rate of strength
gain in silica fume concrete is high. Workability of concrete decreases as increase in % of
silica fume. The optimum value of compressive strength can be achieved in 10%
replacement of silica fume. As strength of 15% replacement of cement by silica fume is
more than normal concrete. The optimum silica fume replacement percentage varies from
10 % to 15 % replacement level.
CMRCET-MTECH
Shanmugapriya & Uma (2013) carried an Experimental Investigation on Silica
Fume as a partial Replacement of Cement in High Performance Concrete. The concrete
used in this investigation was proportioned to target a mean strength of 60 MPa and
designed as per A The water cement ratio (W/C) adopted was 0.32 and the Super
Plasticizer used was CONPLAST SP 430.Specimens such as cubes, beams and cylinders
were cast for various mix proportions and tested at the age of 7,14and 28 days CI
211.4R08.The investigation revealed that the partial replacement of cement by silica fume
will develop sufficient compressive strength, flexure strength and split tensile strength for
construction purposes. The optimum dosage of silica fume found to be 7.5% (by weight),
when used as partial replacement of ordinary Portland cement. 5. Roy & Sil (2012) Studied
the Effect of Partial Replacement of Cement by Silica Fume on Hardened Concrete. From
the study it has been observed that maximum compressive strength (both cube and
cylinder) is noted for 10% replacement of cement with silica fume and the values are
higher (by 19.6% and 16.82% respectively) than those of the normal concrete (for cube and
cylinder) whereas split tensile strength and flexural strength of the SF concrete
(3.61N/mm2 and 4.93N/mm2 respectively) are increased by about 38.58% and 21.13%
respectively over those (2.6 N/mm2 and 4.07 N/mm2 respectively) of the normal concrete
when 10% of cement is replaced by SF.
Jain &. Pawade (2015) studied the Characteristics of Silica Fume Concrete. The
physical properties of high strength silica fume concretes and their sensitivity to curing
procedures were evaluated and compared with reference Portland cement concretes, having
either the same concrete content as the silica fume concrete or the same water to
cementitious materials ratio. The experimental program comprised six levels of silica-fume
contents (as partial replacement of cement by weight) at 0% (control mix), 5%, 10%, 15%,
20%, and 25%, with and without superplasticizer. It also included two mixes with15%
silica fume added to cement in normal concrete. Durability of silica fume mortar was tested
in chemical environments of sulphate compounds, ammonium nitrate, calcium chloride,
and various kinds of acids.
Ajileye (2012) cement replacement up to 10% with silica fume leads to increase in
compressive strength for M30 grade of concrete. From 15% there is a decrease in
compressive strength for 3, 7, 14 and 28 days curing period. Compressive strength of M30
CMRCET-MTECH
grade of concrete was increased from 16.15% to 29.24% and decrease from 23.98% to
20.22%. 9. Sharma & Seema (2012) examined the effect of partial replacement of cement
with silica fume on compressive strength of concrete.M20 grade of concrete with W/C
ratio as 0.5 and percentage replacement was 0%, 10%, 20%. The optimum compressive
strength is obtained at 20% cement replacement by a Silica Fume at all age levels (i.e.24
hours, 7&28days).The 28days compressive strength at 20% replacement was found to be
32.29 mpa with a slump value of 21mm. 10.Pradhan and Dutta (2013) investigated the
effects of silica fume on conventional concrete The optimum compressive strength was
obtained at 20% cement replacement by silica fume at 24 hours, 7days and 28 days. Higher
compressive strength resembles that the concrete incorporated with silica fume was high
strength concrete.
Jian Tong Ding (2002) investigated the MK or SK on the workability, strength,
shrinkage and resistance to chloride penetration of concrete were investigated and
compared in this study. For the given mixture proportions, MK offers better workability
than does SF. As the replay\cement level was increased, the strength of the MK – modified
concrete increased at all ages. The increase in the strength was similar to that of the SF –
modified concrete. The incorporation of the both MK and SF in concrete can reduce the
free drying the free drying shrinkage and restrained shrinkage cracking width. The initial
cracking appeared earlier in the SF and MK- in concrete can reduce the chloride diffusion
rate significantly, with the SF concrete performing somewhat better.
Nova John (2013) investigated the cement replacement levels were 5%,
10%,15%,20% by weight for metakaolin. The strength of all metakaolin admixed concrete
mixes over shoot the strength development of concrete. Mix with 15% metakaolin is
superior to all other mixes. The increase in metakaolin content improves the compressive
strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength upto 15% replacement. The result
encourages the use of metakaolin, as pozzolanic material for partial cement replacement in
producing high strength concrete. The inclusion of metakaolin results in faster early age
strength development of concrete. The utilization of supplementary cementitious material
like metakaolin concrete can compensate for environmental, technical and economic issues
caused by cement production.
Dhinakaran (2012) studied the strength increases by MK concrete is effective only
CMRCET-MTECH
at the early age of concrete and in the long term the strength increase is only marginal. The
increase in compressive strength for MK concrete was greater especially at higher water
cement ratios (i.e., 0.4 and 0.5) and hence more suitable for higher w/cm ratios. From the
studies an optimum percentage of MK was found to be 10% for all w/cm ratios except for
0.32 and for 0.32 it was 15%. MK concrete higher increase in strength at early ages beyond
28 days it was found to be less than 10%. The maximum compressive strength of 59.25
N/mm2 was observed at 0.4 w/cm with 10% MK. Addition of MK reduced the pH values,
but the reduction is insignificant, since the pH values are still above 11.5, which will be
helpful for maintaining the steel in a passive state itself. The depth of penetration of
chloride ions for MK concrete is much lesser than control concrete. The minimum rate of
reduction of chloride penetration depth for MK admixed concrete were arrived as 78%,
38%, 25% and 25% for w/cm ratios 0.32, 0.35, 0.40 and 0.50 respectively. The maximum
rate of reduction was observed as 95% for 0.32 and 0.3 ratios.
Shelorkar ajay (2013) observed that the compressive strength of Metakaolin based
HGC increases with the increase in percentage of Metakaolin. The variations of
compressive strength of HGC with different Metakaolin content of 4 %, 6 % and 8 %. As
the Metakaolin increases from 4% to 8% the compressive strength increases about 9.23
MPa for 4 % Metakaolin, 12.98 MPa for 6 % Metakaolin and 20.87 MPa for 8 %
Metakaolin. The increase in compressive strength due to the addition of Metakaolin is due
to pozzolanic activity. The compressive strength of HGC increases by 10.13 %, 14.24 %
and 22.90% due to addition of Metakaolin content of 4 %, 6 % and 8 % respectively in
comparison with control concrete specimens of HGC. The variation of RCPT values in
HGC for different proportions of Metakaolin blended concrete. It has been observed that as
the percentage of Metakaolin increase the permeability of concrete decreases. Also, it was
observed that values of rapid chloride permeability of HGC decrease up to 1450 coulombs,
1548.67 coulombs and 1684.70 coulombs for 4%, 6% and 8% of metakaolin respectively
in comparison to control concrete specimens. The percentage reduction in permeability
values in coulombs was 48.57 %, 51.88 % and 56.43% for Metakaolin content of 4%, 6%
and 8% respectively.
Patil (2012) studied the compressive strength of concrete increases with increase in
HRM content up to 7.5%. Thereafter there is slight decline in strength for 10%, 12% and
CMRCET-MTECH
15% due excess amount of HRM which reduces the w/b ratio and delay pozzolanic
activity. The higher strength in case of 7.5% addition is due to sufficient amount of HRM
available to react with calcium hydroxide which accelerates hydration of cement and forms
C-S-H gel. The 7.5% addition of high reactivity metakaolin in cement is the optimum
percentage enhancing the compressive strength at 28 days by 7.73% when compared with
the control mix specimen. The 7.5% addition of high reactivity metakaolin in cement is
enhanced the resistance to chloride attack. The compressive strength of concrete
incorporated with 7.5% HRM is reduced only by 3.85% as compared with the reduction of
strength of control mix specimen is by 4.88%. The 7.5% addition of high reactivity
metakaolin in cement is also enhanced the resistance to sulfate attack. The compressive
strength of concrete incorporated with 7.5% HRM is reduced only by 6.01% as compared
with the reduction of strength of control mix specimen by 9.29%. The present study deals
with the compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength for cement
replacement by metakaolin based concrete.
Abdullah Anwar et.al (2014): In this paper the authors represented that Marble
Dust Powder has replaced the (OPC & PPC) cement of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% 20%, & 25%
by weight & M-20 grade concrete was used. Concrete is M30. Mixtures were developed,
tested and compared in terms of compressive strength to the conventional concrete. The
purpose of the investigation is to analyze the behavior of concrete while replacing the
Marble Dust Powder with Different proportions in concrete. The result obtained for 28-
day compressive strength confirms that the optimal percentage for replacement of cement
with marble dust powder is about 10% for (PPC) and (OPC). This will post less on the
production of carbon dioxide and solving the environmental pollution by cement
production there by enhances the urban surroundings.
Sanjay N. Patil et,al (2014): The paper deals with the use of Metakaolin which is
having good pozzolanic activity and is a good material for the production of high strength
concrete. Use of MK is getting popularity because of its positive effect on various
properties of concrete. Literature Review shows that optimal performance is achieved by
replacing 7% to 15% of the cement with Metakaolin and when use of MK is less than 10%
, then the benefits are not fully realized so at least 10% Metakaolin should be used. Values
of compressive strength of concrete with Metakaolin after 28 days can be higher by 20%.
CMRCET-MTECH
Dosage of 15% of Metakaolin causes decrease of workability. So increasing amount of
perceptual proportion of Metakaolin in concrete mix seems to require higher dosage of
super plasticizer to ensure longer period of workability.
J.M. Khatib et.al (2012): In the paper author studied the compressive strength,
density and ultrasonic pulse velocity of mortar containing high volume of Metakaolin
(MK) as partial substitution of cement. In this paper up to 50% of MK was used to replace
cement in increment of 10. After De-molding, specimens were cured in water at 20°C for a
total period of 28 days. The density seems to reduce with the increase of MK content
especially at MK content above 30%.The strength increases as the MK content increases
up to about 40% MK with a maximum strength occurring at 20% where the strength is
47% higher. At 50% the strength start reducing, 10% and the 30% MK mixes exhibit an
increase in strength of around 37%.
Prof. P.A. Shirule et.al (2012): The paper described the feasibility of using the
marble sludge dust in concrete production as partial replacement of cement. The
Compressive strength of Cubes & Split Tensile strength of Cylinders are increased with
addition of waste marble powder up to 10% replaced by weight and it was also observed
that 10% replacement gave optimum percentage of strength aggregate in concrete. For
investigation purpose cubes are casted with 7 different proportions of granite fines and fine
aggregate. The replacement percentage of granite fines to fine aggregate are 0, 10, 20, 30,
40, 50 and 100 for M20 mix proportions, specimens are tested after 28 days of curing, for
compression strength, flexural and split tensile strength. The specimen casted with 40 %
replacement of granite fines to fine aggregate gives higher strength when compared to
control specimen.
B.B.Sabir et.al (2001): The paper described the partial replacement of cement with
the Metakaolin in concrete and mortar, which causes great improvement in the pore
structure and hence resistance of concrete to harmful solutions. The paper also
demonstrated clearly that MK is very effective pozzolanas and result enhanced early
strength with no detriment to, and some improvement in the long term strength. Mortar and
concrete were observed as great improvement in resistance to the transportation of water
and diffusion ions which lead to degradation of matrix.
CMRCET-MTECH
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
3.1 GENERAL
The materials used are cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, silica fume,
Metakaolin and water. The properties of these ingredients were assessed and are given
below. The various proportions of mix adopted for this study are discussed in this chapter.
The 53 grade ordinary Portland cement was chosen because of its greater fineness
which would have effective hydration and also secondary hydration. The Ordinary
Portland Cement is popularly known as grey cement, which is produced by grinding clinker
with 5 per cent gypsum. It is used in all general concrete construction, mass and reinforced
concrete. It accounts for about 70.60 per cent of the total production.
3.2 MATERIALS USED

3.2.1 Cement
Cement is a binder, a substance used for construction that sets, hardens and adheres
to other materials, binding them together.
Fig: 3.1: Cement

3.2.1.1 Properties of Cement
The ordinary Portland cement which conforms to IS 12269 –1987 was used for
making concrete. The physical properties of cement which was used for the experimental
investigation are given in Table 3.1 and the chemical composition of the cement is given in
Table3.2.
CMRCET-MTECH
a) Specific Gravity of Cement
Procedure
1. The Flask should be free from the liquid that means it should be fully dry. Weigh
the empty flask (W1).
2. Fill the cement on the bottle up to half of the flask (about 50gm) and weigh with its
stopper (W2).
3. Add Kerosene to the cement upto the top of the bottle .Mix well to remove the air
bubbles in it. Weigh the flask with cement and kerosene (W3).
4. Empty the flask. Fill the bottle with kerosene upto the top and weigh the flask
(W4).
Fig: 3.2: Specific gravity of Cement
Table 3.1 Physical Properties of Cement

Requirements as Per Is
S.No Proper Value
ty 12269 – 1987
1 Specific Gravity 3.15 -

2 Fineness (100gm of Cement) 8.3gm Less than10%
3 Initial setting time of cement 28 min 30 minutes (minimum)
4 Final setting time of cement 10hours 600 minutes (maximum)
5 Normal consistency 36% -
CMRCET-MTECH
Table 3.2 Chemical Composition of Cement
OPC 53 Requirements as
S.No Parameter Grade (as Per IS 12269 –
Provided by 1987
Manufacture)
1 Calcium oxide (CaO) 60.81 _
%
2 Silica (SiO2) 19.50 _
%
3 Alumina (Al2O3) 4.12% _
4 Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 6.06% _
5 Magnesia (MgO) 1.52% max 6.0%
6 Sulphur anhydrite (SO3) 2.48% max 2.5%
7 Insoluble residue 1.51% max 2.0%
8 Total loss on ignition 3.41% max 4.0%
9 Total chloride content (Cl) 0.01% max 0.1 %
10 Available alkali: Na2O 0.05% _
11 K2O 0.28% _
12 Ratio of % of lime to the % of 0.93 0.80 to 1.02
silica, alumina and Iron oxide
13 Ratio of % of alumina to that 0.68 min 0.66
of
Iron oxide
3.2.2 Aggregate
Usually the aggregates occupy 70% to 80% of the volume of concrete and have an
important influence on its properties.
3.2.2.1 Fine Aggregate (Robo Sand)
Manufactured sand is defined as a purpose made crushed fine aggregate produced
from suitable source materials. Manufactured sand has been produced by variety of
crushing equipment’s including cone crushers, impact crushers; roll crushers, road rollers
etc. The raw material for M- sand production is the parent mass of rock.
It is based on the parent rock that the chemical, mineral properties, texture,
composition of M -sand would change. The high cost of concrete depends on the cost of
the constituent materials. The cost of concrete can be reduced through the use of locally
available alternative material, to the conventional ones. Fine aggregates are the aggregates
whose size is less than 4.75mm.
CMRCET-MTECH
Fig: 3.3: Robo Sand
Table 3.3 Physical Properties of M-Sand

Values
Sl No. Property
M-sand
1 Specific Gravity 2.68
2 Fineness modulus 2.84
3 Water Absorption 5.65%
4 Surface Texture smooth
Table 3.4 Fine Aggregate Grading

Fine Aggregates (Clause 4)
IS Sieve Percentage Passing for
Designation
Grading Zone- Grading Zone- Grading Grading Zone-
I II Zone-III IV
10mm 100 100 100 100
4.75mm 90-100 90-100 90-100 95-100
2.36mm 60-95 75-100 85-100 95-100
1.18mm 30-74 55-90 75-100 90-100
600 micron 15-34 35-59 60-79 80-100
300 micron 5-20 8-30 12-40 15-50
150 micron 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-15
CMRCET-MTECH
3.2.2.2 Coarse Aggregate
Coarse aggregate of nominal size of 20mm &12.5 mm is chosen and tests to determine the
different physical properties as per IS 383-1970. Test results conform to the IS 383 (PART
III) recommendations. The bulk density of coarse aggregate 1691kg/m3.Coarse aggregate
20mm and 12.5mm was used, which was manufactured from locally available rock. The
properties of coarse aggregates along with test procedures and results are given below
Fig: 3.4: Coarse Aggregate
Table 3.5 Properties of Coarse Aggregate

Sl No. Property Value
1 Specific Gravity 2.72
2 Fineness modulus 7.15
3 Water Absorption 2.15%
4 Particle Shape angular
3.2.3 Water
Water is an important ingredient of concrete as it actually participates in the

chemical reaction with cement. In general, water fit for drinking is suitable for mixing
concrete. Impurities in the water may affect setting time, strength, shrinkage of concrete or
promote corrosion of reinforcement. Locally available drinking water was used in the
present work. It has been brought out earlier that C3S requires 24% of water by weight of
cement andC2S requires 21%. It has also been estimated that on an average 23% of water
by weight of cement is required for chemical reaction with Portland cement compounds.
CMRCET-MTECH
This 23% of water chemically combines with cement and therefore it is called
bound water. A certain quantity of water is imbibed within the gel-pores. This water is
known as gel-water. It can be said that bound water and gel-water are complimentary to
each other. If the quantity of water is inadequate to fill up the gel- pores, the formations of
gel itself will stop and if the formation of gel stops there is no question of gel-pores being
present. It has been further estimated that about 15 per cent by weight of cement is required
to fill up the gel-pores. Therefore, a total38 per cent of water by weight of cement is
required for the complete chemical reactions and to occupy the space within gel-pores. If
water equal to 38 per cent by weight of cement is only used it can be noticed that the
resultant paste will undergo full hydration and no extra water will be available for the
formation of undesirable capillary cavities. On the other hand, if more than 38 per cent of
water is used, then the excess water will cause undesirable capillary cavities. Therefore
greater the water above the minimum required is used (38 percent), the more will be the
undesirable capillary cavities. In all this it is assumed that hydrations taking place in a
sealed container, where moisture to and from the paste does not take place.
3.2.4 Mineral Admixture

Mineral admixtures are those admixtures which are obtain from industries. Mostly
mineral admixtures are residue of some industries and are used to replace cement and make
concrete cheaper. These waste products are used as mineral admixtures so that maximum
utilization of wastes is possible. Some waste products also increase workability (ease of
handling) of concrete. Mineral admixtures not only reduce cement costs, but also enhance
serviceability/durability of concrete.
When more cement will be used in concrete than due to high early heat of
hydration, there is a possibility of thermal cracking inside the concrete, but with the use of
mineral admixtures probability of thermal cracking can be reduced by reducing heat of
hydration.There are many waste products that can be used as mineral admixtures.
3.2.4.1 Metakaolin
Metakaolin is the anhydrous calcined form of the clay mineral kaolinite. Minerals
that are rich in kaolinite are known as china clay or kaolin, traditionally used in the
manufacture of porcelain. The particle size of metakaolin is smaller than cement particles,
but not as fine as silica fume.The quality and reactivity of metakaolin is strongly dependent
CMRCET-MTECH
of the characteristics of the raw material used. Metakaolin can be produced from a variety
of primary and secondary sources containing kaolinite.
Fig: 3.5: Metakaolin

3.2.4.2 Advantages of Metakaolin
 Increased compressive and flexural strengths.

 Reduced permeability (including chloride permeability).
 Reduced potential for efflorescence, which occurs when calcium is transported by
water to the surface where it combines with carbon dioxide from the atmosphere to
make calcium carbonate, which precipitates on the surface as a white residue.
 Increased resistance to chemical attack.
 Increased durability.
 Reduced effects of alkali-silica reactivity (ASR).
 Enhanced workability and finishing of concrete.
3.2.4.3 Uses of Metakaolin
 High performance, high strength and light weight concrete.
 Precast and poured-mold concrete.
 Fiber cement and ferro cement products.
 Glass fiber reinforced concrete
 Countertops, art sculptures
CMRCET-MTECH
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY
Literature survey
Material collection
Study on material properties
Cement Fine Coarse Silica

aggregate aggregate fume
Normal
Specific Specific
consistency
Specific gravity gravity
Sieve Sieve
gravity analysis
fineness analysis
Mix design (M30)
Casting cubes,cylinders and beamsby

replacing cement and sand and sand
Testing cubes,cylinders,beams
Comparing the conventional and

Blended concrete
CMRCET-MTECH
4.1 MIX DESIGN
Reference: IS 10262:2009; IS 456:2000
From IS 456 Table 8: Assumed standard deviation(S).
Mix Design Steps:
Step 1: Target Strength For Mix Proportioning
fck = fck + 1.65 S
S = Standard deviation in N/mm2
fck = target mean compressive strength at 28 days
fck = characteristic compressive strength at 28 days in N/mm2 Fck = fck + 1.65 S
= 30 + 1.65 X 5.0
= 38.25 N/mm2
Step 2: Water Cement Ratio Calculation
Table 5, IS 456:2000
M30 = 0.45 [max value]
Step 3: Water Content
20mm size =180 lit
3% of water increased for every 25mm slump increased above 50mm slump. So,
for 100mm slump
186 + 6/100 x 186 = 197 lit
Step 4: Cement
IS456 Table 5
Water cement ratio = 0.45 197/C = 0.45
C = 437.77 kg/m3
Max value in 380 kgs – Hence ok
Step 5: Coarse Aggregate
20mm – 0.53 – zone 1 = 0.6
 We consider 0.45, so the volume of coarse aggregate is increased to decrease of

fine aggregate.
 Water cement ratio is lower by 0.10 to the volume of coarse aggregate increased by
0.02.
0.45 – coarse aggregate in 0.6
CMRCET-MTECH
Volume of coarse aggregate = 0.6 + 0.01 = 0.61m3.
Volume of fine aggregate = 1 – 0.61 = 0.39m3.
Step 6: Volume of Cement
Weight of cement = 380kgs Specific gravity of cement = 3.15
Volume of cement = 380/3.15 x 1/1000
= 0.120m3
Volume of water = 0.197m3
Cement + water = 0.120 + 0.197 =0.317m3
Volume of coarse aggregate and fine aggregate = 1 - 0.317 = 0.683m3.
Step 7: Weight of Coarse and Fine aggregate
Coarse aggregate = 0.683 x 0.61 x 2.74 x1000
= 1141.566 kgs
Fine aggregate = 0.683 x 0.39 x 2.74 x 1000
= 729.85 kgs
Table 4.1 Mix Design

Fine Coarse
Cement Super Plasticizer Water
Aggregate Aggregate
380 729.85 1141.57 - -
1 1.92 3 39.4 157.6
Water cement ratio 0.45[with 100mm slump]

Adding super plasticizer, so water cement ratio reduced 20%
=197 x 20/100 = 39.4
=197 – 39.4 = 157.6 lit
4.2 TESTS ON HARDENED CONCRETE

a) Compressive Strength Test of Concrete (Is: 516-1959)
Procedure
1. Representative samples of concrete shall be taken and used for casting cubes 15cm
x 15 cm x 15 cm or cylindrical specimens of 15 cm diameter x 30 cm long.
2. The concrete shall be filled into the moulds in layers approximately 5 cm deep. It
CMRCET-MTECH
would be distributed evenly and compacted either by vibration or by hand tamping.
After the top layer has been compacted, the surface of concrete shall be finished
level with the top of the mould using a trowel; and covered with a glass plate to
prevent evaporation.
3. The specimen shall be stored at site for 24+ ½ h under damp matting or sack. After
that, the samples shall be stored in clean water at 27+20C; until the time of test. The
ends of all cylindrical specimens that are not plane within 0.05 mm shall be capped.
4. Just prior to testing, the cylindrical specimen shall be capped with sulphur mixture
comprising 3 parts sulphur to 1 part of inert filler such as fireclay.
5. Specimen shall be tested immediately on removal from water and while they are
still in wet condition
6. The bearing surface of the testing specimen shall be wiped clean and any loose
material removed from the surface. In the case of cubes, the specimen shall be
placed in the machine in such a manner that the load cube as cast, that is, not to the
top and bottom.
7. Align the axis of the specimen with the steel plate, do not use any packing.
8. The load shall be applied slowly without shock and increased continuously at a rate
of approximately 140 kg/sq.cm/min until the resistance of the specimen to the
increased load breaks down and no greater load can be sustained. The maximum
load applied to the specimen shall then be recorded and any unusual features noted
at the time of failure brought out in there port.
Calculation
Compressive strength is calculate using the following
formula Compressive strength (kg/cm2) = Wf / Ap
Where
Wf = Maximum applied load just before load, (kg)
Ap = Plan area of cube mould, (mm2)
CMRCET-MTECH
Fig: 4.1: Cubes with different percentage of silica Fume
Fig: 4.2: Testing of Cubes

b) Flexural Strength Test of Concrete(IS:516-1959)
Procedure
1. Prepare the test specimen by filling the concrete into the mould in 3 layers of
approximately equal thickness. Tamp each layer 35 times using the tamping bar as
specified above. Tamping should be distributed uniformly over the entire cross section of
the beam mould and throughout the depth of each layer.
2. Clean the bearing surfaces of the supporting and loading rollers, and remove any
loose sand or other material from the surfaces of the specimen where they are to
make contact with the rollers.
3. Circular rollers manufactured out of steel having cross section with diameter 38
mm will be used for providing support and loading points to the specimens. The
length of the rollers shall be at least 10 mm more than the width of the test
CMRCET-MTECH
specimen.
4. A total of four rollers shall be used, three out of which shall be capable of rotating
along their own axes. The distance between the outer rollers (i.e. span) shall be 3d
and the distance between the inner rollers shall be d. The inner rollers shall be
equally spaced between the outer rollers, such that the entire system is systematic.
5. The specimen stored in water shall be tested immediately on removal from water;
whilst they are still wet. The test specimen shall be placed in the machine
correctly centered with the longitudinal axis of the specimen at right angles to the
rollers. For moulded specimens, the mould filling direction shall be normal to the
direction of loading.
6. The load shall be applied at a rate of loading of 400 kg/min for the 15.0cm
specimens and at a rate of 180 kg/min for the 10.0cm specimens.
Calculation
The Flexural Strength or modulus of rupture (fb) is given by
a) fb = pl/bd2 (when a > 20.0cm for 15.0cm specimen or > 13.0cm for 10cm
specimen) or
b) fb = 3pa/bd2 (when a < 20.0cm but > 17.0 for 15.0cm specimen or < 13.3 cm but
>11.0cm for 10.0cm specimen).
Where,
a = the distance between the line of fracture and the nearer support, measured on the
center line of the tensile side of the specimen
b = width of specimen (cm)
d = failure point depth (cm)
l = supported length (cm)
p = max. Load (kg)
CMRCET-MTECH
Fig: 4.3: Flexural Strength Testing Machine
Fig: 4.4: Beams Subjected to Flexure
c) Splitting Tensile Strength Test of Concrete (IS:516 -1959)

Procedure
1. Take the wet specimen from water after 7 days of curing.
2. Wipe out water from the surface of specimen.
3. Draw diametrical lines on the two ends of the specimen to ensure that they are on
CMRCET-MTECH
the same axial place.
4. Note the weight and dimension of the specimen.
5. Set the compression testing machine for the required range.
6. Keep are plywood strip on the lower plate and place the specimen.
7. Align the specimen so that the lines marked on the ends are vertical and centered
over the bottom plate.
8. Place the other plywood strip above the specimen.
9. Bring down the upper plate to touch the plywood strip.
10. Apply the load continuously without shock at a rate of approximately 14-
21kg/cm2/minute (Which corresponds to a total load of 9900kg/minute to
14850kg/minute).
11. Note down the breaking load (P).
Fig: 4.5: Cylinders with Various Percentages of Silica Fume

Calculation
Calculate the splitting tensile strength of the specimen as follows:
T = 2P/πLD
Where
T = Splitting tensile strength
P = Maximum applied load
L = Length, m
D = Diameter
CMRCET-MTECH
Fig: 4.6: Cylinder Subjected to Tensile Force
4.3 Indication of mixes

The various mixes indicate the following percentages:
1. M1-15% of Metakaolin in cement and 0% of Silica fume
CMRCET-MTECH
CHAPTER 5
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
5.1 HARDENED CONCRETE

5.1.1 Compressive Strength
By taking normal M30 grade as referring percentage, percentage of increase or

decrease in compressive strength other percentage is calculated. Considering the normal
M30 grade with zero percentage admixtures the compressive strength is
When5%replacement is used, the compressive strength is 38.85MPa. Considering 10%
replacement, the compressive strength is 42.65MPa. With 15% replacement, the
compressive strength is 36.55MPa. With 20 % replacement, the compressive strength is
30.65MPa. The value of compressive strengths of cubes made with different percent
replacement of granite powder for cement is presented in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1Compressive Strength at 7, 14, 28 Days

Dimensio Compressive Strength (Mpa)
Mix n of the 7 14 28
ID Specimen Days Days Days
(mm)
M1 24.53 34.42 37.86
M2 24.95 33.90 38.85

M3 150×150×150 25.82 36.95 42.65
M4 22.56 31.50 36.55
M5 19.83 27.30 30.65
The graphs are drawn for the above values of compressive strength. From the above values
we can observe there is certain increase of compressive strength for M3 mix.
CMRCET-MTECH
45
40
35
30
25 7days
20 14days
15 28days
10
5
0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Graph: 5.1: Compressive Strength at 7, 14 and 28 Days
5.1.2 Split Tensile Strength

Split tensile strength of concrete is usually found by testing plain concrete
cylinders. Cylinders of size 150mm x 300 mm were used to determine the split tensile
strength. After curing, the specimens were tested for split tensile strength using a calibrated
compression testing machine of 2000kN capacity. It can be observed that at a 10%
replacement of granite powder, an optimum of 3.43 N/mm2 split tensile strength was
obtained. The details of same are represented in Table 5.2.
Table 5.2 Split Tensile Strength at 7, 14, 28 Days

Dimension Split Tensile Strength (Mpa)
Mix ID of the 7 Days 14 Days 28Days
Specimen
(mm)
M1 1.82 2.01 2.43
M2 1.96 2.52 2.95

M3 300×150 2.23 2.60 3.45
M4 2.05 2.41 2.68
M5 1.81 1.83 2.12
CMRCET-MTECH
4
3.5
2.5
7days
2
14days
1.5
28days
1
0.5
0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Graph: 5.2: Split Tensile Strength at 7, 14 and 28 Days

5.1.3 Flexural strength
The determination of flexural strength is essential to estimate the load at which
the concrete members may crack. The flexural strength at failure is the
modulus of rupture in this investigation. It can be observed that at a 10% replacement of
granite powder, an optimum of 4.62N/mm2 flexural strength was obtained. The details of
same are represented in Table 5.3.
Table 5.3 Flexural Strength at 7and 28 Days
Flexural Strength (Mpa)

Mix ID Dimension of the Specimen
(mm) 7 DAYS 28 DAYS
M1 2.92 3.23
M2 700×150×150 3.12 3.61
M3 4.05 4.62
M4 2.91 3.48
M5 2.23 3.25
CMRCET-MTECH
5
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5 7days
2 28days
1.5
1
0.5
0
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5
Graph: 5.3: Flexural Strength at 7and 28 Days
CMRCET-MTECH
CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION
Based on the experimental investigation concerning the compressive strength, split
tensile strength and flexural strength of the concrete, the following observation were made
regarding the resistance of partially replaced with granite powder.
1. Compressive strength increases with increase in Silica fume percentage , at 10% of
Silica fume of cement and is comparable to normal concrete (42.65 MPa).
2. Split tensile strength got increased at 10% of Silica fume of cement and gave values
of 3.45Mpa.
3. Flexural strength also got increased at 10% of Silica fume of cement with and gave
the value of 4.62 MPa respectively.
CMRCET-MTECH
REFERENCES
 Jelica Zeli, Ivana Radovanovi, Dra`an Jozi, (2007)“the effect of silica fume
additions on the durability of portland cement mortars exposed to magnesium
sulphate attack.” Faculty of Chemical Technology, University of Split, Teslina
10/5, HR-21 000 Split, Croatia jelica.zelic, pp 1580-2949
 Bayasi Zing, Zhou Jing, (1993). “Properties of Silica Fume Concrete and Mortar”,
ACI Materials Journal 90 (4) 349 - 356.
 Venkatesh Babu DL, Nateshan SC. “Investigations on silica fume concrete”, The
Indian concrete Journal, September 2004, pp. 57-60.
 Khedr S. A., Abou Zaid M. N., (1994). “Characteristics of Silica-Fume Concrete”,
Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE 6 (3), pp. 357 - 375.
 Bhanja Santanu, and Sengupta Bratish, (September, 2003). “Optimum Silica Fume
Content and Its Mode of Action on Concrete”, ACI Materials Journal, V (100), No.
5, pp. 407-412.
 Mehta, P.K. "Pozzolanic and Cementitious By-Products in Concrete. Another
Look," Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete, ACI SP-
114-1, 1989
 Walters, G.V. and T.R. Jones, "Effect of Metakaolin on Alkali-Silica Reaction in
Concrete Manufactured with Reactive Aggregate," Durability of Concrete: Proc.
Second International Conference, ACISP 126, Vol. II, pp. 941-953, 1991.
 Caldarone, M.A. and K. Gruber, "High Reactivit Metakaolin for High Performance
Concrete," Proc. of Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural Pozzolans in Concrete,
ACI SP 153, 1995.
 Abdul Razak (2005) “Strength estimation model for high-strength concrete
incorporating metakaolin and silica fume”, Cement & Concrete Research 35, pp
688-695.
 Khatib and Wild(1998). “Sulphate Resistance of Metakaolin Mortar”, Cement and
Concrete Research, ICJ Vol .28. No. 1, pp 83-92.
 Vikas Srivastava (2012)“Effect of Silica Fume and Metakaolin combination on
concrete”, IJCSE, Vol.2, Issue 3, PP 893-898.
CMRCET-MTECH
 Chi-Sun Poon (2006) “Compressive strength, chloride diffusivity and pore
structure of high performance metakaolin and silica fume concrete”, Cement &
Concrete Research 20 pp 858-865.
CMRCET-MTECH

Introduction to Concrete: History, Composition and Uses

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Introduction to Concrete: History, Composition and Uses

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CHAPTER 1

Small-scale usage of concrete has been documented to be thousands of years old.

Fig: 1.1: Silica Fume

Hanumesh et al. (2015) observes the Mechanical Properties of Concrete

3.2 MATERIALS USED

Fig: 3.1: Cement

Fig: 3.2: Specific gravity of Cement

Table 3.1 Physical Properties of Cement

1 Specific Gravity 3.15 -

5 Normal consistency 36% -

Table 3.3 Physical Properties of M-Sand

Table 3.4 Fine Aggregate Grading

Fig: 3.4: Coarse Aggregate

Table 3.5 Properties of Coarse Aggregate

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

3.2.4 Mineral Admixture

Fig: 3.5: Metakaolin

 Increased compressive and flexural strengths.

Study on material properties

Cement Fine Coarse Silica

Mix design (M30)

Casting cubes,cylinders and beamsby

Comparing the conventional and

 We consider 0.45, so the volume of coarse aggregate is increased to decrease of

Table 4.1 Mix Design

1 1.92 3 39.4 157.6

Water cement ratio 0.45[with 100mm slump]

4.2 TESTS ON HARDENED CONCRETE

Fig: 4.2: Testing of Cubes

Fig: 4.4: Beams Subjected to Flexure

c) Splitting Tensile Strength Test of Concrete (IS:516 -1959)

Fig: 4.5: Cylinders with Various Percentages of Silica Fume

4.3 Indication of mixes

5.1 HARDENED CONCRETE

By taking normal M30 grade as referring percentage, percentage of increase or

Table 5.1Compressive Strength at 7, 14, 28 Days

M2 24.95 33.90 38.85

Graph: 5.1: Compressive Strength at 7, 14 and 28 Days

5.1.2 Split Tensile Strength

Table 5.2 Split Tensile Strength at 7, 14, 28 Days

M2 1.96 2.52 2.95

Graph: 5.2: Split Tensile Strength at 7, 14 and 28 Days

Table 5.3 Flexural Strength at 7and 28 Days

Flexural Strength (Mpa)

Graph: 5.3: Flexural Strength at 7and 28 Days

You might also like