SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016
Strength Comparison of Self-Curing Concrete
and Normal Curing Concrete
Mohammed Shafeeque.V#1 Sanofar.P.B*2 Praveen.K.P*3 Jithin Raj*4 Nikhil.V.P*5 Gopikrishna.P.M*6
#
Faculty of Civil Department, RCET Akkikavu, India
*
Student of Civil Department, RCET Akkikavu, India
Abstract
The aim of this investigation was to study about
the strength properties of concrete using water soluble
Polyethylene Glycol as the self-curing agent. The
function of self-curing agent is to reduce the water
evaporation from the concrete, and hence they increase
the water retention capacity of concrete compared to the
conventionally cured concrete. The use of self-curing
admixtures is the very important from the point of view
that saving of water is a necessity in every day (each
one cubic meter of concrete requires 3m3 of water in a
construction, most of which is used for the curing). In
this study, compressive strength and split tensile
strength of concrete containing self-curing agent is
investigated and compared with those of the
conventionally cured concrete.
Keywords- polyethylene glycol (PEG), Self-curing
concrete (SCC), Normal curing concrete (NCC),
Compressive strength, Split tensile strength
I. INTRODUCTION
Construction industry needs a lot of water in the
name curing. The days are not so far that all the
construction industry has to switch over to an alternative
curing systemizes, not only to save water for the
sustainable development of the environment but also to
promote the indoor and outdoor construction activities
even in remote areas where there is scarcity of water.
Curing is the process of controlling the rate and
extends of moisture loss from concrete during cement
hydration. It may be either after it has been placed in a
position or during the manufacture of concrete products
thereby providing time for the hydration of the cement
to occur. Since the hydration of the cement does take
time days and even weeks rather than hours curing must
be undertaken for a reasonable period of time.
The need for adequate curing of concrete cannot be
overemphasized because curing has the strong influence
M.MANOJKUMAR,D.MARUTHACHALAM
studied on self-curing. Super absorbent polymer was
used as self-curing agent. M40 grade of concrete is
ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org
on the properties of hardened concrete; proper
curing will increase durability, strength, water tightness,
abrasion resistance, volume stability, and resistance to
freezing and thawing effect. Curing may be achieved in
a number of ways and most appropriate means of curing
may be dictated by the site or the construction method.
PATEL MANISHKUMAR DAHYABHAI,
PROF.JAYESHKUMAR PITRODA[1] studied on
“introducing the self-curing concrete in construction
industry” .Compressive strength of self-curing concrete
is increased by applying self-curing admixtures. The
compressive strength of concrete mix increased by 37%
by adding 1.0% of PEG600 and 33.9by adding 1.0% of
PEG1500 as compared to the conventional concrete. The
optimum dosage of PEG600 for maximum compressive
strength was found to be 1% of weight of cement for
M25 grade of concrete. The optimum dosage of
PEG1500 of maximum compressive strength was found
to be 1% of weight of cement for M25 grade of
concrete. Self-curing concrete is the best solution to the
problem faced in the desert region and faced due to lack
of proper curing.
MOHANRAJ, RAJENDRAN M Studied on
“self-curing concrete incorporated with polyethylene
glycol”. Compressive strength of cube and cylinder by
NDT for self-cured concrete is higher than that of
conventional concrete cured by full curing and sprinkler
curing. The compressive strength of cube by HEICO
compression testing machine for Self-cured concrete is
higher than of concrete cured by full curing and
sprinkler curing. The split tensile strength of self-cured
cylinder specimen is higher than that of the
conventionally cured specimen. Self-cured concrete is
found to have less water absorption and water sorptivity
values compared with concrete cured by other methods.
Self-cured concrete thus have a fewer amount of porous.
The success of the initial studies highlights the promise
of additional work. In planned studies the mix design
will be optimized for self-curing agent in concrete mix.
adopted for investigation. Based on this experimental
investigation was carried out. The following conclusions
were drawn. Water retention for the concrete mixes
incorporating a self-curing agent is higher compared to
Page 47
 SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016
conventional concrete mixes. As found by the weight
loss with time. The optimum dosage is 0.3 % addition of
SAP leads to a significant increase of mechanical
strength. Compressive strength of self-cured concrete
for the dosage of 0.3% was higher than water cured
concrete. Split tensile strength of self-cured concrete for
dosage of 0.3% is higher than water cured concrete.
Flexural strength of self-cured concrete for dosage of
0.3% is lower than water cured concrete. Performance of
the self-curing agent will be effected by the mix
proportions mainly the cement content and w/c ratio.
There was a gradual increases in the strength for dosage
from 0.2 to 0.3 % and later gradually reduced. Self-
cured concrete using SAP was more economical than
conventional cured concrete. In the study cubes were
casted and kept for curing in room temperature about
250 to 300 c practically feasibility of self-cured member
is needed to be checked in hot regions. The effectiveness
of internal curing by means of SAP applied to concrete
was the highest if 45 kg/m3 water is added by mean of 1
kg/m3 SAP.
II OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE OF THE
INVESTIGATION
A. Objectives
 Tostudy workability of SCC & NCC
 To study strength characteristics of NCC
 To study strength characteristics of SCC
 To compare strength characteristics of NCC &
SCC
B. Scope of the work
The major challenge in construction field
nowadays is the lack of availability of water; this
problem can be reduced to a greater extent with the
introduction of self-curing concrete. Since SCC
controlling the rate and extend of moisture loss from
concrete during hydration. The scarcity of water for
curing can be compensated with the use of self-curing
concrete and reduce the water usage.
III. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
A. Materials
1. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
In this study Ordinary Portland Cement-Grade
53, has been certified with IS: 12269 – 1987, Grade 53
which is known for its rich quality and high durability is
used.Specific gravity of cement used here is 3.2
2. Coarse Aggregate
Coarse aggregate used in this are passed from
16mm and retained on 10mm. Well graded cubical or
rounded aggregates are desirable. Aggregates should be
ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org
uniform quality with respect to shape and grading.
Specific gravity of coarse aggregate used here is 2.81
3. Fine Aggregate
Grading must be uniform throughout the work
and must pass through 4.75 mm sieve size which
confirms to the code IS: 383 – 1970. Particles smaller
than 0.125 mm size are considered as fines which
contribute to the powder content. Specific gravity of fine
aggregate used is 2.58and fineness modulus 2.783 is
used for this study.
4. Water
Potable water available in laboratory was used
for casting all the specimens. The quality of water was
found to satisfy the requirements of IS: 456-2000
5. PEG
Polyethylene glycol is a condensation polymer
of ethylene oxide and water with general formula H
(OCH2CH2) n(OH), where n is the average number of
repeating ox ethylene groups typically from 4 to 180.
The abbreviation (PEG600) is termed in combination
with a numeric suffix which indicates average molecular
weights. The Common feature of PEG appears to be
water-soluble nature polyethylene glycol is non-toxic,
odorless, neutral lubricating, on-volatile and non-
lubricating and is used in variety of Pharmaceuticals
IV. METHODOLOGY OF EXPERIMENT
Experimental program is carried out in
different stages. First preliminary tests are conducted in
fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and cement. The test
includes particle size distribution of fine aggregate and
coarse aggregate, specific gravity of cement, specific
gravity of fine aggregate, specific gravity of coarse
aggregate. With the test data of the material obtained,
the concrete mix design for M20 grade and M25 grade is
designed using IS codes: IS 10262 :2009,IS 1026 : 1982,
IS 456 :2000. 6 set of cube and 3 cylinders are casted for
both grades of concrete. Compressive test and split
tensile test are conducted to determine the properties of
normal concrete of both M20 and M25 grades.
In the second stage of project, the experimental
program was designed to investigate the strength of self-
curing concrete by adding polyethylene glycol PEG
(600) at 0.5%, 1%, 1.5%, and 2% by weight of cement
of concrete. 6 set of cube and 3 cylinders were casted
and tested for compressive strength and split tensile
strength for both the grades of M20 and M25.Casted
concrete were removed from mold and kept them at
room temperature by placing them in shade for curing.
The compressive strength at 7 days and 28 days and
Split tensile strength at 28 days ofcuring were studied.
Page 48
 SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016

Finally strength comparison of Self curing concrete and

normal concrete mix was performed and tabulated. SLUMP VALUES V/S% OF PEG
Table I Mix Proportion of Normal Cement Concrete 115

SLUMP VALUE
110
Particulars M25 M20
Cement (kg/m3) 394 358 105
Water (liters) 197 197 100 M2O
Fine aggregate 676.9 690.5
95 M25
(kg/m3)
Coarse aggregate 935.87 954.87 0 1 2 3
(kg/m3)
Water cement ratio 0.5 0.55 PEG%

Fig. 1 Slump values comparison M20 v/s M25

FLOW VALUE COMPARISON M20 v/s Average Compressive Strength

M25 (N/mm2)V/S % PEG M20(7 DAYS)

COMPRESSIVE
120

STRENGTH
40.00 14.20 16.35 20.44 16.35 15.51
100 20.00
FLOW VALUE

0.00
80
0 1 2
60 M20
% OF PEG
40 M25
20 Average Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

0
Fig. 3 Average Compressive Strength-M20-7 days
0 0.5 1PEG %
1.5 2 2.5
Fig. 2 Flow values comparison M20 v/s M25

V. RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS

A. Compressive strength test results

Average Compressive Strength

(N/mm²)V/S % PEG M25 (7 DAYS) Average Compressive Strength
(N/mm²) V/S %PEG (M20 28
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

25.00 DAYS)
21.25 19.15 18.96
20.00 17.61 18.21 25.000 24.567

15.00 24.000 23.310

22.793 22.528
23.000
10.00
22.000 21.110
5.00 21.000
0.00 20.000
0 1 2 19.000

Average Compressive Strength (N/mm²) 0 1 2

% OF PEG
% OF PEG
Average Compressive Strength (N/mm²)
Fig. 4 Average Compressive Strength-M25-7 days

Fig. 5 Average Compressive Strength-M20-28 days

ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 49

 SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Average Compressive Strength Compressive Strength of M20 & M25

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
(N/mm²)V/S % PEG M25 (28 vs PEG % (7days)
DAYS) 25 21.25
29.198 18.21 20.44 19.15 18.96
30.000 20 17.61
27.417 16.35 16.35 15.51
28.000 26.350 25.640 14.2
25.490 15
26.000
24.000 10
22.000 5
0 1 2
0
% OF PEG 0 0.5 1 1.5 2

%Strength
Average Compressive OF PEG of M20(N/mm²)
Average Compressive Strength (N/mm²)

Fig. 7 Compressive strength comparison-7 days

Fig. 6 Average Compressive Strength-M25-28 days
B. Split tensile strength test results
Compressive Strength of M20 &
M25 vs PEG % (28days)
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

Average Split Tensile Strength

SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH
40.00 (N/mm²)V/S % PEG M20-28 days
29.20
30.00 25.49 27.42 26.35 25.64 3.35
24.57 23.31 22.52 3.30
21.11 22.79 3.30
20.00 3.25 3.21
3.19 3.18
3.20 3.16
10.00 3.15
3.10
0.00 3.05
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 1 2
PEG %
Average Compressive Strength of M20(N/mm2) % OF PEG
Average Compressive Strength of M25 (N/mm2) Average Compressive Strength (N/mm²)

Fig. 8 Compressive strength comparison-28 days

Fig. 9 Average Split tensile Strength-M20-28 days

Average Split tensile Strength AVERAGE SPLIT TENSILE

(N/mm²)V/S % PEG M25 STRENGTH COMPARISON M20
3.90 3.83 v/s M25
SPLIT TENSILE STRENGTH
TENSILE STRENGTH

3.80 5
3.70 3.65 3.83 3.65
3.60 4 3.53 3.56
3.60 3.53 3.56 3.16 3.19 3.6 3.3 3.21 3.18
3
3.50
2
3.40
1
3.30
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
% OF PEG 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Average Compressive Strength (N/mm²) % OF PEG
Average Split tensile strength of M20(N/mm2)

Fig.10 Average Split tensile Strength-M25- 28 days Average Split tensileStrength of M25 (N/mm2)

Fig. 11 Split tensile strength comparison-28 days

ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 50

 SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016

C. Compressive strength comparison of NCC & SCC

Compressive srength comparison
Table II Compressive strength comparison of NCC & Normal concrete v/s PEG 1%
SCC
(M20)
GRADE Compressive strength
normal concrete peg (1%)
7 days 28 days
24.56
20.54 21.11
14.2
Normal PEG Normal PEG
concrete 1% concrete 1%

M20 14.20 20.54 21.11 24.56

7 days 28 days
M25 17.61 21.25 25.49 29.19
Fig. 12 Compressive strength comparison of NCC & SCC

B. Split tensile strength comparison of NCC &SCC

Split tensile strength comparison
Table III Split tensile strength comparison of NCC & SCC normal concrete v/s PEG 1% (M20)
SPLIT TENSILE STENGTH
3.35
3.3
28 DAYS 3.3
GRADE
3.25
Normal PEG 1% 3.2 3.16 normal
concrete 3.15 PEG 1%
3.1
M20 3.16 3.30 3.05
normal PEG 1%
M25 3.53 3.83

Fig.13 Split tensile strength comparison of NCC & SCC-

M20

VI. CONCLUSIONS
Split tensile strength comparison
normal concrete v/s PEG 1%  From the workability tests, it was found that self-
curing concrete has maximum workability at 1%
(M25)
application of PEG
 As percentage of PEG600 increased slump and flow
4 3.83 values increased for both M20 and M25 grade of
3.8 concrete.
3.6
3.53
normal
 The optimum dosage of PEG600 for maximum
3.4 strength (compressive and tensile) was found to be
PEG 1% 1% for both M20 and M25 grade.
3.2
 Strength of self-curing concrete is on equal with
normal PEG 1% conventional concrete.
 Self-curing concrete is an alternative to
Fig.14 Split tensile strength comparison of NCC & SCC- conventional concrete in desert regions where
M25 scarcity of water is a major problem.

ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 51

 SSRG International Journal of Civil Engineering ( SSRG – IJCE ) – Volume 3 Issue 3–March 2016

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
First and foremost we take immense pleasure in
thanking the Management and the respected Principal,
Dr. Priestly Shan, for providing us with the wider
facilities for our needs.We express our sincere thanks to
Dr. Surendran A, Head of the Department of Civil
engineering for giving us opportunity to present this
project and for timely suggestions.
We wish to express our deep sense of gratitude
and hearts to our project coordinatorsMr.
MuhammedShareef K, Asst.Professor& Mr. Mahesh
K.M, Asst.Professor, in Department ofCivil
Engineering, who coordinated in right path. Words are
inadequate in offering our thanks to Mr. Mohammed
Shafeeque.V, Asst. Professor, Department of Civil
Engineering, for his encouragement and guidance in
carrying out the project.
Above all that we would like to thank the
Almighty God for the blessings that helped us to
complete this venture smoothly.
REFERENCES
[1] Patel Manish Kumar Dahyabhai1, Prof. Jayesh Kumar R.
Pitroda. (2014). “Introducing the Self-Curing Concrete in
Construction Industry”. International journal Engineering
Research & technology,(3),2278-0181
[2] Mohan raj A, Rajendran M,Ramesh A S,Mahalakshmi M,Manoj
Prabhakar S.(2014).” An Experimental Investigation of Eco-
Friendly Self –Curing Concrete Incorporated with Polyethylene
Glycol”. International Advanced Research Journal in Science,
Engineering and Technology, 2(1), 2393-8021
[3] M.Manoj Kumar, D.Maruthachalam (2013). “Experimental
investigation on self-curing concrete”. International journal of
Advanced Scientific and Technical Research, 3(2), 2249-954
[4] Patel Manish Kumar Dahyabhai1, Prof. Jayesh Kumar R.
(2013)“Self –curing concrete: New technique for concrete curing
–A literature review”. Journal Of International Academic
Research for Multidisciplinary,9(1),2320-5083
[5] K.Vedhasakthi, M.Saravanan. (2014). “Development Of Normal
Strength And High Strength Self Curing Concrete Using Super
Absorbing Polymers (SAP) And Comparison Of Strength
Characteristics”. International Journal of Research In
Engineering And Technology,10(3),2319-1163
[6] K.Gowtham, M.Arivoli,Dr.R.Malathy (2016) “ Experimental
study on effect of fly ash as partial replacement of cement in
strength characteristics of self-cured Fibered concrete” . SSRG
International journal of civil engineering, Volume 3, issue 2

ISSN: 2348 – 8352 www.internationaljournalssrg.org Page 52