WAINGANGA COLLEGE OF

ENGINEERING & MANAGEMENT

Polytechnic Department of Civil Engineering

Synopsis
On
“Partial replacement of cement with fly ash”
Guided By:
Miss. Kajal Pachdhare

Submitted By
1. SurajThakare
2. Ashutosh Dohare
3. PushpamTembhurkar
4. Jyoti Mandal
5. Amina Meer
Introduction:-
In India, large amount of fly-ash is generated in thermal power plants
with an imperative blow on environmental and living organism. The
use of fly-ash in concrete can reduce the consumption of natural
resources and also diminishes the effect of pollutant in environment.
In recent studies, many researchers found that the use of additional
cementitious materials like fly-ash in concrete is economical and
reliable. Fly-ash is one of the residues generated in the combustion of
coal. Fly-ash is generally captured from the chimneys of power
generation facilities, whereas bottom ash is, as the name suggests,
removed from the bottom of the
furnace. In the past, fly-ash was generally released into the
atmosphere via the smoke stack, but pollution control equipment
mandated in recent decades now require that it be captured prior to
release. It is generally stored on site at most US electric power
generation facilities. Depending upon the source and makeup of the
coal being burned, the components of the fly-ash produced vary
considerably, but all fly-ash includes substantial amounts of silica
(silicon dioxide, SiO2) (both amorphous and crystalline) and lime
(calcium oxide, (CaO). Flyash is commonly used to supplement
Portland cement in concrete production, where it can bring both
technological and economic benefits, and is increasingly finding use
in the synthesis of geopolymers andzeolites (Satish H 2013). The
difference between fly-ash and Portland cement becomes apparent
under a microscope. Fly-ash particles are almost totally spherical in
shape, allowing them to flow and blend freely in mixtures. That
capability is one of the properties making fly-ash a desirable
admixture for concrete.
Literature Review:-

Fattuhi and Hugle (1987) In his presentation stated that different

cement pastes and concrete mixeswere prepared using ordinary
Portland cement and subjected to sulphuric acid attack. The main
parametersinvestigated included w/c ratio (and cement content) and
age of the cementitious materials. 102 mm cubes were
immersed in a channel containing an approximately 2% solution of
continuously flowing sulphuric acid. Thechanges in weight with time
for each cube were determined continuously up to a maximum
exposure period of50 days. The results indicated that the deterioration
of the cubes for this high acid concentration decreased a decrease in
the cement content. The effect of age was slightly more significant for
cement paste than forconcrete cubes .

Murthi p and Siva Kumar v (2008) did detailed experimental

investigation on the acid resistance ofternary blended concrete
immersed up to 32 weeks in sulphuric acid (H2SO4) and hydrochloric
acid (HCl)solutions. The results are compared with those of the
control and binary blended concrete. ASTM class F fly-ashwas
considered to develop the binary blended concrete at the replacement
level of cement as 20% by weight.Then silica fume was considered to
develop the ternary blended concrete and the replacement of cement
in theternary system by silica fume was suggested as 8% of total
powder content by weight. The variable factorsconsidered in this
study were concrete grades (M20, M30 and M40) and curing periods
(28days and 90 days) ofthe concrete specimens. The parameter
investigated was the time in days taken to cause 10% mass loss
andstrength deterioration factor of fully immersed concrete specimen
in a 5% H2SO4 and 5% HCl solutions. Theinvestigation indicated
that the ternary blended concrete prepared by 20% fly-ash and 8%
silica fume performedbetter acid resistance than the ordinary plain
concrete and binary blended concrete.
Objectives
 The objective of the present study includes the effect of fly ash
as partial replacement of cement in concrete.
 To evaluate the compressive strength workability of low
calcium fly ash-based concrete compared to ordinary Portland
cement concrete.
 The purpose of the present work is to determine the feasibility
of using fly ash as a replacement of cement in concrete.

Properties of fly ash

The fly ash or pulverized fuel is the residue, which is collected by the
mechanical dust collector or electrostatic precipitator from the fuel
gases of thermal power plants. Composition of fly ash varies with the
type of fuel burnt, load on the boiler and the type of separator. Like
Portland cement, fly ash contains oxides of calcium, aluminum and
silicon, but the amount of calcium oxide is considerably less. The
carbon contents should be as low as possible, whereas the silica
content should be as high as possible. Fly ash obtained from
electrostatic precipitator (ESP) may have a specific surface of about
350 to 500 m2/kg. I.e. finer than the Portland cement. Properties of
fly ash in concrete are not directly related to the chemistry of fly ash.
Some properties of fly ash are known by two parameters, these are fly
ash mineralogy and fly ash practical size.
ADVANTAGES OF FLY-ASH
The advantages of fly ash concrete over the corresponding plain
cement concrete are:

 Improved workability
 Lower heat of hydration
 The increase in creep with fly ash content up to 15% is
negligible
 Increases the modulus of elasticity of concrete when concretes
of the same strength with and without fly ash are compared
 Superior resistance to freezing and thawing
 Improved sulphate resistance
 Lower water and air permeability

METHOD OF FLY ASH CONCRETE MIXING

For obtaining the best result the fly ash concrete should be prepared
by the following mixing method:

About 3/4th quantity of the mixing water should be taken in the

concrete mixer. Weighted amount of the required quantity of fly ash
then added to it and mixed for 30 sec. To the slurry of fly ash so
obtained, weighted quantities of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,
cement and remaining quantity of the mixing water be added and
mixed for 90 sec.
However, if this is not convenient normal mixing method may be
adopted i.e.
Weighted quantities of coarse aggregate, fine aggregate cement and
fly ash should be put together in the concrete mixer and mixed dry for
30 sec. The required quantity of the mixing water then added and the
mixing continued for 90 sec. The Admixture should be added just
before discharge of the mix from mixer.
CONCLUSION
Out of the various proportions under study the mortar mix containing
1:2.5:2.5 (cement : coarse sand : pond flyash) by method of volume is
observed to satisfy the strength criteria very well whereas the same
ratio when considered by the method of weight is found to be most
economical. With the view of maximum utilization of flyash almost
about 75% and cost saving about 58% are ascertained with 1:2:3
mortar (cement : coarse sand : pond ash) when compared with plain
mortar 1:5 (cement : coarse sand). Similarly the mortar containing
1:1:5 (cement : flyash : sand) replacing cement by flyash saves 20%
cement. However, the strength of 1:2:3 mortar and 1:1:5 mortar is not
as good as the strength of mortar of 1:2.5:2.5 ratio. In statistical
analysis of experimental results reveals that water absorption of flyash
mix mortar of ratio 1:2:3 and 1:2.5:2.5 is twice to that of plain cement
mix mortar of ratio 1:5. For workability the flyash, mixed mortar
required 5% to 10% more water than that of plain cement mix mortar
of ratio 1;5. Utilization of flyash in mortar designed by the method of
weight gives 50% to 60% financial savings while the saving is 9% to
16% in case of the method of volume. When the cement is replaced
by flyash in mix of 1:1:5 (cement : flyash : sand) mortar, 20% saving
of cement is achieved by the method of weight but the strength and
consumption of flyash reduced significantly.