Paper by:

Mr. Syed Parveez Alam, M.E. 4th Semester,

Construction Technology,
University Vishveshwaraya College of Engineering
Bangalore – 560 056.

Dec 2007

Processed Rice Husk Ash procured from :

Mr. Narayan P. Singhania,
N K Enterprises
Jharsuguda ,Orissa - 768201
info@ricehuskash.com

1
 SYNOPSIS
Increase in the Cost of Conventional building materials and to provide a
sustainable growth; the construction field has prompted the designers and
developers to look for ‘alternative materials’ for the possible use in civil
engineering constructions. For this objective, the use of industrial waste products
and agricultural byproducts are very constructive. Large amounts of wastes
obtained as byproducts from many of the industries can be the main sources of
such alternate materials. These industrial wastes and agricultural byproducts such
as Fly Ash, Rice Husk Ash, Silica Fume, and Slag etc can be used as cementing
materials because of their pozzolanic behavior, which otherwise require large
tracts of lands for dumping. Thus the concrete industry offers an ideal method to
integrate and utilize a number of waste materials, which are socially acceptable,
easily available, and economically within the buying powers of an ordinary man.
Presence of such materials in cement concrete not only reduces the Carbon dioxide
(CO2) emission, but also imparts significant improvement in workability and
durability.

During the last three decades, great strides have been made in improving
the performance of concrete as a construction material. In the light of
implementation of stringent measures to meet the standards in the production of
construction materials and disposal of wastes, the use of industrial and agricultural
byproducts lead to reduction of the costs of materials also. In the present
investigation, a feasibility study is made to use Rice Husk Ash and Silica Fume as
an admixture to Cement Concrete, and an attempt has been made to investigate the
strength parameters of concrete (Compressive, Split tensile and Flexural strength)
made with partial replacement of cement by Rice Husk Ash and Silica Fume. The
aim of present investigation is to compare the strength behavior of Rice husk ash
concrete and silica fume concrete.

v
 For control concrete, IS method of mix design is adopted and considering
this a basis, mix design for replacement method has been made. Three different
replacement levels namely 5%, 10% and 15% are chosen for the study concern to
replacement method. Large range of curing periods starting from 3days to 91days
is considered in the present study. Though the study is mainly concerned to
compressive strength behavior, studies regarding split tensile strength and flexural
strength are also taken up.
The experimental observations has shown that, as the age advances, the
Compressive Strength, Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength of both Rice Husk
Ash and Silica Fume concrete gradually increases at all the percentage
replacement levels, and With the increase in the Percentage replacement with Rice
Husk Ash, the Compressive strength and Tensile strength of Rice Husk Ash
concrete is found to be gradually decreased at the early ages up to 7 days, however
there is an increase in the compressive strength and Tensile strength with the
increase in the Cement Replacement Level from 28 days to 91days w.r.t Control
concrete. With the increase in the Percentage replacement with Silica Fume, the
Compressive strength of Silica Fume concrete is found to be increased gradually at
all the ages up to 10% replacement, however there is a decrease in the
compressive strength with the further increase in the Silica Fume replacement
level. The flexural strength behavior of both Rice Husk Ash and Silica Fume
concrete was found to be better than that of flexural strength of Control concrete at
all the ages as well as at all the replacement levels. It can be concluded that Silica
Fume could be suitably replaced with Rice Husk Ash.

vi
 CHAPTER 3
AIM AND SCOPE OF PRESENT INVESTIGATION

3.1GENERAL
Recognizing the need for the utilization of Industrial waste products and
Agricultural by-products in concrete, the present investigation is taken up with an
aim to establish or to understand the behavior of Rice husk ash & Silica fume
concrete under Compressive, Tensile and Flexural loads.
The behavior of Rice husk ash (RHA)& Silica fume (SF) Concrete can be
understood better, when a relative study is made. To facilitate this, comparison of
Control concrete or ordinary concrete specimens were tested under the same
conditions as RHA & SF concrete specimens were considered in the present
investigation.
Further to continue the investigation, M20 grade Control concrete is
designed using IS method of design mix, where cement is replaced with three
percentages of RHA & SF. Totally Three hundred and fifteen specimens were
casted and tested.

3.2 AIM OF PRESENT STUDY

The aim of the present investigation is:
a) To study different strength properties of Rice husk ash concrete with age in
comparison to Control concrete.
b) To study different strength properties of Silica fume concrete with age in
comparison to Control concrete.
c) To study the relative strength development with age of Rice husk ash
concrete with Control concrete of same grade.
d) To study the relative strength development with age of Silica fume concrete
with Control concrete of same grade.

14
3.3 SCOPE OF PRESENT STUDY
The Experimental investigation is planned as under:
1. To obtain Mix proportions of Control concrete by IS method.
2. To conduct Compression test on RHA, SF & Control concrete on standard
BIS specimen size 150 x 150 x 150 mm.
3. To conduct Split tensile test on RHA, SF & Control concrete on standard
BIS specimen size 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height.
4. To conduct Flexural test on RHA, SF & Control concrete on standard BIS
specimen size 100 x 100 x 500 mm.

3.3.1 Parameters Considered

a) Constant parameters:
i. 53 Grade Cement
ii. 20mm and down size Aggregate
iii. Grade of Concrete- M20
iv. Water binder ratio (Depending on mix design)

b) Variable Parameters:
i. Curing period – 3days, 7days, 28days, 56days and 91 days.
ii. Size of specimen (Depending on the test under consideration)
iii. Cement replacement levels adopted in replacement method (5%, 10%
&15%)

The details of investigations carried out and results obtained are presented in
subsequent chapters.

15
 CHAPTER 5

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS

5.1 GENERAL
This chapter deals with the Mix design procedure adopted for Control
concrete and the studies carried out on properties of various materials used
throughout the Experimental work. Also the details of method of Casting and
Testing of Specimens are explained.

5.2 MIX DESIGN

Mix design can be defined as the process of selecting suitable ingredients of
concrete and determining their relative proportions with the object of producing
concrete of certain minimum strength and durability as economically as possible.
The purpose of designing as can be seen from the above definitions is two-fold.
The first object is to achieve the stipulated minimum strength and the second
object is to make the concrete in the most economical manner.
Various Mix design methods are available for Control concrete, each and
every method has its own methodology to arrive at the final concluding results.
The proportions obtained in one method may not match with another method even
though the characteristics of the materials used in both the methods are same.

5.2.1 Control Concrete mix design

I.S. method of Mix design procedure is followed as per IS 10262-1982 for
Control concrete, Rice husk ash concrete and Silica fume concrete (replacement
method only) for M20 grade. An example is illustrated for M20 grade of concrete
in Appendix-A.

34
5.3 MATERIALS
5.3.1 CEMENT
Cement used in the experimental work is ORDINARY PORTLAND
CEMENT of 53 grade conforming to IS: 12269-1987. The physical properties of
the cement obtained on conducting appropriate tests as per IS: 269/4831 and the
requirements as per IS 12269-1987 are given in Table 5.1

Table 5.1 Physical Properties of Cement

Requirement
Obtained
Sl.No Properties as per
Values
IS: 12269-1987
1 Fineness 2.5% Not more than 10%
2 Soundness 1.5 mm Not more than 10 mm
3 Setting Time:
a) Initial 170.00 min Not less than 30 min
b) Final 260.00 min Not more than 600 min
4 Compressive Strength:
a) 3 days 40.50N/mm2 Not less than 27N/mm2
b) 7days 51.00N/mm2 Not less than 37N/mm2
c) 28 days 67.50N/mm2 Not less than 53N/mm2

4 Standard Consistency 28.50% ----------

6 Specific gravity 3.1 ----------

35
5.3.2 RICE HUSK ASH
Rice Husk Ash used in the present experimental study was obtained from
N.K Enterprises Jharsuguda, Orissa. Specifications, Physical Properties and
Chemical Composition of this RHA as given by the Supplier are given in
Table5.2, 5.3 and 5.4.

Table 5.2 Specifications of Rice Husk Ash

Sl No. Parameter Value
1 SiO2-Silica 85% minimum
2 Humidity 2% maximum
3 Mean Particle Size 25 microns
4 Colour Grey
5 Loss on Ignition at 8000 C 4% maximum

Table 5.3 Physical Properties of Rice Husk Ash

Sl No. Parameter Value
1 Physical State Solid-Non Hazardous
2 Appearance Very fine powder
3 Particle Size 25 microns-mean
4 Colour Grey
5 Odour Odourless
6 Specific Gravity 2.3

36
 Table 5.4 Chemical Composition of Rice Husk Ash
Sl No. Parameter Value
1 Silica-SiO2 > 85%
2 Carbon < 4%
3 Moisture Max 2.0%
4 Loss on Ignition Max 4.0%
5 Water Soluble 6.40%

5.3.3 SILICA FUME

Micro silica 920-D, a dry powder available in densified form as supplied by
Elkem India Pvt Ltd, Navi Mumbai, is used in the present experimental study.
The Physical properties and chemical composition of Silica fume as given by the
Supplier are given in Table 5.5 and 5.6

Table 5.5 Physical Properties of Silica Fume

Sl No. Parameter Value
1 Bulk density D (kg/m3) 600-700
2 Bulk density U (kg/m3) 200-350

Table 5.6Chemical Composition of Silica Fume

Sl No. Parameter Value
1 SiO2 (Silicon dioxide, amorphous) 85.0%
2 H2O 1.0%
3 C (Carbon) 2.5%
4 LOI (Loss on Ignition) 4.0%

37
5.3.4 FINE AGGREGATE
Fine aggregate was purchased which satisfied the required properties of
fine aggregate required for Experimental work and the sand conforms to zone III
as per the specifications of IS 383: 1970.
a) Specific gravity = 2.64
b) Fineness modulus = 2.71
c) Clay content = 1.65%

5.3.5 COARSE AGGREGATE

Crushed granite of 20 mm maximum size has been used as coarse
aggregate. Two different sizes of coarse aggregates were used 85 percentage of
coarse aggregate passing 20mm sieve size and 15 percent of coarse aggregate
passing 12.5 mm sieve sizes were used, the sieve analysis of combined aggregates
confirms to the specifications of IS 383: 1970 for graded aggregates.
a) Specific gravity =2.7
b) Fineness Modulus = 6.816

5.3.6 CHEMICAL ADMIXTURE (Super plasticizer)

For basic tests on Rice husk ash and Silica fume, Poly carboxylic ether
based Glenium-51 type Super plasticizer is used.

5.3.7 Water
Clean Potable water as obtained from Civil Engg.Dept.Jnanabharathi was
used for mixing and curing of Concrete.

38
5.4 METHODOLOGY OF TEST

5.4.1 Mixing
Uniform mixing of concrete should be ensured to get correct test results of
the specimen. For Control concrete, initially the mixing tray1 is properly cleaned
with water; coarse aggregate is weighed for required quantity as per mix
proportioning and grade of concrete and poured in to the mixing tray1. Sand is
weighed and poured into another mixing tray2, which is completely dry. Cement is
weighed and uniformly spread on the surface of sand in to tray2 and uniform
mixing is ensured. Required proportion of super plasticizer is measured and mixed
with measured quantity of water. Mixed cement and sand from tray2 is uniformly
spread on the coarse aggregate in tray1, dry mixing is carried out, later water
mixed with super plasticizer is added to the dry mix, mixing is ensured up to a
minimum of 5 minutes until uniform colour of concrete is seen. Immediately the
concrete is measured for slump and placed in moulds as per procedure.
For Rice husk ash (RHA) concrete, the above-explained procedure is
followed except that before adding cement to sand, RHA is thoroughly blended
with cement, the blended mixture of RHA and cement is later mixed with sand and
further procedure is followed.

5.4.2 Casting and Curing of Cube Specimens

5.4.2. A) Casting of Cube specimens for compression test
The steel cube moulds were coated with oil on their inner surfaces and were
placed on a granite platform. The amount of cement, sand, coarse aggregates
required for 15 cubes were weighed. The materials were first dry mixed then
mixed with 1/3rd amount of total water. Super plasticizer mixed with left amount
of water is now added and mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous mix. Slump
test is conducted to measure the degree of workability of mix. Concrete was

39
poured in to the moulds in three layers; each layer was uniformly tamped by a
tamping rod with 25 numbers of blows. The top surface was finished using a
trowel. Plate 1 shows photographic view of cube specimens cast in position &
Plate 2 Shows the Casted Cube Specimens.

5.4.2. B) curing of cube Specimens

Moulds were safely demoulded causing no damage to the specimen and
immediately concrete cube specimens were kept in curing tank, completely
immersed in water for curing. Plate 3 shows the cube specimens immersed in
water tank for curing.

5.4.3 Casting and Curing of Cylinder Specimens

5.4.3. A) Casting of Cylinder specimens for split tensile test
The steel cylinder moulds were coated with oil on their inner surfaces and
were placed on a granite platform. The amount of cement, sand, coarse aggregates
required for 15 cylinders were weighed. The materials were first dry mixed, then
mixed with 1/3rd amount of total water. Super plasticizer mixed with left amount
of water is now added and mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous mix. Slump
test is conducted to measure the degree of workability of mix. Concrete was
poured in to the moulds in four equal layers; each layer was uniformly tamped by
a tamping rod with 35 numbers of blows. The top surface was finished using a
trowel. Plate 1 shows photographic view of cylinder specimens cast in position &
Plate 2 Shows the Casted Cylinder Specimens.

5.4.3. B) Curing of cylinder Specimens

Moulds were safely demoulded causing no damage to the specimen and
immediately concrete cylinder specimens were kept in curing tank completely
immersed for curing up to desired period. Plate 3 shows the cylinder specimens
immersed in water tank for curing.

40
5.4.4 Casting and Curing of Prism Specimens
5.4.4. A) Casting of Prism specimens for flexural test
The steel prism moulds were coated with oil on their inner surfaces and
were placed on a granite platform. The amount of cement, sand, coarse aggregates
required for 15 prisms were weighed. The materials were first dry mixed then
mixed with 1/3rd amount of total water. Super plasticizer mixed with left amount
of water is now added and mixed thoroughly to get a homogeneous mix. Slump
test is conducted to measure the degree of workability of mix. Concrete was
poured in to the moulds in two equal layers; each layer was uniformly tamped by a
tamping rod. The top surface was finished using a trowel. Plate 1 shows
photographic view of Prism specimens cast in position & Plate 2 Shows the
Casted Prism Specimens.

5.4.4. B) Curing of Prism Specimens

Moulds were safely demoulded causing no damage to the specimen and
immediately concrete Prism specimens were kept in curing tank completely
immersed for curing up to desired period. Plate 3 shows the Prism specimens
immersed in water tank for curing.

5.4.5 Tests on Fresh concrete

To measure the degree of workability, slump test was conducted. The test
results of slump test are given as below.

Sl.No. Concrete Type and Grade Slump in mm

1 Control Concrete- M20 Grade 55
2 RHA Concrete- M20 Grade 58
3 SF Concrete- M20 Grade 63

41
42
PLATE 1-CASTING OF CUBE, CYLINDER AND PRISM SPECIMENS

43
44
PLATE 2-CASTED CUBE, CYLINDER AND PRISM SPECIMENS

45
PLATE 3-CURING OF CUBE, CYLINDER AND PRISM SPECIMENS

46
5.4.6 Tests on hardened concrete
5.4.6. A) COMPRESSION TEST
Compressive strength of concrete
The compressive strength of concrete i.e., ultimate strength of concrete is
defined as the load which causes failure of the specimen divided by the area of the
cross section in uniaxial compression, under a given rate of loading. To avoid
large variation in the results of compression test, a great care is taken during the
casting of the test specimens and loading as well. It is however realized that in an
actual structure, the concrete at any point is in a complex stress condition and not
in uniaxial compression. However it is customary to conduct the test in uniaxial
compression only. Concrete under triaxial state can offer more resistance and will
fail only after considerably large deformations. The use of 150mm cubes has been
made as per I.S.I. code of practices IS 456. The advantage of selection of IS 516 –
1959 (24) cube, as the standard test specimen is that two plane and parallel
surfaces can always be found between which the load can be applied.
Compression testing machine is used to test the concrete cubes. The compression
strength is calculated using the formula
Load
Compressio n strength = N/mm2
Area

Testing of cube specimens

At each desired curing periods, cube specimens were taken out of water and
kept for surface drying. The cubes were tested in a 200T capacity compressive
testing machine to get the compressive strength of concrete. Plate 4 shows the
testing of cube specimen in progress.

47
5.4.6. B) SPLIT TENSILE TEST
Split tensile strength
The split tensile strength of concrete can be obtained indirectly by
subjecting a concrete cylinder to the action of a compressive force along two
opposite ends of a base plate of compression testing machine as shown in figure
5.1.
Due to the compressive force, the cylinder is subjected to a large magnitude
of the compressive stress near the loading region. The large portion corresponding
to a depth of about 87% and length of the cylinder is subjected to a uniform tensile
stress acting horizontally. This tensile stress (St) is taken as an index of the tensile
strength of concrete and is given by the formula.

FIG 5.1: ARRANGEMENT FOR INDIRECT TENSILE TEST

⎛P⎞
σ sp = 0 .637 ⎜ ⎟
⎝ dl ⎠

σ sp = The indirect tensile strength of concrete in N / mm 2

P = Load cau sin g rupture in KN
Where
d = Diameter of cylinder in mm
l = Length ofcylinder in mm

48
 The load has to be applied to the cylinder through a packing plate of rubber
or plywood. The packing plate should be of a width of not more than 13mm and
thickness 3mm.

Testing of cylinder specimens

At each desired curing periods, the cylinder specimens were taken out of
water and kept for surface drying. The cylinders were tested in a 200T capacity
compressive testing machine to get the split tensile strength of concrete. Each
specimen is carefully placed in position, so that loading is uniformly distributed
over the length of the specimen, in split tensile test; the specimen is supported
with two timber pieces on top and bottom of the specimen to uniformly distribute
the load. Load is applied without shock and increased continuously until no
greater load can be sustained. Maximum load applied on the specimen is recorded.
Plate 5 shows the testing of cylinder specimen in progress.

49
PLATE 4- COMPRESSION TEST IN PROGRESS

PLATE 5- SPLIT TENSILE TEST IN PROGRESS

50
5.4.6. C) BENDING /FLEXURE TEST
MODULUS OF RUPTURE
Modulus of rupture is defined as the normal tensile stress in concrete, when
cracking occurs in a flexure test (IS 516-1959). This tensile stress is the flexural
strength of concrete and is calculated by the use of the formula, which assumes
that the section is homogeneous.
⎛ pl ⎞
fb = ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ bd ⎠
Where, fb = modulus of rupture, N/mm2
b = Measured depth in mm of the specimen at the point of failure
l = Length in mm of the span on which specimen was supported
p = Max. Load in KN applied to the specimen

The symmetrical two point loading creates a pure bending zone with
constant bending moment in the middle third span and thus the modulus of rupture
obtained is not affected by shear, as in the case of single concentrated load acting
on the specimen. The concrete test specimen is a prism of cross-section 100mm x
100mm and 500mm long. It is loaded on a span of 400mm. Modulus of Rupture is
useful as design criterion for concrete pavements and for evaluating the cracking
moment (Mcr), which is the moment that causes the first crack in a prestressed
concrete or partially prestressed concrete beam.
The modulus of rupture can be calculated by simple strength of materials
knowledge. If P is the load, which causes fracture of the prism specimen in KN
then the modulus of rupture is given by the following formulas.
a) If the fracture occurs within the middle third of the span the
⎛ pl ⎞
fb = ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ bd ⎠
[When ‘a’ is greater than 20.0cm for 15.0 cm specimen or greater than 13.3
cm for a 10.0 cm specimen]

51
 b) If the fracture occurs outside the middle third but deviating by not
more than 5 percent of the span length, then
⎛ 3 pa ⎞
fb = ⎜ 2 ⎟
⎝ bd ⎠
[When ‘a’ is less than 20.0 cm but greater than 17.0cm for 15.0cm
specimen or less than 13.3 cm but greater than 11.0cm for a 10.0cm
specimen]
Where l = span in mm
a = distance between line of fracture and the nearest support in mm
b = average breadth of the specimen in mm.
d = average depth of the specimen in mm.
c) If fracture occurs by more than 5 percent outside the middle third,
the results of the test should be rejected.
[If ‘a’ is less than 17.0 cm for a 15.0cm specimen, or less than 11.0cm
for a 10.0cm specimen, the result of the test shall be discarded]

Testing of Prism specimens

At each desired curing periods, the Prism specimens were taken out of
water and kept for surface drying. The prisms were tested in Flexure testing
machine by arranging two point loading system. Each specimen is carefully placed
in position. Load is applied without shock and rate of increase in loading is
maintained. Maximum load applied on the specimen is recorded at the point of
failure of the specimen and flexural strength is calculated. Plate 6 shows the
testing of prism specimen in progress.

52
PLATE 6- FLEXURAL TEST IN PROGRESS

53
PLATE 7- VIEW OF TESTED SPECIMENS

54
 CHAPTER 6
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
6.1 GENERAL
This chapter deals with the presentation of test results, and discussions
on Compressive, Tensile and Flexural strength development of Control
concrete, Rice husk ash concrete and Silica fume concrete at different curing
periods.
The present investigation is based on the IS method for Control
concrete. For Rice husk ash (RHA) and Silica fume (SF) concrete, replacement
method is considered. Trial mix proportions have been obtained for M20 grade
Control concrete from the mix design. By conducting trial mixes, an optimized
proportion for the mix is obtained for M20 grade Control concrete.
Compressive strength behavior of RHA and SF concrete designed by the
replacement method are studied, where in the effect of age and percentage
replacement of cement with RHA and SF on compressive strength is studied in
comparison with that of M20 grade Control concrete. In addition Split tensile
strength and Flexural strength studies are also carried out.

6.2 Mix Proportioning

6.2.1 Mix proportioning of Control concrete.

According to IS method of mix design, the proportions of Control
concrete were first obtained; trial mixes were carried out to determine the
strength at 3, 7 and 28days, and the results obtained are shown in figure 6.1 and
6.2, Where in the compressive strength obtained for M20 grade trial mixes are
represented against age. The target mean strength required by M20 grade
concrete is also marked in the figure 6.1and 6.2.
As the cube compressive strength at 28days obtained was higher than
the target mean strength as shown in figure 6.1, the trials were conducted based
on reduced cement content. The compressive strength at different ages of M20

55
grade Concrete under trial mix and final mix are dissipated through bar chart in
figure 6.2. The final mix proportions arrived at is shown in table 6.1.
The slump was measured to know the range of workability, which was
desired to be between 25 to 70 mm. But the slump obtained was 0 mm in the
trial mix; hence super plasticizer was used to obtain the required slump.
Different mixes were tested for slump and the optimum (least) dosage, which
gave the required slump, was noted and the same was used in the final mix.
Comparison of compressive strength at 28days of trial and final mix are
shown in figure 6.2, where in the target mean strength required is also
indicated. It can be seen how closely the compressive strength of the final mix
at 28 days correlates with the target mean strength for the M20 grade concrete.
Final mix proportions adopted for M20 grade Control concrete are given
in table 6.1.

TABLE 6.1: Final Mix Proportions of Control concrete

Grade Fine Coarse Super
Cement Water
Of Aggregate Aggregate Plasticizer in
In kgs in Ltrs
Concrete In kgs In kgs Ltrs
M20 1 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.50%
Quantity
310 750.23 1125.35 170.5 1.55
per cum

56
 FIG. 6.1: COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH V/S AGE OF CONTROL
CONCRETE

FIG. 6.2: COMPARATIVE BAR CHART FOR CONTROL CONCRETE

57
6.2.2 Mix Proportioning of Rice husk ash (RHA) Concrete
In this method, three replacements of cement i.e. 5%, 10%and 15% with
Rice husk ash (RHA) are done, where as the total binder content remains the
same.
The mix proportions considered for each replacement considered by
replacement method with RHA are presented in tables 6.2, to 6.4.

TABLE 6.2: MIX PROPORTIONS OF RICE HUSK ASH

CONCRETE FOR 5% REPLACEMENT
Rice
Grade Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement Husk
Of Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs Ash
Concrete In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
In kgs
M20 0.95 0.05 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.55%
Quantity
294.5 15.5 750.23 1125.35 170.5 1.62
per cum

TABLE 6.3: MIX PROPORTIONS OF RICE HUSK ASH

CONCRETE FOR 10% REPLACEMENT
Rice
Grade Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement Husk
Of Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs Ash
Concrete In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
In kgs
M20 0.90 0.1 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.65%
Quantity
279 31 750.23 1125.35 170.5 1.81
per cum

58
 TABLE 6.4: MIX PROPORTIONS OF RICE HUSK ASH
CONCRETE FOR 15% REPLACEMENT
Rice
Grade Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement Husk
Of Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs Ash
Concrete In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
In kgs
M20 0.85 0.15 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.75%
Quantity
263.5 46.5 750.23 1125.35 170.5 1.97
per cum

6.2.3 Mix Proportioning of Silica fume (SF) Concrete

In this method, three replacements of cement i.e. 5%, 10%and 15% with
SF are done, where as the total binder content remains the same.
The mix proportions considered for each replacement considered by
replacement method with SF are presented in tables 6.5, to 6.7.

TABLE 6.5: MIX PROPORTIONS OF SILICA FUME CONCRETE

FOR 5% REPLACEMENT
Grade Silica Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement
Of Fume Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs
Concrete In kgs In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
M20 0.95 0.05 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.60%
Quantity
294.5 15.5 750.23 1125.35 170.5 1.77
per cum

59
 TABLE 6.6: MIX PROPORTIONS OF SILICA FUME CONCRETE
FOR 10% REPLACEMENT
Grade Silica Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement
Of Fume Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs
Concrete In kgs In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
M20 0.90 0.1 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.75%
Quantity
279 31 750.23 1125.35 170.5 2.09
per cum

TABLE 6.7: MIX PROPORTIONS OF SILICA FUME CONCRETE

FOR 15% REPLACEMENT
Grade Silica Fine Coarse Water Super
Cement
Of Fume Aggregate Aggregate In Plasticizer
In kgs
Concrete In kgs In kgs In kgs Ltrs. in Ltrs.
M20 0.85 0.15 2.42 3.63 0.55 0.80%
Quantity
263.5 46.5 750.23 1125.35 170.5 2.11
per cum

6.3 Strength characteristics of Concrete

6.3.1 Compressive strength

Most concrete structures are designed assuming that concrete processes
sufficient compressive strength but not the tensile strength. The compressive
strength is the main criterion for the purpose of structural design. To study the
strength development of Rice husk ash (RHA) & Silica fume (SF) concrete in
comparison to Control concrete, compressive strength tests were conducted at
the ages of 3, 7, 28, 56 & 91days. The test results are reported in table 6.8 (A)
for Control concrete and in table 6.9 &6.10 for RHA & SF concrete
respectively.

60
6.3.1.1 Control concrete (CC):
A) Effect of Age on compressive strength:
Table 6.8 (A) gives the test results of Control concrete. The 28 days
strength obtained for M20 grade Control concrete is 27.45MPa. The strength
results reported in table 6.8 (A) are presented in the form of graphical variation
(Fig 6.3), Where in the compressive strength is plotted against the curing
period.
TABLE 6.8(A): COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONTROL
CONCRETE
Compressive Strength of Control Concrete in N/mm2
Grade of
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
Concrete
M20 14.28 18.92 27.45 33.14 37.20

The strength achieved at different ages namely 3, 7, 28, 56 and 91 days

for Control concrete are also presented in bar chart in figure 6.4.From the
figure, it is clear that as the age advances, the strength of Control concrete
increases. The rate of increase being higher at curing period up to 28days.
However the strength gain continues at a slower rate after 28 days.

STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE ON AGEING

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

40

30
2
IN N/mm

20 M20

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG. 6.3: STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE AT DIFFERENT

AGES

61
 BAR CHART REPRESENTATION OF
STRENGTH OF M20 GRADE CONTROL
CONCRETE AT DIFFERENT AGES

40
2
Strength in N/mm 35
Compressive

30 3 Days
25 7 Days
20 28 Days
15 56 Days
10 91 Days
5
0
M20

Grade of Control Concrete

FIG 6.4 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF M20 GRADE CONTROL

CONCRETE AT DIFFERENT AGES

Strength achieved by M20 Grade Control concrete at different ages as a

ratio of strength at 28days is reported in table 6.8 (B). From the table, it can be
seen that 3 days strength is found to be 0.52 times that of 28 days strength, for
7 days, the strength is found to be 0.69 times that of 28 days strength, for 56
days, the strength is found to be 1.21 times that of 28days strength, and for 91
days, the strength is found to be 1.36 times that of 28days strength.

TABLE 6.8(B): COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH AS A RATIO OF

28DAYS STRENGTH AT DIFFERENT AGES FOR CONTROL
CONCRETE
Grade of
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
Concrete
M20 0.52 0.69 1 1.21 1.36

62
6.3.1.2 RICE HUSK ASH (RHA) AND SILICA FUME (SF) CONCRETE
A) Effect of Age on compressive strength of concrete:
Figure 6.5 to figure 6.6 represents the variation of compressive strength
with age for M20 grade RHA and SF concrete, in each figure, Variation of
compressive strength with age is depicted separately for each replacement level
of RHA & SF considered, namely 5%, 10% and 15%. Along with the
variations shown for each replacement, for comparison similar variations is
also shown for Control concrete i.e., for 0% replacement.
In each of these variations, it can be clearly seen that, as the age
advances, the compressive strength also increases. The highest strength
obtained at a particular age for different replacement levels with RHA & SF is
reported in table 6.9 for the ages of 3days, 7days 28days, 56days and 91days
respectively.

TABLE 6.9: HIGHEST COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OBTAINED AT

DIFFERENT AGES
Age
in 0% 5%RHA 10%RHA 15%RHA 5%SF 10%SF 15%SF
days
3 14.28 25.11 22.00 13.11 16.00 23.33 18.89
7 18.92 26.00 25.56 20.00 28.67 31.11 26.00
28 27.45 35.78 42.22 48.89 37.33 44.44 36.00
56 33.14 40.22 45.11 53.33 41.78 46.66 46.66
91 37.20 42.22 46.67 55.55 41.78 48.89 45.33

Percentage increase in strength with respect to Control concrete strength

(i.e.0%replacement) at 3days, 7days, 28days, 56days and 91days are calculated
and presented in table 6.10 to 6.14.

63
 In each table, the change in strength for M20 grade RHA and SF
Concrete is presented separately and the following observations are made,
¾ The maximum increase in the Compressive strength of RHA concrete
(i.e., 78.11%)has occurred at 28 days with 15% replacement with RHA,
whereas the compressive strength of RHA concrete is found to be
decreased by 8.19% at 3days with 15% RHA replacement.
¾ With respect to the Control concrete, the maximum increase in
compressive strength of SF concrete has occurred at 10% replacement
level and at the age of 7 days, however there is a little increase in the
compressive strength at 3days with 5% SF replacement.
¾ It can be clearly observed that at the age of 28 days, there is a gradual
increase in the compressive strength of RHA concrete for all the
replacement levels with respect to Control concrete.
¾ At the age of 28days, there is a gradual increase in the compressive
strength of SF concrete up to 10% SF replacement with respect to
Control concrete, whereas the strength of SF concrete reduces with the
further increase in the percentage of SF replacement.

TABLE 6.10 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE AT 3 DAYS W.R.T % REPLACEMENT OF RHA & SF
Percentage
Rice Husk Ash Silica Fume
Replacement
0-5% 75.84 12.04
0-10% 54.06 63.38
0-15% -8.19 32.28

64
 TABLE 6.11 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN STRENGTH OF
CONCRETE AT 7 DAYS W.R.T % REPLACEMENT OF RHA & SF
Percentage
Rice Husk Ash Silica Fume
Replacement
0-5% 37.42 51.53
0-10% 35.09 64.43
0-15% 5.71 37.42

TABLE 6.12 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE AT 28 DAYS W.R.T % REPLACEMENT OF RHA & SF
Percentage
Rice Husk Ash Silica Fume
Replacement
0-5% 30.35 35.99
0-10% 53.81 61.89
0-15% 78.11 31.15

TABLE 6.13 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE AT 56 DAYS W.R.T % REPLACEMENT OF RHA & SF
Percentage
Rice Husk Ash Silica Fume
Replacement
0-5% 21.36 26.07
0-10% 36.12 40.79
0-15% 60.92 40.79

65
 TABLE 6.14 INCREASE OR DECREASE IN STRENGTH OF
CONCRETE AT 91 DAYS W.R.T % REPLACEMENT OF RHA & SF
Percentage
Rice Husk Ash Silica Fume
Replacement
0-5% 13.50 12.31
0-10% 25.46 31.42
0-15% 49.33 21.85

Strength development of concrete for different percentage replacements

with RHA & SF is presented in Table 6.15 to 6.16. In each table, by what
percentage the compressive strength increases with respect to previous age is
reported.

TABLE 6.15 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH OF M20 GRADE RICE HUSK ASH CONCRETE W.R.T.
AGE
% Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase
CRL between between between between
3days-7days 7days-28days 28days-56days 56days-91days
0% 32.50 45.08 20.73 12.25
5% 3.54 37.62 12.41 4.97
10% 16.18 65.18 6.85 3.46
15% 52.56 144.45 9.08 4.16

66
 TABLE 6.16 PERCENTAGE INCREASE IN COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH OF M20 GRADE SILICA FUME CONCRETE W.R.T. AGE
% Increase % Increase % Increase % Increase
CRL between between between between
3days-7days 7days-28days 28days-56days 56days-91days
0% 32.50 45.08 20.73 12.25
5% 79.19 30.21 11.92 0.00
10% 33.35 42.85 4.99 4.78
15% 37.64 38.46 29.61 -2.85

From table 6.15, it can be clearly seen that, the strength is always higher
for Control concrete (i.e., 0% replacement) for initial period up to between 3-7
days up to 10% replacement with Rice Husk Ash (RHA), and for 15%
replacement with RHA, the strength is very much higher when compared with
that of Control concrete. The rate of strength development between 7-28days is
maximum when cement is replaced with 15% RHA. However there is a gradual
decrease in the strength between 28-56days and 56-91days, as the cement is
replaced with RHA up to a percentage of 10%. Thus from the table 6.15, it is
clear that the rate of strength development is maximum up to the age of 28 days
at all the replacement levels with RHA, and as the age advances from 28-91
days, the rate of strength development gradually decreases at all the
replacement levels.
Similarly from table 6.16, it can be seen that, the strength is
always higher for Control concrete (i.e., 0% replacement) between 7-28 days at
all the replacement levels with Silica Fume (SF). Also there is a gradual
increase in the rate of strength development till 28 days at all the replacement
levels with Silica Fume. As the age advances from 28 to 91 days there is a
decrease in the rate of strength development at all the replacement levels with
Silica Fume.

67
 VARIATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH
AGE AND PERCENTAGE OF RICE HUSK ASH

Compressive Strength in 60

50

40 CC+0% RHA
2
N/mm

CC+5% RHA
30
CC+10% RHA
20 CC+15% RHA

10

0
0 20 40 60 80 100

Age in Days

FIG 6.5 EFFECT OF AGE ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF RICE HUSK
ASH

VARIATION OF COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH WITH AGE AND

PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME
Compressive strength

60
50
CC+0% SF
2

40
in N/mm

CC+5% SF
30
CC+10% SF
20
CC+15% SF
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Age in Days

FIG 6.6 EFFECT OF AGE ON COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF SILICA
FUME

68
B) Effect of Percentage Replacement of cement with Rice Husk Ash (RHA)
and Silica Fume (SF) on compressive strength of concrete:
Figure 6.7 to figure 6.8 represents the variation of compressive strength
with percentage replacement of RHA & SF for M20 grade concrete, in each
figure, Variation of compressive strength with percentage replacement is
depicted separately for RHA & SF.
In each of these variations, it is easily seen that as the percentage
replacement is increased, the compressive strength also increases.

PERCENTAGE OF RICE HUSK ASH Vs COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH
Compressive Strength in

60
50 Strength at 3 Days
40 Strength at 7 Days
2
N/mm

30 Strength at 28 Days
20 Strength at 56 Days
10 Strength at 91 Days
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Percentage of Rice Husk Ash

FIG 6.7 EFFECT OF RICE HUSK ASH PERCENTAGE ON

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

69
 PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME Vs COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
Compressive Strength
60
50 Strength at 3 Days
2

40
in N/mm

Strength at 7 Days
30 Strength at 28 Days
20 Strength at 56 Days
10 Strength at 91 Days

0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Percentage of Silica Fume

FIG 6.8 EFFECT OF SILICA FUME PERCENTAGE ON

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

Comparison between different replacements is made possible if the

water cement ratio is common. For better pictorial representation, the variations
are also represented in the form of bar charts in the figures 6.9, & 6.10.

Figure 6.9 to 6.10 gives the variation of compressive strength with

different percentage replacement of cement with Rice husk Ash & Silica fume
for M20 grade concrete. The graph is so developed that a common water
cement ratio is considered for different replacement, so that for a particular
water cement ratio how the variation is observed with different replacement.

70
 M 20 Grade 0.55 w/c

Compressive Strength in
60
50
40 28 days
2
N/mm

30 56 days
20 91 days

10
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
% Replacement 0f RHA

M20 Grade 0.55 w/c

Compressive Strength

60
50
2

40
in N/mm

28 days
30 56 days
20 91 days

10
0
5% 10% 15%
% Replacement of RHA

FIG 6.9 EFFECT OF % REPLACEMENT OF RICE HUSK ASH ON

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH W.R.T WATER BINDER RATIO FOR
M20 GRADE CONCRETE

71
 M20 Grade 0.55 w/c

60

2
Compressive Strength in N/mm
50

40
28 days
30 56 days
91 days
20

10

0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
% Replacement of Silica Fume

M 2 0 Gra de 0.55 w/ c

60
50
40 28 days
30 56 days
20
91 days
10
0
5% 10% 15%
% R e pla ce me nt o f Silica F ume

FIG 6.10 EFFECT OF % REPLACEMENT OF SILICA FUME ON

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH W.R.T WATER BINDER RATIO FOR
M20 GRADE CONCRETE

From figure 6.9, it is clearly seen that 15% replacement with RHA has
resulted in higher strength particularly considering 28days age. Also from
figure 6.10 it can be clearly seen that 10% replacement with SF has resulted in
higher strength particularly considering 28days age; also the rate of strength
development has decreased when the cement is replaced with 15% SF.

72
6.3.2 Split tensile Strength:
In reinforced concrete construction, the strength of concrete in
compression is only taken into consideration. The tensile strength of concrete is
generally neglected, as it is relatively low in comparison to the compressive
strength. But there are certain structures; where in tensile strength of concrete
also finds a place during design like water retaining structures and concrete
pavements. Therefore, it is necessary to assess the tensile strength of concrete.
The use of pozzolanic material increases the tensile strength of concrete. The
procedure for the split tensile test has been explained in chapter 5.

6.3.2.1 Control concrete:

The 28 days tensile strength obtained for M20 Grade Control concrete is
2.68 N/mm2. Table 6.17 shows the tensile strength of M20 Grade Control
concrete with respect to age.
Variation of tensile strength with age is presented in figure 6.11. It is
clear from the figure that tensile strength of Control concrete increases at a
greater rate up to 28days and the increase is gradual for further increase in age.

TABLE 6.17: TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE

Tensile strength of Control Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
M20 1.50 1.99 2.68 2.70 2.75

73
 TENSILE STRENGTH IN N/mm2
3

2.5

2
M20 Control
1.5
Concrete
1

0.5

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.11: TENSILE STRENGTH V/S AGE IN DAYS

OF CONTROL CONCRETE

6.3.2.2 Rice Husk Ash (RHA) Concrete:

The 28 days tensile strength of M20 grade concrete with 5%, 10% &
15% RHA replacement are 2.62N/mm2, 2.83 N/mm2 and 2.83 N/mm2
respectively.
Table 6.18 shows the tensile strength of M20 grade concrete with 5%,
10% & 15% RHA replacement with respect to age. The values show that the
tensile strength of RHA concrete is higher than that of Control concrete. Fig
6.12 and 6.13 shows the variation of split tensile strength with age and effect of
RHA percentage for M20 grade concrete. It is very clear from the figure 6.12
that there is not much variation in tensile strength from 28 days to 91 days.

74
 VARIATION OF TENSILE STRENGTH WITH AGE AND PERCENTAGE
OF RICE HUSK ASH

S T R E N G T 2H I N 3 CC+0% RHA
T E N S IL E
N /m m CC+5% RHA
2
CC+10% RHA
1 CC+15% RHA
0
0 20 40 60 80 100

AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.12 EFFECT OF AGE ON TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF RICE HUSK ASH

PERCENTAGE OF RICE HUSK ASH v/s TENSILE STRENGTH

T e n s ile S t re n g t h in

4
3 Strength at 3 days
N /m m 2

2 Strength at 7 days
1 Strength at 28 days
0 Strength at 56 days
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
Strength at 91 days
Percentage of Rice Husk Ash

FIG 6.13 EFFECT OF RICE HUSK ASH PERCENTAGE ON TENSILE

STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

Referring to figure 6.12, where tensile strength variation with age and
RHA percentage is shown, the variation as observed in case of Control
concrete, the rate of development of split tensile strength is higher at initial
ages between 3days to 7days and 7days to 28days. The values show that the

75
tensile strength of RHA concrete also increases with age for M20 grade
concrete and it varies gradually up to 91days.
Table 6.18 shows the split tensile strength of M20 grade RHA
concrete at different curing periods with different replacement levels. Variation
of split tensile strength with age is compared between Control concrete and
RHA concrete in figure 6.12. It can be clearly seen from the figure that, the
split tensile strength of RHA Concrete is less than that of Control concrete up
to 28 days for 5%, 10% and 15% RHA replacement levels, where as the 28
days tensile strength of RHA concrete is more than that of the Control concrete
for 10% and 15% RHA replacement levels. The tensile strength of RHA
concrete is found to be higher than that of Control concrete at the ages of
56days and 91days for all the replacement levels.
The 28 days tensile strength of M20 grade RHA concrete obtained is
found to be decreasing by 2.24% for 5% RHA replacement and found to be
increased by 5.59% for 10% and 15% replacement with RHA with respect to
Control concrete. But for at 56days and 91 days, RHA concrete strength is
higher by 4.81% and 8% for 5% RHA replacement, 28.51% and 31.27% for
10% RHA replacement and 25.92% and 33.82% for 15% RHA replacement
with respect to Control concrete.

TABLE 6.18: TENSILE STRENGTH OF RICE HUSK ASH CONCRETE

Tensile strength of Rice Husk ash Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
5% 1.27 1.69 2.62 2.83 2.97
10% 0.99 1.77 2.83 3.47 3.61
15% 0.71 1.42 2.83 3.40 3.68

76
6.3.2.3 Silica Fume (SF) Concrete:
The 28 days tensile strength for M20 grade concrete with 5%, 10% &
15% SF replacement are 3.68N/mm2, 3.33 N/mm2 and 3.26 N/mm2
respectively.
Table 6.19 shows the tensile strength of M20 grade concrete with 5%,
10% & 15% SF replacement with respect to age. The values show that the
tensile strength of Control concrete is higher than that of SF concrete for 10%
and 15% SF replacement level up to 7 days and there after the tensile strength
is increasing with the age compared to Control concrete. However the tensile
strength of Silica fume concrete is more than that of the Control concrete at 5%
Silica Fume replacement at all the ages. Fig 6.14 and 6.15 shows the variation
of split tensile strength with age and effect of Silica fume percentage for M20
grade concrete. It is very clear from the figure 6.14 that there is no much
variation in tensile strength from 28 days to 91 days.

VARIATION OF TENSILE STRENGTH WITH AGE

AND PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME

5
TENSILE STRENGTH

4
CC+0% SF
2
IN N/mm

3 CC+5% SF
2 CC+10% SF
CC+15% SF
1

0
0 20 40 60 80 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.14 EFFECT OF AGE ON TENSILE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF SILICA FUME

77
 PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME v/s TENSILE STRENGTH

4.5

TENSILE STRENGTH IN
4
3.5 Strength at 3 days
3 Strength at 7 days
2
N/mm
2.5
Strength at 28 days
2
1.5 Strength at 56 days
1 Strength at 91 days
0.5
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME

FIG 6.15 EFFECT OF SILICA FUME PERCENTAGE ON TENSILE

STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

Referring to figure 6.14, where the tensile strength variation with age is
shown for different percentage replacements with SF, the variation as observed
in case of Control concrete is that, the rate of development of split tensile
strength is higher at initial ages between 3days to 7days and 7days to 28days.
The values show that the tensile strength of M20 grade SF concrete also
increases with age and it varies gradually up to 91days.
Table 6.19 shows the split tensile strength of M20 grade Control
concrete and Silica Fume concrete at different curing periods. Variation of split
tensile strength with age is compared between Control concrete and Silica fume
concrete in figure 6.14. It is clearly seen from the figure that, the strengths of
M20 grade Control concrete are less than that of SF concrete at all the ages for
5% replacement with SF.
The tensile strength of M20 grade SF concrete is found to be higher than
that of Control concrete at the ages of 28 days, 56days and 91days for all the
replacement levels.

78
 The 28 days tensile strength of M20 grade Silica Fume concrete
obtained is found to be increasing by 37.31%, 24.25% and 21.64% for 5%
replacement with respect to Control concrete. Also at 56days and 91 days,
Silica fume concrete strength is higher by 46.67%, and 49.45% for 5%
replacement with SF, 41.48% and 46.54% for 10% replacement with SF and
20.74% and 23.27% for 15% replacement with SF with respect to Control
concrete.

TABLE 6.19: TENSILE STRENGTH OF SILICA FUME CONCRETE

Tensile strength of Silica Fume Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
0% 1.50 1.99 2.68 2.70 2.75
5% 1.84 2.48 3.68 3.96 4.11
10% 1.13 2.05 3.33 3.82 4.03
15% 1.27 1.42 3.26 3.26 3.39

6.3.3 Flexural Strength:

It is seen that strength of concrete in compression and tension (both
direct tension and flexural tension) are closely related, but the relationship is
not of the type of direct proportionality. The ratio of the two strengths depends
on general level of strength of concrete. In other words, for higher compressive
strength, concrete shows higher tensile strength, but the rate of increase of
tensile strength is of decreasing order. The use of pozzolanic material increases
the tensile strength of concrete. The results of flexural strength test are
tabulated in table 6.20 and the corresponding graph is shown in fig 6.16.

6.3.3.1 Control Concrete:

Fig 6.16 shows the variation of flexural strength of Control concrete
with respect to age for M20 grade. It is clear from the figure 6.16 that, the
flexural strength increases at a greater rate up to 28days and the increase is
gradual for further increase in age.

79
 TABLE 6.20: FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE
Flexural strength of Control Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS

FLEXURAL STRENGTH IN N/mm2 M20 2.87 4.44 5.02 6.15 7.10

8
7
6
5
M20 CONTROL
4
CONCRETE
3
2
1
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.16: FLEXURAL STRENGTH V/S AGE IN DAYS OF

CONTROL CONCRETE

6.3.3.2 Rice Husk Ash (RHA) Concrete:

Table 6.21 gives the details of flexural strength of M20 grade Rice husk
ash concrete at different curing periods and at different cement replacement
levels with Rice husk ash. Variation of flexural strength with respect to age and
percentage of RHA, and effect of RHA percentage on Flexural strength of M20
grade concrete is depicted in figure 6.17 and 6.18 respectively. The rate of
development of flexural strength is higher at 7days to 28days and 28days to
56days. At later age between 56days and 91days only a marginal increase is
observed. At 28days, there is very less variation in flexural strength of RHA
concrete at the replacement levels, where as there is a comparative increase in
flexural strengths of RHA concrete at higher curing periods.

80
 The 28 days flexural strength of M20 grade RHA concrete obtained is
found to be increasing by 119.12%, 104.18% and 124.10% respectively for 5%,
10% and 15% replacement levels with respect to Control concrete.
At 56 days increase in flexural strength by 95.12%, 66.67% and 82.92%
is observed for RHA concrete for 5%, 10% and 15% replacements with respect
to Control concrete. And at 91 days increase in strength is observed by
104.22%, 76.05% and 61.97% for 5%, 10% and 15% replacements with respect
to Control concrete.
Table 6.22 gives the flexural strength of Control concrete and Rice husk
ash concrete with respect to different age of curing. Flexural strength of the
concrete keeps on increasing with the increase in curing period, which is
clearly depicted in figure 6.17. Both the strength values of Control concrete and
Rice husk ash concrete for M20 grade are plotted in the figure.

VARIATION OF FLEXURAL STRENGTH WITH AGE AND

PERCENTAGE OF RHA
2
STRENGTH IN N/mm

20
FLEXURAL

15 CC+0% RHA
CC+5% RHA
10
CC+10% RHA
5 CC+15% RHA

0
0 50 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.17 EFFECT OF AGE ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF RICE HUSK
ASH

81
 PERCENTAGE OF RICE HUSK ASH v/s FLEXURAL
STRENGTH

16
FLEXURAL STRENGTH IN 14
12 Strength at 3 days
10 Strength at 7 days
2
N/mm

8 Strength at 28 days
6 Strength at 56 days
4 Strength at 91 days
2
0
0% 5% 10% 15% 20%
PERCENTAGE OF RICE HUSK ASH

FIG 6.18 EFFECT OF RICE HUSK ASH PERCENTAGE ON

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

Table 6.23 gives the details of 28 days compression, tension, and

flexural strength of Control concrete and Rice husk ash concrete with different
cement replacement levels for M20 grade. All the percentage replacement
levels considered are compared in bar chart in fig 6.19 for both Rice husk ash
concrete and Control concrete and for all the three percentage replacement
levels considered.

TABLE 6.21: FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF RICE HUSK ASH

CONCRETE
Flexural strength of Rice Husk ash Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
5% 6.25 8.00 11.00 12.00 14.50
10% 8.00 8.75 10.25 10.25 12.50
15% 5.50 7.50 11.25 11.25 11.50

82
 TABLE 6.22: FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE
AND RICE HUSK ASH CONCRETE
Flexural strength of Control and Rice Husk ash Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
M20 CC 2.87 4.44 5.02 6.15 7.10
M20 CC+5%RHA 6.25 8.00 11.00 12.00 14.50
M20 CC+10% RHA 8.00 8.75 10.25 10.25 12.50
M20 CC+15% RHA 5.50 7.50 11.25 11.25 11.50

TABLE 6.23: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE AND

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE & RICE HUSK
ASH CONCRETE
Strength Compressive Tensile strength in Flexural strength in
Type Strength in n/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
Percentage
0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15%
replacement
Control
27.45 2.68 5.02
concrete

Rice husk ash

35.78 42.22 48.89 2.62 2.83 2.83 11.00 10.25 11.25
concrete

83
 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE,TENSILE AND FLEXURAL
STRENGTH OF CONTROL AND RICE HUSK ASH
CONCRETE

60
2
STRENGTH IN N/mm

50

40 0% RHA
5% RHA
30
10% RHA
20 15% RHA
10

M20 CC,RHA CONCRETE

FIG. 6.19: BAR CHART FOR COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE AND

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE AND RICE
HUSK ASH CONCRETE

6.3.3.3 Silica fume (SF) Concrete:

Table 6.24 gives the details of flexural strength of Silica fume concrete
at different curing periods and at different Cement replacement levels with SF.
Variation of flexural strength with respect to age and percentage of Silica fume
and effect of Silica fume percentage on Flexural strength of M20 grade
concrete is depicted in figure 6.20 and 6.21. The rate of development of
flexural strength is higher at 7days to 28days and 28days to 56days. At later
age between 56days and 91days only a marginal increase is observed. Up to
28days, the flexural strength for all the replacement levels, there is very high
variation in strength. Whereas, there is a comparative increase in flexural
strengths of SF concrete at higher curing periods.
The 28 days flexural strength of SF concrete obtained is found to be
increasing by 119.12%, 129.08% and 119.12% for 5%, 10% and 15%
replacements respectively with respect to Control concrete.

84
 At 56 days, increase in flexural strength by 86.99%, 103.25% and
119.51% is observed for SF concrete for 5%, 10% and 15% replacements with
respect to Control concrete. At 91 days increase in strength is observed by
79.57%, 114.78% and 97.18% for SF concrete for 5%, 10% and 15%
replacements with respect to Control concrete at 91days.
Table 6.25 gives the flexural strength of Control concrete and Silica
fume concrete with respect to different age of curing. Flexural strength of the
concrete keeps on increasing with increase in curing period, which is clearly
depicted in the figure 6.20. Both the strength values of M20 grade Control
concrete and Silica fume concrete are plotted in the figure.

VARIATION OF FLEXURAL STRENGTH WITH

AGE AND PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME

18
2
STRENGTH IN N/mm

16
14
FLEXURAL

12 CC+0% SF
10 CC+5% SF
8 CC+10% SF
6 CC+15% SF
4
2
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
AGE IN DAYS

FIG 6.20 EFFECT OF AGE ON FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF

CONCRETE W.R.T DIFFERENT % REPLACEMENT OF SILICA
FUME

85
 PERCENTAGE OF SILICA FUME v/s FLEXURAL
STRENGTH

STRENGTH IN 20
Strength at 3 days
FLEXURAL

15
Strength at 7 days
2
N/mm
10 Strength at 28 days
Strength at 56 days
5
Strength at 91 days
0
0% 10% 20%

PERCENTAGE OF SILICA
FUME

FIG 6.21 EFFECT OF SILICA FUME PERCENTAGE ON FLEXURAL

STRENGTH OF CONCRETE

Table 6.26 gives the details of 28 days compression, tension, and

flexural strength of M20 grade Control concrete and Silica fume concrete with
different cement replacement levels. All the percentage replacement levels
considered are compared in bar chart in fig 6.22 for both Silica fume concrete
and Control concrete and for all the three percentage replacement levels
considered. All the three percentage replacement levels considered are
compared in bar chart in fig 6.22 for both Silica fume concrete and Control
concrete and for all the three percentage replacement levels considered. For any
percentage replacement level, it is seen that, the flexural strength is greater than
the split tensile strength, and the compressive strength is maximum for the
percentage replacement levels up to 10%. It is seen through the study that, the
Compressive strength of SF concrete is more than that of Control concrete for
all the replacement levels, where as Tensile and Flexural strength results are
also varying for the different replacement levels.

86
 TABLE 6.24: FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF SILICA FUME CONCRETE
Flexural strength of Silica Fume Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
5% 5.25 8.75 11.00 11.50 12.75
10% 5.75 7.50 11.50 12.50 15.25
15% 3.00 7.25 11.00 13.50 14.00

TABLE 6.25: FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE

AND SILICA FUME CONCRETE
Flexural strength of Control and Rice Husk ash Concrete in N/mm2
3DAYS 7DAYS 28DAYS 56DAYS 91DAYS
M20 CC 2.87 4.44 5.02 6.15 7.10
M20 CC+5%SF 5.25 8.75 11.00 11.50 12.75
M20 CC+10% SF 5.75 7.50 11.50 12.50 15.25
M20 CC+15% SF 3.00 7.25 11.00 13.50 14.00

TABLE 6.26: 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE TENSILE AND

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE & SILICA
FUME CONCRETE
Strength Compressive Tensile strength in Flexural strength in
Type Strength in N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
Percentage
0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15% 0% 5% 10% 15%
replacement
Control
27.45 2.68 5.02
concrete
Silica fume
37.33 44.44 36 3.68 3.33 3.26 11 11.5 11
concrete

87
 28 DAY COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE AND FLEXURAL
STRENGTH OF CONTROL AND SILICA FUME
CONCRETE

50
2
STRENGTH IN N/mm

40
0% SF
30
5% SF
20 10% SF
15% SF
10

M20 CC,SF CONCRETE

FIG. 6.22: BAR CHART FOR COMPRESSIVE, TENSILE AND

FLEXURAL STRENGTH OF CONTROL CONCRETE AND SILICA
FUME CONCRETE

88
 CHAPTER 7
CONCLUSIONS

7.1 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the limited study carried out on the Strength behavior of Rice
husk ash and Silica fume Concrete, the following Conclusions are drawn:
1. At all the cement replacement levels with Rice husk ash; there is a gradual
decrease in the compressive strength at the early ages up to 7days. However as the
age advances, there is a gradual increase in the compressive strength of Rice husk
ash concrete.
2.The compressive strength of Silica fume concrete is found to be increased
gradually up to 10% replacement. However with further increase in age, the
compressive strength of Silica fume concrete is found to be increased gradually at
all the cement replacement levels.
3. During the initial ages of up to 7days,the split tensile strength of Rice husk ash
concrete is found to be decreased at all cement replacement levels, however with
the increase in age, there is a gradual increase in the split tensile strength of Rice
husk ash concrete, which is better than the split tensile strength of Control
concrete.
4.With the increase in the percentage replacement with Silica fume, the split
tensile strength of Silica fume concrete is found to be decreased at all the ages.
However with the advancement in age, the Split tensile Strength of Silica fume
concrete is found to be increased gradually at all the replacement levels.
5.At the initial ages, with the increase in the percentage replacement of both Rice
husk ash and Silica fume, the Flexural strength of both Rice husk ash concrete and
Silica fume concrete is found to be increased till 10% replacement. However, as
the age advances, there is an advancement in the Flexural strength of both Rice
husk ash concrete and Silica fume concrete.

89
6.From the study carried out here, it can be concluded that, it is possible to replace
the cement with Rice husk ash in concrete by 15% or even more without
compromising much of its Compressive strength. But it is possible to replace
cement with SF up to 10% only.
7.When compared to Silica fume the cost of Rice husk ash is less, hence it can be
used in place of Silica fume for reducing the cost of concrete and also for
obtaining the concretes of high strengths.
8. Rice husk ash is a viable alternative material to Silica fume in the production of
high strength concrete. The technical and economic advantages of incorporating
Rice husk ash in concrete should be exploited by the construction and rice
industries, more so for the rice growing nations of Asia.

90
7.2 SCOPE FOR FUTURE WORK

¾ Other levels of replacement with Rice husk ash can be researched.

¾ Some tests relating to durability aspects such as water permeability, resistance

to penetration of chloride ions, corrosion of steel reinforcement, resistance to
sulphate attack durability in marine environment etc.with Rice husk ash and
Silica fume need investigation.

¾ The study may further be extended to know the behavior of concrete whether it
is suitable for pumping purpose or not as present day technology is involved in
RMC where pumping of concrete is being done to large heights.

¾ Further research can be carried out with other mineral admixtures such as
GGBS, Metakaolin, Slag etc.

¾ For use of Rice husk ash and Silica fume concrete as a structural material, it is
necessary to investigate the behavior of reinforced Rice husk ash and Silica
fume concrete under flexure, shear, torsion and compression.

91
 CHAPTER 8
REFERENCES
8.1 REFERENCE

1. A.A. Boateng and D.A. Skeete, “Incineration of Rice Hull for use as a
Cementitious Material: The Guyana Experience,” Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol.20, 1990, pp.795-802.
2. Arpana,”Rice Husk Ash-Admixture to concrete,” 2nd National conference
on Advances in concrete Technology, February 26-27, 2004, pp.93-98.
3. Chai Jaturapitakkul and Boonmark Roongreung,”Cementing Material from
Calcium Carbide Residue-Rice Husk Ash,” Journal of materials in civil
Engineering ASCE, September-October 2003, pp. 470-475.
4. Concha Real, Maria D. Alcala, and Jose M. Criado, “Preparation of Silica
from Rice Husks,” Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol.79, No.8,
1996, pp.2012-2016.
5. Deepa G. Nair, K.S Jagadish, Alex Fraaij, “Reactive Pozzolanas from Rice
Husk Ash: An alternative to cement for rural housing,” Cement and
Concrete Research 36(2006) 1062-1071.
6. Dr.Dilip Kumar Singha Roy and Amitava Sil, “Effect of partial
Replacement of Cement by Silica Fume on Strength parameters,” 2nd
National conference on Advances in concrete Technology, February 26-27,
2004, pp.80-84.
7. Dr.V.Bhaskar Desai, A.Ravi and B.Baladasu, “Some Studies on Reinforced
Cement Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by silica Fume,”
Advances in Concrete and Construction Technology, publication 3, pp.128-
135.

92
8. G.V.Rama Rao and M.V.Sheshagiri Rao,”High performance Concrete with
Rice Husk Ash as Mineral Admixture,”ICI Journal, April-June 2003, pp.17-
22.
9. Gemma Rodriguez de Sensale, “Strength Development of Concrete with
Rice- Husk Ash,” Cement & Concrete Composites 28 (2006) 158-160.
10. H.B.Mahmud, B.S.Chia and N.B.A.A. Hamid,”Rice Husk Ash-An
Alternative material in producing High Strength Concrete,” International
Conference on Engineering Materials, June 8-11, 1997, Ottawa, Canada,
pp.275-284.
11. Jose James and M. Subba Rao, “Characterization of Silica in Rice Husk
Ash,” American Ceramic Society Bulletin, Vol.65, No. 8, 1986, pp.1177-
1180.
12. Jose James and M. Subba Rao, “Reaction Product of Lime and Silica from
Rice Husk Ash,” Cement and Concrete Research, Vol.16, 1986, pp.67-73.
13. Jose James and M. Subba Rao, “Reactivity of Rice Husk Ash,” Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol.16, 1986, pp.296-302.
14. K.Ganesan, K.Rajagopal and K.Thangavelu,” Effects of the Partial
Replacement of Cement with Agro waste ashes (Rice husk ash and Bagasse
Ash) on strength and Durability of Concrete,” Proceedings of the
International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete and Construction
Technology, December 7-9, 2005, SRMIST, Chennai, India pp.73-85.
15. L.V.A.Seshasayi, D.Ramaseshu and R.Shankariah, “Effect of Cement
replacements by fly ash and silica fume on compressive strength of
concrete,” Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag and Natural pozzolanas in concrete,
Volume 2, SP199-32, V.M Malhotra, pp.581-593.
16. M. Nehdi, J. Duquette, A. EI Damatty,” Performance of Rice Husk Ash
produced using a new technology as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete,”
Cement and Concrete Reasearch 33 (2003) 1203-1210.

93
17. M.J. Shannag,”High Strength Concrete containing natural Pozzolan and
Silica Fume,” Cement & Concrete Composites 22(2000) 399-406.
18. Mauro M. Tashima, Carlos A. R Da Silva, Jorge L. Akasaki, and Michele
Beniti Barbosa, “The Possibility of adding the Rice Husk Ash (RHA) to the
Concrete,” Conference, FEIS/UNESP, Brazil 2001.
19. Min-Hong Zhang and V. Mohan Malhotra, “High-Performance Concrete
Incorporating Rice Husk Ash as a Supplementary Cementing Material,”
ACI Materials Journal, November-December 1996, pp.629-636.
20. Moncef Nehdi, “Ternary and Quaternary Cements for Sustainable
Development,” Concrete International, April 2001, pp.35-41.
21. Ms.Nazia Pathan,”Use of Rice Husk Ash in making High Performance
Concrete,” National Seminar on Innovation Technologies in Construction
of Concrete Structures 7th & 8th Feb.2003, Dept. of Civil Engineering,
KITS, Ramtek, Maharashtra State.
22. N. Bouzoubaa and B. Fournier, “Concrete incorporating Rice Husk Ash:
Compressive Strength and Chloride-ion Penetrability,” Development of
Cement and Concrete (ICON), CANMET, Natural Resources Canada,
Ottawa, Canada.
23. N.P.Rajamane and D.Sabitha,”Effect of fly ash and silica fume on alkalinity
of cement mortars,” The Indian Concrete journal, March 2005, pp. 43-48.
24. N.R.D.Murthy, P.Rathish Kumar, Seshu D.R and M.V. Seshagiri
Rao,”Effects of Rice Husk Ash on the Strength and Durability of Concrete,”
ICI Journal July-September 2002, pp.37-38.
25. Nicole P.Hasparyk, Paulo J.M Monterio, and Helena Carasek,”Effect of
Silica Fume and Rice Husk Ash on Alkali-Silica Reaction,”ACI Materials
Journal, July-August 2000, pp. 486-491.
26. P.Kumar Mehta and Richard W.Burrows, “Building Durable Structures in
the 21st Century,” Concrete International, March 2001, pp.57-63.

94
27. P.Kumar Mehta, “Concrete Technology for Sustainable Development,”
Concrete International, November 1999, pp.47-53.
28. P.Kumar Mehta, “Greening of the Concrete Industry for Sustainable
Development,” Concrete International, July 2002, pp.23-28.
29. P.Kumar Mehta, “Reducing the Environmental Impact of Concrete,”
Concrete International, October 2001, pp.61-66.
30. P.S.S Narayana, P.Srinivasa Rao, B.L.P Swamy,” Studies on Cement
Replacement in Concretes by Micro Silica 920-D,” ACECON, September
2005, pp.22-25.
31. Pierre-Claude Aitcin, “Cements of Yesterday and Today Concrete of
Tomorrow,” Cement and Concrete Research 30(2000) 1349-1359.
32. V. Yogendran, B.W. Langan, M.N. Haque and M.A. Ward,” Silica Fume in
High-Strength Concrete,” ACI Materials Journal, March-April 1987,
pp.124-129.
33. V.M Malhotra,”Fly Ash, Slag, Silica Fume, and Rice-Husk Ash in
Concrete: A Review,” Concrete International, April 1993, pp.23-28.
34. Vesa Penttala,”Concrete and Sustainable Development,”ACI Materials
Journal, September-October 1997, pp.409-416.

95
8.2 BOOK
1. M.L Gambhir: Concrete Manual.
2. Rafat Siddique: Special Structural Concretes.
3. Concrete Technology and Design Volume 3, Cement Replacement
Materials: R.N Swamy.

8.3 CODES OF PRACTICE

1. SP: 23-1982, Hand Book on Concrete Mixes (Based on Indian Standards)
2. IS: 10262-1982, Indian Standards, Recommended Guidelines for concrete
mix Design.
3. IS: 516-1959, Indian Standards, Method of tests for Strength of Concrete.
4. IS: 12269-1987, Tests on Cement.
5. IS: 650-1966, Tests on Fine Aggregates.
6. IS: 2386-1963, Tests on Aggregates.

96