Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Activated slag as partial replacement of cement mortars: Effect of

temperature and a novel admixture
Chaaruchandra Korde ⇑, Matthew Cruickshank, Roger P. West, Claudia Pellegrino
Department of Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering, Trinity College Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland

h i g h l i g h t s

 A novel chloride free activator.

 Study early age strength of GGBS mortars.
 Compared with 0% GGBS, 0% admixture and another admixture.
 Study in perspective of precast industry.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper, from the perspective of the precast industry, reports on a study into the activation of mortar
Received 26 October 2018 mixes with ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) (0, 30, 50, 70%) and cement (CEM I 42.5R) using
Received in revised form 18 April 2019 temperature (ambient (20 °C) and moderate (35 °C)) and accelerating admixtures (a novel chloride free
Accepted 20 April 2019
activator and a commercial admixture) to enhance very early age strength. The discrete temperature acti-
Available online 10 May 2019
vation is found to provide larger improvements in early age strength compared to the use of admixtures.
However, irrespective of temperature activation, the novel admixture, in absolute terms, provides greater
Keywords:
benefit in strength activation of GGBS mortars compared to the existing commercial admixture. Further,
Mortar
GGBS
most of the GGBS mortar mixes equalled or surpassed the 28-day strength of the control mixes without
Temperature curing any cross-over effects.
Admixtures Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Chloride free activator

1. Introduction
Precast industries, especially in temperate climates, utilize
rapid hardening cement (such as CEM I 42.5R) and temperature
activation for early strength gain [1]. A research gap exits in this
sector in the exploration of the use of supplementary cementitious
materials, like ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS), to
reduce concrete’s carbon footprint [2–5]. GGBS comes with its
merits in enhancing aspects of durability [6–10]. However it is dis-
advantaged by a limitation of lower early age strength [11–13]
which can affect the timing of very early stress transfer, de-
moulding and lifting of structural elements in precast yards, which
thus reduces productivity and competitiveness of the products.
In PC-GGBS mortars, during the early hydration and hardening
phases, the C-S-H gel and ettringite are formed and release Ca
(OH)2 (or CH). This CH not only helps to maintain a certain pH in
the pore solution (which activates the hydration of the slag), but
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kordec@tcd.ie (C. Korde).
also reacts with the ions of slag separation to form hydration prod-
ucts [14]. At early age, the GGBS particles act as nucleation sites
and accelerate the hydration reaction of cement [15–18]. There
are, in essence, two parts to GGBS hydration, one is the dissolution
of the aluminosilicate shell due to the high alkaline medium, which
otherwise is impenetrable to water and hinders particle reaction;
and the other part is the further reaction of GGBS particles with
calcium hydroxide, exhausting the portlandite (CH) in producing
more C-S-H gel. This gives rise to longer setting times, low early
age strength and faster strength development at later ages
[19,20]. The main physical effects [21,22] observed during hydra-
tion at ambient temperature are (a) a dilution effect, which is
caused by an increase in w/c ratio with an increase in replacement
levels; (b) a filler effect, which is caused by the separation and dis-
persion of cement grains; and (c) a stimulation effect, which is
caused by slag consuming the CH, thus accelerating the further dis-
solution and stimulation of the hydration process.
GGBS is more sensitive to temperature than Portland cement
(PC) because the activation energy for slag cements is higher than
those of 100% PC mortars [23,24]. At higher temperatures, the

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.04.172
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524
hydration of PC increases which, in turn, activates the GGBS, thus
increasing the volume of hydration products and reducing the
porosity of the system [17]. However, the higher rate of hydration
due to higher temperatures generates a less homogeneous
microstructure with coarser pores. This produces a cross-over
effect [25] whereby the later strength of higher GGBS dosage con-
crete is lower than non-GGBS concretes. Also, it reduces the hydra-
tion at later ages due to the precipitation of hydration products on
the surface of cement grains, delaying or stopping the hydration of
anhydrous cement in the core of the grains, causing lower strength
[26]. These cross-over effects can be observed at 6 to 10 days for PC
mortars, whereas these are delayed in the case of slag-cement
mortars due to the consumption of the hydration products and,
thus, for 40% replacement the cross-over occurs closer to 28 days
[24]. To compensate for the slow reaction of PC-GGBS mortars, a
high curing temperature and/or low w/b ratio can be adopted. An
increase in temperature accelerates the hydration of PC and thus
the slag [27,17], while the reduction of the w/b ratio results in
achieving a similar solid/space ratio in paste [24]. The high rate
of hydration of PC produces an increase in the 2-day compressive
strength for all w/b ratios [28], but for high w/b ratios the compres-
sive strength decreases due to the large space available (or capil-
lary porosity) to be filled by hydration products.
In PC-GGBS mortars, to promote early age strength develop-
ment, various choices have been examined such as the types and
replacement rates of the binary and tertiary cements [29], cement
fineness [30,31], curing temperature [24,32–34], water-binder
ratios, chemical admixtures [35] and various chemical composi-
tions of GGBS [36]. The compressive strength of ground slag has
greater effect on strength at early and later ages compared to
ground PC [34]. The type of cement also plays an important role
in strength development due to its chemical composition [37]. A
minor addition of lime and Plaster of Paris in PC-GGBS mortars
have also demonstrated better early age strength [38]. A combina-
tion of limestone fillers and GGBS in cement mortars have also
demonstrated benefits at all ages [39]. Researchers have also used
mathematical models to predict the hydration process of PC-GGBS
cements [40]. The percentage replacement of PC with GGBS also
affects the strength development as it is known to react slowly,
affecting the early age strength at higher replacements. At low
replacement rates, it produces an increase of non-evaporable water
at early age due to the filler effect, and later, because of slag hydra-
tion, it increases the strength development. However, at higher
replacement rates, the filler effect cannot compensate for the dilu-
tion effect caused due to the presence of a large amount of slow
reacting particles of slag [41].
Chemical admixtures are also used to activate the strength
development of GGBS at early ages particularly alkali activators
[28,42,43]. Further, other literature suggests that thiocyanate,
being labelled harmful, needs to be investigated further in combi-
nation with nitrates, alkanolamines and/or hydrocarboxylic acids
and their salts. Thus, an accelerator can be formulated using ingre-
dients that separately show accelerating effects independently
[44]. This idea is utilized in formulating a novel admixture which
is applied here in PC-slag mortars to study its benefits for the pre-
cast industry in particular, where very early age strength is espe-
cially pertinent.
With the above background, this paper describes research con-
ducted on a range of GGBS mortars (as mandated in European
Standard IS EN196 - 1: 2005 [45]) to characterise the effects of
employing two types of admixtures (one novel alkali-free acceler-
ating admixture and the second an extant commercial accelerator)
which were specifically designed to accelerate GGBS with no
adverse effect on long term strength. The results are compared
with a control sample containing PC (a CEM I 42.5R with about
14% limestone powder). Furthermore, the effectiveness of these
507
chemical activators is examined for mortars under thermal activa-
tion, that is, a moderate curing temperature (35 °C) compared to
the ambient curing temperature (of around 20 °C). By examining
the failure loads for mortar prisms in flexure, estimates of early
age modulus of rupture were also made, which was essential for
estimating resistance to bending stresses which may arise when
striking and lifting slabs from their shutters at pre-early age.
2. Materials and methods
2.1. Materials
This experimental study on standard mortars is undertaken with rapid harden-
ing cement (CEM I 42.5R) as the base cement, standard siliceous sand as per the
European standard (IS EN196-1, 2005), potable water. The GGBS had an average
particle size (D50) of 11.62 mm (Fig. 1 analysed using classical parallel beam laser
diffraction (HELOS series)) and see Table 1 for the chemical composition. The two
types of admixtures used are termed here Admixture 1 (the novel admixture ECO-
CEM AccelR8 Plus) and Admixture 2, (MC Rapid FastKick-105). The Admixture 1 is a
chloride free activator, comprising a combination of thiocyanates, amines, ligno-
sulphates, sodium oxides and water as the key ingredients, with an overall pH of
4.5. Admixture 2 is also an accelerator developed for precast concrete and cold
weather applications, however its constituents have not been disclosed by the
manufacturer.
2.2. Mechanisms of strength gain for the components of Admixture 1
The mechanisms of strength gain for each of the constituent components of
Admixture 1 are discussed to understand the role played by these chemicals. These
components do not exceed the specified limits for PC.
In respect of amines, the surface of cement particles has a residual positive
charge, while sand and aggregates have a negative charge, whereas water mole-
cules are di-polar. The overall action of these charged particles is opposite charges
are cancelled out, thus decreasing the free energy in the system [46]. Some amines,
when used as additives, become adsorbed on the surface of the cement particles,
thus affecting the rheology of the concrete mix during hydration, depending on
the molecular structure. Amines in some cases increased the 1-day strength of mor-
tars due to the increased hydration of C4AF. These amines remain in solution (that
is, they are not adsorbed) after all the sulphates have reacted and form iron com-
plexes that enhance the transport of the ferric ions, causes interstitial phases
(C4AF) to coexist in C3S grains, thus favouring hydration of both and hence
increased hydration rate [47–49].
Thiocyanates are known to accelerate the rate of hydration of PC at low temper-
atures, thus inhibiting freezing of water in pores [50]. All thiocyanates are found to
increase the maximum rate of heat evolution and shift the occurrence of the peak to
earlier. The C3S phase is accelerated and the formation of low sulfo-aluminates is
accelerated and masked with the C3S phase [50]. Also, another study notes that
addition of sodium thiocyanate produced more calcium hydroxide than an equal
amount of calcium chloride between 6 and 18 h after mixing [44].
Lignosulphonates are a group of well-known dispersing agents used in concrete,
also known as plasticizing admixtures or water reducing admixtures. The dispers-
ing effectiveness of a superplasticizer on cementitious materials is a function of
its degree of adsorption on the surface of a cement grain and hydrates. These
adsorbed particles give the cement particle a total negative charge, thus hindering
particles from coming close enough to form agglomerates, which make the particles
available for hydration reactions and the water available for workability. An
increased amount of ettringite formation is recorded due to enhanced C3A reactions
taking place when lignosulphonates are added [51–54].
Table 1
Physical and chemical characteristics of OPC and GGBS.
CEM I (42.5R) GGBS
Physical Properties
Particle mean diameter (lm) – 11
Density (kg/m3) 2.75–3.2 2890
Oxide compositions (%)
SiO2 18.08 36.55
Al2O3 5.15 12.48
Fe2O3 2.97 0.64
CaO 64.35 43.09
SO3/Sulphate/Sulphide 2.85 0/0.12/0.76
MgO – 8.17
Mn2O3 – 0.21
TiO2 – 0.76
LOI 2.83 0.8
508 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

Table 2
Standard mix proportions.

Mix Proportions (per m3) Cementitious Materials Proportions

Material Mass (kg) % GGBS Cement (kg) GGBS (kg)
Fine Aggregate 1758 0 586 0
Cementitious Materials 586 30 410.2 175.8
Water (w/c = 0.5) 293 50 293 293
Admixture (1% binder) 0 or 5.86 70 175.8 410.2

Sodium oxide is an anhydrous form of sodium hydroxide which results in early

acceleration of the hydration rate. The alkalis are found to increase the solubility
rate of the aluminate and this further inhibits the silicate reaction at later ages. This
inhibition does not take place with sulphate where ettringite is precipitated, lower-
ing the aluminate concentration in solution [55].

2.3. Mix proportions

Twelve different mortar mixes were prepared with a combination of CEM I

42.5R, GGBS and admixtures. The proportions of these mortar mix constituents
are listed in Table 2. A mortar batch comprises the volume of the moulds along with
20% extra for wastage to manufacture 12 prisms of size 160  40  40 mm. The
mortar had a cement to sand ratio of 1:3 and water to binder ratio of 0.5, as pre-
scribed in IS EN196 - 1: 2005. The mix with 0% GGBS is termed as the control mix.

2.4. Curing methods

Since this study is designed to primarily simulate a precast production environ- Fig. 1. Particle size analysis of GGBS.
ment, two types of practical curing conditions were adopted. The moulds filled with
mortar, for ambient temperature curing, were kept in a box wrapped with wet hes-
sian cloth (to create humid conditions), further covered with a plastic sheet and left
in ambient conditions, (approximately 20 °C). The samples for moderate tempera-
ture curing were kept in a tray which in turn was wrapped with hessian cloth
and placed in a temperature and humidity control chamber where the temperature
was kept at approximately 35 °C and a relative humidity of 90% for 16 h only, then
removed to a curing tank at 20 °C.

2.5. Specimens and testing

Two types of tests, namely flexural and compressive strength, were performed
at six different ages (16 h, 1, 2, 3, 7 and 28 days). For each testing age there were
two specimens to be tested, thus, in all, 12 samples were required for each condi-
tion. The prism specimens were first tested under flexure in a 3-point bending test
under a deflection control set-up, as per IS EN 1015-11, Figs. 2 and 3. After flexural
failure of the two specimens, the resulting 4 sample halves were tested over a
40  40 mm footprint under uniform axial compression using the same test equip-
ment. The matrix of samples for testing was 4 (0%, 30%, 50%, 70% GGBS)  2 (tem-
peratures conditions: 20 °C and 35 °C, representing summer and thermally curried
winter conditions)  3 (admixtures: none, Admixture 1 and Admixture 2)  6 (test-
Fig. 2. Test setup for Flexure test.
ing ages: 16 h, 1, 2, 3, 7, 28 days)  2 sample pairs for flexural and 4 each for com-
pression. Thus, in this research program there were a total of 288 samples for
flexural testing and 576 samples for compression testing.
The specimen labelling system used to facilitate the comparison of mixes com-
prises of four characters; the first refers to the cement type (C = CEM I 42.5R and
G = slag cement); the second refers to the percentage of GGBS (for example, 3
implies 30% replacement); the third refers to the admixture (N = none, 1 or 2 refers
to Admixture 1 and Admixture 2 respectively); and the last character refers to the
curing regimes over the first 16 h (Ambient, A = 20 °C; Moderate, M = 35 °C). Hence,
for example, a label ‘G31A’ would mean PC-GGBS mortar with GGBS (G) as 30% (3)
replacement along with Admixture 1 (1) and cured under ambient conditions (A).

3. Results and discussion

It is well known that the substitution of cement by GGBS

reduces early age strength [8,9,10], however the admixtures and
temperature activation used in this study were employed to iden-
tify their relative performance in enhancing the pre-early age
strength development process in GGBS mortars. The combinations
Fig. 3. Test setup for Compression test.
in Table 2 were investigated to review their respective perfor-
mances compared with the control samples, at ambient and mod-
erate temperatures. Normally in a precast yard, at the pre-early 28-day strength becomes important to compare the respective
ages of between 16 and 24 h, the pre-stressed cables are snipped strengths with the actual load application on site. With this in
allowing stress transfer and, subsequently, between 1 day and mind, in the present paper, 16-hour, 24-hour and 28-day strengths
7 days, the products are put on trucks for delivery to site. The are discussed in some detail.
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 509

3.1. Ambient temperature tests
3.1.1. Compressive strength test
The strength development for CEM I 42.5R cement mortars with
varying amounts of GGBS and cured at 20 °C is shown in Fig. 4. It
can be observed that the early age strength reduces with increases
in the percentage of GGBS as anticipated. Also, the recovery of
strength with time with GGBS is also relatively slow, up to 7 days.
However, the strength at 28 days for 30% and 50% GGBS surpasses
the control samples. It can also be observed that the compressive
strength development for 30%, 50% and 70% GGBS are progressively
slower up to 2 days. At a low replacement level of cement by slag
(up to 20%) an increase in non-evaporable water occurs at an early
age due to the filler effect and later because of slag hydration. For
higher replacement levels, the filler effect cannot compensate for
the dilution effect caused by the large incorporation of slow react-
ing slag particles [23]. Hence, the compressive strength develop-
ment rate decreases when slag content increases at very early
ages. Subsequently, as more CH is available at later ages, the
strength development increases at a faster rate as compared to
CEM I 42.5 R [16], which can be observed from the changing slopes
of the G3NA and G5NA curves in Fig. 4 from 2 to 3 days, and sub-
sequently 3–7 days and 7–28 days for 30% and 50% GGBS. For 70%
GGBS, even though the rate of hydration is higher, it is unable to
catch up with the control strength by 28 days, since the filler effect
of slag is unable to compensate for the dilution effect due to the
higher level of replacement.
The activation of slag using two accelerating admixtures is
explored to enhance the strength development process. Their per-
formances are shown in Figs. 5–7 for 30%, 50% and 70% GGBS
respectively. In all cases of GGBS replacement, Admixture 1 per-
forms much better than Admixture 2 and exhibits a faster rate of

70

60
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

C0NA
20
G3NA

10 G5NA

G7NA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 4. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age without admixture for 30, 50, 70% slag at ambient temperature.

80

70
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

60

50

40

30
C0NA
20
G3NA

10 G31A

G32A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 5. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 30% slag at ambient temperature.
510 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

70

60

Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

C0NA
20
G5NA

10 G51A

G52A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 6. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 50% slag at ambient temperature .

70

60
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

C0NA
20
G7NA

10 G71A

G72A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 7. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 70% slag at ambient temperature.

strength development (albeit marginally so for 50% GGBS). At 30%

Table 3
Impact of Admixture 1 on compressive strength at ambient temperature. GGBS replacement with Admixture 1, the strength development is
similar to the control samples with 100% CEM I 42.5R. With 50%
GGBS and Admixture 1, the strength development up to 7 days,
in comparison to the control samples, is not achieved, but sur-
passes it at 28 days. With 70% GGBS and Admixture 1, the strength
development in comparison to the GGBS samples without admix-
ture and with Admixture 2 is significant but is always lower than
the control samples. The principal conclusion is that it is possible
to achieve the equivalent early age strength, as compared to the
control sample, with Admixture 1 at lower GGBS replacement
levels, but not at higher replacement levels. As stated earlier,
Admixture 1 is a non-chloride activator with thiocyanates, ligno-
sulphates, amines, sodium oxides and water which accelerate the
hydration process of PC-GGBS mortars at early ages, thus demon-
strating synergistic effects of such combinations. Admixture 2 is
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 511

Table 4 also able to accelerate the early age strength development, how-
Impact of Admixture 2 on compressive strength at ambient temperature. ever Admixture 1 demonstrates better performance.
At 16 h, from Fig. 8, by increasing the percentage of GGBS, the
strength decreases and neither admixture can activate the GGBS
sufficiently at ambient temperature to compensate for that
decrease. More specifically, when their strengths are normalised
against the control samples, the strengths of 30%, 50% and 70%
GGBS are 53%, 30% and 15% respectively. Both admixtures improve
the strength at 16 h, however the effects in the case of Admixture 1
are greater. With Admixture 1, 30%, 50% and 70% GGBS the
strengths are 86%, 48% and 22% respectively of the control. This
demonstrates definitive benefits of Admixture 1 on various GGBS
replacement mixes.

16
None Admix 1 Admix 2
14
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

12

10

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% Slag

Fig. 8. Compressive strength at 16 hours for all specimens cured at ambient temperature.

25
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

20

15

10

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% Slag

Fig. 9. Compressive strength at 1 day for all specimens cured at ambient temperature.
512 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

80
None Admix 1 Admix 2

70

Average Compressive Strength (MPa) 60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% Slag

Fig. 10. Compressive strength at 28 days for all specimens cured at ambient temperature.

10

9
Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

4
C0NA
3
G3NA
2
G5NA
1
G7NA
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 11. Relationship between modulus of rupture for CEM I 42.5 R and slag cements with age and without admixture for 30, 50, and 70% cement replacement at ambient
temperature.

At 1 day, observations from Fig. 9 indicate that, with 8 h of addi- In contrast, at 28 days (Fig. 10) the strengths, when normalised
tional curing at 20 °C in a water bath (to 24 h after pouring), the with the control samples at low temperature, for 30, 50 and 70%
strength of the control samples increases by 84%, while the mini- GGBS are 106, 105 and 86% respectively. In the presence of Admix-
mum strength improvement of the GGBS samples is 60%. In partic- ture 1, these become 115, 109 and 111%. In conclusion, while the
ular, their strengths, when normalized against the control samples, 28-day strengths for all replacement levels of GGBS can surpass
for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS, are 47, 32 and 14% respectively. In com- the strength of the control mortar samples when using Admixture
parison, the equivalent strengths in the presence of Admixture 1, 1, the pre-early age strengths will remain a challenge in pre-
when normalized with the control samples, are 87, 50 and 23% casting.
respectively. Thus, the presence of Admixture 1 results in a mea- Thus, the present study on compressive strength for samples
surable and worthwhile improvement in strength under ambient cured at ambient temperature shows the effectiveness of admix-
conditions but do not reach the control strength. This will be prob- tures and demonstrates the prominent behaviour of Admixture 1.
lematic for pre-casters who need to attain a prescribed strength at The synergistic effects of the combination of different accelerating
pre-early age to transfer prestress, but this does not appear to be compounds and water reducers in Admixture 1 can eliminate the
achievable even with low GGBS contents in the presence of this differences in early age strength development at low replacement
purpose-designed accelerating admixture. (30%) levels of GGBS.
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 513

10

Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

9

3 C0NA

G3NA
2
G31A
1
G32A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 12. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 30% slag at ambient temperature.

10

9
Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

4
C0NA
3
G5NA
2
G51A
1
G52A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 13. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 50% slag at ambient temperature.

3.1.2. Statistical significance test for specimens cured at ambient
temperature
To ascertain whether the addition of the admixtures is statisti-
cally significant, a closer study of the compressive strength
improvements is made. This is undertaken for compression only
since there are four samples available for study, and thus a larger
data set per variable. Tables 3 and 4 present the one-tailed Stu-
dent’s t-test (a = 0.05) to determine if a benefit observed using
admixture is statistically significant [56]. Note also that mixes
where the admixture leads to a deficit in compression are consid-
ered statistically insignificant as the test is evaluating benefit only.
Table 3 shows that Admixture 1 has no significant benefit on
the compressive strength of mortar mixes without GGBS, suggest-
ing that the admixture is acting only on the GGBS and not the Port-
land cement. For mixes containing GGBS, all but one (50% GGBS at
28 days) demonstrates a statistically significant benefit due to the
addition of Admixture 1. Further, Admixture 1 demonstrates a ben-
efit at all testing ages, and not just early age, as would be expected.
In contrast, Table 4 shows that Admixture 2 demonstrates a benefit
to mixes with 30% and 50% GGBS up to 7 days but with 70% GGBS,
it has no measurable effect prior to the 7-day tests.
3.1.3. Flexural strength test
The characteristic derived from the 3-point bending test is the
modulus of rupture (MOR) and the trends for it are not dissimilar
to the compressive strength results. Fig. 11 shows the performance
of 30, 50 and 70% GGBS as compared to the control samples. Here it
can be observed that the substitution of cement with GGBS results
in a decrease in early age MOR, however, at later ages, 30% GGBS is
able to match the MOR of the control samples at 28 days while 50%
and 70% GGBS replacement mixes are able to recover significantly.
The rates of strength development of MOR from 2 to 3 days, 3 to
514 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

10

Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

8

4
C0NA
3
G7NA
2
G71A
1
G72A
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 14. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 70% slag at ambient temperature.

5
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% GGBS

Fig. 15. Modulus of Rupture at 16 hours for all samples cured at ambient temperature.

7
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% GGBS

Fig. 16. Modulus of Rupture at 1 day for all samples cured at ambient temperature.
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 515

12
None Admix 1 Admix 2
11

Average Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

10
9
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% GGBS

Fig. 17. Modulus of Rupture at 28 days for all samples cured at ambient temperature.

70

60
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

C0NM
20
G3NM

10 G5NM

G7NM
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 18. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age without admixture for 30, 50, 70% slag at moderate temperature.

7 days and 7 to 28 days are higher than that of the control samples. At 16 h, the general observations from Fig. 15 are that by
However, even with the later greater rate of hydration, the 50% and increasing the percentage of GGBS, the MOR decreases. The
70% GGBS samples are unable to match the control strength in strengths, when normalised with the control samples, for 30, 50
28 days. and 70% GGBS are 60, 30 and 10%, a trend which is not unlike that
The influence of the admixtures is explored to identify activa- for compressive strength. Both admixtures improve early age MOR
tion of the MOR of the GGBS samples, as shown in Figs. 12–14 performance, however the equivalent effects of those achieved in
for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS replacement, respectively. Admixture 1 the case of Admixture 1, when normalised against the control spec-
and Admixture 2 perform similarly for 30 and 50% GGBS replace- imens, are 95, 60 and 30%, a notable improvement on the strengths
ments whereas in the case of 70% GGBS, Admixture 1 is more effec- without admixture.
tive at improving the early strength development. However, at At 1 day, the general observations from Fig. 16 are that with 8 h
28 days the results of both the admixtures are broadly similar of additional curing at 20 °C in a water bath, the strength of the
and close to the ones achieved by the control samples. Admixture control samples increases by 60%. Also, the minimum improvement
1 with 30% GGBS gives a performance equivalent to control sam- in flexural strength of all GGBS samples under ambient temperature
ples at early ages, unlike all other variations that contain GGBS. is also 60% between 16 and 24 h. The strengths, when normalised
Here also, the synergistic effects of thiocyanates, ligno-sulphates, against the control samples at ambient temperature, for 30, 50
amines, sodium oxides and water in the form of Admixture 1 are and 70% GGBS are 60, 35 and 15% respectively. Their equivalent
visible and can reduce the differences in strength between the strengths, in the presence of Admixture 1, when normalised with
GGBS and control samples at early age. the control samples, are 97, 60 and 30%. In conclusion, the presence
516 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

70

60

Average Compressive Strength (MPa) 50

40

30

C0NM
20
G3NM
10 G31M

G32M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 19. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 30% slag at moderate temperature.

70

60
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

50

40

30

C0NM
20
G5NM

10 G51M

G52M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 20. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 50% slag at moderate temperature.

of Admixture 1 results in a minimum of 15% improvement in
flexural strength gain when normalised against the control samples
at 1 day.
Finally, at 28 days the strengths of GGBS samples, when nor-
malised against the control samples at low temperature, for 30,
50 and 70% GGBS are 100, 91 and 96% respectively Fig 17. Their
equivalent strengths in the presence of Admixture 1, when nor-
malised against the control samples, are 96, 88 and 96%. Thus,
there is a marginal reduction in flexural strength due to Admixture
1 at 28 days.
3.2. Moderate temperature tests
In the precast industry during winter, particularly in Ireland and
other temperate climates, the use of a CEM I 42.5 R cement and
thermal activation is common to offset the low ambient tempera-
tures and to achieve the desired early age concrete maturity that is
needed. In this study, the different samples containing GGBS, along
with the three admixture variations, are cured at a moderate tem-
perature of 35 °C in a temperature and humidity chamber. Subse-
quently, these specimens are tested in flexure and compression
and the results are discussed in this section.
3.2.1. Compressive Strength
The strength development over 28 days under the moderate
temperature curing condition for 0, 30, 50 and 70% GGBS is shown
in Fig. 18. Due to the modest temperature increase, there is a sig-
nificant strength gain for 0% GGBS samples (control samples) at
pre-early age. 30% GGBS samples still fall behind in terms of
strength development due to the delayed hydration of GGBS. How-
ever, the gap narrows at 3 days and subsequently the strength
development of 30% GGBS samples is approximately parallel to
that of the control specimens and they achieve approximately
equivalent strength at 28 days. In the case of 50% and 70% GGBS
samples, however, while the early age strengths are higher com-
pared to their equivalents at ambient temperatures, these
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 517

70

60

Average Compressive Strength (MPa) 50

40

30

C0NM
20
G7NM

10 G71M

G72M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 21. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS compressive strengths and age with and without admixtures for 50% slag at moderate temperature.

30
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

25

20

15

10

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% Slag

Fig. 22. Compressive strength at 16 hours for all specimens cured at moderate temperature.

35
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)

30

25

20

15

10

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% Slag

Fig. 23. Compressive strength at 24 hours for all specimens cured at moderate temperature.
518
strengths are much lower that the moderate temperature control
samples. The 50% GGBS samples have a greater strength than
70% GGBS at early age, however, the high rate of strength develop-
ment with 70% GGBS that occurs later means it can achieve equiv-
alent strength compared to 50% GGBS within 7 days. In this study,
the strengths of the control samples at both ambient and moderate
temperatures at 28 days are similar, which demonstrates the
absence of any cross-over effect. Also, unlike the ambient temper-
ature samples, the 30, 50 and 70% GGBS samples at high tempera-
ture are unable to surpass the moderate temperature control
samples at 28 days.
With the addition of admixtures in the 30% GGBS samples
(Fig. 19), the reaction rate is improved at pre-early age, which sub-
sequently slows down and eventually appears to achieve a better
strength at 28 days in comparison to the ones without admixture
but proves to be statistically not significant as discussed in a later
section. Here Admixture 1 and 2 both perform equally in regard to
the early age and 28 days strengths. However, they are unable to
achieve the strength equivalent to the control samples at pre-
early and early age. For a 50% GGBS (Fig. 20) substitution, Admix-
ture 1 outperforms the mix without admixture and with Admix-
ture 2, at all ages and provides additional strength over and
above that due to the temperature activation. For 70% GGBS
(Fig. 21) with admixtures, there is again no significant benefit at
pre-early age, however Admixture 1 helps in achieving much bet-
ter strengths at later ages whereas Admixture 2 reduces the
strengths. Thus, it can be concluded that Admixture 1 is able to
activate higher percentages of GGBS at high temperature at later
ages, however at a pre-early age a measurable advantage is only
realised after 1 day.
At 16 h, the general observations from Fig. 22 are that with
increasing percentages of GGBS, the strength decreases at moder-
ate temperature are they did at ambient temperature. Both admix-
tures can activate the GGBS at moderate temperature where the
thermal activation is playing a significant role in the strength
development of GGBS at 16 h as compared to ambient tempera-
ture. With respect to the control specimens at ambient tempera-
ture, the admixtures are unable to activate the strength
development of control samples at ambient temperature whereas
they reduced the strength of control mortars at moderate temper-
ature. The strength of the control samples increases by around
220% with a 15 °C temperature increase for the initial sixteen
hours, which is notable. The strength of the moderate temperature
specimens, when normalised against the control samples at ambi-
ent temperature, for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS is 124, 91 and 47%
70
Average Compressive Strength (MPa)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0%
Fig. 24. Compressive strength at 28 days for all specimens cured at moderate temperature.
C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524
respectively. Both admixtures improve strength development,
however the effects of those achieved in the case of Admixture 1
are more prominent and hence are discussed further. The corre-
sponding strengths of moderate temperatures samples in the pres-
ence of Admixture 1, when normalised against the ambient
temperature control samples, are 141, 106 and 56% respectively.
Thus, the addition of Admixture 1 to a mortar mix with 30% GGBS
imparts an additional strength of nearly 17% with moderate tem-
perature curing, independently. When normalised against the con-
trol samples at high temperature, the equivalent strengths,
without and with Admixture 1, at 30, 50 and 70% GGBS are 56
and 63%, 41 and 48% and 20 and 25% respectively.
At 1 day, the general observations from Fig. 23 are that with 8 h
of additional curing at 20 °C in a water bath, the strength of the
moderate temperature control samples increases by only 10%. Also,
the smallest improvement observed in all GGBS samples with
Admixture 1 under moderate temperature conditions, in compar-
ison to the 16-hour strength, is 30%. Admixture 2, on the other
hand, is unable to activate strength development at moderate tem-
perature. The thermal activation is playing a significant role in the
strength activation of GGBS at 1 day as evidenced by the fact that
the strength of the control samples increases by around 30% from
ambient to moderate temperature. The strength of the samples
cured at moderate temperature, when normalized with the control
samples at ambient temperature, for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS are 94,
64 and 45% respectively. Both admixtures improve the rate of
strength development, however the effects of those achieved in
the case of Admixture 1 are more prominent. For example, the
equivalent strengths of moderate temperature cured specimens
in the presence of Admixture 1, when normalised against ambient
temperature control samples, are 86, 77 and 48% respectively.
These results when normalised against the control samples at high
temperature, the strengths without and with Admixture 1, at 30%
GGBS are 71 and 65% respectively; at 50% GGBS are 48 and 58%
respectively and at 70% GGBS are 34 and 36% respectively. Thus,
it can be concluded that the presence of Admixture 1 results in
measurably improved strength at ambient temperature conditions
whereas at the moderate temperature condition, there are mixed
responses.
At 28 days, the general observations from Fig. 24 are that the
equivalent strengths of specimens cured at moderate temperature,
when normalised against the control samples at ambient temper-
ature, are 103, 99 and 98% respectively. The equivalent strengths
of the specimens cured at moderate temperature in the presence
of Admixture 1, when normalised against the ambient temperature
None Admix 1 Admix 2
30% 50% 70%
% Slag
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 519

Table 5 temperature, but in absolute terms, the quantum of activation

Impact of Admixture 1 on compressive strength at moderate temperature.
remains the same. This can be seen, for example, for samples at
1 day, under ambient conditions with 30%, 50% and 70% GGBS
which have the absolute strength gains of 5 MPa (40%), 2.25 MPa
(18%) and 1.13 MPa (9%) respectively. For moderate temperature
curing, the equivalent absolute strength gains aree 2.2 MPa
( 8%), 3.6 MPa (13%) and 0.83 MPa (3%) respectively, which can
be considered similar within experimental error conditions.

3.2.2. Statistical significance analysis for moderate temperature cured

Table 6
Impact of Admixture 2 on compressive strength at moderate temperature.
control samples, are 105, 102 and 104% respectively, that is identi-
cal strengths within experimental variability. When normalized
with the control samples at high temperature, the equivalent
strengths, without and with Admixture 1, are 96 and 99%, 93 and
96%, and 92 and 98% respectively. In other words, there is no dis-
cernible adverse effect of adding up to 70% GGBS with admixtures
on the 28-day mortar strengths.
Thus, Admixture 1, with its accelerating ingredients, is not able
to activate the GGBS in the similar percentage terms as at ambient
samples
A statistical significance test [56] on moderate temperature
cured samples is also conducted to investigate whether the advan-
tages observed through the use of admixtures are significant.
Tables 5 and 6 present the differences in average compressive
strength between a mix without admixture and a mix containing
Admixture 1 or Admixture 2. Statistical significance is determined
by a one-tailed Students t-test (a = 0.05).
Table 5 presents the effect of Admixture 1 at moderate temper-
ature where the admixture did not demonstrate any benefit to the
mixes containing no GGBS. At 30% GGBS, a benefit is observed only
at 16 h. For mixes with 50% and 70% GGBS, benefits are observed at
all but one testing age (3 days for 50% GGBS and 24 h for 70%
GGBS) for each condition. Compared to low temperature, the effec-
tiveness of Admixture 1 appears to be reduced, however with 50%
and 70% GGBS it is still able to improve performance significantly.
Table 6 presents the effect of Admixture 2 at moderate tempera-
ture and demonstrated no benefit to mixes without GGBS accrued
and little benefit to mixes with GGBS. Where benefits are observed,
they are small and not consistent across testing ages. Thus, there is
no worthwhile benefit of using Admixture 2 at moderate
temperature.
3.2.3. Flexural strength
This section discusses the flexural modulus of rupture for mod-
erate temperature (35 °C) cured samples with the four different per-
centages of GGBS and two admixtures at different ages under a 3-
point bending test. It can be observed from Fig 25 that the MOR
decreases with an increase in the percentage of GGBS due to its
latent hydraulic strength development. The thermal activation is,

10

9
Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

4
C0NM
3
G3NM
2
G5NM
1
G7NM
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 25. Relationship between modulus of rupture for CEM I 42.5 R and slag cements with age and without admixture for 30, 50, and 70% cement replacement at moderate
temperature.
520 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524

12

Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

10

4 C0NM

G3NM
2
G31M

G32M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 26. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 30% slag at moderate temperature.

10
Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

3 C0NM

G5NM
2
G51M
1
G52M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 27. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 50% slag at moderate temperature.

however, able to activate the strength development process in GGBS
samples, but it falls short in matching the rate of strength develop-
ment of the control samples at early age. For 30, 50 and 70% GGBS
samples at later ages, the hydration of GGBS increases and the more
rapid rate of hydration leads to similar strengths at 28 days.
The admixtures are added in order to activate the hydration
process of GGBS at early age and the results are as shown in
Figs. 26–28, for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS replacement, respectively.
In the case of specimens with 30% and 50% GGBS at early ages, as
shown in Figs. 26 and 27, Admixture 1 is able to marginally
improve the rate of strength development whereas Admixture 2
has a marginal effect on only 30% GGBS samples. In the case of
70% GGBS, shown in Fig. 28, the activation effect of both admix-
tures only begins at 3 days, wherein Admixture 1 is better able
to activate the samples.
At 16 h, the general observations from Fig. 29 are that by
increasing the percentage of GGBS, MOR decreases for samples
cured at moderate temperatures and Admixture 1 is able to acti-
vate the GGBS. The thermal activation is playing a significant role
in the strength development of GGBS at 16 h. With respect to the
control samples, the admixtures are reducing the strength of the
control samples cured at moderate temperature. The strength of
the control samples increases by around 100% with a 15 °C increase
in temperature during early age curing. The strengths of the spec-
imens cured at moderate temperature, when normalised against
the control samples at ambient temperature, for 30, 50 and 70%
GGBS is 120, 85 and 50% respectively. Both admixtures improve
strength development, however the effects of those achieved in
the case of Admixture 1 are more prominent. The equivalent
strengths of the specimens cured at moderate temperature in the
presence of Admixture 1, when normalized with ambient temper-
ature control samples, are 140, 115 and 65% respectively. Thus, the
mortar mix with Admixture 1 at 30% GGBS imparts additional
strength of 20% under moderate temperature curing, indepen-
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524 521

12

Average Flexural Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

10

4 C0NM

G7NM
2
G71M

G72M
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
Age (days)

Fig. 28. Relationship between CEM I 42.5 R and GGBS modulus of rupture and age with and without admixtures for 70% slag at moderate temperature.

7
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% GGBS

Fig. 29. Modulus of Rupture at 16 hours for all samples cured at moderate temperature.

8
None Admix 1 Admix 2
Average Modulus of Rupture (MPa)

0
0% 30% 50% 70%
% SFGGBS

Fig. 30. Modulus of Rupture at 24 hours for all samples cured at moderate temperature.
522
12
11
10
Average Modulus of Rupture (MPa) 9
0
0%
Fig. 31. Modulus of Rupture at 28 Days for all samples cured at moderate temperature.
dently. These results when normalised against the control samples
at moderate temperature, the equivalent strengths without and
with Admixture 1, are 60 and 70%, 40 and 60% and 25 and 30%
respectively. Thus, with the addition of Admixture 1 a minimum
benefit of 10% is observed when compared to strengths normalised
at moderate temperatures (Fig 30).
At 1 day, the general observations are that with 8 h of additional
curing at 20 °C in a water bath, there is a 10% increase in strength
for moderate temperatures control samples. Between 16 and 24 h
the minimum observed increase in strength is 20%. The thermal
activation is playing a significant role in the strength activation
of GGBS at 24 h. The strength of control samples increases by
around 30% from ambient to moderate temperatures. The equiva-
lent strengths of the samples cured at moderate temperatures,
when normalised against the control samples at ambient temper-
ature, are 90, 65 and 50%. Both admixtures improve strength devel-
opment, however the effects of those achieved in the case of
Admixture 1 are prominent and hence are discussed. The equiva-
lent strengths of the samples cured at moderate temperatures in
the presence of Admixture 1, when normalised against ambient
temperatures control sample, for 30% GGBS is 107%; 50% GGBS is
90% and 70% GGBS is 60%. When normalised against the control
samples at moderate temperature, the strengths without and with
Admixture 1, for 30% GGBS are 70 and 80% respectively; 50% GGBS
are 50 and 67% respectively and at 70% GGBS are 37 and 45%
respectively. Thus, the presence of Admixture 1 results in a mini-
mum increase in strength of 15% and 10% when normalised against
the control samples at ambient and moderate temperature.
At 28 days, Fig. 31 the equivalent strengths of the samples cured
at moderate temperatures, when normalised against the control
samples at ambient temperature, are 99, 98 and 99% respectively.
The equivalent strengths of the samples cured at moderate tem-
peratures in the presence of Admixture 1, when normalized with
the ambient temperatures control samples, are 101, 100 and
112% respectively. When normalised against the control samples
at moderate temperature the equivalent strengths without and
with Admixture 1 for 30, 50 and 70% GGBS are 94 and 96%, 93
and 95%, and 94 and 107%, respectively. Thus, there is a marginal
gain in strength for samples cured at moderate temperatures.
Nearly 90% of the control strength is achieved at 28 days in all
conditions.
C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524
None Admix 1 Admix 2
30% 50% 70%
% GGBS
Thus, the Admixture 1 under moderate temperature curing con-
ditions is unable to activate the GGBS in the similar percentage
terms as at ambient, but in absolute terms, the quantum of activa-
tion remains similar. This can be seen, for example, for samples at
1 day, under ambient conditions with 30%, 50% and 70% GGBS
which have the absolute strength gain of 1.8 MPa (37%), 1.2 MPa
(25%) and 0.72 MPa (15%) respectively; whereas for moderate tem-
perature curing the equivalent absolute strength gains are 1.1 MPa
(17%), 1.6 MPa (25%) and 0.65 MPa (10%) respectively, which can
be considered broadly similar.
4. Conclusions
This experimental research has investigated flexural and com-
pressive strengths of mortars with 0, 30, 50, and 70% GGBS with
two different admixtures under an initial 16 h of curing at ambient
and moderate temperature conditions followed by subsequent cur-
ing in a water tank maintained at 20 °C. The following conclusions
are drawn from this study:
a) The slower rate of strength development due to the use of
GGBS is addressed to a certain extent by using admixtures
and thermal activation. Of the evaluated techniques, thermal
activation is realised as a primary activator and an accelerat-
ing admixture as a secondary activator, but a crucial one at
low temperature. Also, from the statistical significance anal-
ysis related to admixture performance, the new admixture,
Admixture 1, proves to be more effective for GGBS strength
activation as compared to the proprietary Admixture 2.
b) In the present study with mortars, substituting 30% GGBS
appears to be a practical proposition in relation to precast
factory use because activation using higher temperatures
and admixtures can close the gap in the strength develop-
ment loss due to its inclusion. Within 1 day, 30% GGBS can
achieve 94% and 100% of compressive strength and MOR
respectively with respect to control samples cured at ambi-
ent temperature and 70% and 80% of compressive strength
and MOR respectively for control samples cured at moderate
temperature for the initial 16 h. Further, at 28 days, more
than 90% of the control compressive strength is achieved
for both ambient and moderate temperature conditions.
 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524
c) The thermal activation, independently, contributes signifi-
cantly in the activation of compressive strength and MOR
without the cross-over effect of strength loss up to 28 days.
d) The synergistic effects of various components of Admixture
1 are acting together in imparting better early age strengths
both at ambient and moderate temperature conditions.
There is a better performance reported in ambient condi-
tions, which can be attributed to the presence of sodium oxi-
des in the admixture which increase the alkalinity at early
ages under ambient conditions resulting in greater hydra-
tion of GGBS. Under moderate conditions, the sodium oxides
seem to negatively suppress the rapid rate of formation of
Portlandite due to its alkalinity which results in a compara-
tively lower hydration, thus giving lesser strength than
anticipated but this improves with higher replacement
levels of GGBS.
e) At the evaluated dosage of 1% by weight of binder, Admix-
ture 1 can improve the rate of compressive and flexural
strength development at ambient and moderate tempera-
ture conditions but more so for the former and it performs
best for compressive strength under ambient temperature
curing conditions for low GGBS dosages. However, it is also
able to activate higher percentages of GGBS under moderate
temperature curing conditions.
f) The novel admixture developed based on the concept pro-
posed in Mydrel [35], was expected to activate PC, however
it has been developed to activates PC-slag mortars which
reduces the strength of PC only mortars at both low and
moderate temperatures. This can be attributed to the pres-
ence of sodium oxides which in the presence of water create
alkalinity in the solution which supresses the hydration of
PC, whereas it is consumed in PC-slag mortars resulting in
early hydration of slag and better early age strength.
For future work, having realized the potential of this novel
admixture, it prompts the need for a more thorough study on the
interaction of the admixture with the cementitious alkaline envi-
ronment, its micro-structural analysis, the effect of the admixture
on long term strength and durability beyond 28 days as well as its
effects on PC-slag concretes. The environmental advantages of pre-
cast construction will inevitably lead to precast concrete represent-
ing a larger market share of the overall concrete construction
industry. In motivating designers to specify precast concrete in pref-
erence to in-situ concrete, not only must the technical requirements
be met but the cost must also be competitive, which means that fac-
tory productivity must at least be maintained. The use of GGBS will
mitigate against this unless the pre-early strength of concrete can
be guaranteed through changes to mix constituents and curing pro-
cesses without extra cost above current. This is a significant chal-
lenge and this paper has explored the possibility of mitigating the
slower pre-early strength development of a range of GGBS dosages
through the use of admixtures and thermal activation.
Conflict of interest
None.
Acknowledgements
The researchers greatly acknowledge the support provided by
Enterprise Ireland and Ecocem Ireland in funding this research
under Contract No. IP 2016 0454 Titled ‘‘Activated Slag for Precast
Concrete (ASPC)”. Thanks are also due to Flood Precast for the
provision of materials and access to their factory for mix designs
and pre-early concrete data of their precast products.
523
References
[1] J. Ranz, S. Aparicio, J. Fuente, J. Anaya, M. Hernandez, Monitoring of the curing
process in precast concrete slabs: an experimental study, Constr. Build. Mater.
122 (2016) 406–416.
[2] H. Yi, G. Xu, H. Cheng, J. Wang, Y. Wan, H. Chen, An overview of utilization of
steel slag, Procedia Environ. Sci. 16 (2012) 791–801.
[3] British Ready Mix Concrete Association (BRMCA), 2012, ‘‘Cement type/ early
age properties – The use of low CO2 cements in concrete should not restrict the
rate of construction” https://www.brmca.org.uk//documents/Cement_Type_
Early_Age_Properties_23_Jun_11.pdf.
[4] E. Benhelal, Z. Gholamreza, S. Ezzatollah, B. Alireza, Global strategies and
potentials to curb CO2 emissions in cement, J. Clean. Prod. 51 (2013) 142–161.
[5] R. Leese, D. Casey. Embodied CO2e of UK cement, additions and cementitious
material MPA Cement. (http://cement.mineralproducts.org/documents/
Factsheet_18.pdf).
[6] R. Siddique, R. Bennacer, Use of iron and steel industry by-product (GGBS) in
cement paste and mortar, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 69 (2012) 29–34.
[7] R.K. Dhir, M.A.K. El-Mohr, T.D. Dyer, Chloride binding in GGBS Concrete, Cem.
Concr. Res. 26 (12) (1996) 1767–1773.
[8] C.M. Aldea, F. Young, K. Wang, S.P. Shah, Effects of curing conditions on
properties of concrete using slag replacement, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 465–
472.
[9] P.H.R. Borges, J.O. Costa, N.B. Milestone, C.J. Lynsdale, R.E. Streatfield,
Carbonation of CH and C-S-H in composite cement pastes containing high
amounts of BFS, Cem. Concr. Res. 40 (2010) 284–292.
[10] P. Lukowski, A. Salih, Durability of mortars containing ground granulated
blast-furnace slag in acid and sulphate environment, Procedia Eng. 108 (2015)
47–54.
[11] D.M. Roy, G.M. Idorn, Hydration, structure, and properties of blast furnace slag
cements, mortars, and concrete, J. Am. Concr. Inst. 79 (6) (1982) 444–457.
[12] J.J. Escalante, J.H. Sharp, The microstructure and mechanical properties of
blended cements hydrated at various temperatures, Cem. Concr. Res. 31
(2001) 695–702.
[13] J.J. Escalante, L.Y. Gomez, K.K. Johal, G. Mendoza, H. Mancha, J. Mendez,
Reactivity of blast-furnace slag in Portland cement blends hydrated under
different conditions, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (2001) 1403–1409.
[14] F. Xinghua, H. Wenping, Y. Chunxia, L. Dongux, W. Xuequan, Studies on
Portland cement with large amount of slag, Cem. Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 645–
649.
[15] E.H. Kadri, S. Aggoun, G.D. Schutter, K. Ezziane, Combined effect of chemical
nature and fineness of mineral powders on Portland cement hydration, Mater.
Struct. 43 (2009) 665–673.
[16] B. Lothenbach, G.L. Saout, E. Gallucci, K. Scrivener, Influence of limestone on
the hydration of Portland cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 848–860.
[17] O. Cakir, F. Akoz, Effect of curing condition on the mortars with and without
GGBFS, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 308–314.
[18] V. Bonavetti, H. Donza, G. Menendex, O. Cabrera, E. Irassar, Limestone filler
cement in low w/c concrete: a rational use of energy, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (6)
(2003) 865–871.
[19] F. Bellmann, J. Stark, Activation of blast furnace slag by a new method, Cem.
Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 644–650.
[20] S.U. Khan, M.F. Nuruddin, T. Ayub, N. Shafiq, Effects of different mineral
admixtures on the properties of fresh concrete: mechanical properties,
durability and hybrid use with OPC, Sci. World J. 2014 (2014) 11. Article ID
986567.
[21] P. Lawrence, M. Cyr, E. Ringot, Mineral admixtures in mortars: effect of inert
materials on short term hydration, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (12) (2003) 1939–
1947.
[22] M. Cyr, P. Lawrence, E. Ringot, Mineral admixtures in mortars: quantification
of the physical effects of inert materials on short-term hydration, Cem. Concr.
Res. 35 (4) (2005) 719–730.
[23] M. Regourd, Structure and behaviour of slag Portland cement hydrates, in:
Procedings of 7th ICCC Paris Francia, 1980, pp. 2–10.
[24] C. Castellano, V. Bonavetti, H. Donza, E. Irassar, The effect of w/b and
temperature on the hydration and strength of blastfurnace slag cements,
Constr. Build. Mater. 111 (2016) 679–688.
[25] K. Weerdt, M. Haha, G. Saout, K. Kjellsen, H. Justnes, B. Lothenbach, The effect
of temperature on the hydration of composite cements containing limestone
powder and fly ash, Mater. Struct. 45 (2012) 1101–1114.
[26] C. Castellano, V. Bonavetti, E. Irassar, Effect of curing temperature on hydration
and strength of cement paste with granulated blast furnace slag, Revista de la
Construccion 6 (2) (2007) 4–15.
[27] M. Sautsos, F. Kanavaris, J. Kwasny, Effect of temperature on the strength
development of mortar mixes with GGBS and fly ash, Mag. Concr. Res. 69 (15)
(2017) 787–801.
[28] S. Wang, K. Dcrivener, P. Pratt, Factors affecting the strength of alkali-activated
slag, Cem. Concr. Res. 24 (1994) 1033–1043.
[29] X. Wu, W. Jiang, D.M. Roy, Early activation and properties of slag cement, Cem.
Concr. Res. 20 (1990) 961–974.
[30] P. Wang, V. Rudert, R. Trettin, Effect of fineness and particle size distribution of
granulated blast-furnace slag on the hydraulic reactivity in cement systems,
Adv. Cem. Res. 17 (4) (2005) 161–166.
[31] M. Cyr, C. Patapy. Synergic effects of activation routes of ground granulated
blast-furnace slag (GGBS) used in the precast industry, 2016. <hal-01344929>.
524 C. Korde et al. / Construction and Building Materials 216 (2019) 506–524
[32] S.J. Barnett, M.N. Sautsos, S.G. Millard, J.H. Bungey, Strength development of
mortars containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag: effect of curing
temperature and determination of apparent activation energies, Cem. Concr.
Res. 36 (2006) 434–440.
[33] O.R. Ogirigbo, L. Black, Influence of slag composition and temperature on the
hydration and microstructure of slag blended cements, Constr. Build. Mater.
126 (2016) 496–507.
[34] F. Sajedi, H.A. Razak, Comparison of different methods for activation of
ordinary Portland cement-slag mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 30–38.
[35] F. Sajedi, H.A. Razak, The effect of chemical activators on early strength of
ordinary Portland cement-slag mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 1944–
1951.
[36] M. Whittaker, M. Zajac, M.B. Haha, F. Bullerjahn, L. Black, The role of the
alumina content of slag, plus the presence of additional sulphate on the
hydration and microstructure of Portland cement slag blends, Cem. Concr. Res.
66 (2014) 91–101.
[37] J.S. Lumley, R.S. Gollop, G.K. Moir, H.F.W. Taylor, Degrees of reaction of the slag
in some blends with Portland cements, Cem. Concr. Res. 26 (1) (1996) 139–
151.
[38] M. Murmu, S.P. Singh, Hydration products, morphology and microstructure of
activated slag cement, Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 8 (1) (2014) 61–68.
[39] M.F. Carrazco, G. Menendez, V. Bonavetti, E.F. Irassar, Strength optimization of
tailor-made cement with limestone filler and blast furnace slag, Cem. Concr.
Res. 35 (2005) 1324–1331.
[40] B. Kolani, L. Buffo-Lacarriere, A. Sellier, G. Escadeillas, L. Boutillon, L. Linger,
Hydration of slag blended cements, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 1009–
1018.
[41] G. Menendez, V. Bonavetti, E. Irassar, Strength development of ternary blended
cement with limestone filler and blast furnace slag, Cem. Concr. Compos. 25
(1) (2003) 57–63.
[42] P. Fernando, C. Joao, J. Said, Alkali activated binders: a review Part 1: historical
background, terminology, reaction mechanizm and hydration products,
Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 1305–1314.
[43] L. Zhang, B. Chen, Hydration and properties of slag cement activated by alkali
and sulphate, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (9) (2017) 04017091.
[44] R. Myrdal. Accelerating Admixture for concrete: State-of-the-art Sintef Reprot,
SbF BK A07025, ISBN 978-82-536-0989-8.
[45] European Standard IS EN196 – 1: 2005
[46] P. Hewlett, LEA’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, fourth ed., Butterworth-
Heinemann, Oxford, MA; USA, 1998.
[47] E. Gartner, D. Myers, Influence of tertiary alkanolamines on portland-cement
hydration, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 76 (6) (1993) 1521–1530.
[48] M. Ichikawa, K. Muneki, S. Susumu, Effect of triisopropanolamine on hydration
and strength development of cements with different character 3iii05, in: 10th
International Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, 1997, p. 8.
[49] P. Sandberg, F. Doncaster, On the mechanism of strength enhancement of
cement paste and mortar with trisopropanolamine, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (6)
(2004) 973–976.
[50] T. Wise, V. Ramchandran, G. Polomark, The effect of thiocynates on the
hydration of portland cement at low temperatures, Thermochim. Acta 264
(1995) 157–171.
[51] I. Reknes. ‘‘Quality lignosulfonate for concrete”, The Materbuilder, 84 – 90,
January 2013.
[52] Y. Houst, P. Bowen, F. Perch, A. Kauppi, P. Borget, L. Galmiche, J. Meins, F.
Lafuma, R. Flatt, I. Schober, P. Banfill, D. Swift, B. Myrvold, B. Petersen, K.
Reknes, Design and function of novel superplasticier for more durable high
performance concrete (superplast project), Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 11997–
21209.
[53] A. Zingg, F. Winnefeld, L. Holzer, J. Pakush, S. Becker, L. Gauckler, Adsorption of
polyelectrolytes and its influence on the rheology, seta potential and micro
structure of various cement hydrate phase, J. Colloids Interface Sci. 323 (2008)
301–312.
[54] A. Colomb, M. Geiker, H. Justnes, R. Lauten, K. Weerdt, On the mechanizms of
consumption of calcium lignosulfonate by cement paste, Cem. Concr. Res. 98
(2017) 1–9.
[55] B. Mota, T. Matschei, K. Scrivener, The influence of sodium salts and gypsum on
alite hydration, Cem. Concr. Res. 75 (2015) 53–65.
[56] D.C. Montgomery, G.C. Runger, Applied Statistics and Probability for Engineers,
sixth ed., Wiley Publicatioin, 2014.