See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/327226077

Effect of Fly Ash on Self-healing of Cracks in Concrete

Conference Paper · May 2018

DOI: 10.1109/MERCon.2018.8421952

CITATION READS

1 420

2 authors:

Shan Ratnayake Anura Nanayakkara

The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology University of Moratuwa
2 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS    34 PUBLICATIONS   142 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

EVALUATION OF CONCRETE DURABILITY INDICATORS WITH DIFFERENT SUPPLEMENTARY CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS View project

High Volume Pozzolanic Green Engineered Cement Composites (ECC) or Strain-Hardening Cement Composites (SHCC) in India View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Shan Ratnayake on 25 August 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Effect of Fly Ash on Self-healing of Cracks in
Concrete
K.A.S.D. Ratnayake and S.M.A. Nanayakkara
Department of Civil Engineering
University of Moratuwa
Sri Lanka
kashanrat@gmail.com, anura58@gmail.com
Abstract—The design of water retaining structures is mainly
based on the serviceability limit state crack control. The allowable
crack width depends on the self-healing ability of concrete and the
use of supplementary cementitious material like fly ash in concrete
mixes might affect it. Therefore, an experimental investigation was
carried out to find the influence of fly ash on self-healing process.
Water is sent through artificially induced cracks in a specimen for
autogenous healing to take place at a constant pressure gradient
across the specimen. To determine the level of self-healing, the flow
through the crack was measured with time to obtain the sealing
time. Fly ash percentages of 20%, 30% and 40% were tested along
with a 0% fly ash mix. Insignificant variation was shown for initial
drop in flow rate across fly ash percentages used in this study.
Significant reduction in sealing time was observed for 20% and
30% fly ash mixes as compared to 0% fly ash whereas higher fly
ash percentages (40%) showed insignificant reduction.
Keywords— water retaining structures; self-healing; crack
width; concrete; fly ash; sealing time
I. INTRODUCTION
A. Introduction to self-healing of cracks in concrete
The phenomenon of self-healing of cracks in concrete has
been observed and studied for a long time. The process of self-
healing can be attributed to three major processes [1]:
• Further hydration of unhydrated cement at the cracked
surface
• Recrystallization of portlandite leached from the bulk
paste
• Formation of calcite (CaCO3)
Design of water retaining structures (WRS) is based on the
crack width limitation criteria. Previous studies have shown that
supplementary cementitious material (SCM) used in the
concrete mix have a large impact on the self-healing
performance. SCM includes pulverized fuel ash (fly ash) (FA),
silica fume and ground granulated blast-furnace slag (ggbfs)
B. Previous studies on self-healing
Various parameters affecting this mechanism, such as crack
width, water seepage rate through cracks and temperature have
been studied in earlier researches [2]. Studies have been done on
strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV), rapid chloride
permeability (RCP) and sorptivity of concrete, considering high
percentages of FA in the mix [3]. Most of these are implicit
978-1-5386-4417-1/18/$31.00 ©2018 IEEE
methods of quantifying the ability to self-heal and do not
simulate the real situation of water retaining structures where
water is flowing through a crack. The effect of pressure gradient
across a crack in concrete with ordinary Portland cement (OPC)
has also been studied and an optimum pressure gradient for
sealing crack widths of different sizes was found [4]. Further,
smart cementitious materials which can self-heal with minimal
external support have also been explored [5].
C. Test methods used to study self-healing in previous studies
• Tensile splitting test used to split cylindrical specimen and
water sent through the interconnected crack across the
diameter and time taken to seal the crack was used to
quantify performance [4]
• Cylindrical specimen was loaded to 70% and 90% of
compressive strength to induce interconnected cracks.
UPV, RCP test and sorptivity were measured to quantify
how much the specimen had sealed [3]
• Crushing of specimen to 75 µm fine particles and testing
for hydration degree to see if healing can be sufficiently
done by the unhydrated cement [6]
D. Trends shown with other parameters
Higher FA content showed positive trends in unhydrated
OPC, reduction of porosity [6], RCP test values, and an optimal
FA content was recognized for each. FA mixes have shown
better performance in self-healing than ggbfs [5]
Comparison of Portland limestone cement and OPC have
shown no appreciable difference in self-healing [7]. For a given
hydraulic gradient across a crack, optimal crack width was
identified to seal crack in minimum time. Experiments
conducted in the range 20 °C to 80 °C concluded that the rate of
self-healing increased from 20 °C to 80 °C.
E. Importance and identification of knowledge gap
However, the study of how supplementary cementitious
material such as fly ash, silica fume and ggbfs affect the process
of self-healing has not been looked into in depth. The most
commonly used SCM in the construction industry, especially in
the construction of WRS is FA. With the introduction of FA, the
percentage of OPC in the mix reduces. Thereby, the amount of
Ca(OH)2 produced from the hydration of OPC varies and
consequently may affect the self-healing process. Hence the
effect of fly ash on the self-healing process of cracks in WRS The objective of the research is to find the performance of
was focused in this study. FA over OPC in the self-healing process. Hence, the total
cement content of the mix was kept the same and the OPC in the
II. OBJECTIVES mix was replaced with FA on the basis of mass percentage.
The main objective was to study how sealing time of a crack by Initial survey of several mix designs for 35A (used for water
self-healing process is affected by using Class F FA as a SCM. retaining structures) showed that approximately 25% of cement
in it consists of FA and approximately 0.35 ratio of FA/OPC.
Therefore, the replacement of OPC was done in 20%, 30% and
III. METHODOLOGY
40% of total cement content.
A. Selection of methodology Due to density the difference in FA (2150 kgm-3) and OPC
The purpose of the research is to find out how cracks in WRS (3150 kgm-3), the other components also needed adjustment for
respond to the flow of water through them and get information 1m3 of concrete. The selected mixes are given in Table II.
on how fast the crack seals by itself. Implicit quantification of Out of the 3 cylindrical specimens made for each mix, only
certain changes of properties in material will not resemble this 2 usable specimens could be obtained for 0% FA.
situation properly. Therefore, to simulate this exact situation, Along with the cylindrical specimens, three 150 mm cubes
cracks needed to be induced artificially and water passed were cast for each mix for obtaining strength properties as well.
through the cracks should be monitored with time.
Previous work done in this regard showed that splitting of a TABLE II. MIX PROPORTIONS USED IN EXPERIMENT
cylindrical specimen as in the tensile splitting test was a viable
option since it ensured an interconnected crack across its OPC Fine Coarse
Water
% FA FA (kg) Cement aggregate(R/ aggregate (20
diameter in a cylindrical specimen [4]. (kg)
(kg)
Sand) (kg) mm) (kg)
0 0 400 200 810 990
B. Specimen details 20 79.0 316.0 197.5 799.8 977.6
30 117.8 274.8 196.3 794.9 971.5
A cylindrical specimen of 150 mm diameter specimen and
40 156.0 234.1 195.0 789.9 965.5
200 mm length was chosen. To avoid the separation of the two
halves when subjected to tensile splitting test, 3 of 6 mm mild
steel bars were inserted in the direction perpendicular to the
expected crack propagation direction at approximately 75 mm
axial spacing. The bars were held in place by connecting the 3
R6 bars onto 2 R6 bars running axially through the sample much
like a ladder formation as shown in Fig 1. See Fig 2 for
schematic arrangement.
BS 8007:1987 recommends 0.5 water/cement ratio for mixes
having FA and a maximum cement content of 450 kgm-3. Hence
a Grade 35 mix having the mix proportions given in Table I was
chosen as the base proportions (i.e. OPC only).
(a) Front view

Fig 1. Reinforcement arrangement and sizing of specimen (dimensions in mm)

TABLE I. BASE MIX PROPORTIONS FOR 1 M3

Content Amount (kg)
OPC 400
Water 200 (b) Side view
Fine aggregate (River sand) 810
Coarse aggregate 990 Fig 2. Schematic diagram of arrangement (dimensions in mm)
C. Crack width and pressure gradient
For 0.1 mm crack width, pressure gradients ranging from 4
to 10 m/m are acceptable since reasonable interpolation from
previous research shows that approximately 5 m/m will seal a
0.1 mm crack in the minimum time [4]. For 200 mm specimen,
the head required for this pressure gradient ranges from 0.8 m to
2 m. The arrangement of the test specimen is shown in Fig 2.
Crack width was measured by an optical microscope (20X
magnification) with a scale (Fig 3). Steel straps on either end of
the specimen were used to control the crack width to the required
size. The crack width was measured at several places to
determine an average measured crack width
D. Curing
The self-healing phenomenon is required when the WRS is
filled with water, which may happen a long time after
construction of the structure. Hence, the self-healing ability
should be tested when a majority of FA and OPC has been
hydrated.
Normally, FA mixes have a lower early strength gain and a
better late strength gain. The study by Y.M. Zhang et al [8] found
that at 28 days, the fraction of FA reacted is more than 75% as
that at 90 days (S4 represents 40% FA mix in Fig 4, S4(A) has
40% FA with 3% Na2SO4, S6 has 60% FA in mix etc.).
Since a major portion of the fly ash in the mix is expected to
react within 28 days, it is acceptable to start conducting the
testing self-healing of the specimens at 28 days.
The cylindrical specimen was cured for 28 days before the
tensile splitting test was done.
Fig 3. 0.1 mm crack through microscope
Fig 4. Fraction of reacted FA with time [8]
Cubes were also cured for 28 days and checked for
compressive strength.
The final setup of the apparatus was as shown in Fig 5.
E. Data collection
Buckets were used to collect the water and the data point was
taken to be at the average of the start and end time.
Since literature review showed a large initial drop in the
discharge for all samples tested in a similar manner to this, the
time between consecutive measurement of discharge rates was
kept low for the initial flow measurements to accurately plot the
flow rate decline vs time.
(𝑊𝑡𝑜𝑡𝑎𝑙 − 𝑊𝑏𝑢𝑐𝑘𝑒𝑡 )
𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒(𝑄) = − (1)
∆𝑡
Δt = t2 – t1
t1 - time at start of water collection period
t2 - time at end of water collection period
Wtotal - total weight of bucket and water inside
Wbucket - weight of bucket
Q - flow rate at time (t1+t2)/2
After the initial drop in flow rate, interval between readings
were lengthened such that sufficient quantity of water was
collected to take a reading (approximately 500 ml – 3000ml).
The measurements were taken until the cracks were sealed fully.
The average flow rate in the time interval between time t1 and t2
was obtained from equation (1). For reasonable approximation,
the flow rate obtained was assumed to be the flow rate at time
(t1+t2)/2.
IV. RESULTS
The compressive strengths of cubes are given in Table III.
Average measured crack widths of cylindrical specimens
were in the range of 0.1 mm to 0.15 mm in most of the
specimens. Crack widths of some samples could not be lowered
beyond 0.2 mm even after maximum tightening of steel strap.
Since the two surface crack sizes measured on either end of
Fig 5. Final arrangement of specimens and apparatus
 TABLE III. FA% AND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
0.30
FA % Compressive strength (MPa) 4C
0 39.4 0.25
20 36.8 2A

crack width (mm)

30 36.7 0.20
4A
40 33.3 3C 2B
3B
0.15 4B 3A 2C Calculated
0A
the specimen will not give a proper value of the crack size within CW
0.10
the sample, the initial flow rate which was calculated from the Measured
initial flow measurement was used to find the average crack CW
0.05
width of the specimen, assuming equation of laminar flow
through 2 parallel plates as given by equation (2).
0.00
Sample
∆𝑝𝑑𝑤 3
𝑞= − (2) Fig 6. Graphical representation of crack size distribution
12𝜂𝑙
where 0A 0.094 2A 0.199 2B 0.138
2C 0.125 3A 0.119 3B 0.145
q - initial water flow rate (m3/s) 3C 0.132 4A 0.154 4B 0.116
Δp - differential water pressure between inlet and outlet of 10.000
the crack / N/m2
d - surface crack length /m

Log flow rate (ml/s)

w - crack width /m 1.000
l - flow path length of a crack /m
η - absolute viscosity of water /Ns/m2
The calculated crack width from this method and 0.100
corresponding measured crack width for each sample is given in
Table IV.
0.010
The number of the sample name represents the percentage of 0 4 48 480
FA in the mix and the letter gives a unique ID to the particular Log time (h)
sample (eg: 2A – 20% FA of sample A).
Fig 7. Flow rate with time (initial drop)
Since the calculated crack width gives a more realistic
equivalent crack width representing the crack width variation 00A 0.094
along the specimen, this will be used in the analysis of results. 1.000 20B 0.138
Log flow rate (ml/s)

All of the samples showed a rapid drop in flow rate at the 20C 0.125
start (See Fig 7) and then the flow rate reduction was gradual 0.100 30A 0.119
(See Fig 8). 40B 0.116
0.010
From the flow rate data, the initial reduction of flow rate to
0.01 ml/s was calculated by linear interpolation of the two
0.001
closest values. The time taken for that reduction for different
samples were plotted against the different crack widths as shown
in Fig 9. 0.000
0 240 480 720 960 1200 1440
Time (h)
TABLE IV. MEASURED AND CALCULATED CRACK WIDTH OF
SPECIMENS Fig 8. Flow rate with time (gradual drop)

Measured average Calculated crack width From Fig 9, it can be seen that between the crack sizes of
Sample name
crack width (mm) (mm) 0.094 to 0.15 mm, the time taken for flow rate to drop to 0.01
0A 0.12 0.094 ml/s was approximately the same for all specimens considered.
2A 0.20 0.199 Considering 20% FA specimens only, it can be seen that the time
2B 0.13 0.138 has not changed significantly from one specimen to the other.
2C 0.11 0.125
3A 0.10 0.119 The same can be observed for specimen with 30% fly ash
3B 0.13 0.145 (3B and 3C). 3A, however seems to be an outlier in this case.
3C 0.13 0.132 The non-uniform crack width across the sample may have
4A 0.098 0.154 affected the initial drop.
4B 0.11 0.116
4C 0.26 0.237
The same can be observed for specimen with 30% fly ash
(3B and 3C). 3A, however seems to be an outlier in this case.
 900 2A
698 hours. Hence, all values will be normalized for 0.1 mm
crack width (CW) using a normalization factor in equation (3).
time taken to reduce flow to 0.01

800
700 The normalized sealing time (ST) is calculated by equation (4).
600
𝑆𝑇 (𝐶𝑊 0.1 𝑚𝑚)
500
ml/s (h)

4A
𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 = − (3)
400 𝑆𝑇 (𝐶𝑊 𝑥 𝑚𝑚)
300 3A
𝑆𝑇 (𝐶𝑊 0.1 𝑚𝑚) 698
200 0A 4B 2C 3C2B 3B =
𝑆𝑇 (𝐶𝑊 𝑥 𝑚𝑚) 342862.54𝑥 2 − 5580.88𝑥 + 2827.21
100
0 𝑆𝑇 = 𝑁𝑜𝑟𝑚𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟 × 𝐴𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑎𝑙 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 𝑆𝑇 − (4)
0.09 0.11 0.13 0.15 0.17 0.19 0.21
Based on the normalized sealing times given in Table V and
crack width (mm)
shown in Fig 12, the following observations can be made:
Fig 9. Time taken for specimens to reach 0.01 ml/s flow for different specimens
• FA mixes having 20% and 30% have shown
The non-uniform crack width across the sample may have approximately 25% reduced sealing time as compared to
affected the initial drop. the 0% FA mix
However, considering a much larger crack size of 0.20 mm, • FA mixes having 40% have shown only 6% reduction in
the time for this initial drop has been understandably delayed sealing time compared to 0% FA mix
due to the large crack size. Fig 10 shows the time taken to seal
the cracks completely. V. CONCLUSION
Some specimens were not used in this comparison since the The initial rapid drop in flow rate was common to all the
flow rate of those specimens showed a sudden increase after an mixes and insignificant variation was shown with respect to FA
accidental discontinuity in water supply. The sudden increase in percentages.
flowrate could be assumed to be due to the dislocation of the
particles inside the crack. As for the performance of full closure of the crack by self-
healing, there was a significant difference in the time taken with
For comparison purposes, the sealing time for specimens respect to FA percentages.
were normalized to that of a 0.10 mm crack width specimen
using the sealing time variation with crack width for pressure Since comparison between FA percentages and sealing time
gradient of 10 given in the reference [4]. could not be done with samples having different crack widths,

The control sample 0A with a crack width of 0.094 mm has

TABLE V. NORMALIZED SEALING TIME
only a deviation of 13.3% from the value obtained for the same
crack size from Fig 11 at a pressure gradient of 10. Crack Time
Actual
width for
The curve corresponding to pressure gradient 10 shown in Sample (mm) crack
Normalization sample Normalized
Fig 11 can be used to normalize sealing times for crack widths factor sealing ST (h)
to seal
time (h)
in the range of 0.025 mm to 0.15 mm. Since the same pressure (h)
gradient was used in this experiment, it is acceptable to use this 0A 0.094 632 1.1038 716 790
curve. The accuracy of the relevant curve in Fig 11 has an R2 2B 0.138 1687 0.4137 1365 565
value of 0.9285, which is acceptable. 2C 0.125 1237 0.5641 1075 606
3A 0.119 698 0.6531 861 562
From this curve, the time taken for sealing a 0.1 mm crack is 4B 0.116 993 0.7024 1052 739

2500
Total time taken to seal 100% (h)

2000
2B
1500
4B 2C
1000 0A 3A

500

0
0.09 0.10 0.11 0.12 0.13 0.14 0.15 0.16 0.17 0.18 0.19 0.20
crack width (mm)

Fig 10. Graph of time taken for specimens to seal Fig 11. Sealing time vs crack width [4]
 900
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
0A
800 4B The authors would like to thank Siam City Cement (Lanka)
700
Ltd for providing the fly ash used in the experiment. The
2C
2B 3A assistance given by the technical staff of the Structural Testing
Sealing time (h)

600
500
400
300
200
100
0 Design, vol. 92, p. 499–511, 2016.
Sample
Fig 12. Normalized sealing time variation for different FA mixes
could not be done with samples having different crack widths,
the sealing time of the specimens were normalized to 0.1 mm.
• FA mixes having 20% and 30% have shown
approximately 25% reduced sealing time as compared to
the 0% FA mix
• FA mixes having 40% have shown only 6% reduction in
sealing time compared to 0% FA mix
From these results, it can be seen that 20% and 30% FA
mixes perform better than 0% FA in sealing cracks in the range
of 0.1 mm to 0.15 mm, which also matches with the literature.
However, very high percentage of FA such as 40% does not
show significant improvement in performance as much as the
20% and 30%.
It is not recommended to use high volume FA mixes in the
concrete mix for WRS (more than 40% FA)
and Material Testing Laboratories in the Department of Civil
Engineering is also acknowledged.
REFERENCES
[1] H. Huang, G. Ye, C. Qian and E. Schlangen, “Self-healing in cementitious
materials: Materials, methods and service conditions,” Materials and
[2] H.-W. Reinhardt and M. Jooss, “Permeability and self-healing of cracked
concrete as a function of temperature and crack width,” Cement and
Concrete Research, vol. 33, p. 981 – 985, 2003.
[3] M. Sahmaran, S. B. Keskin, G. Ozerkan and I. O. Yaman, “Self-healing
of mechanically-loaded self consolidating concretes with high volumes of
fly ash,” Cement & Concrete Composites, vol. 30, p. 872–879, 2008.
[4] S. Nanayakkara, “Self-healing of cracks in Concrete under water
pressure,” in New Technologies for Urban Safety of Mega Cities in Asia,
Tokyo, 2003.
[5] M. Sahmaran, G. Yildirim and T. K. Erdem, “Self-healing capability of
cementitious composites incorporating different supplementary
cementitious materials,” Cement & Concrete Composites, vol. 35, p. 89–
101, 2013.
[6] P. Termkhajornkit, T. Nawa, Y. Yamashiro and T. Saito, “Self-healing
ability of fly ash–cement systems,” Cement & Concrete Composites, vol.
31, p. 195–203, 2009.
[7] S. M. A. Nanayakkara and T. Elakneshwaran, “Self-healing of cracks in
concrete with Portland Limestone Cement,” in 6th International Congress
in Concrete Technology, Dundee, 2005.
[8] Y. M. Zhang, W. Sun and H. D. Yan, “Hydration of high-volume fly ash
cement pastes,” Cement & Concrete Composites, vol. 22, pp. 445-452,
2000.

View publication stats