J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
DOI 10.1007/s10163-013-0206-x
REVIEW
Utilization (recycling) of iron and steel industry by-product
(GGBS) in concrete: strength and durability properties
Rafat Siddique
Received: 4 April 2013 / Accepted: 9 October 2013
Ó Springer Japan 2013
Abstract Due to exponential growing in urbanization and
industrialization, byproducts from industries are becoming
an increasing concern for recycling and waste manage-
ment. Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is by-
product from the blast-furnaces of iron and steel industries.
GGBS is very useful in the design and development of
high-quality cement paste/mortar and concrete. This paper
covers the properties of GGBS, reaction mechanism, and
its effect on strength and durability properties of concrete.
Properties covered are sorptivity, microstructure, com-
pressive strength, splitting tensile strength, flexural
strength, permeability, sulfate resistance, freezing and
thawing resistance, corrosion of concrete.
Keywords Concrete
Durability properties

Strength properties
GGBS
Sorptivity
Introduction
Ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) is a by-
product from the blast-furnaces of iron and steel industries.
Blast-furnaces are fed with controlled mixture of coke,
iron-ore, limestone, and operated at a temperature of round
1,450–1,550 °C. GGBS is used as replacement for cement,
and replacement percentage could be up to 85 % depend-
ing upon the applications. Generally 50 % is used in most
applications. Higher replacement rates up to 85 % are used
in specialist applications such as in aggressive environ-
ments and to reduce heat of hydration. GGBS can be used
R. Siddique (&)
Department of Civil Engineering, Thapar University, Patiala,
Punjab 147004, India
e-mail: siddique_66@yahoo.com
at replacement levels of 70 % in lean-mix concrete. ASTM
C 989 [1] categories three strength grades (Grade 80, 100
and 120) of slag, depending upon their respective mortar
strengths when blended with an equal mass of Portland
cement. Grades 100 and 120 are the most commonly used
as admixtures in concrete. Table 1 gives criteria for ASTM
C 989 [1] classification. ASTM C 989 [1] valuates the
reactivity of GGBS. Reactivity of GGBS depends upon
chemical composition, glass content, fineness of the slag,
alkali concentration of the reacting system, and tempera-
ture variations during the early phases of hydration process.
Daube and Bakker [2] suggested that chemical composition
and vitreous state determine the hydraulic properties of a
slag. Cheron and Lardinois [3] have indicated that slag
indices between 1.65 and 1.85 are considered normal. Slag
indices determine the hydraulic properties of a slag
(chemical composition and vitreous state). Hydraulic
activity index = (CaO ? 1.4 MgO ? 0.56 Al2O3)/SiO2
Advantages of using GGBS in cement concrete
There are several advantages of using GGBS in concrete,
including improved workability, increased strength and
durability, reduced permeability, high resistance to chlo-
ride penetration, sulfate attack, and ASR, low heat of
hydration, enhancement of the life cycle of concrete
structures, and reduction in maintenance and repair costs
Environmental benefits of using GGBS
The use of GGBS as partial cement replacements with
lower environmental burdens offers opportunities for sig-
nificant reductions in energy use and carbon dioxide
emissions. Proportions of up to 70 or even 80 % can be
used with advantage in suitable situations. The use of
123
 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Table 1 GGBS-Activity index standards [1] Properties of hardened concrete

Age and grade Average of last five Any individual
consecutive samples sample Sorptivity

7-day index, minimum Elahi et al. [4] reported the sorptivity of concrete con-
Grade 80 – – taining 50 and 70 % GGBS at the age of 44 and 91 days. It
Grade 100 75 70 was observed that sorptivity of control concrete were
Grade 120 95 90 100 m3 9 10-7/min ‘ at 44 and 91 days, respectively.
28-day index, minimum Concrete made with 50 % GGBS yielded lower value of
Grade 80 75 70 sorptivity (77.1 m3 9 10-7/min ‘) at 44 days compared
Grade 100 95 90 to that at 91 days (96.9 m3 9 10-7/min ‘) whereas there
Grade 120 115 110 was significant increase in sorptivity (120.1 m3 9 10-7/
min ‘) with 70 % GGBS at 44 days but considerably
reduced the sorptivity (103.8 m3 9 10-7/min ‘) at
Table 2 Physical properties of GGBS 91 days.
Property Tasong et al. Oner and Hui-sheng
[41] Akyuz [42] et al. [15] Microstructure
Specific gravity 2.9 2.87 2.89
Daube and Bakker [2] reported that addition of GGBS
Specific surface (m2/kg) 425–470 425 371
modifies the products and the pore structure in hardened
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1200 –
cementitious materials. Large amounts of calcium
hydroxide and large capillary pores (0.05–60 lm) were
found in OPC specimens, but only sa mall quantity of
Table 3 Chemical composition of GGBS needle-shaped ettringite existed in GGBS concrete with
capillary pores that were less than (10–50 lm), which
Composition Tasong et al. Oner and Akyuz Hui-sheng et al.
(%) [41] [42] [15] could be filled up with pozzolanic reaction products such as
low-density C–S–H gel. Basheer et al. [5] mentioned that
CaO 41.99 32.82 30.13 GGBS can be effectively used to reduce the pore size in
Al2O3 11.59 10.18 13.76 concrete. Higher GGBS content results in denser structure
SiO2 35.34 39.18 36.39 and prevents concrete from water penetration. This is
MgO 8.04 8.52 9.36 because GGBS reacts with water calcium hydroxide to
Fe2O3 0.35 2.02 2.44 form extra C–S–H gel in the paste and slows down the
MnO 0.45 – strength development at an early age. Luo et al. [6]
SO3 0.23 – 1.30 reported that coarse pores of GGBS concrete were much
fewer and the pore structure of OPC concrete was
improved greatly when 70 % GGBS was added (at
GGBS in concrete results in following environmental 60 days). However, sulfates did not improve the pore
benefits (1) saves energy; (2) reduces emission of carbon structure of GGBS as expected.
dioxide; (3) conserves natural resources. Gao et al. [7] studied the morphology of the hydration
products in concrete made with (GGBS) using SEM.
Properties of GGBS Specific surface areas of cement and GGBS were 361 and
600 m2/kg, respectively. Cement was replaced with 40 %
GGBS is a fine glassy material and its colour varies from GGBS. At the curing age of 7 days, the GGBS particle
dark to off-white depending on moisture content, chemistry surface was covered with hydration product. Binici et al.
and efficiency of granulation. Its specific gravity is less [8] made micro-structural studies of blended cements pre-
than that of cement, but is finer than cement. Its physical pared with clinker (4 %), and made with basaltic pumice
properties, reported by some authors are given in Table 2. and GGBS. Totals of 10 and 30 % of additives (pumice and
GGBS is a non-metallic product, mainly consisting of sil- GGBS) were incorporated into these blends. Cement paste
icates and alumino-silicates of calcium and other bases. and mortars were made with OPC, two types of grinding
Slag is made up of both glassy and crystalline phases. The systems (inter-grinding and separate grinding), at two
glassy nature is responsible for its cementitious properties. Blaine values (2800 ± 30 and 4800 ± 30 cm2/g). A large
In GGBS, glass content is between 85 and 90 %. The amount of needle-shaped ettringite and plate-shaped cal-
typical chemical composition of GGBS is given in Table 3. cium hydroxide were observed in the blended cement,

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

indicating the formation of Portlandite (P) and CSH in Table 4 Compressive strength results [9]
OPC. The main hydration products are cotton-shaped CSH Mix code Compressive strength (MPa)
gel and a certain amount of needle-shaped ettringite.
7 days 14 days 28 days
Compressive strength OPC 39.5 45.3 53.1
55 % GGBS source 1 18.5 28.5 42.5
Wainwright and Rey [9] observed that source of the slag 55 % GGBS source 2 26.0 38.5 50.5
appeared to have little influence on strength development, 55 % GGBS source 3 22.5 36.0 50.5
and strength of OPC concrete and those containing GGBS 55 % GGBS source 4 25.0 41.5 51.5
increased with age (Table 4). Babu and Kumar [10] dem- 85 % GGBS source 1 17.5 28.0 33.5
onstrated that the slag concretes based on overall efficiency 85 % GGBS source 2 21.5 33.5 41.0
factor (k), will need an increase of 8.6 % for 50 % 85 % GGBS source 3 17.5 25.5 29.5
replacement and 19.5 % for 65 % replacement in the total 85 % GGBS source 4 19.0 26.5 32.5
cementitious materials for achieving strength equivalent to
that of normal concrete at 28 days. The efficiency factor
(k) is generally defined in terms of its strength relative to
90
control concrete. The efficiency factor (k value) is defined
as the portion of the pozzolanic material such as GGBS, 80

Compressive strength (MPa)

etc., that can be considered equivalent to Portland cement. 70
Quillin et al. [11] investigated the early strength devel- 60
opment of ‘BRECEM’ concretes, made from 50:50 mix-
50
tures of calcium aluminate cement (CAC) and ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), w/c ratios of 0.35 40
w/c = 0.35, water cured
and 0.45. Compressive strength results are shown in Fig. 1. 30 w/c= 0.35, air cured
It was observed that (1) BRECEM concrete with w/c ratio w/c = 0.45, water cured
20
of 0.35 developed strength more rapidly than those made w/c = 0.45, air cured
with w/c ratio of 0.45. (2) BRECEM concretes stored in air 10
initially developed strength more rapidly than equivalent 0
concretes stored in water. 0 20 40 60 80 100

Li and Zhao [12] determined compressive strength Time (days)

(Table 5) of high-strength concrete made with GGBS and
fly ash. Three types of concretes—GGFAC (incorporating
15 % GGBS and 25 % FA), HFAC (40 % fly ash), and PCC
(control Portland cement)—were made. PCC had 500 kg/
m3 of cement content, HFAC had 300 kg/m3 of cement and
200 kg/m3 FA, GGFAC had 300 kg/m3 of cement and
125 kg/m3 FA and 75 kg/m3 of GGBS. It was observed that
there is a general trend of increasing strength with age up to
1 year for all concretes. Behavior of HFAC at early ages is
different from that of PCC and GGFAC. The strength
development of GGFAC is similar to that of PCC, only with
slightly lower values before 28 days. This indicates that
GGFAC can achieve adequate early compressive strength,
while maintaining a high long-term strength.
Khatib and Hibbert [13] studied compressive strength of
concrete wherein cement was partially replaced with
0–80 % GGBS (Fig. 2). It was observed that there was
decrease in compressive strength with increase in GGBS
content during the early stages of hydration. Beyond
28 days and up to at least 90 days, the presence of GGBS
was highly beneficial at 40 and 60 % replacement with a
strength exceeding that of the control. A noticeable
strength reduction at all ages is observed at 80 % GGBS.
Fig. 1 Compressive strength development in BRECEM concretes
[11]
Atis and Bilim [14] investigated the effect of dry and
wet curing conditions on the compressive strength of
concrete made with GGBS (Table 6). It was observed that
(1) in general, wet-cured compressive strength of GGBS
was higher than that of control NPC concrete for 20 and
40 % replacement ratios at 28 days; (2) compressive
strength of GGBS was almost equal to that of control NPC
concrete for 60 % replacement ratio; (3) for dry curing
conditions, compressive strength of GGBS concrete is
found to be equivalent to that of control NPC concrete for
20 and 40 % replacement ratio at 28 days.; and (4) com-
pressive strength of GGBS is found to be satisfactory when
compared to control NPC concrete for 60 % replacement
ratio. However, concrete containing 80 % GGBS devel-
oped lower strength than that of control NPC concrete.
Hui-sheng et al. [15] studied the influence of GGBS on the
compressive strength of HPC up to the age of 180 days.
GGBS contents were 0, 15, 30, 45 and 60 % by weight of
cement, with water-binder ratio of 0.30 and 0.35. It was

123
 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Table 5 Compressive strength gain of concretes [12]

Binder combination Cube compressive strength (MPa) Strength gain from
28 days to 1-year
1 days 3 days 7 days 28 days 56 days 112 days 360 days (%)

PCC 40.5 51.2 66.8 81.1 87.9 91.2 96.3 18.7

HFAC 21.7 32.6 43 65.2 86.7 97.5 107.1 64.3
GGFAC 35.1 49.3 65.4 80.6 89.8 93.7 99.4 23.3

70 6
Control
60
Compressive strength (MPa)

40% GGBS

Flexural strength (MPa)

50 60% GGBS
80% GGBS 4
40

30

20 2

10

0
1 10 100 0
Curing time (days) Control 40% GBS 60% GGBS 80% GGBS

Fig. 2 Effect of GGBS on compressive strength development [13] Fig. 3 Effect of GGBS on flexural strength [13]

Table 6 Compressive strength of concrete at 28 days [14] Flexural and tensile strength
Mixture Compressive strength (MPa)
Ujhelyi and Ibrahim [16] reported the results of the effect
Wet cured Dry cured of hot weather on the flexural strength of concrete made
Name 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.3 0.4 0.5
with GGBS. It was observed that (1) concretes (casting and
curing at ?42 °C) containing slag as a partial replacement
CP-350-00 75.8 63.9 53.6 72.4 63.9 52.3
of cement (up to 40 %) had higher flexural strengths than
GS-350-20 81.4 65.8 57.0 73.3 60.4 50.6
that of concretes made with Portland cement alone; and (2)
GS-350-40 81.0 67.2 55.0 72.0 57.6 46.5
flexural strength of concretes made with slag was equal (or
GS-350-60 73.3 61.8 45.1 57.2 52.6 40.4
higher) in comparison to Portland cement concrete cast and
GS-350-80 62.7 50.4 29.9 50.2 42.7 26.9
cured in high temperature. Khatib and Hibbert [13]
CP-400-00 80.7 63.9 51.4 73.1 65.6 36.9
investigated the influence of GGBS (0, 40, 60, and 80 %)
GS-400-20 81.4 66.0 52.6 69.6 63.1 37.5
on the flexural strength of concrete (Fig. 3). The flexural
GS-400-40 82.0 66.9 51.6 66.5 61.6 35.4
strength of concrete containing 60 % GGBS was notice-
GS-400-60 77.8 61.1 40.1 68.2 59.0 30.5
ably higher than the control, whereas a slight decrease at
GS-400-80 67.7 53.1 25.3 54.4 47.2 19.7
40 % and marked decrease at 80 % replacement were
CP-450-00 80.3 64.3 48.7 75.0 68.2 41.7 observed.
GS-450-20 81.8 73.5 50.4 73.2 69.1 36.3 Guo et al. [17] investigated the flexural fatigue (Table 7)
GS-450-40 83.8 66.4 49.3 76.4 61.7 35.1 of concretes made with GGBS (50 and 80 %) by mass of
GS-450-60 80.6 61.8 39.5 58.2 54.2 28.3 total cementitious material, with control concrete having
GS-450-80 66.3 46.8 27.7 56.0 42.6 17.6 460 kg/m3 of cement, aggregate-binder ratios and water-
binder ratios were 2.4 and 0.35, respectively. It was
observed that the fatigue life of 50 % GGBS concrete is the
longest and that of 0 % GGBS concrete is the shortest, with
observed that HPC with GGBS at w/b of 0.30, compressive stress levels of 0.80 or more. However, when the stress
strength reached highest value at optimum replacement of level was lower than 0.80, the fatigue life of 80 % GGBS
15 %. concrete was the longest among three mixes.

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Table 7 Average cycles of flexural fatigue life [17] 9.84 9 10-4m2/s for compressive strengths between 62.5
Stress levels Average cycles
and 91.1 MPa.
Cheng et al. [21] concluded that a higher GGBS per-
GGBS content (%) centage made structure denser and prevented concrete from
0 50 80 water penetration and resulted in lower coulombs passed in
the RCPT test. Hooton and Titherington [22] observed that
0.90 68 114 78
concretes containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag
0.85 1015 1355 620
(GGBS), silica fume (SF), or ternary blends of SF exhibited
0.80 4212 9506 5904
improved chloride penetration resistance compared to
0.75 50,433 43,679 59,971
those of plain Portland cement concretes.
0.70 413,988 469,963 565,779
0.65 2,000,801 [2 9 106 [2 9 106
Sulfate resistance

Fearson [23] observed that increasing the slag contents in

Table 8 Splitting tensile strength of HPC [17]
Mix Cementitious Splitting tensile
materials (kg/m3) strength (MPa)
OPC GGBS SF 3 days 7 days
A 600 – – 3.8 4.54
B 420 180 – 4.06 5.03
C 360 180 60 5.2 5.44
Jianyong and Yan [18] reported the splitting tensile
strength (Table 8) of three high-performance concrete
(HPC) mixtures. Concrete A was made of OPC (600 kg/
m3). Concrete B had (420 kg/m3 of OPC and 180 kg/m3
GGBS), and concrete C had (360 kg/m3 of OPC and
180 kg/m3 GGBS, 60 kg/m3 of silica fume). It was
observed that Concrete B and C acquired more splitting
tensile strength than Concrete A at each age. The devel-
opment of splitting tensile strength showed the same ten-
dency as that of compressive strength. Such a tendency
reflects the strengthening effect of ultra-fine GGBS and SF
on mechanical properties of concrete.
Durabilities properties
Permeability and chloride binding capacity/resistance
Hui-sheng et al. [15] indicated gas permeability of control
HPC mix with water-binder ratio of 0.30 and 0.35 varied
between 29 9 10-17 and 31 9 10-17 m2. At w/b of 0.30,
gas permeability coefficient slightly increased with the
increase in GGBS replacement up to 60 %. At w/b of 0.35,
gas permeability coefficient at an optimum replacement of
30 % is slightly lower than that of the control HPC. Xu
[19] concluded that calcium sulfate had a different effect
on chloride binding and the pore solution chemistry than
sodium sulfate. Huang and Yeih [20] investigated the dif-
fusivity of chloride ions through high-strength concrete-
containing slag and found values of 2.53 9 10-14 to
Portland cement-slag mortars increased the sulfate resis-
tance substantially. Mangat and El-Khatib [24] studied the
influence of initial curing conditions on the sulfate resis-
28 days tance of concrete made with ordinary Portland cement and
5.54
pulverized fuel ash (PFA), silica fume (SF) and ground
granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) as partial replace-
5.91
ment of cement. It was concluded that sulfate resistance of
6.14
concrete increased with the replacement of cement with
22 % PFA, 9 % silica fume, 80 % GGBF slag.
Gollop and Taylor [25] examined the cubes of a blended
cement paste stored for 6 months in solutions of Na2SO4 or
MgSO4 by scanning electron microscopy. The blend of
cement contained 31 % of PC and 69 % of blast furnace
slag (GGBS). It was observed that (1) there was a tendency
of the materials made with slag cements to soften and
disintegrate as a result of sulfate attack rather than to
expand; (2) damage from sulfate attack was attributed
partly to decalcification, which weakened the C–S–H
matrix, and partly to ettringite formation, which caused
expansion and cracking; and (3) in typical cases of blends
high in slag, at least as much sulfur entered the hydration
products in sulfide as in sulfate.
Cao et al. [26] have indicated that sulfate resistance of
cementitious materials was dependent on its composition
and on the pH of the environment. Portland cement with
low C3A and low C2S performed well in all sulfate solu-
tions, and blended cements containing silica fume and fly
ash (particularly at 40 % replacement) showed a much
superior performance than any of the Portland cements
used.
Higgins [27] studied the influence of addition of a small
percentage of calcium carbonate or calcium sulfate on the
sulfate resistance of concrete-containing ground granulated
blast furnace slag (Table 9). In sodium sulfate solution, the
PC concrete had almost completely disintegrated by
6 years, while the GGBS concretes showed minor strength-
and corner-loss. As would be expected, 70 % GGBS con-
crete was more resistant to attack than 60 % GGBS con-
crete. In magnesium sulfate solution, the PC concrete

123
 J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Table 9 Compressive strength in water and in sulfate solutions [27]

Compressive strength in water (N/mm2) Percent strength in Na2SO4 Percent strength in MgSO4
3-day 7-day 28-day 1-year 2-year 6-year 1-year 2-year 6-year 1-year 2-year 6-year

Portland cement 34 41 53 66 68 69 97 87 0 85 74 28
60 % GGBS 17 31 48 65 69 73 106 97 62 95 75 18
70 % GGBS 13 28 49 63 66 71 105 89 90 94 77 28
60 % GGBS ? CaCO3 15 28 45 67 69 76 99 97 84 96 83 41
60 % GGBS 19 29 47 68 67 72 97 99 33 94 81 19
2 % SO3
60 % GGBS 18 32 50 62 69 75 102 99 80 94 88 50
3 % SO3

performed somewhat better, whereas the GGBS concretes
performed distinctly less well in the magnesium than the
sodium solution. This is what is normally observed with
GGBS concrete, which is generally more susceptible to
attack by magnesium sulfate than sodium sulfate.
Alkali silica reaction
GGBS could be very effective in controlling ASR because
(1) GGBS reduces the alkalinity of the concrete, and thus
the alkali-silica ratio; (2) GGBS reduces mobility of alkalis
in the concrete; and (3) GGBS reduces free lime in con-
crete which is regarded as an important factor for alkali
silica reaction.
Hogan and Meusel [28] reported that partial replacement
of high-alkali cement with slag dramatically reduces the
likelihood of alkali aggregate reaction in concrete.
Kwon [29] investigated the influence GGBS (0, 30, 45,
and 60 %) on the alkali-aggregate reaction of high-strength
concrete. High-strength concrete with a cement content of
450 kg/m3, and three types of GGBS with a fineness of
4,000, 6,000, and 8,000 cm2/g were used. It was observed
that (1) the expansion coefficients were 0.20, 0.105, 0.06,
and 0.02 % with GGBS replacement ratio of 0, 30, 45 and
60 %,, indicating the AAR-inhibiting effect of GGBS; and
(2) fineness of GGBS had a significant effect, and differ-
ences were most significant when the replacement ratio
was 30 %. The AAR-inhibiting effect was highest with a
fineness of 8,000 cm2/g, followed by 6,000 and 4,000 cm2/
g in this order.
Hester et al. [30] concluded that partial replacement of
Portland cement with slag (50 %) significantly reduced the
expansion of the concrete, and there was no significant
difference in behavior irrespective of aggregate type or
alkali load, indicating that the alkali level of the slag was is
not a contributory factor at the 50 % replacement level.
Bouikni et al. [31] showed that continued exposure to a hot
and humid regime resulted in increasing expansion, but the
concrete-containing 65 % slag replacement always
exhibited less expansion than concrete incorporating 50 %
slag at corresponding ages.
Corrosion resistance
Li and Roy [32] have indicated that for good-quality con-
crete, use of GGBS is very advantageous. It not only
reduces the porosity, but also the pores become finer and
the change in mineralogy of the cement hydrates leads to a
reduction in the mobility of chloride ions. Mangat and
Molloy [33] indicated that replacement of cement by up to
40 % GGBS had no significant influence on rebar corro-
sion. At 60 % GGBS, corrosion rate of reinforcement was
significantly reduced. Al-Amoudi et al. [34] studied the
long-term corrosion resistance of steel rebars in 5 %
sodium chloride solution, and concluded that corrosion rate
of the steel rebar in GGBS containing concrete specimen
was between one-half and one-twelfth of those in plain
concrete specimens. Torii et al. [35] concluded that the
resistance to chloride ion penetration of 50 % GGBS
concrete was almost the same as that of 10 % silica fume
concrete. Jau and Tsay [36] evaluated the slag cement
subjected to seawater corrosion at various ages and con-
cluded that slag concrete with 20–30 % substitution has the
best corrosion resistance properties.
Yeau and Kim [37] studied the influence of GGBS on
the corrosion resistance of concrete made with two types of
cements (ASTM Type I or ASTM Type V) and varying
percentages (0, 25, 40, and 55 %) of GGBS. Figure 4
shows the results obtained from the measurements of sur-
face area corroded from steel bars. It was observed that (1)
the corroded surface area (%) depend on the thickness of
the concrete cover, and GGBS content; (2) corroded areas
of steel embedded in control concrete mixtures were about
2 times and 3 times larger than those of steel involved in
40 % GGBS concrete mixture and 55 % GGBS concrete
mixture, respectively; and (3) proportion of corroded areas
in Type I cement was lower than that of the corroded areas
in Type V cement. These results suggested that the

123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag

Surface area of stel corroded (%) 100 Yuksel et al. [40] studied the effect of granulated blast
-- Type I cement furnace slag (GBFS), bottom ash (BA), and combination of
bar cover 1 cm .. Type V cement
80 both as partial replacement of fine aggregate on the con-
period of water crete durability. Firstly, a reference concrete was produced.
curing: 56 days
Then, three concrete series were produced replacing fine
60
aggregate by GBBS, BA and GBBS ? BA. These series
were designated as C, K, and CK, respectively. Freezing–
bar cover 2 cm
40 thawing resistance was measured by freezing and thawing
the specimens in water. Weight-loss results are shown in
20 Fig. 5. For three series, resistance to freeze–thaw increased
bar cover 3 cm
up to 20 % replacement. However, it decreased again for
0
the replacement level above 20 %. C-series (fine aggre-
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 gates were replaced by 10, 20, 30, 40 and 50 % GGBS)
Amounts of GGBs (% by binder weight) gave the best performance among the three series. For all
the series, the loss in strength was below the loss in
Fig. 4 Surface area (%) corroded from steel bars in concrete
strength value for reference concrete.
specimens [37]

7
Conclusions and summary
6
1. Use of GGBS accelerates the hydration of ordinary
Loss in strength (%)

5 Portland cement at early hours of hydration.

2. Addition of GGBS reduces the sorptivity of concrete.
4
3. Inclusion of GGBS results in denser structure and
3
prevents concrete from water penetration.
4. Addition of GGBS up to 40–60 % generally increases
2 the compressive strength, split tensile strength, and
K series flexural strength of concrete.
C-series
1 5. Inclusion of GGBS improves the permeability of
CK series
concrete.
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 6. Sulfate resistance of concrete is enhanced by the
Replacement ratio (%) inclusion of GGBS.
7. Replacement of cement by up to 40 % GGBS had no
Fig. 5 Freezing-thawing test results [40] significant influence on rebar corrosion. At 60 %
GGBS, corrosion rate of reinforcement was signifi-
resistance to steel corrosion can be superior, since not only cantly reduced.
Type I cement was used, but also the amount of GGBS was
increased.

Freezing and thawing resistance

References
Stark [38] observed that frost resistance of slag concrete
1. ASTM C 989 (1999) Standard specification for ground granulated
was highly dependent on the degree of hydration. Car- blast-furnace slag for use in concrete and mortars annual book of
bonation was more important than the degree of hydration ASTM standards, american society for testing and materials
on resistance to deicing salt. Knaack and Stark [39] studied 2. Daube J, Bakker R (1986) Portland blast-furnace slag cement: a
review. Blended Cem ASTM-STP 897:5–14
the super-sulfated cements containing more than 75–85 %
3. Cheron M, Lardinois C (1968) Proceedings of the 5th Interna-
of highly basic slag and alumina content greater than 15 %, tional Congress on the Chemistry of Cement, Tokyo, vol IV.
and concluded that in comparison to conventional slag pp 277–285
cements, super-sulfated cements are mainly activated by a 4. Elahi A, Basheer PAM, Nanukuttan SV, Khan OUZ (2010)
Mechanical and durability properties of high performance con-
high amount of gypsum with only a small amount of
cretes containing supplementary cementitious materials. Constr
Portland cement. These cements displayed lower perfor- Build Mater 24(3):292–299
mances in scaling and freeze–thaw due to a lower degree of 5. Basheer PAM, Gilleece PRV, Long AE, McCarter WJ (2002)
hydration at 28 days. Monitoring electrical resistance of concretes containing

123

alternative cementitious materials to assess their resistance to
chloride penetration. Cement Concr Compos 24(5):437–449
6. Luo R, Cai Y, Wang C, Huang X (2003) Study of chloride
binding and diffusion in GGBS concrete. Cem Concr Res
33(1):1–7
7. Gao JM, Qian CX, Liu HF, Wang B, Li L (2005) ITZ micro-
structure of concrete containing GGBS. Cem Concr Res
35(7):1299–1304
8. Binici H, Cagatay IH, Shah T, Kapur S (2008) Mineralogy of
plain Portland and blended cement pastes. Build Environ
43(7):1318–1325
9. Wainwright PJ, Rey N (2000) The influence of ground granulated
blast furnace slag (GGBS) additions and time delay on the
bleeding of concrete. Cement Concr Compos 22(4):253–257
10. Babu KG, Kumar VSR (2000) Efficiency of GGBS in concrete.
Cem Concr Res 30(7):1031–1036
11. Quillin K, Osborne G, Majumdar A, Singh B (2001) Effects of w/
c ratio and curing conditions on strength development in BRE-
CEM concretes. Cem Concr Res 31(4):627–632
12. Li G, Zhao X (2003) Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash
and ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Cement Concr Compos
25(3):293–299
13. Khatib JM, Hibbert JJ (2005) Selected engineering properties of
concrete incorporating slag and metakaolin. Constr Build Mater
19(6):460–472
14. Atis CD, Bilim C (2007) Wet and dry cured compressive strength
of concrete containing ground granulated blast-furnace slag.
Build Environ 42(8):3060–3065
15. Hui-sheng S, Bi-wan X, Xiao-chen Z (2009) Influence of mineral
admixtures on compressive strength, gas permeability and car-
bonation of high performance concrete. Constr Build Mater
23(5):1980–1985
16. Ujhelyi JE, Ibrahim AJ (1991) Hot weather concreting with
hydraulic additives. Cem Concr Res 21(2–3):345–354
17. Guo LP, Sun W, Zheng KR, Chen HJ, Liu B (2007) Study on the
flexural fatigue performance and fractal mechanism of concrete
with high proportions of ground granulated blast-furnace slag.
Cem Concr Res 37(2):242–250
18. Jianyong L, Yan Y (2001) A study on creep and drying shrinkage
of high performance concrete. Cem Concr Res 31(8):1203–1206
19. Xu Y (1997) The influence of sulfates on chloride binding and
pore solution chemistry. Cem Concr Res 27(12):1841–1850
20. Huang R, Yeih WC (1997) Assessment of chloride diffusion in
high strength concrete using the accelerated ionic migration test.
J Chin Inst Eng Taipei Taiwan Ser A/Chung-kuo Kung Ch’eng
Hsuch K’an 20:39–45
21. Cheng A, Huang R, Wu JK, Chen CH (2005) Influence of GGBS
on durability and corrosion behavior of reinforced concrete.
Mater Chem Phys 93:404–411
22. Hooton RD, Titherington MP (2004) Chloride resistance of high-
performance concretes subjected to accelerated curing. Cem
Concr Res 34(9):1561–1567
23. Fearson JPH (1986) Sulfate resistance of combination of Portland
cement and granulated blast furnace slag, vol 2. ACI Special
Publication SP-91, pp 1495–1524
24. Mangat PS, El-Khatib JM (1992) Influence of initial curing on
sulfate resistance of blended cement concrete. Cem Concr Res
22(6):1089–1100
25. Gollop RS, Taylor HFW (1996) Micro structural and micro
analytical studies of sulfate attack. IV. Reactions of a slag cement
123
J Mater Cycles Waste Manag
paste with sodium and magnesium sulfate solutions. Cem Concr
Res 26(7):1013–1028
26. Cao HT, Bucea L, Ray A, Yozghatlian S (1997) The effect of
cement composition and pH of environment on sulfate resistance
of Portland cements and blended cements. Cem Concr Compos
19(2):161–171
27. Higgins DD (2003) Increased sulfate resistance of GGBS con-
crete in the presence of carbonate. Cement Concr Compos
25(8):913–919
28. Hogan FJ, Meusel JW (1981) Evaluation for durability and
strength development of a ground granulated blast furnace slag.
Cem Concr Aggreg 3(1):40–52
29. Kwon Y (2005) A study on the alkali-aggregate reaction in high-
strength concrete with particular respect to the ground granulated
blast-furnace slag effect. Cem Concr Res 35(7):1305–1313
30. Hester D, McNally C, Richardson M (2005) A study of the
influence of slag alkali level on the alkali–silica reactivity of slag
concrete. Constr Build Mater 19(9):661–665
31. Bouikni A, Swamy RN, Bali A (2009) Durability properties of
concrete containing 50 % and 65 % slag. Constr Build Mater
23(8):2836–2845
32. Li S, Roy DM (1986) Investigation of relations between porosity,
pore structure and chloride diffusion of fly ash blended cement
pastes. Cem Concr Res 16(5):749–759
33. Mangat PS, Molloy BT (1991) Influence of PFA, slag and mi-
crosilica on chloride induced corrosion of reinforcement in con-
crete. Cem Concr Res 21(5):819–834
34. Al-Amoudi OSB, Rasheeduzzafar MM, Al-Mana AI (1993)
Prediction of long-term corrosion resistance of plain and blended
cement concretes. ACI Mater J 90(6):564–570
35. Torii K, Sasatani T, Kawamura M (1995) Effects of fly ash, blast
furnace slag, and silica fume on resistance of mortar to calcium
chloride attack. In: Proceedings of Fifth International Conference
on Fly Ash, Silica Fume, Slag, and Natural Pozzolans in Con-
crete, SP-153, vol. 2. American Concrete Institute, pp 931–949
36. Jau WC, Tsay DS (1998) A study of the basic engineering
properties of slag cement concrete and its resistance to sea water
corrosion. Cem Concr Res 28(10):1363–1371
37. Yeau KY, Kim EK (2005) An experimental study on corrosion
resistance of concrete with ground granulate blast-furnace slag.
Cem Concr Res 35(7):1391–1399
38. Stark J (1997) Frost resistance with and without deicing salt—a
purely physical problem, frost resistance of concrete. In: Pro-
ceedings of the International RILEM Workshop on Resistance of
concrete to freezing and thawing with or without de-icing
chemicals, Essen, Germany, pp 83–99
39. Knaack U, Stark J (1997) Frost and frost-deicing salt resistance of
super-sulfated cement concrete, frost resistance of concrete. In:
Proceedings of the International RILEM Workshop on Resistance
of concrete to freezing and thawing with or without de-icing
chemicals, Essen, Germany, pp 139–146
40. Yuksel I, Bilir T, Ozkan O (2007) Durability of concrete incor-
porating non-ground blast furnace slag and bottom ash as fine
aggregate. Build Environ 42(7):2651–2659
41. Tasong WA, Wild S, Tilley RJD (1999) Mechanism by which
ground granulated blast furnace slag prevents sulfate attack of
lime stabilized kaolinite. Cem Concr Res 29(7):975–982
42. Oner A, Akyuz S (2007) An experimental study on optimum
usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cement
Concr Compos 29(6):505–514