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

net/publication/355887348

PERFORMANCE OF GREEN CONCRETE BLOCK ENCOMPASSING FLY ASH AND

GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG

Article · November 2021

CITATIONS READS

0 54

3 authors, including:

Kaniz Fatema Mahbubur Rahman

Housing and Building National Research Institute, Bangladesh. Chittagong University of Engineering & Technology
7 PUBLICATIONS 6 CITATIONS 13 PUBLICATIONS 232 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Blast Furnace slag View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Kaniz Fatema on 09 November 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com

PERFORMANCE OF GREEN CONCRETE BLOCK ENCOMPASSING FLY ASH

AND GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG
Kaniz Fatema*1, Md. Ashraful Alam*2, Mahbubur Rahman*3
*1Department Of Chemical Engineering, Housing And Building Research Institute,
Darussalam, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
*2Department Of Civil Engineering, Housing And Building Research Institute,
Darussalam, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
*3Department Of General Educational Development (GED), Faculty Of Science And Information
Technology, Daffodil International University, 4/2, Shukrabad, Mirpur Road,
Dhanmondi, Dhaka 1207, Bangladesh.
ABSTRACT
During the years 2020-2021, the experiments were carried out at the Housing and Buildings Research Institute
laboratory plant, Dhaka, Bangladesh. The compressive strength properties of concrete blocks manufactured
using Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash are examined in this study. GGBS and Fly Ash
are utilized to replace cement in the concrete mix partially. GGBS and Fly ash have replaced 5%, 10 %, 15 %,
and 20 % of the Portland cement and fly Ash, respectively. All combinations used to have water to cementation
materials ratio of 0.45. The compressive strength and water absorption of the concrete block were utilized to
determine its strength. These tests were done three, seven and twenty-eight days after curing and twenty-eight
days after testing for water absorption. Results showed that as GGBS and Fly ash content increased, the
compressive strength of the resulting concrete block compositions increased, but water absorption decreased.
After reaching an ideal level of around 25% GGBS and 25% fly ash in the overall binder content, further
additions of GGBS and Fly Ash had little effect on compressive strength. The optimal value is 50% of the total
binder content to increase compressive strength by 59.21% and reduce water absorption performance by
2.81%. The results indicate that adding GGBS and Fly Ash to the concrete block increases its workability and
compressive strength, which results in enhanced mechanical properties.
Keywords: Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), Fly Ash, Dredged Sand, Compressive Strength, Water
Absorption.
I. INTRODUCTION
Concrete offers numerous benefits to the construction sector, most notably in the form of concrete blocks.
These blocks provide several advantages, including low maintenance, durability, and consumer satisfaction.
Concrete is now being studied to determine whether it may help reduce carbon dioxide emissions while
enhancing quality. To create concrete sand cement blocks, the world's most widely used construction material,
massive amounts of energy are required, primarily during the raw material utilization process[1]. The most
often used binder in concrete blocks is blended cement [2]. Additionally, Portland cement is a necessary
component of essentially all civil engineering projects [3]. Each ton of Portland cement produced emits about
one ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. Approximately one-third of the gases driving global warming
originate here [2]. Around 8% of global CO2 emissions are attributable to cement production [4]. In addition,
the concrete industry is continually searching for new cementitious materials to aid with the growing problem
of solid waste management and environmental issues [5]. Since1970, a wide range of materials other than
Portland cement have been utilized to partially replace Portland cement in concrete, with the majority of these
being recycled materials [1]. Various tests have been performed on blast furnace slag concrete to determine its
fresh, mechanical, and transportation properties [6]. Up to 80% more slag was replaced to improve high-
performance concrete's long-term durability [7]. GGBS is a byproduct of iron-making blast furnaces. The
benefits of GGBS include increased compressive and flexural strengths, increased workability and the ability to
create a denser matrix [8]. Thermal power plants are a significant source of electricity in our country, and rising
coal use results in increased ash production. Fly Ash provides for between 75 and 80 per cent of the total Ash

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1248]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com
generated by a power plant. At present, additional research is being conducted on the use of cementitious
materials in concrete, including silica fume, fly Ash, crushed and processed slags, rice husk and metakaolin [9].
The effects of these materials may be assessed by examining their durability in mass concrete, which is more
fuel-efficient and environmentally benign than cement [10]. The study used Portland cement to explore the two
best cementitious materials, GGBS and Fly Ash, the most effective. These studies are being conducted to
determine concrete workability and compressive resistance using waste materials such as blast furnace slag
and fly-ash to construct Sand Cement blocks using an alternative material mix.
II. METHODOLOGY
The materials used experimental investigation
2.1. Cement
This research used 197-1 Portland Composite Cement, which has a specific gravity of 3.15 and a regular
consistency of 25%. The cement's chemical composition is displayed in the following chart. Table-1.
2.2. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)
The GGBS utilized in this study was procured from the BSRM Steel Plant in Chittagong, Bangladesh. Granulated
blast furnace slag is the granular substance generated when molten iron blast furnace slag is rapidly cooled by
immersion in water, resulting in the formation of granules. In nature, it's a highly cementation granular
substance with a shallow crystal formation rate [11]. GGBS is derived from the pig iron manufacturing process.
Granulated slag, a fine, coarse, almost non-crystalline glassy material, is formed when hot molten slag cools
[12]. It has a lower reactivity than Portland cement, but the chemical properties are identical (P.C.)[2]. In
Table1, you'll find information on fly ash's chemical characteristics.
2.3. Fly Ash
Fly Ash is the other choice. Locally available Class F Fly Ash was used. It was collected from the Barapukuria
thermal power plant of Bangladesh. It is obtained from coal power plants. It creates serious environmental,
disposal and health problems. Its grains are spherical and are used in combination with ordinary cement to
enhance the concrete workability. Also, it increases the durability and strength of hardened concrete. The
chemical composition of fly ash is illustrated in Table 1.
2.4. Fine Aggregates
Locally available river sand free of organic contaminants and conforms to IS:2386(part-1-1963) grading zone 1
is utilized. The sand Sand has an F.M. of 1.02 is collected from the Chandpur River [13]. The chemical properties
of Dredged Sand are shown in Table-1, and the physical properties of Dredged Sand are shown in Table -2.
III. MODELING AND ANALYSIS
3.1. The Chemical Properties of Portland Composite Cement (PCC), GGBS, Fly Ash and Dredged Sand
Table-1. The Chemical Properties of PCC, GGBS, Fly Ash and Dredged Sand
Constituents (%) PCC (%) Fly ash (%) GGBS% Dredged Sand (DS%)
Specific Gravity 3.15 3.1 2.59 2.35
CaO 63.03 1.2 23.05 3.3
SiO2 21.07 18.7 32.07 77.26
Al2O3 4.3 15.6 8.1 5.57
Fe2O3 3.25 10.2 2.83 0.0087
MgO 1.73 1.18 3.43 --
SO3 1.5 0.3 0.85 --
Gypsum 3.1 - --
LOI (Loss on 2.5 1.2 1.22 3.42
ignition)

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1249]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com
3.2. The Physical Properties of dredged Sand
Table-2. The Physical Properties of dredged Sand
Parameters Dredged Sand (D.S.)
Dry density 1.82 g/cm3
Moisture content 2.6%
Particle size Irregular
pH 6.8
Specific gravity 2.6
Porosity (55)%
Colour white

Photo-1. GGBS Photo-2. Fly Ash

Photo-3. Dredged Sand Photo-4. Cement

Photo: Raw materials 1) GGBS 2) Fly Ash 3) Dredged sand 4) Cement
3.3. Experimental Investigation
3.4. Casting and Curing of Control Specimen
At each mix, three cubes of 50.8mm×50.8mm×50.8mm in size were cast in a mould on each partial per cent
GGBS and Fly Ash and dredged Sand as given in Table 3. In the beginning, the dry ingredients are combined. The
liquid mixture was then added to the dry components and mixed for another 5 minutes[14]. Concrete was
compacted in three layers, each with 25 strokes of a 16mm rod[15]. Each cast specimen were kept at
temperature 280c for 24 hours, and 60 to 70% humidity was maintained. After 24 hours, moulded and cured in
water. As shown in table 4, cubes were tested after curing for3,7, and 28 days[15].
3.5. Mix Design Proportion
The mix design process used in the current study to achieve the standard grade complies with I.S. 10262:2009
and IS456:2000, respectively. Table 3 shows the weight of each component/ingredient and the mix design
percentage [15].
Table 3. Mix Design Proportions materials of cement, Fly ash, GGBS and dredged Sand
Mix label % Of Constituent materials
Cement GGBS Fly ash Dredged Sand
Mix-1 0 5 5 90

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1250]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com
Mix-2 5 10 10 85
Mix-3 10 15 15 60
Mix-4 15 20 20 45
Mix-5 20 25 25 30
3.6. Testing of specimen
The concrete block mixtures with GGBS and Fly Ash added at 10%,20%,30%,40%, and 50% by weight were
evaluated [1]. The compressive strength of 50.8-millimetre concrete cubes manufactured from each mixture
was evaluated after 7 days, 14 days and 28 days of storage in water[17]. The cubes are tested to compressive
strength testing by IS:516-1959 standards. A universal testing machine (UTM) with a capacity of 2000 K.N. is
used to assess the compressive strength of cubes [16].

Photo-5. GGBS and Fly Ash block Photo-6. Compressive strength testing
sample
IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Compressive strength
A total of 50 cube specimens were cast to determine the concrete's compressive strength [15]. At 3, 7,28 days
after curing, the compressive strength of concrete produced with fly ash, GGBS, and dredged Sand were
determined [1]. An average of three samples was taken for every testing age. The compressive strength test
results for various concrete block ratios are reported in Table 4[15].
Table-4. Observation of the Compressive strength (MPa) and % Water absorption
Mix label Compressive strength (MPa) Water
3 days 7 days 28 days absorption%

Mix-1 1.03 1.37 5.20 7

Mix-2 1.38 2.47 5.82 3.5
Mix-3 3.9 4.86 6.55 4.2
Mix-4 5.81 6.57 8.27 5.6
Mix-5 4.82 8.62 12.75 2.8
It is observed from table -4 that the compressive at an early age (3 & 7 days) of concrete increases up to 25%
replacement of GGBS and 25% replacement of Fly Ash than the control mixture. GGBS concrete has higher
compressive strength values than control concrete when prolonged cure period [17].

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1251]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com

Compressive strength of Concrete block with varying GGBS and Fly ash
content
30
12.75
25
Compressive Strength

20 8.27

15 6.55
8.62
6.57
10 5.82 4.86
5.2
5 5.81 4.82
2.47 3.9
1.37 1.38
0 1.03
Mix-1 Mix-2 Mix-3 Mix-4 Mix-5
Mix label
Compressive strength(MPa
Compressive strength(MPa

Figure 1. Compressive strength of concrete block with varying GGBS and Fly ash content
According to the graph in figure1, when cement is replaced by GGBS and Fly Ash, the concrete block has
reached its maximum compressive strength after 28 days for concrete blocks. Compressive strength increased
as the curing days increased from Mix-1 to Mix-5 as compared to the control (PCC), as seen in Table 4.
Additionally, Mix-5 had a compressive strength of 59.21 per cent greater than the control, and the intended
power on concrete blocks was 12.75 Mpa, as seen in Figure 1. As a result, it can be stated that a total of 50% is
the optimal proportion for attaining the required hardening of concrete while also minimizing the cost of
cement and safely collecting undesirable waste [15].
V. CONCLUSION
The following observations and conclusions were developed based on the findings of an inquiry into the use of
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) and Fly Ash in concrete as a partial replacement for cement.
 In the presence of both GGBS and Fly Ash, the workability increases, but the w/c stays the same.
 A replacement percentage of 50% was shown to be the most workable, compared to a controlled rate of
10%.
 GGBS and Fly Ash Mix -5 concrete specimens showed higher compressive strengths than control specimens
(Mix-1), with a difference of 12.75 Mpa.
 GGBS and Fly Ash gradually enhance the compressive strength of concrete when used in place of some of the
cement.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors would be like to acknowledge and appreciate the support received through the experimental work
from Housing and Building Research Institute, Darussalam, Mirpur, Dhaka, Bangladesh.
VI. REFERENCES
[1] Ali Nazari and Shadi Riahi, RETRACTED: splitting tensile strength of concrete using ground granulated
blast furnace slag and SiO2 nanoparticles as a binder, Vol 43, issue 4,2011, pp 864-872.
[2] M A Alam, K Fatema, M A Sarker, and M Z Hossain. An Experimental Study On Partial Replacement Of
Cement By Ggbs And Dredged Sand In Sand Cement Hollow Block, Int. j. eng. Technol, Vol 8, issue 2,
2021, pp 7.
[3] G. S Ghataora., R. J. Freer-Hewish, and J. Jessica. Summary project report on the utilization of recycled
aggregates generated from highway arising and steel slag fines. University of Birmingham,
Birmingham, UK, 2004.
www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science
[1252]
 e-ISSN: 2582-5208
International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering Technology and Science
( Peer-Reviewed, Open Access, Fully Refereed International Journal )
Volume:03/Issue:10/October-2021 Impact Factor- 6.752 www.irjmets.com
[4] JGJ Olivier, JAHW Peters, G Janssens-Maenhout, Trends in global CO2 emissions, PBL Netherlands
Environmental Assessment Agency 2012
[5] Sonali K. Gadpalliwar, R. S. Deotale, and Abhijeet R. Narde, To study the partial replacement of cement
by GGBS & RHA and natural Sand by quarry sand in concrete." IOSR Journal of mechanical and civil
engineering, Vol. 11, Issue. 2,2014, pp 69-77.
[6] GK Al-Chaar, M Alkadi, DA Yaksic, and LA Kallemeyn, The Use of Natural Pozzolanic Concrete as an
Additive or Substitute for Cement, Construction Engineering Research Laboratory; Vol.43, issue
4,2011, pp 864–872.
[7] E Guneyisi and M Gesoglu, A study on durability properties of high-performance concrete
incorporating high replacement levels of slag. Mater Struct. Vol 41, issue 3,2008, pp 479–493
[8] A Nazari, and S Riahi, splitting tensile strength of concrete using ground granulated blast furnace slag
and SiO2 nanoparticles as a binder, Energy Build. Vol .43, issue 4,2011, pp 864–872.
[9] Jayeshkumar Pitroda, L. B. Zala, and F. S. Umrigar. Experimental Investigations on Partial Replacement
of Cement with Fly ash in design mix concrete. International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Technology, IJAET, Vol. 3, issue. 4, 2012, pp126-129.
[10] M. L Berndt, Properties of Sustainable Concrete Containing Fly Ash, Slag and Recycled Concrete
Aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, Vol 23, issue 7, July 2009, pp 2606–2613.
[11] Naveena, Kasu, and K Anantha Lakshmi. Partial Replacement Of Cement With Ggbs And Metakaolin,
Proceedings of International Conference On Science, Technology, Engineering And Management, 2017,
pp 4
[12] S.A Ali and, A Shaikh. Experimental Study on Partial Replacement of Cement by Fly Ash and GGBS”,
International Journal for Scientific Research & Development, Vol. 2, issue 07,2014, pp 304-308.
[13] Azmat Ali Phul, Muhammad Jaffar Memon, Syed Naveed Raza Shah, and Abdul Razzaque Sandhu.
"GGBS and fly ash effects on compressive strength by partial replacement of cement concrete." Civil
Engineering Journal, Vol 5, issue 4, 2019, pp 913-921.
[14] Vijay Bhudiya, and Abbas Jamani. Experimental Study On Mechanical Properties Of Concrete
Containing Wollastonite And Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag As A Partial Replacement Of
Cement” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET), Vol 07, issue 06, 2020,
pp 9.
[15] Azmat Ali Phul, Muhammad Jaffar Memon, Syed Naveed Raza Shah, and Abdul Razzaque Sandhu. “GGBS
And Fly Ash Effects on Compressive Strength by Partial Replacement of Cement Concrete.” Civil
Engineering Journal, Vol 5, issue 4, April 27, 2019, pp 913–21.
[16] Prasath V.R Kumar, K. Gunasekaran, and T. Shyamala. “Characterization Study on Coconut Shell
Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by GGBS.” Journal of Building Engineering. Vol 26
(November 2019), pp 100830.
[17] M Rajaram, A Ravichandran, and A Muthadhi. Studies on Optimum Usage of GGBS in Concrete,
International Journal of Innovative Science and Research Technology, Vol 2, issue 5, 2017, pp 6.

www.irjmets.com @International Research Journal of Modernization in Engineering, Technology and Science

[1253]
View publication stats