Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Investigating the effect of M-sand on abrasion resistance of Roller

Compacted Concrete containing GGBS
S. Krishna Rao a,, P. Sravana a, T. Chandrasekhar Rao b
a
Civil Engineering, JNTUH, Hyderabad, Telangana 500085, India
b
Bapatla Engineering College, Bapatla, AP, India

h i g h l i g h t s

The Cantabro loss test is used to measure the abrasion resistance of GGBS roller compacted concrete.

A relationship is established between Cantabro loss and Surface abrasion loss of GGBS roller Compacted Concrete.

Relationships are established between mechanical and abrasion resistance of GGBS Roller Compacted Concrete.

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

Article history: In this paper, an attempt has been made to investigate the effect of Manufactured sand (M-sand) on
Received 3 December 2015 strength and abrasion resistance of Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) Roller Compacted
Received in revised form 24 May 2016 Concrete (GRCC). The cement was partially replaced by GGBS from 0% to 60%. The GRCC mixes were
Accepted 14 June 2016
designed to have a flexural strength of 5 MPa according to ACI 211.3R guidelines. Fine aggregates of three
Available online 23 June 2016
combinations were used in GRCC mixes, namely river sand (100%-Series A), M-sand (100%-Series B) and
combination of river sand and M-sand (50% each-Series C). Studies on strength parameters (Compression
Keywords:
and Flexure) were conducted. Cantabro loss and Surface abrasion resistance tests were conducted to eval-
Cantabro loss
Compressive strength
uate the abrasion resistance of the GRCC mixes for 3, 7, 28 and 90 days. Experimental results show that
Flexural strength the Cantabro loss and Surface abrasion weight loss increased with increase in GGBS content at the age of
GGBS 3 days. But at later ages (7, 28, 90 days) a decrease trend in weight loss was observed for all the mixes.
M-sand With addition of M-sand in GRCC mixes the abrasion resistance of GRCC mixes were improved when
River sand compared to river sand mixes. Relationships were established between strength and abrasion resistance
Roller Compacted Concrete for all mixes (Series A, B and C). An empirical relation was proposed between Cantabro loss and Surface
Surface abrasion weight loss abrasion weight loss of GRCC mixes.
2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
River sand is generally used as fine aggregate in the construction
of pavements and other structures. Due to the rapid growth of the
infrastructural development in the world compels the demand for
river sand. Also as the supply of suitable natural sand material near
to the source of construction is becoming exhausted, the cost of the
sand is increasing. Hence a replacement material to river sand is
needed and the finer materials from crushing operations are more
suitable as substitute materials. Since the supply of river sand is
limited and its continuous supply is not guaranteed, use of Manu-
factured Sand (M-Sand) as an alternative to river sand has become
inevitable. ICAR (The International Center of Aggregates Research)
Corresponding author.
E-mail address: snkrishnarao@gmail.com (S.K. Rao).
research project work has showed that concrete can successfully
be made using unwashed M-sand without modifying the sand.
With the use of Manufactured Sand in concrete there was increase
in flexural strength, has improved abrasion resistance, increased
unit weight and lowered permeability (Ahn et al.) [3].
The vehicular movement on pavements results in wear and tear
and abrasion on its surface due to the sliding and scraping action of
wheels of the vehicles. Therefore abrasion resistance of concrete is
essential parameters when the concrete pavement is subjected to
such abrasive forces on it. It is difficult to assess the damage caused
by different forces of abrasion and no one test procedure is satis-
factory to evaluate the resistance of concrete to the conditions of
wear (Neville et al.) [22].
Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) has zero slump and it is
placed without any form work and its construction is similar to tra-
ditional asphalt pavements (ACI 325.10R-95) [1]. The performance

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.06.054
0950-0618/ 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
192 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201
of RCC is greatly influenced by flexural strength and its elastic
modulus, however for pavement applications the abrasive resis-
tance is also essential parameter considering movement of heavy
vehicular traffic (Shi et al.) [29]. Siddique et al. [30] investigated
the utilization of high volumes of class F fly ash on the abrasion
resistance of concrete by replacing the fly ash at 35%, 45%, 55%
and 65% replacement levels. They concluded that the abrasion
resistance was found satisfactory up to 35% replacement level
and proposed a correlation existed between abrasion resistance
and compressive strength of concrete.
Singh et al. [34] studied the strength and abrasion resistance
properties of concrete with waste foundry ash by replacing the
river sand at 0%, 5%, 10%, 15% and 20% by mass. From the studies
it is found that there was significant improvement in abrasion
resistance and strength of concrete. It is found that a strong corre-
lation exists between the mechanical properties and abrasion
resistance of concrete.
Ali Mardani et al. [18] conducted experimental investigations to
study the abrasion resistance of road concrete for four concrete
mixes with compressive strength obtained ranged between 32
and 64 MPa. It is found that a close relationship between compres-
sive strength and abrasion resistance of concrete. Li Beixing et al.
[17] studied the influence of M-sand on strength and abrasion
characteristics of pavement concrete by replacing the river sand
with M-sand from 4.3% to 20% by mass and found that there was
an increase in abrasion resistance and strength at 10% of M-sand.
Naik et al. [20] conducted experimental investigation on the
effect of different sources of fly ash on abrasion resistance of con-
crete by replacing the cement with fly ash (Class C) at 40, 50 and
60% levels and concluded that amount of fly ash has remarkable
effect on the abrasion resistance of concrete. Song Yen et al. [39]
had investigated the influence of (Class F) fly ash on the abrasion
resistance of high strength concrete and found that up to 15%
replacement level of fly ash, the abrasion resistance improved,
and beyond 15% level it results in lowering of abrasion resistance.
Rafat Siddique [31] studied the effect of fly ash (Class F) on per-
formance characteristics of concrete and he replaced the cement
by 40%, 45% and 50% with Fly Ash. Test results indicated that abra-
sion resistance was improved from the ages of 91 days to 365 days.
Rafat Siddique et al. [32] investigated the effect of polyester fibers
on the abrasion resistance of HVFA concrete with 30%, 40% and 50%
replacement levels of fly ash with and without polyester fibers.
Test results were indicated that the inclusion of fibers in HVFA con-
crete improves the abrasion resistance.
Christian Gaedicke et al. [15] experimentally assessed the abra-
sion resistance of pervious concrete by two methods namely
impact abrasion test and surface abrasion test. Test results
revealed that impact abrasion method has low coefficient of varia-
tion and was able to differentiate the results among other mixes.
Xiang Shu et al. [35] had compared the performance of field and
laboratory pervious concrete mixes by using Cantabro loss test
(ASTM C 131) and found that field cores showed higher Cantabro
loss than the field mixture concrete specimens.
Kumar et al. [16] presented a detailed research review paper on
the abrasion test methodologies for determining the abrasion
resistance of concrete and their suitability for different concrete
structures. Qiao Dong et al. [14] developed a methodology for mea-
suring abrasion resistance of pervious concrete by comparing three
methods of abrasion resistance test (Cantabro test, loaded wheel
test, surface abrasion test). They found that the Cantabro test
resulted good repeatability and lowest variation.
Yoshiko Takada et al. [36] investigated the effect of changes the
mix proportion on the strength and abrasion resistance of PCP and
concluded that the change in W/C ratio did not contribute to Can-
tabro loss. The test methods used in their investigation were Can-
tabro test and wear test. Bonicelling et al. [12] studied the effect of
fine sand addition on pervious concrete and found that addition of
5% sand to the total coarse aggregates improved the abrasion resis-
tance. The Cantabro loss reduced with addition of 5% sand.
Atis [6] compared the abrasion resistance of high volume fly ash
concrete with normal Portland cement concrete and concluded
that HVFA concrete show better abrasion resistance results than
NPC concrete at higher compressive strength ranges. He estab-
lished a linear relationship between abrasion resistance and com-
pressive strength concrete. Antonio Nanni [21] presented
experimental results of abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted
Concrete with a selected standard method (ASTM C 779) and found
that the adopted method was simple and reliable. Carrasquillo [13]
proved that concrete containing fly ash showed equal or better
abrasion resistance in comparison with the concrete of equal
strength containing no fly ash.
1.1. Research significance
From the detailed review of literature it was concluded that no
significant test procedure is available to evaluate the abrasion
resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete, as this is an important
and fundamental property when it has been used in pavement
applications. Different methods have been used by various
researches to study the abrasion resistance of concrete pavements.
No method clearly simulates the abrasive action of vehicular traffic
on the rigid pavements. Also most of the research publications
were related to the Fly ah based mineral admixture concrete and
little information was available on the GGBS Roller Compacted
Concrete (GRCC). Therefore, this research highlights the impor-
tance of abrasion resistance of RCC and effect of GGBS and M-
sand on the strength and abrasion resistance of RCC pavements.
Experimental investigations were reported on the basis of Can-
tabro Test and surface abrasion resistance test.
1.2. Objectives of the experimental work
The scope of the experimental investigation is to identify appro-
priate method of tests for evaluation of abrasion resistance of RCC.
The procedure for measuring abrasion resistance shall be simple
and adaptable to field and laboratory applications. The main objec-
tives of this experimental research work are:
i) To study the effect of GGBS and M-sand on the strength
properties of RCC (Compression and Flexural) for specified
flexural strength of 5 MPa.
ii) To study the influence of M-sand on strength and abrasion
resistance of GRCC mixes
iii) To develop a correlation between Cantabro loss and surface
abrasion weight loss for GGBS Roller Compacted Concrete
(GRCC) for pavements applications.
2. Experimental investigations
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Cementitious materials
Ordinary Portland Cement OPC 53 Grade was used in the pre-
sent experimental investigation. Properties of cement were pre-
sented in Table 1. Cement was tested as per BIS 4031 [10]. The
GGBS used in this research project was collected from the TOSHALI
CEMENTS PVT LTD located at Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pra-
desh, India. The GGBS was ground in a laboratory mill to a Blaine
fineness of 422.2 m2/kg. The properties of GGBS are tested as per
BIS:1727 [8] and results are given in Table 1.
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201 193

Table 1 of M-Sand only. Also seven mixes of GRCC of Series C, 0%, 10%,
Properties of cement and GGBS. 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% by weight of cement were replaced
Component (%) Cement GGBS with GGBS and fine aggregate is of 50% river sand and 50% M-
Cement and GGBS characteristics sand combination was used. The identification of mix proportions
a) Chemical analysis and quantity of material are given in Table 3.
Loss ignition 1.8 1.01
SiO2 20.4 34.4 3.1. Preparation, casting and testing of specimens
Fe2O3 3.2 2.65
Al2O3 3.9 15.6
CaO 63 33.1 3.1.1. Flexural strength test
MgO 2.4 8.9 Beam specimens of size 500  100  100 mm were used for
Na2O 0.62 measuring flexural strength in beam moulds and compacted with
K2O 0.6
modified proctors rammer. They were demoulded and kept for
SO3 3 2.46
curing after one day. Then Flexural strength test were conducted
b) Physical properties
on UTM of capacity 1000 kN by third point loading at 3, 7, 28
Fineness (Blaine), m2/kg 285 422.2
% of passing 45 lm 88.5 98.0 and 90 days as per BIS:516 [11]. The test results were presented
in Table 4.
Compressive strength, MPa
3 Days 29.00
7 Days 40.00 3.1.2. Compressive strength test
28 Days 58.00 Compressive strength of GGBS Roller Compacted Concrete
Specific gravity 3.15 2.82 (GRCC) specimens of Series A, B and C was measured at 3, 7, 28
and 90 days of curing age as per BIS 516 [11]. The specimens were
casted and demoulded after 24 h and kept for curing. Then they
2.1.2. Fine aggregate
were tested in compression testing machine of 3000 kN capacity
River sand and Manufactured Sand (M-sand) were used as fine
by applying load at the rate of 4.5 kN/s until the resistance of the
aggregate in all concrete mixes used in the experimental work.
cube to the applied load breaks down. The test results are pre-
Three combinations of fine aggregates were used in the prepara-
sented in Table 4.
tion of GRCC mixes. They were Series A (100% river sand), Series
B (100% M-sand) and Series C (50% river sand and 50% M-sand).
3.1.3. Cantabro abrasion test
The Manufactured Sand was collected from V.N.S. Ready Mix plant,
The Cantabro abrasion resistance test was conducted with a Los
Vijayawada, India. The specific gravities of river sand and M-sand
Angeles abrasion testing machine by without placing abrasive
were 2.68 and 2.713 respectively. The fine aggregates were con-
charges in the form of steel balls in accordance with ASTM C
forming to BIS:383 [9] requirements.
1747 [4]. In this test, each set consisting of 3 cylindrical specimens
of size 300 mm diameter and 100 mm height were placed in Los
2.1.3. Coarse aggregate Angeles abrasion testing machine and its position in the Machine
Igneous rock material consisting of granite was used as coarse was shown in Fig. 2. Initial weight of each specimen (w1) is
aggregate in the preparation of RCC. The grain Size distribution recorded before placing into the machine. Then this machine was
and other properties are listed in Table 2. The gradational require- allowed to rotate at various revolution levels such as 50, 100,
ments of combined aggregate were as per ACI 211.3R-02 150, 200, 250 and 300 revolutions. At each level of revolution the
(Table A3.2) [2]. abraded specimens were cleaned from any loose debris and
weighed accurately to measure w2. Finally the percentage loss
2.1.4. Water was calculated using the following equation:
The water used in RCC mix design was potable and drinking
water. w1  w2
Cantabro loss;%  100 1
w1
3. Mix proportioning where w1 = Initial weight of the test specimen, grams, w2 = Final
weight of the test specimen, grams.
Mix proportioning of RCC was done using ACI 211 3R-02 [2]
specifications. This method was developed for Roller Compacted 3.1.4. Surface abrasion resistance test (using rotating cutter with drill
Concrete Pavement (RCCP) of Rigid pavement category and it is press)
limited to mix design with nominal maximum size of aggregate The surface abrasion resistance test was conducted using ASTM
of 19 mm as per ACI 325.10R-95 [1]. The RCC mix was propor- C 944 [5] method and with a drill press with a rotating cutter.
tioned for specified target flexural strengths of 5.0 N/mm2 [23 Three cylindrical specimens of size 300 mm  100 mm were used
27,4046]. The cement content of control mix of RCC was to measure the weight loss in %. Each of the specimens was placed
295 kg/m3. In seven GRCC mixes of Series A, 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, in the drill press and the rotating cutter is mounted slowly until it
40%, 50% and 60% by weight of cement were replaced with GGBS touches the surface of the specimen. Then the device is set to rotate
and fine aggregate is of river sand only. Similarly another seven for two minutes at a speed of 200 rpm with a vertical load of 98 N.
GRCC mixes of Series B, 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% by The total diameter of the rotating cutter was 82.50 mm. Then the
weight of cement were replaced with GGBS and fine aggregate is specimen was removed from the device and its surface was
cleaned and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Three such measure-
Table 2 ments were taken at each 2 min interval such that the total time
Properties of coarse aggregate. of conduct of this test was 6 min. Average weight loss of three
S. No. Property Test value specimens in percentage was recorded. The surface abrasion
1 Specific gravity 2.88
weight loss is calculated using the following equation:
2 Aggregate impact value, % 21.50 w1  w2
3 Aggregate crushing value, % 20.40 Surface abrasion weight loss; %  100 2
4 Combined Flakiness & elongation value, % 21.90 w1
194 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201

Table 3
Quantities of materials per one m3 of GRCC of 5 N/mm2 flexural strength.

Series Type of fine aggregate Mix designation Mix proportion (kg/m3)

Cement GGBS CA River sand M-sand Water
A River sand 100% G0 295 0 1209 801 114
G10 265 30 1209 801 117
G20 235 60 1209 801 119
G30 205 90 1209 801 126
G40 175 120 1209 801 130
G50 145 150 1209 801 147
G60 115 180 1209 801 155
B M-sand 100% G0 295 0 1209 801 114
G10 265 30 1209 801 117
G20 235 60 1209 801 119
G30 205 90 1209 801 126
G40 175 120 1209 801 130
G50 145 150 1209 801 147
G60 115 180 1209 801 155
C River sand 50% and M-sand 50% G0 295 0 1209 400.5 400.5 114
G10 265 30 1209 400.5 400.5 117
G20 235 60 1209 400.5 400.5 119
G30 205 90 1209 400.5 400.5 126
G40 175 120 1209 400.5 400.5 130
G50 145 150 1209 400.5 400.5 147
G60 115 180 1209 400.5 400.5 155

Table 4
Flexural strength and compressive strength test results.

Series Mix designation Flexural strength of GRCC, N/mm2 Compressive strength of GRCC, N/mm2
3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days 3 days 7 days 28 days 90 days
A G0 3.8 4.80 6.80 7.20 14.7 26.50 43.20 49.50
G10 2.48 4.68 7.04 7.58 13.5 27.84 43.72 50.27
G20 2.31 4.72 7.42 7.81 13.1 28.12 44.28 52.11
G30 2.18 4.95 7.70 8.05 12.8 30.44 44.85 55.70
G40 2.03 5.10 7.90 8.20 12.4 32.50 45.15 58.28
G50 1.95 5.05 7.67 8.11 11.8 31.90 44.61 56.00
G60 1.7 4.80 7.15 7.82 9.40 31.05 43.27 54.10
B G0 3.8 4.4 6.8 8.6 18.67 22.22 33.74 45.2
G10 3.41 4.76 7.56 9 15.1 28.65 45.51 52.37
G20 3.15 5.03 8.12 9.72 14.65 30.1 47.02 54.66
G30 2.54 5.68 8.87 10.65 13.27 31.44 47.86 57.87
G40 2.63 6.17 9.13 13.54 12.71 33.42 48.32 59.91
G50 2.14 5.88 8.45 11.35 12.24 32.03 46.41 58.11
G60 2.02 5.12 8.01 10.81 11.73 31.87 44.32 57.34
C G0 5.6 6.4 7.21 8.2 28.11 32.7 48.14 52.3
G10 5.34 6.78 7.88 9.11 24.52 45.30 57.71 62.36
G20 5.15 6.98 8.55 10.25 21.37 47.41 58.12 65.78
G30 4.86 7.14 9.05 11.05 18.66 49.15 59.88 68.49
G40 4.62 7.38 9.35 13.88 17.10 52.22 61.38 70.25
G50 4.34 7.22 9.15 12.14 16.14 48.64 58.11 67.18
G60 4.11 7.08 8.62 11.28 14.43 45.22 56.43 64.23

where w1 = Initial weight of the test specimen, grams, w2 = Final
weight of the test specimen, grams.
4. Results and discussions
4.1. Effect of M-sand on compressive strength and abrasion resistance
of GRCC
The abrasion resistance and compressive strength of GRCC
mixes at 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% replacement levels
of GGBS for Series A, B and C were investigated. From Table 4 it
was observed that at the age of 7 days and above there has been
increase in compressive strength up to 40% replacement level of
GGBS for all three series mixes. This increase in early strength of
GRCC mixes is due to the fact that there was improvement
in the effectiveness of the mineral admixture i.e. GGBS at lower
water cement ratios. It was also reported by other researchers,
(Sengul and Tasdemir) [28] and (Teng et al.) [37], (Tripathi et al.)
[38]. Teng et al. [37] also reported that as early as 3 days of curing,
concrete with 450 kg/m3 cement and low w/c ratio of 0.35 and
with 30% replacement levels of Ultra fine GGBS showed an increase
in strength of 7.8% in comparison with control concrete. Tripathi
et al. [38] reported that at the early age of 7 days the compressive
strength of concrete with ISF slag was higher than control mix con-
crete even at 60% replacement level. They also reported that at the
age of 28 days at lower w/c ratio the compressive strength was
varying between 5% and 16% higher than the control mix concrete
even at 60% replacement level of ISF slag.
Fig. 3 shows the relation between the Cantabro loss and com-
pressive strength of GRCC for Series A, B and C. From Fig. 3 it
was clearly observed that the Cantabro loss decreases with
increase in compressive strength regardless of percent GGBS, age
of concrete and type of fine aggregate. Also Fig. 3 illustrate that a
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201 195

Fig. 1. Shapes of various specimens used in Cantabro Test.

C bl4:74lnf c 22:35; R2 0:823 for series B Mixes 4

C bl5:25lnf c 24:82; R2 0:900 for Series C Mixes 5

where Cbl = Cantabro loss in %, fc = Compressive strength of GRCC,

MPa.
From Eqs. (3), (4) and (5), it was observed that a strong correla-
tion was existed between compressive strength and Cantabro loss
for series B mixes and Series C mixes, where the M-sand was intro-
duced at 100% and 50% replacement levels respectively. Also from
Fig. 79, it was observed that the Cantabro loss was decreased with
addition of M-sand (Series A, B and C) in GRCC mixes in compar-
ison with 100% river sand (Series A) at all replacement levels at
all ages.
Fig. 4 shows a relationship between the surface abrasion weight
loss and compressive strength of GRCC for Series A, B and C. It
clearly shows that the surface abrasion weight loss decrease as
the compressive strength increases, regardless of percent GGBS,
amount of M-sand and age of concrete. Also Fig. 4 illustrates that
a strong correlation was existing between the compressive
strength and surface abrasion weight loss for GRCC mixes of Series
A, B and C with the best fit equation in the form of:

Sabl0:36lnf c 1:581; R2 0:809 for Series A 6

Sabl0:33lnf c 1:459; R2 0:899 for Series B 7

Sabl0:48lnf c 2:070; R2 0:867 for Series C 8

where Sabl = Surface Abrasion Weight Loss, %, fc = Compressive

Fig. 2. Position of RCC specimens in Loss Angles machines.
correlation exists between compressive strength and Cantabro less
for GRCC mixes. The correlation equations are as follows:
C bl8:88lnf c 40:21 R2 0:611 for Series A Mixes
Strength of GRCC, MPa.
From Eqs. (6), (7) and (8), it was observed that correlation coef-
ficient (R2) is higher for Series B (R2 = 0.899) and Series C
(R2 = 0.867) in comparison with Series A (R2 = 0.809), it indicates
that the influence of M-sand on abrasion resistance is significant
3
and remarkable. This is due to the fact that the M-sand particle
196 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201

Fig. 3. Relation between Cantabro loss and comp. strength.

Fig. 4. Relation between Surface Abrasion and Flexual Strength.

Fig. 5. Relation between Cantabro Loss and Flexual Strength.

 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201 197

Fig. 6. Relation between Surface abrasion loss and Flexual Strength.

Fig. 7. Variation of Cantabro loss with number of revolutions at different ages for Series A Mixes.

shape (i.e. Cubical) and the combination of M-sand and river sand
(Series-C) particles minimizes the voids content which increase the
density of packing are the factors contributing the increase in
Abrasion resistance and strength of GRCC mixes. From the above
discussion it was concluded that compressive strength is an impor-
tant factor influencing the abrasion resistance of GRCC. These
results have been confirmed with the findings of other researchers
(Naik et al.) [20], (Yen et al.) [39], (Naik et al.) [19], (Ati et al.) [6],
(Siddique) [33].
4.2. Effect of M-sand on flexural strength and abrasion resistance of
GRCC
The abrasion resistance and Flexural strength of GRCC at 0%,
10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% replacement levels of GGBS for
series A,B and C were investigated. The flexural and compressive
strength test results presented in Table 4. From Table 4 it was
observed that at the age of 28 days and above there has been
increase in flexural strength up to 40% replacement level of GGBS
for all three series mixes. This increase in early strength of GRCC
mixes is due to the fact that there was improvement in the effec-
tiveness of the mineral admixture i.e. GGBS at lower watercement
ratios. It was also reported by other researchers, (Teng et al.) [37].
Fig. 5 shows a relationship between the Cantabro loss and Flex-
ural strength of GRCC for series A, B and C. From Fig. 5 it was clearly
observed that the Cantabro loss decreases with increase in Flexural
Strength regardless of percent GGBS, age of concrete and amount of
M-sand. Also Fig. 5 illustrate that a correlation exists between flex-
ural strength and Cantabro loss for GRCC mixes. The correlation
equations are as follows:
C bl10:4lnf s 26:75; R2 0:679 for Series A 9
C bl4:79lnf s 14:50; for Series B 10
R2 0:809
198 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201
Fig. 8. Variation of Cantabro loss with no of revolutions at different ages for Series B Mixes.
C bl7:19lnf s 19:56; R2 0:691 for Series C
where Cbl = Cantabro loss, %, fs = Flexural Strength of GRCC, MPa.
From Eqs. (9), (10) and (11), it was observed that correlation
coefficient (R2) is higher for series B (R2 = 0.809) and series C
(R2 = 0.691) than series A (R2 = 0.679), it indicates that the influ-
ence of M-sand on Flexural strength and Cantabro loss was quite
remarkable.
Fig. 6 shows a relationship between the surface abrasion weight
loss and flexural strength of GRCC for series A, B and C. It clearly
shows that the surface abrasion weight loss decreases as the flex-
ural strength increases regardless of percent GGBS, age of concrete
and amount of M-sand. Also Fig. 6 illustrates that a good correla-
tion exists between the flexural strength and surface abrasion
weight loss for GRCC mixes of series A, B and C. The following
are the best-fit equations.
Sabl0:41lnf s 1:001; R2 0:832 for Series A
Sabl0:34lnf s 0:907; for Series B
R2 0:899
Sabl0:70lnf s 1:672; R2 0:681 for Series C
where Sabl = Surface Abrasion Weight Loss, %, fs = Flexural Strength
of GRCC, MPa.
From Eqs. (12), (13) and (14), it was seen that correlation coef-
ficients (R2) is higher for series B (R2 = 0.899) in comparison with
series A (R2 = 0.832) and series C (R2 = 0.681), it indicates that the
influence of M-sand on Flexural strength and Surface abrasion
weight loss was significant. From the above observations, it was
concluded that flexural strength is also an important factor influ-
encing the abrasion resistance of GRCC. These results of abrasion
resistance in terms of flexural strength confirm the findings of
other researchers (Atis et al.) [7].
4.3. Effect of M-sand and cement replacement levels with GGBS on
Cantabro loss
In the Cantabro test, to feature the abrasion and impact loss, the
cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm  100 mm were tested at 50,
100, 150, 200, 250 and 300 revolutions for all mixes of GRCC. From
Fig. 1, it was seen that the edges were slightly removed during initial
11 50 revolutions and 100 revolutions. However, with the increase in
number of revolutions, the shape of cylindrical (150 mm  100mm)
became more and more rounded at the edges at the end of 300 rev-
olutions as specified in the standard test procedure.
Figs. 79 shows the change rate in Cantabro loss in GRCC mixes
from ages 3 days, 7 days, 28 days, and 90 days with various revo-
lutions for series A, B and C respectively. As seen from these fig-
ures the Cantabro loss was increasing with the increasing in
number of revolution for all three series. However the loss rate
was slightly decreased with control mix concrete in comparison
with other mixes of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% GGBS
content for series A, B and C.
From the test results it was seen that for 50% M-sand and 50%
river sand (Series C) and 100% M-Sand (Series B), the Cantabro loss
values were lower than Series A (i.e.100% river sand). This indicates
that, M-sand has significant contribution in improving thee abra-
12 sion resistance (i.e. in terms of Cantabro loss) of GRCC mixes at
all ages. Also there has not been any adverse of M-sand on the
13 abrasion resistance of GRCC mixes. These results are confirmed
with the other researchers (Li et al.) [17]. Li et al. [17] also con-
firmed that at 10% micro fines content in M-sand the concrete
14
gives the best results in strength and abrasion resistance.
However, it was also seen that with increase in GGBS content
from 0% to 60% the Cantabro loss was increasing at the age of
3 days and decreased at the ages of 7, 28 and 90 days. This is due
to the fact that GGBS has slow pozzolanic reaction at the early
age and improves pozzolanic action at the later ages and hence
gained strength at the ages from 7, 28 and 90 days.
4.4. Effect of M-sand and cement replacement levels with GGBS on
Surface Abrasion
The surface abrasion test was performed (based on ASTM C 944)
[5] on all twenty-one mixes (Series A, B and C) of GRCC at the ages
of 3, 7, 28 and 90 days. Fig. 9 illustrates the variation of surface
abrasion weight loss with cement replacement levels of 0%, 10%,
20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% at all the ages of 3, 7, 28 and 90 days.
From Fig. 10, it can be seen that the surface abrasion weight loss of
GRCC mixes is decreasing with increase in Age for all mixes of
Series A, B and C, as expected. However the surface abrasion
weight loss was lower for series C mixes, where the fine aggregate
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201 199

Fig. 9. Variation of Cantabro loss with no of revolutions at different ages for Series C Mixes.

Fig. 10. Relation between Surface abrasion weight loss with age for Series A, B and C Mixes.

is comprised of 50% of M-sand and 50% of river sand. These results
are confirmed with the other researchers (Li et al.) [17]. Li et al.
[17] also confirmed that at 10% micro fines content in M-sand
the concrete gives the best results in strength and abrasion
resistance.
4.5. Proposed empirical equation for Cantabro loss and surface
abrasion weight loss of GRCC mixes
The Cantabro Test and Surface abrasion test are generally pre-
sented a similar trend over GRCC mixes at various ages of curing.
The specimen sizes used in the two tests are same. The weight loss
in Surface abrasion test was smaller and between 0.05% and 0.88%,
0.10% and 0.81% and 0.05% and 1.20% for series A, B and C
respectively.
Whereas in the Cantabro Test, the percent weight loss was
higher and between 3.81% and 28.75%, 3.77% and 13.35% and
3.24% and 12.74% for Series A, B and C mixes respectively for GRCC
mixes at the age of 3, 7, 28 and 90 days.
There was a correlation existed between Cantabro loss and
surface abrasion weight loss for various replacement levels of
GGBS and three series A,B and C of GRCC mixes. Fig. 11 shows
200 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201
Fig. 11. Proposed model between Cantabro loss and Surface abrasion loss.
the Best fit equation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion
weight loss. Hence the proposed general equation between Can-
tabro loss and surface abrasion loss is in the form of:
Sabl0:380lnC bl 0:375; R2 0:795
where Sabl = Surface abrasion weight loss, %, Cbl = Cantabro loss, %.
The Eq. (15) shows a good correlation between Cantabro loss
and surface abrasion loss since the correction coefficient (R2) value
provides a higher value of 0.795, regardless of age, amount of M-
sand and GGBS content.
5. Conclusions
From the experimental work carried out on GRCC mixes, follow-
ing conclusions were drawn:
1. In GRCC mixes where cement was partially replaced with GGBS,
strength values were decreased with increasing GGBS
percentage from 0% to 60% for all combinations of fine
aggregate at the early age of 3 days, due to the fact that GGBS
has slower pozzolanic reaction at early age. However, with
increase in age the strength values are increased up to 50%
replacement level from 7 days in comparison with control mix
concrete, this is due to the fact that the GGBS is contributing
the later strength of the concrete. Also the rate of increase in
strength is higher, when M-sand was introduced in the GRCC
mixes. This is due to the cubical shaped particles of M-sand in
Series B and with proper packing of 50% of M-sand and 50%
river sand (Series C)
2. Abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete with GGBS as
mineral admixture was strongly influenced by its strength
irrespective of GGBS content and amount of M-sand.
3. The abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete was
found to increase with increase in curing age for all GRCC mixes
prepared with three combinations of fine aggregate (Series A,
Series B and Series C).
4. The Cantabro test has clearly demarcated the GRCC mixes with
M-sand at all ages and at all replacement levels of GGBS in
terms of abrasion resistance values, hence it can be used as
one of the methods to measure abrasion resistance of Roller
Compacted Concrete Pavements.
5. Both the Cantabro test and Surface abrasion test were effective
in evaluating the abrasion resistance of GRCC mixes. An empir-
ical equation was proposed to predict the surface abrasion
weight loss in terms of Cantabro loss regardless of GGBS con-
tent, amount of M-sand and age of concrete in the form of :
Sabl0:380lnC bl 0:375 .
References
[1] ACI 325.10R-95, State-of-the-art report on roller-compacted concrete
pavements, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, ACI, USA, 2000, p. 32.
[2] ACI 211 3R-02, Guide for Selecting Proportions for No Slump Concrete, 2002.
[3] N.S. Ahn, D.W. Fowler, An Experimental Study on the Guidelines for Using
Higher Contents of Aggregate Microfines in Portland Cement Concrete (No.
Research Report), International Center for Aggregates Research, University of
Texas at Austin, 2001. <http://www.engr.utexas.edu/icar/publications/102_1F/
102_1cvr.pdf>.
[4] ASTM C1747/C1747M, Standard Test Method for Determining Potential
Resistance to Degradation of Pervious Concrete by Impact and Abrasion,
American Society of Testing and Materials International, 2011.
[5] ASTM C944/C944M, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete
or Mortar Surfaces by the Rotating-Cutter Method, American Society of Testing
and Materials International, 2012.
[6] C.D. Atis, High volume fly ash abrasion resistant concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14
(3) (2002) 274277, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002) 14:3
(274).
[7] C.D. Atis, O.N. Celik, Relation between abrasion resistance and flexural strength
of high volume fly ash concrete, Mater. Struct. 35 (4) (2002) 257260, http://
dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02533087.
[8] BIS:1727, Methods of Test for Pozzolanic Materials, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi, 1967.
[9] BIS:383, Specification for Coarse Aggregate and Fine Aggregate From Natural
Sources for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, 1970.
[10] BIS:4031, Methods of Physical Test for Hydraulic Cement Determination of
15
Consistency of Standard Cement Paste, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi,
1980.
[11] BIS:516, Methods of Tests for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standard,
New Delhi, 1959.
[12] A. Bonicelli, F. Giustozzi, M. Crispino, Experimental study on the effects of fine
sand addition on differentially compacted pervious concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 91 (2015) 102110, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.
05.012.
[13] P.M. Carrasquillo, Durability of concrete containing fly ash for use in highway
applications, ACI Spec. Publ. 100 (1987). <https://www.concrete.org/
publications/internationalconcreteabstractsportal.aspx?m=details&i=1962>.
[14] Q. Dong, H. Wu, B. Huang, X. Shu, K. Wang. Development of a Simple and Fast
Test Method for Measuring the Durability of Portland Cement Pervious
Concrete. <http://www.cement.org/docs/default-source/fc_mat-app_pdfs/
pervious-concrete/sn3149-development-of-a-simple-and-fast-test-method-
for-measuring-the-durability-of.pdf>, 2010.
[15] C. Gaedicke, A. Marines, F. Miankodila, Assessing the abrasion resistance of
cores in virgin and recycled aggregate pervious concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
68 (2014) 701708, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.07.001.
[16] G.R. Kumar, U.K. Sharma, Standard test methods for determination of abrasion
resistance of concrete, Int. J. Civil Eng. Res. 5 (2) (2014) 155162. <http://
www.ripublication.com/ijcer_spl/ijcerv5n2spl_09.pdf>.
[17] B. Li, G. Ke, M. Zhou, Influence of manufactured sand characteristics on
strength and abrasion resistance of pavement cement concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (10) (2011) 38493853, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2011.04.004.
[18] A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, H. Hosseinnezhad, O.C. Boyac, . Arz, C.H.
_
imbeton, I.. Yaman, K. Ramyar. Abrasion Resistance and transPort Properties
of Road Concrete. <http://www.researchgate.net/publication/276334935>,
2014.
[19] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, M.M. Hossain, Abrasion resistance of high-strength
concrete made with class C fly ash, ACI Mater. J. 92 (6) (1995).
<http://worldcat.org/oclc/13846872>.
[20] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, B.W. Ramme, Effect of source of fly ash on abrasion
resistance of concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (5) (2002) 417426, http://dx.doi.
org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2002) 14:5(417).
[21] A. Nanni, Abrasion resistance of roller compacted concrete, ACI Mater. J. 86 (6)
(1989). <https://www.concrete.org/publications/internationalconcreteabstract
sportal.aspx?m=details&i=2206>.
[22] A.M. Neville, J.J. Brooks, Concrete Technology, Longman Scientific & Technical,
Harlow, 1987. <http://worldcat.org/isbn/0582988594>.
[23] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Design and analysis of roller compacted concrete
pavements in low volume roads in India, J. Civil Eng. 5 (2) (2015) 0. <http://
search.proquest.com/openview/4090677448050e258c128b2f0432463b/1?
pq-origsite=gscholar>.
[24] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Experimental investigation on Pozzolanic effect
of fly ash in roller compacted concrete pavement using manufactured sand as
fine aggregate, Res. India Publ. Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (8) (2015) 20669
20682. <http://www.ripublication.com/ijaer10/ijaerv10n8_142.pdf>.
[25] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Investigation on pozzolanic effect of fly ash in
roller compacted concrete pavement, IRACST Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. (ESTIJ) 5
(2) (2015) 202206. <http://www.estij.org/papers/vol5no22015/1vol5no2.
pdf>.
[26] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Analysis on strength and fly ash effect of roller
compacted concrete pavement using M-Sand, J. Struct. Eng. 4 (1) (2015) 1.
<http://search.proquest.com/openview/c713383b6391b67fbee4212878b74dea/
1?pq-origsite=gscholar>.
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 122 (2016) 191201
[27] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Strength and compaction characteristics of fly ash
roller compacted concrete, Int. J. Sci. Res. Knowl. 3 (10) (2015) 260269.
[28] O. Sengul, M.A. Tasdemir, Compressive strength and rapid chloride
permeability of concretes with ground fly ash and slag, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 21
(9) (2009) 494501, http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009) 21:9
(494)).
[29] Z.Q. Shi, D.D.L. Chung, Improving the abrasion resistance of mortar by adding
latex and carbon fibers, Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (8) (1997) 11491153, http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(97)00097-5.
[30] R. Siddique, W. Prince, S. Kamali, Influence of utilization of high-volumes of
class F fly ash on the abrasion resistance of concrete, Leonardo Electron. J.
Pract. Technol. 10 (2007) 1328. <http://lejpt.academicdirect.org/A10/get_
htm.php?htm=013_028>.
[31] R. Siddique, Performance characteristics of high-volume class F fly ash
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (3) (2004) 487493, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.cemconres.2003.09.002.
[32] R. Siddique, K. Kapoor, E.H. Kadri, R. Bennacer, Effect of polyester fibres on the
compressive strength and abrasion resistance of HVFA concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 29 (2012) 270278, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.
09.011.
[33] R. Siddique, Effect of fine aggregate replacement with class F fly ash on the
abrasion resistance of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (11) (2003) 18771881,
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0008-8846(02)01000-1.
[34] G. Singh, R. Siddique, Abrasion resistance and strength properties of concrete
containing waste foundry sand (WFS), Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (1) (2012) 421
426, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.087.
[35] X. Shu, B. Huang, H. Wu, Q. Dong, E.G. Burdette, Performance comparison of
laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixes, Constr. Build. Mater.
25 (8) (2011) 31873192, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.
03.002.
[36] Y. Takada, E. Nakayama, K. Sasaki, T. Suzuki, S. Mori, O. Kamada, Study of mix
proportion and quality control of porous concrete pavement used on urban
expressway tunnel, J. Jpn. Soc. Civil Eng. Ser. E1 (Pavement Engineering) 71
(2015) 1935, http://dx.doi.org/10.2208/jscejpe.71.19.
201
[37] S. Teng, T.Y.D. Lim, B.S. Divsholi, Durability and mechanical properties of high
strength concrete incorporating ultra fine ground granulated blast-furnace
slag, Constr. Build. Mater. 40 (2013) 875881, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.conbuildmat.2012.11.052.
[38] B. Tripathi, A. Misra, S. Chaudhary, Strength and abrasion characteristics of ISF
slag concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 25 (11) (2012) 16111618, http://dx.doi.org/
10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0000709.
[39] T. Yen, T.H. Hsu, Y.W. Liu, S.H. Chen, Influence of class F Fly Ash on the
abrasionerosion resistance of high-strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 21
(2) (2007) 458463, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2005.06.051.
[40] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Investigating the effect of M-sand on abrasion
resistance of fly ash roller compacted concrete (FRCC), Constr. Build. Mater.
118 (2016) 352363, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.017.
<http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095006181630736X>.
[41] S. Krishna Rao, P. Sravana, T. Chandrasekhar Rao, Relation between Cantabro
loss and surface abrasion resistance of fly ash roller compacted concrete
(FRCC), in: Advanced Engineering Forum, vol. 16, Trans Tech Publications,
2016, pp. 5268, http://dx.doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AEF.16.52.
[42] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Experimental studies in ultrasonic pulse velocity
of roller compacted concrete containing GGBS and M-sand, ARPN J. Eng. Appl.
Sci. 11 (3) (2016). <http://www.arpnjournals.org/jeas/research_papers/rp_
2016/jeas_0216_3524.pdf>.
[43] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Abrasion resistance and mechanical properties of
roller compacted concrete with GGBS, Constr. Build. Mater. 114 (2016) 925
933, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.004.
[44] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Evaluation of dynamic elastic modulus of roller
compacted concrete containing GGBS and M-sand, J. Civil Eng. 6 (1) (2015) 21.
[45] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity
and compressive strength for roller compacted concrete containing GGBS, Int.
J. Appl. Eng. Res. 11 (3) (2016) 20772084. <http://www.ripublication.com/
ijaer16/ijaerv11n3_79.pdf>.
[46] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Investigation on pozzolanic effect of mineral
admixtures in roller compacted concrete pavement, J. Struct. Eng. 4 (2) (2015)
28.