CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 General
For thousands of years mankind has explored the versatility of materials that can be molded or
cast while in a plastic state and then hardened into strong durable products. As with ceramics and
gypsum plasters, lime mortars and pozzolanic concretes provided engineers with economical
materials for production of diverse utilization and aesthetically pleasing structures.

Modern concretes preserve these ancient virtues while greatly extending the range of technically
achievable goals. Man consumes no material except water in such tremendous quantities. It is no
doubt that with the development of human civilization, concrete will continue to be a dominant
construction material in the future. However, the development of modern concrete industry also
introduces many environmental problems such as pollution, waste dumping, emission of
dangerous gases, depletion of natural resources etc.

Concrete is the most widely used material of construction. Concrete gained in popularity as a
construction material due to the easy availability of its component materials, the easy
formability, strength and rigidity upon setting and curing. Concrete is used in construction
without or with the aid of tensile reinforcement. In some structures, concrete is prestressed with
high tensile steel wires or strands. The properties of concrete are occasionally enhanced with
fibers of steel or other materials.

Though concrete structures, built during the first half of the last century, generally proved to be
durable, with useful life spans of over sixty years, such concrete structures, built since the 1970’s
or 1980’s, and in some cases since the 1960’s, started showing signs of distress early in several
cases within five or ten years of construction.

Cement concrete with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) continues to be the pre-eminent
construction materials due to its commendable performance in terms of strength aspects, but
durability of this is not satisfactory particularly when it is exposed to aggressive environment.

1
Same time, present global environmental requirements suggest the civil engineers for reducing
the consumption of OPC. Use of mineral admixtures like Blast Furnace Slag, Fly Ash and Silica
Fume etc. in concrete may be a suitable solution in such situation.

OPC based concrete continues to be the pre-eminent construction materials for use in any type of
civil engineering structures because of its easiness in construction, it’s satisfying performance in
strength requirements, better durability in normal environment, in comparison to other
construction materials like steel, timber etc. but at the same time some problems are also
associated with this. First is environmental pollution and large energy requirement in the
production of OPC. Production of one tonne OPC required approximate 4.0 G Joule energy and
produced approximate one tonne CO 2 gas in the environment. At present the cement industries
produced approximate 7% of total CO 2 produced in the world, which is very alarming to our
protective Ozone layer. Second problem is the lower durability in aggressive environment.
Concrete with OPC, which performed, very well over a period of about 100 years in the normal
environment showed substantial damage within a few years of construction in the aggressive
environment.

By-products from various industries cause a major environmental problem around the world. In
order to encourage waste recycling and prevent waste dumping, a landfill tax has also been
imposed in the developed countries. However, the waste dumping is still a serious environmental
issue throughout the world. Among various by-products generated by the industries, Fly Ash
(FA) and Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag (GGBFS) have attracted much attention by
concrete researchers. Use of mineral admixtures like Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
(GGBFS), Silica Fume (SF) and Fly Ash (FA) etc. in concrete may be the better solution in
above conditions. These admixtures also offer benefits with respect to the cost of concrete.

1.2 Fly Ash

Fly ash is well known pulverized fuel ash is produced from burning pulverised coal in electric
power generating plant. During combustion mineral impurities in coal (clay, feldspar, quartz and
shale) fuse in suspension and float out of the combustion chamber along with exhaust gases. As
fused material rises, it cools and solidifies into spherical glassy particles called fly ash. It is fine

2
grained, powdery particulate material that is collected from exhaust gases by electrostatic
precipitators or bag filters. Depending upon the collection system, varying from mechanical to
electrical precipitators or bag houses and fabric filters, approximately 85-99% of the ash from
the flue gases in retrieved in the form of fly ash. Fly ash accounts for 75-85% of the total coal
ash, and the remainder is collected as bottom ash or boiler slag.

With the increasing demand of power and coal being the major source of energy, more and more
thermal power stations are expected to be commissioned/ augment their capacities in near future.
Fly ash has been considered as a “Pollution Industrial Waste” till about a decade back and was
being disposed off in ash ponds. Indian coal has high ash content (35%- 45%) and low calorific
value (3500 kcal/kg – 4000 kcal/kg) as a result of which huge quantity of fly ash is generated.

It is expected to increase to about 200 MT per year by the year 2012. This would require about
4000 ha of land for the construction of ash ponds. Generally one acre of land is required per
megawatt of power generation. Continuous studies have been carried out in India towards
management of fly ash (FA), disposal and utilization. Out of total power generated of India,
about 70% is produced by thermal power plants (TPPs). The Majority of thermal power plants
84% are run by coal; rest on gas (13%) and oil (3%).

Thermal power plants uses 260 million tonnes (MT) of coal which is about 65% of annual coal
produced in India The quality of fly ash which depends on coal, coal particle fineness,
percentage of ash in coal, combustion technique used, air/fuel ratio, burners used, and type of
boiler. The Indian Government has taken a target of 31.1 million housing complex out of which
24 million units are in rural area and 7.1 million units in urban areas, for that govt. targeted the
year 2010. In 1998, National Housing and Habitat Policy has been announced by the govt. which
aims for providing “Houses for All” and facilitating the construction of 20 lakh additional
housing units (13 lakh in rural areas and 7 lakh in urban areas) annually, with emphasis on
extending benefits to the poor and the deprived. Apart from the above housing needs, nearly 1%
of the housing stock in the country is destroyed every year due to natural hazards.

3
Large number of innovative alternate building materials and low cost construction techniques
developed through intensive research efforts during last three to four decades satisfies functional
as well as specification requirements of conventional materials/techniques and provide an avenue
for bringing down the construction cost. Fly Ash, an industrial by-product from Thermal Power
Plants (TPPs), with current annual generation of approximately 112 million tonnes and its proven
suitability for variety of applications as admixture in cement/concrete/mortar, lime pozzolana
mixture (bricks/blocks) etc. Cement and Concrete Industry accounts for 50% Fly Ash utilization,
the total utilization of which at present stands at 30MT (28%). The other areas of application are
Low lying area fill (17%), Roads & Embankments (15%), Dyke Raising (4%), Brick
manufacturing (2%) and other new areas for safe disposal of fly ash is in paint industry,
agriculture etc.

Table 1.1: Fly ash generation and utilization in different countries

Sr. No Country Annual Ash Ash Utilization %
Production, MT
1 India 112 38
2 China 100 45
3 USA 75 65
4 Germany 40 85
5 UK 15 50
6 Australia 10 85
7 Canada 6 75
8 France 3 85
9 Denmark 2 100
10 Italy 2 100
11 Netherland 2 100

1.3 Environmental Benefits of Using Fly Ash

Utilization of fly ash in cement and concrete has significant environmental benefits such as
• Increasing the life of concrete roads and structures by improving concrete durability,
• Reduction in energy use and greenhouse gas and other adverse air emissions when fly ash
is used to replace or displace manufactured cement.
• Reduction in amount of coal combustion products that must be disposed in landfills , and
• Conservation of other natural resources and materials.

4
1.4 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) is a by-product from the blast furnaces used to
make iron. Blast furnaces are fed with controlled mixture of iron ore, coke and limestone and
operated at a temperature of about 1500°C. When iron ore, coke and limestone melt in the blast
furnace, two products are produced – molten iron and molten slag. The molten slag is lighter and
floats on the top of the molten iron. The molten slag comprises mostly silicates and alumina from
the original iron ore, combined with some oxides from the limestone.

The process of granulating the slag involves cooling of molten slag through high pressure water
jets. This rapidly quenches the slag and forms granular particles generally not bigger than 5 mm.
The rapid cooling prevents the formation of larger crystals and resulting granular material
comprises around 95% non crystalline alumina-silicates. The granulated slag is further processed
by drying and then grinding in a rotating ball mill to a very fine powder, which is GGBFS.

GGBFS can be used as a direct replacement for ordinary cement on one-to-one basis by weight.
Replacement rates for GGBFS vary from 30% to up to 85%.Generally 50% is used in most
applications. Higher replacement rates upto 85% are used in specialist applications such as in
aggressive environments and to reduce heat of hydration.

1.5 Environmental Benefits of Using GGBFS

The use of GGBFS as partial cement replacement with lower environmental burdens offers
opportunities for significant reductions in energy use and Carbon dioxide emissions. Proportions
of upto 70 or even 80% can be used with advantage in suitable situations. The use of GGBFS in
concrete result in following environmental benefits
• Saves energy.
• Reduces emission of Carbon dioxide.
• Conserves natural resources.

5
1.6 Silica fume (SF)
Silica fume (SF) is a byproduct of the smelting process in the silicon and ferrosilicon industry.
The reduction of high-purity quartz to silicon at temperatures up to 2,000°C produces SiO 2
vapours, which oxidizes and condense in the low temperature zone to tiny particles consisting of
non-crystalline silica. By-products of the production of silicon metal and the ferrosilicon alloys
having silicon contents of 75% or more contain 85–95% non-crystalline silica. The by-product of
the production of ferrosilicon alloy having 50% silicon has much lower silica content and is less
pozzolanic. Therefore, SiO 2 content of the silica fume is related to the type of alloy being
produced. Silica fume is also known as micro silica, condensed silica fume, volatilzed silica or
silica dust.

The American concrete institute (ACI) defines silica fume as a ‘‘very fine non crystalline silica
produced in electric arc furnaces as a byproduct of production of elemental silicon or alloys
containing silicon’’. It is usually a grey colored powder, somewhat similar to Portland cement or
some fly ashes. It can exhibit both pozzolanic and cementitious properties. Silica fume has been
recognized as a pozzolanic admixture that is effective in enhancing the mechanical properties to
a great extent. By using silica fume along with superplasticizers, it is relatively easier to obtain
compressive strengths of order of 100–150 MPa in laboratory. Addition of silica fume to
concrete improves the durability of concrete through reduction in the permeability, refined pore
structure, leading to a reduction in the diffusion of harmful ions, reduces calcium hydroxide
content which results in a higher resistance to sulfate attack. Improvement in durability will also
improve the ability of silica fume concrete in protecting the embedded steel from corrosion.

1.7Advantages of Using Silica Fume

• High early compressive strength
• High tensile, flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity
• Very low permeability to chloride and water intrusion
• Enhanced durability
• Increased toughness
• Increased abrasion resistance on decks, floors, overlays and marine structures

6
• Superior resistance to chemical attack from chlorides, acids, nitrates and sulfates and life-
cycle cost efficiencies.
• Higher bond strength
• High electrical resistivity and low permeability

1.8 Study of the Literature

Now a day, we need to look at a way to reduce the cost of building materials, particularly cement
is currently so high that only rich people and governments can afford meaningful construction.
Studies had been carried out to investigate the possibility of utilizing a broad range of materials
as partial replacement materials for cement in the production of concrete. Keeping in view, now
a days cement replacing materials are commonly used in the construction field. Many researchers
have worked for finding out the various properties, characteristic and the effect of these materials
when these are used along with cement. There have been many studies reporting to the utilization
of fly ash, ggbfs and silica fume.

Fly ash is used as a replacement for some of the Portland cement content of concrete owing to
its pozzolanic properties. The use of fly ash as a pozzolanic ingredient was recognized as early as
1914, although the earliest noteworthy study of its use was in 1937. In the beginning of the
twentieth century, fly ash was used only for the mass concrete applications—to delay the heat of
hydration. However, in the early 80’s, with the advent of the high strength cements, undesirable
side effects of free lime started surfacing. The cement technologists observed that the reactive
elements present in fly ash convert the problematic free lime into the beneficial C-H-S Gel. So it
was observed that the use of fly ash in concrete gives durable concrete.

There have been many studies reporting to the utilization of fly ash. Kohubu (1969), Oluokun
(1994) worked for fly ash cement and fly ash concrete mix design. Malhotra (1999) discussed
how these emissions can be reduced considerably by the increased use of large volumes of fly
ash and other supplementary cementing materials in the concrete industry. Obla and Russell
(2003), Dhadse and Bhagia (2008), Cheng Yeh (2008), Aggarwal and Gupta (2010), Alam and
Akhtar (2011), Yang and Li (2012). Aggarwal and Gupta (2012) also discussed environmental

7
problems such as disposal of huge amounts of fly ash and high percentage of carbon dioxide
emissions in atmosphere from cement industry.

The first testing of silica fume in Portland cement based concretes was carried out in 1952.
Before the late 1960s in Europe and the mid-1970s in the United States, silica fumes were simply
vented into the atmosphere. With the implementation of tougher environmental laws during the
mid-1970s, silicon smelters began to collect the silica fume and search for its applications. The
early work done in Norway received most of the attention, since it had shown that Portland
cement-based-concretes containing silica fumes had very high strengths and low porosities.
Since then the research and development of silica fume made it one of the world’s most valuable
and versatile admixtures for concrete and cementing products.

Cheng-yi and Feldman (1985) monitored compressive strength, Ca(OH) 2 and non-evaporable
water contents and pore-size distribution for 180 days by preparing cement mortar with silica
fume through experimental study. Many researchers worked for finding out behavior of silica
fume in concrete as Yogendran and Langan (1987), Detwiler and Mehta (1989), Cong and Gong
(1992), Holland and Detwiler (1995), Khedre and Idriss (1995), Wild and Sabir (1995).

Ganesh Babu and Surya Prakash (1995) gave effort towards a better understanding of the
efficiency of silica fume in concrete. Though the literature is rich in reporting on silica fume
concrete, there still exists a basic disagreement among researchers regarding a number of key
issues like the mode of action of silica fume on the mechanism of strength development and its
optimum replacement percentage. Bhanja and Sengupta (2003) worked for same issue.

Nicknam and Rasa (2004), Rasa and Ketabchi (2009), Ismeik (2010), Panjehpour and Ali
(2011), Saje and Lopatic (2011) , Marikunte and Nacer (2011) , Ashteyat and Ismeik (2012) ,
Ajileye (2012) , Ramkumar, and Murali (2012) performed a lot of experimental work on silica
fume.

GGBS is not a new product. It has already proven itself reliably in its use all over the world since

the mid 1800s. Thirty-eight years after the patent for Portland cement was first lodged by John

8
Aspdin in 1824, Emil Langin discovered GGBS cement. By 1865, commercial production of

lime activated GGBFS had commenced in Germany and by 1880 GGBFS was being used with

Portland cement as the activator. In 1889 it was used for construction of the Paris Metro. The

United States commenced production of slag cements in 1896.

The studies concerning the utilization of only ggbfs along with cement are reported by Meusel
and Rose (1983) ,Daube and Bakker (1986) , Dubovoy and Gebler (1986) , Frigione(1986) ,
Wimpenny and Ellis (1989) , Olorunsogo and Wainwright (1998) , Osborne(1999) , Ganesh
Babu and Rama Kumar(2000), Hooton (2000) , Pal and Mukherjee (2002) , Wan and Shui (
2004) ,Shun-hu and cheng (2005) , Gao and Qian (2005), Wang and Trettin (2005),
Matschei and Bellmann (2005), Xia and Wang (2006), Oner and Akyuz (2007), Wang and
Miao (2012), Tamilarasan and Perumal (2012) .

Few researchers worked for finding out the combined effect of fly ash and silica fume, fly ash
and ggbfs, fly ash, silica fume and ggbfs along with cement. The studies reporting the utilization
of fly ash and silica fume are Mehta (1982) , Carette and Malhotra (1983), Ozyildirim and
Halstead (1994) ,Weng and Langan (1997) , Lam and Wong(1998) , Langan and Weng (2002).

The studies reporting the utilization of fly ash and ggbfs are Bijen (1996), Li and Shen (2000),
Zhi Ge and Wang (2009). Bijen (1996) showed that Concrete made with fly ash and ggbfs
secondary raw materials as a part of with respect to chloride-initiated corrosion of rebars, alkali-
silica reaction the binder does show distinctive advantages over concrete with Portland cement
only. Especially, the performances and sulphate attack were substantially improved. Zhi Ge and
Wang (2009) described the development of modified heat of hydration and maturity-strength
models for concrete containing fly ash and slag.

Dunstan (1985) described preliminary a model for the strength of concretes containing industrial
by-products such as fly ash, blast-furnace slag, and silica fume. Malhotra (1989) reported the fly
ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete. Malhotra (1998) reported role of
supplementary cementing materials in reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Mangat and Khatib
(1993) presented investigation on the sulfate resistance of concrete containing different levels of
9
fly ash, silica fume, or ground-granulated blast furnace slag to partially replace ordinary portland
cement. Kouloumbi and Batis (1994) studied the influence of the addition of 15% and 30% fly
ash, 15% and 30% of a Greek natural pozzolan and 50% granulated blast furnace slag to ordinary
Portland cement on the corrosion resistance of the reinforcing bars .

To achieve durable concrete structure the first important step is sound placing of concrete.
Compatibility among concrete materials an important issue for controlling workability of
concrete for sound placing has been the object of much attention over the past decades. Every
engineer wants to have reliable methods to examine the fluidity performance of cement and
superplasticizer Yamada and Takumi Sugamata (2006) reported work on Fluidity performance
evaluation of cement and superplasticizer.

Cheng Yeh (2008) prepared a workability model using artificial neural networks (ANN). In this
model, the workability was a function of the content of all concrete ingredients, including
cement, fly ash, blast furnace slag, water, super plasticizer, coarse aggregate, and fine aggregate.

1.9 Statement of the Problem

Fly ash, silica fume and ggbfs all are byproducts / waste materials. So in future, disposal of such
materials will become a major problem keeping in view development or modernization. Use of
such materials as a cement replacing materials in construction field which is endless ultimately
solves the problem of disposal of such byproducts. It is found from above cited literature that
the significant amount of work have been reported on the performance evaluation of cement -
fiy ash –silica fume ,cement - fly ash – ggbfs, cement- fly ash, cement – silica fume , cement –
ggbfs system. Although many studies have been reported with randomly distributed cement
replacing materials, relatively less amount of work is reported in respect of the system of
cement- fly ash- silica fume - ggbfs. Keeping in view some of the gaps in the available literature,
an experimental study was undertaken to bring out the strength parameters of concrete with
different percentages of fiy ash ,silica fume and ggbfs for different curing periods .

10
1.10 Aims and Objectives
The experimental work is carried out to find the effect of cement replacing materials in varying
proportions and cement, on compressive strength of cubes, flexural strength of beams and split
tensile strength of cylinders. To improve the workability of concrete admixture is also added.

Pursuant to this, following objectives are proposed in the present investigation.

• To examine the performance of the composite system for the optimum contents of
cement, fly ash, silica fume and ground granulated blast furnace slag (ggbfs).
• To evaluate compressive, flexural and split tensile strength of the afore-mentioned system
of composite materials for specific curing.
• To examine the performance of the composite system at the time of casting through
conducting different tests on fresh concrete.
• Also examine the performance of the composite system through conducting different
tests on hardened concrete.
• To conduct the experimental work and compare the results of the strength of these
materials for the prediction of strength by multiple regression analysis.

1.11 Layout of the Dissertation

This report based on the experimental studies and model so developed is compiled in seven
chapters. The first chapter gives an overview evaluation of waste materials such as fly ash, ggbfs
and silica fume in the construction, in the composite materials. The statistics of the consumption
of the large amount coal worldwide and especially in India is also provided. The potential of
utilization of fly ash, ggbfs, and silica fume is briefed. It also gives a quick review of the various
significant research work reported in the literature till date concerning the utilization of these
cement replacing materials in construction field which is consuming cement as a food on wider
range.

Based on this, the problem statement is defined and the scope of the work is outlined. The
chapter also discusses the perspectives of the various materials involved in the present
investigation. The information pertaining to the evolution of fly ash, ggbfs, silica fume its
composition along with the physical and chemical properties is also presented here. This chapter

11
further gives the utilization of fly ash by various countries and its utilization, especially, in India
is highlighted.

The works cited in the first chapter are reviewed in detail and in the systematic manner in the
chapter 2 titled ‘Review of Literature’. The significance of the proposed study is underscored
and methodology of the investigation is briefed.

The experimental work is reported in the chapter 3. The properties of the materials either
supplied or obtained experimentally are discussed. Apart from this, the tests that are conducted
are also discussed.

The results that are obtained in view of the experimental work reported in the preceding chapters
are discussed and concluded in chapter 4 titled ‘Results and Discussion’.

The theoretical aspects of the regression technique are described in the chapter 5. Based on these
aspects, the model is developed. The output obtained using the proposed model is compared with
the results obtained experimentally and elaborated in the fourth chapter.

The results discussed in the chapter 4 and chapter 5 are summarized in the systematic manner
and based on these significant conclusions are deduced and are mentioned in chapter 6. The
major contributions from the present study are also highlighted.

12