Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp
Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR Campus, TTTI Taramani P.O., Chennai 600 113, India
b
Civil Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore 560 012, India
Received 19 April 2000; accepted 9 November 2000
Abstract
High performance concrete (HPC) is that concrete which meets special performance and uniformity requirements that cannot
always be achieved by conventional materials, normal mixing, placing and curing practices. Special performance requirements using
conventional materials can be achieved only by adopting low w=c, which necessitates use of high cement content. But judicious
choice of chemical and mineral admixtures can reduce the cement content and this results in economical HPC. However, the eect of
a mineral admixture on the strength of concrete varies signicantly with its properties and replacement levels. Mix proportioning
methods of normal concrete cannot adequately account for the large variations in the properties of ingredients. This paper presents
a modied mix design procedure, which utilises optimum water content and the eciency factor of mineral admixture. Results of the
experimental investigations on mixes using the modied mix design are presented. 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: High performance concrete; Concrete mix proportion; Optimum water content; Minimum cement content; Eective water/binder ratio;
Cement replacement material; Eciency factor; Mineral admixtures; Superplasticiser; Mix design procedure; Experimental results
1. Introduction
High performance concrete (HPC) is that which is
designed to give optimised performance characteristics
for the given set of materials, usage and exposure conditions, consistent with requirements of cost, service life and
durability [1]. Architects, engineers and constructors all
over the world are nding that using HPC allows them to
build more durable structures at comparable cost. HPC is
being used for buildings in aggressive environments,
marine structures, highway bridges and pavements, nuclear structures, tunnels, precast units, etc. [2,3].
The major dierence between conventional concrete
and HPC is essentially the use of chemical and mineral
admixtures. Use of chemical admixtures reduces the
water content, thereby reducing the porosity within the
hydrated cement paste [4]. The reduction in water content to a very low value with high dosage of chemical
admixtures is undesirable and the eectiveness of
chemical admixtures such as superplasticiser (SP) principally depends on the ambient temperature, cement
chemistry and neness. Mineral admixtures, also called
as cement replacement materials (CRM), act as pozzolanic materials as well as ne llers, thereby the microstructure of hardened cement matrix becomes denser
and stronger [5]. At ambient temperature their chemical
reaction with calcium hydroxide is generally slow.
However, the ner and more vitreous the pozzolana is,
the faster will be this reaction. If durability is of primary
interest, then the slow rate of setting and hardening
associated with the incorporation of y ash or slag in
concrete is advantageous [6]. Also, the mineral admixtures are generally industrial by-products and their use
can provide a major economic benet. Thus, the combined use of SP and CRM can lead to economical highperformance concrete with enhanced durability [7]. It is
also reported that the concrete containing CRM typically provides lower permeability, reduced heat of hydration, reduced alkali-aggregate reaction, higher
strength at later ages and increased resistance to attack
from sulfates [8]. However, the eect of a CRM on the
strength of concrete varies markedly with their properties. Fly ashes are the most variable and least reactive of
all CRMs and should be used with care and not on basis
of any generalisation [9]. It is also not known at present
what factor can maximise the y ash contribution [10].
There have been several attempts to develop a
method for the proportioning of mixes with CRM,
0958-9465/01/$ - see front matter 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.
PII: S 0 9 5 8 - 9 4 6 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 7 1 - 8
72
S A1 c kf =w A2
1
2
where S is the compressive strength in MPa, c the cement content in kg=m3 , f the CRM content in kg=m3 , w
the water content in kg=m3 , k the eciency factor and
A1 ; A2 are arbitrary constants. These arbitrary constants
are reported to be inuenced by type, size and grading of
aggregate, type of cement, period of curing etc. [2527].
Hence, it is necessary to obtain strength to eective w=b
ratio relation for a given set of materials and for the
same workability.
73
Table 1
Chemical composition of cementitious materials
Properties
Cement
Flyash
Slag
SiO2 (%)
Al2 O3 (%)
Fe2 O3 (%)
MgO (%)
CaO (%)
SO3 (%)
Na2 O, K2 O (%)
LOI (%)
Free lime (%)
Specic gravity
19.11
6.43
5.22
0.71
63.78
1.29
0.97
1.34
0.20
3.14
58.859.1
{39.940.3}
33.67
20.56
1.01
9.63
32.45
0.10
1.24
0.27
2.95
0.220.34
0.861.02
0.591.25
1.051.08
2.15
74
Table 2
Experimental investigations mix proportion and fresh concrete propertiesa
Mix designation (w=b 0:50)
AF15
AF25
AS15
AS30
AS50
Binder
Cement (kg=m3 )
Flyash (kg=m3 )
Slag (kg=m3 )
340
289
51
255
85
289
51
238
102
170
170
819
0.5
800
0.6
787
0.7
819
0.60
819
0.650
819
0.65
20
2340
35
2338
40
2342
15
2338
25
2330
20
2333
Mix designation
(w=b 0:42)
BF15
BF25
BS15
BS30
BS50
405
765
0.5
345
60
742
0.65
304
101
726
0.85
345
60
765
0.60
283
122
765
0.750
203
202
765
0.85
15
2365
25
2371
35
2376
15
2369
25
2360
20
2360
CF15
CF25
CS15
CS30
CS50
486
684
0.5
413
73
652
0.60
365
121
631
0.75
413
73
684
0.70
340
146
684
0.75
243
243
684
0.50
25
2417
15
2393
25
2397
20
2411
15
2402
40
2415
Binder
Cement (kg=m3 )
Flyash (kg=m3 )
Slag (kg=m3 )
Fine aggregates (kg/m3 )
SP (Ceraplast 300), % by
weight of binder
Slump (mm)
Wet density (kg=m3 )
Mix designation
(w=b 0:35)
Binder
Cement (kg=m3 )
Flyash (kg=m3 )
Slag (kg=m3 )
Fine aggregates (kg=m3 )
SP (Ceraplast 300), % by
weight of binder
Slump (mm)
Wet density (kg=m3 )
a
Note: Coarse aggregate content is 1054 kg=m3 and water content is 170 kg=m3 for all mixes.
cient of absorption and the sorptivity were also calculated based on the water absorption test.
75
5. Analysis of results
A2 B1 t=28 2 ;
where t is the age of curing in days, B1 and B2 are arbitrary constants, (for present study B1 and B2 are
evaluated as 41:69 and 0:17, respectively). It is reasonable to assume that the constants A1 ; B1 , and B2 may
depend on the type of aggregate, sand and cement used,
although the same has not been veried.
These relationships were used to obtain the eciency
factor k for cement replacement materials as:
B
S A1 c kf =w B1 t=28 2 ;
c kf wS
B1 t=28 2 =A1 ;
k 1=f f c wS
4
5
B1 t=28B2 =A1 g:
Table 3
Compressive strength results for w=b 0:50 and w=b 0:35
Mix designation
AF15
AF25
AS15
AS30
AS50
23.86
29.20
40.93
44.84
45.52
17.33
26.34
35.28
43.52
45.97
16.11
24.71
33.53
44.18
45.46
23.24
30.05
35.61
44.35
46.09
17.31
27.41
38.28
46.17
47.57
14.41
23.30
40.03
46.44
48.85
CF15
CF25
CS15
CS30
CS50
57.10
63.67
75.07
79.51
79.64
48.87
59.95
72.06
76.96
79.01
45.24
51.56
65.58
73.00
76.57
45.57
60.54
70.08
74.78
80.71
43.58
59.60
72.93
77.72
79.91
39.60
53.95
75.46
79.36
81.28
3 days
7 days
28 days
56 days
90 days
76
Table 4
Eciency factor k at various age for CRM (present investigations)
Age
7 days
28 days
56 days
90 days
Slag
15%
25%
15%
30%
50%
0.90
0.86
0.98
0.98
0.76
0.78
0.94
0.95
0.98
0.81
0.97
1.05
0.97
1.00
1.05
1.04
0.88
1.04
1.06
1.05
Table 5
Experimental and predicted compressive strength results for w=b 0:42a
Mix designation
Compressive strength
(MPa) at
7 days
28 days
56 days
90 days
a
BF15
BF25
BS15
BS30
BS50
46.00
(42.72)
53.47
(53.79)
60.33
(58.43)
64.17
(61.30)
43.67
(41.30)
54.80
(51.81)
61.15
(58.15)
66.90
(61.02)
38.77
(37.00)
53.39
(48.56)
61.42
(57.00)
65.87
(60.11)
45.14
(42.43)
54.10
(51.11)
62.95
(58.00)
65.90
(62.01)
43.32
(41.85)
52.84
(53.79)
63.37
(59.87)
68.82
(62.45)
33.23
(37.00)
52.62
(55.70)
64.97
(61.29)
68.89
(63.68)
77
Fig. 2. (a) Predicted and experimental compressive strength [23]. (b) Predicted and experimental compressive strength [32].
The variation in the split tensile strength (using cylindrical specimens of size 100 mm diameter and 200 mm
height) and exural strength (using 100 100 500 mm
prism) with the cube compressive strength of a 100 mm
cube is shown in Figs. 4 and 5. It is seen that the use of
y ash and slag did not alter the split and exural tensile
strengths signicantly. It is also seen that the relationship of 100 mm cube compressive mean strength (fcm )
with the split tensile strength (ft ) or exural strength (fr )
compares well with the relationships given in various
codes of practices.
5.4.3. Modulus of elasticity
The modulus of elasticity for various mixes (using
cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm diameter and 300
mm height) is shown in Fig. 6. It is varying between 35
and 45 GPa depending on the w=b ratio and the CRM,
which shows that addition of CRM did not alter the
modulus of elasticity signicantly.
78
5.5.3. Sorptivity
Sorptivity measures the rate of penetration of water
into the pores of concrete by capillary suction. When the
Table 6
Durability test results
Mix designation
A
AF15
AF25
AS15
AS30
AS50
B
BF15
BF25
BS15
BS30
BS50
C
CF15
CF25
CS15
CS30
CS50
Water absorption(%)
Wet
Boil
Dry
Wet
4.91
4.70
4.60
4.65
4.52
4.39
3.64
3.57
3.49
3.51
3.62
2.90
3.64
3.55
3.51
3.68
3.49
3.49
5.10
4.78
4.70
4.74
4.71
4.54
3.79
3.68
3.59
3.72
3.75
3.09
3.74
3.65
3.60
3.75
3.57
3.53
2.35
2.29
2.27
2.31
2.35
2.25
2.37
2.37
2.40
2.36
2.36
2.38
2.39
2.37
2.35
2.29
2.38
2.32
2.46
2.40
2.38
2.42
2.46
2.35
2.46
2.45
2.48
2.44
2.43
2.45
2.48
2.45
2.44
2.37
2.46
2.40
% Void
Coecient of
absorption
Ka m2 =s)
11.98
10.95
10.68
10.95
11.07
10.20
8.99
8.70
8.62
8.77
8.54
7.33
8.95
8.65
8.47
8.60
8.50
8.40
3:01 10
2:82 10
2:69 10
2:46 10
2:42 10
2:38 10
1:36 10
1:31 10
1:27 10
0:90 10
1:00 10
0:72 10
1:20 10
0:95 10
0:89 10
0:74 10
0:74 10
0:63 10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
10
Sorptivity
p
(m= s)
1:14 10
1:47 10
1:38 10
1:04 10
1:09 10
0:99 10
1:00 10
0:76 10
0:71 10
1:01 10
0:99 10
0:71 10
0:95 10
0:85 10
0:81 10
0:85 10
0:71 10
0:62 10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
79
80
[17] Mehta PK, Aitcin PC. Principles underlying production of highperformance concrete. Cem Concr Aggreg 1990;12(2):708.
[18] Rougeron P, Aitcin PC. Optimisation of the composition of a high
performance concrete. Cem Concr Aggreg 1994;16(2):11524.
[19] Collepardi M. Admixtures used to enhance placing characteristics
of concrete. Cem Concr Compos 1998;20:10312.
[20] DIN 1045. Beton und Stahlbeton. Beton, GMBH, Koln.
[21] Schiessl, Hardtle. Eciency of y ash in concrete-evaluation of
ibac test results. Technical Report of Institute fur Bauforsching,
RWTH, Aachen, pp. 131.
[22] Ganesh Babu K, Siva Nageswara Rao G. Eciency of y ash in
concrete. Cem Concr Compos 1993;15:2239.
[23] Siva Nageswara Rao G. Eective utilisation of y ash in concrete
for aggressive environment. Ph.D. Thesis, IIT, Madras, 1996.
[24] Bolomey J. Durecissenment des Mortiers ets benton. Tech Suisse
Romande Nos 1927;16:22/24.
[25] Walker S, Bloem DL. Eect of curing and moisture distribution
on measured concrete strength. Highw Res Rec, Highw Res
Board 1957;36:33446.
[26] Gilkey HJ. Watercement ratio vs strength-another look. ACI J
Proc 1961;57(10):1287312.
[27] Cordon WA, Gillespie HA. Variables in concrete aggregates and
Portland cement paste, which inuence the strength of concrete.
ACI J Proc 1963;60(8):102950.