Thesis PDF

DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE WITH
NON – BIODEGRADABLE WASTE PRODUCTS

AND SUPPLEMENTARY M ATERIALS –
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
MALAGAVELLI VENU
ID. No. 2004PHXF438H
Under the Supervision of

Prof. P. N. Rao
BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

2014
DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE WITH
NON – BIODEGRADABLE WASTE PRODUCTS
AND SUPPLEMENTARY M ATERIALS –
THESIS
Submitted in partial fulfillment

of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
by
MALAGAVELLI VENU
ID. No. 2004PHXF438H
Under the Supervision of

Prof. P. N. Rao

2014
To my parents and wife
M. Nagabhushanam, M. Venkatalakshmamma and M. Kiranmai
with love, gratitude and deep respect.
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE
WITH NON – BIODEGRADABLE WASTE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY
MATERIALS – AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION” and submitted by
MALAGAVELLI VENU, ID. No. 2004PHXF438H, for the award of Ph.D. degree of the
Institute, embodies the original work done by him under my supervision.
Signature of the supervisor:
Name in capital letters: Dr. P. N. RAO
Designation: Professor
Date: 10/04/2014
ACKNOWLEDGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I express my sincere gratitude to Prof. P. N. Rao, Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BITS,
Pilani – Hyderabad Campus, for his adept guidance, encouragement, moral support and constructive
criticism during this endeavor. It has been a privilege for me to work under his valuable guidance.
I am grateful to Prof. B. N. Jain, Vice-Chancellor, BITS, Pilani, for permitting me to pursue research
work in the Institute. I would specially like to thank Prof. V. S. Rao, Director, BITS, Pilani –
Hyderabad Campus, for providing the necessary infrastructure and other facilities. I would like to
thank Prof. M. B. Srinivas, Dean, General Administration, BITS, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus for his
constant support and encouragement.
My sincere thanks to Prof. L. K. Maheswari, Professor Emeritus cum Advisor, Prof. Sanjay Kumar
Verma, Dean, Academic Research Division, BITS, Pilani, and Prof. Vidya Rajesh, Associate Dean,
Academic Research Division, BITS, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus for his/her constant support and
encouragement. I owe special thanks to Dr. Jagadeesh Anmala, Head, Department of Civil
Engineering, Prof. V. Vinayaka Ram, Dr. Chandu Parimi (Doctoral Advisory Committee (DAC)) for
their continuous motivation and valuable suggestions throughout my research work.
I am thankful to Prof. K. Srinivasa Raju, Prof. Vasan, Prof. Rajiv Gupta, Prof. U. Madhava Rao,
Prof. B. R. Murthy, Prof. J. T. Rao, Prof. A. Ramu. Dr. Maya Vinai and Dr. V. Padmavathi for their
cooperation and valuable suggestions.
I would like to thank my colleagues Dr. Murari Varma, Dr. Rajitha, Mr. Sri Kalyana Rama, Dr. C.
Phaneendra Kiran, Dr. D. Purnima, Dr. I. Sreedhar, Dr. S. S. Deshmukh and Ms. Rakhee, Ms.
Prafulla and Dr. B.V.V.S.N. Prabhakar Rao for their good wishes and moral support throughout the
work.
I would like to thank my friends Dr. M .V. N. Sivakumar, Dr. K. Gopi Krishna, Dr. Kurmaiah
Tamminina, Dr. Venu Gopal Madhav Annamdas, Dr. Uday Kiran Rage, Mr. Natraj Kandi, Mr.
Surendra Kumar Kotte, Mr. M. Pavan Kumar, Mr. G. Mahaboob Basha, Ms. Laavnaya Chava, Ms.
i
Rama Devi, Ms. Saritha, Ms. Smitha, Mr. Pradeep Kumar Krishnamaneni, Mr. Subba Rao, Mr. Ravi
Kumar (Chanda Nagar), Mr. Chakravarthi, Dr. Suryakumar Dadi, Mr. Aravind, Mr. Vamsi Krishna,
Mr. Praveen Kumar Reddy, Mr. Vishal S. Jawanjal, Mr. Avinash, Mr. Veerabhadram Chembrolu,
Mr. Vivek Kumar, Mr. Murali Krishna Pilli and Mr. Sangeeth Krishnan for their good wishes and
moral support throughout the work.
I sincerely thank Dr. J. V. Raghavendran (Rags), Prof. Yogeeswari, Prof. D. Sriram and Dr. K.V.G.
Chandra Sekhar, Prof. N. Rajesh for their co-operation and various help extended during the course of
the work.
I thank all the faculty members for their help during the course of this investigation.
Thanks to office staff Mr. Ghouse, Mr. Mahaboob Basha, Mr. Rajesh, Mr. Hemanth, Mr. Sankar,
Mr. panday, Mr. Venu Gopalachary Mr. Sai, Mr. Prabhakar Chowdary, Mr. Pravin, Mr. Narasimha
Puli and who supported directly or indirectly during this research work.
I express my heartfelt thanks to my Parents, Aunt, Uncle, Sister Mrs. Nagalakshmi and brother Mr.
Murali whose continuous motivation and blessings made this task possible. I am greatly indebted to
my wife Mrs. Kiranmai Rage for her moral support, understanding and co-operation throughout the
period of this work. Lastly, I am very grateful to my son Mr. Satya Sai Asish who provided me joyous
environment during crucial period of my research work.
I would like to thank all those who helped me in myriad ways throughout the course of this work.
Date: 08 / 04 / 2014 MALAGAVELLI VENU
ii
This page is intentionally left blank.
iii
DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE WITH NON- BIODEGRADABLE
WASTE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS –
ABSTRACT
Cement concrete has made tremendous strides in the past decade. The development of specifying
a concrete according to its performance requirements, rather than the constituents and ingredients
has opened innumerable opportunities for producers of concrete and users to design concrete to
suit their specific requirements. The total annual concrete consumption in India is estimated at
about 450 Million cubic meters (2012), which includes the consumption of concrete in
infrastructure projects. Cement consumption in the world has increased exponentially since 1926
and is continuing to increase.
Cement production contributes to CO2 emission because of calcinations of limestone during
production of cement. CaCO3 is calcined to CaO and CO2 is released. Both embodied energy and
direct emission contribute to total CO2 emissions. Total amount of CO2 emitted per ton of
cement production ranges from 0.82 ton to 1.1 ton. Thus, control of this greenhouse gas emission
is a major issue for sustainable concrete. Use of supplementary cementitious material, especially
industrial waste products such as blast furnace slag and fly ash in concrete to reduce ordinary
portland cement consumption is currently being considered as a major step towards achieving
sustainability of cement concrete. The other side, many municipalities are facing the problem of
disposal of non-biodegradable waste material like plastics.
iv
Hence, the present experimental investigation is aimed at studying the behavior of concrete with
locally available Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) and ROBO sand (quarry dust)
as supplementary materials for cement and fine aggregates respectively. Also the plastic waste
i.e. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET), High Density Poly
Propylene (HDPP) and POLYESTER in the form of fibers is added to the concrete for further
study. For the present study, development of M25 and M30 cement concrete is being adopted.
Detailed experimental investigation has been carried out to understand the behavior of concrete
and results are compared with the conventional design mix concrete.
The results are quite encouraging with these supplementary materials in the concrete. The
combination of GGBS as cement replacement and ROBO sand as fine aggregates can be
replaced in the concrete by 50% and 25% respectively. Use of plastic waste as fibers (3.5%) in
the concrete, the strength properties of concrete (load carrying capacity) is increased. Overall the
compressive, split tensile and flexural strengths are increasing with the addition of non-
biodegradable waste products as fibers and supplementary materials.
v
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE Page No.
Acknowledgements i
Abstract iv
Table of Contents vii
List of Tables xii
List of Figures xvi
List of Abbreviations xxii
List of Symbols xxvi
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1–6
1.1 Background 1
1.2 Objectives of the study 2
1.3 Organization of the thesis 3
CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7 – 27
2.1 General 7
2.2 Supplementary materials for concrete 7
2.3 Stress – strain behavior of concrete 18
2.4 Durability of concrete 23
2.5 Need for the study 26
CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 28 – 46
3.1 Introduction 28
3.2 Materials 28
vii
3.2.1 Cement 28
3.2.2 Aggregates 32
3.2.2.1 Fine aggregate 32
3.2.2.2 Coarse aggregate 35
3.2.3 Water 38
3.3 Mix design 39
3.4 Experimental program 41
3.5 Properties of hardened concrete 41
3.5.1 Compressive strength of concrete 42
3.5.2 Split tensile strength of concrete 42
3.5.3 Flexural strength of concrete 43
CHAPTER 4 CONCRETE WITH CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES 47 – 59
4.1 Introduction 47
4.2 Admixtures 48
4.2.1 SNP 1 48
4.2.2 SNP 2 48
4.2.3 SNP 3 48
4.2.4 Sample preparation 49
4.3 Results & Discussions 51
4.3.1 M25 concrete 51
4.3.2 M30 Concrete 54
4.4 Summary 58
viii
CHAPTER 5 CONCRETE WITH GROUND GRANULATED 60 – 82
BLAST FURNACE SLAG AND ROBO SAND
5.1 Introduction 60
5.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) 60
5.3 ROBO sand 61
5.4 Mix design and trial mix proportions of concrete 63
5.4.1 GGBS 63
5.4.2 ROBO sand 63
5.5 Experimental results and discussions 64
5.5.1 GGBS concrete mix proportions 64
5.5.1.1 Compressive strength 65
5.5.1.2 Split tensile strength 68
5.5.1.3 Flexural strength 70
5.5.2 GGBS and ROBO sand combined mixes 72
5.5.2.1 Compressive strength 73
5.5.2.2 Split tensile strength 75
5.5.2.3 Flexural strength 76
5.6 Summary 80
CHAPTER 6 FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE 83 – 109
6.1 Introduction 83
6.2 Role of fibers 83
6.3 Factors influencing the fibers in the concrete 84
6.3.1 Aspect ratio 84
ix
6.3.2 Orientation of fibers 85
6.3.3 Volume of fibers 85
6.4 Classification of fibers 85
6.5 Fibers used in the present experimental work 86
6.5.1 High Density Polyethylene Fiber (HDPE) 86
6.5.2 Polyethylene Teraphthalate (PET) 87
6.5.3 High density Polypropylene Fiber (HDPP) 88
6.5.4 Polyester Fiber 89
6.6 Experimental investigation 89
6.6.1 Experimental results 89
6.6.1.1 Strength properties of HDPE concrete 90
6.6.1.2 Strength properties of PET concrete 93
6.6.1.3 Strength properties of HDPP concrete 96
6.6.1.4 Strength properties of POLYESTER concrete 99
6.7 Strength contribution of fibers 103
6.8 Summary 105
CHAPTER 7 STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF 110 – 135

MODIFIED CONCRETE
7.1 Introduction 110
7.2 Experimental investigations 110
7.3 Mathematical modeling for stress-strain behavior of concrete 120
7.3.1 Non-dimensional (normalized) stress-strain curves 121
7.3.2 Models available for stress-strain curves of conventional concrete 121
7.3.3 Proposed model for stress-strain behavior 123
x
7.4 Summary 134
CHAPTER 8 DURABILITY STUDIES ON 136 – 152

MODIFIED CONCRETE
8.1 Introduction 136
8.2 Acid attack 137
8.2.1 Visual assessment 137
8.2.2 Weight loss and compressive strength loss 139
8.2.3 Acid durability factor and acid attack factor 143
8.2.4 Chloride – sulphate attack 148
8.3 Summary 150
CHAPTER 9 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS 153 – 156
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE STUDY 157
SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK 159
REFERENCES 161 – 170
APPENDIX 171 – 176
PUBLICATIONS FROM THE STUDY 177
BIOGRAPHY OF THE CANDIDATE AND SUPERVISOR 179
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table No. Title Page No.
Table 2.1 Stress-strain models for concrete based on popovics model 18
Table 2.2 Stress-strain models for concrete based on sargin et al. model 19
Table 3.1 Physical and chemical properties of cement sample no.1 30
Table 3.4 Sieve analysis of fine aggregate sample No.1 34
Table 3.7 Sieve analysis of coarse aggregate sample No.1 36
Table 3.10 Water sample 1 test results 38
Table 3.11 Water sample 2 test results 39
Table 3.12 Mix proportion quantities M25 concrete 39
Table 3.13 Mix proportion quantities M30 concrete 40
Table 4.1 Properties of admixtures 49
Table 4.2 Slump test results for M25 concrete 51
Table 4.3 Compressive strength test results for M25 concrete 52
Table 4.4 Slump test results for M30 concrete 54
Table 4.5 Compressive strength test results for M30 concrete 55
Table 5.1 Properties of GGBS 61
xii
Table 5.2 Sieve analysis of ROBO sand 61
Table 5.3 Mix proportions of M25 Concrete 64
Table 5.4 Mix proportions of M30 Concrete 65
Table 5.5 Compressive strengths of M25 concrete 65
Table 5.7 28 days split tensile strengths of M25 concrete 68
Table 5.9 28 days flexural strengths of M25 concrete 70
Table 5.11 Mix proportions of M25 concrete 72
Table 5.12 Mix proportions of M30 concrete 73
Table 5.19 Final mix proportions for further investigations 79
Table 6.1 Properties of HDPE fiber 87
Table 6.2 Properties of PET fiber 88
Table 6.3 Properties of HDPP fiber 89
Table 6.4 Properties of POLYESTER fiber 89
Table 6.5 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with HDPE fibers 90
xiii
Table 6.6 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with HDPE fibers 90
Table 6.7 Split tensile and flexural strengths M25 concrete with HDPE 91
concrete
Table 6.8 Split tensile and flexural strengths M30 concrete with HDPE 92
concrete
Table 6.9 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with PET fibers 93
Table 6.10 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with PET fibers 93
Table 6.11 Split tensile and flexural strengths M25 concrete with PET fibers 94
Table 6.12 Split tensile and flexural strengths M30 concrete with PET fibers 95
Table 6.13 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with HDPP fibers 96
Table 6.14 Compressive strength M30 concrete with HDPP fibers 96
Table 6.15 Split tensile and flexural strengths M25 Concrete with HDPP fibers 97
Table 6.16 Split tensile and flexural strengths M30 concrete with HDPP fibers 98
Table 6.17 Compressive Strength of M25 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers 99
Table 6.18 Compressive Strength of M30 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers 99
Table 6.19 Split tensile and flexural strengths M25 concrete with 100
POLYESTER fibers
Table 6.20 Split tensile and flexural strengths M30 concrete with POLYESTER 101
fibers
Table 6.21 Nomenclature for modified concrete mixes 102
Table 6.22 Fiber strength contributions 104
Table 6.23 Strength contribution due to fibers – theoretical and experimental 104
results
Table 7.1 Experimental values of stress strain for M25 design mix concrete 111
with and without GGBS and ROBO sand
Table 7.2 Experimental values of stress strain for M30 design mix concrete 112
xiv
Table 7.3 Experimental values of stress strain for M25 concrete with HDPE 114
and PET fibers
Table 7.4 Experimental values of stress strain for M25 concrete with HDPP 115
and POLYESTER fibers
Table 7.5 Experimental values of stress strain for M30 concrete with HDPE 117
and PET fibers
Table 7.6 Experimental values of stress strain for M30 concrete with HDPP 117
and POLYESTER fibers
Table 7.7 Peak stress and strain at peak stress of different mixes 119
Table 7.8 constants of A, B, C and D for the different design mix design with 124
and without GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers
Table 7.9 Proposed equations for different design mix design with and without 124
GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers
Table 7.10 R2 and Ra2 values of different mixes with different models and 132
proposed model
Table 8.1 Visual assessment of concrete deterioration level 138
Table 8.2 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M30 design concrete 139
mix immersed in H2SO4, HCl and Na2SO4
Table 8.3 ADF and AAF of M25 design concrete mix immersed in H2SO4, 145
HCl and Na2SO4
xv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title Page No.
Fig. 3.1 Concrete cube during testing 45
Fig. 3.2 Concrete in flexural strength 45
Fig. 3.3 Concrete cubes after Failure 45
Fig. 3.4 Experimental setup for the flexure test 45
Fig. 4.1 Sample Preparation 50
Fig. 4.2 Cubes after curing 50
Fig. 4.3 Compression testing machine 50
Fig. 4.4 Concrete cubes after testing 51
Fig. 4.5 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with and without admixtures 53
Fig. 4.6 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with and without admixtures 56
Fig: 4.7 Standard deviation of compressive strength 56
Fig. 4.8 Cost of admixtures per tonne 57
Fig.5.1 Grain size distribution curve for ROBO Sand 62
Fig. 5.2 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete with various % of GGBS 66
Fig. 5.3 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete with various % of GGBS 67
Fig. 5.4 Compressive strength of M25 grade concrete with age for mix with 67
optimum GGBS and without GGBS
optimum GGBS and without GGBS
Fig. 5.6 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with various % of GGBS 69
Fig. 5.7 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with various % of GGBS 69
xvi
Fig. 5.8 Flexural strength of M25 concrete with various % of GGBS 71
Fig. 5.9 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with various % of GGBS 71
Fig. 5.10 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 74
Fig. 5.11 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 75
Fig. 5.12 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 76
Fig. 5.13 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 76
Fig. 5.14 Flexural strength of M25 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 77
Fig. 5.15 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with various % of ROBO sand 77
optimum ROBO sand and without ROBO sand
optimum ROBO sand and without ROBO sand
Fig. 5.18 Concrete without ROBO sand 80
Fig. 5.19 Concrete with ROBO sand 80
Fig. 6.1 Length of the fiber 84
Fig. 6.2 Width of the fiber 84
Fig. 6.3 Chemical structure of HDPE fiber 87
Fig. 6.4 Chemical structure of PET fiber 88
Fig. 6.5 Chemical structure of HDPP fiber 88
Fig. 6.6 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with HDPE fibers 91
Fig. 6.7 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with HDPE fibers 91
Fig. 6.8 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with HDPE concrete 91
Fig. 6.9 Flexural strength ofM25 concrete with HDPE concrete 91
Fig. 6.10 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with HDPE concrete 92
xvii
Fig. 6.11 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with HDPE concrete 92
Fig. 6.12 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with PET fibers 94
Fig. 6.13 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with PET fibers 94
Fig. 6.14 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with PET fibers 94
Fig. 6.15 Flexural strength of M25 concrete with PET fibers 94
Fig. 6.16 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with PET fibers 95
Fig. 6.17 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with PET fibers 95
Fig. 6.18 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with HDPP fibers 97
Fig. 6.19 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with HDPP fibers 97
Fig. 6.20 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with HDPP fibers 97
Fig. 6.21 Flexural strength of M25 concrete with HDPP fibers 97
Fig. 6.22 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with HDPP fibers 98
Fig. 6.23 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with HDPP fibers 98
Fig. 6.24 Compressive strength of M25 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 100
Fig. 6.25 Compressive strength of M30 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 100
Fig. 6.26 Split tensile strength of M25 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 100
Fig. 6.27 Flexural strength of M25 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 100
Fig. 6.28 Split tensile strength of M30 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 101
Fig. 6.29 Flexural strength of M30 concrete with POLYESTER fibers 101
Fig.6.30 Mechanism of increase in flexure strength of concrete with fibers 102
Fig. 6.31 Fiber orientation with respect to crack tip 103
Fig.6.32 HDPE fibers 106
Fig.6.33 PET fibers 106
xviii
Fig.6.34 HDPP fibers 106
Fig.6.35 POLYESTER fibers 107
Fig.6.36 Cubes for compressive strength 107
Fig.6.37 Cylinders for split tensile strength 107
Fig.6.38 Beams for flexural strength 108
Fig. 7.1 Test setup 111
Fig. 7.2 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CA concrete 113
Fig. 7.3 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAG concrete 113
Fig. 7.4 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAGR concrete 113
Fig. 7.5 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CA concrete 113
Fig. 7.6 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAG concrete 114
Fig. 7.7 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAGR concrete 114
Fig. 7.8 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAGRHE concrete 116
Fig. 7.9 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAGRPE concrete 116
Fig. 7.10 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAGRHD concrete 116
Fig. 7.11 Stress – Strain behavior of M25 CAGRPO concrete 116
Fig. 7.12 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAGRHE concrete 118
Fig. 7.13 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAGRPE concrete 118
Fig. 7.14 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAGRHD concrete 119
Fig. 7.15 Stress – Strain behavior of M30 CAGRPO concrete 119
Fig. 7.16 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CA concrete 125
Fig. 7.17 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAG concrete 126
Fig. 7.18 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGR concrete 126
xix
Fig. 7.19 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CA concrete 127
Fig. 7.20 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAG concrete 127
Fig. 7.21 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGR concrete 128
Fig. 7.22 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRHE concrete 128
Fig. 7.23 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRPE concrete 129
Fig. 7.24 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRHD concrete 129
Fig. 7.25 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRPO concrete 130
Fig. 7.26 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRHE concrete 130
Fig. 7.27 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRPE concrete 131
Fig. 7.28 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRHD concrete 131
Fig. 7.29 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRPO concrete 132
Fig. 8.1 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CA concrete 141
Fig. 8.2 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAG concrete 141
Fig. 8.3 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGR concrete 141
Fig. 8.4 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRHE concrete 142
Fig. 8.5 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRPE concrete 142
Fig. 8.6 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRHD concrete 142
Fig. 8.7 Weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRPO concrete 143
Fig. 8.8 Measurement of solid diagonal 144
Fig. 8.9 ADF and AAF of M30 CA concrete 145
Fig. 8.10 ADF and AAF of M30 CAG concrete 145
Fig. 8.11 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGR concrete 146
Fig. 8.12 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRHE concrete 146
xx
Fig. 8.13 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRPE concrete 146
Fig. 8.14 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRHD concrete 147
Fig. 8.15 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRPO concrete 147
Fig. 8.16 Cube samples for durability test 151
Fig. 8.17 Cube samples immersed in the acidic solutions 151
Fig. 8.18 Cube samples after the test 151
xxi
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
AAF Acid Attack Factor
ACI American Concrete Institute
ADF Acid Durability Factors
Al2O3 Alumina
AM Aluminate Modulus
ASTM American Society for Testing Materials
AR Alkali Resistant Glass
BA Bottom Ash
BFSA Blast Furnace Slag Aggregates
Ca2SO4 Gypsum
CaCl2 Calcium Chloride
C Concrete without admixture
CA Concrete with admixture (0% GGBS)
C3A Tricalcium Aluminate
CAG CA+ 50% GGBS
CAH Calcium Aluminate Hydrate
CAGR CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand
CAGRHE CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% HDPE
CAGRPE CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% PET
CAGRHD CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% HDPP
CAGRPO CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% POLYESTER
xxii
CaO Calcium oxide
CC Conventional Concrete
CFA Combustion Fly Ash
CIPET Central Institute of Plastics Engineering and Technology
CO2 Carbon dioxide
CCRP Conditioned Crushed Rock Powder
CRP Crushed Rock Powder
CSH Calcium Silicate Hydrate gel
CSF Condensed Silica Fume
CW Colemanite ore Waste
FA Coal Fly Ash
FB Ground Fluidized Bed combustion fly ash
FRC Fiber Reinforced Concrete
GFRP Glass Fiber Reinforced Polymer
GGBS Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
GP Glass Powder
HCl Hydro Chloric acid
HDPE High Density Polyethylene
HDPP High Density Polypropylene
HPC High Performance Concrete
H2SO4 Sulfuric Acid
HSC High Strength Concrete
IS Indian Standards
xxiii
LSF Lime Saturation Factor
MK Metakaolin
Na2SO4 Sodium Sulphate
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PCC Plain Cement Concrete
PET Polyethylene Terephthalate
POFA Ground Palm Oil Fuel Ash
PP Polypropylene
PUF Polyurethane Formaldehyde
PVC Polyvinyl Chloride
RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete
RHA Rice Husk Ash
RHBA Ground Rice Husk–Bark Ash
RI Reinforcing Index
RPC Recycled Polyethylene terephthalate polymer Concrete
SCC Self – Compacting Concrete
SCM Supplementary Cementitious Materials
SiO2 Silicon dioxide
SNP Sulphonated Naphthalene Polymer
UFA Ultrafine Fly Ash
USBR United States Bureau of Reclamations
VSP Vizag Steel Plant
WPLA Waste bottles Lightweight Aggregate
xxiv
WPLAC Waste Polyethylene terephthalate bottles Lightweight Aggregate Concrete
w/b Water binder ratio
w/c Water cement ratio
xxv
LIST OF SYMBOLS
English Symbols
A Material constant 1
a Cross sectional area of the cube
B Material constant 2
C Material constant 3
Cu Coefficient of uniformity
Cc Coefficient curvature
D Material constant 4
d Diameter of the cylinder specimen
Initial tangent modulus of elasticity
Secant modulus at peak stress
Slope at the inflection point of descending branch of the stress strain curve
Stress at any point on the stress strain curve

Unconfined concrete compressive strength

compressive strength of fiber concrete
Flexural strength of concrete
" Strength of confined concrete
ft Split tensile strength of concrete
Correction factor
Correction factor
Correction factor
xxvi
l Length of the cylinder specimen
Material parameter
P Compressive load at failure
Concrete unit weight
X Normalized strain
Y Normalized stress
Greek Symbols
Coarse aggregate coefficient
Material parameter
Strain at any point on the stress strain curve
Strain corresponding to stress value of 0.3

in the descending part of the
stress strain curve
" Strain at peak stress of confined concrete
Strain when concrete stress is equal to 0.5

on the descending part of the
stress strain curve
Peak strain of unconfined concrete strength
strain corresponding to the compressive strength
coefficient
φ Diameter of cylinder
xxvii
xxviii
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
Concrete is an extraordinary and key structural material in the human history. It is an artificial
compound generally made by mixing a binding material like cement with fine aggregate, coarse
aggregate and water in suitable proportions. As written by Brunauer and Copeland (1964), “Man
consumes no material except water in such tremendous quantities”. With the development of
human civilization, concrete will continue to be a dominant construction material in the future.
The reasons are:
1. It can be readily moulded into durable structural items of various sizes and shapes.
2. It is possible to control the properties of concrete in a wide range by using appropriate
ingredients and by applying special processing techniques.
3. It is possible to mechanize completely its preparation and placing processes.
However, the development of cement industry also introduces the major producer of greenhouse
gases and energy user. This will create many environmental problems such as pollution, waste
dumping, emission of dangerous gases, depletion of natural resources etc. This will lead to
sustainability issues including environmental and social aspects. In general, sustainability
embodies all the provisions necessary for excellent engineering solutions. Such solutions are
those that contribute in a balanced measure to profitability, long-term community benefits and
low environmental impact.
1
Aitcin (2000) estimated that, during the year 1900, 10 metric tons of cement produced globally.
This quantity of cement estimated to have produced 40 metric cubic meters of concrete. The
world population in 1900 was 1.65 billion. Therefore, the average consumption of concrete per
person was 0.024 m3. The estimates in 2004, puts cement production at 1700 metric tons per
year (Gartner 2004), producing concrete of 6 billion m3. That is at the average of 1 m3 per
person. Cement production has increased by 170 times, as world population has increased by 3.9
times. The average cement consumption of each person has increased from 6.25 kg per year to
268 kg per year, i.e. the average concrete consumption per person has increased by
approximately forty two times. In India, the production of cement for the year 2011 – 2012 is
298 million tons. The amount of CO2 emission from cement industry varies between 0.82 tons to
1.1 ton per ton of cement production (Malhotra).
On the other hand, the world is facing tremendous problems in terms of disposal of non-bio
degradable waste products like plastics, which results in many environmental related issues. The
estimated plastic waste generation in Andhra Pradesh is 28,888 tons per annum as per the 2011
records of central pollution control board, New Delhi. The disposal of this waste is another
challenging problem. This is one of the main motivations to look forth for usage of non-bio
degradable waste in the concrete.
1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THE STUDY
The primary and main focus of an experimental investigation is to study strength properties of
concrete with locally available various supplementary materials for cement, aggregates
2
(replacing partly) and usage of non-bio degradable waste products. More specifically, the
research has the following objectives:
1. Identify the material which is suitable for substitution of cement and aggregate (partially).
2. Study the strength properties of concrete with supplementary materials for cement and
aggregates.
3. Understand the behavior of concrete with non-bio degradable waste.
4. Investigate the durability properties of modified concrete.
1.3 ORGANISATION OF THESIS
The entire thesis is presented in nine chapters, including this chapter. The need for the present
study and objectives are presented in Chapter 1.
Chapter-2 A review is made on the constituent materials including cement replacement
materials and their influence on the properties of concrete. This is done to identify the most
significant properties of structural concrete which would be affecting various properties of
concrete. The techniques adopted by different researchers in producing different types of
concretes are also discussed.
Chapter – 3 Properties of the concrete materials and specimen preparations are discussed as per
the relevant IS codes. Experimental procedures and precautions used during the study are
discussed as per the IS codes.
Chapter – 4 The various chemical admixtures, materials used, variables involved in concrete
are discussed in detail. Three types of chemical admixtures of sulphonated naphthalene polymer
3
are used for the study. The behavior of slump and compressive strength are studied. The
behavior of these admixtures in concrete are compared with design mix of concrete without
admixtures. Based on these results, the best admixture is selected for the further experimental
studies.
Chapter – 5 Describes the properties of cement supplementary material (GGBS) and fine
aggregate supplementary material (ROBO sand). For the optimization of GGBS as a partial
replacement of cement in the concrete different combinations has been tried. After optimizing
the GGBS in the concrete, different combinations of ROBO sand has been tried for the partial
replacement of fine aggregate for getting final optimum mix design with GGBS and ROBO sand.
The final optimum percentage of replacement levels in cement and fine aggregate are 50% of
GGBS and 25% of ROBO sand respectively.
Chapter – 6 Emphases on properties of different non-bio degradable wastes used as fibers. Four
types of fibers have been considered for the study i.e. HDPE, PET, HDPP and POLYESTER
fibers. The different percentages of fibers varying from 0 to 6% with an increment of 0.5% are
added to the concrete. The strength of concrete increases as the percentage of fiber increases up
to 3.5% and then decreases as the percentage increases up to 6% of fibers.
Chapter – 7 Proposes the Stress – Strain relations of concrete without supplementary materials
and with supplementary materials (GGBS, ROBO sand) and non – biodegradable waste plastic
fibers. The proposed equation is in the form of ⁄1 . A
4
comparative study has been carried out for the different existing stress strain models of concrete
like Desayi’s and Krishnan’s model and Saenz model.
Chapter – 8 Presents the durability properties (acid attack) concrete with and without
supplementary materials and waste plastic fibers. The parameters considered in this study are
weight loss, compressive strength loss, Acid Durability Factor and Acid Attack Factors. Three
types of acids namely sulfuric acid, hydro chloric acid and sodium sulfate have been used for this
study. The results shows that, concrete samples immersed in sulfuric acid are more affected
when compared to other two acid attacks.
Chapter – 9 Summarizes the contributions made in the thesis together with a few suggestions
for further research.
5
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 GENERAL
The following literature review has been organized with respect to three major issues: (1)
supplementary materials for concrete, (2) Stress – strain behavior of concrete, and (3) Durability
of concrete.
2.2 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE
Concrete is a building material composed of cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and water.
Supplementary Cementing Materials (SCM) has become an integral part of special concrete mix
design. These may be naturally occurring materials, industrial wastes, or byproducts or the ones
requiring less energy to manufacture. Some of the commonly used supplementary cementing
materials are fly ash, silica fume, granulated blast furnace slag, rice husk ash and Metakaolin etc.
It is being used very commonly as pozzolanic material in concrete, and has exhibited
considerable influence in enhancing the mechanical and durability properties of concrete.
Mechanical properties of fiber reinforced light weight concrete composites have been studied by
Perez-pena and Mobasher (1994). They have used Polyvinyl Chloride (PVC), Polypropylene
(PP) and alkali resistant glass as fibers in the concrete. Combinations of PP mesh/short alkali
resistant (AR) glass did not show substantial improvement in the ultimate strength of the
concrete. They found that significant improvement in the cracking strength and toughness of
concrete by using the fibers in concrete.
7
Khatri et al. (1995) investigated the effects of different supplementary cementitious materials on
the mechanical properties of High Performance Concrete (HPC). They have used fly ash (15 and
25%), silica fume (10%) and blast furnace slag (35 and 65%) with different combinations in the
concrete having compressive strength 65MPa. They observed that, the effect of the addition of
silica fume on early age compressive strength is more pronounced in low slag cement (35%) than
in high slag cement (65%).
The authors have emphasized on compressive and flexural strength of concrete, but not studied
about durability of the concrete.
Fouad Faroug et al. (1999) have given theoretical foundations governing the properties of
concrete. The equation for fresh concrete is given as a modification of Bingham’s equation. The
shear resistance of the concrete mix is explained in terms of two constants—yield value and
plastic viscosity. The complex nature of the yield value is described. It is pointed out that there
are three different zones of behavior of fresh concrete, which arise as a result of the relation
between shear stress and yield value of the mix. They also conducted experimental study that
measures the effects of super plasticizer and water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of fresh concrete. The
results showed that super plasticizers became less effective with increase in w/c ratio. The lower
the w/c ratio, the more effective is the super plasticizer in increasing the mix workability.
The authors are mainly focused on the influence of the different types and dosages of super
plasticizers on the properties of the concrete. They mainly discussed about the shear resistance
and workability of concrete rather than strength of concrete.
Ganesh babu (2000) conducted the experiments to find out the efficiency of the Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) in concrete. They conducted the experiments with
8
replacement levels of GGBS from 0 to 80% with 10, 30, 50, 60, 65, 70 and 80% as a partial
replacement of cement in the concrete. Natural river sand and 10 to 20mm chips used in the
concrete as fine aggregate and coarse aggregate respectively. They found that GGBS can be
partially replaced with cement by 50 to 65%.
This paper mainly discussed the partial replacement of cement with GGBS. Authors are mainly
concentrated on the compressive strength of concrete. However, not discussed about the tensile
strength of the concrete, which is important for crack propagation and its durability.
Papadakis (2002) carried the experiments on concrete by using Supplementary Cementitious
Materials (SCM) like lower calcium fly ashes, high-calcium fly ash of normal sulfur content and
high-calcium fly ash of high sulfur content and natural pozzolanic materials like Milos earth
(volcanic tuff from Milos Island) , diatomaceous earth (Samos Island). When the SCMs replace
cement, the strength is reduced initially, but as time proceeds this gap is gradually eliminated and
the strength increased.
This study is restricted to different fly ashes and volcanic ash only but not with any other
materials like GGBS, etc.
Targan et al. (2002), conducted experimental investigation on the effects of supplementary
cementing materials like bentonite, Colemanite ore Waste (CW), coal Fly Ash (FA) and coal
Bottom Ash (BA) on the properties of cement and concrete. They studied systematically the
effect of increasing bentonite addition (5–30%) with the constant FA (10%), BA (10%) and CW
(4%) content on the properties of portland cement and concrete. They found that, with the
replacement of bentonite up to 15%, the compressive strength of the concrete has significantly
9
increased compared with control concrete at 7 days. The replacement of Portland cement beyond
15% of bentonite caused a reduction in the compressive strength. When bentonite was added to
BA, CW or FA, the compressive strength of the concrete decreased with increasing bentonite
content.
In this paper, authors are tried all the supplementary cementitious materials but not
supplementary aggregate materials, which occupy more volume.
Rajamane et al (2003) and Wang Ling et al. (2004) studied the properties of high performance
concrete with partial replacement of cement by Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS).
A partial substitution of cement by GGBS eliminates higher shrinkage and greater evolution of
heat of hydration, besides enhancing durability characteristics. The investigations carried out for
a quantitative assessment of replacement levels of cement with GGBS on the compressive
strength which were in the range of 70 MPa – 80 MPa at 28 days, and considerable
imperviousness to chloride ions were obtained. They found that the compressive strength of
concrete is increased from 10.2 MPa to 17.5 MPa at 28 days.
The authors focused on high strength concrete rather than normal concrete which are generally
used in India.
Gengying Li and Xiaohua Zhao (2003) conducted the experiments on the properties of the
concrete incorporating 40% fly ash as partial replacement of cement and 25% fly ash + 15%
GGBS as partial replacement of cement. The compressive strength gain from 28 days to 1 year is
23.3% with 25% fly ash and 15% GGBS whereas strength gain only with cement is 18.3%.
In this paper authors explained the compressive strength development only. This study can be
extended to study the split tensile and flexural strengths also.
10
Choi et al. (2005) investigated the influence of Waste Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) bottles
Lightweight Aggregate (WPLA) on the properties of concrete. Mixture proportions of concrete
were planned so that the water–cement ratios were 0.45, 0.49 and 0.53, and the replacement
ratios of WPLA were 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% by volume of fine aggregate. They reported that
slump value of Waste PET bottles Lightweight Aggregate Concrete (WPLAC) increased with the
increase in water–cement ratio and the replacement ratio. The improvement ratios of workability
represent 52%, 104%, and 123% in comparison with that of normal concrete at the water–cement
ratios of 0.45, 0.49 and 0.53, respectively. This may be attributed to not only the spherical and
smooth shape but also to the absorption of WPLA. Splitting tensile strength of concrete mixtures
was observed to decrease with the increase in PET aggregates; and for a particular PET
aggregate content, split tensile strength increased with the reduction in w/c ratio.
In this paper, the GGBS and PET are mixed together to form a kind of aggregate and used in the
concrete. A study can be made by using PET fibers as crack arresters instead of using it as
aggregates.
Ramazan and Rustem (2006) used Blast Furnace Slag Aggregates (BFSA) as partial
replacement (70%) of coarse aggregates for the production of high strength concrete. Silica fume
used as micro filler and pozzolonic admixture. They found that the compressive strengths of
BFSA concretes were approximately 60 to 80% higher than the controlled / traditional concrete
mix. Further study can be made on concrete with supplementary materials for cement and fine
aggregates.
11
Vanchai et al. (2007) experimentally investigated the effects of pozzolan made from various by-
product materials on mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. Ground pulverized coal
Combustion Fly Ash (CFA), ground fluidized Bed Combustion Fly Ash (FB), ground Rice
Husk–Bark Ash (RHBA), and ground Palm Oil Fuel Ash (POFA) were used in the experiments
for partial replacement of cement to produce high – strength concrete. They concluded that
concrete containing CFA, FB, RHBA, and POFA can be used as pozzolanic materials in the
concrete with 28-day compressive strengths higher than 80 MPa.
In this paper, four different supplementary cementitious materials are used for the production of
concrete except GGBS. Authors mainly concentrated on the compressive strength of concrete
only. They have not studied the split tensile and flexural strength parameters.
Job Thomas and Ananth Ramaswamy (2007) have studied on mechanical properties of steel
fiber reinforced concrete based on the results from an experimental program and an analytical
assessment of the influence of addition of fibers on mechanical properties of concrete. Models
derived based on the regression analysis of 60 test data for various mechanical properties of steel
fiber reinforced concrete have been presented. The various strength properties studied are cube
and cylinder compressive strength, split tensile strength, modulus of rupture and post cracking
performance, modulus of elasticity, poisson’s ratio and strain corresponding to peak compressive
stress. The variables considered are grade of concrete i.e. normal strength (35MPa), moderately
high strength (65MPa) and high strength concrete (85MPa) and the volume fraction of the fiber.
In this paper, steel fibers are used to find the strengths and development of mathematical
model. It will be interesting to study further replacing steel fibers with non-bio degradable
waste products fibers along with other supplementary materials.
12
Batayneh et al. (2007) investigated the effect of ground plastic on the strength properties of
concrete. Concrete mixes of up to 20% of plastic particles are proportioned to partially replace
the fine aggregates. The addition of the plastic particles led to a reduction in the strength
properties. For a 20% replacement, the compressive strength shows a sharp reduction up to 72%
of the original strength. With 5% replacement the compressive strength shows a 23% reduction.
Similar behavior, but in a lower effect, was observed in both the split tensile and flexural
strengths of the tested samples.
This paper mainly deals with the addition of fibers (source from construction waste) in the
concrete. This study emphasis that the powder forms of plastics or plastic particles reduces
strength properties of concrete.
Jo et al. (2008) studied the effect of recycled aggregates and resins on compressive strength of
concrete. In recycled-PET polymer concrete with Recycled Concrete aggregates (RPC), a
gradual reduction in strength was observed as the recycled aggregate content increased. This
effect was due to the weaker bond of the old mortar adhering to the recycled concrete aggregate,
which may have caused a reduction in the strength of the RPC. Studying the influence of resin on
properties of concrete, it was observed that the compressive strength of RPC increased with resin
content. However, beyond certain resin content (approximately 13–17% resin) the strength did
not change appreciably with increasing resin content. The increase in strength with the use of
resin was due to the voids in the old mortar attached to the recycled aggregate.
13
In this paper, authors are used the recycled PET and recycled concrete aggregate in the
concrete. This study is limited to usage of recycled PET not direct usage of PET in the concrete
as fibers. They have not used any supplementary cementitious material in the concrete.
Ilangovan et. al. (2008) studied on the feasibility of the usage of quarry rock dust as hundred
percent substitutes for natural sand in concrete. Mix design has been developed using different
mix design methods like Indian Standards (IS), American Concrete Institute (ACI), United States
Bureau of Reclamations (USBR) etc. for both conventional and quarry dust concrete. Tests were
conducted on cubes and beams to study the strength and durability of concrete using quarry dust.
It is found that the compressive, flexural strength and durability studies of concrete made with
the quarry rock dust are nearly 10% more than the conventional concrete.
Further an experimental investigation can be made to study the concrete with other
Supplementary cementitious material and non-bio degradable waste fibers in the concrete.
Papayianni and Anastasiou (2010) conducted laboratory trials for the production of concrete
with high volume industrial by products. In this investigation, the by-products used are high-
calcium fly ash and ladle furnace slag as binders and electric arc furnace slag as aggregates. Fly
ash is used as 50% by mass of the total binder and ladle furnace slag as 30% by mass of the total
binder. Slag aggregates are used in replacement of both fine and coarse aggregates. From this
experimental investigation, it has been observed that compressive strength of concrete containing
industrial by products shown an increase of 13.68% than the regular concrete.
To improve strength further, crack arrestors like fibers can be placed. Most of the materials used
are industrial by products, fibers of non-bio degradable waste can be incorporated.
14
Sivaraja et al. (2010) studied the mechanical strength of fibrous concrete with waste rural
materials. Steel, nylon, plastic, tyre, coir and sugarcane bagasse are used as fibers in this
experimental study with volume fraction 0.5, 1.0 and 1.5% and aspect ratios are 30, 60 and 90. It
is observed that, the concrete mixed with rural waste fibers improved the mechanical strength.
This study can be extended by using supplementary materials in the concrete.
Nagabhushana and Sharada bai (2011) investigated the properties of mortar and concrete in
which Crushed Rock Powder (CRP) is used as a partial to full replacement for natural sand. For
mortar, CRP is replaced at 20% 40%, 60%, 80% and 100%. The basic strength properties of
concrete were investigated by replacing natural sand by CRP at replacement levels of 20%, 30%
and 40%. This study reveals that in case of cement mortars, the natural sand can be replaced by
CRP. The strength of mortar containing 40% CRP is much higher than normal mortar containing
only sand as fine aggregate. Though the trend in variation of compressive strength with
percentage of Conditioned Crushed Rock Powder (CCRP) was found to be similar to that of CRP
mortar, the strength of CCRP mortar is less than that of CRP mortars. It is better to use CRP
without removing the finer particles. For lean mortar mixes, CRP can be replaced up to 100%.
For rich mortar mixes, CRP can be replaced up to 40%. The compressive strength, split tensile
strength and flexural strengths of concrete are not affected with the replacement of sand by CRP
as fine aggregate up to 40%. Rajendra (2013) studied the feasibility of artificial sand in the
concrete. In these experiments natural sand is replaced with artificial sand with 0 to 100% with
an increment of 20%. Based on the studies, it has been observed that the natural sand can be
replaced with 60 to 80% of artificial sand.
15
Mostafizur Rahman et.al. (2012), Studied the potential of recycled waste polymeric materials as
a substitute for aggregates in concrete has been investigated. Two different types of waste
polymer, namely Polyurethane Formaldehyde (PUF) based packaging waste and high density
polyethylene were recycled and used in the experiment. Concrete and masonry poly block
specimens were prepared using recycled polymer materials, and test specimens were
characterized. The effect of waste polymer materials on the mechanical, physical and properties
of concrete and poly blocks has been investigated. The results show that the inclusion of waste
polymer materials decrease density, porosity and water absorption of concrete and poly blocks
significantly.
It clearly suggest that using recycled waste polymetric materials as substitute for aggregates
decreases the compressive strength of concrete, whereas the compressive strength increases if it
is used as fibers to arrest cracks.
Ing Lim et al. (2012) carried the experimental investigation on the effect of Ground Granulated
Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) on the mechanical behavior of polyvinyl alcohol fiber reinforced
engineered cementitious composites. In this study authors have used GGBS with 20 and 40% of
partial replacement of cement. It is reported that the compressive strength is increased by 43%
compared to the nominal mix without GGBS. This experimental study concluded that the effect
of ground granulate blast furnace slag replacement not only increased the strength but also
created a better fiber bridging property.
Salahaldein (2012) conducted the experimental investigations on the effects of super plasticizing
admixture on fresh and hardened properties of concrete. In this experimental study, the
percentage dosages of admixture are 0.6, 0.8, 1.0 and 1.2 in the concrete. At 28 days, the
16
compressive strength of concrete with 1% of admixture is more than the controlled concrete i.e.
without admixture. It is also reported that, when the dosages of admixture is beyond 1%, the
compressive strength of concrete reduces. This phenomenon occurs since over dosage of super
plasticizing admixture will cause bleeding and segregation.
Vijaya Sarathy and Dhinakaran (2013) on ROBO sand usage in concrete, the compressive
strength results shows decreasing trend of 40, 60 and 80% replacement levels with the fine
aggregate. Rahamat and Reza (2013) investigated the mechanical properties of concrete
containing waste Glass Powder (GP) and Rice Husk Ash (RHA) as partial replacement of cement
in the concrete. They performed entire experimental investigations with the combination of both
glass powder and rice husk ash like 5% GP and 5% RHA, 5% GP and 10% RHA etc. and
compared with the control mix having compressive strength 45MPa.They found that the optimal
combination based on 28 days compressive strength is 10% GP and 5% RHA.
Arkan Radi Ali (2013) conducted the experiments on the use of polypropylene fibers in the
concrete. 2% of fibers in the concrete were used in this study. The compressive strength is
increasing as the fiber content increases in the concrete. The compressive strength of concrete
has been increased by 19% and 14.3% in 7 days and 28 days respectively. It is observed that the
addition of fibers enhances the mechanical performance of concrete.
From the literature, it clearly shows that, there is a need to study the usage of locally available
materials to supplement (as partial replacement) for cement and aggregates in the concrete. Also
an admixture is to be identified with proper dosage for concrete to attain sufficient strength and
durability.
17
2.3 STRESS – STRAIN BEHAVIOR OF CONCRETE
A simple equation proposed for the stress strain curve for the concrete (Desayi and Krishnan,
1964) in compression for the both ascending and descending portion of the curve. Saenz et al
(1964) discussed the on the desayi and krishnan proposed equation and they proposed another
euation based on the desayi model. They found that the good agreement between the
experimental values and predicted values from the equation.
Empirical models of stress-strain relationships for normal weight high strength concrete (HSC)
can be divided into two categories according to their expressional forms. One category is based
on equations suggested by Popovics (1973) and the other category uses a form of equations
proposed by Sargin et al. (1971), which are, respectively, listed in Tables 2.1 and 2.2.
Table: 2.1 Stress-Strain Models for Concrete Based on Popovics model
Researchers Equations
/
Popovics
735
. 10 ; 1.0 0.058
1 /

(1973)
#% &/&
#% &/&
()*&/& 0 - - ; ()*&/& /
Tomaszewicz
$ ' $ '

+ ,
.+ ,
(1984)
' '
700
.0) 10 ; 8.32⁄8.32
.23 ; 5 /20
/
1.680 7.1

10 ;
1 /

Carreira and
Chu (1985)
1⁄1 / 789
:;< 789 0.0736).)
.0
18
; /
⁄65.23

0 2.59 0 - - ?
; 1 /
=
Hsu and Hsu
(1994)
@ 0 - - , ; 1; @ - - ? , ; 1 B 0 C C 62 DE:;
; 2 B 62 - C 76 DE:; ; 3 B 76 - C 90 DE: :;<
; 5 B F 90 DE:
/ ? , 0.3GH0.8⁄ ? ⁄
.
/
0 - - ,
1 /

Wee et al.
(1996)
5) /
/ , 1⁄1 ⁄ 789

5) 1 /
IJ
) )
780
2 10 ; 789 10200
0 ;
5) 50⁄
0 ; 5 50⁄
).0
Table: 2.2 Stress-Strain Models for concrete based on Sargin et al. model
K⁄
L 1
⁄

Researchers Equations

1 K 2
⁄
L⁄

Sargin et al.
(1971)
K 789 ⁄ ; L 0.65 7.25 100 ; 789 5975M ; 0.0024
K⁄
P⁄

Wang et al.
O R
1 Q ⁄
L⁄

(1978)
789 ⁄7

⁄
⁄

0 - - STU ,
1 789 ⁄7 2
⁄

Van Gysel
and Taerwe
/ STU , ′V [X1 ⁄0 1

⁄Y:G ⁄0 1
Z
(1996)
19
7B^ ⁄270
1 7B^ ⁄270
12 1
1/2
STU 0 \] _ `
2 4 2
789 21500ab ⁄10

)/0 ; 700
.0) 10
,
= coordinates of any point in the stress-strain curve
= unconfined concrete compressive strength
Eit = initial tangent modulus of elasticity; Eo = secant modulus at peak stress
k, k1, and k2 = correction factors; n, β = material parameters; w = concrete unit weight;
ab = coarse aggregate coefficient (1.20 for basalt, dense limestone aggregates, 1.00 for quartzite
aggregates, 0.90 for limestone aggregates and 0.70 for sandstone aggregates)
? = strain corresponds to a stress value of 0.3 in the descending part of the stress-strain
curve;
STU = Concrete strain when concrete stress is equal to 0.5 on the descending part of the
stress - strain curve;
= Peak strain of unconfined concrete strength and c = Coefficient.
The complete stress strain behavior of steel fiber reinforced concrete studied by Sameer et al
(1992) the concrete compressive strength ranging from 35 MPa to 85 MPa. In the experimental
investigations, three fiber volume fractions of 30 kg/m3, 45 kg/m3, and 60 kg/m3 and three aspect
ratios of 60, 75, and 100 are investigated. They have proposed a simple equation to predict the
complete stress strain curve and the proposed equation provides a good correlation between
predicted and experimental results.
20

#
#
1 d e
#
Where #

= compressive strength of fiber concrete
# = strain corresponding to the compressive strength
, = stress and strain values on the curve
1.093 78=# 102 9.610jk

.l
.32bfgh
)i
RI = Reinforcing Index
78=# Slope at the inflection point of descending branch of the stress strain curve
Mansur et al (1997) conducted experiments to predict the stress strain behavior of confined high
strength and fiber concrete. The test parameters include tie diameter, tie spacing, concrete core
area, and casting direction of specimens. The results indicate that the initial tangent modulus and
initial Poisson's ratio of the concrete are not affected by confinement. The confinement enhances
both the peak stress and strain at peak stress. The confined fiber concrete exhibits larger strain at
peak stress and have higher post peak ductility. Based on test data, an analytical model is
proposed to generate the complete stress-strain curves of high-strength concrete confined by
lateral ties. The proposed model has been found to agree well with the stress-strain curves
generated experimentally. The ascending portion of curve is given by
q t
o o 1
"
"
p s "
o 1 d " e o 1
n r " 789
Where and = concrete stress and strain; and = material parameter
" = Strength of confined concrete " = Strain at peak stress of confined concrete
Similarly for the descending portion of curve is given with two correction factors k1 and k2
21
q t
o 5) o 1
"
"
p IJ s "
o5) 1 d " e o 1
n r 789
"
For confined non-fiber concrete k1 and k2 is given by
vw x vw x
5) 2.77 u y :;< 5 2.19 u y 0.17

For confined fiber concrete is given by
vw x vw x
5) 3.33 u y 0.12 :;< 5 1.62 u y 0.35

vw is the volumetric ratio of confining steel; and is the peak stress of unconfined concrete.
Zhao-Hui Lu and Yan-Gang Zhao (2010), developed a new empirical model with emphasis on
the softening branch is proposed to generate the complete stress-strain relationship for high
strength concrete based on the published experimental data. The proposed equation is given by
789 ⁄7

⁄
⁄

1 789 ⁄7 2
⁄

Where ,
= coordinates of any point in the stress-strain curve;
Unconfined concrete compressive strength; 789 = initial tangent modulus of elasticity;
7 = secant modulus at peak stress 7 ⁄ ;
= peak strain of unconfined concrete strength
Giriprasad (2012) conducted the experiments on stress strain behavior of high strength self-
compacting concrete. The proposed equation is in the form of z KG⁄1 PG
22
From the studies on stress - strain behavior of concrete, there is need to develop the stress - strain
relationships for the proposed concrete mix with supplementary materials as partial replacement
of cement and fine aggregate along with fibers.
2.4 DURABILITY OF CONCRETE
An important engineering property of concrete is durability. It determines the service life of
concrete structures significantly. Durability of concrete is very important especially when it is
exposed to marine environments, sulphate and hydrochloric acids etc.
Vladimir Zivica and Adolf Bajza (2001, 2002 and 2004) clearly said the principle of acid attack,
factors of rate of acidic attack and protection measures and Methods of testing. Al-Tamimi and
Sonebi (2003) studied the self-compacting concrete exposed to acidic solutions. They
investigated the acid resistance of Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) and Conventional Concrete
(CC), immersed up to 18 weeks at 20°C in sulfuric and hydrochloric acid solutions. They found
that the SCC performed better than the conventional concrete in sulfuric solution but was slightly
more vulnerable to hydrochloric acid attack compared to conventional concrete.
Vladimir Zivica (2006) studied the long-term effect on the action of various organic substances
on the cement-based material. The result shows the different aggressiveness of solutions of
phenols, carboxylic acids and sulphonic compounds. Petroleum and mineral oil have been shown
as unaggressive media. It is observed that increased expansions followed by crack propagation at
the action of acidic media were adjudged to the cooperation of the mechanism of acidic attack
and dispersive effect of surface activity of organic substances.
23
Hanifi Binici (2006) investigated the sulfate resistance of plain and blended cement using GGBS
and natural pozzolan. It was observed that the sulfate resistances of blended cements were
significantly higher both against sodium sulfate and magnesium sulfate attacks than references
cement. Final strength reductions for finer mixes attacked by magnesium sulfate were marginally
lower than those attacked by sodium sulfate.
Nabil (2006) studied the durability of Metakaolin (MK) concrete to sulphate attack. The degree
of sulfate attack was evaluated by measuring expansion of concrete prisms, compressive strength
reduction of concrete cubes, and visual inspection of concrete specimens to cracks. The study
showed that MK replacement of cement increased the sulfate resistance of concrete. The sulfate
resistance of MK concrete increased with increasing the MK replacement level. The sulfate
resistance of MK concrete at water binder ratio (w/b) of 0.5 was found higher than that at w/b
ratio of 0.6.
Serdar Aydın et al (2007) conducted the experiments on sulfuric acid resistance of high volume
fly ash concrete. Under standard curing conditions, the strength values of high-volume fly ash
concretes were satisfactory. Test results indicate that sulfuric acid resistance of steam-cured
concrete has improved significantly by incorporation of fly ash and long-term strength values
decreased significantly for concrete mixtures.
Murthi and Sivakumar (2008) conducted the experiments on acid resistance of ternary blended
concrete (20% fly ash and 8% silica fume) immersed up to 32 weeks in sulfuric acid and hydro
chloric acid. They found that the ternary blended concrete prepared by 20% fly ash and 8% silica
fume performed better acid resistance than the ordinary plain concrete and binary blended concrete.
24
Martin (2012) studied the performance of concrete incorporating GGBS in aggressive waste
water environments. The cement has been replaced by 50 and 70% with GGBS in this
experimental study. Sulfate expansion study and sulfuric acid tests are conducted in this study. It
was concluded in respect of sulfate attack that resistance of Portland cement binders is greatly
enhanced by the use of high quantities of GGBS.
Bassel Hanayneh et al. (2012) investigated the effect of micro silica, water proofer and super
plasticizer on the durability of concrete to phosphoric acid attack. The degree of acid attack was
evaluated by measuring the percentage changes in weight of concrete cubes. The results showed
that the combined effect of micro silica and water proofer was the best to enhance the durability
of concrete to phosphoric acid attack.
Sesha Phani et al (2013), conducted experiment on the effects of mineral admixtures on the
durability properties of high strength self-compacting concrete. They have prepared 100mm
cubes and immersed in the 10% acidic solution. The experimental result shows that, there is
considerable weight loss and compressive strength loss of concrete cubes immersed in acidic
solution.
Sunil pratap reddy et al (2010, 2013), investigated the durability performance of bacterial
concrete. Durability studies reveal the percentage weight reduction and percentage strength loss
when cubes are immersed in 5% HCl indicating that bacterial concrete has less weight reduction
and strength loss than the conventional concrete.
25
Based on the above studies it is desirable to have an experimental investigation, on durability of
the concrete, whether it is normal or modified concrete, having partial or full supplementary
materials for cement and aggregates. Further the concrete with fibers of non-bio degradable
waste to be checked for acid attacks.
2.5 NEED FOR THE STUDY
From the entire literature, there is a scope to look after the supplementary materials for cement,
fine aggregate and coarse aggregate in the concrete as a partial replacement. If these
supplementary materials are from industrial waste, then this will reduce the environmental
concerns also. Based on the above study the following objectives are identified to carry an
experimental investigation and analysis.
(i) Identify the material from industrial wastes which can be partially replaced with
cement and fine aggregate.
(ii) Detailed study of strength properties of concrete with these supplementary materials.
(iii) Formulation of stress- strain behavior of concrete with supplementary materials.
(iv) Durability studies of concrete with supplementary materials.
26
27
CHAPTER 3
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
Concrete is a highly durable and most frequently used human-made material in the world.
Concrete is a conglomerate material composed of three essential elements. The three elements
include some type of cementitious material, most often – cement, water, with which the
cementitious material will react and fillers or some material which will occupy considerable
volume, most often aggregate. Concrete is inexpensive, readily moulded into complicated shapes
and has adequate compressive strength and stiffness.
There are two varieties of concretes namely Plain Cement Concrete (PCC) and Reinforced
Cement Concrete (RCC). The ingredients of Plain Cement Concrete are cement, aggregate and
water. PCC is very good in compression but weak in tension. To overcome this, structural
members are provided with reinforcement for example steel bars This chapter mainly focused on
the material properties used in the concrete, mix design, properties of fresh and hardened
concrete.
3.2 MATERIALS
Cement, fine aggregate (sand), coarse aggregate water and admixtures are the essential
ingredients of the concrete.
3.2.1 Cement: Cement is a binding material in the concrete. The main functions of cement are
1. Fill up the voids existing in the fine aggregate and make concrete impermeable.
2. It provides the strength to the concrete on setting and hardening.
28
3. It binds the aggregates into solid mass by virtue of its setting and hardening properties
when mixed with water.
There are wide varieties of cements available in the market and each type is used under certain
conditions due its special properties.
The use of additives, changing chemical composition and use of different raw materials have
resulted in the availability of many types of cements to cater the need of the construction
industries for the specific purposes. These cements are classified as Portland cements and non-
Portland cements. The distinction is mainly based on the method of manufacture (Shetty, 2008).
Types:
1. Ordinary Portland cement (33, 43 and 53 grades)
2. Rapid hardening cement (IS 8041: 1990)
3. Sulphate resisting cement (IS 12330:1988)
4. Portland slag cement (IS 455:1989)
5. Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) (IS 1489:1991)
6. High alumina cement (IS 6452: 1989)
7. Concrete sleeper grade cement (IRS-T 40: 1985)
ASTM Classification of Cement:
As per American Society for Testing Materials (ASTM) the cement is designated as Type I to V
(ASTM C150).
Type I: used for the general construction purposes
Type II: used concrete construction is exposed to moderate sulphate action or moderate heat of
hydration is required.
Type III: used to get high early strength
29
Type IV: Used when low heat of hydration is required
Type V: Used when high sulphate resistance required
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) of 43 grade is used in the experimental analysis. Cement is
procured from Zuari industries. The physical and chemical properties of four different samples of
cement are given in the tables 3.1 to 3.3.
Table: 3.1 Physical and Chemical Properties of Cement Sample No.1

Physical properties # Test Results Limits as per IS 8112 - 1989
Fineness (m2/Kg) 296 225 minimum
(Specific Surface)
Initial Setting Time (minutes) 140 30 minimum
Final Setting Time (minutes) 245 600 maximum
Soundness
By Le-chatelier 1.50 mm 10mm maximum
By Auto Clave 0.04% 0.8% maximum
Compressive Strength (MPa)
3 days 32 23 minimum
7 days 41.3 33 minimum
Chemical Properties #
.
0.89 0.66 to1.02 Max
LSF .
.
.
AM ( ⁄ ) 1.26 0.66 minimum

Insoluble Residue (% by Mass) 1.20 3
Magnesia (% by Mass) 1.30 6 maximum
Sulphuric Anhydrate (By Mass) 2.18 3 maximum
Total Loss in Ignition (%) 1.56 5 maximum
Total Chlorides (%) 0.012 0.05 maximum
# Courtesy ZUARI Industries
30
(Specific Surface)
Soundness
By Le-chatelier 3.5 10mm maximum
.
0.90 0.66 to1.02 Max
LSF .
.
.
AM ( ⁄ ) 1.20 0.66 minimum


(Specific Surface)
Soundness
By Le-chatelier 2.0 10mm maximum
31
.
0.90 0.66 to1.02 Max
LSF
. .
.
AM ( ⁄ ) 1.24 0.66 minimum

3.2.2 Aggregates: Aggregates are important constituents of concrete. The aggregates occupy 70
to 80% of the volume of concrete and their impact on various characteristics and properties of
concrete is considerable. Aggregates can be classified based on sources like natural and artificial
aggregates. The natural aggregates are sand, gravel, crushed rock such as granite, quartzite,
basalt etc. whereas the artificial aggregates are broken brick, air cooled slag, sintered fly ash,
bloated clay etc. The aggregate can also be classified on the basis of the size of the aggregates as
Fine aggregate and Coarse aggregate. The size of the aggregate bigger than 4.75 mm is
considered as Coarse Aggregate and aggregate whose size is 4.75 mm and less is considered as
Fine aggregate.
3.2.2.1 Fine aggregate: Generally river sand is considered as fine aggregate in the concrete.
Sand consists of small angular/rounded grains of silica. The main functions of the fine
aggregates are:
32
1. Sand fills the voids existing in the coarse aggregate.
2. It reduces the shrinkage and cracking of concrete.
3. By varying the proportion of sand, concrete can be prepared economically for required
strength.
4. Sand helps in hardening of cement by allowing the water through its voids.
5. To form hard mass of silicates, due to some chemical reaction between silica of sand and
the constituents of cement.
The following precautions must be take care while selecting the aggregate:
1. It should consist of coarse, angular, sharp and hard grains.
2. It must be clean and free from coatings of clay and silt.
3. It should not contain any organic matter.
4. It should be free from hygroscopic salts.
5. It should be chemically inert.
6. It must be strong and durable.
7. The size of the sand grains should pass through 4.75mm IS sieve and should be entirely
retained on 75 micron IS sieve.
Locally available river sand from Karimnagar, Andhra Pradesh, which is free from organic
impurities, is used in the experiments. The specific gravity of sand is 2.62 and water adsorption
is 0.3%. The sieve analysis results of three different samples of sand are given in tables 3.4 to
3.6.
33
Quantity of sample 1: 1000gm
Table: 3.4 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregate Sample No.1

IS Sieve Weight %of weight Cumulative % % of Limits as per IS
retained retained of weight passing 383-1970 IS
retained 2386-1963
10 0 0 0 100 100
4.75 47 4.7 4.7 95.3 90 – 100
2.36 89 8.9 13.6 86.4 75 – 100
1.18 123 12.3 25.9 74.1 55 – 90
600 303 30.3 56.2 43.8 35 – 59
300 241 24.1 80.3 19.7 8 – 30
150 173 17.3 97.6 2.4 0 – 10
Total cumulative % of weight retained 278.3
Results: The sample is in zone II within limits

Fineness modulus: Total cumulative % of weight retained/100 = 2.78
Quantity of sample 2: 1000 gm

IS Sieve Weight %of weight Cumulative % % of Limits as per IS
retained retained of weight passing 383-1970 IS
retained 2386-1963
10 0 0 0 100 100
4.75 66.4 6.64 6.64 93.36 90 – 100
2.36 126.1 12.61 19.25 80.75 75 – 100
1.18 122.5 12.25 31.5 68.5 55 – 90
600 235 23.5 55 45 35 – 59
300 326 32.6 87.6 12.4 8 – 30
150 124 12.4 100 0 0 – 10
34
Quantity of sample: 1000 gm

IS Sieve Weight % of weight Cumulative % % of Limits as per IS
retained (gm) retained of weight passing 383-1970 IS
retained 2386-1963
10 0 0 0 100 100
4.75 11 1.1 1.1 98.9 90 – 100
2.36 66 6.6 7.7 92.3 75 – 100
1.18 287 28.7 36.4 63.6 55 – 90
600 379 37.9 74.3 25.7 35 – 59
300 230 23.0 97.3 2.7 8 – 30
150 20 2.0 99.3 0.7 0 – 10

3.2.2.2 Coarse aggregate: Crushed stone, gravel and broken bricks are some of the materials
used as coarse aggregate in the concrete depending on the situation. The functions of the coarse
aggregate is given below
1. It makes solid and hard mass of concrete with cement and sand.
2. Coarse aggregate increases the crushing strength of concrete.
3. It reduces the cost of concrete, since it occupies major volume.
The coarse aggregates used in this experimental investigation are 20 mm & 12 mm size, crushed
and angular in shape. The aggregates are free from dust. The specific gravity of coarse aggregate
35
is 2.65 and water adsorption is 0.3%. The sieve analysis results of three different samples of
coarse aggregate are given in tables 3.7 to 3.9.
Quantity of sample 1: 5000 gm (20 mm size)
Table: 3.7 Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregate Sample No.1

Cumulative % Limits as per
IS Weight % weight
weight % passing IS 383 – 1970
Sieve retained retained
retained IS 2386 – 1963
80 0 0 0 100 100
40 0 0 0 100 100
20 936 18.72 18.72 81.2 85– 100
10 4044 80.88 99.6 0.4 0 – 20
4.75 20 0.4 100 0 0–5
2.36 0 0 100 0 0
1.18 0 0 100 0 0
600 0 0 100 0 0
300 0 0 100 0 0
150 0 0 100 0 0
Total cumulative % of weight
718.32
retained

IS Weight %of Cumulative % of Limits as per IS
Sieve retained weight % of weight passing 383 – 1970 IS
retained retained 2386 – 1963
80 0 0 0 100 100
40 0 0 0 100 100
20 813 16.26 16.26 83.74 85 – 100
10 4152 83.04 99.3 0.7 0 – 20
36
4.75 35 0.7 100 0 0–5
2.36 0 0 100 0 0
1.18 0 0 100 0 0
600 0 0 100 0 0
300 0 0 100 0 0
150 0 0 100 0 0
Total cumulative % of weight 715.56
retained

Cumulative % Limits as per IS
Weight % weight
IS Sieve weight % passing 383 – 1970 IS
retained retained
retained 2386 – 1963
80 0 0 0 100 100
40 0 0 0 100 100
20 790 15.8 15.8 84.2 85– 100
10 3970 79.4 95.2 4.8 0 – 20
4.75 240 4.8 100 0 0–5
2.36 0 0 100 0 0
1.18 0 0 100 0 0
600 0 0 100 0 0
300 0 0 100 0 0
150 0 0 100 0 0
Total cumulative % of weight
711
retained
37
3.2.3 Water: Water plays a vital role in the mixing, laying, compaction, setting and hardening
of concrete. The strength of concrete directly depends on the quantity and quality of water used
in the mix. The main uses of the water in the concrete are listed below:
1. Water wets the surface of the aggregates.
2. It facilitates the spreading of cement over the fine aggregate.
3. Water acts as a lubricant for the aggregate and makes the mix workable.
4. Water is only the ingredient that reacts chemically with cement (hydration of cement) and
thus setting and hardening of cement takes place.
The following precautions were taken while selecting the water
1. Water should be fresh and clean.
2. It should be free from organic impurities, harmful salts, greasy and oil substances.
Water samples were collected from bore well (BITS, Pilani – Hyderabad Campus) and its
properties are shown in tables 3.10 and 3.11.
Table: 3.10 Water Sample 1 Test Results

Limits as per
S. No. Parameter Results
IS 456 – 2000
1 pH 6.3 6.5 – 8.5
2 Chlorides (mg/l) 45 2000 (PCC); 500 (RCC)
3 Alkalinity (ml) 6 < 25
4 Sulphates (mg/l) 105 400
5 Florides (mg/l) 0.04 1.5
6 Organic Solids (mg/l) 43 200
7 Inorganic Solids (mg/l) 115 3000
38
Table: 3.11 Water Sample 2 Test Results
Limits as per code
S. No Parameter Results
IS 456 – 2000
1 pH 6.33 6.5 – 8.5
2 Chlorides (mg/l) 30 2000 (PCC); 500 (RCC)
3 Alkalinity (ml) 5 < 25
4 Sulphates (mg/l) 121 400
5 Florides (mg/l) 0.02 1.5
6 Organic Solids (mg/l) 40 200
7 Inorganic Solids (mg/l) 120 3000
3.3 MIX DESIGN
Mix design is the process of selecting suitable ingredients of the concrete and determining their
proportions with object of producing concrete of certain maximum strength and durability as
economical as possible. The concrete mix is designed as per IS 10262 – 2009, IS 456-2000 and
SP 23. Target mean strength for M25 grade concrete is 33.25 N/mm2. Target mean strength for
M30 grade concrete is 38.25 N/mm2. Table – 3.12 and 3.13 represents the mix proportion
quantities for one cubic meter and cement bag.
Table: 3.12 Mix Proportion Quantities M25 concrete
For one cum of

Mix Constituents
concrete (Kg)
Cement 327
Water 147
Fine aggregate 723
Coarse aggregate 1246
39
Admixture 3.270
Water cement ratio 0.45
Workability in mm after 45 min 85
3days average compressive strength (N/mm2) 23.41
Table: 3.13 Mix Proportion Quantities M30 concrete
For one m3 of
Mix Constituents
concrete (kg)
Cement 350
Water 147
Fine aggregate 704
Coarse aggregate 1245
Admixture 3.5
Water cement ratio 0.42
Workability in mm after 45 min (Slump cone) 90
40
3.4 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM
The proportioning of quantity of both cement and aggregate is done by weight as per the
concrete mix design. The water and the admixture are measured by volume. All measuring
equipments were maintained in clean serviceable condition with their accuracy periodically
checked. The workability tests are carried out immediately after mixing of concrete using the
slump cone test. The specimens are used according to the specification laid down in IS 516:1959.
Standard cast iron cube moulds of size 150x150x150mm, cylinder moulds of size 150X300mm
and beam size for flexure test is 100X100X500mm are used in the preparation of test specimens.
The moulds have been cleaned to remove dust particles and applied with mineral oil on all sides
before the concrete is poured into the mould. The admixture is mixed with the constituents of
concrete at the time of adding water. Full blending of the admixture and the concrete is ensured
by mixing for a period of at least two minutes. Thoroughly mixed concrete is filled into the
mould and compacted in three equal layers. Excess concrete is removed with trowel after proper
compaction and top surface is smoothened. Overdose may also cause increase in air entrainment,
which will tend to reduce the strength of the mix. After casting, the specimens are stored in the
laboratory with room temperature for 24 hours from the time of addition of water to the
ingredients. After this period, the specimens are removed from the moulds and immediately
submerged in the clean and fresh water tank. The specimens are cured for 28 days.
3.5 PROPERTIES OF HARDENED CONCRETE
The properties of hardend concrete depends on the mix proportions, curing conditions and
environment. The strength of concrete is basically referred to compressive strength of concrete
and it depends on cement paste strength, interfacial bonding and aggregate strength. This
41
strength can be affected by the water cement ratio, type of ingredients, mix proportions, curing,
temperature and age of concrete.
3.5.1 Compressive strength of concrete: Compressive strength is one of the most important and
useful properties of concrete in most of the structural applications. Compressive strength of
concrete is calculated by dividing load by area of the specimens. Generally cube size
150X150X150 mm size samples are used for finding the compressive strength.
! "/$
Where fc = Compressive strength of concrete
P = Compressive load at failure in N or KN
a = Cross sectional area of the cube in mm2
3.5.2 Split tensile strength of concrete: Direct tension tests of concrete are seldom carried out,
mainly because the specimen holding device introduce secondary stresses that cannot be ignored.
The most commonly used tests for estimating the tensile strengths of concrete are the ASTM
C496 (IS 5816 – 1999) splitting tensile strength. The 150Φ and 300mm long cylindrical
specimen is subjected to compression loads along two axial lines which are diametrically
opposite. The load is applied continuously at a constant rate until the specimen fails. The
compressive stress produces a transverse tensile stress, which is uniform along the vertical
diameter. The splitting tensile strength is computed by the formula:
2"
% !
'(
42
Where ft = Split tensile strength of concrete
P = Compressive load at failure in N or KN
d = Diameter of the cylinder specimen in mm
l = Length of the cylinder specimen in mm
3.5.3 Flexural strength of concrete: The flexural strength is more important than the
compressive strength in the design of concrete mixes to be used in the construction of roads and
airport pavements. The flexural strength of concrete is determined by subjecting a plain concrete
beam to flexure under transverse loads. The theoretical maximum tensile stress reached in the
bottom fiber of a standard test beam is often referred to as the modulus of rupture. The
magnitude of which depends on the dimensions of the beam and the type of loading. The beam is
tested using load frame of 20 KN capacity. The bed of the testing machine is provided with two
steel rollers on which the specimen is supported. The distance between these rollers is kept at
40cm. The load is applied through two similar rollers mounded at the third point of the
supporting span that are spaced 13.33 cm apart. The load is applied to the two rollers through
another roller contact with the top face of the machine.
The specimen is placed in such a manner that the load is applied without shock. The axis of the
specimen is carefully aligned with the axis of the loading frame. The rate of loading 180kg/min
i.e. extreme fiber stress increases at approximately 0.07 kg/mm2/min. The load is divided equally
between the two loading rollers. The load is increase until the specimen fails and the maximum
load applied at failure is calculated.
Also the central deflections are noted with the help of a deflectometer until failure of the
specimen corresponding to the loads at an interval of 20 divisions on proving ring.
43
)*+$ ,-+./-0 1 2 3 ! "⁄4( 50. $ ! 13.3389 -: 26.689
)*+$ ,-+./-0 1 2 3 ! 3"$⁄4( 50. $ ! 11.089 -: 13.3389
Where P = Maximum load at failure in N or KN
l = Length of the specimen in mm (50 cm)

b and d = breadth and depth of specimens (10 cm X 10 cm)
a = Distance between the line of fracture and the nearer support, measure on the
center line of the tensile side of the specimen.
44
Fig.3.1 Concrete cube during testing
Fig. 3.2 Concrete in flexural strength Fig. 3.3 Concrete cubes after Failure
Fig: 3.4 Experimental setup for the flexure test
45
46
CHAPTER 4
CONCRETE WITH CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES
4.1 INTRODUCTION
Admixtures are chemical compounds in the form of powder or fluids that are added to the
concrete to get certain characteristics not obtainable with plain concrete mixes. Admixtures are
added to the concrete mix before or during mixing to modify one or more properties of fresh
and/or hardened concrete. The properties of concrete commonly modified are rate of hydration
or setting times, workability, dispersion and air entrainment (Gambhir, 2008). Most of the
admixtures are supplied in ready to use liquid form and are added to concrete in small quantities.
The effectiveness of an admixture depends on several factors including type and quantity of
cement, water content, mixing time, slump, temperatures of concrete and air.
Admixtures are used for the following purposes:
1. increase the workability
2. improve flow ability and pumpability of concrete
3. increase the strength of concrete
Admixtures are two types
1. Chemical admixtures
2. Mineral admixtures
Chemical admixtures that have been used in concrete mixes are numerous and include chemicals
to entrain air, accelerate/retard setting times, reduce amount of mixing water, etc.
47
Mineral admixtures are Fly Ash, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), Micro Silica
and Metakaolin, etc.
The concrete is prepared at batching plant and transported to the site of construction by transient
mixers. The time varies from site to site based upon the distance and pumping conditions, etc.
Generally it varies from 1 hour to 10hours. The present study has been carried to test the
workability and compressive strength of the concrete by using three different admixtures. A
comparative analysis of these admixtures is made.
4.2 ADMIXTURES
To improve the pumpability of concrete, three different types of admixtures namely Sulphonated
Naphthalene Polymer (SNP) 1, SNP 2 and SNP 3 are considered. These selected admixtures are
chloride free. Table 4.1 specifies the properties of these admixtures.
4.2.1 SNP 1: It is a super-plasticizing admixture based on selected sulphonated naphthalene
polymers. It disperses the fine particles in the concrete mix, enabling the water content of the
concrete to perform more effectively. The water reduction is possible with SNP 1, which also
increases the strength of the concrete mix.
4.2.2 SNP 2: It is an highly effective dual action liquid super plasticizer for the production of
free flowing concrete or as a substantial water-reducing agent for promoting high early ultimate
strength. This consists of aqueous solution of anionic formaldehyde - polycondensate,
naphthalene sulphonic acid and sodium salt. It decreases the amount of vibration period for
compaction required, normal setting without retardation and reduces risk of segregation.
4.2.3 SNP 3: It has lingosulphonate base. It is suitable for high performance concrete to produce
pumpable concrete. The workability increases without extra water. It improves cohesion,
minimizes segregation and gives better finish.
48
Table: 4.1 Properties of Admixtures
S. No. Test Parameter SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3

1 pH 7.60 7.69 7.8
2 Specific gravity 1.20 1.189 1.179
3 Solid Content (%) 42.16 36 33.54
Brown Dark Brown Brown
4 Appearance
liquid liquid liquid
4.2.4 Sample preparation
The concrete mix is designed as per IS 10262 – 2009, IS 456-2000 and SP 23. Target mean
strength for M25 grade concrete is 33.25 MPa. Target mean strength for M30 grade concrete is
38.25 MPa. The quantity of admixture is taken as 1% by weight of cement. Standard cast iron
cube moulds of size 150x150x150 mm are used in the preparation of concrete cubes. The
admixture is mixed with the constituents of concrete at the time of adding water. Full blending of
the admixture and the concrete is ensured by mixing for a period of at least two minutes. Before
casting the cubes, slump test is performed. The results of this slump test are given in the Table
4.2. After casting, the cube specimens are stored in the laboratory at room temperature for 24
hours from the time of addition of water to the ingredients. After this period, the specimens are
removed from the moulds, immediately submerged in the clean and fresh water tank for curing.
Three samples of each admixture are tested for 7 and 28 days compressive strength. Figure 4.1 to
4.4 shows the preparation and testing of cubes.
49
Fig. 4.1 Sample Preparation
Fig. 4.2 Cubes after curing
Fig. 4.3 Compression Testing Machine
50
Fig. 4.4 Concrete Cubes after testing
4.3 RESULTS & DISCUSSIONS
The experiments are conducted for M25 and M30 design concrete mixes. The slump and
compressive strength of concrete cubes are presented and a comparative analysis is made.
4.3.1 M25 concrete
Slump tests are conducted for all samples of concrete without and with admixtures (SNP 1, SNP
2 and SNP 3). The results are given below Table.4.2.
Table: 4.2 Slump test results for M25 concrete
Without
Samples SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
admixture
1 75 90 60 90
2 85 100 70 90
3 50 60 70 95
4 65 70 60 95
5 50 60 70 94
6 60 70 70 90
7 60 60 60 90
8 70 65 60 89
9 70 90 90 89
Average 65.00 73.89 67.78 91.33
Maximum 85 100 90 95
Minimum 50 60 60 89
SD 11.46 15.37 9.72 2.55
51
The maximum and minimum slumps are 85 and 50 mm respectively with an average slump of
68.75 mm for concrete without admixture. The maximum and minimum slumps of concrete with
SNP 1 admixture are 100 and 60 mm respectively, with an average slump of 73.5 mm. The
maximum and minimum slumps of concrete by using SNP 2 admixture are 90 and 60 mm
respectively. The average slump is 70 mm.
The maximum and minimum slumps of concrete by using SNP 3 admixture are 95 and 89 mm
respectively. The average slump is 91.2mm. It is observed that among the admixtures, SNP 3
gives better slump when compared to other two admixtures. The degree of workability of the
concrete is medium as per the IS 456 – 2000.
Table: 4.3 Compressive strength test results for M25 concrete
without admixture SNP1 SNP 2 SNP 3

S. No. 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days
1 18.96 28.44 25.1 36.42 26.95 36.62 22.79 37.12
2 19.4 29.48 24.88 36.14 26.81 36.72 23.18 37.06
3 18.81 28.88 25.03 35.7 27.99 36.45 22.81 36.91
4 18.66 29.47 27.7 36.68 26.95 36.18 23.01 36.89
5 18.81 27.4 27.7 36.49 26.96 36.93 22.71 37.08
6 21.54 28.73 27.1 34.92 29.33 36.12 22.81 36.78
7 21.81 25.1 26.97 36.44 29.18 36.78 22.68 37.05
8 22.37 26.96 26.06 36.88 26.21 36.29 22.59 36.75
9 19.41 27.7 25.1 34.1 24.73 34.92 22.98 36.91
Average 19.97 28.02 26.18 35.97 27.23 36.33 22.84 36.95
Maximum 22.37 29.48 27.7 36.88 29.33 36.93 23.18 37.12
Minimum 18.66 25.1 24.88 34.1 24.73 34.92 22.59 36.75
SD 1.49 1.40 1.20 0.92 1.44 0.60 0.18 0.13
The maximum, minimum and average 7 and 28 days compressive strengths without admixtures
are 22.37, 18.66, 19.97 and 29.48, 25.1, 28.02 MPa respectively, which are presented in Table
4.3. The maximum, minimum and average 7 and 28 days compressive strength of concrete cubes
52
with SNP 1 admixture are 27.7, 24.88, 26.18 and 36.88, 34.1, 35.97 MPa respectively (Table
4.3).
The maximum, minimum and average 7 days compressive strength of concrete cubes with SNP
2 admixture are 29.33, 24.73, 27.23 MPa and with that of 28 days are 36.93, 34.92 and 36.33
MPa respectively (Table 4.3). The maximum, minimum and average 7 days compressive
strengths for SNP 3 admixture are 23.18, 22.59 and 22.84 MPa and with that of 28 days are
37.12, 36.75 and 36.95 MPa respectively (Table 4.3).
50
Without Admixture SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
40
30
20
10
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Samples
Fig. 4.5 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete with and without Admixtures.
From the Fig. 4.5, it is observed that 28 days compressive strengths of the concrete are varying
abnormally in case of SNP 1 when compared to SNP 2 and SNP 3 admixtures. Design concrete
mix M25 with SNP3 admixture gives more consistent and uniform values of compressive
strength when compared to SNP 2, SNP 1.
53
4.3.2 M30 concrete
Slump tests are conducted using slump cone for all samples of concrete without and with
admixtures (SNP 1, SNP 2 and SNP 3). The results are given below in Table 4.4.
Table: 4.4 Slump test results for M30 concrete
without
Samples SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
Admixture
1 68 80 68 100
2 63 58 65 98
3 74 63 62 95
4 80 90 85 95
5 72 90 90 95
6 63 85 85 93
7 58 73 88 97
8 75 58 92 100
9 80 90 68 90
Average 70.33 76.33 78.11 95.89
Maximum 80 90 92 100
Minimum 58 58 62 90
SD 7.38 12.95 11.37 3.07
The maximum and minimum slumps are 80 and 58 mm respectively with an average slump of
70.33 mm for concrete without admixture. The maximum and minimum slumps of concrete with
SNP 1 admixture are 90 and 58 mm respectively, with an average slump of 76.33 mm. The
maximum and minimum slumps of concrete by using SNP 2 admixture are 92 and 62 mm
respectively. The average slump is 78.11 mm.
The maximum and minimum slumps of concrete by using SNP 3 admixture are 100 and 90 mm
respectively. The average slump is 95.89 mm. It is observed that among the admixtures, SNP 3
gives better slump when compared to other two admixtures. The degree of workability of the
concrete is medium as per the IS 456 – 2000.
The maximum, minimum and average 7 and 28 days compressive strengths without admixtures
are 22.37, 19.66, 20.62 and 32.88, 28.93, 30.96 MPa respectively which are represented in Table
54
4.5. The maximum, minimum and average 7 and 28 days compressive strength of concrete cubes
with SNP 1 admixture are 27.85, 26.95 and 26.95, and 37.8, 34.9 and 36.25 MPa respectively
(Table 4.5).
Table: 4.5 Compressive strength test results for M30 concrete
without admixture SNP1 SNP 2 SNP 3

S. No. 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days 7 Days 28 Days
1 20.14 30.44 26.7 37.12 23.25 37.62 23.08 38.3
2 20.4 31.88 26.4 37.8 28.56 37.78 23.18 37.9
3 19.81 32.88 27.1 34.9 26.36 37.33 23.28 38.29
4 20 30.77 27.5 35.1 28.14 36.9 23.32 38.46
5 19.66 29.47 27.1 34.9 27.99 32.9 23.15 38.21
6 19.81 31.89 26.9 35.9 27.7 34.07 23.18 37.85
7 21.54 32.73 27.85 36.82 25.47 36.9 23.25 38.35
8 21.81 28.93 26.91 36.79 22.08 34.62 23.41 38.5
9 22.37 29.63 26.07 36.92 23.33 34.9 22.98 38.48
Average 20.62 30.96 26.95 36.25 25.88 35.89 23.20 38.26
Maximum 22.37 32.88 27.85 37.8 28.56 37.78 23.41 38.5
Minimum 19.66 28.93 26.07 34.9 22.08 32.9 22.98 37.85
STDEV 1.01 1.46 0.54 1.08 2.46 1.79 0.13 0.24
The maximum, minimum and average 7 days compressive strength of concrete cubes with SNP 2
admixture are 28.56, 22.08 and 25.88 MPa, and with that of 28 days are 37.78, 32.9 and 35.89
MPa respectively (Table 4.5). The maximum, minimum and average 7 days compressive
strengths for SNP 3 admixture are 23.41, 22.98 and 23.20 MPa, and with that of 28 days are
38.5, 37.85 and 38.26 MPa respectively (Table 4.5).
55
50
Without Admixture SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
40
30
20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Samples
Fig. 4.6 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete with and without Admixtures
From the Fig. 4.6, Design concrete mix M30 with SNP3 admixture gives more consistent and
uniform values of compressive strength when compared to SNP 2, SNP 1.
2
1.8
1.6
Standard deviation
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
Without SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
Admixture
Admixtures
Fig: 4.7 Standard deviation of compressive strength
From Fig. 4.7, the standard deviations of 28 days compressive strength of concrete cubes are
1.08, 1.79 and 0.24 by using SNP 1, SNP 2 and SNP 3 admixtures respectively. The degree of
56
control of these admixtures are laboratory precision SNP 1, SNP 2 and for SNP 3 (Shetty, M. S.,
2000).
49000
48000
Cost in Indian Rs.
47000
46000
45000
SNP 1 SNP 2 SNP 3
Admixtures
Fig. 4.8 Cost of Admixtures per tonne
The cost analysis is made and reported in Fig. 4.8 in terms of cost per tonne. It observed that the
cost of SNP 1 admixture is more when compared to SNP 2 and SNP 3 admixtures.
57
4.4 SUMMARY
From the experimental investigation, it is observed that the SNP 3 admixture is having better
homogeneity and missibility compared to SNP 1 and SNP 2 which can be seen with great clarity
in the consistency of test results with SNP 3.
Based on the experiments conducted, the following points can be summarized:
1. Workability of concrete with the admixture SNP 3 is uniform compared to other
admixtures.
2. The average slump of measuring workability of concrete with SNP 3 admixture is near to
the designed value of the concrete.
3. The average 28 days compressive strength of M25 and M30 concrete by using SNP 3
admixture is increased by 30 and 25.8% respectively compared to concrete without
admixture.
4. The concrete with admixture SNP 3 is consistent and uniform in giving the experimental
results. It is also evident from standard deviation which is of laboratory precision.
58
59
CHAPTER 5
CONCRETE WITH GROUND GRANULATED BLAST
FURNACE SLAG AND ROBO SAND
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Cost of concrete is attributed to the cost of its ingredients which are scarce and expensive. This
leads to usage of economical and locally available supplementary materials in its production.
Also research on sustainable construction materials suggests extensive use of industrial waste
products. Fly ash and Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) can be used as
supplementary materials for the cement and ROBO Sand can be used as a supplementary
material instead of fine aggregate. Fly ash produced from thermal power plants and GGBS
produced from steel plants. In this study GGBS is used as supplementary material for cement and
ROBO Sand is supplementary material for fine aggregate. These materials maximize the reuse
of industrial solid waste products in the production of concrete.
5.2 GROUND GRANULATED BLAST FURNACE SLAG (GGBS)
GGBS is obtained by quenching molten iron slag (a by-product of iron and steel making) from a
blast furnace in water or steam, to produce a glassy, granular product that is then dried and
ground into a fine powder. GGBS is used to make durable concrete structures in combination
with ordinary portland cement and/or other pozzolanic materials. GGBS has been widely used
for its superiority in concrete durability. Use of GGBS significantly reduces the risk of damages
caused by alkali-silica reaction, higher resistance to chloride, and provides higher resistance to
attacks by sulfate and other chemicals. GGBS is procured from Vizag Steel Plant (VSP). The
60
fineness modulus of GGBS using blaine’s fineness is 320 m2/kg and other properties of GGBS
are given in table 5.1.
Table: 5.1 Properties of GGBS

PERCENTAGE CONTENTS
CONSTITUENTS # Requirement IS Percentage
12089-1987 contents
Calcium Oxide (CaO) 1.4 Max. 1.32
Silica (SiO2) 30-38 33.31
Alumina (Al2O3) 15-25 18.55
Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3) 0.5-2.0 0.7
Magnesium Oxide (MgO) 17 Max. 10.72
Manganese Oxide (MnO) 1-5 0.49
Sodium Oxide (Na2O) 0.5-1 0.5
Glass 85-98 91
# Courtesy Vizag Steel Plant (VSP)
5.3 ROBO SAND
ROBO sand obtained from local granite crushers is used in concrete to cast the cubes, cylinders
and beams. The bulk density of ROBO sand is 1768kg/m3. The specific gravity and fineness
modulus of ROBO sand are 2.66 and 2.94 respectively. Sieve analysis results are shown in table
5.2 and figure 5.1 represents the grain size distribution of ROBO sand.
Quantity of sample: 1000 gm
Table: 5.2 Sieve analysis of ROBO sand
IS Sieve Weight % of Cumulative % of passing Limits as per

retained weight % of weight IS 383-1970
retained retained IS 2386-1963
10 0 0 0 100 100
4.75 40 4 4 96 90 – 100
2.36 125 12.5 16.5 83.5 75 – 100
1.18 140 14 30.5 69.5 55 – 90
600 300 30 60.5 39.5 35 – 59
300 230 23 83.5 16.5 8 – 30
150 160 16 99.5 0.5 0 – 10
Total cumulative % of weight 294.5
retained
61
100
90
80
Percentage passing 70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.1 1 10
Particle size in mm
Fig.5.1 Grain size distribution curve for ROBO Sand
The coefficient of uniformity (Cu) and coefficient of curvature (Cc) of the ROBO sand is 4.087
and 1.02 respectively. Based on gradation curve, Cu and Cc the ROBO sand is well graded and
confirming to zone II. The sieve analysis conducted for the combined gradation of 80% of
natural sand and 20% of ROBO sand. The combined gradation is confirming to zone II.
Experimental investigations are carried to study the behavior of concrete with GGBS as partial
replacement of cement and ROBO sand as partial replacement of fine aggregate.
The total experimental investigations are carried out in different phases.
Phase I: Development of two grades of concrete with optimized quantity of GGBS and studies
on strength properties of modified concrete.
Phase II: Study the effect of ROBO sand on GGBS concrete and its strength properties.
Phase III: The behavior of modified concrete by using different non-bio degradable waste
plastic fibers like High Density Polyethylene (HDPE), High Density Poly Propylene (HDPP),
Poly Ethylene Terephthalate (PET) and Polyester fibers and its fresh and hardened properties.
Phase III will be discussed in the chapter 6.
62
Phase IV: formulation of stress strain relation of modified concrete. This phase will be discussed
in the chapter 7.
Phase V: Durability studies of modified concrete. This phase will be discussed in chapter 8
5.4 MIX DESIGN AND TRIAL MIX PROPORTIONS OF CONCRETE
Different trial mixes are attempted in the laboratory to get a concrete mix, which gives required
strength properties of M25 and M30 design concrete mixes.
5.4.1 GGBS
The whole mixing process was carried out in a concrete mixer. Coarse aggregate, fine aggregate,
cement and GGBS were put in the concrete mixer first and mixed in the dry state for few
seconds. Later admixture thoroughly mixed with water was added to the material in the concrete
mixer. Then it was allowed to mix thoroughly, mixed till a mixture of uniform colour and
consistency were achieved. To produce concrete with GGBS, different percentages of GGBS are
added to the mix along with coarse aggregate. The mix proportions of concrete mix are shown in
tables 5.3 and 5.4 for M25 and M30 respectively.
5.4.2 ROBO sand
ROBO sand is used as partial replacement for fine aggregate in small quantities to the above
optimized GGBS mix. The mix proportion of GGBS – ROBO sand concrete is shown in tables
5.11 and 5.12 for M25 and M30 respectively.
63
Based on the strength properties of modified concrete mixes finally, two concrete mix
proportions (i.e. one for M25 and one for M30) with GGBS and ROBO Sand, with relatively
high compressive strengths are selected for further investigations. Table 5.19 shows the final mix
designs for further investigations.
5.5 EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
During the initial stage of work the cube specimens of the two grades M25 and M30 are cast
with cement replaced by 10% to 60% of GGBS (at an increment of 5% ) and the specimens are
tested for compressive strength at 3 days, 7 days and 28 days. The Compressive strengths are
compared with that of corresponding grade concrete specimens without GGBS and found that at
50% GGBS replacement for M25 and M30 grade concrete mixes the strength was maximum.
Based on optimum GGBS percentages arrived from 3 days, 7 days and 28 days cube
compressive strengths, the strengths of cylinders and beams are studied for 10% to 60% of
GGBS replacement at an increment of 5%.
5.5.1 GGBS Concrete Mix proportions
Table: 5.3 Mix proportions of M25 Concrete
MIX GGBS % Cement F.A C.A GGBS S.P

No. (bwc) Kg Kg Kg kg %(bwp)
A-1 0 327 723 1246 0 1

A-2 10 294.3 723 1246 32.7 1
A-3 15 278 723 1246 49.05 1
A-4 20 261.2 723 1246 65.4 1
A-5 25 245.3 723 1246 81.75 1
A-6 30 228.9 723 1246 98.1 1
A-7 35 212.6 723 1246 114.5 1
A-8 40 196.2 723 1246 130.8 1
A-9 45 179.9 723 1246 147.2 1
64
A-10 50 163.5 723 1246 163.5 1
A-11 55 147.2 723 1246 179.9 1
A-12 60 130.8 723 1246 196.2 1
bwp-by weight of powder bwc-by weight of cement
The average slump for all the mixtures are 85mm using 1% of admixture
MIX GGBS % Cement F.A C.A GGBS S.P

No. (bwc) Kg Kg Kg kg %(bwp)
B-1 0 350 704 1245 0 1

B-2 10 315 704 1245 35.8 1
B-3 15 297.5 704 1245 53.8 1
B-4 20 280 704 1245 71.6 1
B-5 25 262.5 704 1245 89.5 1
B-6 30 245 704 1245 107.4 1
B-7 35 227.5 704 1245 125.3 1
B-8 40 210 704 1245 163.5 1
B-9 45 192.5 704 1245 161.1 1
B-10 50 175 704 1245 175 1
B-11 55 157.5 704 1245 196.9 1
B-12 60 140 704 1245 214.8 1
The average slump for all the mixtures are 90mm using 1% of admixture
5.5.1.1 Compressive Strength
The Compressive strength at 3, 7 and 28 days for M25 and M30 grades of concrete is shown in
the tables 5.5 and 5.6, figures 5.2 to 5.5.
Table: 5.5 Compressive Strengths of M25 Concrete

Mix. No % of GGBS Compressive Strength (MPa)
Replacement 3- Days 7- Days 28-Days
A-1 0 15.84 21.54 36.81
A-2 10 12.32 18.25 36.92
A-3 15 12.69 18.69 37.23
65
A-4 20 12.91 18.95 37.89
A-5 25 13.21 19.13 38.12
A-6 30 13.65 19.82 38.65
A-7 35 13.92 20.12 39.02
A-8 40 14.08 20.82 39.82
A-9 45 14.25 21.65 40.56
A-10 50 14.52 22.91 41.21
A-11 55 14.41 22.41 40.65
A-12 60 14.13 21.92 40.01

Mix. No % of GGBS Compressive Strength (Mpa)
B-1 0 17.82 23.26 38.15
B-2 10 14.35 20.32 38.98
B-3 15 14.47 20.86 39.21
B-4 20 15.19 21.64 39.62
B-5 25 15.21 22.35 40.01
B-6 30 15.46 22.98 40.98
B-7 35 15.55 23.68 41.68
B-8 40 15.61 23.98 42.32
B-9 45 15.82 24.28 42.98
B-10 50 16.31 24.98 43.21
B-11 55 16.12 23.89 42.3
B-12 60 15.92 23.01 41.7
42
Compressive Strength in
41
40
MPa
39
38
37
28 Days
36
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.2 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete with various % of GGBS
66
45
28 Days
44
43
MPa
42
41
40
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.3 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete with various % of GGBS
45
40
35 0% GGBS
50% GGBS
30
Mpa
25
20
15
10
3 Days 7 Days 28 Days
Age in Days
Fig. 5.4 Compressive strength of M25 grade concrete with age for mix
with optimum GGBS and without GGBS
45
Compressive Strength
40 0% GGBS
35 50% GGBS
in Mpa
30
25
20
15
10
Age in Days
with optimum GGBS and without GGBS
67
The results are shown in tables 5.5 and 5.6, figures 5.2 to 5.5. An improvement of 6.36% and
11.95% in M25 mix and 7.3% and 13.2% in M30 mix was observed when 7days and 28 days
compressive strengths of concrete mixes produced with 50% GGBS are compared with other
mixes without GGBS.
5.5.1.2 Split Tensile Strength
The Split tensile strength at 28 days for M25 and M30 grades concrete is shown in following
tables 5.7 and 5.8 respectively. Figure 5.6 and 5.7 shows the variation of split tensile strength to
the percentage of GGBS replacement.
Table: 5.7 28 days split tensile strengths of M25 Concrete
Mix. No % of GGBS Split Tensile

Replacement strength (Mpa)
A-1 0 3.21
A-2 10 3.23
A-3 15 3.28
A-4 20 3.31
A-5 25 3.35
A-6 30 3.37
A-7 35 3.4
A-8 40 3.42
A-9 45 3.45
A-10 50 3.47
A-11 55 3.44
A-12 60 3.41
Mix. No % of GGBS Split Tensile

B-1 0 3.34
B-2 10 3.37
B-3 15 3.39
B-4 20 3.42
B-5 25 3.45
B-6 30 3.47
B-7 35 3.5
68
B-8 40 3.53
B-9 45 3.59
B-10 50 3.63
B-11 55 3.58
B-12 60 3.52
3.65
Split Tensile Strength
3.6
3.55
in MPa
3.5
3.45
3.4
3.35
3.3
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.6 Split Tensile Strength of M25 concrete

With various % of GGBS
3.75
3.7
3.65
in MPa
3.6
3.55
3.5
3.45
3.4
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.7 Split Tensile Strength of M30 concrete

with various % of GGBS
The 28 days split tensile strengths of concrete mix with 50% GGBS compared to that of mix
without GGBS is increased by 8.09% and 8.68% in M25 and M30 grade of concrete
respectively.
69
5.5.1.3 Flexural Strength
The Flexural Strength at 28 days for M25 and M30 grades concrete is shown in tables 5.9 and
5.10 respectively.
Table: 5.9 28 days flexural strengths of M25 Concrete
Mix. No % of GGBS Flexural strength

Replacement (Mpa)
A-1 0 4.23
A-2 10 4.25
A-3 15 4.29
A-4 20 4.32
A-5 25 4.36
A-6 30 4.39
A-7 35 4.41
A-8 40 4.42
A-9 45 4.46
A-10 50 4.48
A-11 55 4.47
A-12 60 4.45
Mix. No % of GGBS Flexural strength

Replacement (Mpa)
B-1 0 4.33
B-2 10 4.37
B-3 15 4.4
B-4 20 4.43
B-5 25 4.46
B-6 30 4.49
B-7 35 4.52
B-8 40 4.56
B-9 45 4.61
B-10 50 4.65
B-11 55 4.6
B-12 60 4.57
70
4.5
Flexural Strength in MPa

4.45
4.4
4.35
4.3
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.8 Flexural Strength of M25 Concrete

4.7
Flexural Strength in MPa
4.65
4.6
4.55
4.5
30 40 50 60 70
% of GGBS
Fig. 5.9 Flexural Strength of M30 Concrete

The increase is 5.91% and 7.39% for M25 and M30 GGBS mixes respectively, thus indicating a
considerable increase in the flexural strength of concrete mix made with GGBS when compared
to designed concrete mixes. The flexural strength variation is shown in figures 5.8 and 5.9.
71
The GGBS generally reduces the water demand and improves workability. The factors
influencing the reactivity of GGBS are the chemical composition of slag and the glass content
which is shown in table 5.1. The presence of GGBS in the mix improves workability and makes
the mix more mobile but cohesive. This is the consequence of a better dispersion of the
cementitious particles and of the surface characteristics of the GGBS particles; however it is
more sensitive to variations in the water content than ordinary cement concrete.
It is observed that there is an increase in the peaks strength properties for different design mixes
made with GGBS mixes. Addition of GGBS control the initiation of micro cracks, improve the
first crack load, the ultimate load of concrete specimens under flexure. They are also effective in
resisting deformation at all stages of loading from first crack to failure.
With the addition of GGBS to the concrete, the initial hydration of GGBS is very slow. It
depends mainly upon the breakdown of the glass present in GGBS by the hydroxyl ions released
during the hydration of cement. This can be observed in 3 days compressive strength, as it is
decreases by maximum 8.3% for the both mixes.
5.5.2 GGBS and ROBO Sand Combined Mixes
Further ROBO sand is used as replacement by 5 to 40% with an incremental value of 5% for fine
aggregate. The combined GGBS and ROBO Sand concrete mix cubes are tested in the
laboratory. The results are shown in tables 5.11 and 5.12.
Mix Cement F.A kg C.A kg GGBS ROBO sand

ID kg. kg % of FA Quantity kg
M1 163.5 723 1246 163.5 0 0

M2 163.5 686.85 1246 163.5 5 36.15
72
M3 163.5 650.7 1246 163.5 10 72.3
M4 163.5 614.55 1246 163.5 15 108.45
M5 163.5 578.4 1246 163.5 20 144.6
M6 163.5 542.25 1246 163.5 25 180.75
M7 163.5 506.1 1246 163.5 30 216.9
M8 163.5 469.95 1246 163.5 35 253.05
M9 163.5 433.8 1246 163.5 40 289.2
The average slump of all the mixes is 60mm using 1% of admixture. But the slump required for
the mix is 85mm. So, dosage of admixture is increased 1 % to 1.5% of bwp, the average slump is
87mm.
Mix Cement F.A kg C.A kg GGBS ROBO sand

ID kg. kg % of FA quantity kg
V1 175 704 1245 175 0 0

V2 175 668.8 1245 175 5 35.2
V3 175 633.6 1245 175 10 70.4
V4 175 598.4 1245 175 15 105.6
V5 175 563.2 1245 175 20 140.8
V6 175 528 1245 175 25 176
V7 175 492.8 1245 175 30 211.2
V8 175 457.6 1245 175 35 246.4
V9 175 422.4 1245 175 40 281.6
The average slump of all the mixes is 59mm using 1% of admixture. But the slump required for
the mix is 90 mm. So, dosage of admixture is increased 1% to 1.5% of bwp, the average slump is
92mm. For the further studies 1.5% admixture is used.
5.5.2.1 Compressive strength
The results of compressive strength of modified concrete i.e. 50% of GGBS and 0 to 30% ROBO
Sand had shown in table 5.13 and 5.14. Figure 5.10 and 5.11shows the variations in compressive
strengths of concrete.
73
Mix. No % of ROBO sand Compressive Strength (MPa)

M1 0 14.52 22.91 41.21
M2 5 14.62 23.12 41.68
M3 10 14.74 23.43 41.89
M4 15 14.81 23.89 42.56
M5 20 14.92 24.05 42.92
M6 25 15.12 24.12 43.56
M7 30 15.01 24.09 43.01
M8 35 14.48 23.92 42.24
M9 40 14.09 23.56 41.72
Mix. No % of ROBO sand Compressive Strength (MPa)

V1 0 16.31 24.98 43.21
V2 5 16.51 25.42 43.78
V3 10 16.76 25.64 44.02
V4 15 16.82 25.92 44.68
V5 20 16.91 26.19 45.01
V6 25 17.02 26.45 45.71
V7 30 16.72 26.11 45.12
V8 35 16.26 25.89 44.8
V9 40 15.91 25.21 44.29
43.8
43.6
43.4
in Mpa
43.2
43
42.8
42.6 28 Days
42.4
10 15 20 25 30 35
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.10 Compressive Strength of M25 Concrete with various % of ROBO Sand
74
45.8
28 Days
Strength in Mpa
45.6
Compressive
45.4
45.2
45
44.8
44.6
10 15 20 25 30 35
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.11 Compressive Strength of M30 Concrete

with various % of ROBO Sand
5.5.2.2 Split Tensile Strength
The split tensile strength of modified concrete using ROBO sand are given tables 5.15 and 5.16
and figures 5.12 and 5.13 shows the variation of split tensile strength to percentage of
replacement of ROBO Sand.

Mix. No % of ROBO sand Split Tensile
M1 0 3.47
M2 5 3.49
M3 10 3.51
M4 15 3.53
M5 20 3.56
M6 25 3.59
M7 30 3.55
M8 35 3.54
M9 40 3.5
Mix. No % of ROBO sand Split Tensile

V1 0 3.63
V2 5 3.67
V3 10 3.69
V4 15 3.71
V5 20 3.73
75
V6 25 3.75
V7 30 3.72
V8 35 3.74
V9 40 3.72
Split Tensile Strength 3.64

3.62
3.6
in Mpa
3.58
3.56
3.54
3.52
3.5
10 20 30
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.12 Split Tensile Strength of M25 Concrete

With various % of ROBO Sand
3.8
3.76
3.72
in Mpa
3.68
3.64
3.6
10 20 30
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.13 Split Tensile Strength of M30 Concrete

With various % of ROBO Sand
5.5.2.3 Flexural Strength
The results of flexural strength of modified concrete are given table 5.17 and 5.18. The figure
5.14 and 5.15 shows the variation of flexural strength to the percentage of replacement of ROBO
Sand. Table: 5.17 28 days flexural strengths of M25 Concrete
Mix. No % of ROBO sand Flexural strength

Replacement (Mpa)
M1 0 4.48
M2 5 4.51
76
M3 10 4.54
M4 15 4.55
M5 20 4.58
M6 25 4.6
M7 30 4.56
M8 35 4.53
M9 40 4.49

Mix. No % of ROBO sand Flexural strength
Replacement (Mpa)
V1 0 4.65
V2 5 4.68
V3 10 4.7
V4 15 4.72
V5 20 4.74
V6 25 4.77
V7 30 4.73
V8 35 4.71
V9 40 4.69
4.65
Flexural Strength in
4.6
4.55
Mpa
4.5
4.45
4.4
10 20 30
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.14 Flexural Strength of M25 Concrete with various % of ROBO Sand
4.8
4.75
Mpa
4.7
4.65
4.6
10 20 30
% of ROBO Sand
Fig. 5.15 Flexural Strength of M30 Concrete with various % of ROBO Sand
77
50
45
0% ROBO Sand
40 25% ROBO Sand
35
Mpa
30
25
20
15
10
Age in days
with optimum ROBO sand and without ROBO sand
50
45
0% ROBO Sand
40
25% ROBO Sand
35
Mpa
30
25
20
15
10
Age in days
with optimum ROBO sand and without ROBO sand
From tables 5.13 and 5.14, figures 5.10 and 5.11, it is observed that the increase in 3days, 7days
and 28days strengths are 4.13%, 5.28% and 5.7% respectively for M25. Similarly the increase in
3days, 7days and 28 days strengths are 4.35%, 5.88% and 5.78% respectively for M30 concrete.
From the tables 5.15 and 5.16, figures 5.12 and 5.13 the increase in split tensile strength of
GGBS - ROBO sand concrete mixes at the age of 28days are 3.45% and 3.3% of M25 and M30
respectively. Similarly the increase in the flexural strengths at the age of 28days are 2.67% and
78
2.58% of M25 and M30 concrete mixes respectively when compared with conventional concrete
without GGBS - ROBO sand. The results of flexural strengths are presented in tables 5.17 and
5.18, figures 5.14 and 5.15.
The observation shows that the increase in strengths when concrete mixes produced with GGBS
– ROBO sand. The percentage increase in strength increased with increase in the amount of
ROBO sand but only up to 25% percentage of replacement with fine aggregate. The increase in
the strength of concrete is due to the aggregate shape i.e. ROBO sand is of more flake compared
to river sand.
Finally two concrete mixes which satisfied strength properties of concrete are selected and taken
for further investigations. These mix proportions are given in table 5.19.
Table: 5.19 Final mix proportions for further Investigations
Mix Mix Cement F.A C.A kg GGBS ROBO sand

ID kg kg kg Quantity kg
M25 M6 163.5 542.25 1246 163.5 180.75

M30 V6 175 528 1245 175 176
79
5.6 SUMMARY
When port land cement and water are mixed, a chemical reaction called hydration initiates, resulting in
the creation of calcium-silicate-hydrate (CSH) and calcium hydroxide (CH). CSH is a gel that is
responsible for strength development in port land cement pastes. CH is a byproduct of the hydration
process that does not significantly contribute to strength development in normal port land cement
mixtures. Silicates in GGBS combine with the CH byproduct of hydration and form additional CSH. This
in turn leads to a denser, harder cementitious paste, which increases ultimate strength as compared to
100% port land cement systems.
From the experimental study it is found to be the optimum use of GGBS in concrete is 50%.
From the literature, Wang Ling et al. 2004 and Rajamane et al. 2003 conducted the experiments
on the use of GGBS in the concrete. They found that, cement can be replaced with GGBS by
50% in the concrete having compressive strength of 50, 70, 80 MPa. So for the normal concrete
also cement can be replaced with GGBS up to 50%.
By using ROBO Sand in the concrete, concrete strength is gaining because of its rough surface
texture which causes better interlocking and bonding characteristics. In case of river sand the
particle grains are smooth and round (figures below).
Coarse Coarse
Aggregate Aggregate
ROBO
Sand
Fine
Fine
Aggregate
Aggregate
Cement
matrix Cement
matrix
Fig. 5.18 Concrete without Fig. 5.19 Concrete with
ROBO sand ROBO sand
80
As per the experiments conducted by Vijaya Sarathy 2013 on ROBO sand usage in concrete, the
compressive strength results shows decreasing trend of 40, 60 and 80% replacement levels with
the fine aggregate. This concludes that the optimum use of ROBO sand may be below 40%. In
the present study the experiments are conducted below 40% replacement of ROBO sand. Based
on this study the optimum percentage of replacement of fine aggregate with ROBO sand is found
to be 25% (less than 40%, hence in line with previous studies).
Based on the experimental investigation studies the following points can be summarized.
1. From the experimental results 50% of cement can be replaced with GGBS.
2. The increase in compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of
concrete with 50% GGBS are 11.95%, 8.09% and 5.91% for M25 concrete, for M30
13.26%, 8.68% and 7.39% respectively compared to normal concrete without GGBS.
3. The percentage of increase in the compressive strength are 5.70% at the age of 28 days
and the percentage of increase in the split tensile and flexural strengths are 3.45% and
2.68% at the age of 28 days for M25 concrete with 50% GGBS and 25% ROBO Sand.
4. Similarly for M30 modified concrete (50% GGBS+25% ROBO Sand) compressive, split
tensile and flexural concretes at the age of 28days are 5.79%, 3.3% and 2.58%
respectively.
81
82
CHAPTER 6
FIBER REINFORCED CONCRETE
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Concrete is a heterogeneous composite material made up of cement, fine aggregate, coarse
aggregate and water mixed in a desired proportion based on the strength requirements. Plain
concrete is strong in compression and weak in tension. The reinforcement in the concrete is
used to increase the tensile strength and ductility of members. Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(FRC) is an emerging field in the area of Concrete Technology. The addition of fibers in
concrete would act as crack inhibitors and substantially improve the tensile strength, cracking
resistance, impact resistance and ductility of concrete. The general form of fiber composites
will be in the use of short discontinuous fibers. Generally economic considerations will
dictate the choice and volume of percentage of fibers used.
Following a normal growth in population, the amount and type of waste materials have
increased accordingly. Many of the non-decaying waste materials will remain in the
environment for hundreds, or may be perhaps thousands of years. The non-decaying waste
materials cause a waste disposal crisis, thereby further contributing to the environmental
problems. The problem of waste accumulation exists worldwide, specifically in the densely
populated areas. Most of these materials are left as stockpiles, landfill material or illegally
dumped in selected areas. An attempt has been made to study using solid waste materials
(water bottles, polythene bags, disposable glasses, cement bags, cool drink bottles etc.) as
fibers in the concrete.
6.2 ROLE OF FIBERS
The crack, which starts from the bottom most layers, will progress slowly in upward
direction, and its growth will be resisted by the bridging fiber. These fibers help to carry the
load, thereby increasing the tensile strength of material and arrest the propagation of crack.
83
At the ultimate stage either the fiber gets pulled out from the matrix or yielding of fibers
occurs. This slow progress of crack would lead to a ductile failure and it will give sufficient
time between the onset of flexure crack and ultimate failure.
6.3 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE FIBERS IN THE CONCRETE
The effect of fiber reinforced on the matrix and the efficient transfer of stress between the
matrix and fiber depends on many factors. Many of these factors intimately inter dependent
and exercise a profound but complex influence on the properties of the composite. The
following are the factors influencing in the concrete by using fibers.
1. Aspect ratio
2. Orientation of fibers
3. Volume of fibers
4. Spacing of fibers
6.3.1 Aspect ratio: It is the ratio of the length of fiber to the diameter/width of fiber. In the
present study the aspect ratio (length/width) of fibers are 20. At most care has been taken to
maintain and cut the fibers with same aspect ratio in the workshop. Figures 6.1 and 6.2 shows
the length and width of the fiber. Length of the fiber is 50mm and width is 2.5mm, aspect
ratio is 50/2.5 is 20.
Fig. 6.1 Length of the fiber Fig. 6.2 width of the fiber
84
6.3.2 Orientation of Fibers: One of the differences in conventional reinforcement and fiber
reinforcement is that, the conventional reinforcement bars are oriented in the desired
direction while fibers are randomly oriented in the concrete.
6.3.3 Volume of fibers: The strength of the composite concrete largely depends on the
quantity of fibers used in it. Use of higher percentage of fibers is likely to cause segregation
of concrete and fibers can form like ball in the mix this will affect the strength of concrete.
6.4 CLASSIFICATION OF FIBERS
Fibers can be classified in to two categories.
1. Based on modulus of elasticity
2. Based on the material
Based on the modulus of elasticity the fibers can further classified as:
a. Hard intrusion of fibers: fibers having higher elastic modulus than the cement matrix
can be termed as hard intrusion fibers.
b. Soft intrusion fibers: these fibers having lower elastic modulus than the cement matrix
can be termed as soft intrusion fibers.
Based on the materials:
i. Steel fibers: Steel fibers are probably the only fibers that can be used for long time
load bearing applications. They are stable in cement matrix and need no longer to be a
design or cost inhibiting factors. Steel fibers are classified as collected steel fibers and
epoxy coated steel fiber.
ii. Glass fibers: glass fibers in a process in which molten glass is drawn in the form of
filaments. Glass fiber reinforced cementitious composites have been developed
mainly for the production of sheet components with a paste or mortar matrix and
about 5% fiber content. The other application have been considered either by making
85
reinforcing bars with plastic or by making similar short, rigid units impregnated with
epoxy, to be depressed in concrete during mixing.
iii. Carbon fibers: carbon fibers are very expensive but the strength and stiffness
characteristics are superior to steel. Carbon fibers are inert in aggressive
environments, abrasion, resistant and stable at high temperatures with relatively high
stiffness. However carbon fibers are more vulnerable than the glass fibers to surface
damage and subsequent weakening and must be used in the clumped form i.e.
embedded in or sized with resin coating.
iv. Synthetic fibers: They are classified as polypropylene fiber, nylon, polyethylene,
polyester and rayon fibers etc. Plain twisted fibers, button ended are the form of
polypropylene fibers. The potential market for polypropylene reinforced cement is
principally as a substitute for the asbestos cement.
v. Natural Fibers: They are classified as wood, coconut, bamboo, jute, sugarcane bars,
mineral wool, rock wool and vegetable fibers like elephant grass, water reed etc.
6.5 FIBERS USED IN THE PRESENT EXPERIMENTAL WORK
The following fibers are used in the present experimental work:
i. High Density Polyethylene (HDPE) fibers
ii. Poly Ethylene Teraphthalate (PET) fibers
iii. High Density Poly Propylene (HDPP) fibers
iv. Polyester fibers
6.5.1 High Density Polyethylene Fiber (HDPE): HDPE fiber is a relatively straight chain
structure, but, as its name implies, exhibits a higher density. It is naturally milky white in
appearance and finds wide application in blow molded bottles for milk, water and fruit juices.
HDPE, pigmented with a variety of colorants, is used for packaging toiletries, detergents and
similar products. The chemical composition of polyethylene is defined in ASTM D1248-84
86
as a product of ethylene polymerization with a bulk density of 0.94gm/cm3 or higher. This
fiber is used to prepare Milk, water and juice containers, grocery bags, toys, liquid detergent
bottles. The recycled products of this fiber is Recycling bins, benches, bird feeders,
retractable pens, clipboards, fly swatters, dog houses, vitamin bottles, floor tile, and liquid
laundry detergent containers. Fig. 6.3 represents the Chemical structure and table 6.1 gives
the properties of HDPE fiber.
Fig: 6.3 Chemical structure of HDPE fiber
Table: 6.1 Properties of HDPE Fiber
S. No Test Result (CIPET)

1 Tensile load at yield 67.79Kg
2 Density 1.22gm/cc
3 Identification High Density
Polyethylene
6.5.2 Poly Ethylene Teraphthalate (PET): This is a thermo plastic resin of the polyester
family that is used to make beverage, food and other liquid containers. PET blends are
engineered plastics with excellent processing characteristics and high strength and rigidity for
a broad range of applications unlike other plastics. This is most important raw material used
in man-made fibers. Depending on its processing and thermal history, it may exist both as an
amorphous and semi crystalline material. It can be synthesized by transesterification reaction
between ethylene glycol and dimethyl terephthalate. It is manufactured under the names
Arnite, Impet & rynite, Hostaphan, Melinex & Mylar Films and Darcon Terylene & Treivive
87
fibres. Fig. 6.2 represents the Chemical structure and table 6.4 gives the properties of PET
fiber.
Fig: 6.4 Chemical structure of PET fiber
Table: 6.2 Properties of PET Fiber

2 Density 1.43 gm/cc
3 Identification Polyethylene
Teraphthalate (PET)
6.5.3 High density Polypropylene Fiber (HDPP): HDPP is a linear polymer with the
chemical composition of polypropylene (CH3) N and defined by ASTM D638 as a product of
propylene polymerization with a bulk density of 0.036gm/cm3 or higher. It has a high melting
point, yet is readily heat-sealable. In film form it may or may not be oriented (stretched). It is
also relatively inexpensive. PP is found in everything from flexible and rigid packaging to
fibers and large molded parts for automotive and consumer products. This fiber is used to
prepare the ketchup bottles, yogurt containers and margarine tubs, medicine bottles. The
recycled products of this fiber are Signal lights, battery cables, brooms and brushes, ice
scrapers, oil funnels, landscape borders, bicycle racks. Fig. 6.5 represents the Chemical
structure and table 6.3 gives the properties of HDPP fiber.
Fig: 6.5 Chemical structure of HDPP fiber
88
Table: 6.3 Properties of HDPP Fiber

3 Identification Polypropylene (PP)
6.5.4 Polyester Fiber: This polymer used for making many soft drink bottles and it is
becoming increasingly common to recycle them after use by re-melting them and extruding it
as fiber. The Table 6.4 gives the properties of polyester fiber.
Table: 6.4 Properties of Polyester fiber

3 Identification Polyester fiber
6.6 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
Fibers are added to the concrete during dry mixing of materials. The Mixing has been done
carefully to get uniform dispersion of fibers and to prevent segregation or balling of the
fibers. That is, the fibers are randomly distributed in the concrete during mixing. Specimens
are prepared using design mix given table 5.19 with fiber percentages starting from 0 to 6%
with an increment of 0.5 by volume of cement. Cubes 150X150X150 mm, cylinders with
150φ X 300mm and beams of size 100X100X500 mm are prepared. The samples are kept in
a sump for curing.
6.6.1 Experimental Results: Slump tests are conducted for finding the workability of the
concrete. The average slump of 80mm attained for all fibers whereas targeted slump is
85mm.
89
6.6.1.1 Strength Properties of HDPE Concrete
The experimental results of compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength
of modified concrete i.e. with the addition of HDPE fiber in the concrete are given below
tables and figures.
Table: 6.5 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete with HDPE fibers
% fiber 3 Days 7 Days 28 Days

0 15.12 24.12 43.56
0.5 15.31 24.41 43.81
1 15.42 24.86 44.46
1.5 15.61 25.12 44.91
2 15.81 25.38 45.85
2.5 15.89 25.64 46.24
3 15.93 25.89 47.01
3.5 16.02 26.12 47.51
4 15.94 25.91 46.81
4.5 15.88 25.76 46.12
5 15.76 25.39 45.24
5.5 15.61 24.91 44.87
6 15.54 24.67 44.08
Table: 6.6 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete with HDPE fibers

0 17.02 26.45 45.71
0.5 17.16 26.89 45.98
1 17.21 27.24 46.58
1.5 17.39 27.78 47.12
2 17.56 27.91 47.86
2.5 17.81 28.01 48.35
3 17.95 28.4 49.01
3.5 18.11 28.65 49.75
4 17.91 28.39 48.92
4.5 17.72 27.89 48.4
5 17.59 27.51 47.68
5.5 17.31 27.31 47.11
6 17.12 27.01 46.51
90
50
52
Compressive Strength in 28 Days
49 28 Days
51
48
50
in Mpa
47
Mpa
49
46
48
45
44 47
43 46
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Percentage of HDPE fiber
Fig. 6.6 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete Fig. 6.7 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete
with HDPE fibers with HDPE fibers
Table: 6.7 Split tensile and Flexural Strengths M25 concrete with HDPE Concrete
Split tensile Flexural

strength at strength at 28
% fiber 28 Days Days
0 3.59 4.6
0.5 3.62 4.64
1 3.63 4.69
1.5 3.65 4.75
2 3.69 4.78
2.5 3.72 4.81
3 3.78 4.84
3.5 3.81 4.86
4 3.76 4.83
4.5 3.7 4.79
5 3.68 4.73
5.5 3.63 4.68
6 3.58 4.63
4.1 5
Flexural Strength in Mpa
Split Tensile Strength in
3.9 4.9
Mpa
3.7 4.8
3.5 4.7
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Percentage of HDPE fiber Percentage of HDPE fiber
Fig. 6.8 Split Tensile Strength of Fig. 6.9 Flexural Strength ofM25 concrete with
M25 concrete with HDPE Concrete HDPE Concrete
91
Table: 6.8 Split tensile and Flexural Strengths M30
concrete with HDPE Concrete
strength at strength at
% fiber 28 Days 28 Days
0 3.75 4.77
0.5 3.79 4.8
1 3.85 4.86
1.5 3.89 4.89
2 3.92 4.91
2.5 3.96 4.95
3 3.98 4.99
3.5 4.01 5.05
4 3.97 5.01
4.5 3.91 4.98
5 3.84 4.94
5.5 3.77 4.91
6 3.71 4.88
4.2 5.2
Split Tensile Strength in Mpa
4.1 5.1
4
5
3.9
4.9
3.8
2 3 4 5 4.8
Percentage of HDPE fiber 2 3 4 5
Fig. 6.10 Split Tensile Strength of M30 Fig. 6.11 Flexural Strength of M30 concrete with
concrete with HDPE Concrete HDPE Concrete
The results of modified HDPE fiber reinforced concrete are shown in tables 6.5 to 6.8, figures
6.6 to 6.11. Based on the results the strength properties of fiber reinforced concrete are
increasing as percentage of fiber increases up to 3.5%, later the strength is decreasing. An
improvement of 5.95%, 8.29% and 9.06% in M25 design mix and 6.4%, 8.31% and 8.83% in
M30 design mix are observed when 3days, 7days and 28 days compressive strengths of
92
modified concrete at 3.5% HDPE fibers in the concrete. Similarly, the improvement in the
split tensile and flexural strengths is 6.12% and 5.65% of M25 concrete and 6.93% and
5.87% for M30 concrete respectively.
6.6.1.2 Strength Properties of PET Concrete
The experimental results of PET fiber reinforced concrete i.e. compressive strength, split
tensile strength and flexural strength are given tables 6.9 to 6.12 and figures 6.10 to 6.15.
Table: 6.9 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete with PET fibers

0 15.12 24.12 43.56
0.5 15.26 24.29 43.82
1 15.32 24.65 44.12
1.5 15.56 24.97 44.68
2 15.71 25.56 45.23
2.5 15.86 25.78 45.96
3 15.94 25.96 46.81
3.5 16.04 26.18 47.59
4 15.9 25.89 46.75
4.5 15.81 25.61 45.89
5 15.68 25.01 45.1
5.5 15.5 24.81 44.56
6 15.31 24.42 44.01
Table: 6.10 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete with PET fibers

0 17.02 26.45 45.71
0.5 17.21 26.81 45.98
1 17.45 27.05 46.56
1.5 17.68 27.56 46.92
2 17.79 27.89 47.69
2.5 17.86 28.12 48.23
3 17.95 28.46 48.96
3.5 18.15 28.7 49.8
4 17.91 28.41 49.01
4.5 17.81 28.05 48.65
5 17.7 27.85 48.12
5.5 17.49 27.49 47.61
6 17.3 26.91 46.89
93
Compressive Strength in 50 51
28 Days
49.5 28 Days 50
49
48.5 49
48
Mpa
48
Mpa
47.5
47 47
46.5
46
46
45.5 45
45 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 Percentage of PET fiber
Percentage of PET fiber
Fig. 6.12 Compressive Strength of M25 concrete Fig. 6.13 Compressive Strength of M30 concrete
with PET fibers with PET fibers
Table: 6.11 Split tensile and Flexural Strengths
M25 concrete with PET fibers
0 3.59 4.6
0.5 3.62 4.64
1 3.65 4.69
1.5 3.69 4.73
2 3.71 4.77
2.5 3.75 4.81
3 3.79 4.85
3.5 3.84 4.88
4 3.8 4.84
4.5 3.74 4.8
5 3.72 4.76
5.5 3.68 4.71
6 3.64 4.68
4
5
3.9
4.9
in Mpa
3.8
4.8
3.7
4.7
3.6
4.6
3.5
2 3 4 5 4.5
Percentage of PET fiber 2 3 4 5
Percentage of PET fiber
Fig. 6.14 Split Tensile Strength of M25 Fig. 6.15 Flexural Strength of M25 concrete with
concrete with PET fibers PET fibers
94
Table: 6.12 Split tensile and Flexural Strengths M30 concrete
with PET fibers

0 3.75 4.77
0.5 3.79 4.8
1 3.81 4.86
1.5 3.86 4.89
2 3.91 4.91
2.5 3.93 4.95
3 3.98 5.01
3.5 4.03 5.07
4 3.95 5.02
4.5 3.85 4.94
5 3.8 4.9
5.5 3.78 4.88
6 3.71 4.84
4.2 5.2
Split Tensile Strength in Mpa
4.1 5.1
4 5
3.9 4.9
3.8 4.8
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Percentage of PET fiber Percentage of PET fiber
Fig. 6.16 Split Tensile Strength of M30 concrete Fig. 6.17 Flexural Strength of M30 concrete with
with PET fibers PET fibers
From the tables 6.9 to 6.12 and figures 6.12 to 6.17, the strengths of modified PET fiber
reinforced concrete strengths are increases as percentage of fiber increases up to 3.5%, later
the strength is decreasing. The increase in the compressive strength is 6.08%, 8.54% and
9.25% in M25 mix and 6.63%, 8.5% and 8.94% in M30 mix was observed at the age of
3days, 7days and 28 days. Similarly, the improvement in the split tensile and flexural
95
strengths is 6.96% and 6.08% of M25 concrete and 7.46% and 6.28% for M30 concrete
respectively.
6.6.1.3 Strength Properties of HDPP Concrete
The experimental results of HDPP fiber reinforced concrete i.e. compressive strength, split
tensile strength and flexural strengths are given below tables and figures.
Table: 6.13 Compressive Strength of M25 Concrete with HDPP fibers

0 15.12 24.12 43.56
0.5 15.29 24.56 43.87
1 15.4 24.89 44.05
1.5 15.59 25.02 44.69
2 15.78 25.45 45.07
2.5 15.84 25.64 45.89
3 15.92 25.89 46.56
3.5 15.99 26.01 47.31
4 15.91 25.91 46.61
4.5 15.82 25.62 45.98
5 15.72 25.4 45.01
5.5 15.6 24.98 44.51
6 15.51 24.5 43.81
Table: 6.14 Compressive Strength M30 Concrete with HDPP fibers

0 17.02 26.45 45.71
0.5 17.29 26.59 46.08
1 17.4 26.85 46.69
1.5 17.52 26.98 46.94
2 17.68 27.56 47.68
2.5 17.81 27.89 48.24
3 17.95 28.01 48.98
3.5 18.02 28.6 49.6
4 17.9 27.96 48.9
4.5 17.78 27.12 48.12
5 17.65 26.85 47.56
5.5 17.48 26.42 46.78
6 17.2 26.02 46.01
96
50 52
28 Days 28 Days
49 51
48 50
Mpa
Mpa
47
49
46
48
45
47
44 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5
Percentage of HDPP fiber
Fig. 6.18 Compressive Strength of M25 Fig. 6.19 Compressive Strength of M30 Concrete
Concrete with HDPP fibers with HDPP fibers

M25 Concrete with HDPP fibers
0 3.59 4.6
0.5 3.63 4.64
1 3.66 4.66
1.5 3.69 4.69
2 3.71 4.73
2.5 3.73 4.78
3 3.76 4.81
3.5 3.79 4.84
4 3.75 4.8
4.5 3.72 4.77
5 3.68 4.72
5.5 3.65 4.67
6 3.61 4.65
3.9 5
3.8 4.9
Mpa
Mpa
4.8
3.7
4.7
3.6 2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 Percentage of HDPP fiber
Fig. 6.20 Split Tensile Strength of M25 Fig. 6.21 Flexural Strength of M25 Concrete with
Concrete with HDPP fibers HDPP fibers
97
M30 Concrete with HDPP fibers
0 3.75 4.77
0.5 3.79 4.79
1 3.82 4.83
1.5 3.86 4.86
2 3.89 4.9
2.5 3.93 4.93
3 3.95 4.95
3.5 3.98 5.01
4 3.94 4.94
4.5 3.91 4.88
5 3.88 4.81
5.5 3.84 4.78
6 3.8 4.76
4.2 5.2
4.1 5.1
Mpa
4 5
3.9 4.9
3.8 4.8
2 3 4 5 2 3 4 5
Percentage of HDPP fiber Percentage of HDPP fiber
Fig. 6.22 Split Tensile Strength of M30 Concrete Fig. 6.23 Flexural Strength of M30 Concrete
with HDPP fibers with HDPP fibers
The results of experiments are presented in the tables 6.13 to 6.16 and figures 6.18 to 6.23.
From 0.5% to 3.5% of fiber in the concrete, the strength is increases as the percentage of fiber
increases. The increase in the compressive strength is 5.75%, 7.83% and 8.6% in M25 mix
and 5.87%, 8.13% and 8.51% in M30 mix was observed at the age of 3days, 7days and 28
days. Similarly, the improvement in the split tensile and flexural strengths is 5.57% and
5.21% of M25 concrete and 6.13% and 5.03% for M30 concrete respectively.
98
6.6.1.4 Strength Properties of POLYESTER Concrete
The experimental results of POLYESTER fiber reinforced concrete i.e. compressive strength,
split tensile strength and flexural strengths are given below tables and figures.
Table: 6.17 Compressive Strength of M25 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers

0 15.12 24.12 43.56
0.5 15.23 24.29 44.01
1 15.35 24.56 44.86
1.5 15.41 24.71 45.12
2 15.59 24.89 45.89
2.5 15.68 25.21 46.56
3 15.79 25.71 46.89
3.5 15.91 25.94 47.25
4 15.75 25.65 46.92
4.5 15.62 25.13 46.45
5 15.55 24.88 45.94
5.5 15.34 24.65 45.02
6 15.2 24.5 44.8
Table: 6.18 Compressive Strength of M30 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers

0 17.02 26.45 45.71
0.5 17.19 26.89 46.05
1 17.31 27.05 46.85
1.5 17.4 27.32 47.25
2 17.52 27.54 47.92
2.5 17.65 27.86 48.15
3 17.82 28.06 48.96
3.5 17.98 28.51 49.5
4 17.8 28.1 48.9
4.5 17.61 27.8 48.05
5 17.45 27.51 47.8
5.5 17.36 27.29 47.12
6 17.2 27.01 46.75
99
48 51
Compressive Strength 28 Days 28 Days
50.5
47.5
50
47 49.5
in MPa
in MPa
46.5 49
48.5
46
48
45.5 47.5
47
45
2 3 4 5
2 3 4 5 Percentage of Polyester Fiber
Percentage of Polyester Fiber
Fig. 6.24 Compressive Strength of M25 Concrete Fig. 6.25 Compressive Strength of M30
with POLYESTER fibers Concrete with POLYESTER fibers
M25 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers

0 3.59 4.6
0.5 3.62 4.63
1 3.65 4.68
1.5 3.68 4.71
2 3.69 4.73
2.5 3.71 4.75
3 3.74 4.78
3.5 3.77 4.81
4 3.73 4.77
4.5 3.7 4.74
5 3.67 4.7
5.5 3.65 4.66
6 3.61 4.61
3.9 5
Split tensile strength in
Flexural strength in Mpa
3.85
4.9
3.8
4.8
Mpa
3.75
3.7 4.7
3.65 4.6
3.6
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 4.5
Percentage of Polyester fiber 2 3 4 5
Percentage of Polyester fiber
Fig. 6.26 Split Tensile Strength of M25 Concrete Fig. 6.27 Flexural Strength of M25 Concrete with
with POLYESTER fibers POLYESTER fibers
100
M30 Concrete with POLYESTER fibers

0 3.75 4.77
0.5 3.78 4.81
1 3.82 4.84
1.5 3.86 4.86
2 3.89 4.89
2.5 3.91 4.91
3 3.93 4.94
3.5 3.95 4.98
4 3.92 4.93
4.5 3.88 4.9
5 3.85 4.87
5.5 3.81 4.82
6 3.77 4.8
4.1 5.2
Split tensile strength in Mpa
Flexural strength in Mpa
5.15
4.05
5.1
4
5.05
3.95 5
3.9 4.95
4.9
3.85
4.85
3.8
4.8
2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5
2 3 4 5
Percentage of Polyester fiber Percentage of Polyester fiber
Fig. 6.28 Split Tensile Strength of M30 Fig. 6.29 Flexural Strength of M30 Concrete with
Concrete with POLYESTER fibers POLYESTER fibers
The results of modified POLYESTER fiber reinforced concrete are shown in tables 6.17 to
6.20 and figures 6.24 to 6.29. Based on the results the strength properties of fiber reinforced
concrete are increases as percentage of fiber increases up to 3.5%, later the strength is
decreasing. An improvement of 5.22%, 7.54% and 8.47% in M25 mix and 5.64%, 7.78% and
8.29% in M30 mix was observed when 3days, 7days and 28 days compressive strengths of
101
modified concrete at 3.5% POLYESTER fibers in the concrete. Similarly, the improvement
in the split tensile and flexural strengths is 5.01% and 4.56% of M25 concrete and 5.33% and
4.4% for M30 concrete respectively.
Table: 6.21 Nomenclature for modified concrete mixes
Name Final concrete mixes of M25 and M30
C Concrete without admixture
CA Concrete with admixture
CAG CA+ 50% GGBS
CAGR CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand
CAGRHE CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% HDPE
CAGRPE CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% PET
CAGRHD CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% HDPP
CAGRPO CA + 50% GGBS + 25% ROBO Sand + 3.5% POLYESTER
A fiber reduces the crack spacing, thus indicating a more redistribution of stresses. As the
first crack forms, the fibers bridge it, transmitting stresses across the crack surface. In order to
enforce further crack opening the applied load has to be increased, which leads to the
formation of another crack. This mechanism then repeats until failure.
With fibers
Without fibers
Fig.6.30 Mechanism of increase in flexure strength of concrete with fibers
102
The concrete strength is increases as the fiber content increases up to 3.5%, this may be due
to the better dispersion of fibers in the concrete. Beyond this percentage, there might be fiber
balling, meaning the fibers get hooked to each other causing poor dispersion. Because of this
reason the strength of concrete is reducing.
Arkan Radi Ali 2013 conducted the experiments on the use of polypropylene fibers in the
concrete. 2% of fibers in the concrete were used in this study. The compressive strength is
increasing as the fiber content increases in the concrete. The present experimental
investigation has been carried out the use of fibers in the concrete beyond 2%. It is found to
be the optimum percentage fibers in the concrete are 3.5% (>2% hence in line with previous
study).
6.7 STRENGTH CONTRIBUTION OF FIBERS
An approximate calculation of contribution of fibers to concrete strength for this case is
presented in Appendix. The calculation is performed under the assumption that all fibers are
oriented perpendicular to the crack propagation. The fiber size is 2.5mmX0.1mm
approximately.
The maximum percentage of fibers is 3.5% volume of cement.
The volume of fibers in a 150mm cube is 0.012 10 m .
Tensile load carrying capacity of HDPE fiber is 67.79kg or 677.9N.
0.012 10 1
The increase in the strength is 677.9 ( 9.62MPa
0.15 0.15 0.15 0.1 2.5
Case 1 Case 2 Case 3

Case 4
Fig. 6.31 fiber orientation with respect to crack tip
103
From the above figure, assume that there are four cases fiber orientation at the crack tip is in
equal distribution (25%). The strength contribution for all four cases is given below table.
Table: 6.22 fiber strength contribution
Cases Percentage of Remarks

Strength
contribution
Case 1 100% In direction of
crack opening
Case 2 50% Partially in
Case 3 50% direction of crack
opening
Case 4 0% Not in direction of
crack opening
From the above table clearly shows the 50% (25%X100% +25%X50% + 25%X50% +
25%X0%) of total fibers are only contributing towards the strength development.
Conservatively it is assumed that only 40% fibers (all of which are assumed to be
perpendicular to crack direction) contribute to strength development. So the strength
improvement due to the fibers can be approximated to 40% of the above (9.62 MPa) value
i.e. 3.85 MPa. From the experimental investigation, the strength improvement due to the
HDPE fibers is 3.95 MPa. Below table shows the strength improvements of different fibers in
the concrete.
Table: 6.23 Strength contribution due to fibers theoretical and experimental results
S. No. Fiber type Strength improvement (MPa) Strength improvement

M25 concrete (MPa) M30 concrete
Theoretical Experimental Theoretical Experimental
1 HDPE 3.85 3.95 4.21 4.04
2 PET 4.088 4.03 4.48 4.09
3 HDPP 3.656 3.75 4.00 3.89
4 POLYESTER 3.42 3.69 3.74 3.79
From the above table it shown that there is good correlation between theoretical results and
experimental results.
104
6.7 SUMMARY
Based on the present experimental study, the following points can be summarized.
1. The strength properties are increasing as percentage of fiber increases up to 3.5%. After
this strength is reducing as the percentage of fiber increases.
2. The compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of concrete increased
by 9.07, 6.12 and 5.65% respectively with 3.5% of HDPE fiber in the M25 concrete.
Similarly in case of M30 concrete strengths are increased by 8.84, 6.93% and 5.87% at
the age of 28 days respectively when compared to CAGR mix.
3. The increase in the 28 days compressive strength, split tensile and flexural strength of
PET fiber reinforced M25 concrete is 9.25%, 6.96% and 6.09% respectively. For M30
Grade concrete 8.95%, 7.46% and 6.29% increased compressive strengths, split tensile
strength and flexural strength respectively when compared to CAGR mix.
4. The modified concrete (with HDPP fibers) strengths i.e. compressive strength, split
tensile and flexural strengths of concrete is increased by 8.61%, 5.57%, and 5.22% for
M25 concrete and M30 concrete 8.51%, 6.13% and 5.03% respectively compared with
concrete without fibers at the age of 28 days when compared to CAGR mix.
5. Similarly for Polyester fiber reinforced concrete, the increase in the 28 days compressive
strength, split tensile strength and flexural strengths are 8.47%, 5.01% and 4.57% for
M25 concrete and for M30 concrete 8.29%, 5.33% and 4.4% respectively when compared
to CAGR mix.
105
Fig.6.32 HDPE Fibers
Fig.6.33 PET Fibers
Fig.6.34 HDPP Fibers
106
Fig.6.35 POLYESTER Fibers
Fig.6.36 Cubes for compressive strength
Fig.6.37 Cylinders for split tensile strength
107
Fig.6.38 Beams for flexural strength
108
109
CHAPTER 7
STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF MODIFIED CONCRETE
7.1 INTRODUCTION
Graph obtained by drawing a curve for the values of stresses and strains obtained during testing a
material specimen is called a stress - strain curve. By testing cylinders of standard size made
with concrete, under uni-axial compression values of stresses and strains are obtained and the
stress-strain curves are plotted. Even though the stress strain relation for cement paste and
aggregate when tested individually is practically linear, it is observed from the stress-strain plots
of concrete that, no portion of the curves is in the form of a straight line. In concrete the rate of
increase of stress is less than that of increase in strain because of the formation of micro cracks,
between the interfaces of the aggregate and the cement paste. Thus the stress strain curve is not
linear. In conventional concrete the value of stress is maximum corresponding to a strain of
about 0.002 and further goes on decreasing with the increasing strain, giving a dropping curve
till it terminates at ultimate crushing strain.
7.2 EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATIONS
Cylinders made with different selected design concrete mix proportions with and without the
addition of GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers were tested for stress-strain behavior under uni-axial
compression. Three cylinders for each mix were cast, tested under uni-axial compression and the
average of three cylinders were taken for obtaining the stress-strain behavior of each design
concrete mix. Thus stress-strain curves for all design concrete mixes with different percentage of
fibers with GGBS and ROBO sand were plotted. The experimental values of stress and strain for
110
M25 and M30 design mix concrete with and without GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers given in
tables 7.1 to 7.6.
LVDT
with
Test
dial
specimen
gauge
Fig. 7.1 Test setup
Table: 7.1 Experimental values of stress – strain for M25 design mix concrete
M25 CA concrete M25 CAG concrete M25 CAGR concrete

Stress Stress Stress
S. No Strain S. No Strain S. No Strain
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0.00007 2.16 2 0.00009 2.25 2 0.00009 2.24
3 0.0002 4.41 3 0.00031 4.39 3 0.00024 4.42
4 0.00051 5.98 4 0.00061 6.61 4 0.00061 6.45
5 0.00075 8.25 5 0.00088 8.51 5 0.00099 8.79
6 0.00121 12.02 6 0.00124 11.72 6 0.00136 11.59
7 0.00149 13.99 7 0.00152 13.89 7 0.00179 14.79
8 0.00168 16.03 8 0.00191 16.11 8 0.00209 17.54
9 0.00192 17.29 9 0.00216 17.75 9 0.00229 18.98
10 0.00228 20.43 10 0.00234 19.54 10 0.00244 20.49
11 0.00263 21.83 11 0.00274 21.78 11 0.00286 22.32
12 0.00314 24.12 12 0.00346 24.1 12 0.00332 25.12
13 0.00351 25.42 13 0.00389 25.98 13 0.00406 28.15
14 0.00399 28.18 14 0.00431 28.59 14 0.00466 29.54
15 0.00441 28.74 15 0.00471 29.86 15 0.00496 30.59
16 0.00492 28.32 16 0.005 30.58 16 0.00548 31.95
17 0.00518 27.42 17 0.00522 28.98 17 0.00574 32.87
18 0.00537 24.04 18 0.00537 27.12 18 0.00599 33.98
19 0.00549 21.25 19 0.00546 24.98 19 0.00626 33.45
20 0.00644 30.98
111
21 0.00664 26.92
Table: 7.2 Experimental values of stress – strain for M30 design mix concrete
M30 CA concrete M30 CAG concrete M30 CAGR concrete

Stress Stress Stress
S. No Strain S. No Strain S. No Strain
N/mm2 N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0.00014 2.41 2 0.00026 2.54 2 0.0004 2.71
3 0.00036 6.01 3 0.00054 5.98 3 0.00072 5.91
4 0.00055 8.89 4 0.00098 8.88 4 0.00092 9.01
5 0.00099 12.62 5 0.0011 11.61 5 0.00118 11.59
6 0.0012 14.02 6 0.0013 13.45 6 0.0013 13.69
7 0.00133 16.89 7 0.0015 16.87 7 0.0016 16.38
8 0.00148 19.68 8 0.0017 19.82 8 0.0019 19.81
9 0.00179 22.19 9 0.00189 22.13 9 0.0021 22.51
10 0.0021 24.98 10 0.0022 24.36 10 0.0023 24.81
11 0.0024 28.12 11 0.0025 26.54 11 0.00264 26.94
12 0.0029 30.25 12 0.00261 29.01 12 0.00278 29.08
13 0.0033 33.69 13 0.003 32.01 13 0.00312 32.09
14 0.0038 35.98 14 0.0032 33.98 14 0.00336 32.95
15 0.0041 37.54 15 0.00338 35.45 15 0.00355 34.58
16 0.0043 39.59 16 0.00354 36.83 16 0.00371 36.12
17 0.0045 41.98 17 0.00382 37.56 17 0.00401 38.84
18 0.0048 43.11 18 0.0041 40.05 18 0.00422 41.28
19 0.0051 39.98 19 0.0044 42.94 19 0.0045 44.68
20 0.0055 35.87 20 0.0045 44.05 20 0.00502 47.86
21 0.0059 33.69 21 0.00471 45.64 21 0.0054 48.26
22 0.0051 46.28 22 0.0057 48.97
23 0.00541 44.12 23 0.00608 47.01
24 0.00565 40.89 24 0.00631 42.11
112
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Strain Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.2 Stress – strain behavior of M25 CA Fig. 7.3 Stress – strain behavior of
concrete M25 CAG concrete
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fig. 7.4 Stress – strain behavior of Fig. 7.5 Stress – strain behavior of
M25 CAGR concrete M30 CA concrete
113
1.2
1.2
1
1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.8
0.6
0.6
0.4
0.4
0.2
0.2
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Strain 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.6 Stress – strain behavior of Fig. 7.7 Stress – strain behavior of M30
M30 CAG concrete CAGR concrete
Figures 7.1 to 7.6 shows the normalized stress and normalized strain behavior of M25 and M30
design mixes with and without GGBS and ROBO sand.
Table: 7.3 Experimental values of stress – strain for M25 concrete

with HDPE and PET Fibers
M25 CAGRHE concrete M25 CAGRPE concrete
Stress Stress
S. No Strain S. No Strain
N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0.00011 2.24 2 0.00012 2.25
3 0.00028 4.42 3 0.00031 4.42
4 0.00068 6.45 4 0.00071 6.48
5 0.00119 8.79 5 0.00122 8.81
6 0.00141 11.59 6 0.00144 11.59
7 0.00185 14.79 7 0.00187 14.89
8 0.00219 17.54 8 0.00222 17.54
9 0.00249 19.09 9 0.00252 19.19
10 0.00254 20.49 10 0.00259 20.49
11 0.00291 22.41 11 0.00298 22.41
12 0.00351 25.12 12 0.0036 25.22
13 0.00416 28.15 13 0.00421 28.15
14 0.00471 29.54 14 0.00481 29.54
114
15 0.00506 30.59 15 0.00517 30.69
16 0.00558 32.11 16 0.00559 32.11
17 0.00589 33.05 17 0.00598 33.15
18 0.00645 34.49 18 0.00655 34.52
19 0.00661 33.41 19 0.00681 33.51
20 0.00684 31.89 20 0.00691 32.01
21 0.00719 27.45 21 0.00721 27.98

with HDPP and POLYESTER Fibers
M25 CAGRHD concrete M25 CAGRPO concrete
Stress Stress
N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0.00015 2.25 2 0.00014 2.21
3 0.00032 4.41 3 0.0003 4.43
4 0.00081 6.51 4 0.00079 6.54
5 0.00132 8.88 5 0.00129 8.85
6 0.00154 11.69 6 0.00149 11.71
7 0.00199 14.98 7 0.00191 14.92
8 0.00242 17.61 8 0.00241 17.7
9 0.00262 19.39 9 0.00259 19.4
10 0.00279 20.58 10 0.00271 20.61
11 0.00298 22.54 11 0.00289 22.59
12 0.00381 25.32 12 0.00375 25.29
13 0.00441 28.61 13 0.00431 28.69
14 0.00491 29.54 14 0.00489 29.61
15 0.00537 30.81 15 0.00537 30.89
16 0.00572 32.11 16 0.00569 32.18
17 0.0063 33.25 17 0.00632 33.31
18 0.00669 34.62 18 0.00661 34.68
19 0.00696 33.51 19 0.00692 33.64
20 0.00719 32.11 20 0.00729 32.21
21 0.00741 27.81 21 0.00732 27.89
115
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Strain Normalised strain
Fig. 7.8 Stress – strain behavior of M25 Fig. 7.9 Stress – strain behavior of M25
CAGRHE concrete CAGRPE concrete
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Normalised Strain
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.10 Stress – strain behavior of M25 Fig. 7.11 Stress – strain behavior of M25
CAGRHD concrete CAGRPO concrete
116
with HDPE and PET Fibers
Stress Stress
N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0
2 0.00042 2.78 2 0.00044 2.82
3 0.00075 6.02 3 0.00077 6.05
4 0.00094 9.09 4 0.00098 9.09
5 0.00122 11.71 5 0.00129 11.71
6 0.00136 13.91 6 0.00141 14.12
7 0.00168 16.58 7 0.00172 16.81
8 0.00199 19.95 8 0.00208 20.15
9 0.00218 22.89 9 0.00228 23.12
10 0.00241 25.09 10 0.00249 25.81
11 0.00274 27.16 11 0.00289 27.89
12 0.00289 29.86 12 0.0031 30.29
13 0.00322 32.89 13 0.00342 33.89
14 0.00343 33.98 14 0.00363 34.99
15 0.00369 34.89 15 0.00381 35.89
16 0.00384 36.59 16 0.00409 37.59
17 0.00422 39.09 17 0.00431 39.69
18 0.00442 41.39 18 0.00453 42.59
19 0.00479 44.89 19 0.00486 45.91
20 0.00516 48.69 20 0.00526 49.79
21 0.00559 49.21 21 0.00571 52.54
22 0.00595 49.98 22 0.00612 53.18
23 0.00635 47.25 23 0.00652 48.59
24 0.00662 43.89 24 0.00682 44.91

with HDPP and POLYESTER Fibers
M30 CAGRHD concrete M30 CAGRPO concrete
Stress Stress
N/mm2 N/mm2
1 0 0 1 0 0
117
2 0.00043 2.83 2 0.00043 2.81
3 0.00075 6.05 3 0.00076 6.03
4 0.00095 9.15 4 0.00098 9.11
5 0.00124 11.79 5 0.00124 11.71
6 0.00138 14.22 6 0.00139 14.19
7 0.00169 16.89 7 0.00171 16.91
8 0.00205 20.21 8 0.00208 20.23
9 0.00224 23.32 9 0.00228 23.34
10 0.00249 25.88 10 0.00251 25.98
11 0.0029 27.91 11 0.00296 27.96
12 0.00312 30.39 12 0.00322 30.41
13 0.00344 34.05 13 0.00348 34.06
14 0.00369 35.08 14 0.00371 35.18
15 0.00388 36.89 15 0.0039 36.9
16 0.00416 37.96 16 0.00421 37.98
17 0.00439 39.89 17 0.00441 39.91
18 0.00458 42.78 18 0.00461 42.82
19 0.00491 46.19 19 0.00496 46.29
20 0.00529 49.98 20 0.00539 49.99
21 0.00576 52.69 21 0.00586 52.79
22 0.00622 53.69 22 0.00632 53.71
23 0.00654 48.62 23 0.00659 48.59
24 0.00689 44.21 24 0.00696 44.25
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 Normalised Strain
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.12 Stress – strain behavior of Fig. 7.13 Stress – strain behavior of
118
1.2 1.2
1 1
Normalised Stress
Normalised Stress
0.8 0.8
0.6 0.6
0.4 0.4
0.2 0.2
0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Fig. 7.14 Stress – strain behavior of Fig. 7.15 Stress – strain behavior of M30
M30 CAGRHD concrete CAGRPO concrete
Table: 7.7 Peak stress and strain at peak stress of different mixes
MIX Strain at peak

Peak Stress
concrete Type stress
CA
28.74 0.0044
CAG
30.58 0.005
CAGR
33.98 0.006
CAGRHE
M25 34.49 0.0065
CAGRPE
34.52 0.0066
CAGRHD
34.62 0.0067
CAGRPO
34.68 0.0066
CA
43.11 0.0048
CAG
M30 46.28 0.0051
CAGR
48.97 0.0057
119
CAGRHE
49.98 0.006
CAGRPE
53.18 0.0061
M30
CAGRHD
53.69 0.0062
CAGRPO
53.71 0.0063
Table no. 7.7 shows the peak stresses and strains at peak stress. If observe the table, the peak
stresses and strains at peak stress are increased up to 20% and 50% respectively for M25
concrete when compared to conventional design mix. Similarly for M30 concrete, the increase in
the peak stress and strain at peak stress are 24.5% and 31% respectively.
7.3 MATHEMATICAL MODELING FOR STRESS-STRAIN BEHAVIOUR OF
CONCRETE
After obtaining the stress-strain behavior of design concrete mixes with combination of GGBS and
ROBO Sand experimentally, an attempt was made to get the analytical stress-strain curves for design
concrete mixes.
To represent uni-axial stress-strain behavior of conventional concrete, number of empirical equations
has been proposed but most of them can be used for only ascending portion of the curve. Carriera and
Chu (1985) extended the empirical equation proposed by Popovics in 1973, which includes both
ascending and descending portions of complete stress-strain curve. Most of the equations proposed
were for conventional concrete.
Considering this gap in existing literature an attempt has been made to develop empirical equations
for design concrete mix with and without GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers.
120
7.3.1 Non-Dimensional (normalized) Stress-Strain Curves
The stress-strain curves indicate that, the behavior is similar for all the specimens. The similarity
leads to the conclusion that there is only a unique shape of the stress-strain diagram, if expressed
in a non-dimensional form, along both the axes. The said form can be obtained by dividing the
stress at any level by peak stress and the strain at any level by peak strain. Thus all the stress-
strain curves will have same point (1, 1) at peak stress. By non- dimensionalising the stresses and
strains as above the behavior can be represented as a general behavior.
The stress – strain curves obtained experimentally for design concrete were normalized as
specified above and normalized stress-strain values were calculated for all design concrete
mixes.
Two design concrete mixes with GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers, taken for investigation are of
M25 and M30 grade mixes. A single normalized stress-strain curve is developed for the
combination of three M25 design mixes and three M30 design mixes taking the average values
of normalized stresses and strains. The normalized stress and strain curves presented from the
fig.7.1 to 7.14.
7.3.2 Models Available for Stress-Strain Curves of Conventional Concrete
Many researchers developed various models for the prediction of stress-strain behavior of concrete.
Some of the models are given below.
1) Desay’s and Krishnan’s model (1964)
For Normal strength concrete, stress-strain relationship is given by
121

1
Where Y = The Normalized stress
X = Normalized strain and
A, B are the constants and they can be find out by using boundary conditions. This model is valid
only up to ascending branch of stress-strain curve.
2) Saenz’s Model (1964)
With reference to Desay’s model Saenz proposed a model by taking into account both the ascending
and descending portions of the stress-strain curve. This model is in the form of

1
Where Y= (σ / σu) and X =

/
3) Kent and Park Model (1971)
For Normal strength concrete up to ascending portion:
The stress-strain model is 2

/
/
fc' = compressive strength N/mm2 εo = strain at peak stress
4) Wang et.al. Model (1978)
The model used by Wang et.al. is in the form of

/
/

1
/
/
However instead of using one set of the coefficients A, B, C, and D to generate the complete
curve, Wang et.al, used two sets of coefficients – one for the ascending branch and the other for
the descending branch. The respective coefficients being obtained from the relevant boundary
conditions assigned to each part of the curve.
122
5) Carreria and Chu’s Model (1985)
This model is in the form of

/

1
/
′
In which 1 #$ *& '() +
Where = cylinder ultimate compressive strength
= strain at ultimate stress
',- = initial tangent modulus
7.3.3 Proposed Model for Stress-Strain Behavior
Equations in different forms were tried to get the complete stress-strain behavior of design
concrete mixes. From the results obtained, the second order regression equation was postulated
in order to derive the relation between the stress and strain. The proposed equation is
transformed form of wang’s model is in the form of

1
X – Normalized strain; Y – Normalized stress; A, B, C and D – Constants
Using non-dimensional stress-strain curves, constants for different design concrete mixes are
determined and from that the equations are developed. Ultimately analytical equations giving the
complete stress-strain behavior are developed for M25 and M35 grade concrete with GGBS,
ROBO Sand and fibers.
The constants for design concrete mixes are given in the table 7.8 and the equations for the
design concrete mixes are given in the table 7.9.
123
Table: 7.8 constants of A, B, C and D for the different design mix design
with and without GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers
MIX Constants for design concrete mixes

Concrete Type A B C D
CA
1.904 -1.474 1.667 -0.583
CAG
1.841 -1.650 -0.106 -0.697
CAGR
1.933 -1.706 -0.017 -0.750
CAGRHE
M25 1.864 -1.606 -0.131 -0.603
CAGRPE
1.869 -1.641 -0.130 -0.637
CAGRHD
1.779 -1.556 -0.209 -0.564
CAGRPO
1.944 -1.748 0.035 -0.839
CA
1.615 -1.186 -0.253 -0.289
CAG
1.266 -1.061 -0.726 -0.067
CAGR
1.211 -1.022 -0.818 0.006
CAGRHE
M30 1.207 -0.996 -0.805 0.018
CAGRPE
1.091 -0.914 -0.899 0.080
CAGRHD
1.134 -0.966 -0.856 0.029
CAGRPO
1.133 -0.969 -0.870 0.039
Table: 7.9 Proposed equations for different design mix design

with and without GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers
MIX
Proposed Equations
Concrete Type
1.094 1.474

CA
1 1.667 0.583
1.841 1.65

CAG
1 0.106 0.697
M25
1.933 1.706

CAGR
1 0.017 0.75
124
1.864 1.606

CAGRHE
1 0.131 0.603
1.869 1.641

CAGRPE
1 0.13 0.637
1.779 1.556
M25

CAGRHD
1 0.209 0.564
1.944 1.748

CAGRPO
1 0.035 0.839
1.615 1.186

CA
1 0.253 0.289
1.266 1.061

CAG
1 0.726 0.067
1.211 1.022

CAGR
1 0.818 0.006
1.207 0.996

CAGRHE
1 0.805 0.018
M30
1.091 0.914

CAGRPE
1 0.899 0.08
1.134 0.966

CAGRHD
1 0.856 0.029
1.133 0.969

CAGRPO
1 0.87 0.039
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
0.4 Experimental value

Desay's krishnan's model
0.2 saenz model
Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.16 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CA concrete
125
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
0.4
Experimental value
0.2
saenz model
proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.17 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAG concrete
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6

0.2 Saenz model
Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.18 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGR concrete
126
1.2
Normalised Stress 1
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
0.4
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.19 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CA concrete
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
0.4
Saenz model
0.2
Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.20 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAG concrete
127
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
0.4 Desay's krishnan's model
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.21 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGR concrete
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.22 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRHE concrete
128
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8

Saenz model
0.4
Proposed model
0.2
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.23 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRPE concrete
1.2
0.8
Normalised Stress
0.6
Experimental value
0.4
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.24 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRHD concrete
129
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
0.4
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.25 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M25 CAGRPO concrete
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6

Saenz model
0.2
Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.26 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRHE concrete
130
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
0.4
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.27 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRPE concrete
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.28 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRHD concrete
131
1.2
1
Normalised Stress
0.8
0.6
Experimental value
Saenz model
0.2 Proposed model
0
0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5
Normalised Strain
Fig. 7.29 Comparison of stress – strain behavior of M30 CAGRPO concrete
Comparison of existing stress strain models i.e. Desay’s Krishnan’s models and Saenz models to
the proposed model and experimental values given in the figures 7.15 to 7.28. There is a good
agreement between the proposed and existing models.
Table: 7.10 R2 and Ra2 values of different mixes

with different models and proposed model
Material Desay's krishnan's Saenz model Proposed model

2 2 2
Combinations R Ra R Ra2 R2 Ra2
M25 Design mix concrete
CA 0.9667 0.9647 0.9699 0.9662 0.9952 0.9942
CAG 0.9823 0.9812 0.9823 0.9801 0.9965 0.9958
CAGR 0.9819 0.9809 0.9827 0.9808 0.9958 0.995
CAGRHE 0.983 0.982 0.9851 0.9834 0.9957 0.995
CAGRPE 0.9853 0.9845 0.9867 0.9853 0.9961 0.9954
CAGRHD 0.9833 0.9824 0.9861 0.9846 0.9954 0.9947
132
CAGRPO 0.9833 0.9824 0.9855 0.9839 0.9932 0.992
M30 Design mix concrete
CA 0.9761 0.9748 0.9796 0.9773 0.992 0.9906
CAG 0.9863 0.9856 0.9922 0.9914 0.9968 0.9964
CAGR 0.9811 0.9803 0.9893 0.9883 0.9974 0.997
CAGRHE 0.9832 0.9824 0.9908 0.9899 0.9969 0.9964
CAGRPE 0.9772 0.9761 0.9862 0.9848 0.9964 0.9958
CAGRHD 0.9761 0.9751 0.9834 0.9818 0.9955 0.9949
CAGRPO 0.9764 0.9753 0.9837 0.9821 0.9956 0.9949
Table 7.10 shows the values of Coefficient of Multiple Determination (R2) and Adjusted
Coefficient of Multiple Determination (Ra2) of different models and proposed model. From this
it may be concluded that the proposed model is suitable for this design concrete mixes. The
suitability of the regression model was decided based on the value of R2. As the value of R2
approaches 1 it is the best suitable regression model and if it moves towards 0 then the value of
the residuals increase. With increase in the number of variables, the value of residuals decrease
and the coefficient of determination R2 increases. To achieve a more precise comparison Ra2 is
used, which is adjusted for the degrees of freedom. Ra2 is used for comparing the range of
predicted values at the design points to the average prediction error. It is like signal to noise ratio
used in Taguchi method. All the mixes had R2 and Ra2 values greater than 99%. In each of the
cases, the predicted R2 value was in reasonable agreement with the Ra2 value. The value of R2
was closer to 1, which was desirable.
133
7.4 SUMMARY
1. Based on the stress-strain curves of all design mixes it is observed that the stress-strain
pattern is to be almost similar. The only difference is that compared to that of other mixes,
the GGBS – ROBO sand and fiber mixes have shown improved stress values. It is observed
that for higher grade of concrete with increase in stress there was decrease in strain.
2. Empirical equations for the stress-strain response of all the mixes have been proposed in the
form of 7
8 8 ⁄
1 8 8 where ‘x’ is normalized strain and ‘y’ is
normalized stress. The same empirical formula is valid for both ascending and descending
portions.
3. The equations for mixes are mentioned table 7.8. These proposed empirical equations can be
used as stress block in analyzing the flexural behavior of sections of structural elements. The
proposed equations have shown good correlation with experimental values.
4. It is observed that there is an increase in the peak compressive strength for different mixes
made with GGBS, ROBO sand and fibers. The increase is due to reactivity of GGBS.
134
135
CHAPTER 8
DURABILITY STUDIES ON MODIFIED CONCRETE
8.1 INTRODUCTION
Durability of concrete is defined as its ability to resist weathering action, chemical attack,
abrasion, or any other process of deterioration. Durable concrete will retain its original form,
quality, and serviceability when exposed to its environment. Conventional concrete is not
recommended for in groundwater conditions contaminated with sulphate. As their applications
often require contact with soil, sulphate and hydrochloric attack would represent a significant
durability problem. These chemicals can be found in a variety of situations, such as in the
manufacture of textiles, food-processing factories, oil refineries, sewage pipes, and fertilizer
factories.
The objectives of the work described in this chapter were to compare the relative performance of
modified concrete to that of conventional designed concrete exposed to sulfuric and hydrochloric
acid solutions.
Design mix concrete cubes of 150 x 150 x 150 mm size are cast with all design mixes of
concrete and are tested for compressive strength at the age of 28 days are taken for durability
studies. The durability studies are done on cubes immersed in Sulfuric Acid (H2SO4),
Hydrochloric acids (HCl) and Sodium Sulphate (Na2SO4) for 30days, 45days and 60days. The
obtained results are presented in tables and the test results are also presented in the form of
graphs.
136
8.2 ACID ATTACK
After 28 days of curing, each cube is tested for weight and dimensions. The cubes are subjected
to 5% solutions of H2SO4, HCl and Na2SO4 individually. Cubes are continuously immersed in
solution for 30 days, 45 days and 60 days.
The specimens are arranged in the plastic trays in such a way that the clearance around and
above the specimen is not less than 30mm.The response of the specimens to the solution is
evaluated through change in appearance, weight, compressive strength, thickness and solid
diagonals. Two specimens from each group are used for testing after 30days, 45days and 60days
of immersion. Before testing, each specimen is removed from the tray, brushed with a soft nylon
brush and rinsed in tap water. This process removes loose surface material from the specimens.
8.2.1 Visual Assessment
There are no standard criteria for evaluating the resistance of concrete exposed to chemical acids.
For visual assessment the following scale is used: (Al-temimi and Sonebi 2003)
0: no attack
1: very slight attack
2: slight attack
3: moderate attack
4: severe attack
5: very severe attack
6: partial disintegration
137
Table: 8.1 Visual assessment of concrete deterioration level
Visual H2SO4 HCl Na2SO4

assessments 30 45 60 30 45 60 30 45 60
M25 Design concrete mix
CA 3 3-4 4-5 2-3 3-4 3-4 2-3 3 3-4
CAG 3-4 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGR 3-4 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRHE 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRPE 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRHD 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRPO 2-3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
M30 Design concrete mix
CA 2-3 3-4 4-5 2-3 3-4 3-4 2-3 3 3-4
CAG 3-4 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGR 3-4 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRHE 3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRPE 3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRHD 3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
CAGRPO 3 3-4 4-5 2 3 3 2 3 3
The visual assessment of the concrete specimens (cubes) after 30 days, 45 days and 60 days of
immersion in sulfuric acid, hydrochloric acid and Sodium Sulphate are summarized in Table 8.1.
The concrete specimens showed very severe attack at 60 days in sulfuric acid, moderate attack in
HCl and Na2SO4. The specimens turned into a white pulpy mass in addition to peeling. These
reactions resulted from expansive reactions in the concrete binder (Barker et al. 1999; Hartshorn
et al. 1999). In addition, sulfates react with the hydrated calcium-silicate phase present in all
Portland cements, thereby forming gypsum (Ca2SO4), which reacts with C3A to form ettringite
and monosulphoaluminate (Hartshorn et al. 1999; Older and Colan-Subauste 1999). These
reactions result in a substantial expansion and peeling and lead to an increase in mass loss each
138
day after cleaning and removing the deteriorated layers with a steel-wire brush. In hydrochloric
acid and Sodium Sulphate solution, the degree of deterioration appeared slightly greater. The
chlorides react with the hydrated calcium silicate phase present in all port land cements, thereby
forming CaCl2, which reacts with C3A to form chloroaluminate and ettringite. The concrete
specimens are showed moderate attack, but the overall degree of attack tended to be severe in
sulfuric solution.
8.2.2 Weight Loss and Compressive Strength Loss
The weight and compressive strength of cubes immersed for 30 days, 45 days and 60 days in
acids are noted down. The Weight Loss and Strength loss at 30 days, 45 days and 60 days for all
grades of design mixes are calculated. The Weight and Compressive strength loss at 30 days, 45
days and 60 days results of M30 concrete mix are shown in Table 8.2. The figures 8.1 to 8.7
show the graphs of weight loss, compressive strength loss M25 concrete mix.
Table: 8.2 weight loss and compressive strength loss of

M30 design concrete mix immersed in H2SO4, HCl and Na2SO4
H2SO4 HCl Na2SO4

M30 Mix design Days of immersion Days of immersion Days of immersion
30 45 60 30 45 60 30 45 60
w before 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20 8.20
w after 7.85 7.57 7.27 7.86 7.59 7.30 7.88 7.62 7.34
% w loss 4.27 7.68 11.34 4.15 7.44 10.98 3.90 7.07 10.49
CA
St. before 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15 38.15
St. after 37.12 35.65 34.31 37.22 35.69 34.34 37.26 35.72 34.36
%loss 2.70 6.55 10.07 2.44 6.45 9.99 2.33 6.37 9.93
w before 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17 8.17
w after 7.84 7.65 7.33 7.86 7.68 7.35 7.89 7.71 7.39
% w loss 4.04 6.36 10.28 3.79 6.00 10.04 3.43 5.63 9.55
CAG
St. before 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21 43.21
St. after 42.11 40.09 38.88 42.15 40.12 38.91 42.18 40.16 38.95
%loss 2.55 7.22 10.02 2.45 7.15 9.95 2.38 7.06 9.86
139
w before 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21 8.21
w after 7.89 7.65 7.39 7.91 7.66 7.41 7.91 7.68 7.45
% w loss 3.90 6.82 9.99 3.65 6.70 9.74 3.65 6.46 9.26
CAGR
St. before 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71 45.71
St. after 44.58 42.64 41.15 44.60 42.67 41.18 44.62 42.70 41.21
%loss 2.47 6.72 9.98 2.43 6.65 9.91 2.38 6.58 9.84
w before 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36
w after 8.03 7.80 7.54 8.04 7.82 7.56 8.04 7.83 7.59
% w loss 3.95 6.70 9.81 3.83 6.46 9.57 3.83 6.34 9.21
CAGRHE
St. before 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75 49.75
St. after 48.39 46.59 45.15 48.40 46.61 45.18 48.41 46.65 45.19
%loss 2.73 6.35 9.25 2.71 6.31 9.19 2.69 6.23 9.17
w before 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36 8.36
w after 8.01 7.75 7.54 8.02 7.78 7.56 8.03 7.80 7.59
% w loss 4.19 7.30 9.81 4.07 6.94 9.57 3.95 6.70 9.21
CAGRPE
St. before 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80 49.80
St. after 48.45 46.69 45.26 48.48 46.71 45.29 48.50 46.75 45.32
%loss 2.71 6.24 9.12 2.65 6.20 9.06 2.61 6.12 9.00
w before 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37 8.37
w after 8.06 7.72 7.55 8.08 7.73 7.59 8.09 7.75 7.61
% w loss 3.70 7.77 9.80 3.46 7.65 9.32 3.35 7.41 9.08
CAGRHD
St. before 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60 49.60
St. after 48.44 46.51 45.01 48.46 46.53 45.04 48.47 46.55 45.06
%loss 2.34 6.23 9.25 2.30 6.19 9.19 2.28 6.15 9.15
w before 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38 8.38
w after 8.07 7.72 7.56 8.08 7.74 7.59 8.09 7.76 7.60
% w loss 3.70 7.88 9.79 3.58 7.64 9.43 3.46 7.40 9.31
CAGRPO
St. before 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50 49.50
St. after 48.33 46.41 44.91 48.36 46.42 44.93 48.34 46.43 44.94
%loss 2.36 6.24 9.27 2.30 6.22 9.23 2.34 6.20 9.21
140
14 12
12 H2SO4
Percentage compressive
H2SO4 10
HCl
Percentage weight loss
10 HCl
8
strength loss
Na2SO4 Na2SO4
8
6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Days of Immersion Days of Immersion
Fig. 8.1 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CA concrete
14 12
12 H2SO4
10 H2SO4
10 HCl HCl
8
strength loss
8 Na2SO4 Na2SO4
6 6
4 4
2 2
0
30 45 60 0
30 45 60
Days of Immersion
Days of Immersion
Fig. 8.2 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAG concrete
12 12
H2SO4
10 10
H2SO4 HCl
strength loss
8 HCl 8 Na2SO4
6 Na2SO4 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Fig. 8.3 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGR concrete
141
Percentage weight loss 12 10
10 H2SO4 H2SO4
8 HCl
8 HCl Na2SO4
strength loss
Na2SO4 6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Fig. 8.4 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRHE concrete
12 10
Percentae compressive
10 H2SO4 8 H2SO4
HCl HCl
strength loss
8
Na2SO4 6 Na2SO4
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Fig. 8.5 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRPE concrete
12 10
Percentae weight loss
10 H2SO4 H2SO4
8
HCl HCl
strength loss
8
Na2SO4 6 Na2SO4
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Fig. 8.6 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRHD concrete
142
12 10
H2SO4
10 H2SO4
Percentae weight loss
8 HCl
HCl Na2SO4
8
strength loss
Na2SO4 6
6
4
4
2 2
0 0
30 45 60 30 45 60
Fig. 8.7 weight loss and compressive strength loss of M25 CAGRPO concrete
8.2.3 Acid Durability Factor and Acid Attack Factor
For determining the resistance of concrete specimens to aggressive environment such as acid
attack, the durability factors as proposed in the ASTM 666-1997. The standard test method for
resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing and the durability factors are defined in
terms of relative dynamic modulus of elasticity. In the present investigation, the “Acid Durability
Factors” are derived directly in terms of relative strengths. The relative strengths are always
compared with respect to the 28 days value.
The “Acid Durability Factors” (ADF) (Sunil Pratap Reddy et. al. 2010) can be calculated as
follows
ADF = (Sr x N) / M
Where, Sr - Relative Strength at N days, (%) N - Number of days at which the durability factor
is needed and M - Number of days at which the exposure is to be terminated.
The extent of deterioration at each corner of the struck face and the opposite face is measured in
terms of the acid diagonals (fig. 8.8) for each of two cubes and the “Acid Attack Factor” (AAF)
per face is calculated as follows (Sunil Pratap Reddy et. al. 2010).
143
AAF = (Loss in mm on eight corners of each of 2 cubes)/4
1 (top back corner)
Solid
Diagonal
(in mm)
2 (bottom front corner)
Fig. 8.8 Measurement of Solid diagonal
The results of the tested Acid Resistance behavior at 30 days, 45 days and 60 days for M25
design concrete mixes are shown in Table 8.3 and figures 8.9 to 8.15 shows the ADF and AAF
for M30 design concrete mixes.
Table: 8.3 ADF and AAF of M25 design concrete mix immersed in H2SO4, HCl and Na2SO4
H2SO4 HCl Na2SO4

M25 Mix design Days of Immersion Days of Immersion Days of Immersion
30 45 60 30 45 60 30 45 60
Sr 97.04 92.69 89.81 97.36 93.05 90.17 97.56 93.43 90.49
0%ggbs ADF 48.52 69.52 89.81 48.68 69.78 90.17 48.78 70.07 90.49
AAF 0.41 0.72 1.16 0.26 0.56 0.70 0.25 0.55 0.69
Sr 97.02 92.48 89.57 97.19 93.57 89.98 97.36 93.88 90.25
50%ggbs ADF 48.51 69.36 89.57 48.59 70.18 89.98 48.68 70.41 90.25
AAF 0.39 0.71 1.15 0.25 0.55 0.68 0.25 0.54 0.66
Sr 97.06 92.31 89.49 97.22 92.70 89.94 97.31 93.27 91.64
50%ggbs +
25%robo sand ADF 48.53 69.23 89.49 48.61 69.52 89.94 48.66 69.96 91.64
AAF 0.39 0.70 1.17 0.26 0.54 0.69 0.25 0.53 0.68
50%ggbs + Sr 97.20 93.43 90.68 97.26 93.62 90.91 97.47 93.85 91.16
25%robo sand + ADF 48.60 70.07 90.68 48.63 70.22 90.91 48.74 70.39 91.16
HDPE fibers AAF 0.36 0.68 1.16 0.27 0.57 0.68 0.25 0.55 0.65
50%ggbs + Sr 97.27 93.47 90.61 97.33 93.70 90.96 97.46 93.82 91.11
25%robo sand + ADF 48.63 70.10 90.61 48.67 70.27 90.96 48.73 70.37 91.11
144
PET fibers AAF 0.35 0.67 1.18 0.27 0.56 0.67 0.26 0.54 0.65
50%ggbs + Sr 97.63 93.60 90.78 97.74 93.66 90.91 97.82 93.76 91.06
25%robo sand + ADF 48.82 70.20 90.78 48.87 70.24 90.91 48.91 70.32 91.06
HDPP fibers AAF 0.36 0.68 1.16 0.28 0.55 0.69 0.27 0.54 0.68
50%ggbs + Sr 97.46 93.35 90.60 97.52 93.46 90.69 97.59 93.54 90.75
25%robo sand +
ADF 48.73 70.02 90.60 48.76 70.10 90.69 48.79 70.16 90.75
POLYESTER
fibers AAF 0.37 0.67 1.17 0.27 0.56 0.68 0.25 0.55 0.66
120 1.4
Acid Durability Factor
30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2
Acid Attack Factor

100 30 Days
1.0 45 Days
80
0.8 60 Days
60
0.6
40
0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
H2SO4 HCl Na2SO4 H2SO4 HCl Na2SO4
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.9 ADF and AAF of M30 CA concrete
120 1.4
Acid Attack Factor
100 30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2 30 Days

80 1.0 45 Days
0.8 60 Days
60
0.6
40 0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.10 ADF and AAF of M30 CAG concrete
145
Acid Durability Factor 120 1.4
30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2
Acid Attack Factor

100 30 Days
1.0 45 Days
80 60 Days
0.8
60
0.6
40 0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.11 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGR concrete
120 1.4
30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2 30 Days
Acid Attack Factor

100
45 Days
80 1.0
60 Days
0.8
60
0.6
40
0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.12 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRHE concrete
120 1.4
Acid Attack Factor
100 30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2 30 Days

1.0 45 Days
80
0.8 60 Days
60
0.6
40
0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.13 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRPE concrete
146
Acid Durability Factor 120 1.4
Acid Attack Factor

100 1.2 30 Days
1.0 45 Days
80 60 Days
0.8
60
0.6
40 0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.14 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRHD concrete
120 1.4
30 Days 45 Days 60 Days 1.2 30 Days
Acid Attack Factor

100
1.0 45 Days
80 60 Days
0.8
60
0.6
40
0.4
20 0.2
0 0.0
Solutions Solutions
Fig. 8.15 ADF and AAF of M30 CAGRPO concrete
From the figures 8.1 to 8.7 and Table 8.2 shows variation in percentage weight loss and
compressive strength loss with different percentages of GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers for M25
and M30 grades. It is observed that the percentage of weight loss is more for the cubes immersed
in 5% H2SO4, than the design concrete mix.
8.2.4 Chloride and Sulphate attack: When the concrete is exposed to sulfuric acid solution,
hydrogen ions and sulfate ions deteriorate the concrete properties by reacting with hydration
products to make cement matrix more porous and/or expansive (Joong-Kyu Jeon 2006).
147
Concrete is chemically stable in an alkaline environment, but unstable in neutral or acidic
environment. Hydrogen ions in sulfuric acid usually react with calcium ions in cement matrix
then to decompose the hydration products as seen in the following chemical equations.
Ca (OH) 2+2H+ Ca2+ + 2H2O
CSH gel: 3CaO·3H2O + 6H+ 3Ca2+ +2SiO2 + 6H2O
Ettringite: 3CaO·Al2O3·3CaSO4·32H2O + 6H+ 3Ca2+ + Al2O3·3H2O + 3CaSO4 + 32H2O
Sulfate ions penetrated into concrete in general react with calcium hydroxide of cement matric to
form gypsum, which softens the inner concrete structure and decreases the concrete properties.
The gypsum in cement softens concrete and decomposes hydration products and thus the weight
and strength of the concrete specimens was reduced. It was observed in the present study that the
degree of deterioration was dependent on binder and it is likely attributed to different hydration
products and the rate of hydration. The higher the calcium hydroxide may imply the higher
probability of formation of gypsum in the cement matrix. In case of GGBS specimens was less
damaged probably due to its latent hydraulic characteristics. Calcium oxide (CaO) and silicon di
oxide (SiO2) in GGBS reacts with water to form CSH hydrate in an alkaline environment and
alumina (Al2O3) in GGBS also latently forms CAH hydrate. This hydration process consumes
calcium hydroxide, there by less probability of reacting between sulfuric acid. Hence 50%
GGBS concrete in the present study was the most beneficent in delaying the acid corrosion of
specimen. The hydrates generated from GGBS reduced the porosity of concrete, which allowed
sulfuric acid to penetrate the specimens at a lower rate.
Chloride reacts with the hydrates of cement and form Freidel’s salt that does not have any
harmful effects on concrete, but when chloride content in concrete reaches more than the
148
threshold value, the protective alkaline layer of steel reinforcement is broken and in the presence
of oxygen and humidity, steel reinforcement gets corroded (Prasad 2006).
Freidel’s salt: 3CaO·Al2O3·3CaCl2·10H2O + 6H+ 3Ca2+ + Al2O3·3H2O + CaCl2 + 6H2O
From the studies of compressive strengths of all grades of concrete, before and after immersion
in acids. It is observed that when immersed in Na2SO4 the all grades of concrete are showing
lesser compressive strength loss than immersed in H2SO4 and HCl. The percentage compressive
strength loss of M25 mix, when immersed in 5% H2SO4 is 9.22 to 10.51. For M30 the percentage
compressive strength loss values are 9.12 to 10.07. From the studies of compressive strength, it
is observed that the compressive strength loss is less for cubes immersed in Na2SO4 than the
cubes immersed in H2SO4and HCl.
Durability studies carried out in the investigation through acid attack test with 5% H2SO4, 5%
HCl and 5% Na2SO4 revealed that GGBS, ROBO Sand with fibers are more durable in terms of
“Acid Durability Factors” than reference concrete. The investigation through acid attack test
with 5% H2SO4 revealed that modified fiber reinforced concrete is 1.08% and 0.91% more
durable in terms of “Acid Durability Factors” than the reference M25 and M30 concretes
respectively.
The investigation through acid attack test with 5% Na2SO4 revealed that modified fiber
reinforced concrete is 0.68% and 1.03% more durable in terms of “Acid Durability Factors” than
the reference M25 and M30 concretes respectively. Durability studies carried out in the
investigation through acid attack test with 5% HCl revealed that modified fiber reinforced
149
concrete is 0.87% and 0.88% more durable in terms of “Acid Durability Factors” than the
reference M25 and M30 concretes respectively.
For the Acid Attack Factors similar studies has been carried out through acid attack test with 5%
H2SO4, 5% HCl, and 5% Na2SO4. Table 8.5 and figures 8.9 to 8.15, Shows the “Acid Attack
Factors” for the different concrete mixes of M25 and M30.
8.3 SUMMARY
1. The strength and durability can be improved by the addition of a GGBS, ROBO Sand and
fibers to design concrete.
2. The Acid durability factors (ADF) were found to be 1.03% more in concrete made with
GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers in all grades.
3. The Acid Attack Factors (AAF) has shown that the GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers mixes
are 1.7% more resistant for acid attack.
4. The strength loss and weight loss observed to be less in mixes with GGBS, ROBO Sand
and fibers.
150
Fig. 8.16 Cube Samples for durability test
Fig. 8.17 Cube Samples immersed in the acidic solutions
Fig. 8.18 Cube Samples after the test
151
152
CHAPTER 9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
From the experimental studies, conducted on various combinations of supplementary materials
like GGBS for cement and ROBO sand for fine aggregate along with non – bio degradable waste
products as fibers in the concrete, the conclusions are summarized as follows:
(i) The average 28 days compressive strength of M25 and M30 concrete by using SNP 3
admixture has increased by 30 and 25.8% respectively compared to concrete without
admixture.
(ii) The experimental results show that 50% of cement can be replaced with GGBS and 25% of
fine aggregate can be replaced with ROBO sand simultaneously.
(iii) The compressive strength of CAG concrete has increased by 47.34% and 39.7% of M25
and M30 concretes respectively compared with concrete type C.
(iv) Split tensile strength and flexural strength of CAG concrete has increased by 8.10% and
5.91% for M25 concrete while for M30 concrete the increments are found to be 8.68% and
7.39% respectively compared to concrete type CA.
(v) The percentage of increase in the compressive strength is 55.74% and 47.79% at the age of
28 days of both M25 and M30 CAGR concrete compared to type C concrete. The
percentage of increase in the split tensile and flexural strengths are 9.03% and 8.75% at the
age of 28 days for M25 CAGR concrete and 9.45% and 10.16% for M30 CAGR concrete
compared to concrete type CA.
(vi) Compressive strength of CAGRHE, CAGRPE, CAGRHD and CAGRPO M25 concretes
are 69.86, 70.15, 69.15 and 68.93 % more than the M25 concrete type C respectively.
153
Similarly, the percentage increase for M30 CAGRHE, CAGRPE, CAGRHD and CAGRPO
concretes are 60.85, 61.01, 60.36 and 60.04 % respectively compared to M30 C concrete.
(vii) Similarly, the percentage increase in the split tensile strengths of CAGRHE, CAGRPE,
CAGRHD and CAGRPO M25 concretes are 18.69, 19.63, 18.07 and 17.45 % respectively
and the split tensile strengths of M30 concretes of CAGRHE, CAGRPE, CAGRHD and
CAGRPO types are 20.06, 20.66, 19.16 and 18.26 % more than the M30 CA concrete.
(viii) The flexural strength 14.89, 15.37, 14.42 and 13.71 % are more of CAGRHE, CAGRPE,
CAGRHD and CAGRPO M25 concretes respectively and the increase in the flexural
strengths of CAGRHE, CAGRPE, CAGRHD and CAGRPO M30 concretes are 16.63,
17.09, 15.7 and 15.01 % respectively compared with the concrete type CA concrete.
(ix) Empirical equations for the stress-strain response of all the mixes have been proposed in
the form of ⁄1 where ‘x’ is normalized strain and ‘y’ is
normalized stress.
(x) The stress – strain equations for all mixes i.e. CA, CAG, CAGR, CAGRHE, CAGRPE,
CAGRHD and CAGRPO of both M25 and M30 concrete are given in table 7.8. The
proposed equations have shown good correlation with experimental values.
(xi) It is observed that there is an increase in the peak stress about 20% and strain at peak stress
approximately 50% for different mixes i.e. CAGRHE, CAGRPE, CAGRHD and CAGRPO
compared to CA concrete.
(xii) The strength and durability can be improved with the addition of GGBS, ROBO Sand and
fibers to the concrete.
154
(xiii) The Acid durability factors (ADF) were found to be 1.08% more in concrete made with
GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers in all grades. It shows that durability can be improved by
using supplementary materials and fibers.
(xiv) The Acid Attack Factors (AAF) has shown that the GGBS, ROBO Sand and fibers mixes
are 1.7% more resistant for acid attack. The durability of concrete having supplementary
materials and fibers is better than the normal concrete.
155
156
CONTRIBUTIONS FROM THE STUDY
1. Locally available industrial waste materials are used in the development of cement concrete
mix.
2. Cement content in the concrete can be reduced by 50% from the present study. This will help
the environment from the greenhouse gases which are released during the production of
cement.
3. Also new concrete mix has been developed with non-bio degradable waste plastic materials
as fibers in the concrete. This will also help the disposal of non-bio degradable waste
plastics.
4. Proposed equations of stress strain can be used directly to know the behavior of modified
concrete without conducting experiments.
5. The new developed cement concrete mix has more durable than the normal concrete. It can
be used in the acidic environments also.
157
This page is intentionally left blank
158
SCOPE FOR FURTHER WORK
Based on the experimental studies carried, the following areas have been identified for future
research.
(i) The current research work has concentrated primarily on the strength properties of concrete
and can be extended to study other properties like creep, shrinkage, fatigue, permeability, at
elevated temperatures, chloride penetration and micro structural investigation, etc.
(ii) This study can be extended further to develop green concrete and/or sustainable concrete
with different supplementary materials, industrial waste products and polymers with
chemicals.
(iii) Also it can be further extended for self-compacting concrete, high strength and high performance
concretes with different supplementary materials.
159
160
REFERENCES
1. Aitcin, P. C., 2000, "Cements of yesterday and today: Concrete of tomorrow," Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 30, pp. 1349-1359.
2. Al-Tamimi, A.K., and M. Sonebi, 2003, “Assessment of Self-Compacting Concrete
Immersed in Acidic Solutions”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 15(4), pp.
354 – 357.
3. Annual report on plastic waste management, 2013, Central pollution Control Board, Delhi.
4. Arkan Radi Ali, 2013, “Polypropylene fibers potentials in the Iraqi cementitious concrete
constructions” Academic Research International Part:II Natural and Applied Sciences,
Vol.4(1), pp. 439 – 445.
5. ASTM C 125. “Standard Terminology Relating to Concrete and Concrete Aggregates.” 1998
Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 4.02, pp. 61-63.
6. ASTM C150 / C150M – 09: Standard Specification for Portland Cement
7. ASTM C 496: Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical Concrete
Specimens.
8. ASTM D1248-84: High Density Polyethylene (HDPE)
9. Batayneh, M., Marie, I., Asi I., 2007. “Use of selected waste materials in concrete mixes”.
Waste Management, Vol. 27, pp. 1870–1876.
10. Bassel Hanayneh, Nasim Shatarat and Hasan Katkhuda, 2012, “ Improving Durability of
Concrete to Phosphoric Acid Attack”, Jordan Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 6(1), pp. 68
– 82.
11. Brunauer, S. and Copland, L. E., 1964, “The Chemistry of Concrete”, Scientific American,
Vol. 210 (4).
161
12. Carreira, D. J., and Chu, K. H., 1985, “Stress-strain relationship for plain concrete in
compression” ACI Journal., Vol. 82(6), pp.797–804.
13. Choi, Y.W., Moon, D.J., Chung, J.S., Cho, S.K., 2005. “Effects of waste PET bottles
aggregate on properties of concrete”. Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 35(4), pp. 776–
781.
14. Desai P, Krishnan S., 1964, “Equation for the stress-strain curve of concrete”, ACI Strucural
Journal, Vol. 61, pp. 345 – 350.
15. Fouad Faroug, Janusz Szwabowski and Stan Wild, 1999, “Influence of Superplasticizers on
Workability of Concrete”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, vol. 11(2),
pp. 151 – 157.
16. Gambhir, M.L. (2008), Concrete Technology, 3rd edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing
Company Ltd., New Delhi.
17. Ganesh Babu, K. and V. Sri rama kumar, 2000, “Efficiency of GGBS in concrete”, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 30, pp. 1031 – 1036.
18. Gengying Li and Xiaohua Zhao, 2003, “ Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and
ground granulated blast-furnace slag”, Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol.25, pp. 293 –
299.
19. Giri Prasad, G., M.V. Seshagiri Rao and G.V. Rama Rao, 2012, “Computation of stress –
strain behaviour of self – compacting concrete in higher grade” Indian Journal of Electronic
and Electrical Engineering, Vol. 1(1-2), pp. 35 – 43.
20. Gartner, E., 2004, "Industrially interesting approaches to "low-CO2" cements", Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 34, pp. 1489-1498.
162
21. Hanifi Binici and Orhan Aksogan, 2006, “Sulfate resistance of plain and blended cement”,
Cement & Concrete Composites, Vol.28, pp. 39 – 46.
22. Hsu, L. S., and Hsu, C. T. T., 1994, “Complete stress-strain behavior of high-strength
concrete under compression” Magazine of Concrete Research., Vol. 46(169), pp.301–312.
23. Ilangovana. R., Mahendrana. N. and Nagamani. K., 2008, “Strength and Durability
Properties of Concrete Containing Quarry Rock Dust as Fine Aggregate”, ARPN journal of
Engineering and Applied Sciences, Vol. 3(5), pp. 20 – 26.
24. Ing Lim, Jenn-Chuan Chern, Tony Liu, and Yin-Wen Chan, 2012, “effect of ground
granulated blast furnace slag on mechanical behavior of PVA – ECC”, Journal of Marine
Science and Technology, Vol. 20 (3), pp. 319 – 324.
25. IS 383 – 1970: Specification for Coarse and fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for
Concrete (Second revision)
26. IS 455 – 1989: Specification for Portland slag cement (Fourth Revision)
27. IS 456 – 2000: Plain and Reinforced Concrete Code of Practice.
28. IS 516 – 1959: Methods of tests for strength of concrete.
29. IS 1199 – 1959: Indian standard Methods of Sampling and analysis of concrete.
30. IS 1489 – 1991(Part 1) : Specification for Portland pozzolana cement Part 1 Flyash based
(Third Revision)
31. IS 1489 – 1991(Part 2): Specification for Portland-pozzolana cement Part 2 calcined clay
based (Third Revision)
32. IS 2386 – 1963: Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete.
33. IS 5816 – 1999: Splitting tensile strength of concrete – Method of test.
34. IS 6452 – 1989: Specification for high alumina cement for structural use (First Revision)
163
35. IS 8041 – 1990: Specification for rapid hardening Portland cement (Second Revision)
36. IS 8112 – 1989: 43 Grade Ordinary Portland cement Specification.
37. IS 9103 – 1999: Concrete Admixtures – Specifications.
38. IS 10262 – 2009: Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design.
39. IS 12330 – 1988: Specification for sulphate resisting Portland cement
40. IRS-T 40 – 1985: Specifications for special grade of cements for concrete sleepers
41. Jo, B.W., Park, S.K., Park , J.C., 2008. “Mechanical properties of polymer concrete made
with recycled PET and recycled concrete aggregates”. Construction and Building Materials,
Vol. 22(12), pp. 2281-2291.
42. Job Thomas and Ananth Ramaswamy, 2007, “Mechanical Properties of Steel Fiber
Reinforced Concrete”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, ASCE, Vol. 19(5), pp. 385-
392.
43. Joong - Kyu Jeon, Han-Young Moon, Ki-Yong Ann, Hong-Sam Kim and Yang-Bea Kim,
2006, “Effect of ground granulated blast furnace slag, pulverized fuel ash, silica fume on
sulfuric acid corrosion resistance of cement matrix” International Journal of Concrete
Structures and Materials, Vol. 18 (2E), pp. 97 – 102.
44. Kent, D.C., and Park, R., 1971, "Flexural members with confined concrete." Journal of the
Structural Division, ASCE, Vol. 97(7), pp. 1969 – 1990.
45. Khatri, R.P., V. Sirivivatnanon and W. Gross, 1995, “Effect of different supplementary
cementitious materials on mechanical properties of high performance concrete”, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 25(1), pp. 209 – 220.
46. M. S. Shetty, 2005, “Concrete Technology: Theory and Practice”, S. Chand & Company Ltd.
164
47. Malhotra, V.M. “Role of fly ash in reducing greenhouse gas emissions during the
manufacturing of port land cement clinker” unpublished article.
48. Mansur, M.A., M. S. Chin and T. H. Wee, 1997, “Stress-strain relationship of confined high-
strength plain and fiber concrete”, Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 9(4), pp.
171 – 179.
49. Martin O’Connell, Ciaran McNally and Mark G. Richardson, 2012, “Performance of
concrete incorporating GGBS in aggressive wastewater environments”, Construction and
Building Materials, Vol. 27, pp. 368 – 374.
50. Mehta P. K., 1999, “Advancements in Concrete Technology”, Concrete International, June,
pp. 69-76.
51. Mehta, P. K. and Paulo, J. M. M. (2006), CONCRETE Microstructure, Properties and
Materials, 3rd edition, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Company Ltd., New Delhi.
52. Mostafizur Rahman, Md., Md. Akhtarul Islam, Mainuddin Ahmed and Md. Abdus Salam.
2012, “Recycled Polymer Materials as Aggregates for Concrete and Blocks”, Journal of
Chemical Engineering, Vol. 27 (1), pp. 53 – 57.
53. Murthi, P., and V. Sivakumar, 2008, “Studies on acid resistance of ternary blended Concrete”,
Asian journal of civil engineering (building and housing), Vol. 9(5), pp. 473 – 486.
54. Nabil M. Al-Akhras, 2006, “Durability of metakaolin concrete to sulphate attack”, Cement
and Concrete Research, Vol. 36, pp. 1727–1734.
55. Nagabhushana and Sharada bai, H., 2011, “Use of Crushed Rock Powder as Replacement of
Fine Aggregate in Mortar and Concrete”, Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 4
(8), pp. 917-922.
165
56. Papadakis, V.G., and Tsimas, S., 2002, “Supplementary cementing materials in concrete Part
I: efficiency and design”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 32, pp. 1525 – 1532.
57. Papadakis, V.G., Antiohos, S. and Tsimas, S., 2002, “Supplementary cementing materials in
concrete Part II: A fundamental estimation of the efficiency factor”, Cement and Concrete
Research, Vol. 32, pp. 1533 – 1538.
58. Papayianni, I. and Anastasiou, E., 2010, “Production of high-strength concrete using high
volume of industrial by-products”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 24, pp. 1412 –
1417.
59. Popovics, S., 1973, “A numerical approach to the complete stress-strain curve of concrete”
Cement Concrete Research, Vol. 3(5), pp.583–599.
60. Perez-Pena, M. and Mobasher, B., 1994, “Mechanical properties of fiber reinforced concrete
composites”, Cement and Concrete Research, vol.24 (6), pp.1121-1132.
61. Prasad, J., D.K. Jain and A. K. Ahuja, 2006, “Factors influencing the sulphate resistance of
cement concrete and mortar” Asian Journal of Civil Engineering (Building and Housing),
Vol.7(3), pp. 259 – 268.
62. Rahmat Madandoust and Reza Ghavidel, 2013, “ Mechanical properties of concrete
containing waste glass powder and rice husk ash”, Bio systems Engineering, Vol. 113, pp.
113 – 119.
63. Rajamane. N. P., Annie Peter. J., Dattatreya. J. K., Neelamegam. M. and Gopalakrishnan. S.,
2003, “Improvement in Properties of High Performance Concrete with Partial Replacement
of Cement by Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag”, Institution of Engineers (India)
journal – CV, 84, pp. 38 – 42.
166
64. Rajendra P., Mogre, Dhananjay K. Parbat and Sudhir P. Bajad, 2013, “Feasibility of artificial
sand in concrete”, International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, Vol. 2(7),
pp. 1606 – 1610.
65. Ramazan Demirbog and Rustem Gul, 2006, Production of high strength concrete by use of
industrial by-products”, Building and Environment, Vol. 41, pp. 1124 – 1127.
66. Saenz LP. Discussion of Paper by Desai P, Krishnan S., 1964, “Equation for stress-strain
curve of concrete”, Journal of ACI, Vol. 61(9), pp. 1229-1235.
67. Salahaldein Alsadey, 2012, “Effects of Super plasticizing Admixture on Properties of
Concrete”, Proceedings of International Conference on Transport, Environment and Civil
Engineering (ICTECE 2012) August 25-26, 2012 Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia), pp. 132 – 134.
68. Samer Ezeldin, A., Perumalsamy and N. Balaguru, 1992, “Normal and high-strength fiber-
reinforced concrete under compression” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 4(4),
pp. 415 – 429.
69. Sargin, M., Ghosh, S. K., and Handa, V. K., 1971, “Effects of lateral reinforcement upon the
strength and deformation properties of concrete” Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 23
(75–76), pp. 99–110.
70. Sesha Phani, S., Seshadri Sekhar T, Srinivasa Rao, Sravana and Sarika.P, 2013, “Studies on
effect of mineral admixtures on durability properties of high strength self-compacting
concrete, International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology, Vol. 2 (9), pp. 98
– 104.
71. Serdar Aydın, Halit Yazıcı, Huseyin Yigiter and Bulent Baradan, 2007, “Sulfuric acid
resistance of high-volume fly ash concrete”, Building and Environment, Vol. 42, pp. 717–
721.
167
72. Shetty, M. S. (2008), Concrete Technology, 4th Edition, Chand, S. & Co Ltd , New Delhi.
73. Sivaraja, M., Kandasamy, S. and A. Tirumurugan, 2010, “Mechanical strength of fibrous
concrete with waste rural materials”, Journal of Scientific & Industral research, Vol. 69, pp.
308 – 312.
74. SP – 23: Hand Book on Concrete Mixes.
75. Sunil Pratap Reddy, S., M.V.Seshgiri Rao, P. Aparna and Ch. Sasikala, 2010, “Performance
ordinary grade bacterial (Bacillus Subtilis) concrete”, International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering, Vol.3(1), pp.116 – 124.
76. Sunil Pratap Reddy, S., N.R.D.Murthy, M.V.Seshgiri Rao and Ch. Sasikala, 2013, “A
durability performance study on bacterial concrete embedded with Bacillus Subtilis in
ordinary grade concrete”, Indian Concrete Institute Journal, Vol.14(1), pp.7 – 15.
77. Targan, S., A. Olgun, Y. Erdogan and V. Sevinc, 2002, “Effects of supplementary cementing
materials on the properties of cement and concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 32,
pp. 1551 – 1558.
78. Van Gysel, A., and Taerwe, L., 1996, “Analytical formulation of the complete stress-strain
curve for high strength concrete” Materials and Structures, Vol. 29, pp. 529–533.
79. Vanchai Sata, Chai Jaturapitakkul and Kraiwood Kiattikomol, 2007, “Influence of pozzolan
from various by-product materials on mechanical properties of high-strength concrete”,
Construction and building materials, Vol. 21, pp. 1589 – 1598.
80. Vijaya sarathy, R., Dhinakaran, G., 2013, “Strength and durability characteristics of GGBFS
based HPC” Asian Journal Applied Sciences, pp. 1 – 8, doi:10.3923/ajaps.2013.
168
81. Vladimir Zivica and Adolf Bajza, 2001, “Acidic attack of cement based materials – a review,
Part 1. Principle of acidic attack”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 15, pp. 331 –
340.
82. Vladimir Zivica and Adolf Bajza, 2002, Acidic attack of cement based materials – a review,
Part 2. Factors of rate of acidic attack and protective measures”, Construction and Building
Materials, Vol. 16, pp. 215 – 222.
83. Vladimir Zivica, 2004, “Acidic attack of cement based materials – a review, Part 3. research
and test methods”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol.18, pp. 683–688.
84. Vladimir Zivica, 2006, “Deterioration of cement-based materials due to the action of organic
compounds”, Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 20, pp. 634–641.
85. Wang Ling, Tian Pei, and Yao Yan, 2004, “Application of ground granulated blast furnace
slag in high-performance concrete in china” Proceedings of International Workshop on
Sustainable development and Concrete Technology, Beijing, China, pp. 309 – 317.
86. Wang, P. T., Shah, S. P. and Naaman, A. E., 1978, “Stress-strain curves of normal and
lightweight concrete in compression”, ACI Journal, Vol. 75 (11), pp.603–611.
87. Wee, T. H., Chin, M. S., and Mansur, M. A., 1996, “Stress-strain relationship of high-
strength concrete in compression” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 8(2),
pp.70–76.
88. Zhao-Hui Lu and Yan-Gang Zhao, 2010, “Empirical Stress-Strain Model for Unconfined
High-Strength Concrete under Uniaxial Compression”, Journal of Materials in Civil
Engineering, Vol. 22 (11), pp. 1181 – 1186.
169
170
APPENDIX
Mix Design
A1. M25 Concrete
i. Grade of Concrete: M25
ii. Type of cement: OPC 43 grade
iii. Maximum nominal size of the aggregate: 20mm
iv. Minimum cement content: 320 kg/m3
v. Water cement ratio: 0.45
vi. Workability: 100mm
vii. Specific gravity of cement: 3.15
viii. Specific gravity of Coarse aggregate: 2.65
ix. Fine aggregate: confirming to Zone II
x. Specific gravity of fine aggregate: 2.62

1.65

28 !

Standard deviation for M25 concrete is 4 (IS 456 – 2000 table no. 8)
Target strength = 31.6 N/mm2
Maximum water content for 20mm aggregate – 186lts
For 100 mm slump = 186 + 186(6/100) = 197 lts
Super plasticizer used in the mix design, water content can be reduced by 25.5%
Water = 197 X 0.745 = 147 lts
Cement = 147/045 = 327 kg.
Volume of concrete = 1m3
327 1
Volume of cement . 0.1038 0
3.15 1000
147 1
Volume of water . 0.147 0
1 1000
171
3.27 1
Volume of admixture . 0.00277 0
1.179 1000
Volume of aggregates 1 ;0.1038 0.147 0.00277< 0.74643 0
From table no.3 (IS 10262) volume of coarse aggregate corresponding to 20 mm aggregate and
fine aggregate (zone II) for water cement ration 0.5 is 0.62
For water cement ratio: 0.45 volume of coarse aggregate is 0.63 and volume of fine aggregate is
0.37.
Mass of the coarse aggregate 0.74643 . 0.63 . 2.65 . 1000 1246 kg
Mass of the fine aggregate 0.74643 . 0.37 . 2.62 . 1000 723 kg
@AB CDEAFG @HI JKGJLDMD NHO ∶ OHN ∶ QHRS TAMU QRO VME KW TXMDL
A2. M30 Concrete

i. Grade of Concrete: M30
ii. Type of cement: OPC 43 grade
iii. Maximum nominal size of the aggregate: 20mm
iv. Minimum cement content: 320 kg/m3
v. Water cement ratio: 0.42
vi. Workability: 100mm
vii. Specific gravity of cement: 3.15
viii. Specific gravity of Coarse aggregate: 2.65
ix. Fine aggregate: confirming to Zone II
x. Specific gravity of fine aggregate: 2.62

1.65

28 !

Standard deviation for M30 concrete is 5 (IS 456 – 2000 table no. 8)
Target strength = 38.25 N/mm2
Maximum water content for 20mm aggregate – 186 lts
For 100 mm slump = 186 + 186(6/100) = 197 lts
172
Super plasticizer used in the mix design, water content can be reduced by 25.5%
Water = 197 X 0.745 = 147 lts
Cement = 147/0.42 = 350 kg.
Volume of concrete = 1m3
350 1
Volume of cement . 0.1111 0
3.15 1000
147 1
Volume of water . 0.147 0
1 1000
3.5 1
Volume of admixture . 0.00296 0
1.179 1000
Volume of aggregates 1 ;0.1111 0.147 0.00296< 0.73894 0
From table no.3 (IS 10262) volume of coarse aggregate corresponding to 20 mm aggregate and
fine aggregate (zone II) for water cement ration 0.5 is 0.62
For water cement ratio: 0.42 volume of coarse aggregate is 0.636 and volume of fine aggregate is
0.364
Mass of the coarse aggregate 0.73894 . 0.636 . 2.65 . 1000 1245 kg
Mass of the fine aggregate 0.73894 . 0.364 . 2.62 . 1000 704 kg
@AB CDEAFG @NY JKGJLDMD NIY ∶ OYR ∶ QHRI TAMU QRO VME KW TXMDL
173
A3. Strength contribution of fibers
@HI JKGJLDMD mix per cubic meter
Mass of the cement 327 kg
Mass of the fine aggregate 723 kg
Mass of the coarse aggregate 1246 kg
Mass of the water 147 kg
Concrete cube volume 0.15 . 0.15 . 0.15 3.375 . 10^0 0
Density of cement 3150 kg/0
Density of the fine aggregate 2620 kg/0
Density of the coarse aggregate 2650 kg/0
Density of the water 1000 kg/0
3.375 . 10^0 . 327

Total volume of cement in one cube of size 150mm
3150
3.503 . 10^d 0
The maximum percentage of fibers in the concrete is 3.5% of volume of cement
3.5
Volume of fibers 3.503 . 10^d . 1.22 . 10^f 0
100
The volume of fibers in a 150mm cube is 1.22 . 10^f m0 .
Assume fiber size is 2.5mm . 0.1mm
1.22 . 10^f 1
The increase in the strength is . . 677.9 9.62MPa
0.15 . 0.15 . 0.15 0.1 . 2.5
Assume only 40% fibers are contributing to the strength development.
Strength due to HDPE fibers 9.62 . 0.4 3.85 MPa
174
@NY JKGJLDMD mix per cubic meter
Mass of the cement 350 kg
Mass of the fine aggregate 704 kg
Mass of the coarse aggregate 1245 kg
Mass of the water 147 kg
Concrete cube volume 0.15 . 0.15 . 0.15 3.375 . 10^0 0
Density of cement 3150 kg/0
Density of the fine aggregate 2620 kg/0
Density of the coarse aggregate 2650 kg/0
Density of the water 1000 kg/0
3.375 . 10^0 . 350

Total volume of cement in one cube of size 150mm
3150
3.75 . 10^d 0
The maximum percentage of fibers in the concrete is 3.5% of volume of cement
3.5
Volume of fibers 3.75 . 10^d . 1.3125 . 10^f 0
100
The volume of fibers in a 150mm cube is 1.3125 . 10^f m0 .
Assume fiber size is 2.5mm . 0.1mm
1.3125 . 10^f 1
The increase in the strength is . . 677.9 10.54MPa
0.15 . 0.15 . 0.15 0.1 . 2.5
Assume only 40% fibers are contributing to the strength development.
Strength due to HDPE fibers 10.54 . 0.4 4.21 MPa
175
176
PUBLICATIONS FROM THE STUDY
International Journals:
1. M. Venu and P. N. Rao, “Study of Rubber Aggregates in Concrete: An Experimental

Investigation”, International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, Vol. 1(1), pp 15-
26, 2010.
2. Venu Malagavelli and Rao, P.N., “High Performance Concrete with GGBS and ROBO
sand”, International Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 2(10), pp 5107-
5113, 2010.
3. Venu Malagavelli and Rao, P.N., “Effect of non-bio degradable waste in Concrete slabs”,
International Journal of Civil and Structural Engineering, Vol. 1(3), pp 449-457, 2010.
DOI:10.6088/ijcser.00202010036.
4. Venu Malagavelli and Neelakanteswara Rao Paturu, "Polyester Fibers in concrete – An
experimental Investigation", Journal of Advanced materials research, Vol. 261-263, pp 125-
129, 2011. DOI:10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMR.261-263.125
5. Venu Malagavelli and Neelakanteswara Rao Paturu, "Strength Characteristics of Concrete
using Solid Waste – An experimental Investigation", International Journal of Earth Sciences
and Engineering, Vol. 4(6), pp 937-940, 2011.
6. Venu Malagavelli and Neelakanteswara Rao Paturu, "Strength and Workability
Characteristics of Concrete By Using Different Super Plasticizers", International Journal of
Materials Engineering, Vol. 2(1), pp 7-11, 2012. DOI: 10.5923/j.ijme.20120201.02
International Conference Proceedings:
1. Venu, M., Padmavathi, V. and Rao, P. N. “Effects of admixtures in concrete mix design”,
Proceedings of International Conference on Advances in Concrete, Structural and
Geotechnical Engineering (ACSGE-2009), October 25-27,Birla Institute of Technology &
Science, Pilani, Rajasthan, India.
2. M. Venu, P.N.Rao and V. Padmavathi, “High Performance Concrete - Role of
Admixtures", Proceedings of International Conference on Materials, Mechanics and
177
Management (IMMM-2010), January 14-16, College of Engineering Trivandrum,
Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala.
3. Venu Malagavelli and P. N. Rao, "Behavior of HDPE Fiber Reinforced
Concrete", Proceedings of International Conference on Current Trends in Technology
(NUiCONE – 2010), December 09 – 11, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, Gujarat.
4. Venu Malagavelli and Neelakanteswara Rao Paturu, "Durability and Strength
Characteristics of Fiber Reinforced Concrete", Proceedings of 11th International
Conference on Concrete Engineering and Technology 2012 (CONCET 2012), June 12 – 13,
University of Malaya, Malaysia, pp. 188 – 193 (ISBN 978-967-0380-12–4).
Papers Communicated:
1. “Effect of strength properties of concrete by using supplementary materials as partial

replacement of cement and fine aggregate”, International journal of sustainable cement
based materials, ELSEVIER.
2. “Stress - strain behavior of concrete made with industrial waste”, International Journal of
concrete structures and materials, SPRINGER
3. “Durability characteristics of concrete made with GGBS, ROBO sand and plastic fibers”,
International journal of Sustainable and Built Environment, ELSEVIER.
178
179
Biography of the Candidate
Malagavelli Venu at present is a Lecturer in the Department of Civil Engineering at Birla
Institute of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani, Hyderabad campus, Andhra Pradesh, India.
He has obtained his Bachelor’s Degree in Civil Engineering in 2002 from JNTU college of
Engineering, Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh. In 2004, he obtained his Master’s degree in Civil
Engineering with specialization in Structural Engineering from BITS – Pilani, Rajasthan, India.
He has been actively involved in teaching and research work. He has published total ten papers
in various journals and conferences based on the present work. He is a life member of Institution
of Engineers (India), Indian Concrete Institute, Indian Society for Technical Education and
Indian Institute of Bridge Engineers.
Biography of the Supervisor
Dr. P. N. Rao is working as a Professor, in the Department of Civil Engineering at Birla Institute
of Technology and Science (BITS), Pilani, Hyderabad campus, Andhra Pradesh, India. He
completed Ph.D. in Civil Engineering from the Birla Institute of Technology and Science
(BITS), Pilani. He graduated in Civil Engineering from Thapar University, Punjab and Master’s
degree from BITS – Pilani, Rajasthan, India. He is involved in teaching and research for more
than 25 years. His research interests include low cost building materials, High Strength Concrete,
High Performance Concrete, Finite Element Analysis, Sustainable Concrete etc. He has
published more than twenty papers in peer reviewed international and national journals and
conferences.
180
181

Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Thesis PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE WITH

NON – BIODEGRADABLE WASTE PRODUCTS

Submitted in partial fulfillment

Under the Supervision of

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

Submitted in partial fulfillment

Under the Supervision of

BIRLA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY AND SCIENCE, PILANI

This is to certify that the thesis entitled “DEVELOPMENT OF CEMENT CONCRETE

WITH NON – BIODEGRADABLE WASTE PRODUCTS AND SUPPLEMENTARY

MATERIALS – AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION” and submitted by

Institute, embodies the original work done by him under my supervision.

Signature of the supervisor:

Name in capital letters: Dr. P. N. RAO

Date: 08 / 04 / 2014 MALAGAVELLI VENU

and is continuing to increase.

Cement production contributes to CO2 emission because of calcinations of limestone during

disposal of non-biodegradable waste material like plastics.

biodegradable waste products as fibers and supplementary materials.

TITLE Page No.

Table of Contents vii

List of Tables xii

List of Figures xvi

List of Abbreviations xxii

List of Symbols xxvi

CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION 1–6

1.2 Objectives of the study 2

1.3 Organization of the thesis 3

CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW 7 – 27

2.2 Supplementary materials for concrete 7

2.3 Stress – strain behavior of concrete 18

2.4 Durability of concrete 23

2.5 Need for the study 26

CHAPTER 3 MATERIAL PROPERTIES 28 – 46

3.2.2.1 Fine aggregate 32

3.2.2.2 Coarse aggregate 35

3.3 Mix design 39

3.4 Experimental program 41

3.5 Properties of hardened concrete 41

3.5.1 Compressive strength of concrete 42

3.5.2 Split tensile strength of concrete 42

3.5.3 Flexural strength of concrete 43

CHAPTER 4 CONCRETE WITH CHEMICAL ADMIXTURES 47 – 59

4.2.4 Sample preparation 49

4.3 Results & Discussions 51

4.3.1 M25 concrete 51

4.3.2 M30 Concrete 54

5.2 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS) 60

5.3 ROBO sand 61

5.4 Mix design and trial mix proportions of concrete 63

5.4.2 ROBO sand 63

5.5 Experimental results and discussions 64

5.5.1 GGBS concrete mix proportions 64

5.5.1.1 Compressive strength 65

5.5.1.2 Split tensile strength 68

5.5.1.3 Flexural strength 70

5.5.2 GGBS and ROBO sand combined mixes 72

5.5.2.1 Compressive strength 73

5.5.2.2 Split tensile strength 75