Printer Friendly

Investigation on steel fibre reinforced geo polymer concrete using by products of industrial waste.

INTRODUCTION

The rate of production of carbon dioxide released to the atmosphere is increasing due to the increased use of Portland cement in the construction. Each ton of Portland cement releases a ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere. The greenhouse gas emission from the production of Portland cement is about 1.35 billion tons annually, which is about 7% of the total greenhouse gas emissions. On the other side, fly ash is the waste material of coal based thermal power plant available abundantly but this poses disposal problem. Several hectares of valuable land are acquired by thermal power plants for the disposal of fly ash. With silicon and aluminium as the main constituents, fly ash has great potential as a cement replacing material in concrete. The concrete made with such industrial wastes is eco-friendly. Although the use of Portland cement is still unavoidable, many efforts are being made in order to reduce the use of Portland cement in concrete. Davidovits have invented a new technology called geopolymer, in which cement is totally replaced by fly ash (Pozzolanic material) and activated by alkaline solution. It is found that geopolymerisation can make a profitable contribution towards recycling and utilization of waste materials such as fly ash. This technology is, however, still fairly unknown and predictably viewed with skepticism by most workers in the field of traditional waste processing techniques. Plain cement concrete suffers from numerous drawbacks such as low tensile strength, brittleness, unstable crack propagation, and low fracture resistance. Addition of steel fibres in plain cement concrete improves its mechanical and elastic properties. Hence, steel fibre reinforced concrete has been proved as a reliable and promising composite construction material having superior performance characteristics compared to conventional concrete. Geopolymer concrete mixes were prepared with solution to fly ash ratio of 0.35. Crimped steel fibres having aspect ratio of 60 are used.

1.1 Objective:

To demonstrate the feasibility of a Steel fibre Geopolymer concrete using a mix of Steel fibres, GGBS, PFA and Silica Fume with the following constraints:

* Use of a blend of PFA, GGBS and Silica fume and different ratio of activators

* Use of different ratio of steel fibres

The main objective of this investigation is to examine

* To find the Compressive Strength test for cubes at 7th, 28th day

* To find the Split Tensile Strength test for cylinders at 7th, 28th day and

* To find the Flexural Strength test for prisms at 7th, 28th day

2. Review Of Literature:

Anuradha.R et al [1] Anuradha.R did an experimental study to identify the mix ratios for different grades of Geopolymer Concrete by trial and error method. A new Design procedure was formulated for Geopolymer Concrete which was relevant to Indian standard [6]. The applicability of existing Mix Design was examined with the Geopolymer Concrete. Two kinds of systems were considered in this study using 100% replacement of cement by ASTM class F flyash and 100% replacement of sand by M-sand. It was analyzed from the test result that the Indian standard mix design itself can be used for the Geopolymer Concrete with some modification.

Atteshamuddin S. Sayyad and Subhash V. Patankar reported that "Effect of Steel Fibres and Low Calcium Fly Ash on Mechanical and Elastic Properties of Geopolymer Concrete Composites". Effect of steel fibres and low calcium fly ash on mechanical and elastic properties of geopolymer concrete composites (GPCC) has been presented. The study analyses the impact of steel fibres and low calcium fly ash on the compressive, flexural, split-tensile, and bond strengths of hardened GPCC. Geopolymer concrete mixes were prepared using low calcium fly ash and activated by alkaline solutions (NaOH and [Na.sub.2]Si[O.sub.3]) with solution to fly ash ratio of 0.35. Crimped steel fibres having aspect ratio of 50 with volume fraction of 0.0% to 0.5% at an interval of 0.1% by mass of normal geopolymer concrete are used. The entire tests were carried out according to test procedures given by the Indian standards wherever applicable. The inclusion of steel fibre showed the excellent improvement in the mechanical properties of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Elastic properties of geopolymer concrete composites are also determined by various methods available in the literature and compared with each other.

Balasubramanian., Krishnamoorthy., Bharatkumar, and Gopalakrishnan (2003) of Structural Engineering Research Centre(SERC), Chennai have studied the properties of steel fibre reinforced shotcrete namely the toughness, flexural strength, impact resistance, shear strength ductility factor and fatigue endurance limits. It is seen from the study that the thickness of the Steel Fibre Reinforced Shotcrete (SFRS)panels can be considerably reduced when compared with weld mesh concrete. The improvements in the energy absorption capacity of SFRS panels with increasing proportions of steel fibres are clearly shown by the results of static load testing of panels. This investigation has clearly shown that straight steel fibres of aspect ratio 65 can be successfully used in field application.

Kumuta. R. Geopolymer Concrete (GPC mix) has two limitations such as delay in setting time and necessity of heat curing to gain strength. These two limitations of GPC mix was eliminated by replacing 10% of fly ash by OPC which results in Geopolymer Concrete Composite (GPCC mix). Replacement of 10% of fly ash by OPC in GPC mix resulted in an enhanced compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength by 73%, 128% and 17%respectively with reference to GPC mix. Addition of steel fibers in Geopolymer concrete composites enhanced its mechanical properties. Compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of steel fiber reinforced Geopolymer concrete composites increases with respect to the increase in the percentage volume fraction from 0.25 to 0.75. Addition of 0.25% volume fraction of steel fibers resulted in an enhanced compressive strength.

Ramkumar. G., et al--Development of Steel Fibre Reinforced Geo polymer concrete. Keywords: Geopolymer, Steel Fibre, Flyash, GGBS, Load Deflection- Three GPC mixes of fly ash(50%) and GGBS(50%) in the binder stage were considered with control GPC mix, GPC mix with added stainless steel fibre and mild steel fibres. The studies showed that the load carrying capacity of most of the GPC mix was in most cases more than that of the conventional OPCC mix. The deflections at diverse stages including service load and peak load stage were higher for GPC beams.

RUBY, DE GUTIERREZ, et al-Performance of Geo polymeric Concrete Reinforced with Steel Fibers. Keywords: Alkali-Activated slag, geo polymeric concrete, steel fibers reinforced geo polymeric concrete, early ages toughness. The concrete mixes with 400 kg of binder were prepared and fibers in proportions of 40 kg and 120 kg by m3 of concrete were incorporated. The compressive and splitting tensile strength were determined; likewise fracture toughness parameters, pull-outcurves and KIC in samples after 7, 14 and 28 days of curing were calculated. The mechanical testing results obtained indicate that the incorporation of steel fibers in GeoConcretes reduces the compressive strength at early ages.On the contrary, the splitting tensile strength, the flexural strength and the toughness increase significantly. The strengths and the toughness of Ordinary Portland Cement Concretes (OPCC) with the same proportion of binder and fibers were lesser than the Geo-concretes reinforced with steel fibers.

Shende and Anant M. Pande carried out an experimental investigation on compressive strength, flexural strength, tensile strength and deflection of steel fibre reinforced concrete. Fibres of 0.1, 1.1, 2.1 and 3.1 volume fraction and aspect ratio of 50,60 and 67 was used to compare the properties of fibre reinforced and normal concrete. Cube specimen of 150x150x150mm used for compressive strength test, beam specimen of 100x 100x500mm were cast for flexural strength test, and cylinder specimen of 150mm diameter and 300mm length was used for tensile strength test. The compression and tensile strength test were carried out by compression testing machine and flexural strength specimen was tested under two pointing loading. Result data clearly shows percentage increase (i.e, 3%). Fibre content increased the compressive strength and flexural strength and tensile strength.

Tiang Sing Ng et al studied the shear strength characteristics of fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete beams. Shear tests were conducted on five sets of 120mm x 250mm beams spanning 2250mm. The beam does not contain any stirrups. Instead the beam is reinforced by hooked and straight steel fibre of various dosages which vary between 0% - 1.5%. The results showed that the shear strength as a well as the crack behaviour improved on addition of fibres. Also, 100mmx100mmx500mm beams and 100mmx200mm cylinder were cast to determine the mechanical properties. The results of the test were compared with the fib Model Code 2010 alternative model for shear strength of steel-fibre reinforced concrete in combination with the variable engagement model for the determination of the tensile strength of steel-fibre-reinforced concrete. It was concluded from the studies that the beams without FRP, arching action is important in determining the failure load and failure mode. Ultimate strength and cracking load increased with increase in fibre volume.

Vijai.K, et al -Effect of inclusion of Steel Fibres on the properties of Geo polymer Concrete Composites. Mixtures were prepared with alkaline liquid to fly ash ratio of 0.4 with 10% of fly ash replaced by OPC in mass basis. Steel fibers were added to the mix in the volume fractions of 0.25%, 0.5% and 0.75% volume of the concrete. The influence of fiber content in terms of volume fraction on the compressive, split tensile strength and flexural strengths of GPCC is presented. Based on the test results, empirical expressions were developed to predict 28-day compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of Steel fiber reinforced GPCC in terms of volume fraction of steel fiber.

3.Experimental Investigation:

3.1 Materials Used:

3.1.1.Cement:

Cement used in the investigation on was 53 grades ordinary Portland cements conforming IS: 12269; 1987. The specific gravity of cement is 3.15.

3.1.2.Fine Aggregate:

M sand available from quarries is used as fine aggregate. The fine aggregate conforming to zone II according to IS: 383-1970 was used.

3.1.3.Coarse Aggregate:

Crushed granite was used as coarse aggregate. The coarse aggregate according to IS: 383-1970 was used. Maximum coarse aggregate size used is 20 mm.

3.1.4.Water:

The pH value of water should be in between 6.0 and 8.0 according to IS 456-2000.

3.1.5.Pulverized Fuel Ash (Pfa) :

* Pulverized Fuel Ash (PFA) otherwise known as the fly ash. It is a by product of Coal.

* Low calcium based F class was obtained from the silos of the Mettur Thermal Power Station, Tamil Nadu, which was used as the base material

3.1.6.Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (Ggbs):

* It is a byproduct of Pig iron.

* It was obtained from Jindal Steel Works Limited, Bellary District, Karnataka which was used as another base material

3.1.7. Silica Fume:

SILICA FUME is produced in conformance with the ASTM C 1240 specifications. The quality is controlled and monitored throughout the entire production process to ensure that it meets or exceeds specification requirements. Micro silica in concrete contributes to strength and durability two ways: (1) As a pozzolan, micro silica provides a more uniform distribution and a greater volume of hydration products.(2) As a filler, micro silica decreases the average size of pores in the cement paste.

3.1.8. Alkaline Liquid:

* A combination of silicate and hydroxide solution of sodium and potassium based elements were chosen as the activator liquids

* Sodium and potassium hydroxide pellets and the silicate solution for both these elements were purchased from a local supplier based in Coimbatore

3.1.9. Steel Fibres:

The fibre used was steel fibre with an aspect ratio of 60 and the fibres were with hooked ends. The property of fibre is given in table 5.15.

4.Mix Designation:
Table 11: Mix Designation

Designation    Mole    GGBS(%)    Fly ash      Silica       Steel
                                  (%)          fume (%)     fibre (%)

GPC1           8       70         15           15           0
SFRGPC1        8       70         15           15           0.25
SFRGPC2        8       70         15           15           0.50
SFRGPC3        8       70         15           15           0.75
SFRGPC4        8       70         15           15           1.00
GPC2           12      70         15           15           0
SFRGPC5        12      70         15           15           0.25
SFRGPC6        12      70         15           15           0.50
SFRGPC7        12      70         15           15           0.75
SFRGPC8        12      70         15           15           1.00
GPC3           16      70         15           15           0
SFRGPC9        16      70         15           15           0.25
SFRGPC10       16      70         15           15           0.50
SFRGPC11       16      70         15           15           0.75
SFRGPC12       16      70         15           15           1.00

Table 12: Quantities Of Ingredients Used For Mix Proportions

Particulars              Quantity (kg/[m.sup.3])

GGBS                     373
Flyash                   80
Silica fume              80
Fine aggregate           504
Coarse aggregate         1176
NaOH                     17
[Na.sub.2]Si[O.sub.3]    134
Water                    36


4.1 Specimen Details:

90 Cubes of size 150mm x150mm x 150mm for compressive strength test, 45 cylinders of 150mm diameter and 300 mm and height for splitting tensile strength and 45 prisms of size 500mm x 100mm x 100mm were casted and tested.

5. Compressive Strength:

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

The effect of addition of steel fibres in different volume fractions and age of concrete at the time of testing on the compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composite has been investigated and presented. Test results of compressive strength are presented in Table 13.

From the test results it can be seen that, after 7 days the average compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composites containing steel fibres was higher than those of geopolymer concrete composites without steel fibres. As the volume fraction increases from 0.25 to 1.00%, compressive strength increases with respect to the GPCC mix without steel fibres. The increase in compressive strength at the age of 7 days was about 4%, 9%, 15% and 20% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres. Similarly the increase in compressive strength at the age of 28 days was about 1%, 8%, 16% and 22% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres as shown in Figure 5.2.

From the test results it can be seen that, after 7 days the average compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composites containing steel fibres was higher than those of geopolymer concrete composites without steel fibres. As the volume fraction increases from 0.25 to 1.00%, compressive strength increases with respect to the GPCC mix without steel fibres. The increase in compressive strength at the age of 7 days was about 6%, 12%, 20% and 29% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres. Similarly the increase in compressive strength at the age of 28 days was about 7%, 9%, 21% and 30% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres as shown in Figure 5.4.

From the test results it can be seen that, after 7 days the average compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composites containing steel fibres was higher than those of geopolymer concrete composites without steel fibres. As the volume fraction increases from 0.25 to 1.00%, compressive strength increases with respect to the GPCC mix without steel fibres. The increase in compressive strength at the age of 7 days was about 7%, 13%, 22% and 29% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres. Similarly the increase in compressive strength at the age of 28 days was about 9%, 11%, 23% and 33% for 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% volume fraction respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres as shown in Figure 5.6.

6. Split Tensile Strength:

6.1.1 Test Specimens:

Totally Fourty Five cylinders measuring a diameter of 150 mm and 300 mm length were cast to evaluate the split tensile strength of SFRGPCC. Standard cast iron moulds were used for casting the test specimens. Before casting, machine oil was smeared on the inner surfaces of moulds. Geopolymer concrete with steel fibres was mixed using a horizontal pan mixer machine and was poured into the moulds in layers. Each layer of concrete was compacted using a table vibrator.

6.1.2 Instrumentation and Testing Procedure:

In order to evaluate the splitting tensile strength of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete composites, all the cylinder specimens were tested in a 2000 kN digital Compression Testing Machine. Specimens were tested as per the procedure given in Indian Standards IS.5816. The maximum load applied to the specimen was recorded and the split tensile strength of the specimen was calculated.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The effect of various factors such as addition of steel fibres in different volume fractions and age of concrete at the time of testing on the split tensile strength of geopolymer concrete composite has been investigated and presented. Test results of split tensile strength are presented in Table 16.

Within 7 days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 35%, 40%, 45%, 52%and 60% of its 28 days split tensile strength for volume fraction of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% respectively as shown in Figure 6.1. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the split tensile strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 6.2 Steel fibres in the concrete increases the splitting tensile strength and the increase is more significant at 7 days as compared with 28 days. The highest volume fraction of fibres gives the maximum increase of strength. At 28 days, the split tensile strength improves by 14%, 32%, 62% and 75% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively with respect to GPCC specimens.

Within 7 days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 38%, 43%, 45%, 52%and 61% of its 28 days split tensile strength for volume fraction of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% respectively as shown in Figure 6.3. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the split tensile strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 6.4 Steel fibres in the concrete increases the splitting tensile strength and the increase is more significant at 7 days as compared with 28 days. The highest volume fraction of fibres gives the maximum increase of strength. At 28 days, the split tensile strength improves by 14%, 37%, 67% and 83% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively with respect to GPCC specimens.

Within 7 days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 35%,39%, 44%, 53% and 63% of its 28 days split tensile strength for volume fraction of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% respectively as shown in Figure 6.5. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the split tensile strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 6.6 Steel fibres in the concrete increases the splitting tensile strength and the increase is more significant at 7 days as compared with 28 days. The highest volume fraction of fibres gives the maximum increase of strength. At 28 days, the split tensile strength improves by 14%, 37%, 72% and 86% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively with respect to GPCC specimens.

7. Flexural Strength:

7.1.1 Test Specimens:

45 nos of Prisms of size 500 mm x 100 mm x100 mm were cast to evaluate the flexural strength of SFRGPCC. Standard cast iron moulds were used for casting the test specimens. Before casting, machine oil was smeared on the inner surfaces of moulds. Geopolymer concrete with steel fibres was mixed using a horizontal pan mixer machine and was poured into the moulds in layers. Each layer of concrete was compacted using a table vibrator.

7.1.2 Instrumentation and Testing Procedure:

Flexural strength of steel fibre reinforced geopolymer concrete composites was determined using prism specimens by subjecting them to two points loading in Universal Testing Machine having a capacity of 1000 kN. Specimens were tested as per the procedure given in Indian Standards IS.516. The maximum load applied to the specimen was recorded and the flexural strength of the specimen was calculated.

7.1.3 Results and Discussion:

The effect of addition of steel fibres with different volume fractions and age of concrete at the time of testing on the flexural strength of geopolymer concrete composite has been investigated and presented. Test results of flexural strength are presented in Table 19.

Geopolymer concrete composite specimens harden immediately and start gaining flexural strength without any need of heat curing. In ambient curing at room temperature, within 7days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 59% to 64% of its 28 days flexural strength as shown in Figure 7.1. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the flexural strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 7.2. The more the steel fibre amount in geopolymer concrete, the higher the increase in flexural strength. This may be due to the reason that, the randomly distributed steel fibres controls the propagation of cracks, and thus the load required to fail the specimen has increased thereby increasing the ultimate flexural strength. The flexural strength gets increased by 3%, 16%, 27% and 46% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively.

Geopolymer concrete composite specimens harden immediately and start gaining flexural strength without any need of heat curing. In ambient curing at room temperature, within 7days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 60% to 70% of its 28 days flexural strength as shown in Figure 7.3. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the flexural strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 7.4. The more the steel fibre amount in geopolymer concrete, the higher the increase in flexural strength. This may be due to the reason that, the randomly distributed steel fibres controls the propagation of cracks, and thus the load required to fail the specimen has increased thereby increasing the ultimate flexural strength. The flexural strength gets increased by 4%, 29%, 38% and 49% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively.

Geopolymer concrete composite specimens harden immediately and start gaining flexural strength without any need of heat curing. In ambient curing at room temperature, within 7days, SFRGPCC specimens gained 69% to 79% of its 28 days flexural strength as shown in Figure 7.5. As the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%, the flexural strength also increases at all ages as shown in Figure 7.6. The more the steel fibre amount in geopolymer concrete, the higher the increase in flexural strength. This may be due to the reason that, the randomly distributed steel fibres controls the propagation of cracks, and thus the load required to fail the specimen has increased thereby increasing the ultimate flexural strength. The flexural strength gets increased by 6%, 26%, 36% and 50% for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively.

Conclusions:

Based on the results obtained in this investigation, the following conclusions are drawn:

* The average compressive strength of geopolymer concrete composites containing steel fibres was higher than those of geopolymer concrete composites without steel fibres. The increase in compressive strength at the age of 28 days was about 1%, to 22% for 8 molarity, 7%, to 30% for 12 molarity and 9%, to 31% for 16 molarity for volume fractions of 0.25%, 0.50%, 0.75% and 1.00% respectively with reference to GPCC mix without steel fibres.

* The compressive strength of the geopolymer concrete is increased with the increasing concentration of NaOH.

* Steel fibres in the concrete increases the splitting tensile strength and the increase was more significant at 7 days when compared to 28 days. The highest volume fraction of fibres gives the maximum increase of strength. The split tensile strength improves by 14%, 32%, 62% and 72% for 8 molarity, 14%, 37%, 67% and 83% for 12 molarity, 14%, 37%, 72% and 86% for 16 molarity for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively.

* As in the case of flexural strength, the flexural strength also increases at all ages as the volume fraction of steel fibres increases from 0% to 1.00%. The more the steel fibre amount in geopolymer concrete, the higher the increase in flexural strength. The flexural strength gets increased by 3%, 16%, 27% and 40% for 8 molarity, 4%, 29%, 38% and 49% for 12 molarity and 6%, 26%, 36% and 50% for 16 molarity for 0.25%, 0.5%, 0.75% and 1.00% of steel fibres respectively.

* There is no need of exposing geopolymer concrete to higher temperature to achieve most extreme strength

* With the addition of steel fibres in GPC diminished the workability of concrete mix.

* The necessity of water substance is reduced because of the addition of alkaline solution which helps in increasing the compressive strength of concrete.

* The addition of fibres diminishes the crack propagation in concrete and can achieve higher peak value.

* There is an increase in early age compressive strength due to the addition fibre and increase of molarity in alkaline solution.

* Molarity of alkaline solution is also contribute main role in geoploymer concrete.

* Geopolymer technology reduces the disposal cost of industrial waste.

* Geopolymer concrete produces a substance that is comparable to or better than traditional cements with their properties.

* The GPCs utilize the industrial wastes for producing the binding system in concrete. There are both environmental and economical benefits of using flyash and GGBS.

* The consumption of cement, emission of carbon dioxide and greenhouse effect are reduced in geoploymer concrete.

REFERENCES

[1.] Anuradha, R., V. Sreevidya., R. Vemkatasubramni and B.V. Rangan, 2011. in Modified guideline for Geoploymer concrete mix design using Indian standard -Department of Civil Engineer, VLB Jankiammal College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore -Curtin University of Technology, Perth, Australia.

[2.] Barbosa, V.F.F., K.J.D. MacKenzie, 2003. Thermal behaviour of inorganic geopolymers and composites derivedfrom sodium polysialate, Mater. Res.Bull., 38: 319-331.

[3.] Davidovits, J., 1999. Chemistry of geopolymeric systems, in: Terminology, Geopolymer'99 Second International Conference, Saint-Quentin, France, pp: 9-39.

[4.] Hardjito, D., S.E. Wallah, D.M.J. Sumajouw, B.V. Rangan, 2004. On the development of flyash-based geopolymerconcrete. ACI Mater J 101(6): 467-72.

[5.] IS: 383-1970, Specifications for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from Natural Sources for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[6.] IS: 10262-2009, Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[7.] IS: 516-1959, Indian Standard Code of Practice-Methods of Test for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.

[8.] Lloyd, N., B.V. Rangan, 2009. Geopolymer concrete; sustainable cementless concrete. In: Proceedings of the 10th ACI international conference on recent advances in concrete technology and sustainability issues, Seville, ACI SP-261-03; pp: 33-54.

[9.] Lloyd, N., B.V. Rangan, 2010. Geopolymer concrete with fly ash. In: Second international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies.

[10.] Maiti, S.C and K. Raj, 2009. Agarwal, "Concrete and its quality" in The Indian Concrete Journal.

[11.] Rangan, B.V., 2008. Mix design and production of fly ash based geopolymer concrete. Indian Concr J 82(5): 7-15.

[12.] Shetty, M.S., "Concrete Technology Theory and Practice", S. Chand & Company, New Delhi

[13.] Swanepoel, J.C., C.A. Strydom, 2002. Utilization of fly ash in a geopolymeric material, Appl. Geochem, 17: 1143-1148.

[14.] Van Jaarsveld, J.G.S., J.S.J. van Deventer, G.C. Lukey, 2002. The effect of composition and temperature on the properties of the fly ash- and kaolinite-based geopolymers, Chem. Eng. J. 89: 63-73.

[15.] Xu, H.J.S.J., van Deventer, 2000. The geopolymerization of alumino-silicateminerals, Int. J. Miner. Process, 59: 247-266.

[16.] Athi Gajendran, K., R. Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubramani, "Strength study on Eco friendly High performance Concrete by replacing the cement by Flyash, Silica Fume and Metakaolin", is accepted for Asian Journal of Microbiology, Biotechnology and Environmental Sciences.

[17.] Athi Gajendran, K., R. Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubramani, "Studies On Relationship Between Compressive And Splitting Tensile Strength Of High Performance Concrete", ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

[18.] Usha, T.G., R. Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubramani, "Investigation on Self-Compacting Geopolymer Concrete by Replacing Flyash with Silica Fume and GGBFS", ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences.

[19.] Usha, T.G., R. Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubramani, 2015."Reduction Of Green House Gases Emission In Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Sustainable Construction Materials", Nature Environment and Pollution Technology, 14(2): 451-454.

[20.] Anuradha, R., T. Nalavendhan, R. Aadhi Gajendran, 2015. "Durability studies on High Performance concrete using Different Mineral admixtures", International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 10: 19.

[21.] Anuradha, R., R. Dinesh Kumar, T. Usha, 2015. "Durability Studies on Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete using different Mineral Admixtures", International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 10: 19.

[22.] Usha, T.G., R. Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubramani, 2015. "Behaviour of Self Compacting Geopolymer Concrete Using Sustainable Construction Materials", International Journal of Applied Engineering Research ISSN 0973-4562 10: 19.

[23.] Anuradha, R., V. Sreevidya and R. Venkatasubramani, 2011. "Studies on Relationship Between Compressive And Splitting Tensile Strength of Geopolymer Concrete", published in "The Indian Concrete Journal" 85: 18-23.

[24.] Anuradha, R., V. Sreevidya and R. Venkatasubramani, 2012. "Geopolymer Reinforced Concrete Beams made with and without Sand" published in "Journal of Structural Engineering" 39(2): 254-262.

[25.] Sreevidya, V., Anuradha and R. Venkatasubramani, 2012. "Experimental Study on Geopolymer Ferro Cement Slab Using Various Wire Meshes", Journal of Structural Engineering, 39(4): 426-436.

[26.] Ushaa, T.G., R Anuradha and G.S. Venkatasubraman, 2015." Performance of self-compacting geopolymer concrete containing different mineral admixtures", Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, 22: 22-30.

(1) Anuradha. R and (2) Roobha lavanya. M

(1) Associate professor, Dept. of civil engineering, SNS college of technology, Coimbatore-641035, India.

(2) PG scholar, SNS college of technology, Coimbatore-641035, India.

Received 27 May 2016; Accepted 28 June 2016; Available 12 July 2016

Address For Correspondence:

Anuradha. R, Associate professor, Dept. of civil engineering, SNS college of technology, Coimbatore-641035, India.

E-mail: anuradhastalin@gmail.com
Table 1: Physical Properties Of Opc 53 Grade Cement

PARTICULARS             TEST VALUE

Fineness modulus        5%
Specific gravity        3.15
Consistency             33%
Initial setting time    125 min
Final setting time      260 min

Table 2: Properties Of Fine Aggregate

S. No    PARTICULARS         VALUES

1.       Specific gravity    2.63
2.       Fineness modulus    2.71
3.       Bulk density        Loose     Compacted
                             1.51      1.53

Table 3: Properties Of Coarse Aggregate

S.No    PARTICULARS         VALUES

1.      Specific gravity    2.80
2.      Bulk density        Loose    Compacted
                            1.53     1.54

Table 4: Pro perties Of Water

S. No    DESCRIPTION               Obtained      Permissible Value
                                   Value         as per IS 456-2000

1.       pH value                  8.2           Not less than 6.0
2.       Chloride content          112.5 mg/l    500 mg/l *
3.       Total hardness            105 mg/l      200 mg/l
4.       Total dissolved solids    150 mg/l      --

Table 5: Chemical Composition Of The Fly Ash

S. No   CONSTITUENTS                                %

1       Silica (as Si[O.sub.2])                     60.93
2       Aluminum oxide (as [Al.sub.2][O.sub.3])     28.88
3       Ferric oxide (as [Fe.sub.2][O.sub.3])       3.82
4       Magnesium oxide (as MgO)                    0.76
5       Sulphur (S[O.sub.2])                        0.21
6       Loss on Ignition (LoI)                      0.64

Specific gravity of fly ash is 2.05

Table 6: Chemical Compositions Of The Ggbs

S.No    CONSTITUENTS                               %

1       Glass content                              86.94
2       Sulphide Sulphur                           0.74
3       Magnesium oxide                            10.08
4       Manganese oxide                            0.29
5       Insoluble residue                          1.04
6       (CaO+MgO+1/3[Al.sub.2][O.sub.3])/          1.08
          (Si[O.sub.2]+2/3[Al.sub.2][O.sub.3])
7       (CaO+ MgO + [Al.sub.2][O.sub.3]) /         1.79
          Si[O.sub.2]
8       Iron oxide                                 0.30

Specific gravity of GGBS is 2.20

Table 7: Chemical Requirements

S.No    CONSTITUENTS                      %

1       Silicon Dioxide (Si[O.sub.2])     93.47
2       Moisture content                  0.27
3       Loss on ignition                  3.82

Table 8: Physical Requirements

S.No    CONSTITUENTS                               %

1       Oversize % retained on 45 qm               2.54
2       Accelerated pozzolanic strength Activity   126.07
          Index with Portland cement (7 day)
3       Specific surface                           22.28 [m.sup.2]/g

Table 9: Specifications Of Hydroxide And Silicate Solution

S. No   Property            Hydroxides    Silicate
                            (pellets)     solution

1       Purity              97            98.50
2       Specific gravity    1.127         1.53
          (g/cc)                          Na2O -15.30%
3       Composition         NaOH          SiO2-33.69%
                                          H2O-51.10%

Table 10: Properties Of Fibre

Fibre Properties            Steel fibre

Length (mm)                 30
Shape                       Hooked at ends
Size/Diameter (mm)          0.50
Aspect Ratio                60
Density (kg/[m.sup.3])      7850
Young's Modulus (GPa)       210
Tensile strength (MPa)      532

Table 13: Compressive Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (8 Molarity)

8 MOLARITY    GPCC1     SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day       41.25     42.92     44.90     47.54     49.62
28th Day      80.44     81.55     87.11     93.65     98.25

Table 14: Compressive Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (12 Molarity)

12 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        45.83    48.59     51.45     54.93     59.32
28th Day       88.91    95.24     97.24     107.66    115.97

Table 15: Compressive Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (16 Molarity)

16 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        46.60    49.66     52.73     56.80     59.89
28th Day       89.87    98.33     99.66     110.19    117.38

Table 16: Split Tensile Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (8 Molarity)

8 MOLARITY     GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        1.02     1.16      1.35      1.65      2.03
28th Day       2.89     2.90      3.01      3.14      3.37

Table 17: Split Tensile Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (12 Molarity)

12 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        1.20     1.36      1.64      2.00      2.50
28th Day       3.19     3.20      3.64      3.82      4.10

Table 18: Split Tensile Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (16 Molarity)

16 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        1.23     1.40      1.69      2.11      2.65
28th Day       3.54     3.56      3.85      3.96      4.12

Table 19: Flexural Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (8 Molarity)

8 MOLARITY     GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        3.89     3.92      4.20      5.23      5.75
28th Day       6.09     6.30      7.09      7.75      8.51

Table 20: Flexural Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (12 Molarity)

12 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        5.09     5.17      5.66      6.91      7.70
28th Day       7.37     7.63      9.49      10.15     10.96

Table 21: Flexural Strength Of Sfrgpc Specimens (16 Molarity)

16 MOLARITY    GPCC1    SFRGPC1   SFRGPC2   SFRGPC3   SFRGPC4

7th Day        6.89     7.07      7.76      9.21      10.46
28th Day       8.89     9.44      11.20     12.11     13.30

Fig. 5.1: Gain in compressive Strength with age (8 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     49%       51%
0.25     47%       53%
0.50     48%       52%
0.75     49%       51%
1.00     49%       51%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 5.2: Gain in compressive strength due to steel
fibres (8 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      1%        4%
0.50      8%        9%
0.75     15%       16%
1.00     22%       20%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 5.3: Gain in compressive Strength with age (12 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     48%       52%
0.25     49%       52%
0.50     47%       53%
0.75     49%       51%
1.00     49%       51%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 5.4: Gain in compressive strength due to steel fibres
(12 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      6%        7%
0.50      9%       12%
0.75     20%       21%
1.00     29%       30%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 5.5: Gain in compressive Strength with age (16 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     48%       52%
0.25     49%       51%
0.50     47%       53%
0.75     48%       52%
1.00     49%       51%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 5.6: Gain in compressive strength due to steel fibres
(16 Molarity)

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      7%        9%
0.50     11%       13%
0.75     22%       23%
1.00     29%       31%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 6.1: Gain in split tensile Strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     65%       35%
0.25     60%       40%
0.50     55%       45%
0.75     48%       52%
1.00     40%       60%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 6.2: Gain in tensile strength due to steel fibres

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      0%       14%
0.50      4%       32%
0.75      9%       62%
1.00     17%       75%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 6.3: Gain in split tensile Strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     62%       38%
0.25     57%       43%
0.50     55%       45%
0.75     48%       52%
1.00     39%       61%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 6.4: Gain in tensile strength due to steel fibres

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      0%       14%
0.50     14%       37%
0.75     20%       67%
1.00     29%       83%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 6.5: Gain in split tensile Strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     65%       35%
0.25     61%       39%
0.50     56%       44%
0.75     47%       53%
1.00     37%       63%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 6.6: Gain in tensile strength due to steel fibres

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00      0%
0.25      1%       14%
0.50      9%       37%
0.75     12%       72%
1.00     16%       86%

Note: Table made from line graph.

Fig. 7.1: Gain in flexural strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     36%       64%
0.25     38%       62%
0.50     41%       59%
0.75     36%       64%
1.00     37%       63%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 7.2: Gain in flexural strength due to steel fibres

       7 Days   28 Days

0.00      0%        0%
0.25      1%        3%
0.50      8%       16%
0.75     28%       27%
1.00     37%       40%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 7.3: Gain in flexural strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     31%       69%
0.25     32%       68%
0.50     40%       60%
0.75     32%       68%
1.00     30%       70%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 7.4: Gain in flexural strength due to steel fibres

       7 Days   28 Days

0.00      0%        0%
0.25      2%        4%
0.50     11%       29%
0.75     36%       38%
1.00     49%       49%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 7.5: Gain in flexural strength with age

       28 Days   7 Days

0.00     22%       78%
0.25     25%       75%
0.50     31%       69%
0.75     24%       76%
1.00     21%       79%

Note: Table made from bar graph.

Fig. 7.6: Gain in flexural strength due to steel fibres

       7 Days   28 Days

0.00      0%        0%
0.25      3%        6%
0.50     13%       26%
0.75     34%       36%
1.00     48%       50%

Note: Table made from bar graph.
COPYRIGHT 2016 American-Eurasian Network for Scientific Information
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2016 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Anuradha, R.; Roobha, Iavanya M.
Publication:Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences
Date:Jun 30, 2016
Words:6633
Previous Article:Extending sensor networks into the cloud using Tpss And Lbss.
Next Article:Design of broadband microstrip patch antenna using stack and notch techniques.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2022 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |