A

Final Project Report

On
“EFFECT ON CONCRETE BY PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF
CEMENT BY SILICA FUME”

Submitted
In partial fulfillment
For the award of the Degree of
Bachelor of Technology
In Department of Civil Engineering

Guided By:- Submitted By:-

Mr. HEMANT KUMAR SAINI BHUPENDRA SINGH SOLANKI
Assistant Professor Roll No:- 17EAYCE019
ACERC Civil Department

Department of Civil Engineering

Arya College of Engineering and Research Centre, Kukas
Jaipur - 302028
Rajasthan Technical University
August, 2021
 CANDIDATE’S DECLARATION

I hereby decline that the work , which is being presented in the Final Project Report, entitled
“EFFECT ON CONCRETE BY PARTIAL REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY SILICA
FUME” In partial fulfillment for the award of Degree of “Bachelor of Technology” in
Department of Civil Engineering, and submitted to the Department of Civil Engineering, Arya
College of Engineering & Research Centre, Jaipur, Rajasthan technical university is a record
of my own investigation carried under the guidance of Mr. Hemant Kumar Saini, Assistant
Professor and Mr. Kapil Karadia, Head of Department of Civil Engineering, Arya College of
Engineering & Research Centre, Jaipur.

BHUPENDRA SINGH SOLANKI Mr. Kapil Karadia

17EAYCE019 Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering

ii
 DEPARTMENT CERTIFICATE

This is certify that the Final Project Report “EFFECT ON CONCRETE BY PARTIAL
REPLACEMENT OF CEMENT BY SILICA FUME” submitted by BHUPENDRA
SINGH SOLANKI to Arya College of Engineering & Research Centre, Jaipur, affiliated to
Rajasthan Technical University, Kota for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in
Civil Engineering is a record of bonafide work carried out by him under my supervision. In my
opinion, the project report has reached the standard of fulfilling the requirement of the regulations
to degree.

Mr. Hemant Kumar Saini Mr. Kapil Karadia

Assistant Professor Head of Department
Department of Civil Engineering Department of Civil Engineering

iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I have no sufficient words to express my whole heartedly feelings of gratitude to my respected Mr.
Kapil Karadia HOD, Department of Civil Engineering and Prof. (Dr.) Himanshu Arora,
Principal, ACERC, Jaipur. I am very thankful to Sir and grateful to have an opportunity to work
under his supervision, which provided me with his generous guidance, valuable help and endless
encouragement by taking personal interest and attention.
I am so much thankful to Dr. Arvind Agrawal, Chairperson of Arya College, Dr. Pooja
Agrawal, Vice Chairperson of Arya College, who give me immense support throughout the
seminar work in B.Tech. I wish to express my sincere regards and thanks to All Teachers of
Department of Civil Engineering, ACERC, Jaipur for being more than willing to share their
treasure of knowledge with me.

I think all our dear friends for their moral support and enthusiasm. Lastly, I thank our parents for
their blessings and prayers.

BHUPENDRA SINGH SOLANKI

Enrolment No.:17E1AYCEM40P019

iv
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
Department Certificate ............................................................................................................. ii

Candidate’s Declaration .......................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgement ................................................................................................................... iv

Table of content ....................................................................................................................... v

List of Tables ...........................................................................................................................vi

List of Figures ........................................................................................................................ vii

Abstract ................................................................................................................................. viii

CHAPTER-1. Introduction ............................................................................................................. 1-3

CHAPTER-2. Literature Review .................................................................................................. 4-7

CHAPTER-3. Methodology ........................................................................................................... 8-27

3.1 Materials ................................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Ordinary portland cement ........................................................................................ 8
3.3 Aggregate ................................................................................................................. 9
3.3.1 Coarse aggregate ............................................................................................... 9
3.3.2 Fine aggregate ............................................................................................... 10
3.4. Cement ................................................................................................................ 10
3.5. Water ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.6. Test methods ....................................................................................................... 11
3.6.1 Specific gravity ............................................................................................... 11
3.6.2. Compressive strength of concrete ............................................................... 12
3.6.3. Split tensile strength ....................................................................................... 13
3.6.4. Batching, mixing, and curing ......................................................................... 15
3.6.5. Test Procedure and Results ........................................................................... 16

CHAPTER-4. Results and analysis ............................................................................................28-37

4.1. Results of phase I and II ............................................................................................... 29
4.2. Results of phase III .........................................................................................................33

CHAPTER-5. REFERENCES ................................................................................................ 38-39

v
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3.1. Properties of OPC 43 grade concrete .................................................................... 9

Table 3.2. Properties of coarse aggregate ..............................................................................10
Table 3.3. Properties of fine aggregate ..................................................................................10
Table 3. 4. Compressive strength of cube for 7 days .................................................................. 17
Table 3. 5. Compressive strength of cube for 14 days.............................................................. 17
Table 3. 6. Compressive strength of cube for 28 days.............................................................. 20
Table 3.7. Split tensile strength of cylinder for 7 days ............................................................ 23
Table 3.8. Split tensile strength of cylinder for 14 days ......................................................... 24
Table 4.1. Summary of 28-day unconfined compressive and split tensile strengths .............. 31
Table 4.2. Mix designs and 28-day flexural strengths ............................................................ 34

vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2.1. Relationship between compressive strength of varying MS replacement level ......... 4
Figure 2.2. 7 days, 28 days split tensile strength test result withoptimum SF replacement ..........5
Figure 2.3. 3 days, 7 days, 28 days compressive strength result ................................................. 7
Figure 3.1. Specific gravity of aggregate .................................................................................. 12
Figure 3.2. Casting of cube ....................................................................................................... 13
Figure 3.3. Split tensile strength..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 3. 4. Graph representation of cube for 7 day ....................................................................... 18
Figure 3. 5. Linear representation of cube for 7 days ....................................................................... 18
Figure 3.6. Graph representation of cube for 14 days ................................................................. 19
Figure 3. 7. Linear representation of cube for 14 days ...............................................................19
Figure3.8. Graph representation of cube for 28 days ................................................................. 20
Figure 3.9. Linear representation of cube for 28 days ............................................................... 21
Figure 3.10. Comparison of cubes according to days ...................................................................... 21
Figure 3.11. Linear comparison of cubes according to days ......................................................... 22
Figure 3.12. Graphical representation of cylinder for 14 days .................................................................... 24
Figure 3.13. Linear representation of cylinder for 14 days ............................................................ 25
Figure 3.14. Graphical representation of cylinder for 28 days………………………………………,. ....... 26
Figure3. 15. Graphical representation of cylinder according to days............................................. 26
Figure 3.16. Linear representation of cylinder according to days................................................................. 27
Figure 4.1. 28-day compressive and split tensile strengths of various mixes ..............................32
Figure 4.2. Average flexural strengths of various mixes.............................................................. 35

vii
 ABSTRACT

The use of silica fume had major impact on industries, ability to routinely and commercially
produce silica fume modified concrete of flow able in nature but yet remain cohesive, which in turn
produces high early and later age strength including resistant to aggressive environments. This study
is an experimental on the nature of silica fume and its influences on the properties of fresh concrete.
The partially replacement of cement by silica fume the strength parameters of concrete have been
studied. First the strength parameters of concrete without any partial replacement were studied then
strength parameters by partial replacement with silica fume have been studied by placing cube and
cylinder on compression testing machine (CTM).

Silica fume were used to replace 0% to 15% of cement, by weight at increment of 5% for both
cube and cylinder. The results showed that partial replacement of cement with silica fume had
significant effect on the compressive strength of cube and split tensile strength cylinder. The strength
of concrete increases rapidly as we increases the silica fume content and the optimum value of
compressive strength is obtained at 10% replacement. After 10% its start decreasing under uniform
load condition of4 KN and similarly the split tensile strength increases up to 10% and then start
decreasing under the uniform load condition of 2KN.

Concrete is the most important engineering material and the addition of some other materials may
change the properties of concrete. With increase in trend towards the wider use of concrete for
prestressed concrete and high rise buildings there is a growing demand of concrete with higher
compressive strength. Mineral additions which are also known as mineral admixtures have been used
with cements for many years. Silica fume particles are 100 times smaller than the average cement
particle. Its handling and disposal is a point of concern because of the environment concerns. Silica
fume is usually categorized as a supplementary cementitious material. These materials exhibit
pozzolanic properties, cementitious properties and a combination of both properties. Due to these
properties, it can affect the concrete behavior in many ways. In the present work, an attempt has been
made to use silica fume as a supplementary material for cement and to evaluate the limit of
replacement of cement for M20 grade concrete. The main aim of this work is to study the mechanical
properties of M20 grade control concrete and silica fume concrete with different percentages (5, 10,
15 and 20%) of silica fume as a partial replacement of cement
viii
 CHAPTER-1

INTRODUCTION
Cement is becoming a scarce resource all over the world because of its increasing demands
day by day. Theconstruction activities have increased in almost all the developing countries of
the world. There always has been great effort in improving the quality and standards of the
properties of concrete as a construction material. Traditionally fly ash and silica fume or the
combination of both is added to concrete as a pozzolana material to enhancethe properties of
concrete. The use of silica fume as a pozzolana material has increased in recent years because
when mixed in certain proportions it enhances the properties of both fresh and hard concrete
like durability, strength, permeability and compressive strength, flexural strength and tensile
strength. Silica fume is a very finenoncrystalline material produced in electric arc furnace as a
by-product of silicon or alloy factories containing silica. Silica fume has been known to us with
different names such as micro silica, silica dust, and condensed silica fume. Silica fume has a
property that it behaves as a pozzolana as well ascementious material. When the fine pozzolana
silica fume particles are added to the paste, a heat of hydration is observed resulting in the
formation of pozzolanic material and calcium hydroxide. Due to large surface area silica fume
gets densed packed in the paste of cement and aggregate reducing the wall effect in the
transition zone between the paste and aggregate. Concrete having optimum percentage of siica
fume shows increase in strength and durability of concrete.
Physical and chemical properties of silica fume

The physical properties of silica fume are as follows-

• Diameter of silica fume is 0.1 micron to 0.2 micron
• Surface area is in the range of 20,000-30,000 m2/kg.
• Density varies from 150 to 700 kg/m3

The chemical properties of silica fume are as follows:-

• Silica fume contains more than 90% of silicon dioxide (SiO2).
• Other constituents are carbon, sulphur, and oxides of aluminium, iron calcium,
magnesium, sodium andpotassium.

The use of silica fume in concrete mix has engineeringpotential and economic advantage. The
use of silica fume willnot effect the weight of concrete. Silica fume will produce amuch less

1
permeable and high strength concrete. This paperwill provide a review of silica fume and its
effect on hard andfresh concrete.
Concrete is a most frequently used building material which is a mixture of cement, sand, coarse
aggregate and water. It is used for construction of multi-storey buildings, dams, road
pavement, tanks, offshore structures, canal lining. The method of selecting appropriate
ingredients of concrete and determining their relative amount with the intention of producing
a concrete of the necessary strength durability and workability as efficiently as possible is
termed the concrete mix design. The compressive strength of harden concrete is commonly
considered to be an index of its extra properties depends upon a lot of factors e.g. worth and
amount of cement water and aggregates batching and mixing placing compaction and curing.
The genuine cost of concrete is related to cost of materials essential for produce a minimum
mean strength called characteristic strength that is specific by designer of the structures.
This depends on the quality control measuresbut there is no doubt that quality control add to
the cost of concrete. The level of quality control is often an inexpensive cooperation and
depends on the size andtype of job nowadays engineers and scientists are trying to enhance
the strength of concrete by adding the severalother economical and waste material as a partial
substitute of cement or as a
admixture fly ash, silica fume, steel slag etc are the few examples of these typesof materials.
These materials are generally by-product from further industries for example fly ash is a waste
product from power plants and silica fume is a by- product resulting from decrease of high
purity quartz by coal or coke and wood chips in an electric arc furnace during production of
silicon metal or ferrosilicon alloys.
The use of micro silica as a pozzolana material has enhanced in recent years because when
mixed in definiteproportions it improves the properties of both fresh and hard concrete like
durability, strength, permeability and compressive strength, flexural strength and tensile
strength.
Silica fume, also known as micro silica is an amorphous (non-crystalline) polymorph of silicon
dioxide. It is an ultrafine powder collected as a by-product of the silicon and ferrosilicon alloy
production. It is extremely fine with particles size less than 1 micron and with an average
diameter of about 0.1 microns, about 100 times smaller than average cement particles. Its
behaviour is related to the high content of amorphous silica (> 90%). The reduction of high-
purity quartz to silicon at temperatures up to 2,000ᵒC produces SiO₂ vapours, which oxidizes
and condense in the low temperature zone to tiny particles consisting of non-crystalline silica.

2
During the last three decades, great strides have been taken in improving the performance of
concrete as a construction material. Particularly Silica Fume (SF) and fly ash individually or
in combination are indispensable in production of high strength concrete for practical
application. The use of silica fume as a pozzolana has increased worldwide attention over the
recent years because when properly used it as certain percent, it can enhance various properties
of concrete both in the fresh as well as in hardened states like cohesiveness, strength,
permeability and durability. Silica fume concrete may be appropriate in places where high
abrasion resistance and low permeability are of utmost importance or where very high cohesive
mixes are required to avoid segregation and bleeding.

The history of silica is relatively short, the first recorded testing of silica fume in Portland
cement based concretes was conducted in 1952 and it was not until the early 1970‘s that
concretes containing silica fume came into even limited use. The early work done in Norway
received most of the attention, since it had shown that Portland cement- based-concretes
containing silica fumes had very high strengths and low porosities. Since then the research and
development of silica fume made it one of the world‘s most valuable and versatile admixtures
for concrete and cementious products.

The objective of this study is to find the effect of partial replacement of Silica fume on the
strength characteristics of concrete. Three percentage levels of replacement i.e. 5, 10 and 15
percent are considered for partially replacing cement with silica fume. M30 concrete grade is
initially designed without replacement and subsequently cement is partially replaced with
silica fume.

3
 CHAPTER-2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Abdulaziz A. Bubshait et. al. [1] investigated that the advantages of using micro silica can
be considerable as it reduces thermal cracking caused by the heat of cement hydration and
can improve durability to attack by sulphateand acidic water, giving increase in performance
of concrete. The optimum replacement of cement by silica fume gave high durability,
permeability, high compressive strength.

Faseyemi Victor Ajileye [2] concluded cement replacement up to 10% with silica fume leads
to increase in compressivestrength for C30 grade of concrete. From 15% there is a decrease
in compressive strength for 3, 7, 14 and 28 days curing period. It was observed that the
compressive strength of C30 grade of concrete was increased from 16.15% to 29.24% and
decrease from 23.98% to 20.22%. The maximum replacement level of silica fume was 10%
for C30grade of concrete.

Figure2.1: Relationship between compressive strength of varying MS replacement level

4
N.K. Amudhavalli and jeena Mathew [3] this research concluded that with increase in
fineness of cement consistency increases. Silica fume is having greater finenessthan cement
and greater surface area so the consistency increases greatly, when silica fume percentage
increases. The normal consistency increases about 40% when silica fume percentage increases.
The normal consistency increases about 40% when silica fume percentage increasesfrom 0% to
20%. The 7 and 28 days compressive strength and flexural strength was obtained in the range
of 10% to 15% silica fume replacement level.
Increase in split tensile strength beyond 10% silica fume replacement was almost
unsatisfactory whereas increase in flexural tensile strengthoccurred up to 15% replacement.
Silica fume to have a moresatisfactory effect on the flexural strength as compared to tensile
strength. When the mix was compared to another mixthe weight loss and compressive strength
percentage was found to be reduced by 2.23 and 7.69 respectively when cement was replaced
by 10% of silica fume.

Figure 2.2: 7 days, 28 days split tensile strength test result withoptimum SF replacement

Des King [4] investigated the impact of silica fume in concrete under various properties such
as workability, permeability, durability, bleeding, heat of hydration, sensitivity to curing, acid
resistance, tensile strength, flexural strength etc. He concluded that the 28th days strength of
concrete with silica fume gives a higher strength of compressive strength as compared to any
other material such as fly ash , GGBS etc. With addition of silica fume early high
compressive
5
strength can be achieved, further a very high strength can be achieved after 28 days with proper
concrete mix design method.

Vikas Srivastava et. al. [5] worked out the workability of concrete on optimum replacement
of silica fume by cement.Their research concluded that the workability reduces withthe addition
of silica fume. However in some cases improved workability was observed. With the addition and
variation ofreplacement levels of silica fume the compressive strengthsignificantly increased
by (6-57%). There was no change observed in the tensile and flexural strength of the concrete
as compared to the conventional concrete.

Debabrata Pradhan and D. Dutta [6] investigated theeffects of silica fume on conventional
concrete, concluded the optimum compressive strength was obtained at 20% cement replacement
by silica fume at 24 hours, 7days and 28 days. Higher compressive strength resembles that the
concrete incorporated with silica fume was high strength concrete.

Alaa M. Rashad et. al. [7] in his investigation the compressive strength and abrasion
resistance of PC concrete, HVFA concrete and HVFA concrete blends with sand slag was
studied. He concluded that abrasion resistance was highly influenced irrespective of
pozzoloan material. Both compressive strength and abrasion resistance decreased with the
incorporation of 70 % FA compared to F70,especially at early age. The reduction rate
decreased ascuring time progressed.

The replacement of 20 % SF gave good compressive strength and abrasion resistance and came
in the second place, incorporation of 10 % SF came in the third place and incorporation of 10
% of equally combination of SF and slag (i.e. 5 % SF and 5 % slag) came inthe fourth place.

Vishal S. Ghutke et. al. [8], concluded from their result that silica fume was a better
reolacement of cement. The strength of concrete gained in silica fume was hign as compared to
concrete of only cement. They performed various tests by varying the water cement ratio from
0.5 to 0.6 and analtzed their results which concluded -As the water-cement ratio increases the
strength of concrete decreases. The target value of compressive strength can be achieved at
10% replacement of silica fume.the strength of 15% replacement of cement by silica fume was
greater than the normal concrete. Therefore the optimum silica fume replacement percentage
varies from 10% to 15%. Compressive strengthdecreases when the cement replacement was

6
above 15% silica fume.

Figure 2.3: 3 days, 7 days, 28 days compressive strength result

7
 CHAPTER -3
METHODOLOGY

Experimental work
To achieve the objectives of this study, an experimental programming was planned to
investigate the effect of silica fume on compressive strength and split tensile strength of
concrete. The various tests have been conducted on cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate,
water, silica fume and on the hardened concrete specimen (cubical and cylindrical) after
suitable time period of curing 7, 14 and 28 days with and without replacement of cement with
silica fume.

3.1 Materials:-
The required strength or target strength of concrete can be obtained by careful selection of
ingredients, correct grading of ingredients, accurate water measurements and adopting a good
workmanship in mixing, transporting, placing, compacting, finishing and curing of concrete in
the construction work. The properties of material used for making the concrete mix are
determined in laboratory as per relevant codes of practice. Different materials used in present
study were cement, coarse aggregates, fine aggregates, water and silica fume. The aim of
studying of various properties of materials is used to check the appearance with codal
requirements and to enable an engineer to design aconcrete mix for a particular strength.

3.2 Ordinary portland cement:-

Although all materials that go into concrete mix are essential, cement is very often the most
important because it is usually the delicate link in the chain. It constitutes only about 20 percent
of the tota l volume of concrete mix; it is the active portion of binding medium and is the only
scientifically controlled ingredient of concrete. Portland cement referred as (Ordinary Portland
Cement) is the most important type of cement and is a fine powder produced by grinding
Portland cement clinker. The OPC is classified into three grades, namely 33 Grade, 43 Grade,
53 Grade depending upon the strength of 28 days.
The cement as determined from various tests conforming to Indian Standard IS: 8112:1989 are
listed in Table 1. Cement was carefully stored to prevent deterioration in its properties due to
contact with the moisture. The various tests conducted on cement are initial and final setting
time, specific gravity, fineness and compressive strength.

8
Table 3.1:- Properties of OPC 43 grade concrete:

S.No Characteristics Values obtained Values specified by IS

experimentally
1 Specific gravity 3.15
2 Standard consistency(%) 33
3 Initial setting time 105(minutes) 30(minutes)
4 Final setting time 430(minutes) 600(minutes)
5 Compressive strength3 days
7 days 25.2 N/mm2 23 N/mm2(minimum)
28 days 37.9 N/mm2 33 N/mm2(minimum)
47.8 N/mm2 43 N/mm2(minimum)
3.3 Aggregate:-
Aggregates constitute the bulk of a concrete mixture and give dimensional stability to concrete.
The aggregates provide about 75% of the body of the concrete and hence its influence is
extremely important. They should therefore meet certain requirements if the concrete is to
be workable, strong, durable and economical. The aggregates must be proper shape, clean,
hard, strong and well graded

3.3.1 Coarse aggregate:-

The aggregate which is retained over IS Sieve 4.75 mm is termed as coarse aggregate.
The coarse aggregatesmay be of following types:-

1. Crushed graves or stone obtained by crushing of gravel or hard stone.

2. Uncrushed gravel or stone resulting from the natural disintegration of rock

3. Partially crushed gravel obtained as product of blending of above two types.

The normal maximum size is gradually 10-20 mm; however particle sizes up to 40 mm or more
have been used in Self Compacting Concrete. Locally available coarse aggregate having the
maximum size of 20 mm was used in this work. The aggregates were washed to remove dust
and dirt and were dried to surface dry condition. The aggregates were tested as per IS: 383-
1970. Specific gravity and other properties of coarse aggregates are given in Table 2. The sieve
analysis of coarse aggregate was done. Table 2 the result of sieve analysis. Proportioning of
coarse aggregates was done and fineness modulus was obtained.

9
Table 3.2: Properties of coarse aggregate
Characteristics Value
Colour Grey
Size 20mm
Shape Angular
Specific gravity 2.74

3.3.2 Fine aggregate:-

The aggregates most of which pass through 4.75 mm IS sieve are termed as fine aggregates.
The fine aggregate may be of following types:
1. Natural sand, i.e. fine aggregate resulting from natural disintegration of rocks.
2. Crushed stone sand, i.e. fine aggregate produced by crushing hard stone.
3. Crushed gravel sand, i.e. fine aggregate produced by crushing natural gravel.
According to size, the fine aggregate may be described as coarse, medium and fine sands.
Depending upon the particle size distribution IS: 383-1970 has divided the fine aggregate into
four grading zones (Grade I to IV). The grading zones become progressively finer from grading
zone I to IV. In this experimental program, fine aggregate was locally procured and
conformed to Indian Standard Specifications IS: 383-1970. The sand was sieved through 4.75
mm sieve to remove any particles greater than 4.75 mm and conforming to grading zone II. It
was coarse sand light brown in colour. Sieve analysis and physical properties of fine aggregate
are tested as per IS:383-1970 and results are shown in Table 3.3.

Table 3.3: Properties of fine aggregate

Characteristics Value
Specific gravity 2.34
Bulk density(kg/m3) 1.3
Fineness modulus 2.62
Water absortption 0.88

3.4. Cement:-
Cement is considered as the best binding material and is being commonly used as a binding
material in the construction of various engineering structures these days. Portland cement is
referred as ordinary Portland cement is the most important type of cement and is a fine powder

10
produced by grinding Portland cement clinker. Concrete is made by Portland cement, water
and aggregates. Cement constitutes about 20 % of the total volume of concrete. Portland
cement is hydraulic cement that hardens in water to form a water-resistant compound. The
hydration products act as binder to hold the aggregates together to form concrete. The name
Portland cement comes from the fact that the colour and quality of the resulting concrete are
similar to Portland stone, a kind of limestone found in England.

Classification of OPC:-
Depending upon the strength of the cement at 28 days when tested as per IS 4031-1988. Cement
is classified as

a. 33 grade cement

b. 43 grade cement

c. 53 grade cement
If 28 days strength is not less than 33N/mm2, it is called 33 grade of cement, if the strength is
not less than 43N/mm2, it is called 43 grade of cement, and if the strength is not less than
53N/mm2, it is called 53 grade of cement. But actual strength obtained by these cements at the
factory is much higher than the BIS specifications.

3.5. Water:-
Generally, water that is suitable for drinking is satisfactory for use in concrete. The potable
water is generally considered satisfactory for use in concrete. The water was taken from Arni
University Civil Engineering Department. This was free from any detrimental contaminants
and was good potable quality.

3.6. Test methods:-

The methods used for testing cement, coarse aggregates, fine aggregate and concrete are given
below:
3.6.1 Specific gravity:-
It is ratio of the weight of a given volume of a substance to the weight of an equal volume of
some reference substance, or equivalently the ratio of the masses of equal volumes of two
substances. Figure3. 1. shows estimation of specific gravity.

11
 Figure 3.1:- Specific gravity of aggregate.

3.6.2. Compressive strength of concrete:-

The compressive strength of concrete is one of the most important and useful properties of
concrete. Test specimens of size 150mm×150mm×150mm were prepared for testing the
compressive strength concrete. The concrete mixes of varying percentages (0%, 5%, 10%,
15%) of silica fume as partial replacement of cement were cast into cubes for subsequent
testing. In this work, to make the concrete coarse aggregate of size 20mm, fine aggregates sand
of zone ІІ, Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), and Silica fume were mixed properly with
appropriate proportions for dry mix followed by addition of water and then mixed efficiently
to achieve uniform and high workable mix. Before placing concrete in the moulds the interior
surface of the moulds and the base plates were oiled with lubricant before the concrete has been
placed than the concrete has been placed in 150 mm ×150 mm×150 mm cube. The concrete is
filled up to 1/3rd height of the mould. Each layer is tamped at least 35 strokes of the tamping
rod. After 24 hours the specimens were removed from the moulds and placed in clean fresh
water at a temperature of 27 ± 2ºC. The specimen was cast were tested after 7, 14 and 28 days
of curing measured from the time specimen placed for curing. For testing in compression, no
cushioning material was placed between the specimen and the plates of the machine. The
uniform applied loading of 4KN is given to sample in compression testing machine (CTM).

12
 Figure 3.2:- Casting of cube.

The load was applied axially without shock till the specimen was crushed. Results of the
compressive strength teston concrete with and without varying proportions (5%, 10% and
15%) of silica fume replacement at the age of 7days, 14 days and 28 days were noted.

The cubes were tested using compression testing machine (CTM).

P/A = Compressive stress.
Where, P = Load (N) and A = Area (mm2).

3.6.3. Split tensile strength:-

Concrete being a brittle material is not expected to resist direct tensile forces. However tension
is of importance withregard to cracking, which is a tensile failure. Most of the cracking is due
to the restraint of contraction induced by drying shrinkage or lowering of temperature the
tensile strength of concrete varies from 7% to 11% of the compressive strength but on average
it is taken as 10% of compressive strength. Further it has been observed that higher the
compressive strength, lower the relative tensile strength.

The split tensile strength of concrete is determined by casting cylinders of size 100mm
×200mm (Figure 3). Sample is prepared similar to that for cubical specimen. The magnitude
of tensile stress (T) acting uniformly to the line of action of applied loading. For Cylinder

13
specimen concrete mix were made as cubes specimen given above. The concrete was
thoroughly mixed until it achieved homogenous and uniform consistency. The fresh concrete
was casted in cylinder in three layers each layer is compacted by a tamping rod. All freshly
cast specimens were left in moulds for 24 hours before being demoulded. The demoulded
specimens were cured in water for 28 days at a temperature of 27±2ºC, were air dried and then
tested for its split tensile strength as per Indian standards. Two specimens were prepared for
each proportion of silica fume i.e, 5%, 10% and 15% for 28 days tests.
Split tensile strength test was carried out conforming to IS 516-1959 to obtain tensile strength
of concrete at the age of 28 days. The cylinders of size 100mm in diameter and 200mm in
length were tested using compression testing machine (CTM). The uniform applied loading of
2KN is given to sample in compression testing machine (CTM). The split tensile strength of
concrete is most often evaluated using a split cylinder test, in which a cylindrical specimen is
placed on its side and loaded in diametrical compression, so to induce transverse tension.

Practically, the load applied on the cylindrical concrete specimen induce tensile stresses on the
plane containing the load and relatively high compressive stresses on the plane containing the
load and high compressive stresses in the area immediately around it. The split tensile strength
obtained by formula given below:

T = 0.637P/DL
Where,
T = Split tensile strength in MPa , P = Applied Load
D = Diameter of concrete cylinder sample in mm
L = Length of concrete cylinder sample in mm

14
 Figure 3.3:- Split tensile strength.
Concrete mixes:-
Mix design for M30 grade of concrete was carried out using the guidelines prescribed by IS:
10262- 1982. The designed concrete mix for M30 served as basic control mix (CM). Silica fume
concrete mixes were obtained by adding silica fume to basic control mix in percentages varying
from 0 to 15% at an increment of 5% by weight of cement. (SFC0, SFC5, SFC10, SFC15).
3.6.4. Batching, mixing, and curing:-
The concrete ingredients viz. cement, sand and coarse aggregate were weighed according to
M30 and are dry mixed on a platform. To this the calculated quantity of silica fume was added
and dry mixed thoroughly. The required quantity of water was added to the dry mix and
homogenously mixed. The homogeneous concrete mix was placed layer by layer in moulds
kept on the vibrating table. The specimens are given the required compaction both manually
and through table vibrator. After through compaction the specimens were finished smooth.
After 24 hours of casting, the specimen were demoulded and transferred to curing tank where
they were immersed in water for the desired period of curing.
MIX DESIGN (M30):-

(i) Specific gravity of cement 3.14

(ii) Specific gravity of coarse aggregates 2.74
(iii) Specific gravity of fine aggregates 2.34
(iv) Zone of fine aggregates II
(v) Water absorption of coarse aggregates 0.43%
(vi) Water absorption of fine aggregates 0.88%
Result and discussion:-

15
The presentation of results obtained from various tests conducted on concrete specimens cast
with and without silicafume are shown here.

The experimental program was planned to investigate the effect of silica fume on
compressive strength and split tensile strength concrete. The experimental program consists of
casting, curing and testing of controlled and silica fume concrete specimen at different ages.
The experimental program included the following:
a. Testing of properties of materials used for making concrete.

b. Design mix (M20).

c. Casting and curing of specimens.

d. Tests to determine the compressive strength and split tensile strength of concrete.
Compressive strength:-
General:-
In most structural applications, concrete is employed primarily to resist compressive stresses.
When a plain concrete member is subjected to compression, the failure of the member takes
place, in its vertical plane along the diagonal. The vertical crack occurs due to lateral tensile
strains. A flow in the concrete, which is in the form of micro crack along the vertical axis of
the member will take place on the application of axial compression load and propagate further
due to the lateral tensile strains.

3.6.5. Test Procedure and Results:-

Test specimens of size 150 *150* 150 mm were prepared for testing the compressive strength
concrete. The concrete mixes with varying percentages (0%, 5%, 10% and 15%) of silica fume
as partial replacement of cement were cast into cubes and cylinders for subsequent testing. In
this study, to make concrete, cement and fine aggregate were first mixed dry to uniform
colour and then coarse aggregate was added and mixed with the mixture of cement and fine
aggregates. Water was then added and the whole mass mixed. The interior surface of
the moulds and the base plate were oiled before concrete was placed. After 24 hours the
specimens were removed from the moulds and placed in clean fresh water at a temperature of
270 C.

The specimens so cast were tested after 7, 14 and 28 days of curing measured from the time
water is added to the dry mix. For testing in compression, no cushioning material was placed

16
between the specimen and the plates of the machine. The load was applied axially without
shock till the specimen was crushed. Results of the compressive strength test on concrete with
varying proportions of silica fume replacement at the age of 7, 14 and 28 days are given in the
Table 4, 5 and 6.

Table 3. 4:- Compressive strength of cube for 7 days

Compressive strength(N/mm2) after 7days Average compressive strength

Mix(%) after7 days
Specimen 1 Specimen 2

0 18.62 17.60 18.1

5 19.70 18.98 19.34
10 20.80 21.20 21
15 18.60 18 18.3

Table 3. 5:- Compressive strength of cube for 14 days

Mix(%) Compressive strength(N/mm2) after 14 days Average compressive strength
Specimen 1 Specimen 2 after14 days
0 22.96 22.78 22.87
5 23.28 23.52 23.40

10 29.06 30.24 29.65

15 26.39 26.98 26.68

21.5

21

17
20.5

20 7 days

19.5

19

18.5

18

17.5

17

16

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure3. 4:- Graph representation of cube for 7 days.

22 7 days

21

20

19

18

17

16

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure3. 5:- Linear representation of cube for 7 days.

35 14 days

30

18
 25

20

15

10

0
0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.6:- Graph representation of cube for 14 days

35

30

25

20 14 days

15

10

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure3. 7:- Linear representation of cube for 14 days.

Table3. 6:- Compressive strength of cube for 28 days

19
 Compressive strength(N/mm2) after 28 days Average compressive
Mix(%) Specimen 1 Specimen 2 strength
after 28 days
0 25.80 26.60 26.20
5 31.80 31.08 31.44
10 34.80 35.06 34.93
15 30.30 30.10 30.20

40

35

30

25

20 28 days

15

10

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3. 8:- Graph representation of cube for 28 days.

40

35

20
 30

25

20

15 28 days

10

0
0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.9:- Linear representation of cube for 28 days

Comparison of strength of cube according to days:- 7 days

40 14 days

35 28 days

30

25

20

15

10

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.10:- Comparison of cubes according to days.

Linear comparison of cubes according to days:-

21
Linear comparison of cubes according to days:-

40

35

30

25

20

15

10

0% 5% 10% 15%
Figure 3.11:- Linear comparison of cubes according to days.

Split tensile strength:-

Test specimens of size 100* 200 mm were prepared for testing the split tensile strength of
concrete. The concrete mixes with varying percentages (0%, 5%, 10% and 15%) of silica fume
as partial replacement of cement were cast into cylinders for subsequent testing. In this study,
to make concrete, cement and fine aggregate were first mixed dry to uniform colour and
then coarse aggregate was added and mixed with the mixture of cement and fine aggregates.
Water was then added and the whole mass mixed. The interior surface of the moulds and the
base plate were oiled before concrete was placed. After 24 hours the specimens were removed
from the moulds and placed in clean fresh water at a temperature of 270 C. The specimens so
cast were tested after 7, 14 and 28 days of curing measured from the time water is added to the
dry mix. For testing in tension, no cushioning material was placed between the specimen and
the plates of the machine. The load of 2KN was applied axially without shock till the specimen
was crushed. Results of the split tensile strength test on concrete with varying proportions of
silica fume replacement at the age of 7, 14 and 28 days are given in the Table 7, 8, 9. The
cylinder strength results of concrete mix are also shown graphically in Figure 12, 14 and 16.
The tensile strength increases as compared to control mix as the percentage of s i l i c a fu m

22
e is increased.

Table 3.7:- Split tensile strength of cylinder for 7 days.

Split tensile strength strength(N/mm2) after 7

Mix(%) Days Average compressive
Specimen 1 Specimen 2 strength after7 days
0 2.42 2.82 2.62
5 2.72 2.96 2.84
10 3.92 3.98 3.95
15 3.67 3.23 3.45

As we increase the percentage of silica fume its compressive strength increases continuously
from 5% to 10% respectively and after 10% its start decreasing. Figure 4.9 shows the
variation of percentage increase in tensile strength with replacement percentage of silica
fume. The results also indicate that early age strength gain i.e. at 7, 1 4 and 28 days, is
higher when compared to the control mix if 10% of cement is replaced by silica fume.

As we increase the percentage of silica fume its compressive strength increases continuously from
5% to 10% respectively and after 10% its start decreasing. Figure 4.9 shows the variation of
percentage increase in tensile strength with replacement percentage of silica fume.

The results also indicate that early age strength gain i.e. at 7, 1 4 and 28 days, is higher when
compared to the control mix if 10% of cement is replaced by silica fume.

Table 3.8:- Split tensile strength of cylinder for 14 days

Split tensile strength strength(N/mm2) after

Mix(%) 14 Average compressive strength
Days after14 days
Specimen 1 Specimen 2
0 3.11 3.52 3.31
5 3.98 3.74 3.86

23
10 4.29 3.97 4.13
15 3.92 3.91 3.91

4.5

4 14 days

3.5

2.5

1.5

0.5

0
0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.12:- Graphical representation of cylinder for 14 days

4.5

3.5

3 14 days
2.5

1.5
1

0.5

0
0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.13:- Linear representation of cylinder for 14 days.

24
Table 3.9:- Split tensile strength of cylinder for 28 days.

Split tensile strength strength(N/mm2) after

Mix(%) 28 Average compressive strength
Days after28 days
Specimen 1 Specimen 2
0 4.47 4.76 4.71
5 4.81 4.68 4.75
10 4.92 4.89 4.91
15 4.74 4.56 4.65

4.95

4.9 28 days

4.85

4.8

4.75

4.7

4.65

4.6

4.55

4.5
0% 5% 10% 15%
Figure 3.14:- Graphical representation of cylinder for 28 days

25
 Difference between cylinder strength according to days:- 7 days

6 14 days
28 days
5

0
0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure3. 15:- Graphical representation of cylinder according to days

Linear representation of cylinder according to days:-

7 days

6 14 days

5 28 das

0% 5% 10% 15%

Figure 3.16:- Linear representation of cylinder according to days.

26
 CHAPTER -4
RESULT AND ANALYSIS

The strength and durability characteristics of concrete mixtures have been computed in the
present work by replacing 5%, 10% and 15% silica fume with the cement. On the basis of
present study, following conclusions are drawn:

Compressive strength:-
After adding 5% silica fume in the mix, there is an increase in the strength of cube after7
days as compared to concrete without replacement. And after 14 days and 28 days there
isenormous increase in strength as compared to the control mix.
By adding 10% silica fume, there is large amount of increase in strength after 7, 14 and 28
days respectively. The Compressive strength tends to increase with increase percentages of
silica fume in the mix and decreases after 10% replacement.
The optimum strength of cube is gain at 10% replacement for all 7, 14 and 28 days respectively.

Split tensile strength:-

After adding 5% silica fume in the mix, there is an increase in the strength of cylinder
after 7 days as compared to concrete without replacement and after 14 days and 28 days
there isenormous increase in strength as compared to the control mix.
By adding 10% silica fume, there is large amount of increase in strength after 7, 14 and 28
days respectively. The split tensile strength tends to increase with increase percentages of silica
fume in the mix and decreases after 10% replacement.
The optimum strength of cylinder is gain at 10% replacement for all 7, 14 and 28 days
respectively.
The following conclusion is made from the detailed experimental investigations conducted on
the behaviour of normal grade concrete. Compressive strength, Flexural strength, Split tensile
strength and Durability test of concrete Mixes made with and without silica fume has been
determined at 7, 14, & 28 days of curing. The strength gained has been determined of silica
fume added concrete with addition of 2.50%, 5%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5% 15%, 20%, 25% & 30%
for M20, M25 and M30 grade as a partial replacement of cement in conventionalconcrete.
From the results it is conclude that the silica fume is a superior replacement of cement. The
rate of strength increase in silica fume concrete is high. After performing all the tests and

27
analysing their result, the following conclusions have been derived:
The results achieved from the existing study shows that silica fume is great potential for the
utilization in concrete as replacement of cement.
Workability of concrete decreases as proportion of silica fumes increases.
Maximum compressive strength was observed when silica fume replacement is about 10%.
Maximum split tensile strength was observed when silica fume replacement is about 10%.
Maximum flexural strength was observed when silica fume replacement is about 10%.

4.1. RESULTS OF PHASES I & II

Compressive and split tensile strengths
As shown in there are six groups of specimens (Group A through Group G) with each group
consisting of three basic mix designs. For example, Mixes 1 through 3 represent a group (Group
A) which consists of specimens from the following 3 mixes: (1) 8% cement and no fly ash, (2)
4% cement and 4% fly ash, and (3) 8% cement and 8% fly ash. Similarly Mixes 4 through 6
represent the second group of specimens (Group B), and so on. Each group containseither no
fiber or a different length or amount of fibers. Table 5 shows the average compressive and split
tensile strengths for all mixe

The strength data are also plotted in Figure for easy comparison.The split tensile strength is
computed according to ASTM C 496-96(21) as follo where s t is the split tensile strength, P is
the applied maximum load, and l and d are respectively the length and diameter of the
specimen.

For the mix designs tested in this experimental program, the specimens with 8% cement and
8% fly ash achieved the highest 28-day compressive and split tensile strengths; these values
are approximately 14 MPa (2000 psi) and 1.5 MPa (232 psi) respectively. These strength levels
(which are almost 50% of the strength of regular concrete) indicate a remarkably strong
stabilized base course material similar to lean concrete despite the fact that 92% of this
composite contains recycled materials. The average compressive and split tensile strength of
unreinforced specimens are 8.3 MPa and 1.0 MPa respectively, indicating that the split tensile
strength is about 12% of the compressive strength. This observation is in agreement with the
general assumption often made in case of concrete-type materials that the tensile strength is
approximately 10% of the compressive strength. It is found that the compressive strength drops
when 50% of the cement is replaced by fly ash (comparing Mixes 1 and 2), and significantly

28
increases when the amount of cementitious material is doubled by adding fly ash to the
composite (comparing Mixes 1 and 3). This trend is similar for all other groups. In the case of
split tensile tests, it is found that for all groups of specimens, the mix with 4% cement and 4%
flyash performed equivalent or better compared to the mix containing 8% cement and no fly
ash. For all mixes, the inclusion of fibers had a detrimental effect on compressive strength
compared to a corresponding unreinforced mix (such as Mixes 1,4,7,10 and 13). However, a
similar comparison reveals that for most mixes, the split tensile strength remained
approximately same or showed noticeable improvement due to the inclusion of fibers.
Improvement in tensile strength due to fiber addition is encouraging, since it is known that
stabilized materials are generally weak in tension.

Load deformation behavior and toughness characteristics and the load versus tensile
deformation for all three mixes: (i) 8% cement and no fly ash, (ii) 4% cement and 4% fly ash,
and (iii) 8% Cement and 8% fly ash. The lateral deformations recorded by the two LVDTs
were added to obtain the total tensile deformation. It is found that the load-deformation
behavior is linear up to the first-crack strength.In order to evaluate the effectiveness of the
fibers in improving the post-peak load bearing capacity, the area under the load-deflection
curve was calculated up to a deflection of 0.002 m. This quantity is termed as the absolute
toughness and is a measure of the energy absorption capacity of the material. The toughness
calculated in this manner incorporates the enhancement in both strength and ductility due to
fiber inclusion. These toughness values are plotted in Figure 14 which shows that for all three
mixes the specimens with 50.8-mm fiber (Mixes 4 through 9, except Mix 5), in general,
produced the higher toughness values, and clearly showed the beneficial effects (improvement
in toughness) of fiber inclusions. For all other mixes the effect of fiber inclusion on toughness
values could not be clearly ascertained.

Effect of fiber length.

In order to clearly determine an optimum fiber length based on performance, the strength and
toughness values were plotted against the fiber length for all mixes as shown in Figure 15. It is
found that for both 0.25% and 0.50% fiber contents, the best performance was achieved with
the 50.8-mm fiber.
Table 4.1. Summary of 28-day unconfined compressive and split tensile strengths.

29
 Compressive Tensile
Mixes Mix Design Strength Strength(MPa)
(MPa)
Mix-1 8% Cement 6.22 0.65
Mix-2 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash 5.05 0.77
Mix-3 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash 13.63 1.56
Mix-4 8% Cement + 0.25%, 50.8 mm Fibers 4.73 0.84
Mix-5 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.25%, 50.8 mm Fibers 4.01 1.12
Mix-6 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.25%, 50.8 mm Fibers 9.28 1.70
Mix-7 8% Cement + 0.50%, 50.8 mm Fibers 4.73 0.98
Mix-8 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.50%, 50.8 mm Fibers 3.29 0.96
Mix-9 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.50%, 50.8 mm Fibers 10.72 1.51
Mix-10 8% Cement + 0.25%, 76.2 mm Fibers 4.01 0.56
Mix-11 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.25%, 76.2 mm Fibers 2.69 0.77
Mix-12 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.25%, 76.2 mm Fibers 7.36 0.92
Mix-13 8% Cement + 0.50%, 76.2 mm Fibers 2.90 0.65
Mix-14 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.50%, 76.2 mm Fibers 2.90 0.66
Mix-15 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.50%, 76.2 mm Fibers 7.72 1.25
Mix-16 8% Cement + 0.25%, 19 mm Fibers 3.90 0.77
Mix-17 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.25%,19 mm Fibers 3.65 0.66
Mix-18 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.25%,19 mm Fibers 6.40 1.18
Mix-19 8% Cement + 0.50%,19 mm Fibers 2.92 0.79
Mix-20 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.50%,19 mm Fibers 2.68 0.47
Mix-21 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.50%,19 mm Fibers 4.87 0.45
Significant findings.
The most important conclusion from this segment of the experimental program is that the
recycled plastic fibers, when mixed at appropriate lengths and amount, can enhance the
performance of the composite. Also, the fibers are most effective when the mix contains 8%
flyash in addition to 8% cement.
The Class C fly ash used in this project has cementations’ properties in conjunction with
cement, and helps improve the bonding between the recycled plastic strips and the matrix. The

30
resultant product containing 92% waste materials is a “high performance” composite base
course in terms of both strength and toughness. Based on theseobservations it was decided that
the flexural test specimens would be prepared from mixes withboth 4% cement and 4% fly ash,
and 8% cement and 8% fly ash, and also the fiber specimen will contain 50.8-mm long fibers.
(a)
16
14
12
Compressive strength, MPa

10
8
6
4
2
0

Mix-21
Mix-1

Mix-10
Mix-11
Mix-12
Mix-13
Mix-14
Mix-15
Mix-16
Mix-17
Mix-18
Mix-19
Mix-20
Mix-2
Mix-3
Mix-4
Mix-5
Mix-6
Mix-7
Mix-8
Mix-9

(b)
1.8
1.6
Tensile strength, MPa

1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
Mix-1

Mix-10
Mix-11
Mix-12
Mix-13
Mix-14
Mix-15
Mix-16
Mix-17
Mix-18
Mix-19
Mix-20
Mix-21
Mix-2
Mix-3
Mix-4
Mix-5
Mix-6
Mix-7
Mix-8
Mix-9

Figure 4.1. 28-day compressive and split tensile strengths of various mixes.

4.2. RESULTS OF PHASE III

Flexural strength

31
The average flexural strengths for all mixes. These data are also plotted in Figure16 for easy
comparison. The flexural strength is computed using the elastic beam theory as follows;
where s f is the flexural strength, P is the applied maximum load, L is the span, b is the width,
and d is the depth of the beam. There are two groups of specimens: First Group (Mixes 1B
through 4B) contains 4% cement and 4% fly ash, whereas, the second group (Mixes 5B through
8B) contains 8% cement and 8% fly ash. All fiber reinforced specimens contained 50.8 mm
fibers. The highest flexural strength achieved was 1.64 MPa (238 psi) by Mix 7B containing
8% cement, 8% fly ash, and reinforced with 1% fibers. Its counterpart, Mix 2B containing the
4% cement, 4% fly ash and 0.5% fibers achieved the highest strength in its group with a value
of 1.06 MPa (154 psi). These strength levels are promising and make this new composite very
suitable for use as a good quality stabilized base course for highway pavements. Addition of
fibers improved the flexural strengths of the second group compared to corresponding
unreinforced specimens.

Load deformation behavior

In order to determine the best performing Mix, both the strength and the post peak load bearing
capacity or toughness values must be evaluated. Figure 17 shows the load deformation behavior
for both groups of beams. The curves for the reinforced beams have been shifted along the X-
axis for clarity. It is found that the unreinforced beams failed in a typical brittle manner
characteristic of concrete-type materials.On the other hand, all fiber reinforced specimens
demonstrated a post-peak load bearing capacity after the sharp drop following the first-crack
indicating that the recycled plastic fibers were able to bridge some of the tensile cracks and
delay the failure process. To isolate and better understand the post-peak behavior, the curves
are normalized with respect to the peak load as shown in Figure 18. It is found that for both
groups, the specimens with 1.25% fiber content showed the highest post-peak load bearing
capacity. Although these mixes with 1.25% fibers did not show the highest strengths, they had
similar or slightly better strengths compared to corresponding unreinforced specimens,coupled
with much superior toughness. Improved toughness is considered to be a desirable

characteristic for cementations materials (especially in highway applications) because the

higherenergy absorption capacity of the material corresponds to increased resistance to fatigue
failuredue to dynamic loading. Therefore, from considerations of both strength and toughness,
the Mixes with 1.25% fiber content performed the best, and shows promise of improved

32
resistance to fatigue failure.
It was mentioned previously that 1.25% plastic fiber was found to be an upper bound of fiber
content in order to ensure workability of the mixes. With the maximum fiber content selected
and held constant at 1.25%, the first group with 4% cement and 4% fly ash is likely to
demonstrate better toughness than the second group with 8% cement and 8% fly ash because
the latter would be a more brittle mix due to higher cementitious materials. Therefore,
considering the fact that the mix with 4% cement and 4% fly ash also has sufficient
compressive, split tensile and flexural strengths (as described in previous sections) to be
classified as a high quality base course, this mix was selected as the best choice for further
investigation under flexural fatigue loading.

Table 4.2. Mix designs and 28-day flexural strengths.

Flexural
Strength(MPa)
Mixes Mix Design
Mix-1B 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash 0.94
Mix-2B 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 0.50%,50.8 mm Fibers 1.06
Mix-3B 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 1.00%,50.8 mm Fibers 0.90
Mix-4B 4% Cement + 4% Fly Ash + 1.25%,50.8 mm Fibers 0.82
Mix-5B 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash 0.91
Mix-6B 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 0.50%,50.8 mm Fibers 1.44
Mix-7B 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 1.00%,50.8 mm Fibers 1.64
Mix-8B 8% Cement + 8% Fly Ash + 1.25%,50.8 mm Fibers 1.10

Significant findings
Flexural tests for stabilized materials can be considered as “performance-based” laboratory
tests. Performance-based tests are those which have the potential for simulating the field
conditions for better prediction of actual performance. Since the stabilized pavement slab is
subjected to tensile (flexural) stresses in the field, the flexural test programs (both static and
fatigue) are better indicators of real-life performance of the pavement. The choice of final mix
design (for fatigue test program) based primarily on the flexural tests is therefore justified. The
selected mix with 4% cement, 4% fly ash and 1.25% of 50.8 mm fiber did not demonstrate

33
 significant improvement over an unreinforced mix, but it is definitely many times superior in
terms of load-bearing capacity compared to conventional granular base course materials
obtained from natural resources. Moreover, this new composite has more than 92% by weight
of waste materials, which makes it a potential alternative construction material from both
environmental and economical standpoints.

1.80
Flexural strength, MPa

1.60
1.40
1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
Mix-1B Mix-2B Mix-3B Mix-4B Mix-5B Mix-6B Mix-7B Mix-8B
Figure 4.2. Average flexural strengths of various mixes.

It is generally recognized that the utilization of waste materials in highway construction is a

timely and desirable concept. However, caution must be exercised when incorporating recycled
materials with unknown or questionable properties or for which there is limited knowledge
about their long-term durability and performance characteristics. The idealized goal of
incorporating waste materials in highway pavement must not be satisfied at the expense of
building an inferior (and ultimately uneconomical) pavement system, which will eventually
contribute to the nation’s already overwhelming infrastructure problems. Therefore, a careful
evaluation of all candidate waste materials should be performed before incorporating them into
the pavement structure.
Accordingly, the current study was undertaken to evaluate an unconventional stabilized base
course material consisting of recycled concrete aggregate, fly ash, cement, and strips of
reclaimed plastics. The primary focus of the experimental program was to gain some insights
into the long-term durability of this new composite base course by performing short-term
laboratory tests which included a flexural fatigue test program. A systematic materials

34
characterization process involving unconfined compression, split tension and static flexural
testswas used in this study to evaluate the new material and identify a performance-based mix-
designs for the repeated load tests. This final mixture consisted of 92% by weight of recycled
aggregate stabilized with 4% Class C fly ash, 4% Portland cement, and an additional 1.25% by
weight of shredded reclaimed plastics, implying that at least 92% (by weight) of the composite
base course contained waste materials. The durability of this material against fatigue failure,
itsrelative performance compared to traditional stabilized pavement materials, and the gradual
accumulation of fatigue damage in the material were determined from the repeated flexural
tests. Due to stabilization and reinforcement (achieved mostly with recycled materials), the
selected mix with 4% cement, 4% fly ash and 1.25% of 50.8-mm fiber is likely to outperform
conventional granular pavement foundation materials obtained from natural resources. This
newcomposite, therefore, has the potential for becoming an attractive alternative construction
material not only from environmental and economical standpoints, but also from performance
considerations. Following are the significant conclusions derived from this experimental
investigation:

The unreinforced mixture containing 92% recycled aggragate (by weight), 4% fly ash, andonly
4% cement achieved a compressive strength of about 5 MPa (725 psi), a split tensile.
strength of about 0.75 MPa (109 psi), and a flexural strength of about 0.95 MPa (138 psi),
indicating a moderately strong stabilized base course material.
For the ranges in mix-designs used in this study, the use of fiber reinforcement had a
detrimental effect on compressive strength. However, specimens reinforced with 50.8 mm
fibers in general showed noticeable improvement in both split tensile strength and absolute
toughness compared to unreinforced specimens.
Among the fiber reinforced specimens, the optimum or best performance in terms of
compressive strength, split tensile strength, and absolute toughness was observed inspecimens
reinforced with 50.8 mm long fibers.
The performance of the proposed stabilized base course under flexural fatigue loading as
depicted by the S-N relationships is comparable or better than other traditional stabilized
pavement materials.
The 2-million cycle fatigue endurance limit for this composite is approximately 50% of the
static flexural strength.
The resilient modulus in flexure approximately ranges between 0.7 GPa (100,000 psi) and1.1

35
GPa (160, 000 psi).
The damage accumulation in the material due to repeated load cycles closely follows the
Miner’s Rule of cumulative damage.

36
 CHAPTER-5
REFERENCES
1. ASTM 2012. Standard Specification for Portland Cement, 2012.
2. Abdullah K.M, Hussein W, ZakariaF, Muhammad R, Abdul Hamid Z (2006). A potential
partial replacement ofsilica fume proceeding of the 6th Asia-Pacific structural Engineering and
construction conference (APSEC 2006) kualalumpur, Malaysia.
3. Aitcin, P. C. Hershey, P.A. and Pinsonneault (1981). Effect of the addition of condensed silica
fume effect on the compressive strength of mortars and concrete. American Ceramic Society.
22:286-290.
4. American concrete institute (ACI 2005). Information provided by US Department of
transportation federal highway administration silica fume association.
5. Arjun Kumar, Ashwani Kumar, Ashok Kumar, Himanshu Mittal and Rakhi Bhardwaj (2012).
Software to Estimate Spectral and Source Parameters. International Journal of Geosciences,
3(5),1142-1149.
6. Ashwani Kumar, Arjun Kumar, S. C. Gupta, Himanshu Mittal and Rohtash Kumar (2013).
Source Parameters and fmax in Kameng Region of Arunachal Lesser Himalaya. Journal of Asian
Earth Sciences,70-71, 35-44.
7. Bhanja s, Sengupta B. (2003). Optimum silica fume content and its mode of action on concrete
ACI Materials journal, September-October 2003, pp 407-712.
8. Ashwani Kumar, Arjun Kumar, S. C. Gupta, A. K. Jindal and Vandana Ghangas (2014). Source
Parameters of Local Earthquakes in Bilaspur Region of Himachal Lesser Himalaya. Arabian
Journal of Geosciences,7(6), 2257-2267.
9. B.L Gupta and Amit Gupta. Concrete technology Standard publishers distributors.
10. Eman K. Jallo. Experimental Study on the Behaviour of High Strength Concrete with
Silica Fume underMonotonic and Repeated Compressive Loads, Al-Rafidain Engineering
Vol.20 No. 2 March 2012.
11. Gopalakrishnan, Vishoni, R.K., M Tehri dam project (2003). Silica fume in HPC for ensuring
Abrasion Erosionresistance.
12. Grutzeck, H.Atkinson, S.Roy, D.M. Mechanism of hydration of condensed silica fume in
calcium hydroxidesolutions.ACI special publications.
13. Himanshu Mittal, Kamal, Arjun Kumar, S. K.Singh (2013). Estimation of site effects in
Delhi using standardspectral ratio. Soil Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, 50, 53-61.
14. IS 456:2000. Plain and Reinforced Concrete July 2000 ICS 91.100.30

37
15. IS 8112:1989. Specification for 43 grade ordinary Portland cement [CED 2: Cement
and Concrete] ICS
91.100.10 March 2013.
16. IS 383:1970. Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates; From Natural Sources for
Concrete [Cement andConcrete] April 1971.
17. IS 10262-1982. Guidelines for concrete mix design proportioning [CED 2: Cement and
Concrete] ICS
91.100.30 July 2009.
18. IS 516:1959. Method of test for strength of concrete
19. IS 2386 (Part ІІ):1963. Methods of test for aggregates for concrete particle size and shape‖
20. IS 4031(Part І) : 1996. Methods of physical test for cement.

38