Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering
Volume 45 Issue 9 Year 2023

The Behaviour of Concrete by Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate with
GGBFS & Course Aggregate with Recycled Aggregate - An Experimental Study
Diwakar Singh; 1 Dr. Yeetendra Kumar Bind; 2
1
Research Scholar, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences
(Deemed to be University), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211007, India
2
Assistant Professor, Sam Higginbottom University of Agriculture, Technology and Sciences
(Deemed to be University), Prayagraj, Uttar Pradesh 211007.
ABSTRACT: The replacement of natural resources in the

manufacture of sand & aggregate is the present issue in the present
construction scenario. Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBFS)
are industrial by-product materials produced from the process of
Keywords: Aggregate; manufacturing iron & recycled aggregate are material produced from
GGBFS; recycled waste concrete. Use of GGBFS & recycled aggregate does not only
reduce the cost of construction but also helps to reduce the impact on
aggregate; Concrete;
environment by consuming the material generally considered as waste
Compressive strength; product. Hence in the current study an attempt has been made to
Tensile strength minimize the cost of sand & aggregate with concrete mix grade M30 by
studying the mechanical behaviour of this concrete mix by partial
DOI: replacing with advanced mineral admixtures such as GGBFS &
10.11779/CJGE20239.9 recycled aggregate in concrete mix.
In this study, partial replacement of sand with GGBFS & conventional

aggregate with recycled aggregate respectively considered.
Experimental study is conducted to evaluate the workability and
strength characteristics of hardened concrete, properties of concrete
have been assessed by partially replacing sand with GGBFS &
conventional aggregate with recycled aggregate. The sand has been
replaced by GGBFS accordingly in the range of 30%, 40% and 50% by
weight of sand for M30 mix & conventional aggregate has been
replaced by recycled aggregate accordingly in the range of 0% (without
recycled aggregate), 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% and 100% by weight of
aggregate for M30 mix. Concrete mixtures were produced, tested and
compared in terms of compressive and split tensile strength.
1. INTRODUCTION
Building manufacturing has played a significant part in the urbanization and industrialization that has
occurred in current decades. About 5–10% of global employment is provided by the construction
industry, which also accounts for 5–15% of nationwide GDP [1]. Approximately 40% of overall energy
use and 30% of total natural resource decadence are attributed to the building industry. In addition,
these construction industries are responsible for 40% of carbon dioxide emissions and around 30% of
garbage production. Just about 7–9% of global carbon dioxide emissions are attributing to the
manufacturing process of this hydraulic cement [2]. Universal, the carbon dioxide released from
cement factories now cause for more than 5% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions [3].
Cementation materials may possibly used to reduce carbon dioxide emissions by substituting OPC
with other binding materials [4,5,6]. A selection of by-product from the industry may be utilized in multi
section binder materials for a variety of purposes [7]. Miscellaneous studies have been performed on
building concrete using supplemental components to decrease the price and shortage of standard
materials [8]. Concrete is the very frequently utilized artificial construction resource in the building
business and hydraulic cement is a very important component of this material. Universal, around 4
billion tons of hydraulic cement is manufactured yearly, equating to over 30 billion tons of concrete
created in 2015 [9].
Crystallized slag (slag is air cooled in this study) from blast furnace can be recognized as a new
building material in the preparation of concrete. The uses of industrial waste as an alternative material
helps save a large divide up of natural resources and protect the environment. The crystallized slag
was used as an aggregate in the composition of concrete of rectangular thin welded steel tubes
Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

[40]
subjected to axial or eccentric load performed by Ferhoune and Zeghiche [10], [11], [12]. The
crystallized slag aggregate was used also in the manufacturing of concrete in the composite stubs
with I shaped steel section concluded by Zeghiche [13]. The concrete sand slag has not fact object a
comprehensive study to recognize its different properties. A small amount of studies have been made
on the characterization of this concrete [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20].
Concrete is one of the most extensively used construction materials. Main ingredient of concrete is
cement, sand and aggregate. The demand for concrete as a construction material is on the raise day
by day. The improvement of concrete technology can reduce the consumption of natural resources
and energy sources and minimize the load of pollutants on the environment. At the moment a large
amount of slag generated from various Iron and Steel Plants. This waste in form of slag, cause a
great impact on environment and peoples. This paper describes the use of GGBFS (Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag) and its probability in use of it as a partial replacement to sand.
Blast furnace slag is a by-product of iron industrialized industry. The molten slag has a composition of
30% to 40% silicon dioxide (SiO2), Aluminium oxide (Al2O3) as well as approximately 40% Calcium
oxide (CaO), which is nearest to the chemical composition of Portland cement. After the molten iron
tapped off, the left over molten slag, which mainly consists of siliceous and aluminous residues, is
then rapidly water- quenched, consequential in the formation of a glassy granulate. This glassy
granulate is dried and ground to the necessary size which is known as ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBFS). This paper focus on a review of various researched related to substitute
partial sand replacement materials, specifically Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS).
Exhaust Gas to
Emission
Reuse
Iron Blast Furnace Blast Furnance Slag Grinding GGBFS
Steel Slag
Iron
Steel
Figure 1. Manufacturing Process of GGBFS.
Recycled aggregate is a possible alternative to natural aggregate, which helps in the safeguarding of
the environment. One of the significant parameters that affect the use of recycled aggregate is
unevenness of the aggregate properties. Quality of recycled aggregate is prejudiced by the quality of
materials being collected and delivered to the recycling plants. Therefore, production of recycled
aggregate at an adequate price rate and quality is difficult to achieve due the current limitations on the
recycling plants. These issues worry the clients about the stability of production and unpredictability in
aggregate properties. The main goal of the current research project is to investigate unpredictability of
aggregate properties and their impact on concrete production. Aggregate strength, gradation,
absorption, moisture content, specific gravity, shape, and texture are some of the physical and
mechanical characteristics that give to the strength and durability of concrete. Therefore, it is
necessary to find out these properties before utilizing the aggregate. In this paper, properties of
recycled aggregate commencing an unknown source collected over a period of 6 months from a
recycling plant were evaluated.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

[41]
Literature survey
Collection of material
Testing of materials
Mix design
Workability test on concrete
Casting of cubes/cylinder
Demoulding
Curing
Compression and split Tensile test
Result & Discussion

Figure 2. Project Flow Chart
Cement
OPC (Ordinary Portland Cement) 53 Grade of UltraTech confirming IS 269:2015 and IS 4031:1988
adopted in this work. Test conducted on Cement are as in Table No. 1.
Table 1: Testing of Cement

S. No. Name of Tests IS Codes Test Results
1 Fineness Of Cement As per IS 269:2015 Max. 10% 1%
2 Consistency Of Cement - 34%
3 Initial Setting Time As per IS 4031:1988, Min. 30 min. 35 min.
4 Final Setting Time As per IS 4031:1988, Max. 600 min. 580 min.
5 Specific gravity - 3.14
Sand
Natural sand is available from river bed and costly in price used in this work. It has cubical or rounded
shape with even surface texture. Being cubical, rounded and even texture it gives good workability to
the sand. Sand used for this work taken from Narmada River. Particles of this sand have an even
texture and yellowish in colour. Tests conducted on sand are shown in Table No. 2.
Table No. 2: Testing of Sand

S.No. Test IS Codes Test Results
1 Fineness Modulus As per IS 383:1970 Max. 3.2 3.57 (Zone-II)
2 Moisture Content - 7.3%
3 Specific Gravity - 2.62
4 Water Absorption - 2%
GGBFS:
GGBFS was collected from Moira Steel plant, Pithampur, Sector-3, Dhar district, Madhya Pradesh
and dealing out to get initial raw material took place at the college itself by the help of Jaw-Crusher to
crush initially obtained boulders to get fine particles like sand, then crushed material finally sieved to

[42]
obtain material confronting for replacement with sand/fine Aggregate before mixing in concrete. Tests
conducted on GGBFS are shown in Table No. 3.
Table No. 3: Testing of GGBS

S.No. Test IS Codes Test Results
1 Fineness Modulus As per IS 383:1970 Max. 3.23 18%
2 Moisture Content - None in sample used
Coarse Aggregate
The aggregate used in this work mainly of basalt rock, which comes under common weight category.
The aggregates used are in the locally available. Regarding 50% of the aggregate used are of 20mm
size and remaining 50% are of 10-12mm size. The coarse aggregate experienced for their suitability
for the experiment. Test conducted on aggregate are as shown in Table No. 4.
Table No. 4: Testing of Coarse Aggregate

S.No. Name of Tests IS Codes Test Results
1 Size Of Aggregate - 10-12 & 20mm
2 Specific Gravity As per IS 2386 part-III 2.6
3 Water Absorption As per IS 2386 part-III 1.4
4 Crushing Value As per IS 2386 part-IV, Max. 35 20.54%
5 Impact Value As per IS 2386 part-IV, Max. 35-40% 11.73%
6 Abrasion Value As per IS 2386 part-V, Max. 35-40% 17.37%
7 Flakiness Index As per IS 2386 part-I 16.20%
8 Elongation Index As per IS 2386 part-I 14.61%
Recycled Aggregate
recycled aggregate was collected from near trenching ground plant, Indore, Madhya Pradesh and
Jaw-Crusher to crush initially obtained boulders to get course particles like aggregate, then crushed
material finally sieved to obtain material confronting for replacement with course aggregate before
mixing in concrete. Regarding 50% of the aggregate used are of 20mm size and remaining 50% are
of 10-12mm size. Tests conducted on Recycled aggregate are shown in Table No. 5.
Table No. 5: Testing of Recycled Aggregate

S.No. Name of Tests IS Codes Test Results
1 Size Of Aggregate - 10-12 & 20mm
2 Specific Gravity As per IS 2386 part-III 3.2
3 Water Absorption As per IS 2386 part-III 2.9
4 Crushing Value As per IS 2386 part-IV, Max. 35 24.57%
5 Impact Value As per IS 2386 part-IV, Max. 35-40% 15.96%
6 Abrasion Value As per IS 2386 part-V, Max. 35-40% 29.54%
7 Flakiness Index As per IS 2386 part-I 4.51%
8 Elongation Index As per IS 2386 part-I 14.61%
9 Texture - Rough
3. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

In the present study, M30 grade with the nominal mix as per IS 456-2000 were used. The concrete
mix design ratio (Cement: Sand: Coarse Aggregate) is 1: 1.91: 3.44 by weight and a water cement
ratio of 0.43. Chemical admixture from BASF Chemicals Company as per IS code 0.4% by weight of
cement respectively by using IS-10262-2009 method of mix design shown in Table 2.
4. CASTING AND TESTING DETAIL

Total number of 216 cubes and 216 cylinders were casted. GGBFS partially replaced with sand in
step 0%, 20%, 40% and 60%. For each percent of sand replacing GGBFS, 216 cubes & 216 cylinders
were casted for 7, 21 & 28 days but here we are showing only 7 & 28 days compressive & tensile
strength.

[43]
The ultimate strength of cube & cylinder tested after 28 days curing. Compression Testing Machine
(CTM) used for testing the Compressive Strength of cube and Split Tensile Strength of cylinder. The
crushing strength noted and average compressive strength and tensile strength for average of three
specimens is determined for each. Compressive Strength test (for table no. 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11) and
Split Tensile Strength test (for table no. 12, 13, 14, 15, 16 and 17) is shown below.
Table No. 6: Testing of Compressive Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

S. % of GGBS % of Recycled Avg. Compressive Avg. Compressive
No. replaced aggregate replaced Strength at 07 days Strength at 28 days
1 0 50 10.07 N/mm2 28.78 N/mm2
2 20 50 10.79 N/mm 2 30.84 N/mm2
3 40 50 11.22 N/mm 2 32.07 N/mm2
4 60 50 10.54 N/mm 2 30.14 N/mm2
Compressive Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

50
Average Compressive
Strength (N/mm2)
40
30
20 28 Days
7 Days
10
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Percentage of GGBS replaced
Figure 3. Compressive strength with 50% recycled aggregate & different percentage of GGBFS
after 7 & 28 days.

1 0 60 10.20 N/mm2 29.17 N/mm2
2 20 60 10.85 N/mm 2 31.02 N/mm2
3 40 60 11.28 N/mm 2 32.24 N/mm2
4 60 60 10.79 N/mm 2 30.84 N/mm2

[44]

50
Average Compressive
Strength (N/mm2)
40
30
20 28 Days
7 Days
10
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.

1 0 70 10.45 N/mm2 29.87 N/mm2
2 20 70 10.92 N/mm 2 31.21 N/mm2
3 40 70 11.80 N/mm 2 33.72 N/mm2
4 60 70 10.56 N/mm 2 30.18 N/mm2

Average Compressive
40
Strength (N/mm2)
35
30
25
20
15 7 Days
10 28 Days
5
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.

1 0 80 9.89 N/mm2 28.26 N/mm2
2 20 80 10.19 N/mm 2 29.14 N/mm2
3 40 80 10.27 N/mm 2 29.36 N/mm2
4 60 80 10.17 N/mm 2 29.07 N/mm2

[45]

35
Average Compressive
30
Strength (N/mm2)
25
20
15 7 Days
10 28 Days
5
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 90 9.64 N/mm2 27.57 N/mm2
2 20 90 10.12 N/mm2 28.14 N/mm2
3 40 90 10.12 N/mm2 28.93 N/mm2
4 60 90 9.72 N/mm2 27.79 N/mm2

35
Average Compressive
30
Strength (N/mm2)
25
20
15 7 Days
10 28 Days
5
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 100 8.83 N/mm2 25.24 N/mm2
2 20 100 8.94 N/mm 2 25.57 N/mm2
3 40 100 9.09 N/mm 2 25.98 N/mm2
4 60 100 8.78 N/mm 2 25.09 N/mm2

[46]

30
Average Compressive
Strength (N/mm2)
25
20
15
7 Days
10
28 Days
5
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 8. Compressive strength with 100% recycled aggregate & different percentage of
GGBFS after 7 & 28 days.
Table No. 12: Testing of Split Tensile Strength with 50% recycled aggregate
S. % of GGBS % of Recycled Avg. Split Tensile Avg. Split Tensile
1 0 50 1.65 N/mm2 4.72 N/mm2
2 20 50 1.78 N/mm2 5.09 N/mm2
3 40 50 1. 81 N/mm2 5.49 N/mm2
4 60 50 1.77 N/mm2 5.07 N/mm2
Split Tensile Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

6
Average Tensile Strength
5
4
3
(N/mm2)
2 7 Days
1 28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 9. Split Tensile strength with 50% recycled aggregate & different percentage of GGBFS
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 60 1.68 N/mm2 4.82 N/mm2
2 20 60 1.80 N/mm 2 5.17 N/mm2
3 40 60 1.92 N/mm 2 5.51 N/mm2
4 60 60 1.79 N/mm 2 5.13 N/mm2

[47]

6
5
4
3
(N/mm2)
2 7 Days
1 28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 70 1.71 N/mm2 4.89 N/mm2
2 20 70 1.79 N/mm 2 5.12 N/mm2
3 40 70 2.08 N/mm 2 5.97 N/mm2
4 60 70 1.78 N/mm 2 5.10 N/mm2

8
4
(N/mm2)
7 Days
2
28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 80 1.69 N/mm2 4.83 N/mm2
2 20 80 1.80 N/mm 2 5.16 N/mm2
3 40 80 2.03 N/mm 2 5.81 N/mm2
4 60 80 1.79 N/mm 2 5.13 N/mm2

[48]

7
6
5
4
(N/mm2)
3
2 7 Days
1 28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 90 1.64 N/mm2 4.70 N/mm2
2 20 90 1.75 N/mm 2 5.02 N/mm2
3 40 90 1.93 N/mm 2 5.52 N/mm2
4 60 90 1.74 N/mm 2 4.98 N/mm2

6
5
4
3
(N/mm2)
2 7 Days
1 28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
after 7 & 28 days.
1 0 100 1.42 N/mm2 4.06 N/mm2
2 20 100 1.68 N/mm 2 4.82 N/mm2
3 40 100 1.83 N/mm 2 5.23 N/mm2
4 60 100 1.64 N/mm 2 4.69 N/mm2

[49]

6
5
4
3
(N/mm2)
2 7 Days
1 28 Days
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 14. Split Tensile strength with 100% recycled aggregate & different percentage of
GGBFS after 7 & 28 days.
5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Compressive Strength
The compressive strength of concrete tested on the cube at different percentage of partial
replacement of sand by GGBFS and partial replacement of virgin aggregate by recycled aggregate in
concrete. The strength of concrete tested on the cube at 28 days curing after 28 days test gives the
data of final strength of concrete. Compression Testing Machine (CTM) used for testing the
compressive strength of concrete. At the time of testing the cube taken out of the water, dried and
then tested keeping the smooth faces in upper and lower part.
14
Average Compressive Strength
12
10
7days (N/mm2)
50% replacement
8
60% replacement
6 70% replacement
4 80% replacement
2 90% replacement
100% replacement
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 15. Compressive strength with different percentage of recycled aggregate & different
percentage of GGBFS after 7 days.

[50]
40
Strength 28 days (N/mm2)

35
Average Compressive
30
50% replacement
25
60% replacement
20
70% replacement
15
80% replacement
10
90% replacement
5
0 100% replacement
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 16. Compressive strength with different percentage of recycled aggregate & different
6. DISCUSSION
1) Partial replacement of GGBFS with sand, the strength of concrete gradually increases up to a
certain limit then it gradually decreases.
2) 2. Partial replacement of recycled aggregate with virgin aggregate, the strength of concrete
gradually increases up to a certain limit then it gradually decreases.
3) 3. Partial replacement of GGBFS with sand up to 40%, the initial strength gain in concrete is
high.
4) 4. Partial replacement of recycled aggregate with virgin aggregate up to 40%, the initial
strength gain in concrete is high.
5) At 40%, there is increased in initial compressive strength for 28 days.
6) It was found that up to 70% virgin aggregate can be replaced with recycled aggregate without
any effects on concrete.
B. Split Tensile Strength

Split Tensile strength of concrete tested on cylinders at different percentage of partial replacement of
GGBS with sand and partial replacement of virgin aggregate by recycled aggregate in concrete. The
strength of concrete tested on the cylinder at 28 days curing after 28 days test gives the data of final
strength of concrete. Compression Testing Machine (CTM) used for testing the Split Tensile Strength
test on concrete along with two wooden boards. At the time of testing, the cylinder is taken out of
water further dried and then tested.

[51]
2.5
2
7days (N/mm2)
50% Replacement
1.5
60% Replacement2
1 70% Replacement
80% Replacement
0.5 90% Replacement
100% Replacement
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 17. Split tensile strength with different percentage of recycled aggregate & different
7
Average Tensile Strength 28
6
5 50% Replacement
days (N/mm2)
4 60% Replacement
3 70% Replacement
2 80% Replacement
1 90% Replacement
100% Replacement
0
0% 20% 40% 60%
Figure 18. Split tensile strength with different percentage of recycled aggregate & different
7. DISCUSSION
1) Partial replacement of GGBS with sand, the strength of concrete gradually increases up to a
certain limit and then it gradually decreases.
2) 2. Partial replacement of recycled aggregate with virgin aggregate, the strength of concrete
gradually increases up to a certain limit then it gradually decreases.
3) 3. With the partial replacement of GGBS with sand up to 40%, the initial strength gain in
concrete is high.
4) 4. Partial replacement of recycled aggregate with virgin aggregate up to 40%, the initial
strength gain in concrete is high.
5) 5. At 40%, there is increased in initial Split Tensile strength for 28 days.
6) 6. It was found that up to 70% virgin aggregate can be replaced with recycled aggregate
without any effects on concrete.
8. CONCLUSIONS
1) The Compressive strength of Cubes is improved with the partial replacement of GGBS up to
40% substitute by weight of sand & recycled aggregate up to 70% substitute by weight of
virgin aggregate and further any partial substitute of GGBS with sand & recycled aggregate
with virgin aggregate lead to a decrease in compressive strength.

[52]
2) 2. The Split Tensile strength of Cylinders are increased with partial replacement of GGBS up
to 40% substitute by weight of sand & recycled aggregate up to 70% substitute by weight of
virgin aggregate replace by weight of sand and further any partial substitute of GGBS &
recycled aggregate decreases the Split Tensile strength.
3) 3. Thus, we find out the optimum percentage for partial substitution of GGBS with sand &
virgin aggregate with recycled aggregate is almost 40% & 70% for cubes and cylinders
respectively.
4) 4. We can minimize the costs for construction with the usage of GGBS, which is freely or
cheaply available.
5) 5. We have also stepped into a land of saving the environmental pollution as a result of the
dumping of wastes in form of slag and irregular mining for river sand.
REFERENCES
1. Ganesh, P.; Murthy, A.R. “Tensile Behaviour and Durability Aspects of Sustainable Ultra-High
Performance Concrete Incorporated with GGBS as Cementitious Material,” Constr. Build.
Material 2019, 197, 667–680.
2. Monteiro, P.J.M.; Miller, S.A.; Horvath, A., “Towards Sustainable Concrete,” Nat. Mater. 2017,
16, 698–699.
3. Oh, D.-Y.; Noguchi, T.; Kitagaki, R.; Park,W.-J., “CO2 Emission Reduction by Reuse of
Building Material Waste in the Japanese Cement Industry,” Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev.
2014, 38, 796–810.
4. Mehta, P.K., “Greening of the Concrete Industry for Sustainable Development,” Concr. Int.
2002, 24, 23–28.
5. Kurad, R.; Silvestre, J.D.; de Brito, J.; Ahmed, H., “Effect of Incorporation of High Volume of
Recycled Concrete Aggregates and Fly Ash on the Strength and Global Warming Potential of
Concrete,” J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 166, 485–502.
6. Mohseni, E.; Ranjbar, M.M.; Yazdi, M.A.; Hosseiny, S.S.; Roshandel, E., “The Effects of
Silicon Dioxide, Iron(III) Oxide and Copper Oxide Nanomaterials on the Properties of Self
Compacting Mortar Containing Fly Ash," Mag. Concr. Res. 2015, 67, 1112–1124.
7. Smirnova, O., “Compatibility of Shungisite Microfillers with Polycarboxylate Admixtures in
Cement Compositions,” ARPN J. Eng. Appl. Sci. 2019, 14, 600–610.
8. Vigneshpandian, G.V.; Shruthi, E.A.; Venkatasubramanian, C.; Muthu, D., “Utilisation of
Waste Marble Dust as Fine Aggregate in Concrete,” IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2017,
80, 012007.
9. Yang, K.-H.; Jung, Y.-B.; Cho, M.-S.; Tae, S.-H., “Effect of Supplementary Cementitious
Materials on Reduction of CO2 Emissions from Concrete,” J. Clean. Prod. 2015, 103, 774783.
10. N. Ferhoune, J. Zeghiche, “Experimental behaviour of concrete filled rectangular thin welded
steel stubs (compression load case),” C.R. Mec. 340 (2012) 156–164.
11. N. Ferhoune, “Experimental behaviour of cold-formed steel welded tube filled with concrete
made of crushed crystallized slag subjected to eccentric load,” Thin-Walled Struct. 80 (2014)
159–166.
12. N. Ferhoune, J. Zeghiche, “Numerical analysis of cold-formed steel welded tube filled with
concrete made of crystallized slag aggregate,” Mech. Ind. 16–112 (2015) 1–13.
13. J. Zeghiche, “Further tests on thin steel and composite fabricated stubs,” J. Constr. Steel Res.
81 (2013) 124–137.
14. L. Alexandre, J.L. Sebileau, “The blast furnace slag,” edited by the technical center and
promotion of slags, 1988.
15. R. Dupain, L. Anchon, J.C. Saint Aramon, “Aggregates, soils, cement and concrete,”
Characterization of Civil Engineering Materials by Laboratory tests, Paris, 2004.
16. Caroline Morrison and all, “The use of ferro-silicate slag from ISF zinc production as a sand
replacement in concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 2085–2089.
17. Behim et al, “Physical and chemical effects of el hadjar slag used as an additive in cement-
based materials,” Eur. J. Environ. Civil Eng. 15 (10) (2011) 1413–1432.
18. Nicolas Robeyst, “Monitoring the setting of concrete containing blast-furnace slag by
measuring the ultrasonic p-wave velocity,” Cem. Concr. Res. 38 (2008) 1169–1176.
19. Elke Gruyaert et al, “Investigation of the influence of blastfurnace slag on the resistance of
concrete against organic acid or sulphate attack by means of accelerated degradation tests,”
Cem. Concr. Res. 42 (2012) 173–185.

[53]
20. Neda Mobasher, Susan A. Bernal, Oday H. Hussain, “Characterisation of Ba(OH)2–Na2SO4–
blast furnace slag cement-like composites for the immobilisation of sulphate bearing nuclear
wastes,” Cem. Concr. Res. 66 (2014) 64–74.
21. Ganesh, P.; Murthy, A.R., “Tensile Behaviour and Durability Aspects of Sustainable Ultra-
High Performance Concrete Incorporated with GGBS as Cementitious Material,” Constr.
Build. Mater. 2019, 197, 667–680.
22. Mehta, P.K., “Greening of the Concrete Industry for Sustainable Development,” Concr.
Int. 2002, 24, 23–28.
23. Smirnova, O.M.; Potyomkin, D.A., “Influence of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
Properties on the Superplasticizers Effect,” Int. J. Civ. Eng. Technol. 2018, 9, 874–880.
24. Teng, S.; Lim, T.Y.D.; Divsholi, B.S., “Durability and Mechanical Properties of High Strength
Concrete Incorporating Ultra Fine Ground Granulated Blast-Furnace Slag,” Constr. Build.
Mater. 2013, 40, 875–881.
25. Majhi, R.K.; Nayak, A.N.; Mukharjee, B.B., “Development of Sustainable Concrete Using
Recycled Coarse Aggregate and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag,” Constr. Build.
Mater. 2018, 159, 417–430.
26. Patra, R.K.; Mukharjee, B.B., “Influence of Incorporation of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as
Replacement of Fine Aggregate on Properties of Concrete,” J. Clean. Prod. 2017, 165, 468–
476.
27. Pal, S.C.; Mukherjee, A.; Pathak, S.R., “Investigation of Hydraulic Activity of Ground
Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res. 2003, 33, 1481–1486.
28. Topcu, I.B.; Boga, A.R., “Effect of Ground Granulate Blast-Furnace Slag on Corrosion
Performance of Steel Embedded in Concrete, “Mater. Des. 2010, 31, 3358–3365.
29. Ahmad, J.; Martinez-Garcia, R.; Szelag, M.; de-Prado-Gil, J.; Marzouki, R.; Alqurashi, M.;
Hussein, E.E., “Effects of Steel Fibers (SF) and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
(GGBS) on Recycled Aggregate Concrete,” Materials 2021, 14, 7497.
30. I. Yuksel., O. Ozkan., T. Bilir., "Use of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag in Concrete as Fine
Aggregate," ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 103, No. 3, (2006), pp. 203-208.
31. M.A. Megat Johari, J.J. Brooks, S. Kabir, P. Rivard, “Influence of supplementary cementitious
materials on engineering properties of high strength concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011)
2639–2648.
32. O. Boukendakdji, E.H. Kadri, S. Kenai, “Effects of granulated blast furnace slag and
superplasticizer type on the fresh properties and compressive strength of self-compacting
concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 583–590.
33. E. Gruyaert, N. Robeyst, N. De Belie, “Study of the hydration of Portland cement blended with
blast-furnace slag by calorimetry and thermogravimetry,” J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 102 (2010)
941–951.
34. G. De Schutter, “Hydration and temperature development of concrete made with blast-furnace
slag cement,” Cem. Concr. Res. 29 (1999) 143–149.
35. P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, “Concrete Microstructures,” Properties and Materials, Prentice-
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 2006, pp. 366–367.
36. J.J. Brooks, M.A. Megat Johari, M. Mazloom, “Effect of admixtures on the setting times of
high-strength concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos. 22 (2000) 293–301.
37. T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, “Influence of fly ash on the setting and hardening characteristics of
concrete systems,” ACI Mater. J. 94 (1997) 355–360.
38. T.R. Naik, B.W. Ramme, “Effects of high-lime fly ash on water demand, time of set, and
compressive strength of concrete,” ACI Mater. J. 87 (1990) 619–626.
39. H. Zhao, W. Sun, X. Wu, B. Gao, “The properties of the self-compacting concrete with fly ash
and ground granulated blast furnace slag mineral admixtures,” J. Cleaner Prod. 95 (2015) 66–
74.
40. N. Robeyst, E. Gruyaert, C.U. Grosse, N.D. Belie, “Monitoring the setting of concrete
containing blast-furnace slag by measuring the ultrasonic p-wave velocity,” Cem. Concr. Res.
38 (2008) 1169–1176.
41. P.J. Wainwright, N. Rey, “The influence of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS)
additions and time delay on the bleeding of concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos. 22 (2000) 253–
257.
42. N. Marushima, K. Kuroha, K. Tomatsuri, K. Kubota, K. Koibuchi, Y. Ishikawa, “Study on high-
strength concrete with blast furnace slag cement incorporating very fine slag,” in: I. Holand, E.

[54]
Sellovold (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Utilization of High Strength Concrete, vol.
2, Lillehammer, Norway, 1993. pp. 830–37.
43. K. Tang, S. Millard, G. Beattie, “Technical and economic aspects of using GGBFS for crack
control mitigation in long span reinforced concrete structures,” Constr. Build. Mater. 39 (2013)
65–70.
44. E. Guneyisi, M. Gesoglu, “A study on durability properties of high-performance concretes
incorporating high replacement levels of slag,” Mater. Struct. 41 (2008) 479–493.
45. A. Oner, S. Akyuz, “An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive
strength of concrete,” Cem. Concr. Compos. 29 (2007) 505–514.
46. V. Sivasundaram, V.M. Malhotra, “Properties of concrete incorporating low quantity of cement
and high volumes of ground granulated slag,” ACI Mater. J. 1992 (89) (1992) 554–563.
47. J.M. Khatib, J.J. Hibbert, Selected engineering properties of concrete incorporating slag and
metakaolin, Constr. Build. Mater. 19 (6) (2005) 460–472.
48. F.J. Hogan, J.W. Meusel, Evaluation for durability and strength development of a ground
granulated blast-furnace slag, Cem. Concr. Aggregates 3 (1) (1981) 40–52.
49. R. Siddique, Utilization (recycling) of iron and steel industry by-product (GGBS) in concrete:
strength and durability properties, J. Mater. Cycles Waste Manage. 16 (2014) 460–467.
50. S.C. Pal, A. Mukherjee, S.R. Pathak, “Investigation of hydraulic activity of ground granulated
blast furnace slag in concrete,” Cem. Concr. Res. 33 (2003) 1481– 1486.
51. N.M. Piatak, M.B. Parsons, R.R. Seal, “Characteristics and environmental aspects of slag: a
review,” Appl. Geochem. 57 (2015) 236–266.
52. C. Shi, J. Qian, “High performance cementing materials from industrial slags – a review,”
Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 29 (2000) 195–207.

[55]

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering

Volume 45 Issue 9 Year 2023

ABSTRACT: The replacement of natural resources in the

In this study, partial replacement of sand with GGBFS & conventional

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Iron Blast Furnace Blast Furnance Slag Grinding GGBFS

Figure 1. Manufacturing Process of GGBFS.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODS

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Workability test on concrete

Compression and split Tensile test

Result & Discussion

Table 1: Testing of Cement

Table No. 2: Testing of Sand

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Table No. 3: Testing of GGBS

Table No. 4: Testing of Coarse Aggregate

Table No. 5: Testing of Recycled Aggregate

3. CONCRETE MIX DESIGN

4. CASTING AND TESTING DETAIL

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Table No. 6: Testing of Compressive Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

Compressive Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

Table No. 7: Testing of Compressive Strength with 60% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Compressive Strength with 60% recycled aggregate

Table No. 8: Testing of Compressive Strength with 70% recycled aggregate

Compressive Strength with 70% recycled aggregate

Table No. 9: Testing of Compressive Strength with 80% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Compressive Strength with 80% recycled aggregate

Compressive Strength with 90% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Compressive Strength with 100% recycled aggregate

Split Tensile Strength with 50% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Split Tensile Strength with 60% recycled aggregate

Split Tensile Strength with 70% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Split Tensile Strength with 80% recycled aggregate

Split Tensile Strength with 90% recycled aggregate

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Split Tensile Strength with 100% recycled aggregate

5. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Percentage of GGBS replaced

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Strength 28 days (N/mm2)

B. Split Tensile Strength

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

Chinese Journal of Geotechnical Engineering ISSN: 1000-4548

You might also like