The Effects of Varying Ratios of Portland

Cement, Sand, and Gravel on

the Strength and Durability of Concrete

Jessica Olsen
2015
Abstract

A concrete mixture that meets industrial standards must be both durable

enough to resist the effects of weather exposure and strong enough to
withstand the continual battering of traffic on roadways and bridges. Acid rain
is a man-made phenomenon formed by the chemical reaction between
nonmetallic oxides (NO, NO2, SO2, SO3, and CO2) with water vapor within the
air to produce oxyacids. As acidic precipitation comes into contact with
highways and bridges, the concrete gradually erodes, which in turn
compromises the durability and strength of these structures. Previous
experiments have suggested that concrete mixtures with higher percentages of
Portland cement (Batch E) are more resistant to the effects of acid rain, while
mixtures with higher percentages of sand (Batch A) erode more quickly.
However, the experiment did not investigate the strength of each mixture,
which is vital in building sustainable structures. This test utilized the same
concrete ratios used in the initial experiment, but tested the strength of the
concrete specimens in a hydraulic compression machine, which drove a steel
platen onto the concrete cylinders at a rate of 400 pounds per second until the
specimen failed. After analyzing the data regarding the pressure (psi) at which
each of the specimens yielded, Batch E, with the highest percentage of
Portland cement, broke at the most pressure while Batch A, with the highest
percentage of sand, broke at the least pressure. Furthermore, the comparative
results indicate that mixtures with higher ratios of Portland cement (Batch E)
are both more durable to the effects of acid and rain and are stronger than
mixtures with higher ratios of sand (Batch A).

Hypothesis

Methodology

If Concrete Cylinders with Varying Ratios of Portland Cement, Sand, and Gravel Are Placed Under
Strength Tests in A Hydraulic Compression Machine, Batch C will Fail at the Highest Pressure

Concrete Mixing

Mix the concrete batches according to the mixture ratios (See Table 1).

Pour 5 cylinders of each batch and label (A1, A2, A3) (See Figure 1).

Cups

Milliliters

12.00

5.75

6.90

1360.38

1632.15

42.00

20.00

11.50

2720.25

25.00

Batch

Store in a dry, cool location and let cure for at least 28 days (Properties of
Concrete, 2015).

Create 3 test cylinders to use to prepare the hydraulic compression machine

(Any ratio).

10.00

16.50

Remove the specimens from the plastic cylinders by drilling a small hole in
the bottom of the container. Insert the nozzle of an air compressor into the hole
and apply quick bursts of air until the container is separated from the concrete
cylinder (See Figure 2).

Table 1: Mixture Ratios for the Concrete Cylinders (125.66 in3 with 25% Overage)

Cement
Percentage

Tap the sides of the plastic cylinders while filling to release any trapped air.
Skim the top of the specimens using a trowel to create a flat surface and
remove excess water.

9.49

25.00

14.37

2244.21

3400.31

19.26

20.00

11.50

40.00

Continue for the remaining 27 specimens.

26.45

6256.57

14.37

3400.31

55.00

31.62

7480.69

4556.42

50.00

2720.25

28.74

55.00

6800.62

31.62

7480.69

End Mass (g)

Total Loss (g)

5073

Figure 6: Pie chart of the average loss of Tile

E compared to its average dry mass, which
lost the least amount of material (41 g) over
the testing period.

Batch versus Average Failure Pressure

7000

Obtain the data sheets containing the test data via email to perform statistical
analyses.

5440.50

46.00

41

Figure 5: Pie chart of the average loss of Tile

A compared to its average dry mass, which
lost the most material (605 g) over the testing
period.

Save the test data for each sample onto the computers hard drive.

Milliliters

5712.52

3785

Once the specimen fails, record the force at which the cylinder yielded (lbs).

Cups

23.00

24.15

Total Loss (g)

Begin the testing and stand behind a protective barrier.

5000
Pressure (psi)

Calculate the mean weight (lbs) and pressure (psi) at which the specimens
failed for each batch (Batch A, Batch B).

4000
Series1

3000

P = 3.6E10-22

2000
1000

Area of a circle (base area of a cylinder) = r2

22 = 12.566 in2
Weight (lbs)/12.566 in2 = Pressure (psi)

C
Batch

Figure 11: Prepared Test Specimen

with Neoprene Inserts and Steel
Retainers

Figure 7: Bar graph comparing the concrete batch to the average failure
pressure (psi) of that batch. An ANOVA test was run and revealed a P-value of
3.6E10-22 which indicates that the failure pressures are significantly different.

Figure 4: Weight (lbs) to Pressure (psi) Conversion

Results

3000

Average Pressure Failed

(psi)

Batch C

2000

Batch B

1000
0

200

400
600
Material Lost (g)

Linear (Average Pressure

Failed (psi))
Batch A
800

Figure 8: X-Y scatterplot comparing the average material

lost (g) and the failure pressure (psi) of each concrete batch.
The trendline and R2 value of 0.7210 indicates a strong
correlation between the data points.

4500

Batch B
Batch C

Batch D

4000

Batch E

Dry Mass

Wet Mass

Week 1

Week 2
Measurement

Week 3

Week 4

Final Dry
Mass

Figure 9: Line graph displaying the deterioration of the concrete tiles

from the previous durability test over the four-week acid rain
simulation period.

Batch E

6000

Batch D

5000
4000

Batch C

3000

Batch B

2000
1000

3500

Cement Percentage versus Average Failure

Pressure

7000
Batch A

Pressure (psi)

4000

Mass (g)

Pressure (psi)

Batch D

5000

5000

y = -8.7705x + 5283.6
R = 0.7210

Batch E

6000

Average Mass Lost Over the Testing Period

5500

Average Material Lost versus Pressure Failed

Batch A
5

10

Series1
y = 385.88x - 3142.2
R = 0.9761

15
Cement Percentage

20

Figure 12: Failed Specimen E1 after

Testing (Breaking Point: 76,279 lbs
or 6,070 psi)

Acknowledgements

The results of the previous durability test of concrete tiles reveal that Batch A, with the highest percentage of sand, lost the most material over the four-week testing period (average of 605 g)
and was therefore the least durable mixture (See Figure 5). However, Batch E, with the highest percentage of Portland cement, lost the least material (average of 41 g) and was inferred to be the
most durable mixture (See Figure 6). A strength test was then conducted on the same concrete ratios, and the average pressure at which the specimens failed ranged from 732 psi (Batch A) to
6229 psi (Batch E), as seen in Figure 7. After running statistical analyses such as ANOVA tests and inserting trend lines, it was found that the data collected was significantly related. The P-value
of 3.6E10-22 (P < 0.05) formulated from an ANOVA test suggests that the pressures (psi) at which each specimen yielded are significantly different (See Figure 7). The R2 value of 0.7210, as
seen in Figure 8, indicates that the average material lost (g) and the pressure at which the specimens failed (psi) are strongly correlated. Figure 9 displays the deterioration of the concrete tiles in
the durability test over time by mass (g). Finally, Figure 10 displays a very strong correlation , with an R2 value of 0.9761, between the percentage of Portland cement in the batch and its failure
pressure (psi).

7000

Conclusion

The results of these experiments suggest that concrete mixtures with high
percentages of sand and lower percentages of Portland cement (Batch A) are
the least durable and weakest concrete ratios. However, mixtures such as Batch
E, with high percentages of Portland cement and low percentages of sand, are
both the most durable and strongest concrete mixtures. The correlation and
strong significance of statistical analyses done supports the assumptions made.
Therefore, Batch E could be considered for use as the concrete mixture in
infrastructure such as roadways and bridges, due to its high durability and
strength. This may not be economically feasible, however, due to the increased
cost of utilizing more Portland cement than less expensive sand and gravel.

6000

Calculate the pressure at which each specimen failed by dividing the force at
the breaking point by the surface area of the cylinder (See Figure 4).

Compare data to the previous acid rain resistance data recorded.

The industry standard when utilizing concrete in the construction of

roadways and bridges is the Part 1, 2, 3 mix, which is composed of one part
Portland cement, two parts sand, and three parts clean gravel (The Basic
Mix). However, failing bridges and buildings has become a significant issue
in the United States, and the American Society of Civil Engineers estimates
that 3.6 trillion USD is needed to fully repair the nations infrastructure
(Hatcher, 2013). This deterioration of concrete structures is partially due to the
erosive effects of acid rain. Acidic precipitation is formed primarily over the
coal-fired power plants located in the Ohio Valley, and the prevailing weather
patterns carry the acid rain to the Northeast, which is the primary target of acid
rain (Olsen, 2013). This experiment simulates the effects of acid rain on
concrete by testing the durability and strength of five different ratios of
Portland cement, sand, and gravel; these mixes were determined from
increasing and decreasing the percentage of Portland cement in the standard
mix (Batch C). Previously, the durability of the concrete mixtures was tested
by measuring the average mass lost from the concrete tiles over a period of
four weeks when under the constant flow of a citric acid solution with a pH of
4.0 to simulate acid rain (PH Scale, 2012). As a continuation of this
experiment, the strength of the concrete was analyzed by testing the failure
force (lbs) and pressure (psi) of concrete cylinders in a hydraulic compression
machine located in the environmental lab at the Naval Air Warfare Center.
The results of this research are beneficial in the planning and building of
infrastructure by civil engineers and architects. Due to strict construction
budgets, it is vital for the engineers to utilize affordable mixes of concrete in
the construction of roadways and bridges. Portland cement is the most
expensive constituent of concrete mixes ($255 USD per ton) compared to the
price of sand and clean gravel (approximately $26 USD per ton)
(Construction Mixes). Therefore, the cost of materials must be balanced with
the overall durability and strength of the concrete structures that are being
designed. Moreover, this experiment is valuable in the development of
construction regulations and techniques and will aid in understanding the
effects of the man-made phenomenon of acid rain.

33.50

Gravel
Percentage

End Mass (g)

Transfer the prepared sample to the machine and center it between the platens.

Introduction

6800.62

605

Prepare the first test sample (labeled Test 1) by placing two 60 durometer
neoprene inserts into two 4 by 8 inch diameter unbonded capping steel
retainers (See Figure 11).

Figure 3: Hydraulic Compression

Machine at the Naval Air Warfare Center

Milliliters

28.74

Average Loss of Tile E

Program a hydraulic compression machine (maximum force of 220,000 lbs) to

apply 500 lbs of pressure to secure the specimens and then proceed testing at a
rate of 400 lbs/sec (approximately 35 psi/sec) (See Figure 3).

Figure 2: Specimen A3 Being

Separated from its Plastic
Cylinder by Compressed Air

Cups

50.00

Average Loss of Tile A

Laboratory Testing

Figure 1: Batch A Plastic Cylinder Molds

Sand
Percentage

Discussion

It was hypothesized that if concrete cylinders with varying ratios of

Portland cement, sand, and gravel were placed under a strength test in a
hydraulic compression machine, Batch C will fail at the highest pressure.
However, the results suggest that Batch E is the strongest mix, due to the
highest average breaking point of 6,229 psi (See Figure 12). It was inferred
that due to the high percentage of Portland cement in that mix (25%), the
particles of sand and aggregate rock were thoroughly coated in the Portland
cement and formed a very strong bond. Similarly to the strength test, Batch E
was also the most durable mix when placed under the acid rain simulation, and
on average lost only 41 grams (See Figures 6 and 9). The results also indicate
that the weakest mix is Batch A, which failed at an average pressure of 732 psi
(See Figure 7). Due to the high percentages of sand in its mix, and therefore
low percentages of Portland cement, the mix was very dry and formed a poor
bond between the constituents of the concrete mixture. This batch was also
previously found to be the least durable mix, and on average lost 605 grams
(See Figures 6 and 9).
To further solidify these assumptions, statistical analyses were run on the
data collected. When graphing the average mass lost (g) versus the pressure at
which the specimen yielded (psi), a trendline was included to show the
correlation between the data points. This trendline had an R2 value of 0.7210,
which shows a strong correlation between the data; this indicates that the mass
lost (g) and failure pressure (psi) of each batch are significantly related (See
Figure 8). An ANOVA test was also run on the failure pressures of each batch;
this test revealed that the pressures at which each specimen broke are
significantly different, with a P-value of 3.6E10-22 (P < 0.05) (See Figure 7).
It was also found that the percentage of cement in each batch compared to the
failure pressure (psi) are strongly correlated, with a R2 value of 0.9761. Thus, it
can be inferred that the durability and strength of concrete increases with the
amount of Portland cement in its mix due to the strong correlation between the
ratio of cement to the failure pressures of each batch and the material lost over
time.

Linear (Series1)

25

Figure 10: X-Y scatter plot comparing the percentage

of Portland cement in each mix and the average
failure pressure of each batch. The trendline and R2
value of 0.9761 indicate a very strong correlation
between the data points.

I would like to thank my mentors and advisors for their continuing

guidance, my father for his advice and engineering standpoint, and the Naval
Air Warfare Center for allowing me to utilize their lab and helping me operate
the machinery.

References

Capping Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. (2012, July 19). Retrieved June

22, 2014, from http://www.nrmca.org/aboutconcrete/downloads/Tip5.pdf
Construction Mixes. (n.d.). Retrieved February 24, 2015, from
http://www.acmesand.com/construction-mixes/
Hatcher, W. (2013, June 10). The Importance of Infrastructure. Retrieved
February 21, 2015, from http://patimes.org/importance-infrastructure/
PH Scale. (2012, November 5). Retrieved January 12, 2014, from
http://www.epa.gov/acidrain/education/site_students/phscale.html
Properties of Concrete. (2015, January 14). Retrieved February 22, 2015,
from
http://www.ce.memphis.edu/1101/notes/concrete/section_3_properties.html
Olsen, E. PE (2013). [Personal interview].
The Basic Mix. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2013, from
http://matse1.matse.illinois.edu/concrete/bm.html