Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
Master of Technology
With Specialization in Structural Engineering
By
Gundram Gowtham Sai Diwakar
(14H91D8730)
Under the supervision of
Chinthada Vinodh
M.E (Structures)
Assistant Professor, CIVIL Engineering Department
DECLARATION
The Thesis entitled EFFECT OF DIRECT MARINE EXPOSURE ON STRENGTH
OF BLENDED CONCRETES is a record of bonfide work carried out by me, submitted
in partial ful fillment for the award of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering with
specialization in Structural Engineering, submitted in the department of Civil
Engineering, Gokul institute of technological sciences, Piridi , Andhra Pradesh is authentic
record of my own work carried out under the guidance of
Date:
Place:
G G SAI DIWAKAR
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled EFFECT OF DIRECT MARINE EXPOSURE
ON STRENGTH OF BLENDED CONCRETES is being submitted by G G SAI
DIWAKAR in partial fulfillment for the award of
Kakinada is a record of bonafide work carried out by him under our guidance and
supervision.
The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any other University
or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
Signature of supervisor
C Vinodh
Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Gokul institute of technological sciences,
Piridi ,
Andhra Pradesh,
India.
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled EFFECT OF DIRECT MARINE EXPOSURE
ON STRENGTH OF BLENDED CONCRETES is being submitted by G G SAI
DIWAKAR in partial fulfillment for the award of
Kakinada is a record of bonafide work carried out by him under our guidance and
supervision.
The results embodied in this thesis have not been submitted to any other University
or Institute for the award of any degree or diploma.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
Its my great privilege to express my deep sense of gratitude and high regards to my guide
C Vinodh, Assistant Professor Department of Civil Engineering, Gokul institute of
technological sciences,
encouragement throughout the period of this work. The Affection and cooperation
received from them is beyond any word of acknowledgement. I feel it is a great
opportunity to be associated with them.
It is my privilege to express my gratitude to
technological sciences,. .
sciences,
of Project and all non-teaching staff members of Civil Engineering Department for their
support and concern through my project
Date:
Place:
G G SAI DIWAKAR
Contents
SL
Title of Description
N0
Page
Number
Chapter-1
Chapter-2
Chapter-3
Chpater-4
Chapter-5
36
Chapter-6
List of Tables
Chapter-1
Chapter-2
List Of Figures
Chapter-1
Chapter-2
Chapter-4
Chapter-5
Abstract
10
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
INTRODUCTION
Several billion tons of water is annually used as mixing, curing and cleaning around the
world, in concrete industry. As there is a scarcity of fresh drinkable water around the
world; so there is a need to save fresh water and hence possibilities of using seawater as
mixing as well as curing water should be investigated seriously. Additionally, if use of
seawater as concrete material is permitted, it will be very convenient and economical in
the construction; especially in the coastal works. However; most of the reinforced concrete
codes do not permit the use of seawater due to risk of early corrosion of reinforcement.
The effect of seawater on concrete deserves special attention as the coastal and offshore
structures are exposed to simultaneous action of a number of physical and chemical
deterioration processes. Moreover, 80 percent of the earth is covered by seawater either
directly or indirectly (e.g. winds can carry sea water spray up to a few miles in land from
the coast). Concrete piers, decks, break-water, and retaining walls are widely used in the
construction of harbors and docks. The use of concrete offshore drilling platforms and oil
storage tanks is already on the increase (Akshat et al., (2015)).
Civilization in olden days took place along the sea shores or river fronts and it is
obvious that the structures were then subjected to marine environment. Hence all the olden
days constructions were obviously made of marine exposure resistant materials. Today
Concrete is the most sought after construction material and it is not resistant to marine
exposure. When the concrete is exposed to sea water, the action of carbon dioxide would
result in the formation of calcium carbonate thereby reducing the alkalinity of the
concrete, sulphates. This forms Ettringite and Gypsum and causing physical expansion and
leaching and chlorides would cause a reduction in alkalinity of the concrete and leaching.
11
Clauses 5.4.3 and 5.4.4 of IS 456: 2000 outlined the use of sea water in concrete.
Accordingly mixing or curing of concrete with sea water is not recommended because of
presence of harmful salts in sea water. Under unavoidable circumstances sea water may be
used for mixing or curing in plain concrete with no embedded steel after having given due
consideration to possible disadvantages and precautions including use of appropriate
cement system. Water found satisfactory for mixing is also suitable for curing concrete.
However, water used for curing should not produce any objectionable stain or unsightly
deposit on the concrete surface. The presence of tannic acid or iron compounds is
objectionable.
The Clause 8.2.8 of IS 456: 2000 specifies the minimum grades of concrete to be
adopted when the concrete is exposed to marine environment. Accordingly concrete in
sea-water or exposed directly along the sea coast shall be at least M20 Grade in the case of
plain concrete and M30 in case of reinforced concrete. The use of slag or pozzolana
cement is advantageous under such conditions however qualitative advantage is nowhere
studied or documented. Special attention shall be given to the design of the mix to obtain
the densest possible concrete.
No construction joints shall be allowed within 600 mm below low water-level or
within 600 mm of the upper and lower planes of wave action. Where unusually severe
conditions or abrasion are anticipated, such parts of the work shall be protected by
bituminous or silicon-fluoride coating or stone facing bedded with bitumen.
In reinforced concrete structures, care shall be taken to protect the reinforcement
from exposure to saline atmosphere during storage, fabrication and use. It may be
achieved by treating the surface of reinforcement with cement wash or by suitable
methods.
12
13
Fly ash concrete mix proportioning was carried out with an optimum replacement
of 25% of fly ash in ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade. All other ingredients remain
unchanged.
Cement was replaced with 50% slag procured from Steel plant, Visakhapatnam
was used in the mix proportioning of concrete. The other ingredients such as fine
aggregate, coarse aggregate, water, marine water, super-plasticizer were unchanged.
1.4
scope of present work. The literature review of sea water in concrete is presented in
Chapter 2. Chapter 3 presents experimental work. Chapter 4 presents results and
discussions while Chapter 6 presents the conclusions of the study. The scope of future
study and author bibliography is appended.
14
CHAPTER-2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE
2.1
15
compressive strength of concrete. Kucche et al., (2015) in their paper reviewed the
literature related to quality of water for making concrete.
16
diffusion characteristics of fly ash concrete. According to them, concrete with high
resistance to the marine environment should have high compressive strength, a low
chloride diffusion coefficient (DC), and a high acceptable chloride level (Ac).
17
as mixing water in concrete introduced blast furnace slag powder as pozzolana material
expecting to fix the free chloride ion.
18
of cement by Fly Ash (FAC1), concrete made by replacing 40% of cement by Fly Ash
(FAC2), concrete made by replacing 20% replacement of cement by GGBS (GAC1) and
concrete made by replacing 40% replacement of cement by GGBS (GAC2). The effect of
1% of H2SO4 and sea water on these concrete mixes are determined by immersing these
cubes for 7 days, 28 days, 60 days in above solutions and the respective changes in both
compressive strength and weight reduction had observed and up to a major extent we can
conclude concretes made by that Fly Ash and GGBS had good strength and durable
properties comparison to conventional aggregate in severe Environment.
Ramya and Kashyap (2014) conducted an experimental study on Durability of
Concrete Using Fly Ash & GGBS for M30 Grade Concrete. In Concretes subjected to
severe environments, durability can significantly decline due to degradation. Degradation
of concrete structures by corrosion is a serious problem and has major economic
implications. In this study, an attempt has been made to study the durability of concrete
using the mineral admixtures like Fly Ash & Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
(GGBS) for M30 grade concrete. Cube Specimens were casted and are immersed in
normal water, sea water, H2SO4 of various concentrations and were tested after 7 days, 28
days and 60 days.
Sadaqat et al., (2014) reviewed the properties of fresh concrete including
workability, heat of hydration, setting time, bleeding, and reactivity by using mineral
admixtures fly ash (FA), silica fume (SF), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS),
metakaolin (MK), and rice husk ash (RHA). Comparison of normal and high-strength
concrete in which cement has been partially supplemented by mineral admixture has been
considered. It has been concluded that mineral admixtures may be categorized into two
groups: chemically active mineral admixtures and microfiller mineral admixtures.
Chemically active mineral admixtures decrease workability and setting time of concrete
19
but increase the heat of hydration and reactivity. On the other hand, microfiller mineral
admixtures increase workability and setting time of concrete but decrease the heat of
hydration and reactivity. In general, small particle size and higher specific surface area of
mineral admixture are favorable to produce highly dense and impermeable concrete;
however, they cause low workability and demand more water which may be offset by
adding effective super plasticizer.
20
CHAPTER 3
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
3.1
GENERAL
The experimental investigation was carried out in order to study the
strength performance of various concretes such as Normal concrete i.e. ordinary Portland
cement (OPC) concrete, Fly ash concrete i.e. ordinary Portland cement concrete with fly
ash replacement and GGBS concrete i.e. ground granulated blast furnace slag cement
concrete using both potable water and marine water. The cement selected is ordinary
Portland cement with 53 Grade. Hardened concrete was tested for compressive strength to
ascertain the feasibility of blended concretes when concrete is subjected to marine
environment. Accordingly Compressive strength of concrete test at the age of 7 days, 14
days, 28 days and 56 days was tested for all 3 grades M30, M40 and M50 grades of
Normal, Fly ash and GGBS concrete .
3.2
MATERIALS
The various materials used in the experimental investigation are ordinary Portland
cement, fly ash, GGBS cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water, marine water.
3.2.1 Cement
Ordinary Portland cement of 53 grade (MAHA Cement) confirming to IS
12269:1987 (Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland) was used in the present
experimental investigation. Its specific gravity is 3.15. The cement was tested as per the
procedure given in Indian standards IS 4031 (1988).
3.2.2 Fly ash
Fly ash is an industrial waste obtained from thermal power stations. In this
investigation, the fly ash was obtained from NTPC, Visakhapatnam. The physical
21
properties and chemical properties of fly ash that was used in the experimentation are
presented in Table and Table respectively.
Table Physical properties of Fly ash (Courtesy: NTPC Visakhapatnam)
Sl. No
Parameter
Test result
1
Specific gravity
2.0
3
2
Bulk density (Kg/m )
1000
3
Percentage passing 75 micron IS sieve
71.4 to 95.90
4
Percentage passing 45 micron IS sieve
45.0 to 88.80
2
5
Fineness (blains air method) cm /gm
3300 to 6250
2
6
Lime reactivity (kg/cm )
50 to 62.40
Table Chemical properties of Fly ash (Courtesy: NTPC Visakhapatnam)
Sl. No
Constituent
1
Loss on ignition (% by mass)
2
Silica as Sio2
3
Iron Oxide as Fe2O3
4
Alumina as Al2O3
5
Manganese as Mn
6
Titanium Oxide as TiO2
7
Calcium Oxide as CaO
8
Magnesium Oxide as MgO
9
Sodium Oxide as Na2O
10
Potassium Oxide as K2O
11
Phosphorus as P
12
Sulphate as So3
13
(2+4+3) above
3.2.3 GGBS
Values (% by
weight)
0.87 < 12
62.93 > 35
3.56
22.61
0.14
0.53
4.58
0.60 < 5.0
0.89 < 1.5
1.74
0.32
1.23 < 2.75
89.1 > 70
The Ground granulated blast furnace slag is obtained from Visakhapatnam steel plant.
Table Physical properties of GGBS (Courtesy: Vishakhapatnam Steel Plant)
Sl. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
Parameter
Specific gravity
pH
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Insoluble residue
Percentage passing 75 micron IS sieve
Percentage passing 45 micron IS sieve
Fineness (blains air method) cm2/gm
Lime reactivity (kg/cm2)
22
Test result
2.9
4.6
1200
0.3
70 to 95
45 to 85
3500
50 to 62.40
Values (% by
weight)
0.87
34.31
1
11
41
8
Constituent
Loss on ignition (% by mass)
Silica as Sio2
Iron Oxide as Fe2O3
Alumina as Al2O3
Calcium Oxide as CaO
Magnesium Oxide as MgO
Properties
No
Result
Physical State
Liquid
Colour
Brown
PH
7-8
Odour
Slight/Faint
None
Auto Flammability
Not Applicable
Explosive Properties
Not Applicable
Water Soluble
Soluble
23
3.3
MIX PROPORTIONING
The mix design or concrete mix proportioning was carried out as per IS: 10262-2009
concrete mix proportioning - guidelines. Three types of concretes viz; Normal concrete,
Fly ash concrete, GGBS concrete were considered for the study and accordingly mix
proportions are calculated. Four concrete grades i.e. M30, M40 and M50 were designed.
The calculations of mix proportioning for M25 are presented here.
a) M30 GRADE CONCRETE
1)
Grade designation
: M30
b.
Type of cement
2)
c.
: 20 mm
d.
: 300 kg/m
e.
: 0.55
f.
Workability
g.
Exposure Condition
: Mild
h.
: Pumping
i.
Degree of Supervision
: Good
j.
Type of Aggregate
: Crushed aggregate
k.
: 450 kg/m
Cement used
b.
c.
Specific gravity of
d.
e.
: 2.99
: 2.69
: 2.57
Water Absorption
(i) Coarse aggregate
: 0.5%
: 1.0%
f.
: NIL
: NIL
Sieve Analysis
(i) Coarse aggregate
3)
4)
5)
6)
25
8)
MIX CALCULATIONS
The mix calculations per unit volume of concrete shall be as follows:
a)
Volume of concrete
b)
Volume of cement
1m
=
c)
d)
e)
Volume of water
=
=
0.202 m3
[a-(b+c)]
0.1217 m3
[1-(0.1217+0.202)]
0.7048 m3
f)
b)
M40 CONCRETE
1)
: M40
b. Type of cement
: 20 mm
: 300 kg/m
26
2)
: 0.50
f. Workability
g. Exposure Condition
: Moderate
: Pumping
i. Degree of Supervision
: Good
j. Type of Aggregate
: Crushed aggregate
: 450 kg/m
Cement used
: 2.99
c. Specific gravity of
(i) Coarse aggregate
: 2.69
: 2.57
d. Water Absorption
(i) Coarse aggregate
: 0.5%
: 1.0%
: NIL
: NIL
f. Sieve Analysis
(i) Coarse aggregate
3)
4)
27
6)
7)
8)
MIX CALCULATIONS
The mix calculations per unit volume of concrete shall be as follows:
a) Volume of concrete
b) Volume of cement
=
=
c) Volume of water
1m
(404/2.99)/1000 = 0.1324 m3
=
=
0.202 m3
[a-(b+c)]
[1-(0.1324+0.202)]
0.704 m3
28
of CA x 1000)
c) M50 CONCRETE
1) STIPULATIONS FOR PROPORTIONING:
a.
Grade designation
: M50
b. Type of cement
2)
: 20 mm
: 340 kg/m
: 0.45
f. Workability
g. Exposure Condition
: Very Severe
: Pumping
i. Degree of Supervision
: Good
j. Type of Aggregate
: Crushed aggregate
: 450 kg/m
: Super-plasticizer
Cement used
: 2.99
c. Specific gravity of
(i) Coarse aggregate
: 2.69
: 2.57
d. Water Absorption
(i) Coarse aggregate
: 0.5%
: 1.0%
: NIL
: NIL
29
f. Sieve Analysis
(i) Coarse aggregate
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
MIX CALCULATIONS
The mix calculations per unit volume of concrete shall be as follows:
a) Volume of concrete
b) Volume of cement
1m
0.1448 m3
=
c) Volume of water
=
=
0.202 m3
[a-(b+c)]
[1-(0.1448+0.202)]
0.7095 m3
=
f) Mass of fine aggregate
Concrete ingredient
1
2
3
4
5
Cement (kg)
Water (kg)
Fine aggregate (kg)
Coarse aggregate (kg)
Water cement ratio
M35
M45
364
202
698
1198
0.555
404
202
731
1129
0.500
433
202
773
1099
0.467
31
other ingredients remain unchanged. The mix proportioning was made for all the three
grades of concrete i.e. M25, M35, and M45 and the summary is presented in Table.
Table Summary of Mix Proportioning - (Fly ash Concrete)
Grades of concrete (per cum. quantities)
Sl.
No
Concrete ingredient
1
2
3
4
5
6
Cement (kg)
Fly ash (kg)
Water (kg)
Fine aggregate (kg)
Coarse aggregate (kg)
Water cement ratio
M25
M35
M45
273
91
202
698
1198
0.555
303
101
202
731
1129
0.500
324.75
108.25
202
773
1099
0.467
3.4
Concrete ingredient
GGBS (kg)
Cement (kg)
Water (kg)
Fine aggregate (kg)
Coarse aggregate (kg)
Water cement ratio
M25
M35
M45
182
182
202
698
1198
0.555
202
202
202
731
1129
0.500
216.5
216.5
202
773
1099
0.467
Specimens (Moulds)
Standard moulds were used for moulding concrete test specimens. A cube
32
nominal size of the coarse aggregate of 20mm. All these specimens were of cast iron of
enough thickness to prevent distortion. The dimensions of moulds used for investigation
were also satisfied the tolerance limits.
3.5
casting the test specimens. Weigh batching was adopted for measuring the quantities of
various constituents of concrete before mixing the same. The quantities of cement, fly ash
in case of fly ash concrete, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water, super plasticizer for
each batch were measured as per the standard laboratory practice before taking up mixing
process. The mixing of concrete was carried out in a mechanical mixer and ensured that all
the aggregates are surface coated with cohesive cement paste uniformly. It was also
ensured uniform color, homogeneous mixing and consistency before placing the concrete
into the moulds kept ready with oil coated surface. The moulds were filled with concrete
in three layers and then vibrated on vibrating table. The top surface of concrete was
strucked off to the level with a trowel finish to facilitate coding. The specimens were
allowed for air curing and de-moulded on the next day before curing. The curing tanks /
drums with potable water or marine water as the case may be were kept ready for keeping
the test specimens for curing as per the required duration.
3.6
due date of testing. There are three types of concretes in addition to reference concrete
selected for investigation and they are designated as follows.
Fly ash concrete
GGBS concrete
33
Reference concrete means that the concrete is made using 53 grade ordinary
Portland cement. Normal concrete is nothing but reference concrete. Fly ash concrete, the
term itself indicates that the concrete is made with fly ash replacement. Similarly the
GGBS concrete can be defined as ground granulated blast furnace slag concrete prepared
with ready to use slag cement.
The present study investigates three types of concretes such as Fly ash concrete as
F and GGBS concrete as G in addition to Reference concrete as R. Three concrete mixes
of grades M25, M35 and M45 are considered. The period of exposure for the above
concretes and grades was 7 days, 14 days, 28 days and 56 days. Three types of exposures
were adopted in the study. They were designated as PP for concrete mixing and curing
with potable water, PS for concrete mixing with potable water and curing with sea water
and SS for the concrete both mixing and curing with sea water.
3.7
Testing of Concrete
The objective of testing concrete is to determine the properties of fresh concrete
and hardened concrete. Accordingly Slump cone test was conducted for each batch of the
concrete. The Compression test was carried on hardened concrete at the age of 7 days, 14
days, 28 days and 56 days.
3.7.1 Tests on Fresh Concrete
As the workability is the property of fresh concrete which determines the ease and
homogeneity with which it can be mixed, placed, Slump test were conducted so as to
compare the achievement desired slump.
3.7.1.1 Slump Cone Test
The test is used extensively in site all over the world. The slump test does not
measure the workability of concrete, but the test is very useful in detecting variations in the
uniformity of a mix of given nominal proportions.
34
: 100 mm
The mould for slump is a frustum of a cone, 300 mm high. It is placed on a smooth
surface with the smaller opening at the top, and filled with concrete in three layers. Each
layer is tamped twenty five times with a standard 16 mm diameter steel rod, rounded at the
end, and the top surface is strucked off by means of sawing and rolling motion of the
tamping rod. The mould must be firmly fixed against its base during the entire operation.
This is facilitated by handles or foot-rests brazed to the mould. Immediately after filling, the
cone is slowly lifted vertically up, and the unsupported concrete will now slump and hence
the name of the test. The difference in level between the height of the mould and that of
highest point of subsided concrete is measured. This difference in height in mm is taken as
slump of concrete. The slump observations are presented in Table 3.22.
Table Slump observations
SL.
NO
Mix Designation
Slump (mm)
150
2.
150
3.
145
4.
M30
150
5.
M40
150
6.
M50
135
7.
140
8.
140
9.
135
35
135
11.
135
12.
130
13.
M30
150
14.
M40
145
15.
M50
140
16.
150
17.
150
18.
145
145
20.
150
21.
140
22.
M30
150
23.
M40
145
24.
M50
140
25.
150
26.
145
27.
140
150
29.
142
30.
140
31.
M30
150
32.
M40
145
33.
M50
140
34.
140
35.
145
36.
150
36
The compressive strength results are presented in Tables below & the testing of specimens
is presented at Fig.
Table Compressive Strength
Sl.
No
Mix Designation
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
25.67
30.62
36.30
38.12
32.32
39.20
45.39
48.28
37.30
45.74
53.76
54.97
M30
21.02
31.15
30.25
27.25
M40
31.25
35.83
35.75
36.06
M50
36.98
41.28
40.54
43.28
37
24.72
28.55
34.37
39.09
32.16
38.25
44.49
48.90
36.41
44.98
52.11
56.47
23.71
32.54
36.74
37.63
11
28.74
39.18
43.57
44.85
12
34.92
42.18
53.19
54.89
13
M30
18.15
22.28
23.15
25.18
14
M40
27.51
35.75
34.14
37.33
15
M50
33.17
35.82
40.28
42.20
16
22.12
29.27
31.98
33.09
17
27.95
35.14
38.15
43.17
18
34.23
41.28
48.27
53.11
22.16
26.61
29.99
32.16
20
26.03
33.04
40.01
41.71
21
32.75
38.67
44.98
48.78
22
M30
17.15
21.64
22.79
27.44
23
M40
25.87
27.79
31.26
33.76
24
M50
31.86
34.16
36.75
39.41
25
23.75
27.25
31.01
32.57
26
29.75
34.18
40.11
42.19
27
33.98
40.18
47.58
50.89
20.79
24.57
30.94
39.11
29
28.22
34.13
39.12
49.98
30
32.94
38.07
38.33
56.56
31
M30
25.48
28.66
33.02
33.24
38
32
M40
32.55
35.28
39.15
43.25
33
M50
36.25
38.88
40.25
51.25
34
24.47
27.81
32.14
41.48
35
31.14
33.25
37.36
52.51
36
35.91
37.73
38.41
59.48
Based on the results presented above the following bar charts are presented for
understanding the performance.
40
CHAPTER-4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1
GENERAL
For normal water mixing and sea water curing, Fly ash and GGBS concrete performed
almost similaly and better than normal concrete at 28 days and 56 days.
41
For sea water mixing and sea water curing, GGBS concrete, followed by Fly ash and then
normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and 56 days.
For Normal water mixing and sea water curing, Fly ash concrete , followed by GGBS
concrete and then normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and 56
days.
For Normal water mixing and Normal water curing, GGBS concrete, followed by Fly ash
and then normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and 56 days.
42
46
48
CHAPTER-5
CONCLUSIONS
5.1 Conclusions
Based on the compressive strength of concretes of different grades, blends and
EXPOSURE conditions in terms of mixing water and curing water, the following general
and specific conclusions can be drawn.
1. For normal water mixing and sea water curing, Fly ash and GGBS concrete performed
almost similaly and better than normal concrete at 28 days and 56 days.
2. For sea water mixing and sea water curing, GGBS concrete, followed by Fly ash and
then normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and 56 days.
3. For Normal water mixing and sea water curing, Fly ash concrete , followed by GGBS
concrete and then normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and
56 days.
4. For Normal water mixing and Normal water curing, GGBS concrete, followed by Fly
ash and then normal concrete performed in the decending order at 28 days and 56
days.
For Normal water curing and Sea water mixing of M30, M40 and M50
5. Sea water curing has an effect on the compressive strength of normal concrete (M30,
M40 and M50) when compared to other concretes (25% flyash or 50% GGBS).
6. Sea water curing does not affect the compressive strength of concrete when flyash is
used as 25% in concrete.
7. Sea water curing does not affect the compressive strength of concrete when GGBS is
used as 50% in concrete.
For Sea water mixing and normal water curing of M30, M40 and M50
8. Sea water mixing has an effect on the compressive strength of normal concrete (M 30,
M40 and M50).
9. Sea water mixing has no effect on the compressive strength of concrete when flyash is
used as 25% in concrete.
10. Sea water mixing has also an effect on the compressive strength of concrete when
GGBS is used as 50% in concrete.
For Sea water mixing and Sea water curing of M30, M40 and M50
49
11. Sea water mixing and curing has an effect on the compressive strength of normal
concrete (M30, M40 and M50).
12. Sea water mixing and curing affects the compressive strength of concrete when flyash
is used as 25% replacement of cement in concrete.
13. 50% of GGBS based concrete reached their ultimate strength slowly.
For Normal water curing and Normal water mixing of M30, M40 and M50
14. Normal water mixing in concrete and curing with normal water has no affect on the
normal concrete
15. But other two blended concretes increase gradually their compressive strength from
28 days to 56 days.
5.2 Recommendations
Sea water can be used for concrete compression members.
5.3 Further research is desirable in the area of
Corrosive inhibitors to expand the adoption of sea water.
Other cements and higher grades of concretes.
Other RCC elements.
Bond strength.
Long term durability studies.
Application of Sea water for structural Reinforced concrete tensile members.
50
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Akinkurolere and school (2007), The influence of Salt Water on the Compressive
Strength of concrete. Journal of engineering and applied sciences, Vol. 2 No. 2, pp.
412 415.
2. Akinsola et al., (2012), Investigation of Salinity Effect on Compressive Strength of
Reinforced Concrete, Journal of Sustainable Development, Vol. 5 No. 6, Published
by Canadian Center of Science and Education.
3. Bakharev T (2005), Durability of geopolymer materials in sodium and magnesium
sulfate solutions, Cement and Concrete Research. 35(6), pp. 1233-1246.
4. Chalee et al., (2009): Marine Structures, Volume 22, Issue 3, July 2009, Pages 341
353, Predicting the chloride penetration of fly ash concrete in seawater, W. Chaleea, C.
Jaturapitakkulb, , , P. Chindaprasirtc doi:10.1016/j.marstruc.2008.12.001
5. Chalee et al., (2010): Utilization of fly ash concrete in marine environment for long
term design life analysis W. Chalee, P. Ausapanit, Chai Jaturapitakkul, Materials and
Design
(Impact
Factor:
3.17).
03/2010;
31(3):1242-1249.
DOI: 10.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.024
6. Cheewaket et al., (2014), Concrete durability presented by acceptable chloride level
and chloride diffusion coefficient in concrete: 10-year results in marine site. T.
Cheewaket, Chai Jaturapitakkul , W.Chalee, Materials and Structures (Impact Factor:
1.39). 09/2014; DOI: 10.1617/s11527-013-0131-4
7. Connell et al., (2012), Performance of concrete incorporating GGBS in aggressive
wastewater environments Construction and Building Materials, Volume 27, Issue 1,
February 2012, Pages 368374.
8. Daisuke Furuya, Nobuaki Otsuki,T Suyoshi Saito and Lee yun sub., A study on the
effects of sea water as mixing water on the hydration characteristics of blast-furnace
51
slag cement, 34th conference on our world in concrete structures, 16-18 August 2009,
Singapore.
9. Ernesto (2013), Salt-Contaminated mixing water & aggregates on time to initiate
Rebar Corrosion in concrete, International Journal of Scientific & Engineering
Research, Vol.4, issue 4, April-2013.
10. Fernandez-Jimenez A, et al., (2007) Durability of alkali-activated fly ash
cementitious materials. Journal of Materials Science. 42(9), pp. 3055-3065.8
11. Kong et al., (2007), comparative performance of geopolymers made with metakaolin
and fly ash after exposure to elevated temperatures. Cement and concrete research.
37(12), pp 1583-1589.
12. Kucche et al., (2015), Quality of Water for Making Concrete: A Review of
Literature International Journal of Scientific & Research Publications, volume 5,
issue 1, January 2015.
13. C. Marthong and T.P Agrawal (2012), Effect of Fly Ash additive on Concrete
properties, International journal of engineering research and applications (IJERA)
ISSN: 2248-9622 Vol. 2, issue4, July-august 2012, pp. 1986-1991.
14. Mbadike and Elinwa (2011), Effect of Salt Water in the production of concrete,
Nigerian Journal of Technology, Vol. 30, No. 2
15. Moinul et al., (2011), Suitability of Sea Water on Curing and Compressive Strength
of Structural Concrete Journal of Civil Engineering (IEB), 40(1) (2012) 37-45.
16. Takahiro Nishida, Nobuaki Otsuki, Hiroki Ohara, Zoulkanel Moussa Garba-Say
and Tomohiro Nagata., Some considerations for the applicability of sea water as
mixing water in concrete, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on
Sustainable Construction materials and Technologies, Kyoto, Japan, August 2013.
52
17. Nobuaki et al., (2012), Possibility of Sea Water as Mixing Water in Concrete, Vol.
6, No. 10, pp.1273-1279.
18. Olivia M, and Nikraz H, (2012), Properties of Fly Ash Geopolymer Concrete in sea
water environment
19. Pavia,S, and Condren, E (2008), Study of the durability of OPC verses GGBS
concrete on exposure to Silage Effluent J Mat civil eng 2008; 20(4): 313-320.
20. Preeti et al., (2014), Effect of Salt Water On Compressive Strength Of Concrete,
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications ISSN : 2248-9622,
Vol. 4, Issue 4( Version 5), April 2014, pp.38-42.
21. Ramya and Kashyap (2014), An Experimental Study on Durability of Concrete
Using Fly Ash & GGBS for M30 Grade Concrete, International Journal of
Engineering Research and Development e-ISSN: 2278-067X, p-ISSN: 2278-800X,
Volume 10, Issue 11 (November 2014), PP.01-05.
22. Sadaqat et al., (2014), Review Article Effects of Different Mineral Admixtures on
the Properties of Fresh Concrete, Hindawi Publishing Corporation the Scientific
World journal.
23. Saravanan et al., (2013): Flyash Based Geopolymer Concrete A State of the Art
Review, Journal of Engineering Science and Technology Review 6 (1) (2013) 25-32.
24. Suvarnalatha et al., (2012), Estimation of GGBS & HVFA strength efficiencies in
concrete with age, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT), Vol.2, Issue-2, December 2012.
25. Swaroop et al., (2013), Durability Studies On Concrete With Fly Ash & Ggbs
International Journal of Engineering Research and Applications (IJERA),Vol. 3, Issue
4, Jul-Aug 2013, pp.285-289
53
26. Wegian (2010), Effect Of Sea Water For Mixing and Curing On Structural Concrete
Studies, The IES Journal Part A: Civil And Structural Engineering, Vol. 3, No.4, pp
235-243.
27. Indian standard Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, Indian Standards
Institution, IS 456: 1964. New Delhi.
28. Indian standard Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete for general building
construction, IS 456: 1978. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
29. Indian standard Code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete (Fourth Revision),
IS 456: 2000. Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
30. Indian standard specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement, IS 12269: 1987.
Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
31. Indian standard specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for
concrete, IS: 383:1970, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
32. Indian standard Concrete Admixtures-Specification (First Revision), IS: 9103:1999,
Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi
33. Indian standard Concrete Mix Proportioning-Guidelines (First Revision), IS:
10262:2009, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
34. IS 3812(Part-1): 2003, Indian Standard Pulvarised fuel ash - specification, (Second
Revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
54