CHAPTER 4
Results and Discussion
4.1 General
The results of the various experimental tests carried on various concrete mixes are presented
in this chapter. Details of the test scheme, test method and test matrix have been presented in
previous chapter. Firstly, this chapter will present the results of the experiments which includes
thermal conductivity of mortars and performance of mortars exposure to fire which are made
of various aggregates. Secondly, performance of previous concrete made of slag aggregate in
terms of strength and permeability will be presented. Besides, mechanical properties like
tensile strength, compressive strength, modulus of elasticity of different concrete mixes along
with XRF test results will also be presented. Moreover, load vs deflection diagram, moment vs
deflection diagram obtained from the tests on full scale (10 ft x 12 ft) of simply supported slabs
made of different aggregates and rebars. Deflection, number of cracks and maximum crack
width at service live load and factored design live load are also provided in this chapter. Lastly,
the durability performance of concrete specimens made of various mixes in exposure to marine
environment are presented in terms of resistance against chloride ingress through probability
of corrosion resistance and chloride diffusion co-efficient.
4.2 Test Results
4.2.1 Test Results of Thermal Conductivity
Thermal conductivity of four types of mortars made with four different types of fine aggregate
like induction furnace slag fine aggregate (slag fine aggregate), river sand, brick fine aggregate
and coarse sand was determined. All the fine aggregates were passing number 4 standard sieve
size (4.75 mm) and were retained on number 200 standard sieve size (0.075 mm). All the
mortars were made with an aggregate-cement ratio of 3:1 and water-cement ratio of 0.5.
The graph from which the cooling rate is determined is shown in Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5
and Figure 6. A tangent drawn on the curve at steady temperature, ϴ2 is presented by dotted
line and is shown in the Fig. 4.1 to Fig. 4.4.
dϴ/dt = 0.9545
Fig. 4.1: Temperature varying with time for mortar of slag fine during cooling
dϴ/dt = 1.3333
Fig. 4.2: Temperature varying with time for mortar of coarse sand during cooling.
dϴ/dt = 1.2222
Fig. 4.3: Temperature varying with time for mortar of brick fine during cooling.
dϴ/dt = 1.250
Fig 4.4: Temperature varying with time for mortar of river sand during cooling
The value of tangent, dϴ/dt at steady temperature ϴ2 was obtained from Fig 4.1 to Fig. 4.4.
The measured data and the value of dϴ/dt obtained from the graphs were used in Eq. 1 for
determining thermal conductivity. The measured data and the results of the tests are
summarized in Table 4.1.
Table 1. Summary of the test results
dθ/dt
K
Type of m d D α θ1 θ2 (oC min-1) K
s (Cal. cm-1 sec-
Mortar (g) (cm) (cm) (sq. cm) (oC) (oC) (From 1 o -1 (W m-1 K-1)
C )
Graph)
Slag
10.01 62.
Fine 791.6 0.089 2.317 78.78 98.5 0.9545 0.000915577 0.384542
5 5
Mortar
Coarse
10.15
Sand 791.6 0.089 2.305 80.97 97.5 69 1.3333 0.001563834 0.656810
3
Mortar
Brick
10.15
Fine 791.6 0.089 2.305 80.94 97.5 63 1.2222 0.001184603 0.497533
2
Mortar
River
10.18
Sand 791.6 0.089 2.328 81.45 97.5 68 1.25 0.001422359 0.597391
3
Mortar
Thermal conductivity was found 0.385, 0.657, 0.498 and 0.597 Wm-1K-1 for mortars made of
slag, coarse sand, brick and river sand respectively.
4.2.2 Test Results of Mortar Performance against Fire
The summary of test results is presented in Table 4.2
Table 4.2: Summary of the test results
Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa)
After burning After burning
Aggregate Normal Normal
W/C Water Air Water Air
Type Sample Sample
Cooled Cooled Cooled Cooled
(unburnt) (unburnt)
Sample Sample Sample Sample
0.4 42.6 33.1 11.2 6.6 4.9 0.5
Coarse
0.5 40.8 27.7 6.6 6.0 3.2 0.2
Sand
0.6 36.9 18.6 5.4 5.3 2.4 0.1
0.4 24.6 22.1 10.2 5.5 4.7 1.6
River Sand 0.5 22.8 18.6 7.6 5.4 4.0 1.0
0.6 21.9 11.6 5.8 5.1 3.1 0.2
0.4 35.8 32.8 20.4 6.5 3.9 1.8
Brick Fine 0.5 25.3 24.5 10.7 5.4 3.4 0.8
0.6 23.8 15.6 7.3 5.3 2.8 0.5
0.4 44.5 31.4 24.0 8.6 4.3 1.4
Slag Fine 0.5 36.4 24.7 18.1 8.0 3.8 0.6
0.6 34.6 18.9 13.5 5.4 3.2 0.2
The results show that significant strength (50%-80% compressive and 70%-95% flexural
strength) was lost for all four types of mortar when they were exposed to fire up to a
temperature of 5100 C for 2 hours. However, the strength (30%-40% compressive and 50%-
60% flexural strength) was regained to a large extent when the mortars were cooled using
water. This is illustrated in Fig. 4.5 and Fig. 4.6.
Fig. 4.5: Variation of compressive strength with water-cement ratio for different types of
mortars under different conditions.
Fig. 4.6: Variation of flexural strength with water-cement ratio for different types of mortars
under different conditions.
From the above figures, it can be seen that mortars made of coarse sand and river sand showed
remarkable reduction of strength (70%-80% compressive and 85%-95% flexural strength)
when exposed to fire than mortars made of slag fine and brick fine aggregate (50%-55%
compressive and 70%-80% flexural strength). Besides, the regaining of strengths (35%-40%
compressive and 55%-60% flexural strength) in contact with water were also remarkable for
mortars made of coarse sand and river sand. Whereas, the difference of strength under various
conditions was less remarkable for mortars made of slag fine and brick fine aggregate. The
performance of different types of cement mortars as a thermal barrier during a fire incident
largely depends on its thermal conductivity. Mortars made of slag fine and brick fine had a
lower thermal conductivity (0.38 to 0.48 W m-1 K-1) compare to mortars made of river sand
and course sand (0.60 to 0.65 W m-1 K-1) and that’s why mortar made of slag fine and brick
fine showed better performance.
4.2.3 Test Result for Performance of Pervious Concrete
The compressive strength and Permeability for all the samples are presented in table 4.3.
Table 4.3: Average compressive strength and permeability of test specimens
Corresponding
Designation Compressive Strength
Permeability (mm/hr)
ID Obtained (psi)
Cylinder Cube
Slab-1 330 470 89876
Slab-2 420 540 69555
Slab-3 540 700 78020
Slab-4 470 630 26789
Slab-5 540 740 51214
Slab-6 620 950 61941
Slab-7 2970 3130 4097
Slab-8 3100 4460 3494
Slab-9 3890 4690 7351
Compressive strength for cube samples were higher than the cylindrical samples. Compressive
strength increased with the decrease in the aggregate size and water-cement ratio which is
illustrated in Fig. 4.7.
Permeability of pervious slag concrete increased with the increase of aggregate size which is
illustrated in Fig. 4.8.
Fig. 4.7: Compressive strength varying with water-cement ratio
Fig. 4.8: Permeability varying with maximum aggregate size
4.2.4 Test Result for Mechanical Properties
[Link] Compressive Strength Test
Compressive strength test of the samples for 7 days and 28 days is illustrated in table 4.4.
Table 4.4: Summary of compressive strength test
Compressive strength (psi)
Types
7 Days 28 Days
A 2590 3740
B 2660 4270
C 2950 3920
D 2180 3260
E 2760 4180
F 2640 3830
G 3190 4600
H 3140 4860
I 2740 4150
J 3050 4360
K 3250 4770
L 2950 3990
M 3580 5320
N 3070 4800
O 2670 3770
P 3340 5100
Q 3370 4660
R 2440 3650
S 1490 2230
T 1950 2440
U 1650 2020
V 1520 2140
W 1510 2300
X 1310 2000
From table 4.4, the tensile strength of samples from A to F where slag is used as coarse and
fine aggregate varies from 2180 psi to 2950 psi (average 2630 psi) for 7 days and varies from
3269 psi to 4270 psi (average 3867 psi) for 28 days. If a mixture of slag and brick is used as
coarse aggregate and slag is used as fine aggregate in samples from G to L, the tensile strength
of these samples varies from 2740 psi to 3250 psi (average 3053 psi) for 7 days and varies from
3990 psi to 4860 psi (average 4455 psi) for 28 days. If brick is used as coarse and fine aggregate
in samples from M to R, the tensile strength of these samples varies from 2440 psi to 3580 psi
(average 3078 psi) for 7 days and varies from 3650 psi to 5320 psi (average 4550 psi) for 28
days.` The tensile strength of samples from S to X where brick is used as coarse aggregate and
slag is used as fine aggregate varies from 1310 psi to 1950 psi (average 1572 psi) for 7 days
and varies from 2000 psi to 2440 psi (average 2188 psi) for 28 days.
[Link] Tensile Strength Test
Tensile strength test of the samples for 7 days and 28 days is illustrated in table 4.5.
Table 4.5: Summary of tensile strength test
Types Tensile strength (psi)
7 Days 28 Days
A 410 620
B 500 640
C 430 710
D 400 680
E 480 670
F 530 610
G 590 640
H 590 630
I 500 600
J 600 750
K 660 760
L 570 590
M 770 900
N 600 730
O 510 700
P 550 800
Q 610 620
R 450 560
S 480 730
T 520 710
U 420 610
V 380 550
W 380 650
X 400 590
From table 4.5, the tensile strength of samples from A to F where slag is used as coarse and
fine aggregate varies from 410 psi to 530 psi (average 458 psi) for 7 days and varies from 610
psi to 710 psi (average 655 psi) for 28 days. If a mixture of slag and brick is used as coarse
aggregate and slag is used as fine aggregate in samples from G to L, the tensile strength of
these samples varies from 500 psi to 660 psi (average 585 psi) for 7 days and varies from 590
psi to 760 psi (average 662 psi) for 28 days. If brick is used as coarse and fine aggregate in
samples from M to R, the tensile strength of these samples varies from 450 psi to 770 psi
(average 582 psi) for 7 days and varies from 560 psi to 900 psi (average 718 psi) for 28 days.`
The tensile strength of samples from S to X where brick is used as coarse aggregate and slag
is used as fine aggregate varies from 380 psi to 520 psi (average 430 psi) for 7 days and varies
from 550 psi to 730 psi (average 640 psi) for 28 days.
[Link] Modulus of Elasticity
A summary of modulus of elasticity of the test is presented in table 4.6. The detail report of
this test is presented in Appendix-B.
Table 4.6: Summary of Modulus of Elasticity test
Modulus of Elasticity, E
Samples
(psi)
A 4927068
B 8622369
C 12071316
E 11381527
F 5789305
G 10531607
H 13303083
I 5912481
J 4138737
K 7575367
L 7285022
M 7883308
N 4877797
O 10593196
P 6733659
Q 7575367
R 7390602
S 4680714
T 4206958
U 5469045
V 5542951
W 9312158
X 4111022
From table 4.6, if slag is used as coarse and fine aggregate, then the modulus of elasticity of
samples from A to F varies from 5x106 psi to 12x106 psi (average almost 8.6x106 psi). From
samples G to L where coarse aggregate is a mixture of slag and brick and fine aggregate is slag,
then modulus of elasticity of these samples varies from 4x106 psi to 13x106 psi (average almost
8.1x106 psi). If brick is used in both coarse and fine aggregate in samples from M to R, then
modulus of elasticity varies from 4.8x106 psi to 10.5x106 psi (average almost 7.5x106 psi). The
modulus of elasticity of samples from S to X varies from 4.1x106 psi to 9.3x106 psi (average
almost 5.6x106 psi) where brick is used as coarse aggregate and slag is used as fine aggregate.
4.2.5 XRF Test Results
Slag is analyzed by x-ray fluorescence and table 4.7 shows the chemical compositions of the
slag.
Table 4.7: XRF test results
Analyte Result
SiO2 36.84%
Fe2O3 23.48%
CaO 18.01%
MnO 6.99%
MgO 5.31%
Al2O3 5.24%
TiO2 1.63%
ZnO 0.76%
K2O 0.74%
BaO 0.32%
SiO3 0.25%
Na2O 0.22%
P2O5 0.16%
CuO 0.05%
From table 4.7, the major components of slag are SiO2 (36.84%), Fe2O3 (23.48%) and CaO
(18.01%). Significant amount of MnO, MgO and Al2O3 are also present.
4.2.6 Test Results for Slabs under Uniformly Distributed Loads
In Fig. 4.9, load vs deflection curve of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 is shown for uniformly
distributed load where slabs S61 and S63 were loaded up-to the first crack appearance while
slabs S62 and S64 were loaded up-to 101 psf. Service load of S61, S62, S63 and S64 is 50 psf.
Allowable deflection for these slabs at service load is 20 mm (using L/180 for live loads
according to BNBC 15). Observed deflections of S61, S62, S63 and S64 at service load are 2
mm, 1.9 mm, 1.5 mm and 1.5 mm respectively which is less than the allowable deflection limit
of 20 mm. The observed ultimate load of slabs S61 and S63 is 148 psf. The observed ultimate
deflections of slabs S61 and S63 are 10.1 mm and 7.6 mm respectively at 148 psf while the
observed ultimate deflections of slabs S62 and S64 are 3.75 mm and 3.25 mm respectively at
101 psf.
Fig. 4.9: Load vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64.
Moment vs deflection curve of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 is shown in Fig. 4.10 for uniform
distributed load where slabs S61 and S63 were loaded up-to the first crack appearance while
slabs S62 and S64 were loaded up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.10: Moment vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64.
In Figure 8 and Figure 9, load vs deflection curve and moment vs deflection curve of slabs S61,
S62, S63 and S64 are shown for applied load 101 psf. The slabs were designed for 50 psf live
load and factored moment for that load is 0.51 kip-ft/ft.
Fig. 4.11: Load vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 subjected to UDL up-
to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.12: Moment vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 subjected to UDL
up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.13: Load vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S63 subjected to UDL up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.14: Moment vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S63 which subjected to UDL up-to
101 psf.
Fig. 4.15: Load vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S63 up-to the first crack appearance.
Fig. 4.16: Moment vs Deflection response of slabs S61, S63 up-to the first crack
appearance.
Fig. 4.17: Load vs Deflection response of slabs S62, S64 subjected to UDL up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.18: Moment vs Deflection response of slabs S62, S64 which subjected to UDL up-to
101 psf.
In Fig. 4.19, Fig. 4.20, Fig. 4.21 and Fig. 4.22, the final condition of slabs S61, S62, S63 and
S64 after loading are shown respectively. There is no crack formation at design live load
moment in these slabs. No cracks are visible in these slabs after loading 101 psf. But in slabs
S61 and S63, several cracks become visible after loading 148 psf.
Fig. 4.19: Slab S61 after loading up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.20: Slab S62 after loading up-to 148 psf.
Fig. 4.21: Slab S63 after loading up-to 101 psf.
Fig. 4.22: Slab S64 after loading up-to 148 psf.
A summary of the test results of the slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 under uniformly distributed
load (UDL) is presented below:
Table 4.8: Summary of the test results
Designation S61 S62 S63 S64
Grade of Reinforcement (ksi) 60 60 60 60
Diameter of the main Bar (mm) 10 6 10 6
Spacing of the main bar (inch) 8 4 8 4
Loading Type UDL UDL UDL UDL
Service Live Load (psf) 50 50 50 50
First Crack Load (psf) - 137.5 - 148
Moment (K-ft/ft) at first crack
- 0.825 - 0.888
load
Allowable Crack Width (mm)
0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
at service Live Load condition
Allowable Deflection (mm) at
20 20 20 20
service Live Load condition
Crack Width (mm) at service
0 0 0 0
Live Load
Deflection (mm) at service
2 1.9 1.5 1.5
Live Load
Design Live Load Moment (K-
0.51 0.51 0.51 0.51
ft/ft)
Crack Width (mm) at Design
0 0 0 0
Live Load Moment
Deflection (mm) at Design
3.1 3 2.8 2.9
Live Load Moment
From the summary table 4.13 we can conclude that the three slabs S61, S62, S63 and S64 are
able to meet the limit state of deflection at design moment capacity. And they also successfully
remain within the limit state of deflection and crack width at service load condition.
4.2.7 Test Results for Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT)
Fig. 4.23: Summary of RCPT result.
Table 4.9: ASTM standard for RCPT
ASTM C1202 standard
Charge Passed Chloride
Typical of
(Coulombs) Permeability
> 4,000 High High W/C ratio (>0.60) conventional PCC
2,000 – 4,000 Medium Moderate W/C ratio (0.40-0.50) conventional PCC
1,000 – 2,000 Low Low W/C ratio (<0.40) conventional PCC
100 – 1,000 Very low Latex-modified concrete or internally-sealed concrete
< 100 Negligible Polymer-impregnated concrete, Polymer concrete
In Fig. 4.19, Samples from A to F where slag is used as coarse and fine aggregate, almost is
the range between 2000 to 4000 coulombs. Chloride permeability of these samples is medium
which is illustrated in table 4.9. Again, samples from G to L where coarse aggregate is mixture
of slag and brick and fine aggregate is slag, almost is the range between 2000 to 4000 coulombs.
Chloride permeability of these samples is medium. If brick aggregate is used in samples from
M to R instead of slag as coarse and fine aggregate, then chloride permeability becomes high
in these samples as passed change is above 4000 coulombs. Again, if brick is used as coarse
aggregate and slag is used as fine aggregate in samples from S to X, then passed charge of most
of the samples range between 2000 to 4000 coulombs while passed charge of few samples is
above 4000 coulombs. So, chloride permeability decreases if slag is used either in coarse
aggregate or fine aggregate or in both aggregate.
4.2.8 Test Results for Rapid Chloride Migration Test (RMT)
Fig. 4.24: Summary of RMT result
Table 4.10: NT BUILD 492 code for RMT
NT BUILD 492,1999
Chloride Diffusion Co-
Resistance
efficient(x10^-12 m^2/s)
Drcm≤2 VeryGood
2<Drcm<8 Good
8<Drcm<16 Acceptable
Drcm≥16 Unacceptable
Chloride diffusion coefficient of most of the samples from A to F ranges in between 8 to 12
which is acceptable while rest of these sample range in between 6 to 8 which is considered
good. Again, most of the samples from G to L range in between 10 to 15 which is acceptable
and chloride resistance of rest of these samples are considered as good where they range in
between 6 to 8. If brick is used as coarse and fine aggregate in samples M to R, then chloride
resistance of almost all samples is acceptable and they range in between10 to 13. Most of the
samples from S to X range in between 9 to 16 which is acceptable where brick is used as coarse
aggregate and slag is used as fine aggregate. And chloride diffusion coefficient of rest of the
samples is slightly over 16 which cannot be considered as acceptable.