Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: [Link]/locate/conbuildmat

Influence of water/powder ratio on strength properties of self-compacting

concrete containing coal fly ash and bottom ash
Rafat Siddique a, Paratibha Aggarwal b,⇑, Yogesh Aggarwal b
a
Civil Engineering Department, Thapar University, Patiala 147 004, India
b
Civil Engineering Department, National Institute of Technology, Kurukshetra, India

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The paper deals influence of water/powder ratio on strength properties of self-compacting concrete (SCC)
Received 9 January 2011 containing coal bottom ash. SCC was made with coal bottom ash as replacement of fine aggregates in
Received in revised form 5 September 2011 varying percentages of 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% and fly ash as replacement of cement in varying percentages
Accepted 2 October 2011
of 15–35%. Strength properties tests were carried out at the ages of 28, 90 and 365 days for the various
Available online 24 November 2011
mixes.
Results indicate the behaviour similar to normal SCC of increase in strength on decrease of water–pow-
Keywords:
der ratio. A comparison between SCC with various fly ash contents and with various replacements of fine
Self-compacting concrete
Water–powder ratio
aggregates with bottom ash showed that SCC obtained strength increase on decrease of w/p from 0.439 to
Compressive strength 0.414 for 0% bottom ash, 0.50–0.47 for 10% bottom ash, 0.58–0.51 for 20% bottom ash and 0.620–0.546 for
Split tensile strength 30% bottom ash. All mixes showed strength gain beyond 28 days and the mixes with 15% and 35% fly ash
Bottom ash mixes gained strength of the order of 60 MPa and 40 MPa, respectively at 90 days. However, it was pos-
Fly ash sible to produce SCC with a compressive strength of 40–50 MPa with 15–35% fly ash replacement. The
bottom ash could be used up to 20% keeping in view the decrease of strength of about 15–20% (if fly
ash percentages with 15% and 20% are not taken into consideration), as they show higher decrease of
strength. Thus, the optimum fly ash percentage was 25–35% and bottom ash percentage was up to 20%
in the present study.
Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction A research [7] was aimed at evaluating the usage of Rice Husk
Ash (RHA) as viscosity modifying agent in SCC, and to study the rel-
Self-compacting concrete (SCC) has gained significant impor- ative costs of the materials used in SCC. Test results substantiate the
tance in recent years because of the advantages it offers [1–6]. feasibility to develop low cost SCC using RHA. In the fresh state of
SCC was developed in Japan [1] in the late 1980s to be mainly used concrete, the different mixes of concrete have slump flow in the
for highly congested reinforced structures. Recently, this concrete range of 595–795 mm, L-box ratio ranging from 0 (stucked) to 1
has gained wide use in many countries for different applications and flow time ranging from 2.2 to 29.3 s. The compressive strengths
and structural configurations. developed by the SCC mixes with RHA were comparable to the con-
SCC requires a high slump that can easily be achieved by trol concrete. Cost analysis showed that the cost of ingredients of
superplasticizer addition to a concrete mix and special attention specific SCC mix is 42.47% less than that of control concrete. A study
has to be paid to mix proportioning. SCC often contains a large [8] investigated compressive strength and particularly drying
quantity of powder materials which is required to maintain suffi- shrinkage properties of self-compacting concretes containing bin-
ciently low yield stress to provide flowability at a plastic viscosity ary, ternary, and quaternary blends of Portland cement, fly ash
which is high enough to effectively avoid segregation. As, the use of (FA), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), silica fume
a large quantity of cement increases cost and results in greater (SF), and metakaolin (MK). Based on the findings of this study, the
temperature rise, the use of mineral admixtures such as fly ash, following conclusions may be drawn: There was a marked reduc-
bottom ash, blast furnace slag, or limestone filler could increase tion in the compressive strength of the concretes with increasing
the slump of the concrete mixture without increasing its cost. FA content while the concretes having GGBFS had comparable
strength values to that of the control concrete. The SF and MK con-
cretes, on the other hand, had consistently higher compressive
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 1744 225741; fax: +91 1744 238050. strength than the control concrete. The negative effect of FA on
E-mail addresses: paratibha@[Link] (P. Aggarwal), yogesh.24@rediff
the compressive strength was relatively diminished with the ter-
[Link] (Y. Aggarwal). nary and quaternary use of mineral admixtures. According to the

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/[Link].2011.10.035
74 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81

GLM-ANOVA result, FA appeared to be most effective factor on the Fine aggregate Bottom ash
compressive strength; however, the effect of GGBFS appeared to be
insignificant. The contribution of FA, MK, and SF were 26.7%, 12.7%, 100 99.45 100
94.25
and 9.7%, respectively.

Percentage Passing
84.85
An investigation [9] presented the transport and mechanical 80
76.5
properties of self consolidating concrete that contained high per-
centages of low-lime and high-lime fly ash (FA). Self consolidating 60
concretes (SCCs) containing five different contents of high-lime FA
40 40.8
and low-lime FA as a replacement of cement were examined along
with a control SCC mixture without any FA for comparison. The
20
fresh properties of the SCCs were observed through, slump flow
time and diameter, V-funnel flow time, L-box height ratio, and seg- 6
0
regation ratio. The hardened properties included the compressive 100 1000 10000
strength, split tensile strength, drying shrinkage and transport Sieve Size (microns)
properties (absorption, sorptivity and rapid chloride permeability
tests) up to 365 days. Test results conformed that it was possible Fig. 1. Grading curves for fine aggregates (sand and bottom ash).
to produce SCC with a 70% of cement replacement by both types
of FA. The use of high volumes of FA in SCC not only improved
the workability and transport properties but also made it possible Table 1
Chemical properties of fly ash and bottom ash.
to produce concretes between 33 and 40 MPa compressive
strength at 28 days, which exceeds the nominal compressive Sr. no. Constituents wt.%
strength for normal concrete (30 MPa). Fly ash Bottom ash
Previous studies have shown that the use of mineral admixtures
1. Loss on ignition 4.17 5.80
such as fly ash and blast furnace slag could increase the slump of 2. Silica (SiO2) 58.55 57.76
the concrete mixture without increasing its cost, while reducing 3. Iron oxide (Fe2 O3) 3.44 8.56
the dosage of superplasticizer needed to obtain similar slump flow 4. Alumina (Al2 O3) 28.20 21.58
5. Calcium oxide (CaO) 2.23 1.58
compared to concrete made with Portland cement only [10]. Also,
6. Magnesium oxide (MgO) 0.32 1.19
the use of fly ash improves rheological properties and reduces the 7. Total sulphur (SO3) 0.07 0.02
cracking potential of concrete as it lowers the heat of hydration of 8. Alkalies: (a) Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.58 0.14
the cement [11]. Kim et al. [12] studied the properties of super (b) Potassium oxide (K2O) 1.26 1.08
flowing concrete containing fly ash and reported that the replace- The properties of fly ash and bottom ash conform to IS: 3812-2003.
ment of cement by 30% (40% for only one mixture) fly ash resulted
in excellent workability and flowability. Other researchers [13]
evaluated the influence of supplementary cementitious materials 2.3. Admixtures
on workability and concluded that the replacement of cement by
30% of fly ash can significantly improve rheological properties. A polycarboxylic ether based superplasticizer complying with ASTM C-494 type
F, with density approximately 1.10 and pH approximately 5.0 was used.
The use of fly ash reduces the demand for cement, fine fillers and
sand [14], which are required in high quantities in SCC. Moreover,
2.4. Aggregates
the incorporation of fly ash also reduces the need for viscosity-
enhancing chemical admixtures. Locally available natural sand with 4.75 mm maximum size was used as fine
The objective of this paper is to measure the fresh properties aggregate, and crushed stone as coarse aggregate with 16 mm maximum size,
and strength properties like compressive and split tensile strength was used. Both fine aggregate and coarse aggregate conformed to Indian Standard
Specifications BIS: 383-1970. The coarse and fine aggregates had a specific gravity
at the ages of 28, 90 and 365 days for the various mixes, incorpo- of 2.67, and water absorptions of 0.95% and 0.90%, and fineness modulus as 6.86 and
rating bottom ash as partial replacement of fine aggregates in vary- 2.32, respectively, as shown in Fig. 1. The bulk density (loose and compacted) was
ing percentages of 10%, 20% and 30% and fly ash as replacement of observed to be 1460 and 1540 kg/m3 for coarse aggregates and 1590 and 1780 kg/
cement in varying percentages of 15–35% along with the effect of m3 for fine aggregates, respectively.
water/powder ratio on the strengths.
3. Experimental program

2. Materials used 3.1. Mixture proportions

2.1. Cement The proportions of the concrete mixtures are summarized in Ta-
Ordinary Portland cement (Grade 43) with normal consistency 28% and initial
bles 2a and 2b. Twenty concrete mixtures were tested, with five
and final setting times as 75 and 215 min was used. It had specific gravity as 3.15 mixes for each percentage of replacement by bottom ash, which
and 7-day compressive strength as 37 MPa and conformed to BIS: 8112-1989 had total powder content to 550 kg/m3 (cement + fly ash). Coarse
specifications. aggregate content was maintained at 39% by volume (590 kg/m3)
of concrete and fine aggregate content at 45% by volume of mortar
in concrete (910 kg/m3), with air-content being assumed to be 2%.
2.2. Fly ash and coal bottom ash
The various SCC mixes with fly ash as 15%, 20%, 25%, 30% and 35%
Class F Fly ash obtained from ‘‘Panipat Thermal Power Station, Panipat’’, Harya- by weight of total powder content were developed, and their mix
na with specific gravity 2.13, was used. In addition to fly ash, there are vast amounts proportions and fresh properties are given in Table 2.
of substandard (coarse) bottom ash that can be utilized in the concrete industry.
Coal bottom ash was also obtained from Panipat Thermal Power Station, Panipat, 3.2. Preparation, and casting of specimens
Haryana. Specific gravity of bottom ash was 1.93 and fineness modulus was ob-
served to be 1.6, as shown in Fig. 1, with bulk density loose and compacted as
776 and 948 kg/m3, respectively. The chemical properties of fly ash and bottom For these mix proportions, required quantities of materials were
ash are presented in Table 1. weighed and mixing of cement and fly ash in dry state and coarse
 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81 75

Table 2a
Mix composition for 0% and 10% bottom ash mixes.

Mix 0% Bottom ash 10% Bottom ash

M01 M02 M03 M04 M05 M101 M102 M103 M104 M105
Cement (kg/m3) 465 440 415 385 355 465 440 415 385 355
Fly ash (kg/m3) 85 110 135 165 195 85 110 135 165 195
Fly ash (%) 15 20 25 30 35 15 20 25 30 35
C.A. (kg/m3) 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590
F.A. (kg/m3) 910 910 910 910 910 819 819 819 819 819
B.A. (kg/m3) – – – – – 91 91 91 91 91
S.P. (%) 1.95 2.00 1.80 1.80 1.80 1.85 1.80 1.50 1.60 1.70
w/p 0.41 0.41 0.42 0.43 0.44 0.472. 0.48 0.48 0.49 0.50
Slump flow
Dia. (mm) 675 690 605 675 635 675 605 625 605 645
T50cm s 4.5 3.0 4.5 3.0 4.0 3.5 2.5 2.2 3.5 3.8
L-box (H2/H1) 0.9 0.9 0.6 0.95 0.92 0.8 0.82 0.8 0.7 0.9
U-box (H1–H2) (mm) 20 10 50 15 20 25 20 65 50 30
V-funnel
T10s s 7.5 4.5 7 5 10 6.6 7.5 5.2 8.9 9
T5min s 15 5 8.5 9.5 18 12.5 12.5 6.8 16 18
Room temp. 31 32 32 33 32 29 32 33 30 32
Conc temp. 30 29 28 29 28 27 29 29.5 28 28.5

Table 2b
Mix composition for 20% and 30% bottom ash mixes.

Mix 20% Bottom ash 30% Bottom ash

M201 M202 M203 M204 M205 M301 M302 M303 M304 M305
Cement (kg/m3) 465 440 415 385 355 465 440 415 385 355
Fly ash (kg/m3) 85 110 135 165 195 85 110 135 165 195
Fly ash (%) 15 20 25 30 35 15 20 25 30 35
C.A. (kg/m3) 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590 590
F.A. (kg/m3) 728 728 728 728 728 640 640 640 640 640
B.A. (kg/m3) 182 182 182 182 182 270 270 270 270 270
S.P. (%) 1.9 1.3 1.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 1.2 2.0 1.3 1.3
w/p 0.51 0.52 0.54 0.56 0.58 0.55 0.55 0.56 0.61 0.62
Slump flow
Dia. (mm) 590 645 600 600 590 625 600 590 610 590
T50cm s 6.0 3.0 1.5 2.5 2.7 2.5 3.0 2.0 1.8 4
L-box (H2/H1) 0.95 0.95 0.6 0.9 0.8 0.82 0.7 0.6 0.87 0.86
U-box(H1-H2) mm 30 30 45 30 50 30 55 30 20 40
V-funnel
T10s s 6.5 4.5 7 6.5 8 4 4.8 4.2 5.4 6.1
T5min s 8.8 7.0 7.9 12.7 16 6.5 5.8 9.7 9.5 10.5
Room temp. 32 30 32 31 32 34 30 33 32 32
Conc temp. 28 27 28 28 28 28 27 30 29 28

and fine aggregates were mixed dry separately. Add half of the were duplicated and the average of measurements was given. In
mixing water to coarse and fine aggregates and mix for 3 min. Mix- order to reduce the effect of workability loss on variability of test
er is stopped and left covered for 15 min, then cement and fly ash results, fresh state properties of mixes were determined within a
added evenly over the aggregate and mixed for 30 s. Add remaining period of 30 min after mixing. The order of testing was as below,
water over next 30 s and then mixing continued for 3 min after respectively.
adding all the materials together in a mixer to obtain homoge-
neous mix. The casting immediately followed mixing, after carry- 1. Slump flow test and measurement of T50cm time;
ing out the tests for fresh properties. The top surface of the 2. V-funnel flow tests at 10 s T10s and 5 min T5min;
specimens was scraped to remove excess material and achieve 3. L-box test;
smooth finish. The specimens were removed from moulds after 4. U-box test
24 h and cured in water till testing. The cubes of size 150 mm were
cast for determination of compressive strength and 150  300 mm The slump flow represents the mean diameter of the mass of
cylinders for split tensile strength. All test measurements were ta- concrete after release of a standard slump cone; the diameter is
ken as the average of three readings for strength tests. measured in two perpendicular directions. According to Nagataki
and Fujiwara [15] a slump flow ranging from 500 to 700 mm is
3.3. Testing of the specimens considered as the slump required for a concrete to be self-com-
pacted. At more than 700 mm the concrete might segregate, and
3.3.1. Properties of fresh concrete and strength at less than 500 mm the concrete is considered to have insufficient
For determining the self-compactibility properties (slump flow, flow to pass through highly congested reinforcement. The stability
T50cm time, V-funnel flow times, L-box blocking ratio, U-box differ- of SCC mixtures was evaluated through the V-shaped funnel test.
ence in height) tests were performed. All fresh test measurements According to Khayat and Manai [16], a funnel test flow time less
76 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81

than 6 s is recommended for a concrete to qualify for an SCC. For 10% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
each mixture, the compressive strength was determined on three 20% fly ash 15% fly ash

Compressive Strength
cubes, and split tensile strength test on three cylinders at 28, 90, 50
and 365 days, as per IS 516:1959.
40

(MPa)
30
4. Results and discussion
20
4.1. Properties of fresh concrete
10
28 90 365
The slump flow test judges the capability of concrete to deform
under its own weight against the friction of the surface with no re- Age (Days)
straint present. A slump flow value ranging from 500 to 700 mm
Fig. 3. Compressive strength (10% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.
for a concrete to be self-compacting was suggested [15]. At slump
flow >700 mm, the concrete might segregate, and at <500 mm, the
concrete might have insufficient flow to pass through highly con- 20% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
gested reinforcement. All the mixes in the study conform to the 20% fly ash 15% fly ash
above range since the slump flow of SCC mixes is in the range of 50

Compressive Strength
590–675 mm. The slump flow time of the concrete, to reach diam-
eter (500 mm) for all mixes was less than 6 s. In addition to the 40
slump flow test, V-funnel test was also performed to assess the

(MPa)
flowability and stability of the SCC. V-funnel time, which is less 30
than 6 s, is recommended for concrete to qualify as a SCC [17].
As per EFNARC [18], time ranging from 6 to 12 s is considered ade- 20
quate for a SCC. The V-funnel flow times were in the range of 4–
10 s. Test results indicate that all SCC mixes meet the requirements 10
of allowable flow time. Maximum size of coarse aggregate was 28 90 365
kept as 16 mm in order to avoid blocking effect in the L-box. The Age (Days)
gap between rebars in L-box test was 35 mm. The L-box ratio
Fig. 4. Compressive strength (20% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.
(H2/H1) for the mixes was above 0.6. U-box difference in height
of concrete in two compartments was in the range of 10–65 mm.
Although all the mixes satisfied the workability criteria for SCC
30% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
mix, the best workability properties were obtained for all mixes 20% fly ash 15% fly ash
with 0% bottom ash. For 10% bottom ash, the mix with 30% fly 50
Compressive Strength

ash showed decrease in workability. With increase in bottom ash

content to 20%, the mixes at 15%, and 35% fly ash showed compar- 40
atively less workability. Finally, for 30% bottom ash, the mixes with
(MPa)

fly ash content 20%, 30% and 35% showed decrease in workability 30

as compared to other mixes. Thus, it was observed that the best
combination for filling ability, passing ability and segregation 20
resistance taking into consideration the slump flow values, V-fun-
nel, L-box and U-box workability characteristics was for 0% bottom 10
28 90 365
ash mixes for all fly ash contents and in the presence of 20% bottom
ash with 20–25% fly ash. Age (Days)

Fig. 5. Compressive strength (30% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.

4.2. Compressive strength

The compressive strength for different mixes with bottom ash tively. The results show that difference of compressive strength of
percentages varying from 0% to 30% is shown in Figs. 2–5, respec- various mixes depend on the bottom ash content in the mix. The
SCCs without bottom ash developed compressive strengths rang-
ing from 30 to 35, 40 to 60, 43 to 65 MPa at 28, 90 and 365 days,
0% Bottom ash 35% flyash
35% fly ash 30% flyash
30% fly ash 25% fly
25% flyash
ash respectively which is the compressive strength commonly used
20%fly ash
20% fly ash 15% flyash
15% fly ash for normal construction applications. It was observed that the
70 strength gain at 90 days and 365 days was within the limits corre-
Compressive Strength

sponding to the amount of cement content used in the SCC mixes.

60
The strength of M02 at 28 days and at 90 days was observed to be
50 sufficiently higher than that reported in literature [19].
(MPa)

At 10% replacement of fine aggregates with bottom ash,

40 strengths were observed to be in the range of 25–35 MPa, 33–
47 MPa, and 40–49 MPa at 28, 90, and 365 days, respectively. A
30 gain of strength of about 37% at 28 days and 21% at 365 days (as
compared to 18% and 40% for 0% bottom ash) was observed with
20 the decrease in fly ash contents from 35% (M105) to 15% (M101).
28 90 365
The gain of strength for 15% and 20% fly ash contents was higher
Age (Days)
as compared to other mixes in regards to 0% bottom ash mixes.
Fig. 2. Compressive strength (0% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents. As observed from Fig. 3, the strength was found to increase with
 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81 77

age for all mixes and also with percentages of fly ash varying from 10% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
35% to 15% at a particular age. 20% fly ash 15% fly ash
At 20% replacement with bottom ash, strengths were observed 3

Split Tensile Strength

to be in the range of 23–29 MPa, 32–40 MPa, and 38–45 MPa at
28, 90, and 365 days respectively. A gain of strength of about 23%
at 28 days and 18% at 365 days was observed with the decrease

(MPa)
in fly ash contents from 35% (M205) to 15% (M201). 2
For 30% replacement with bottom ash the strength of M301 was
observed to be 25.77 MPa at the age of 28 days. The findings
regarding the gain of strength at 28 days and 365 days of 41%
and 14%, respectively, with the decrease in fly ash contents from 1
28 90 365
35% (M305) to 15% (M301), are similar to the ones [20], wherein
they concluded that when the bottom ash content was increased, Age (days)
the decrease in compressive strength could be attributed to the in-
Fig. 7. Split tensile strength (10% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.
crease in water demand. In normal concrete also, reduction in
strength was observed up to 30% replacement of fine aggregate
with bottom ash. 20% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
28-day compressive strength for percentages of fly ash (15– 20% fly ash 15% fly ash
35%) and mixes at 10% bottom ash showed 0.3–14% strength de- 3
crease, 18–20% strength decrease with 20% bottom ash and 26–

Split Tensile Strength

38% decrease with 30% bottom ash in comparison to corresponding
mixes with 0% bottom ash. Similarly, 90-day compressive strength
for mixes with 10% bottom ash showed 15–21% strength decrease,

(MPa)
2
18–33% strength decrease with 20% bottom ash and 22–38% de-
crease with 30% bottom ash in comparison to corresponding mixes
with 0% bottom ash. Also, 365-day compressive strength for mixes
with 10% bottom ash showed the 7–20% strength decrease, 11–26%
strength decrease with 20% bottom ash and 16–32% decrease with 1
30% bottom ash, in comparison to corresponding mixes with 0% 28 90 365
bottom ash. Age (days)

Fig. 8. Split tensile strength (20% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.
4.3. Split tensile strength

Tensile strength is one of the most important fundamental 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash
30% Bottom ash
properties of concrete. An accurate prediction of tensile strength 20% fly ash 15% fly ash
of concrete will help in mitigating cracking problems, improve 3
shear strength prediction and minimise the failure of concrete in
Split Tensile Strength

tension due to inadequate methods of tensile strength prediction.

Split tensile strength developed for mixes with bottom ash per-
(MPa)

centages varying from 0% to 30% is shown in Figs. 6–9, respectively,

2
with 0% bottom ash varied from 1.55 to 2.40, and 1.76–2.68, 2.12–
2.96 MPa at 28, 90, and 365 days. The gain of split tensile strength
for various mixes was observed to be between 4.3% and 5% at 28
and 90 days, increasing with increase in cement content. The ten-
sile strength values were observed to be between 4.3% and 6.8% of 1
28 90 365
compressive strength.
At 10% replacement of fine aggregates with bottom ash, Age (days)
strengths were observed to be in the range of 1.48–2.26 MPa,
Fig. 9. Split tensile strength (30% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents.
1.69–2.40 MPa 1.97–2.82 MPa at 28, 90 days and 365 days, respec-

0% Bottom ash 35% fly ash 30% fly ash 25% fly ash tively. As the percentage of fly ash in 10% bottom ash mixes de-
20% fly ash 15% fly ash creased the split tensile strength increased at all ages. The gain
3 of strength for various mixes was observed to be 5–5.6% between
Split Tensile Strength

28 and 90 days, increasing with increase in cement content. At

20% replacement with bottom ash, strengths were observed to be
in the range of 1.41–2.12 MPa, and 1.55–2.26 MPa, 1.82–
(MPa)

2 2.54 MPa at 28, 90, and 365 days respectively, on decrease of fly

ash from 35% to 15%. An increase of about 50% strength at 28 days
and 39% at 365 days was observed with the decrease of the fly ash
contents from 35% (M205) to 15% (M201). The gain of strength for
various mixes was observed to be between 4.7% and 5.7% between
1
28 90 365 28 and 90 days, increasing with increase in cement content.
Age (days) The split tensile strength for M305 with 35% fly ash of total
powder content was obtained as 1.27 MPa, 1.48 MPa and
Fig. 6. Split tensile strength (0% bottom ash) at various fly ash contents. 1.69 MPa respectively at the ages of 28, 90, and 365 days,
78 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81

Table 3
Comparison of experimental values of split tensile strength (ft) with the theoretical values predicted by other researchers.

Concrete mix 28 Days compressive strength, Split tensile strength ft (MPa) Ratios based on experimental values ft/(fc)0.6
fc (MPa)
Exp. Theoretical values as per references
Parra et al. [21] Dinakar et al. [22] Sukumar et al. [23]
SCC350 29.62 1.55 1.68 2.78 3.31 0.21
SCC380 30.66 1.76 1.72 2.88 3.40 0.23
SCC410 31.47 1.83 1.75 2.96 3.47 0.23
SCC425 32.38 1.97 1.79 3.04 3.55 0.25
SCC440 33.15 2.12 1.81 3.12 3.61 0.26
SCC460 35.19 2.40 1.89 3.31 3.78 0.28

Average values = 0.24.

respectively. With the increase in cement content the strength of values of present investigation and the theoretical values of split
M301 increased gradually to 1.90 MPa at 28 days. An increase of tensile strength (ft) based on expressions proposed by earlier
about 50% strength at 28 days and 34% at 365 days was observed investigators (18–21). An average value so obtained for different
with the decrease of the fly ash contents from 35% (M305) and SCC mixes has been found to be 0.24. This, in general form, would
15% (M301). The mixes at 10% bottom ash showed 3.5–8% strength give an expression a
decrease, 9–16% strength decrease with 20% bottom ash and 18–
20% decrease with 30% bottom ash at 28 days. At more advanced ft ¼ 0:24ðfcÞ0:6 ð1Þ
age (90 days), 4–10% strength decrease at 10% bottom ash, 12–
18% strength decrease with 20% bottom ash, and 16–23% decrease Further, a comparison of experimental results has been made
with 30% bottom ash was observed and 4–8.5% strength decrease with those of other authors and shown in Fig. 10. The split tensile
for 10% bottom ash, 8–16% strength decrease with 20% bottom results are observed to be close to the results of Parra et al. [21]
ash and 15–23% decrease with 30% bottom ash at 365 days in com- maybe because the researchers have also conducted the experi-
parison to corresponding mixes with 0% bottom ash. ments within the range of w/p of 0.45 and 0.65, with SCC mixes
Table 3 shows the computations of ratios of split tensile containing crushed limestone aggregates. In the investigations car-
strength (ft) to the compressive strength (fc0.6) of the experimental ried out [22,23], it is observed that no replacement of fine

90-Day Strength 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash

present study Felekogula et al Parra et al.2007 20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
Dinakar et al,2007 Sukumar et al,2007 ACI 318 100
Compressive Strength

4.0
Sukumar et al,2007 80
Split Tensile Strength

3.5
ACI 318
60
(MPa)

Felekoglu et al,2007
3.0
(MPa)

Dinakar et al,2007
2.5 40

2.0 Present Study 20

1.5 0
Parra et al,2007
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
1.0
15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Water/Powder
Compressive Strength (MPa) Fig. 12. Variation of compressive strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of
bottom ash at 90 days.
Fig. 10. Split tensile strength and compressive strength by various authors.

365-Day Strength 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash

28-Day Strength 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash
20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
60 100
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength

80
40
60
(MPa)
(MPa)

40
20
20

0 0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
Water/Powder Water/Powder

Fig. 11. Variation of compressive strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of Fig. 13. Variation of compressive strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of
bottom ash at 28 days. bottom ash at 365 days.
 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81 79

Table 4
Relationship for expected compressive strength from w/p ratio for various percentages of bottom ash.

Ages 28-Days 90-Days 365-Days

Bottom ash (%) Equation Regression coef. Equation Regression coef. Equation Regression coef.
0 0.65x4.51 0.86 0.62x5.01 0.61 0.96x4.58 0.83
10 0.69x5.16 0.82 0.84x5.27 0.76 2.77x3.80 0.84
20 1.38x4.67 0.96 2.16x4.51 0.95 4.62x3.46 0.94
30 1.99x4.32 0.78 3.73x3.06 0.95 7.55x2.97 0.91

aggregates is carried out and fly ash [0%, 10%, 30%, 70%, and 85%] 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash
28-Day Strength
has been used as replacement of cement in SCC mixtures [22]. Sim- 20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
ilar, observation was made in the mixes developed by Sukumar 4

Split Tensile Strength

et al., where replacement of cement with fly ash varied between
25% and 85%. Also, on comparison with mixes developed by Feleko- 3
glu et al. [24], where the replacement of cement is carried out by

(MPa)
limestone dust, it can be observed that when the replacement of 2
fine aggregates is carried out, the results tend to be on the lower
as compared to the results obtained when only replacement of ce- 1
ment with fly ash is done.
Many researchers have developed relations for SCC compressive 0
strength and split tensile strength. In the present investigation, 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
such a relations for SCC mixes made with varying percentages of Water/Powder
bottom ash has been developed.
Fig. 14. Variation of Split tensile strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of
bottom ash at 28 days.
4.3.1. Theoretical expressions for split tensile strength

ft = 0.18 fc2/3 MPa (Parra et al. [21])

ft = 0.094 fc MPa (Dinakar et al. [22])
ft = 0.0843 fc + 0.818 (Sukumar et al. [23]) 90-Day strength 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash
20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
4
4.4. Influence of water–powder ratio on compressive strength
Split Tensile Strength

Figs. 11–13 show the compressive strength of SCC mixes versus 3

the water–powder ratio (w/p) with different bottom ash contents
(MPa)

at ages of 28, 90 and 365 days. The relation between 28-day, 90- 2
day and 365-day compressive strength and water–powder ratio
for mixes without bottom ash and with various percentages is gi-
1
ven in Table 4. It is observed that the results obtained from the
present study, provide a good fit for most of the cases (R2 value
above 0.8). 0
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
Although factors such as content of fine and coarse aggregate,
material proportions, and curing age can affect the compressive Water/Powder
strength of SCC, the water-to-powder ratio (w/p) by weight is the
Fig. 15. Variation of split tensile strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of
most prominent determinant of compressive strength [22]. A com- bottom ash at 90 days.
parison between SCC with various fly ash contents and with vari-
ous replacements of fine aggregates with bottom ash showed
that SCC obtained strength increase on decrease of w/p from
0.439 to 0.414 for 0% bottom ash, 0.50–0.47 for 10% bottom ash,
0.58–0.51 for 20% bottom ash and 0.620–0.546 for 30% bottom 365-Day Strength 0% bottom ash 10% bottom ash
20% bottom ash 30% bottom ash
ash. The trend of compressive strength on increase of water/pow-
der ratio at various ages is clearly visible in various figures and it is 4
Split Tensile Strength

observed to be same for various ages i.e. 28-d, 90-d and 365-d, also
that increase of water/powder ratio decreased the compressive 3
strength for all percentages of bottom ash at all ages.
(MPa)

2
4.5. Influence of water/powder ratio on split tensile strength
1
The influence of water/powder ratio on split tensile strength of
SCC mixes with various percentages of replacement of fine aggre-
0
gate bottom ash at various ages is presented in Figs. 14–16. The 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
split tensile strength also decreased with an increase in water/
Water/Powder
powder ratio. The water/powder ratio (w/p) by weight has the
most prominent effect on the strength of SCC. A comparison be- Fig. 16. Variation of Split tensile strength with w/p ratio for various percentages of
tween SCC mixes with different fly ash contents and at different bottom ash at 365 days.
80 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81

Table 5
Relationship for expected split tensile strength from w/p ratio for various percentages of bottom ash.

Ages 28-Days 90-Days 365-Days

Bottom ash (%) Equation Regression coef. Equation Regression coef. Equation Regression coef.
0 0.0086x6.27 0.86 0.0124x5.99 0.86 0.0551x4.39 0.70
10 0.011x7.032 0.83 0.0234x6.14 0.83 0.0387x5.62 0.76
20 0.0789x4.89 0.92 0.079x5.0 0.92 0.1071x4.77 0.93
30 0.1054x4.85 0.96 0.1403x4.45 0.95 0.1565x4.48 0.95

replacements of fine aggregates by bottom ash showed that SCC of natural aggregate which often leads to irremediable dete-
mixes obtained split tensile strength increase on decrease of rioration of the countryside. Also, Quarrying of aggregates
water/powder ratio from 0.44 to 0.41 with 0% bottom ash, 0.50– leads to disturbed surface area, etc., but the artificial aggre-
0.47 with 10% bottom ash, and 0.58–0.51 with 20% bottom ash gates from industrial wastes are not only adding extra aggre-
and 0.620–0.546 for 30% bottom ash. Figs. 14–16 clearly indicate gate sources to the natural and artificial aggregate but also
the trend shown by split tensile strength with increase of water/ prevent environmental pollution. In addition to above, there
powder ratio. It was observed that increase of water-to-powder ra- could be some technical and financial advantages as well as
tio decreased the split tensile strength for all percentages of bot- it can be used as a low-cost replacement material for more
tom ash at all ages. The relation between 28-day, 90-day and expensive sand in SCC.
365-day split tensile strength and water–powder ratio for mixes
without bottom ash and with various percentages is given in Table
5. It is observed that the results obtained from the present study,
provide a good fit for most of the cases (R2 value above 0.8), as
References
in the case of compressive strength.
[1] Ozawa K, Maekawa K, Kunishima M, Okamura H. Performance of concrete
5. Conclusions based on the durability design of concrete structures. In: Proc. of the second
East Asia-pacific conference on structural engineering and construction; 1989.
[2] Okamura H. Self-compacting high performance concrete. Concr Int
(i) The present investigation has shown that it is possible to 1997;19(7):50–4.
design an SCC incorporating fly ash and bottom ash on var- [3] Bartos PJM. Self-compacting concrete. Concrete 1999;33(4):9–14.
[4] Okamura HM, Ouchi M. Self-compacting concrete. J Adv Concr Technol
ious percentages. The SCCs having fly ash and bottom ash 2003;1(1):5–15.
showed all fresh properties with in the ranges specified for [5] Collepardi M, Collepardi S, Ogoumah Olagat JJ, Troli R. Laboratory-test and
the mix to be SCC mix. filled-experience SCC’s. In: Proc. of the 3rd international symposium on self
compacting concrete, Reykjavik, Iceland; 17–20 August, 2003. p. 904–12.
(ii) All mixes showed strength gain beyond 28 days and the [6] Bouzoubaa N, Lachemi M. Self-compacting concrete incorporating high
mixes with 15% and 35% fly ash mixes gained strength of volumes of class F fly ash-preliminary results. Cem Concr Res 2001;31:413–20.
the order of 60 MPa and 40 MPa, respectively at 90 days. [7] Memona SA, Shaikh MA, Hassan A. Utilization of rice husk ash as viscosity
modifying agent in self compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater
However, it was possible to produce SCC with a compressive
2011;25:1044–8.
strength of 40–50 MPa with 15–35% fly ash replacement. [8] Güneyisi E, Gesog¢lu M, Özbay E. Strength and drying shrinkage properties of
The bottom ash could be used up to 20% keeping in view self-compacting concretes incorporating multi-system blended mineral
the decrease of strength of about 15–20% (if fly ash percent- admixtures. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1878–87.
[9] Sahmaran M, Yaman IÖ, Tokyay M. Transport and mechanical properties of self
ages with 15% and 20% are not taken into consideration), as consolidating concrete with high volume fly ash. Cem Concr Compos
they show higher decrease of strength. Thus, the optimum 2009;31:99–106.
fly ash percentage was 25–35% and bottom ash percentage [10] Yahia A, Tanimura M, Shimabukuro A, Shimoyama Y. Effect of rheological
parameters on self compactiblity of concrete containing various mineral
was up to 20% in the present study. admixtures. In: Proc. of the first RILEM international symposium on self-
(iii) The compressive strength and split tensile strength compacting concrete, Stockholm; 1999. p. 523–35.
increased with a decrease in the percentage of the fly ash [11] Kurita M, Nomura T. Highly-flowable steel fiber-reinforced concrete
containing fly ash. In: Malhotra VM, editor. Am. Concr. Inst. 1998;SP
and the water-to-cementitious materials ratio. Increase in 178(June):159–75.
bottom ash content resulted in decrease in compressive [12] Kim JK, Han SH, Park YD, Noh JH, Park CL, Kwon YH, Lee SG. Experimental
strength and split tensile strength with reference to mix research on the material properties of super flowing concrete. In: Bartos PJM,
Marrs DL, Cleland DJ, editors. Production Methods and Workability of
with 0% bottom ash for a specific age for particular fly ash Concrete, E&FN Spon; 1996. p. 271–84.
content. Compressive and split tensile strength of SCC mixes [13] Miura N, Takeda N, Chikamatsu R, Sogo S. Application of super workable
was found to increase with age for all mixes with varying concrete to reinforced concrete structures with difficult construction
conditions. Proc. ACI SP; 1993;140:163–86.
percentages of fly ash and bottom ash. Increase in bottom
[14] Khurana R, Saccone R. Fly ash in self-compacting concrete. In: Proc. of fly ash,
ash decreased the split tensile strength with reference to silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete. ACI SP-199; 2001. p. 259–
mix with 0% bottom ash for a specific age for particular fly 74.
ash content. [15] Nagataki S, Fujiwara H. Self-compacting property of highly-flowable concrete.
In: Malhotra VM, editor. Am. Concr. Inst. 1995;SP 154(June):301–14.
(iv) A comparison between SCC with various fly ash contents and [16] Khayat KH, Manai K. Les betons autonivlants: proprietes, caracterisation et
at various levels of replacements of fine aggregates by bot- applications. Colloque sur les betons autonivlants. Universite de Sherbrooke.
tom ash showed that SCC obtained strength increase on Canada; November 1996. p. 28.
[17] Khayat KH. Optimization and performance of air-entrained, self-consolidating
decrease of w/p from 0.44 to 0.41 for 0%, 0.50–0.47 for concrete. ACI Mater J 2000;97(5):526–35.
10%, and 0.58–0.51 for 20% bottom ash. [18] EFNARC (European Federation of national trade associations representing
(v) The economical SCC could be achieved with sufficient producers and applicators of specialist building products). Specification and
guidelines for self-compacting concrete. Hampshire, UK; February 2002.
strength as the conventional concrete. Based on the materi- [19] Khayat KH, Paultre P, Tremblay S. Structural performance and in-place
als used in this study, the results suggested that it is techni- properties of self-consolidating concrete used for casting highly reinforced
cally feasible to utilize bottom ash as a part of paste content columns. ACI Mater J 2001;98(5):371–8.
[20] Bai Y, Darcy F, Basheer PAM. Strength and drying shrinkage properties of
in the production of SCC. Besides environmental benefits concrete containing furnace bottom ash as fine aggregate. Constr Build Mater
such as reduction in the continued and expanding extraction 2005;19:691–7.
 R. Siddique et al. / Construction and Building Materials 29 (2012) 73–81 81

[21] Parra C, Valeuende M, Benlloch J. Mechanical properties of self-compacting [23] Sukumar B, Nagamani K, Raghavan RS. Evaluation of strength at early ages of
concrete. In: Proc. 5th international RILEM symposium on self-compacting self-compacting concrete with high volume fly ash. Constr Build Mater
concrete. Ghent, Belgium; 3–5 September, 2007. p. 645–50. 2008;22(7):1394–401.
[22] Dinakar P, Babu KG, Santhanam M. Mechanical properties of high volume fly [24] Felekoğlu B, Türkel S, Baradan B. Effect of water/cement ratio on the fresh and
ash self-compacting concretes. In: Proc. 5th international RILEM symposium hardened properties of self-compacting concrete. Build Environ
on self-compacting concrete. Ghent, Belgium; 3–5 September, 2007. p. 651–7. 2007;42:1795–802.