Experimental Study on Self-Healing Concrete Using GGBS and Metakaolin

Abstract

This project will study self-healing concrete using GGBS & Metakaolin. Concrete is delicate and hence it causes crack easily. To fix these cracks, it took maintenance which will be costly. To do away with this trouble self-healing technique is brought in the concrete. The Objective of the present investigation is to obtain the performance of the concrete and self-healing phenomena by using GGBS (Ground Granulated Blast Furnace), Superplasticizer, and Bacteria. The selection of the bacteria is according to their alkali environment. Different bacteria are used for the experiments by different researchers for their study. The result has been analyzed for studying the effect of a different parameter such as GGBS (0,10,15,20) percent of the weight of the cement. The purpose of the prevailing research isn’t to reach at a particular strength or workability but develop to better insight into the repercussion of GGBS on different properties of concrete.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

This is a new type of concrete. It mimics the automatic healing of body wounds by extracting a certain type of matter. Self-adhesive material is defined as self-adhesive material and in concrete is used to describe concrete that automatically repairs its cracks. Also known as automatic adjusting concrete. It is widely used in heavy construction because of its strength and durability. Many factors influence the strength and strength of concrete, one of the most important obstacles to the formation of cracks. Larger cracks can cause a fall in the concrete structure and have a negative impact on its strength. To reduce the risk of cracking, the structure had to be maintained, which could be expensive. In the process of reducing costs to increase the stability of the building use self-adhesive concrete.

II. OBJECTIVE

A. Develop high strength concrete and self-healing property with a characteristic compressive force of 40 MPa with different combinations of additional cementitious materials such as GGBS and Metakaolin.

B. Select a suitable admixture throughout the flow test.

C. To improve self-healing property in concrete.

D. To enhance the workability of the mixed concrete.

III. METHODOLOGY

A. Material Used

1. Cement: The cement used was a Ordinary Portland cement grade 43 (manufacturer name: Ultratech) compliant with IS: 8112 - 1989. Table 1 provides the test results for the basic concrete structures.

2. Fine Aggregate: Sand deposited in the bank of river was utilized in the project as fine aggregate. The size of sand particle is below 4.75mm conforming to zone II. The aggregate was tested as per IS 2386. Table 2 provides the test result for the fundamental properties of sand.

3. Coarse Aggregate: Rough aggregate size below 20mm in line with zone II. The aggregate has been tested according to IS 2386. The aggregate used is of good quality and has an angular shape; which provides a good bonding bond. Table 3 shows the basic features of a coarse bond

4. Ground Granulated Blast Furnace: GGBS is obtained from a steel plant. It is the by-product of iron & steel. the basic features of GGBS mentioned in Table 4

5. Super Plasticizer: It is mainly used for high strength concrete (M20 toM50). In this project we use PC-300 superplasticizer is used (Asian paints). The specification is listed in below Table 5.

6. Water: Potable water was used in current of ingredients are discussed IS: 456 was used.

B. Mix design of M40 grade concrete

The mixed design method was kept as simple as possible with a water cement ratio of 0.36 and cement was replaced by GGBS @ 0%, 10%, and 15% replaced by cement weight.

4) Ratio Obtained

Cement: Sand: Aggregate = 1: 1.34: 2.91

IV. RESULT AND DISCUSSION

A. Slump Cone Test

It is the workability test, that ease with which we can work with concrete and the following test result obtained in table 9.

B. Compressive Strength Test

Mechanical test which measures the maximum amount of load in which specimen fail are shown in the table below value in (N/mm2)

V. DISCUSSION

The effects of GGBS compressive strength and super plasticizer concrete (cubes) where M40 grade concrete with 5%, 10%, and 20% instead of cement weight were tested for 3 days, 7 days , and within 28 days the result was presented. The models were made solid (built) with common materials of the same grade using Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC 43).

With the growth of concrete years, the compressive strength increased by up to 15% instead of GGBS and superplasticizer as cement.. The GGBS partial replacement and superplasticizer provided a 28-day high pressure compression rate at a 20% conversion rate.

Conclusion

In the present study, an attempt was made to study the effect of partial cement replacement with GGBS and superplasticizer .M40 was selected as a high-performance compound based on compression strength. Several tests are performed such as GGBS filter analysis, GGBS specific gravity forces, performance tests, compressive strengths tested in all specimen. The obtained result was compared with the M40 control combination. Based on a limited experimental survey the following conclusions were made: - 1) Concrete performance increased with an increase in GGBS content as increasing GGBS content reduced the percentage of superplasticizer. 2) Pressing power increased by up to 20% switch with GGBS and superplasticizer.

References

[1] Gurunaathan K, G. S. Thirugnanam (2014),” Effect of mineral admixtures on durability properties of concrete”, International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering, Vol. 3, Issue 1, pp 65-68. [2] Keun-Hyeok Yang, Yong-Su Jeon (2014), “Feasibility Tests on Concrete with Very-High-Volume Supplementary Cementitious Materials”, Hindawi Publishing Corporation the Scientific World Journal, pp [3] HM. Jonker’s (2011) The study shows that the crack healing of self-healing concrete based on expanded porous clay minerals loaded with bacteria and calcium lactate is more efficient than of concrete of the same composition with empty expanded clay particles. [4] Van Tittel bloom (2013) This paper shows the most recent advances in the field of self healing cementitious materials. In this paper it is said that the autogenous healing mechanism are most prone to the practical application, Vol. 3, Issue 2, pp. 11-21 [5] J. Van Deventer, J. Provis and P. Duxson, «Technical and commercial progress in the adoption of geopolymer cement.,» Miner. Eng., Vol. 229, pp. 89_104, 2012. [6] J. Davidovits, «proporties of geopolymer cements,» First International Conference on Alkaline Cements and Concretes, Saint-Quentin, France, 1994. [7] C. Li, H. Sun and L. Li, «A review: the comparison between alkali-activated slag (Si+Ca) and metakaolin (Si1Al) cements.,» Cem. Concr. Res., Vol.. 40, pp. 1341_1349, 2010. [8] J. Van D., J. Provis, D. Brice and P. Duxson, «Chemical research and climate change as drivers in the commercial adoption of alkali activated materials,» Waste Biomass Valor., Vol. 1, pp. 145_155, 2010. [9] J. Provis, «Geopolymers and other alkali activated materials: why, how, and what?,» Mater. Struct. , Vol. 47, pp. 11_25., 2014. [10] F. Pacheco-Torgal, Z. Abdollahnejad and S. Miraldo., «Alkali-activated cement-based binders (AACB) as durable and cost competitive low CO2 binders: some shortcomings that need to be addressed.,» Handbook of Low Carbon Concrete, first ed., Waltham, Elsevier Science and Tech, 2016, pp. 195_216. [11] B. Singh, G. Ishwarya, G. M. and S. Bhattacharyy, «Geopolymer concrete: a review of some recent developments,» Constr. Build. Mater. Vol. 85, pp. 78-90, 2015. [12] P. Rovnanik, «Effect of curing temperature on the development of hard structure of metakaolin-based geopolymer,» Constr. Build. Mater. Vol. 24:7, pp. 1176-1183, 2010. [13] A. Karthika, K. Sudalaimani, C. Vijayakumar and S. Saravanakumar, «Effect of bio -additives on physico-chemical properties of fly ash-ground granulated blast furnace slag based self cured geopolymer mortars,» Journal of hazardous Mater. Vol. 2361: 56-63, 2019. [14] F. Pacheco T., Z. Abdollahnejad and S. Miraldo, «An overview on the potential of geopolymers for concrete infrastructure rehabilitation,» Constr. Build. Mater., Vol 36, pp. 1053_1058, 2012. [15] F. G. J. J. S. Pacheco-Torgal, «Adhesion characterization of tungsten mine waste geopolymeric binder. Influence of OPC concrete substrate surface treatment.,» Constr. Build. Mater. 22, 154_161., Vol. 22, pp. 154_161., 2008

Copyright

Copyright © 2022 Md Parvej Alam, Kamlesh Lohar, Sanskriti Mishra, Bhavesh Sahu. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.