Docstoc

20320140503014-2-3

Document Sample
20320140503014-2-3 Powered By Docstoc
					 International Journal of Civil
                                 JOURNAL OF 124-131 © ISSN
                                             and             (IJCIET),
INTERNATIONALEngineeringMarchTechnologyCIVILIAEME0976 – 6308 (Print),
 ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3,     (2014), pp.
                                                                       ENGINEERING
                      AND TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)
ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print)
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)                                                          IJCIET
Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2014): 7.9290 (Calculated by GISI)
                                                                                  ©IAEME
www.jifactor.com




   FLEXURAL BEHAVIOUR OF REINFORCED CONCRETE BEAMS WITH
                           GGBS

                              Mrs. S.P.Sangeetha *, Dr. P.S.Joanna **
                         *Research scholar, Department of Civil Engineering,
                                   Hindustan University, Chennai
                           **Professor, Department of Civil Engineering,
                                   Hindustan University, Chennai




 ABSTRACT

       The utilization of industrial by-products in construction sector could become an important route
 for large-scale safe disposal of the industrial wastes and reduction of construction cost. Ground
 Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) is a byproduct of the steel industry which can be partially
 replaced with cement to reduce significantly many of the environmental burdens associated with
 concrete. In this paper, the results of laboratory investigation conducted on the structural behavior of
 reinforced concrete beam with various replacement levels of GGBS are presented. Experimental
 investigation included testing of six reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS. Portland
 cement was replaced with 30% and 40% GGBS. Glenium B233 was used as superplastisizer for the
 casting of beams to improve the workability. Two specimens were cast in each series. All the
 specimens were tested under two-point static loading. Data presented include the load-deflection
 characteristics, cracking behavior and stress strain characteristics of the reinforced concrete beams
 with and without GGBS when tested at 28th days and 56th days. The investigation revealed that the
 flexural behaviors of reinforced GGBS concrete beams are comparable to that of reinforced concrete
 beams.

 Keywords: Ordinary Portland cement, Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag, Reinforced concrete
 beams, moment- curvature

 1. INTRODUCTION

        There is a wide spread attention directed towards the utilisation of wastes and industrial by-
 products in order to minimize Portland cement (PC) consumption, the manufacture of which being

                                                   124
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME

environmentally damaging. Ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) is a environmentally
friendly by-product obtained by quenching molten iron slag from a blast furnace in water or steam,
to produce a glassy, granular product that is then dried and ground into a fine powder. The GGBS
when used as a cement replacement in hardened concrete results in significant enhancement of the
basic characteristics of concrete, both of in its fresh and hardened states. The lower cement
requirement also leads to a reduction for CO2 generated by the production of cement [1–2].Previous
researches show that the addition of slag gradually improves the strength with age. Replacement of
ordinary Portland cement with ground granulated blast furnace slag up to an optimum percentage of
50 has found to increase the fresh and hardened properties of concrete [3-5]. The addition of GGBS
can be a suitable method of improving the durability of concrete and It was suggested that GGBS is
generally beneficial in extending the life of concrete [6,7].The stress strain relationship of beams
with GGBS is also found to be comparable with those of ordinary concrete [8-9].In this
investigation, the stress strain behavior of reinforced concrete beams with and without 30% and 40%
addition of GGBS was carried out.Superplasticiser was used to improve workability and to reduce
shrinkage effects. Twelve beams were cast and subjected to two point loading. Data presented
include deflection characteristics, cracking behavior, stress strain characteristics at 28 days and 56
days.

2. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

2.1 Mix details
       The materials used in the Mix Design were Ordinary Portland cement (OPC), river sand,
aggregate, GGBS and potable water. To improve workability a polycarboxylic ether based
superplasticiser, Glenium B233 was used in the mix with 30% and 40% GGBS.Water binder ratio of
0.36 and 0.4% of superplasticiser were used for concrete Beams.Fe 500 grade steel was used for
longitudinal reinforcement and for stirrups.

2.2 Specimen details
        The specimens were 150mm wide and 250mm deep in cross-section and 2500mm in length.
The clear cover of the beam was 20mm.3#12 mm diameter bars were provided @ tension side and
2#10mm diameter bars were provided @ compression side. Two legged vertical stirrups of 8 mm
diameter at a spacing of 160 mm centre to centre were provided as shear reinforcement. Twelve
numbers of reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS were cast and tested in the loading
frame of 40 T. Out of the 12 specimens tested, 4 specimens were cast without GGBS, and 4
specimens were cast with 30% GGBS an four specimens with 40% GGBS. Two specimens were cast
in each series. Six specimens were tested at 28th day and remaining six specimens were tested at 56th
day from the date of casting. The test setup is shown in Figure 1. Strain gauges of 0.2mm were fixed
directly fixed in to the reinforcement surface with high skilled labors. LVDT’s were used for
measuring deflections. Strain gauges and LVDTs were connected to a data logger from which the
readings were captured by a computer at every load intervals. The development of cracks was
observed and the crack widths were measured using a hand-held microscope with an optical
magnification of X50 and a sensitivity of 0.02 mm.




                                                 125
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME




                        Figure1: Experimental set-up for the test specimens

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

3.1 General observations
        Vertical flexural cracks were observed in the constant-moment region and final failure
occurred due to crushing of the compression concrete with significant amount of ultimate deflection.
When the maximum load was reached, the concrete cover on the compression zone started to fall for
the beams with and without GGBS. All the measurements including deflections, strain values and
crack widths were recorded at regular intervals of load until the beam failed. Figure 3 shows the
failure pattern of the test specimens. It was noticed that the first crack always appears close to the
mid span of the beam. The crack widths at service loads for GGBS concrete beams ranged between
0.16mm to 0.2mm.The failure patterns of the beams are shown in figure 2.




                         Figure 2: Failure Pattern of the beams with GGBS

3.2. Deflection at Various Load Stages
        The experimental load-deflection curves of the RC beams with 30%, 40% GGBS and without
GGBS when tested at 28th day and 56th day are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 respectively. The
average ultimate loads for reinforced OPC concrete beams,30% GGBS and 40% GGBS concrete
beams are 144 kN,138 kN &134 kN respectively at 28th day and it is 164 kN,169 kN & 168 kN
respectively at 56th day. Though the ultimate loads for the concrete beam with GGBS is less than the
OPC beams at 28th day and 56th day respectively, its ultimate load increases at 56th day.

                                                 126
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME




                 (a) CB 0% 1-28                                (b) CB 0% 2-28




                 (c) GB 30% 1-28                                (d) GB 30% 2-28




                 (e) GB 40% 1- 28                              (f) GB40% 2- 28

               Figure 3: Load- Deflection curves for the beams tested at 28th days

                                              127
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME




                    (a) CB0% 1-56                               (b) CB0% 2-56




                 (c) GB 30% 1-56                               (d) GB 30% 2-56




                  (d) GB 40% 1- 56                              (e) GB 40% 2- 56

              Figure 4: Load- Deflection curves for the beams tested at 56th days

                                               128
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME

3.3 Concrete and steel strain
       The concrete and steel strains measured at every load increments are presented in Figure 5
and 6 which shows the strain distribution for the concrete and steel at 28th day and 56th respectively.
The positive strain value represents the tensile strain and the negative strain value indicates
the compressive strain. These results revealed that GGBS concrete is able to achieve its full strain
capacity under flexural loading.




                    (a) CB 0% 1-28                                    (b) CB 0% 2-28




                    (c) GB 30% 1-28                                  (d) GB 30% 2-28




                   (e) GB 40% 1-28                                   (f) GB4 0% 2-28

                     Figure 5: Load- Strain curves for beams tested at 28th days


                                                 129
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME




                (a) CB0% 1-56                                  (b) CB0% 2-56




                 (c) GB 30% 1-56                               (d) GB 30% 2-56




                (e) GB 40% 1-56                                 (f) GB 40% 2-56

                   Figure 6: Load- Strain curves for beams tested at 56th days


                                              130
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online) Volume 5, Issue 3, March (2014), pp. 124-131 © IAEME

4. CONCLUSION

       On the basis of experiments conducted on twelve beam specimens the following observations
and conclusions are drawn:
• The ultimate moment capacity of GGBS was less than the controlled beam when tested at 28
   days, but at 56 days it was equivalent to Controlled beam.
• The maximum deflections for OPCC specimens were almost same as GGBS specimens at 56
   days. The deflections under the service loads for the concrete beams with 30% was quite larger
   than the beams with 40% GGBS at 28 days. From the experimental results it is observed that
   increase in percentage of GGBS has reduced the deflection.
• The structural behavior of Reinforced concrete beams with GGBS resembled the typical
   behavior of Reinforced cement concrete beams and there is increase in load carrying capacity of
   GGBS beams with age. Hence results of this investigation suggest that GGBS can be replaced
   for cement up to 40%

REFERENCES

 1.  Ferraris CH, Obla KH, Hill R,” The influence of mineral admixtures on the rheology of cement
     paste and concrete”,Cement Concrete Research,Vol 32,pp245-55,2001.
 2. Chan WWJ, Wu CML,” Durability of concrete with high cement replacement”, Cement Concrete
     Research, vol. 30,pp .865–79,2000.
 3. Oner,S. Akyuz,” Cement and Concrete Composites”,Volume 29, Issue 6, Pages 505–514, July
     2007.
 4. K Ganesh Babu, V Sree Rama Kumar,”Efficiency of GGBS in concrete”, Research, Volume,
     Pages 1031–1036, July 2000.
 5. Kamran Muzaffar Khan, Usman Ghani,”Effect of blending of Portland Cement with Ground
     Granulated Blast furnace slag on the properties of concrete.”Proceedings of 29th conference on
     our world in concrete & structures: 25 - 26 August 2004.
 6. Gengying Li, ,Xiaohua Zhao,”Properties of concrete incorporating fly ash and ground granulated
     blast-furnace slag”, Composites, Volume, Pages 293–299, April 2003.
 7. Higgins, D,Uren, M,”The effect of GGBS on the durability of concrete, The Concrete Society,
     Volume: 25,Issue Number: 6, pp. 17-9, 1991.
 8. Ya Wei,Will Hansen,”Early-age strain–stress relationship and cracking behavior of slag cement
     mixtures subject to constant uniaxial restraint”, Construction and building Materials, volume
     49,pp. 635-642, December 2013.
 9. Suvarna Latha Kakara, M V Seshagiri Rao,”Study On Stress – Strain Behaviour of Hardened
     Concrete with HVFA, GGBS AND GBS as Partial Replacement Materials”, International Journal
     of Engineering and Advanced Technology (IJEAT) ISSN: 2249 – 8958, Volume-2, Issue-4, April
     2013.
 10. Prerna Nautiyal, Saurabh Singh and Geeta Batham, “A Comparative Study of The Effect of Infill
     Walls On Seismic Performance of Reinforced Concrete Buildings” International Journal of Civil
     Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 4, 2013, pp. 208 - 218, ISSN Print: 0976 –
     6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316, Published by IAEME.
 11. P.S.Joanna, Jessy Rooby, Angeline Prabhavathy, R.Preetha and C.Sivathanu Pillai, “Behaviour of
     Reinforced Concrete Beams With 50 Percentage Fly Ash” International Journal of Civil
     Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 36 - 48, ISSN Print: 0976 –
     6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316, Published by IAEME.
 12. Prof.Wakchaure M.R., Sapate S.V, Kuwar B.B. and Kulkarni P.S., “Cost Optimization of
     Reinforced Concrete Chimney” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology
     (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 2, 2013, pp. 402 - 414, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 –
     6316, Published by IAEME.

                                               131

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:4
posted:4/14/2014
language:Unknown
pages:8