Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Partial Replacement of GGBS

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)
2014

e-ISSN: 2320-0847 p-ISSN : 2320-0936
Volume-03, Issue-01, pp-119-127
www.ajer.org
Research Paper
Open Access
Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams with Partial

Replacement of GGBS
S.P.Sangeetha#1, P.S Joanna#2
#1(
Research Scholar, Civil Engineering Department, Hindustan University, Chennai, India)

#2
(Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Hindustan University, Chennai, India)
Abstract: - The present study focuses on the structural behavior of reinforced concrete beam with Ground
Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS).It is an inexpensive replacement of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
used in concrete, and it improves fresh and hardened properties of concrete. Experimental investigation included
testing of eight reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS. Portland cement was replaced with 40%
GGBS and Glenium B-233 was used as superplastisizer for the casting of beams. The results of laboratory
investigation on the structural behavior of reinforced concrete beams with GGBS are presented. Data presented
include the load-deflection characteristics, cracking behavior, strain characteristics and moment- curvature of
the reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS when tested at 28 days and 56 days. The investigation
revealed that the flexural behaviour of reinforced GGBS concrete beams is comparable to that of reinforced
concrete beams.
Keywords: - Ordinary Portland cement, Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag, Reinforced concrete beams,
moment- curvature
I.
INTRODUCTION
GGBS concrete is a type of concrete in which a part of cement is replaced by ground granulated blast
furnace slag, which is an industrial waste. As a result of its low environmental impacts, using GGBS can reduce
significantly many of the environmental burdens associated with concrete. If concrete is mixed with ground
granulated blast furnace slag as a partial replacement for Portland cement, it would provide environmental and
economic benefits and the required workability, durability and strength necessary for the structures. The
cementitious efficiency of ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) at 28 days was tested in concrete at
various replacement levels and concluded that it is possible to design GGBS concrete for a desired strength upto
an optimum replacement percentage of 50% [1].The characteristics of M30 concrete with partial replacement of
cement with GGBS was studied and it was found that the partial replacement of cement with GGBS improves
the strength of the concrete substantially compared to normal concrete[2]. The behavior of concrete with GGBS
at different curing period was tested and found that its strength at early ages is less but continues to gain strength
over a long period [3].Experimental studies on the geometric characteristics of concrete with 50% replacement
of GGBS proved that the strength of concrete with GGBS increased with age[4]. Studies on the effect of using
GGBS as partial replacement in producing a engineered cementitious composites, a ductile cementitious
composite reinforced with steel fibers and experimentally proved that addition of slag not only increased the
strength of concrete but also increased the binding property of steel[5].The stress strain behavior of concrete
made with different cementitious admixtures like GGBS, flyash was experimented and found that the addition
of these mineral admixtures reduces the strain in reinforced concrete[6]. Extensive research has been done on
the compressive strength and durability of GGBS concrete. Not many investigations were reported on the
flexural behavior of concrete beams with GGBS. This paper presents the behavior of reinforced concrete beams
with 40% GGBS at 28 and 56 days curing. Data presented include the load-deflection characteristics, cracking
behavior, strain characteristics and moment- curvature of the reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS
when tested at 28 days and 56 days.
www.ajer.org
Page 119

II.
2014
EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
2.1 Materials
The materials used in the mix design were Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), river sand, GGBS and
potable water. Beam specimens were made with M30 grade concrete Water binder ratio of 0.45 and 0.4% of
Glenium B233 superplasticiser was used to impart better workability. Fe 500 grade steel was used for
longitudinal reinforcement and for stirrups.
2.2 Preliminary Investigation
To optimize the percentage replacement of cement with GGBS, preliminary Investigations on were
conducted on cube specimens of 150 mm size with 0%,30%, 40% ,50% and 60% GGBS. The specimens were
tested at 28 and 56 days in a compression testing machine of capacity 100 T. Compressive strength of concrete
with GGBS was less than the ordinary concrete specimens when tested at 28 days, but after 28 days the concrete
specimens with 30% and 40% was more than the ordinary concrete specimens when tested at 56 days. Beyond
40% there was gradual decrease in the compressive strength of concrete. Hence beam specimens were casted
with 40% GGBS.
2.3 Test specimen details
Eight numbers of reinforced concrete beams with and without GGBS were cast and tested. The span of
the beam was 2500 mm and of size 150 mm x 250 mm. Out of the 8 specimens tested, four specimens were cast
without GGBS and four specimens were cast with 40% GGBS as replacement for cement. Four specimens were
tested at 28th day and four specimens were tested at 56 th day from the date of casting. Reinforcement details of
the specimens tested are given in Table I. A five lettered designation is given to the specimens. First 2 letters
represents the type of beam (Controlled and GGBS beams), 3rd one % of GGBS, 4th one identity of specimen in
a particular series as two specimens were tested in each series and the last one indicates the day on which the
specimen is being tested.
S.No
Specification
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
CB0% 1-28
CB0% 2-28
GB40%1-28
GB40%2-28
CB0% 1- 56
CB0% 2- 56
GB40%2-56
GB40%2-56
TABLE I Test beam details

Testin
Reinforcement in Beams
g of
Longitudinal
Stirrups (mm)
Beams
Top
Bottom
Diameter
Spacing
(Days)
28
56
2#10
2#10
2#10
2#10
2#10
2#10
2#10
2#10
3#12
3#12
3#12
3#12
3#12
3#12
3#12
3#12
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
160
2.4 Test set-up

The testing was carried out in a loading frame of 40T capacity. All the specimens were white washed in
order to facilitate marking of cracks. Strain gauges of 20 mm were fixed to the reinforcement to measure the
strain and LVDTs were used for measuring deflections at several locations one at midspan, two directly below
the loading points and two near the end supports as shown in Figure 1.Strain gauges and LVDTs were connected
to a data logger from which the readings were captured by a computer at every load interval until failure of the
beam occurred. The beams were subjected to two-point loads under a load control mode. 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. Figure 2(a) and 2(b) shows the arrangement of LVDT and
Strain gauges in the experimental setup.
www.ajer.org
Page 120
2014
Fig.1 Experimental set-up for the test specimens
Fig 2: Position of LVDTs and Position of Strain gauges
III.
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.
Figure 3 shows the failure pattern of the test specimens. Crack formations were marked on the beam at every
load interval at the tension steel level. 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
Fig. 3: Failure Pattern of the beams with 40% GGBS

3.2 Load-deflection curve
The experimental load-deflection curves of the RC beams with 0% and 40% GGBS when tested at 28th
day and 56th day are shown in Figure 4 & 5 respectively. The average ultimate loads for controlled beams and
40% GGBS concrete beams are 144 kN and 135 kN respectively at 28 th day and it is 164 kN and 178kN at 56th
day. Though the ultimate loads for the Beams with 40% GGBS is less than that of the controlled beams at 28 th
day, its ultimate load increases at 56th day.
www.ajer.org
Page 121
2014
160
160
140
140
120
120
DL1
80
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
100
DL2
60
DC
40
DL2
20
DL1
100
DR1
60
10
20
Deflection(mm)
DC
40
DL1
20
DL2
0
-10
DR2
80
30
-10
Fig. 4.(a) CB 0% 1-28

160
160
140
140
120
120
Load(kN)
Load(kN)
30
100
100
DR2
80
DR1
60
20
DR1
80
DR2
60
DC
40
DC
DL1
40
DL2
20
0
-10
10
20
Deflection(mm)
Fig.4. (b) CB 0% 2-28
DL2
DL1
0
0
10
20
Deflection (mm)
30
-10
10
20
Deflection(mm)
30
Fig.4. (c) GB 40% 1- 28

Fig. (d) GB40% 2- 28
Fig 4: Load- Deflection curves for the beams tested at 28 days
www.ajer.org
Page 122

180
180
160
160
140
140
Load(kN)
100
DL2
80
DC
60
120
DL1
100
DL2
Load( kN)
DL1
120
80
0
-10
0
10
20
Deflection(mm)
30
10
20
Deflection(mm)
Fig.5 (a) CB0% 1-56
Fig.5. (b) CB0% 2-56
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
120
100
DL2
80
DL1
60
DC
40
DR1
20
DR2
Load( kN)
Load( kN)
DR2
20
DR2
0
10
20
Deflection (mm)
100
DL2
80
DL1
60
DC
40
DR1
20
DR2
30
0
-10
DR1
40
DR1
20
DC
60
40
-10
2014
-10
30
10
20
30
Deflection(mm)
Fig.5 (c) GB 40% 1- 56

Fig.5. (d) GB 40% 2- 56
Fig. 5: Load- Deflection curves for the beams tested at 56 days
3.3 Concrete and Steel Strain
The concrete and steel strains measured at every load increments at 28th day and 56th day are presented
in Figure.6 and Figure 7.The positive strain value represents the tensile strain and the negative strain value
indicates the compressive strain. Fig.8 shows the comparison of concrete strain at the top surface and steel
strain for all the beams at 28 and 56 days. These results revealed that GGBS concrete is able to achieve its full
strain capacity under flexural loading.
www.ajer.org
Page 123

160
160
140
140
120
120
100
80
S2
S3
60
40
20
S4
S3
60
S4
SS
40
TS
TS
20
SS
0
-20000-15000-10000 -5000 0
5000
Strain (x10 -6)
-20000-15000-10000 -5000 0
5000
Strain(x10 -6)
Fig.6. (a) CB 0% 1-28
Fig.6 (b) CB 0% 2-28
160
160
140
140
120
SS
120
100
TS
100
80
S1
60
S2
40
20
SS
load(kN)
Load(kN)
S2
80
5000
Strain (x10 -6)
Fig.6 (c) GB 40% 1-28
TS
80
S1
60
S2
S3
40
S3
S4
20
S4
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000
S1
100
S1
Load(kN)
Load(kN)
2014
0
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000
0
5000
Strain (x10-6)
Fig.6 (d) GB4 0% 2-28
Fig.6: Load- Strain curves for beams tested at 28 days
www.ajer.org
Page 124
2014
180
180
160
160
140
140
120
S1
100
S2
80
S3
S4
60
S4
40
TS
40
TS
20
SS
20
SS
120
S1
100
S2
80
S3
60
Load (kN)
Load (kN)
0
-20000-15000-10000-5000
-20000 -15000 -10000 -5000
5000
Strain
Fig.7 (a) CB0% 1-56
5000
(x10-6)
Fig.7 (b) CB0% 2-56
180
180
160
160
140
S1
140
S1
120
S2
120
S2
100
S3
80
S4
60
Load(kN)
Load (kN)
Strain
(x10-6)
100
S3
80
S4
60
40
TS
40
TS
20
SS
20
SS
0
-20000-15000-10000 -5000
5000
Strain (x10-6)
Fig.7 (c) GB 40% 1-56
-20000-15000-10000 -5000
Strain (x10
5000
-6)
Fig.7 (d) GB 40% 2-56
Fig. 7: Load- Strain curves for beams tested at 56 days
www.ajer.org
Page 125

160
180
140
160
120
140
CB0% 1-TS
CB0% 1-SS
80
CB0% 2-TS
CB0% 2-SS
60
GB40% 1-TS
40
GB40% 1-SS
CB 0% 1-SS
100
CB 0% 2-TS
80
CB 0% 2-SS
60
GB40%1-TS
GB 40%1-SS
40
GB40% 2-TS
20
CB 0% 1-TS
120
Load (kN)
100
Load(kN)
2014
GB40%2-TS
20
GB40% 2-SS
GB40%2-SS
-20000-15000-10000 -5000 0 -6 5000

Strain (x10 )
-20000-15000-10000 -5000 0 5000

Strain (x10-6)
Fig.8 (a) At 28 days

Fig.8 (b) At 56 days
Fig. 8: Comparison of Steel and Concrete Strain
70
70
60
60
50
50
40
CB 0% 1-28
30
CB 0% 1-28
20
Moment( kN-m)
Moment (kN-m)
3.4 Moment Curvature

Moment-Curvature diagrams were generated for all the beams based on the concrete strain and steel
strain. Curvature is computed from the average longitudinal compressive and tensile strains at the middle
of the flange and centroid of the bottom reinforcement assuming a linear strain profile cross the cross section
using the formula
Curvature, = c + s
d
Where, c = Average longitudinal compressive strain in at the concrete fibre at the center of the
flange
s = Average longitudinal tensile strain at the centroid of the tension steel
d = Distance between the compression and tension strain locations considered
Figure 9 shows the moment-curvature of the beams at 28th day and 56th day respectively. From the results the
curvature of the beam with GGBS is found to be comparable with OPC concrete beams.
GB 40% 1-28
CB 0%1-56
40
CB 0%2-56
30
GB 40%2-56
20
10
10
GB 40%1-56
GB 40% 2-28
0
0
20
40
Curvature (X 10-6)
60
80
20
40
60
Curvature (x10-6)
80
Fig.9 (a) At 28 days

Fig.9 (b) At 56 days
Fig. 9: Moment Curvature for beams at 28 and 56 days
www.ajer.org
Page 126

IV.
2014
CONCLUSION
On the basis of experiments conducted on eight beam specimens the following observations and conclusions are
drawn:
1. The ultimate moment capacity of GGBS was less than the controlled beam when tested at 28 days, but it
increases by 21% at 56 days.
2. The deflections under the service loads for the concrete beams with 40% GGBS were same as that of the
controlled beams at 28 days testing and it was quite less than controlled beams when tested at 56 days.
3. The measured crack width at service loads ranged between 0.17 to 0.2 mm and this is within the allowable
limit prescribed by IS 456-2000.
4. 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 concrete with 40% GGBS replacement for cement could be
used for RC beams.
REFERENCES
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
K.Ganesh Babu,V. Sree Rama Kumar,Efficiency of GGBS in concrete, Cement Concrete Research,
Volume 30(7), pp.10311036,2000.
VenuMalagavelli,P.N.RAO,High performance concrete with GGBS and Robo sand, International
Journal of Engineering Science and Technology, Vol. 2(10),pp.5107-5113,2010.
K. Suvarna Latha, M V Seshagiri Rao, Srinivasa Reddy V, Estimation of GGBS and HVFA Strength
Efficiencies in Concrete with Age, International Journal of Engineering and Advanced Technology
(IJEAT) ,Vol 2(2): ISSN: 2249 8958,2012.
Huiewn Wan and Zhonge Shui,Analysis of geometric characteristics of GGBS particles and their
influences on cement properties, Cement and Concrete Research.Vol.34(1),pp.133-137,2004.
Ing Lim, Jenn-Chuan Chern, Tony Liu, and Yin-Wen Chan, Effect of ground granulated blast furnace
slag on mechanical behavior of PVA-ECC, Journal of Marine Science and Technology,vol.20,pp. 319324,2012.
T. Suresh Babu, M.V. Seshagiri Rao and D. Rama Seshu, Mechanical Properties and stress- strain
behaviour of self compacting concrete with and without glass fibres, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering
(building and housing),vol. 9( 5),pp. 457-472,2008
www.ajer.org
Page 127

Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Partial Replacement of GGBS

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Flexural Behaviour of Reinforced Concrete Beams With Partial Replacement of GGBS

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)

American Journal of Engineering Research (AJER)