Effect of Partial Replacement of Cement by Mixture of Glass Powder and Silica Fume Upon Concrete Strength

All over the world the most common consuming construction material is concrete. It is well know that concrete is the combination of cement, aggregates and water. The production of cement results in the formation of carbon dioxide gas causes the environmental pollution. About 7 percent of carbon dioxide gas is evolved from cement industries to atmosphere. Keeping in view about the environmental pollution which may leads to some serious issues of health, so it is essential to use locally available pozolanic materials as a partial replacement of cement because these materials are economical as compared to Portland cement and also friendly to the environment without compromising on concrete strength. In concrete cement can be partially replaced by different supplementary cementitious materials. In the recent years pozzolonic materials, glass powder and silica fume are used in concrete as a partial cement replacement to improve the strength of concrete. In this research work the mixture of glass powder and silica fume were used in concrete as a partial cement replacement, to study its effect upon concrete strength. The mix proportion of 1:2:4 was selected for all the concrete samples with water to binder ratio of 0.55. For comparison, a control sample of concrete was prepared without mixture of glass powder and silica fume to compare it with the various samples containing different percentages of mixture of glass powder and silica fume as a partial replacement of cement in concrete. Results discovered that the usage of mixture of glass powder and silica fume in concrete as a partial replacement of cement increases the concrete strength. Such as compressive strength increases up to 8.64%, tensile strength increases up to 15% and flexural strength increases up to 7.08% at the age of 28 days. It is concluded that maximum strength is achieved at 28 days by 30 percent replacement of cement through mixture of glass powder and silica fume in concrete and the strength was decreased by increasing the mixture of glass powder and silica fume content beyond 30 percent. Therefore 30 percent replacement of cement is the optimum amount to achieve the higher strength. From the SEM analysis of concrete samples it’s proved that both the pozzolonic materials contribute in hydration process and further validated the strength test results.

Abdul Ghayoor khan, Dr. Bazid khan, "Effect of Partial Replacement of Cement by Mixture of Glass Powder and Silica Fume Upon Concrete Strength" International Journal of Engineering Works, Vol. 4, Issue 7, PP. 124-135,  July 2017. 

1. [1]     Adak. MD, Adak. S Purohit, KM 2007. Ambient air quality and health hazards near min-cement plants. Pollut, Res. 26 (3):361- 364.
2. [2]     Ahmad Shayan, 2002. Value-added Utilisation of Waste Glass in Concrete
3. [3]     Baby, S., N. A. Singh, P. Shrivastava, S. R. Nath, S. S. Kumar, D. Singh, and K. Vivek. 2008."Impact of dust emission on plant vegetation of vicinity of cement plant." Environmental Engineering and Management Journal 7(1): 31-35.
4. [4]     Chandra,S., and L. Berntsson. 2003. Lightweight Aggregate Concrete-Science, Technology, and Applications: Noyes Publications, Norwich, NY, p.430.
5. [5]     Dr. G.Vijaykumar, Ms H. Vishaliny, Dr. D. Govindarajulu “Studies On Glass Powder As Partial Replacement Of Cement In Concrete Production” (ISSN 2250-2459, ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal, Volume 3, Issue 2, February 2013)
6. [6]     EcoSmart. 2012. “Environmental Impact: Cement Production and the CO2 Challenge”.
7. [7]     Federio.L and Chidiac S.E, “Waste glass as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete – Critical review of treatment methods”, Cement and Concrete Composites, vol, 31,606-610, 2001.
8. [8]     Friedrich, R and Pregger T. 2009. Effective pollutant emission heights for atmospheric transport modeling based on real-world information, Environmental Pollution, 157: 552-560
9. [9]     Givi, A. N., S. A. Rashid, F.N.A. Aziz, and M.A.M. Salleh. 2010. “Contribution of Rice Husk Ash to the Properties of Mortar and Concrete: A Review”. Journal of American Science Vol. 6, No 3, pp. 157-165.
10. [10]  I. B. Muhit, S. S. Ahmed, M. M. Amin and M. T. Raihan: “Effects of Silica Fume and Fly Ash as Partial Replacement of Cement on Water   Permeability and Strength of High Performance Concrete” DOI: 02.AETACE.2013.4.13  
11. [11]  Kampa. M, and Castanas. E. 2008. Human health effects of air pollution, Environmental Pollution. 151: 362-367.
12. [12]  Khokhar, M. I. A., E. Roziere, P. Turcry, F. Grondin, A. Loukili. 2010. Cement & Concrete Composites, 32, 377.
13. [13]  Mala Kanchan, A.K. Mullick, K.KJain, and P.K. Singh. July 2013. “Effect of Relative Levels of Mineral Admixtures on Strength of Concrete with Ternary Cement Blend.
14. [14]  Mehta, P. K. 1999.  “Advancement in Concrete Technology,” Journal of Concrete International, Vol. 96, pp. 69-75.
15. [15]  Mehta, P. K. and P.J. Monteiro. 2006. Concrete: Structure, Properties, and Materials. 3rd End. The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc.United State. 
16. [16]  Neville, A.M and J.J. Brooks 2010. Concrete Technology.2nd Edn. Pearson Education Limited, Harlow, England
17. [17]  Perry V.H. 1987. Interground silica fume cement, production and properties of the cement. Proceedings of the international workshop on condensed silica fume.
18. [18]  Taylor, M.R., Lydon, F.D., Barr, B.I.G., Mix Proportions for High Strength Concrete Construction and Building Materials, Volume 10, Issue 6, September 1996, Pages 445-450.
19. [19]  P.J. Tikalsky, P.M. Carrasquillo, and R.L. Carrasquillo. 1988. “Strength and durability considerations affecting mix proportioning of concrete containing fly ash,” ACI Materials Journal, vol. 85, no. 6, pp. 505–511.
20. [20]  Udoeyo F.F., H. Inyang, D.T. Young, and E.E. O Paradu.   2004. Potential of wood waste ash as an addadive in concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 18(4), pp. 605 – 611.  
21. [21]  Yilmaz, K. 2010. “A Study on the Effect of Fly Ash and Silica Fume Substituted Cement Paste and Mortars”. Scientific Research and Essays Vol. 5, Issue 9, pp. 990998C