4.7 Review

Fresh and rheological properties of glass fiber reinforced self-compacting concrete with nanosilica and fly ash blended

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 211, Issue -, Pages 349-362

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.03.087

Keywords

Glass fiber; Nanosilica; Self-compacting concrete; Fresh properties; Rheology

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study focuses on the fresh and rheological characteristics of glass fibre reinforced self-compacting concrete containing nanosilica and fly ash. Fifteen mixtures of self-compacting concrete fortified byglass fibres with dissimilar quantities of pozzolanic replacement cement (made up of nanosilica and fly ash) were prepared in a constant water-binder (w/b) ratio of 0.35 and a total binder content of 550 kg/m(3). Class F fly ash, which was added in, made up 25% of the total binder content by weight Glass fibrewith 13 lam diameter and 12 mm length was utilized as an additive material into the mixture in varying amounts of 0%, 0.35%, 0.70%, 1.0%, and 1.5% by total volume. Glass fiber used in this study had a tensile strength of 3400 MPa and modulus of elasticity of 77 GPa. Plain and glass fiber reinforced SCC specimens were tested for determining the fresh and reological properties. While nanosilica (NS) was utilized as replacement cement in quantities of 0%, 2%, and 4% with an unvarying fly ash inclusion of 25%. Experiments were conducted to identify the characteristics of the mixtures in the context of slump flow diameter, 150 slump flow time, L-box height ratio, and V-funnel flow time. Also, the modified Bingham model was applied on data from the ICAR rheometer to gauge the rheological behaviour of the self compacting concrete. The results showed that SCC with replacement of 2% and 4% NS and maximum amount of GF achieved the lower rate of workability enhancement. (C) 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available