3.8 Proceedings Paper

The effect of lightweight aggregate water absorption on the reduction of water-cement ratio in fresh concrete

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2015.06.139

Keywords

Lightweigth aggregate; lightweigth aggregate concrete; initial moisture content; water-cement ratio; water absorption

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this paper is to present the problem of water-cement ratio reduction in structural lightweight concrete as a result of mixing water absorption by the lightweight aggregate. The research was carried out on eighteen concrete mixtures made of sintered fly ash aggregate and cement pastes of different nominal water-cement ratios. It has been demonstrated that the rate and the extent of the absorption of mixing water by the aggregate in concrete is dependent not only on its water absorption, but also on its moisture content, moisture state, the procedure of concrete preparation and the concrete composition. Moreover, it has been proved that the standard method for calculation of the so-called effective water-cement ratio is accurate only in the case of high initial moisture content of the lightweight aggregate. When dry sintered fly ash aggregate is used, the standard method gives underestimated values of the ratio as compared to its actual values determined in tests. The effect of mixing water absorption by the lightweight aggregate, revealed in tests of fresh concrete as the reduction of water-cement ratio, was also reflected in hardened state of concrete as the increase of its strength. The strength increase was higher for mixtures with higher content of lightweight aggregate. Although the porous aggregate is the weakest element in structural lightweight concrete, in this case its higher content may be compensated with excess by the stronger cement matrix resulting from the reduction of water-cement ratio. (C) 2015 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available