3.8 Proceedings Paper

Mixed Concrete Optimization Using Fly Ash, Silica Fume and Iron Slag on the SCC's Compressive Strength

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.proeng.2013.03.076

Keywords

Self-compacting concrete; fly ash; iron slag; silica fume; viscocrete; workability; flowability; compressive strength

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) is an innovative concrete that does not require vibration process to its placing. SCC is able to flow under its own weight, enables it to meet or filling formwork and reached its highest density. SCC requires a mineral Admixture such as fly ash, superplaticiser and other compounds such as iron slag waste from steel mill wastes in the form of fine aggregate in order to meet the specified flowability. Some trial mixtures containing fly ash, silica fume, policarboxilate based of superplasticer, and iron slag have been performed that aims to determine the SCC's optimal composition and meet the requirements of filling ability, passing ability, viscosity and segregation. The concrete's filling ability, passing ability, viscosity and segregation were conducted using slump cone, L-box and V-funnel The cylindrical sample of 10 cm in diameter and 20 cm in heigh of hardenened SCC was also tested at 3.7, 14, 28 and 56 days of concrete age. There were 33 variation of concrete mixture using 495 samples total mixture have been tested. Each composition contained various superplasticizer dosage from 0.5 to 1.8% of cementitious weight. The dosage of silica fume was also varied 0%, 10% and 20% of fly ash weight. The goal that expected from this study is to obtain the optimal material composition of the mixture that produce the maximum compressive strength but cheaper and comptetiteve in price. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. Selection and peer-review under responsibility of Department of Civil Engineering, Sebelas Maret University

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