The influence of supplementary cementitious materials on concrete propertiesABSTRACT
This study examines how adding fly ash and silica fume to concrete affects its durability and mechanical qualities. Ten concrete mixtures in all, including a traditional concrete mix and several fly ash and silica fume combinations, were assessed. Compressive strength, split tensile strength, permeability, sorptivity, RCPT, and ultrasonic pulse ve-locity (UPV) at various curing ages (7, 14, and 28 days) were among the performance parameters examined. According to the results, at 28 days, ordinary concrete had the maximum compressive strength, measuring 29.66 MPa. The 10% fly ash and 10% silica fume (S6) combination produced the best results among the adjusted mixes, with a com-pressive strength of 32.55 MPa and a split tensile strength of 2.33 MPa. Additionally, the investigation showed that all of the blends had minimal permeability, which suggests strong durability properties. All things considered, adding more cementitious ingredients can improve the qualities of concrete, but the ratios employed are crucial for maximizing results. The results highlight how fly ash and silica fume may be added to concrete com-positions to increase sustainability without compromising structural integrity.
Keywords:
Silica Fume; Flyash; Mechanical; Durability
1. INTRODUCTION
A staple of construction, concrete is renowned for its strength, durability, and adaptability. However, there are major environmental consequences linked to the manufacture of OPC, a key ingredient in concrete, including high energy usage and CO2 emissions [1, 2]. SCMs, such fly ash (FA) and silica fume (SF), are being utilized more often as partial substitutes for OPC in an effort to lessen these impacts. The impact of SCMs, specifically FA and SF, on the physical and durability feature of concrete is examined in this review of the literature.
The incorporation of SCMs like FA and SF significantly affects the compressive strength of concrete. Studies have shown that while FA may reduce early-age strength, it enhances long-term strength due to its pozzolanic reaction, which continues over time [3, 4]. On the other hand, SF, due to its high silica content and fine particles, contributes to early strength development by filling voids and enhancing the microstructure of the concrete [5, 6]. For instance, a study investigating high-performance concretes containing SCMs found that SF performed better than other SCMs in terms of strength development [7, 8]. 10% SF, 25% slag, and 15% FA were found to generate concrete with exceptional strength and resilience to freeze-thaw and wet-dry exposures in another investigation [9, 10].
The elastic modulus of concrete is another critical mechanical property influenced by supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs). Research indicates that while the inclusion of SCMs, such as fly ash and silica fume, has a relatively small effect on the elastic modulus compared to their significant impact on compressive strength, it remains an important parameter for evaluating concrete performance [11]. Studies have shown that the elastic modulus can be influenced by factors such as the type and quantity of SCMs used, as well as the overall mix design. Moreover, good correlations exist between both static and dynamic moduli and compressive strength [12]. This relationship suggests that the elastic modulus can be reliably estimated from compressive strength values, allowing for simplified assessments of concrete behavior under various loading conditions without the need for extensive testing. This predictive capability is particularly beneficial for engineers and researchers seeking to optimize concrete formulations for specific applications [13].
Durability properties such as resistance to chloride penetration and acid attack are vital for the longevity of concrete structures. SCMs, particularly SF and FA, have been shown to enhance these properties [14, 15]. The recycled aggregate concrete (RAC) found that the combined incorporation of SCMs and steel fibers significantly improved the durability of RAC, with SF and FA contributing to reduced chloride penetration and enhanced acid attack resistance [16]. The addition of SCMs also affects the water absorption and permeability of concrete. SCMs like SF and FA reduce the porosity and pore size distribution, leading to lower water absorption and improved impermeability [17]. The synergistic effects of combining different SCMs have been explored in several studies. For example, a study on SCC using RCA discovered that the negative impacts of RCA were offset by a mix of FA, slag, and SF, which greatly enhanced the mechanical and durability qualities of SCC [18]. Similarly, it was discovered that the optimum ternary mixes for improving bulk resistivity and preventing chloride diffusion were GGBS, FA, and SF [19].
One of the challenges associated with the use of fly ash (FA) in concrete is its tendency to reduce early-age strength, which can be a significant drawback in construction timelines that require rapid strength gain [20]. This issue can be effectively mitigated through chemical activation methods or the addition of nanomaterials, both of which accelerate the pozzolanic reaction and enhance early strength development. Research has shown that these strategies can lead to improved performance in the initial curing stages, ensuring that the concrete meets structural requirements promptly [21].
While supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) are widely recognized for their ability to enhance resistance to chemical sulfate attack, their effects on physical salt attack are less well defined [22]. Some studies indicate that as the levels of SCMs increase, the damage to concrete due to physical salt attack may also rise, suggesting a potential vulnerability in environments exposed to such conditions. This underscores the need for caution when specifying SCMs for projects located in areas prone to physical salt exposure [23]. A thorough evaluation of the concrete mix design and the specific environmental conditions is essential to ensure optimal performance and durability [24].
The use of SCMs such as fly ash (FA) and silica fume (SF) in concrete provides significant benefits regarding mechanical properties and durability. FA is particularly advantageous for enhancing long-term strength and overall durability, as it contributes to improved resistance against environmental factors and chemical attacks [25]. On the other hand, SF plays a crucial role in promoting early strength development, allowing concrete to achieve its structural requirements more quickly [26]. Additionally, SF helps reduce permeability, further enhancing the durability of the concrete mix by minimizing the ingress of harmful substances.
When FA and SF are combined in concrete formulations, their complementary effects can be leveraged to optimize various properties. This synergistic approach not only improves mechanical performance but also makes the concrete more sustainable by reducing the need for traditional cement, which has a high carbon footprint. By incorporating SCMs, the concrete industry can contribute to more environmentally friendly construction practices while delivering durable structures that meet modern engineering demands. The ongoing research into the optimal ratios and combinations of these materials continues to enhance our understanding of how to achieve the best performance in concrete applications.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
OPC, fly ash, silica fume, fine aggregate, and coarse aggregate are among the components employed in this investigation. Each component was chosen for its unique function in improving the qualities of concrete, with an emphasis on workability, strength, and durability. To guarantee uniformity, repeatability, and dependability in the outcomes, the methods for preparation, mixing, and testing were carried out in accordance with recognized standards.
In this investigation, the main binding material was 53-grade Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). OPC was selected due to its high strength, rapid drying time, and compatibility with fly ash and silica fume, among other cementitious materials. OPC’s physical and chemical characteristics were confirmed using ASTM C150-compliant standard tests. To avoid moisture absorption, which can have an impact on the mix ratios and performance, the cement was kept dry throughout storage.
Class F fly ash, a byproduct of burning coal in thermal power plants, largely replaced OPC. Fly ash was added to the concrete to increase its workability, durability, and long-term strength. Additionally, employing fly ash reduces the quantity of OPC needed, which promotes sustainability. To examine its impact on the durability and mechanical qualities of concrete, the amount of fly ash added to various mixtures was changed. Prior to being added to the concrete mixtures, the fly ash’s quality and chemical makeup were examined in accordance with ASTM C618 criteria.
Locally sourced river sand with a specific gravity of 2.65 was used as fine aggregate. The sand was washed and sieved to ensure it met the grading requirements as specified by ASTM C33. Fine aggregate contributes to the concrete’s workability and finishability, and the appropriate grading ensures adequate particle distribution within the mix. Consistent grain size and cleanliness of the fine aggregate were vital in achieving the desired mix proportions and avoiding excessive voids.
Crushed granite with a specific gravity of 2.7 and a maximum size of 20 mm served as the coarse aggregate in this investigation. Coarse aggregate provides the bulk of the concrete’s strength and dimensional stability. The aggregate was graded and washed to remove impurities and fines that could hinder bonding. The selection of 20 mm aggregate was based on its compatibility with the mix design and the expected structural requirements of the concrete.
A rotary mixer was used to make the concrete mixes in accordance with a normal mixing procedure. Prior to the addition of fine and coarse aggregates, cement, fly ash, and silica fume were dry-mixed to guarantee even distribution. After that, water was added gradually while the mixer ran to guarantee that the mixture was homogeneous. To separate the impacts of additional cementitious ingredients on concrete characteristics, the w/c ratio was maintained constant across samples. To ensure uniformity, the slump cone test was used to confirm each mix’s workability. Materials and procedures are shown in Figure 1.
3. EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION
This investigation examines the compressive strength, split tensile strength, permeability, sorptivity, rapid chloride penetration, and ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete samples. Each test assesses vital mechanical and durability properties, offering insight into the material’s suitability for various structural applications. Figure 2 experimental investigation.
3.1. Materials and sample preparation
OPC was used to create concrete examples, and additional cementitious ingredients such as fly ash and silica fume were added for durability. In accordance with ASTM C33 grading guidelines, coarse aggregate (crushed granite) and fine aggregate (sand) were used. To preserve workability and reach desired strengths, water-to-cement ratios were changed. To satisfy the dimensional specifications for the corresponding testing, each mix was cast in cube and cylindrical molds. Prior to testing, all specimens were cured in water at 25°C for 28 days.
3.2. Compressive strength test
Concrete cubes measuring 150 mm cube were subjected to a compressive strength test in accordance with ASTM C39 in order to evaluate the load-bearing capability. In a compression testing apparatus, each cube was loaded axially at a steady 0.5 MPa/s until it failed. The compressive strength of the specimen was calculated by dividing its cross-sectional area by its peak load. Tests were conducted at 7, 28, and 90 days to monitor the strength’s change over time.
3.3. Split tensile strength test
To measure indirect tensile strength, cylindrical specimens of 150 mm in diameter and 300 mm in height were created in compliance with ASTM C496. A compressive load was applied along the diameter of the specimen, which was positioned horizontally between compression plates, until splitting took place. The applied force at failure and the specimen measurements were used to calculate the tensile strength, which gave information on the concrete’s resistance to cracking.
3.4. Permeability test
A key component of concrete’s longevity is its resistance to water intrusion, which was assessed using permeability testing. Water was supplied to 100 mm diameter by 50 mm high cylindrical specimens under continuous pressure for a whole day. The volume of water passing through the specimen was recorded, and permeability was calculated based on water flow rate and sample dimensions. This test was conducted following the guidelines in ASTM D5084 to ensure consistent results.
3.5. Sorptivity test
The sorptivity test quantified the concrete’s capillary water absorption, which is crucial for comprehending moisture intrusion. To eliminate moisture, specimens measuring 100 mm by 50 mm were made and oven-dried for 24 hours at 105°C. The weight gain from water absorption was then measured at certain intervals when the specimens were partly immersed in water with just one face exposed. Based on the exposed face’s cross-sectional area and absorption rate, sorbtivity was computed. This approach adhered to ASTM C1585.
3.6. RCPT
In accordance with ASTM C1202, RCPT was performed on concrete discs that were 50 mm thick and 100 mm in diameter to evaluate the chloride permeability. Every disc was positioned between two chambers, one holding a solution of sodium hydroxide and the other a solution of sodium chloride. The specimen was subjected to a 60 V electrical potential for six hours, during which time the charge passed (measured in coulombs) was noted. Higher resistance to chloride penetration, which is crucial for structures exposed to salt environments, was indicated by lower coulomb values.
3.7. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (UPV) test
Concrete beams of 100 mm by 100 mm by 300 mm were subjected to the non-destructive UPV test in accordance with ASTM C597. The ultrasonic pulse velocity tester’s transducers were positioned on either end of the specimen, and the duration of the pulse’s passage through it was noted. The pulse velocity was calculated and interpreted as an indicator of concrete quality, with higher velocities suggesting denser and more homogeneous material. Table 1 shows the mix designation of various mix.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Slump cone test
The slump values of various concrete mixes with different proportions of fly ash, silica fume, and cement are presented, showing how these admixtures impact workability. Conventional concrete (S1) exhibited a slump of 113 mm, indicating good workability. As silica fume content increased without fly ash (S2 and S3), a reduction in slump values was observed (107 mm and 103 mm, respectively). This decrease is attributed to the high fineness of silica fume, which increases water demand, reducing workability.
Mixes with only fly ash (S4 and S5) showed slightly higher slump values, 109 mm and 111 mm, respectively, indicating improved workability compared to silica fume mixes. Fly ash particles are spherical and thus contribute to better flowability. When combining both fly ash and silica fume (S6–S10), the slump varied, with S6 showing the highest value of 114 mm, suggesting that a balanced mix of 10% fly ash and 10% silica fume enhances workability. However, higher silica fume content in S8 and S10 lowered the slump to 105 mm and 103 mm, respectively, due to increased particle fineness. Figure 3 shows slump cone test results.
4.2. Compressive strength test
The findings of concrete mixes’ compressive strengths at 7, 14, and 28 days demonstrate the effects of different fly ash and silica fume combinations on strength development. As a reference point, conventional concrete (S1) achieved a 28-day compressive strength of 29.66 MPa.
Mixes with only silica fume (S2 and S3) demonstrated enhanced early and late strengths compared to conventional concrete, with S3 (20% silica fume) achieving 31.87 MPa at 28 days, due to silica fume’s pozzolanic activity, which enhances the cement matrix. The maximum 28-day strength, 32.55 MPa, was obtained by Mix S6 (10% FA and 10% SF). This suggests that balanced fly ash and silica fume proportions can work in concert to increase compressive strength by improving the pore structure and promoting the production C-S-H.
Fly ash-only mixes (S4 and S5) also showed improved strengths, with S5 reaching 31.83 MPa at 28 days, close to S3’s performance. However, mixes with both fly ash and lower silica fume contents, such as S7 and S9, had strengths close to conventional concrete, indicating that lower silica fume percentages may limit the pozzolanic contribution. Figure 4 shows the compressive strength test results.
4.3. Split tensile strength test
At 7, 14, and 28 days, the split tensile strength of concrete mixtures was evaluated, and the impacts of different fly ash and silica fume percentages were investigated. As a comparative control, conventional concrete (S1) had a 28-day tensile strength of 2.27 MPa.
Mixes containing only silica fume (S2 and S3) showed slight increases in tensile strength compared to the control, with S3 (20% silica fume) reaching 2.30 MPa at 28 days. This increase is likely due to the refined microstructure from silica fume’s pozzolanic reaction, which enhances bonding within the matrix. Mixes with only fly ash (S4 and S5) showed similar strength trends, with S5 (20% fly ash) also achieving 2.30 MPa, reflecting fly ash’s ability to improve tensile strength due to its fine, spherical particles, which improve workability and reduce voids.
The mix with a balanced proportion of fly ash and silica fume, S6 (10% each), recorded the highest tensile strength at 28 days, 2.33 MPa. This synergistic effect indicates that a mix of fly ash and silica fume can enhance tensile performance by improving bond strength and reducing micro-cracks. Figure 5 shows the split tensile strength test results.
4.4. Permeability test
The permeability results of various concrete mixes, measured at 28, 56, and 90 days, show how the inclusion of fly ash and silica fume affects water permeability over time. Conventional concrete (S1) had an initial permeability of 0.057 × 10−6 mm/sec at 28 days, which gradually decreased to 0.049 × 10−6 mm/sec by 90 days, indicating improved resistance as the concrete matured.
Mixes containing only silica fume (S2 and S3) demonstrated slightly lower permeability at 28 days compared to conventional concrete, with S3 (20% silica fume) reaching 0.053 × 10−6 mm/sec, which further reduced to 0.047 × 10−6 mm/sec by 90 days. Silica fume’s fine particles enhance densification, refining the pore structure and reducing permeability. Mixes with fly ash alone (S4 and S5) showed similar improvements, as fly ash contributes to filling voids and densifying the matrix.
Permeability was lowest in the mixture with 10% fly ash and 10% silica fume (S6); it dropped from 0.051 × 10−6 mm/sec at 28 days to 0.045 × 10−6 mm/sec at 90 days. This illustrates how a well-balanced injection of silica fume and fly ash successfully reduces permeability, possibly improving durability. The results of the permeability test are displayed in Figure 6.
4.5. Sorptivity test
The sorptivity results of various concrete mixes at 28, 56, and 90 days highlight the impact of fly ash and silica fume on moisture absorption through capillarity. Conventional concrete (S1) had a 28-day sorptivity of 0.031 mm/s1/2, which decreased to 0.026 mm/s1/2 at 90 days, indicating reduced moisture ingress as the concrete aged.
Mixes with only silica fume (S2 and S3) showed a slight reduction in sorptivity compared to CC. Mix S3 (20% silica fume) reached 0.025 mm/s1/2 by 90 days, suggesting that the addition of silica fume improves the concrete’s pore structure, thus reducing capillary absorption. Similarly, mixes with only fly ash (S4 and S5) showed comparable reductions, with S5 achieving 0.025 mm/s1/2 at 90 days, due to fly ash’s ability to refine the pore network.
The mix containing 10% fly ash and 10% silica fume (S6) demonstrated the lowest sorptivity values across all ages, reaching 0.024 mm/s1/2 at 90 days. This indicates that the combined use of fly ash and silica fume provides enhanced resistance to capillary absorption, likely due to the densified matrix and refined pore structure. Figure 7 shows the sorptivity test results.
4.6. RCPT
The compressive strength results across the different concrete mixes illustrate a noticeable variation over 28, 56, and 90 days. The conventional concrete mix (S1) consistently achieved the highest strength, starting at 2985 coulomb at 28 days and decreasing to 2015 coulomb at 90 days.
When incorporating fly ash and silica fume, a general trend of decreasing compressive strength was observed, particularly with higher silica fume content. For instance, S6 (10% FA and 10% SF) exhibited the lowest strength at 90 days, with only 1833 coulomb, indicating that this combination may hinder concrete performance due to adverse interactions among the materials.
Notably, S4 (10% fly ash) and S8 (10% fly ash with 20% silica fume) maintained higher strengths compared to the other mixes, suggesting that a careful balance of supplementary materials can enhance concrete properties.
Regarding Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT) in coulombs, while specific RCPT data is not provided, it is essential to consider that increased fly ash and silica fume content can generally enhance durability by reducing permeability. Figure 8 shows the RCPT results.
4.7. Ultrasonic pulse velocity test
The results from the ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) tests indicate notable trends in concrete quality across different mixes at 28, 56, and 90 days. The conventional concrete mix (S1) displayed UPV values of 2.98 km/s at 28 days, increasing to 3.62 km/s by 90 days. This consistent increase suggests excellent durability and strength development over time.
Mixes with varying proportions of fly ash and silica fume generally exhibited similar or slightly improved UPV results. For instance, S6 (10% FA and 10% SF) recorded a UPV of 3.05 km/s at 28 days and reached 3.75 km/s at 90 days, indicating that this mix may enhance concrete density and microstructural integrity.
However, mixes S7 (20% FA and 10% SF) and S9 (15% FA and 10% SF) had the lowest UPV values, with 2.96 km/s at 28 days, suggesting that higher fly ash content negatively impacted the velocity, possibly due to lower binder reactivity. Figure 9 shows the UPV test results.
5. CONCLUSION
The experimental investigation into the performance of concrete mixes incorporating fly ash and silica fume demonstrated a significant influence on various mechanical and durability properties. The results indicate that conventional concrete (S1) exhibited the highest compressive strength, reaching 29.66 MPa at 28 days, and maintained a robust performance in terms of split tensile strength and permeability, as evidenced by its low RCPT value of 2985 coulombs.
In mixes with supplementary cementitious materials, a general improvement in compressive and tensile strengths was observed with the inclusion of silica fume, particularly at lower fly ash contents. Mix S6, comprising 10% fly ash and 10% silica fume, achieved notable compressive strength (32.55 MPa) and split tensile strength (2.33 MPa) at 28 days, suggesting an optimal synergy between the materials. Conversely, higher fly ash content (S5 and S7) seemed to slightly compromise the overall performance, particularly in split tensile strength and UPV measurements.
The permeability results demonstrated that all mixes exhibited low permeability, suggesting good durability characteristics; however, slight variations in sorptivity and UPV indicated differences in density and microstructure among the mixes.
Overall, the incorporation of fly ash and silica fume can effectively enhance certain properties of concrete, but the proportions used are vital to achieving optimal results.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
[1] QURESHI, L.A., ALI, B., ALI, A., “Combined effects of supplementary cementitious materials (silica fume, GGBS, fly ash and rice husk ash) and steel fiber on the hardened properties of recycled aggregate concrete”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 263, pp. 120636, 2020. doi:http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120636.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120636. -
[2] JOHARI, M., BROOKS, J., “Influence of supplementary cementitious materials on engineering properties of high strength concrete”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 25, n. 5, pp. 2639–2648, 2011. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.013.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.12.013. -
[3] TOUTANJI, H., DELATTE, N., AGGOUN, S., et al, “Effect of supplementary cementitious materials on the compressive strength and durability of short-term cured concrete”, Cement and Concrete Research, v. 34, n. 2, pp. 311–319, 2004. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.08.017.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.08.017. -
[4] GUO, Z., JIANG, T., ZHANG, J., et al, “Mechanical and durability properties of sustainable self-compacting concrete with recycled concrete aggregate and fly ash, slag and silica fume”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 231, pp. 117115, 2020. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117115.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117115. -
[5] RAGHAV, M., PARK, T., YANG, H.-M., et al, “Review of the effects of supplementary cementitious materials and chemical additives on the physical, mechanical and durability properties of hydraulic concrete”, Materials (Basel), v. 14, n. 23, pp. 7270, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237270. PubMed PMID: 34885424.
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ma14237270 -
[6] AHSAN, M., HOSSAIN, Z., “Supplemental use of rice husk ash (RHA) as a cementitious material in concrete industry”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 178, pp. 1–9, 2018. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.101.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.05.101. -
[7] ELAHI, A., BASHEER, P., NANUKUTTAN, S., et al, “Mechanical and durability properties of high performance concretes containing supplementary cementitious materials”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 24, n. 3, pp. 292–299, 2010. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.045.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.045. -
[8] LI, G., ZHOU, C., WAQAS AHMAD, K., “Fly ash application as supplementary cementitious material: a review”, Materials (Basel), v. 15, n. 7, pp. 2664, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma15072664. PubMed PMID: 35407996.
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15072664 -
[9] SULEIMAN, A., NEHDI, M., “Exploring effects of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete exposed to physical salt attack”, Magazine of Concrete Research, v. 69, n. 11, pp. 576–585, 2017. doi: http://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.16.00406.
» https://doi.org/10.1680/jmacr.16.00406. -
[10] KHAN, M., SHOUKATH ALI, M., “Improvement in concrete behavior with fly ash, silica-fume and coconut fibres”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 203, pp. 174–187, 2019. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.103.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.01.103. -
[11] KUMAR, A., BHEEL, N., AHMED, I., et al, “Effect of silica fume and fly ash as cementitious material on hardened properties and embodied carbon of roller compacted concrete”, Environmental Science and Pollution Research International, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15734-0. PubMed PMID: 34350574.
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-15734-0 -
[12] CHARI, K.B., RAO, V.R., “Durability and microstructure characteristics of concrete with supplementary cementitious materials”, Civil Engineering Journal, v. 8, n. 4, pp. 683–694, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-04-05.
» https://doi.org/10.28991/CEJ-2022-08-04-05. -
[13] HAMAD, M.A., NASR, M., SHUBBAR, A., et al, “Production of ultra-high-performance concrete with low energy consumption and carbon footprint using supplementary cementitious materials instead of silica fume: a review”, Energies, v. 14, n. 24, pp. 8291, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/en14248291.
» https://doi.org/10.3390/en14248291. -
[14] ASSI, L.N., ALSALMAN, A., AL-HAMADANI, Y.A., et al, “Observations of supplementary cementitious materials effects on the performance of concrete foundation”, IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, v. 856, pp. 012020, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012020.
» https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/856/1/012020. -
[15] ELAHI, M.M.A., SHEARER, C.R., REZA, A.N.R., et al, “Improving the sulfate attack resistance of concrete by using supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs): a review”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 281, pp. 122628, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122628.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122628. - [16] SHANKAR, S.S., NATARAJAN, M., ARASU, A., “Exploring the strength and durability characteristics of high-performance fibre reinforced concrete containing nanosilica”, Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 142, 2024.
- [17] SHANKAR, S.S., NATARAJAN, M., ARASU, A., “Exploring the strength and durability characteristics of high-performance fibre reinforced concrete containing nanosilica”, Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association, v. 30, n. 1, pp. 142, 2024.
-
[18] GOLEWSKI, G., “Mechanical properties and brittleness of concrete made by combined fly ash, silica fume and nanosilica with ordinary Portland cement”, AIMS Materials Science, v. 10, n. 3, pp. 390–404, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.3934/matersci.202302.
» https://doi.org/10.3934/matersci.2023021. - [19] PARTHASAARATHI, R., BALASUNDARAM, N., ARASU, N., “Analysing the Impact and Investigating Coconut Shell Fiber Reinforced Concrete (CSFRC) under Varied Loading Conditions”, Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 106–120, 2024.
-
[20] KUMAR, S.N., NATARAJAN, M., ARASU, A.N., “A comprehensive microstructural analysis for enhancing concrete’s longevity and environmental sustainability”, Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 368–376, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584.
» https://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584. -
[21] JORDANI, B., NUNES, D.B., RIBEIRO, F.R.C., et al, “Mechanical evaluation and hydration kinetics of cement pastes with dolomitic filler”, Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, v. 17, n. 1, pp. e17107, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952024000100007.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952024000100007. -
[22] CZOVNY, C.K., GIDRÃO, G.D.M.S., BILCATI, G.K., et al, “Fresh and hardened properties of cementitious composites with the addition of nanofibrillated cellulose”, Revista IBRACON de Estruturas e Materiais, v. 17, n. 2, pp. e17202, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952024000200002.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/s1983-41952024000200002. -
[23] JACQUEMAIN, V., CHEULEU, C., RANC, N., et al, “Investigation of the mechanical work during ultrasonic fatigue loading using pulsed time-resolved X-ray diffraction”, Journal of Synchrotron Radiation, v. 31, n. Pt 1, pp. 17–27, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577523008767. PubMed PMID: 37947304.
» https://doi.org/10.1107/S1600577523008767 -
[24] PARTHASAARATHI, R., BALASUNDARAM, N., NAVEEN ARASU, A. “A stiffness analysis of treated and non-treated meshed coir layer fibre reinforced cement concrete”, AIP Conference Proceedings, v. 2861, n. 1, pp. 050002, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672.
» https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672. -
[25] SRINIVASAN, S.S., MUTHUSAMY, N., ANBARASU, N.A., “The structural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete beams with nanosilica”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 3, pp. e20240194, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194. -
[26] CHINNUSAMY, B.S., VENKATARAMAN, G., “A comparative analysis of high-performance concrete: evaluation of strength and durability parameters with alternate fine aggregates and alccofine through response surface methodology model”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 3, pp. e20240021, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0021.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0021.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
24 Feb 2025 -
Date of issue
2025
History
-
Received
03 Dec 2024 -
Accepted
18 Dec 2024
