ESTIMATION OF SUPERPLASTICIZER DOSAGE TO ACHIEVE …...CERTIFICATE . I certify that the work...

ESTIMATION OF SUPERPLASTICIZER DOSAGE TO ACHIEVE DESIRED WORKABILITY OF

CEMENT MORTAR

A Thesis submitted to Gujarat Technological University

for the Award of

Doctor of Philosophy

in

Civil Engineering by

Parth Kirtikumar Thaker Enrollment No.: 119997106011

under supervision of

Dr. Narendra K. Arora

GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

AHMEDABAD

September 2018

© Parth Kirtikumar Thaker

i

DECLARATION

I declare that the thesis entitled “Estimation of Superplasticizer Dosage to Achieve Desired Workability of Cement Mortar” submitted by me for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy is the record of research work carried out by me during the period from July 2011 to December 2017 under the supervision of Prof. Narendra K. Arora and this has not formed the basis for the award of any degree, diploma, associateship, fellowship, titles in this or any other University or other institution of higher learning.

I further declare that the material obtained from other sources has been duly acknowledged in the thesis. I shall be solely responsible for any plagiarism or other irregularities, if noticed in the thesis. Signature of the Research Scholar: …………………………… Date: 15-09-2018 Name of Research Scholar: Parth Kirtikumar Thaker Place : Ahmedabad

ii

CERTIFICATE

I certify that the work incorporated in the thesis “Estimation of Superplasticizer Dosage to Achieve Desired Workability of Cement Mortar” submitted by Parth Kirtikumar Thaker was carried out by the candidate under my supervision/guidance. To the best of my knowledge: (i) the candidate has not submitted the same research work to any other institution for any degree/diploma, Associateship, Fellowship or other similar titles (ii) the thesis submitted is a record of original research work done by the Research Scholar during the period of study under my supervision, and (iii) the thesis represents independent research work on the part of the Research Scholar. Signature of Supervisor: ……………………………… Date: 15-09-2018 Name of Supervisor: Prof. Narendra K. Arora Professor & Principal, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi Place: Ahmedabad

iii

Course-work Completion Certificate

This is to certify that Parth Kirtikumar Thaker enrolment no. 119997106011is a PhD

scholar enrolled for PhD program in the branch Civil Engineering of Gujarat

Technological University, Ahmedabad

(Please tick the relevant option(s))

He/She has been exempted from the course-work (successfully completed during

M.Phil Course)

He/She has been exempted from Research Methodology Course only (successfully

completed during M.Phil Course)

He/She has successfully completed the PhD course work for the partial requirement

for the award of PhD Degree. His/ Her performance in the course work is as

follows-

Grade Obtained in Research

Methodology (PH001)

Grade Obtained in Self Study Course (Core

Subject) (PH002)

AB AB

Supervisor’s Sign (Prof. Narendra K. Arora)

iv

Originality Report Certificate

It is certified that PhD Thesis titled “Estimation of Superplasticizer Dosage to Achieve

Desired Workability of Cement Mortar” by Mr. Parth Kirtikumar Thaker has been

examined by us. We undertake the following:

a. Thesis has significant new work / knowledge as compared already published or are under consideration to be published elsewhere. No sentence, equation, diagram, table, paragraph or section has been copied verbatim from previous work unless it is placed under quotation marks and duly referenced.

b. The work presented is original and own work of the author (i.e. there is no plagiarism). No ideas, processes, results or words of others have been presented as Author own work.

c. There is no fabrication of data or results which have been compiled / analyzed.

d. There is no falsification by manipulating research materials, equipment or processes, or changing or omitting data or results such that the research is not accurately represented in the research record.

e. The thesis has been checked using https://turnitin.com (copy of originality report attached) and found within limits as per GTU Plagiarism Policy and instructions issued from time to time (i.e. permitted similarity index <=25%).

Signature of the Research Scholar : …………………………… Date: 15-09-2018 Name of Research Scholar: Parth Kirtikumar Thaker Place : Ahmedabad Signature of Supervisor: ……………………………… Date: 15-09-2018 Name of Supervisor: Prof. Narendra K. Arora Place: Ahmedabad

v

https://turnitin.com/

Turnitin- Report

vi

PHD THESIS Non-Exclusive License to GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

In consideration of being a PhD Research Scholar at GTU and in the interests of the

facilitation of research at GTU and elsewhere, I, Parth Kirtikumar Thaker, having

Enrollment No. 119997106011 hereby grant a non-exclusive, royalty free and perpetual

license to GTU on the following terms:

a) GTU is permitted to archive, reproduce and distribute my thesis, in whole or in

part, and / or my abstract, in whole or in part (referred to collectively as the

“Work”) anywhere in the world, for non-commercial purposes, in all forms of

media;

b) GTU is permitted to authorize, sub-lease, sub-contract or procure any of the acts

mentioned in paragraph (a);

c) GTU is authorized to submit the Work at any National / International Library,

under the authority of their “Thesis Non-Exclusive License”;

d) The University Copyright Notice © shall appear on all copies made under the

authority of this license;

e) I undertake to submit my thesis, through my University, to any Library and

Archives. Any abstract submitted with the thesis will be considered to form part of

the thesis.

f) I represent that my thesis is my original work, does not infringe any rights of

others, including privacy rights, and that I have the right to make the grant

conferred by this nonexclusive license.

g) If third party copyrighted material was included in my thesis for which, under the

terms of the Copyright Act, written permission from the copyright owners is

required, I have obtained such permission from the copyright owners to do the acts

mentioned in paragraph (a) above for the full term of copyright protection.

vii

h) I retain copyright ownership and moral rights in my thesis, and may deal with the

copyright in my thesis, in any way consistent with rights granted by me to my

University in this non-exclusive license.

i) I further promise to inform any person to whom I may hereafter assign or license

my copyright in my thesis of the rights granted by me to my University in this non-

exclusive license.

j) I am aware of and agree to accept the conditions and regulations of PhD including

all policy matters related to authorship and plagiarism.

Signature of the Research Scholar: ……………………………… Name of Research Scholar: Parth Kirtikumar Thaker Date 15-09-2018 Place: Ahmedabad Signature of Supervisor: ……………………………… Name of Supervisor: Prof. Narendra K. Arora Date 15-09-2018 Place: Ahmedabad Seal:

viii

Thesis Approval Form

The viva-voce of the PhD Thesis submitted by Parth Kirtikumar

Thaker (Enrollment No. 119997106011) entitled “Estimation of Superplasticizer

Dosage to Achieve Desired Workability of Cement Mortar” was conducted on

15-09-2018, Saturday at Gujarat Technological University.

(Please tick any one of the following option) The performance of the candidate was satisfactory. We recommend that he/she be

awarded the PhD degree.

Any further modifications in research work recommended by the panel after 3 months from the date of first viva-voce upon request of the Supervisor or request of Independent Research scholar after which viva-voce can be re-conducted by the same panel again.

The performance of the candidate was unsatisfactory. We recommend that he/she should not be awarded the PhD degree.

Dr. Narendra K. Arora (Supervisor) Professor & Principal, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi

1) (External Examiner 1) Name and Signature 2) (External Examiner 2) Name and Signature

3) (External Examiner 3) Name and Signature

ix

ABSTRACT

In recent years, the construction industry has changed significantly and demand greater

speed of construction has arisen. At present, concrete is not just a material which

comprises of cement, water, and aggregate, most concrete also incorporates chemical or

mineral admixtures. Concrete properties in the fresh state particularly workability; is very

much dependent on fresh properties of cement paste phase and mortar phase, therefore,

significant research efforts are put in to understand fresh properties of cement paste and

mortar. A complete understanding of mortar or concrete workability, therefore, must

include a thorough understanding of the cement paste that holds and binds the fine

aggregate, and mortar that holds the coarse aggregate.

Workability of cement mortar and dosage of superplasticizer are affected by various

parameters such as water-cement ratio, grading of fine aggregate, the shape of aggregate,

surface characteristic, and volume of aggregate. Therefore, to resolve the problems

encountered in the development of desired workable mortar, it is necessary to estimate

dosage of superplasticizer. Estimation of superplasticizer dosage for the desired

workability can result in time-saving, efforts and materials for testing, and overall human

efforts in conducting trials.

A variation in the characteristic of cement and type and dosage of superplasticizer creates

compatibility issues. Marsh cone test and Mini-slump test are performed to study the

behavior of superplasticized cement paste.

In this research, an experimental investigation methodology is designed to study the effect

of water-cement ratio, the dosage of superplasticizer, and characteristics of fine aggregate

on the flow behavior of cement mortar.

For each water-cement ratio, optimum dosage of superplasticizer (ODS) has found out. Six

different dosages of superplasticizer are taken to study the effect of superplasticizer on

cement mortar workability i.e. 0% ODS (without superplasticizer), 0.25 ODS, 0.50 ODS,

0.75 ODS, 1.0 ODS, and 1.25 ODS.

To study the effect of fine aggregate characteristics on flow behaviour of cement mortar

five different fractions of fine aggregate (4.75mm to 2.36mm, 2.36mm to 1.18mm,

1.18mm to 0.60mm, 0.60mm to 0.30mm and 0.30mm to 0.15mm) and four different zones

of fine aggregate (zone-I, zone-II, zone-III, zone-IV) as per Bureau of Indian Standard

Specifications IS: 383-1970 are used in the present research work. Flow behavior of

cement mortar is studied using a modified Mini flow-table test.

x

Flow characteristic is affected by the introduction of aggregate in cement paste which is

mainly governed by volume, grading, shape, and surface characteristics of aggregate. The

influence of characteristics of fine aggregate such as volume, grading, shape, and surface

characteristics of aggregate are considered in terms of surface area of fine aggregate.

Digital image analysis technique is used to determine the surface area of fine aggregate.

Statistical analysis is carried out using SPSS software to develop correlation amongst

superplasticizer dosage, flow behavior of cement mortar, water-cement ratio, and surface

area of fine aggregate. Finally, a proposed methodology to estimate the superplasticizer

dosage for the desired workability of cement mortar was developed. It is recommended

that using the same approach, a model can be developed for concrete to estimation

superplasticizer dosage for the desired workability of concrete.

xi

Acknowledgement

I am extremely grateful and deeply indebted to my Supervisor Prof. Narendra K. Arora,

Professor & Principal, Lukhdhirji Engineering College, Morbi for his scholarly guidance,

constructive suggestions, constant encouragement and continuous support given

throughout my research. I am grateful to him for holding me to a high research standard

and for imbibing in me research culture.

I would like to extend my sincere thanks to my Foreign Co-Supervisor Dr. Ramesh

Subramanian, Professor and Director, Bharti School of Engineering, Laurentian

University, Canada for his unrelenting support, critical feedback and valuable suggestions.

Besides my advisors, I would like to thank my Doctoral Progress Committee members Dr.

C. D. Modera, Professor, S.V.N.I.T., Surat and Dr. A.K. Verma, Professor and Head,

B.V.M Engineering College., Vallabh Vidyanagar, for their insightful comments and

encouragement, which provided impetus to widen my research from different

perspectives.

My hearty thanks and gratitude to Dr. Devanshu Pandit, Professor, Faculty of

Technology, CEPT University, Ahmedabad for their motivation and moral support

throughout this work. I highly thank Dr. Prakash Nanthagopalan, IIT, Bombay for his

feedback regarding my research. My special thanks to Dr. H.S. Patel, Head of Applied

Mechanics Department, Government Engineering College, Patan and Dr. Rajul Gajjar,

Principal, V.G.E.C., Chandkheda for offering their support and encouragements.

I shall take this opportunity to express my deep thanks to the Faculty of Technology,

CEPT University for providing laboratory facilities for the experimental work.

I would like to pay my sincere thanks to my dear friends Aneri Mehta, Nikita Shah, and

Dev Shah for continuous support in accomplishing this research work.

Any word of acknowledgment to my parents, Shakuntala Thaker and Kirtikumar

Thaker may not be sufficient; I dedicate these work and thesis to my parents.

Parth Kirtikumar Thaker

xii

Table of Contents DECLARATION ................................................................................................................... ii

CERTIFICATE ..................................................................................................................... iii

Course-work Completion Certificate .................................................................................... iv

Originality Report Certificate ................................................................................................ v

PHD THESIS Non-Exclusive License to GUJARAT TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY

............................................................................................................................................. vii

Thesis Approval Form .......................................................................................................... ix

ABSTRACT ........................................................................................................................... x

Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................... xii

Chapter 1 Introduction ...................................................................................................... 1

General .................................................................................................................... 1 1.1

Workability ............................................................................................................. 1 1.2

1.2.1 Definition ......................................................................................................... 2

Factors Affecting Workability ................................................................................ 2 1.3

1.3.1 Water Content .................................................................................................. 2

1.3.2 Cement Content ............................................................................................... 2

1.3.3 Aggregate Characteristics ................................................................................ 3

1.3.4 Use of Admixtures ........................................................................................... 3

Admixtures .............................................................................................................. 4 1.4

Classification of Admixtures................................................................................... 4 1.5

Superplasticizer ....................................................................................................... 4 1.6

1.6.1 Mechanism of Action of Superplasticizer ....................................................... 5

1.6.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Superplasticizer ........................................ 6

1.6.3 Estimation of Superplasticizers ....................................................................... 6

xiii

1.6.4 Field Problems in Use of the Superplasticizers ............................................... 7

Need of Study .......................................................................................................... 8 1.7

Research Questions ................................................................................................. 9 1.8

Objective and Scope of Research Work .................................................................. 9 1.9

Organization of Thesis ...................................................................................... 10 1.10

Chapter 2 Literature Review .......................................................................................... 11

General .................................................................................................................. 11 2.1

Workability Measurement Tests and Flow Characteristic of Cement Paste and 2.2

Mortar .............................................................................................................................. 11

Aggregate Shape Characteristics Assessment Techniques ................................... 16 2.3

Particle Shape and Size ......................................................................................... 16 2.4

Particle Characteristic Measurement Technologies .............................................. 18 2.5

2.5.1. Sieve Analysis ................................................................................................ 19

2.5.2. Fluid Sedimentation Method ......................................................................... 20

2.5.3. Laser Diffraction Spectroscopy ..................................................................... 22

2.5.4. Digital Image Analysis .................................................................................. 22

Literature Review Summary ................................................................................. 26 2.6

Chapter 3 Experimental Materials and Basic Properties ................................................ 28

General .................................................................................................................. 28 3.1

Cement .................................................................................................................. 28 3.2

3.2.1 Precaution and Handling of Cement .............................................................. 29

Fine Aggregate ...................................................................................................... 29 3.3

Superplasticizer ..................................................................................................... 31 3.4

Water ..................................................................................................................... 32 3.5

Chapter 4 Experimental Program ................................................................................... 33

General .................................................................................................................. 33 4.1

Research Methodology .......................................................................................... 33 4.2

xiv

Phase I Pilot Study ................................................................................................ 35 4.3

4.3.1 Materials ........................................................................................................ 35

4.3.2 Flow Characteristic of Cement Mortar (Marsh Cone Test) ........................... 36

4.3.3 Consistency of Fresh Cement Mortar (Mini Flow Table Test) ..................... 37

4.3.4 Marsh Cone Test Results and Discussion ...................................................... 37

4.3.5 Mini Flow Table Test Results and Discussion .............................................. 37

4.3.6 Summary ........................................................................................................ 38

Phase II Characterization of Aggregate Grading, Shape and Size ........................ 38 4.4

4.4.1 Surface Area Measurement for Fine Aggregate Particles ............................. 39

4.4.2 Digital Image Analysis .................................................................................. 40

4.4.3 Image Acquisition Process ............................................................................. 40

4.4.4 Image Analysis Process ................................................................................. 41

4.4.5 Validation of Digital Image Analysis ............................................................ 45

4.4.6 Weight to Number of Particle Relationship ................................................... 46

4.4.7 Determination of Surface Area of Given Sample .......................................... 48

Phase III Selection of Superplasticizer i.e. Compatibility Study .......................... 48 4.5

4.5.1 Marsh Cone Test for Cement Paste ............................................................... 49

4.5.2 Mini-slump Test for Cement Paste ................................................................ 49

Phase IV Cement Mortar Workability Study ........................................................ 50 4.6

4.6.1 Measurement of Cement Mortar Workability ............................................... 50

Phase V Statistical Analysis of Test Results ......................................................... 53 4.7

Phase VI Prediction Model for Superplasticizer Dosage to Obtain Desired 4.8

Workability ...................................................................................................................... 53

Chapter 5 Test Results Analysis and Validation ............................................................ 54

General .................................................................................................................. 54 5.1

Digital Image Analysis Test Results for Fine Aggregate Particles ....................... 54 5.2

Cement Superplasticizer Compatibility Test Results ............................................ 58 5.3

xv

5.3.1 Superplasticizer-1 (SNF-F1) .......................................................................... 59

5.3.2 Superplasticizer-2 (SNF-B1) ......................................................................... 60

5.3.3 Superplasticizer-3 (SMF-S1) ......................................................................... 61

5.3.4 Superplasticizer-4 (PCE-B1) ......................................................................... 63

5.3.5 Summary of compatibility study .................................................................... 64

Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Fractions ........................................ 64 5.4

5.4.1 Fraction F1 (4.75mm to 2.36mm) .................................................................. 65





Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Zones ............................................. 74 5.5

5.5.1 Zone I (Manufactured) ................................................................................... 75

5.5.2 Zone-II (Manufactured) ................................................................................. 77

5.5.3 Zone-III (Manufactured) ................................................................................ 79

5.5.4 Zone-IV (Manufactured) ................................................................................ 81

Summary of Workability Test Results .................................................................. 83 5.6

Statistical Analysis ................................................................................................ 85 5.7

Validation of Developed Correlation .................................................................... 86 5.8

Proposed Methodology for prediction of superplasticizer .................................... 89 5.9

Chapter 6 Conclusions and Recommendations .............................................................. 91

Conclusions ........................................................................................................... 91 6.1

Recommendations for Future Work ...................................................................... 92 6.2

References ............................................................................................................................ 93

Publications .......................................................................................................................... 99

Appendix A : Surface Area of 30 Particles for Different Fractions ............................. 100

Appendix B : Weight to Number of Particle Relationship for Different Fractions ...... 102

xvi

Appendix C : Surface Area Calculation ....................................................................... 103

Appendix D : Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Fractions ......................... 106

Appendix E : Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Zones .............................. 121

Appendix F : Validation of Developed Models ........................................................... 133

Appendix G : Flow Chart of Proposed Methodology ................................................... 147

xvii

List of Notations L = longest axes

I= intermediate axes

S= shortest axes

D= particle diameter in cm

ɳ= fluid viscosity in poise

g = acceleration due to gravity in cm/ sec2

h=distance in centimeter through which particle falls in time t in sec

ρp=particle density in g/ml

ρf=fluid density in g/ml

Rf= final radius of rotation in cm

Ro= initial radius of rotation in cm

w= rotational velocity in radians/sec

t= time required to sediment from Ro to Rf in sec

Ap=Area of the particle outline

Da=Diameter of a circle with an area equal to that of the particle outline

Dc=Diameter of smallest circumscribed circle

Pp=Perimeter of particle outline

Pa=Perimeter of a circle of the same area as particle outline

Ac=Area of the smallest circumscribing circle

Dinsc=Diameter of the largest inscribed circle

Pconv=Perimeter, convex

Y= Surface area of single particle in mm2

X= Average of sample passing and retaining sieve size in mm

U= superplasticizer dosage

u= superplasticizer dosage

u1=water cement ratio (unitless)

u2= surface area of fine aggregate in mm2

u3 = average flow diameter of cement mortar in mm

xviii

List of Figures FIGURE 1.1 Diagrammatic Illustration of Mechanisms by which Superplasticizers can

Disperse Cement Particles (P.K. Mehta) ............................................................................... 5

FIGURE 2.1 Classification of Workability Test by Tattersall ............................................ 12

FIGURE 2.2 Marsh Cone for Cement Paste ........................................................................ 12

FIGURE 2.3 Marsh Cone Flow Time Versus Initial Reference Volume ............................ 12

FIGURE 2.4 Visual Assessment of Shape Characteristic of Particle by Ahn (a) Derived

From Measurements of Sphericity and Roundness (b) Based Upon Morphological

Observations ........................................................................................................................ 17

FIGURE 2.5 Different Technologies for Analyzing Particle Characteristic ....................... 18

FIGURE 2.6 Graphical Representation of Accuracy Various Technologies for Wide Range

of Particles ........................................................................................................................... 19

FIGURE 2.7 Sieving Method versus Particle Size .............................................................. 20

FIGURE 2.8 Illustration of Sample Tray And Aggregate ................................................... 25

FIGURE 3.1 Cement Storage .............................................................................................. 29

FIGURE 3.2 Different Superplasticizers ............................................................................. 31

FIGURE 4.1 Flow Chart of Research Methodology ........................................................... 34

FIGURE 4.2 Set Up for Marsh Cone Test ........................................................................... 36

FIGURE 4.3 Original Mini Flow Table Test Setup ............................................................. 37

FIGURE 4.4 Modified Mini Flow Table Test Setup ........................................................... 37

FIGURE 4.5 Various Fractions of Fine Aggregate ............................................................. 38

FIGURE 4.6 Flowchart for Digital Image Analysis ............................................................ 39

FIGURE 4.7 Image Acquisition System.............................................................................. 40

FIGURE 4.8 Flow Chart of Surface Area Calculation of Particle ....................................... 42

FIGURE 4.9 Measurement of Coin Diameter by Vernier Caliper ...................................... 45

FIGURE 4.10 Measurement of Particle Dimension by Vernier Caliper ............................. 46

FIGURE 4.11 Particle Image for Analysis .......................................................................... 46

FIGURE 4.12 Weighing Balance ........................................................................................ 47

Figure 4.13 Flow Chart for Compatibility Study ................................................................. 48

FIGURE 4.14 Mini Slump Test Set Up ............................................................................... 49

FIGURE 4.15 Hobart Mixture ............................................................................................. 50

FIGURE 4.16 Stiff Mix ....................................................................................................... 51

FIGURE 4.17 Bleeding and Segregation ............................................................................. 51

xix

FIGURE 4.18 Flow Chart for Workability of Cement Mortar ............................................ 52

FIGURE 5.1Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm .............. 55

FIGURE 5.2 Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 2.36 to 1.18mm ................... 55

FIGURE 5.3 Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 1.18mm to 0.60mm ............. 56



FIGURE 5.6 Linear Regression of Surface Area and Average Sieve Size Opening ........... 58

FIGURE 5.7 Influence of Surface Area and Superplasticizer Dosage on Cement Mortar

Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Fraction F1 ...................... 65

























xx






Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone I .............................. 75






Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone II ............................. 77






Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone III ............................ 79






Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone IV ............................ 81





FIGURE 5.34 Location of Collected Sample for Validation ............................................... 87

FIGURE A.1 Particles surface area for fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm ............................... 100





xxi

List of Tables TABLE 2.1 List of Shape Describing Quantities (Rodriguez et al., 2008) ........................ 23

TABLE 3.1 Physical Properties of Cement (Brand: UltraTech Cement) ............................ 28

TABLE 3.2 Zone of Fine Aggregate as per IS-383:1970 ................................................... 30

TABLE 3.3 Manufactured Sand Zone (MFZ) from Various Fractions ............................... 30

TABLE 3.4 Properties of superplasticizers ......................................................................... 32

TABLE 4.1 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates .................................................................. 35

TABLE 4.2 Determination of Surface Area of Particle by Image J .................................... 43

TABLE 4.3 Digital Image analysis results of Particle by ImageJ ....................................... 46

TABLE 4.4 Weight to number of particles .......................................................................... 47

TABLE 5.1 Calculation of Surface Area (2D) and Weight ................................................. 57

TABLE 5.2 Test Results of Polynaphthalene Sulphonate Superplasticizer (SNF-F1) ........ 60

TABLE 5.3 Test Results of Polynaphthalene Sulphonate Superplasticizer (SNF-B1) ....... 61

TABLE 5.4 Test Results Of Melamine Formaldehyde Superplasticizer(SMF-S1) ............ 62

TABLE 5.5 Test Results of Polycarboxylic Ether Superplasticizer (PCE-B1) ................... 63

TABLE 5.6 Summary of Cement Superplasticizer Compatibility Study ............................ 64

TABLE 5.7 Detail of Nine Models for Regression Analysis .............................................. 85

TABLE 5.8 Summary of Models ......................................................................................... 86

TABLE 5.9 Details of Sand Samples .................................................................................. 87

TABLE 5.10 Variations in Predicated and Actual Workability .......................................... 88

TABLE C.1 Manufactured Sand Zone 1(MFZ-1) from Different Fractions ..................... 103

TABLE C.2 Surface Area Calculation .............................................................................. 103

TABLE C.3 Surface Area of Different Manufactured Zone ............................................. 104

TABLE C.4 Surface Area Calculation for Different Fractions ......................................... 104

TABLE C.5 Surface Area of Different Fractions .............................................................. 104

TABLE C.6 Sieve Analysis ............................................................................................... 105

TABLE C.7 Surface Area Calculation of Random Sample ............................................... 105

TABLE D.1 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Fraction F1 (4.75 to 2.36mm) ............ 106






xxii




TABLE D.10 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Fraction F4 (0.60 to 0.30mm) .......... 115






TABLE E.1 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone I ........................................... 121



TABLE E.4 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone II .......................................... 124



TABLE E.7 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone III ........................................ 127



TABLE E.10 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone IV ...................................... 130



TABLE F.1 Sieve Analysis of Sample 1 (Chota Udepur) ................................................. 133

TABLE F.2 Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 (Panchmahal) .................................................... 135

TABLE F.3 Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 (Rajkot-Aji River) ............................................ 137

TABLE F.4 Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 (Junagadh) ........................................................ 139

TABLE F.5 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 (Patan-Banas River) .......................................... 141

TABLE F.6 Sieve Analysis of Sample 6 (Kutch) .............................................................. 143

TABLE F.7 Sieve Analysis of Sample 7 (Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River) ......................... 145

xxiii

Chapter 1

Introduction

General 1.1

Concrete is widely used composite material, made of cement, aggregate, water, and

admixtures. Cement paste is considered as an active constituent of concrete, and properties

of cement paste are mainly studied to understand performance and characteristics of

concrete. The admixture is defined as a material other than water, cement, and aggregate. It

may be added to concrete before or during its mixing. It is used to get benefits such as

acceleration, retardation, air entrainment, water reduction, plasticity, etc. These benefits are

due to the action of admixture on cement paste.

Quality of fresh concrete is very much depended on fresh properties of cement paste and

mortar. Fresh concrete quality is determined by how easily concrete can be mixed,

transported, compacted and finished. Fresh properties of concrete affect the hardened

properties and ultimately durability of concrete. Hence concrete must be required to remain

homogenous during placing and after compaction so that undesirable effects such as

bleeding, segregation, honeycombing, and plastic cracking over the surface can be

avoided. These undesirable effects lead to decline quality and durability of concrete.¬

In order to produce good quality hardened concrete, which possesses required strength,

volume stability and desired durability, it is necessary to achieve desired fresh properties of

concrete, i.e. workability. The workability of cement paste, mortar, and concrete includes

properties such as flowability, cohesiveness, compactibility, consistency, and moldability.

Therefore, the term workability of concrete is subjective. To get fundamental and

quantitative information regarding fresh mix, it is required to define workability.

Workability 1.2

Workability of concrete has defined by many institutes, standards and researchers. Some of

workability definitions are given below to understand the term the workability of concrete.

1

Introduction

1.2.1 Definition

Workability of concrete is defined in ASTM C-125 [1] as “the property determining the

effort required to manipulate a freshly mixed quantity of concrete with minimum loss of

homogeneity.” The American Concrete Institute (ACI 116R-00, 73) [2] describes

workability as “that property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar that determines the ease

with which it can be mixed, placed, consolidated, and finished to a homogenous

condition.” The Japanese Association of Concrete Engineers defines workability as “that

property of freshly mixed concrete or mortar that determines the ease and homogeneity

with which it can be mixed, placed, and compacted due to its consistency, the homogeneity

with which it can be made into concrete, and the degree with which it can resist separation

of materials.” Ferraris [3] and Neville [4] defines workability as “the amount of useful

internal work necessary to produce full compaction.”

Factors Affecting Workability 1.3

Factors affecting the workability are enumerated below

1.3.1 Water Content

The water content of mix is influenced by various factors, such as workability,

environmental condition, type of cement and other cementitious supplementary material,

aggregate size, aggregate shape and aggregate texture, and chemical admixture. According

IS 10262:2009 [5]; maximum water content is directly proportionate to the maximum size

of aggregate, type of aggregate and workability of the mix. Water content is independent of

cement content, grading of the aggregate and environmental condition. Generally, at

construction sites for uncontrolled concrete, normal practice is to add more water for the

more workable mix which ultimately reduces the concrete strength. For constant water-

cement ratio, the aggregate-cement ratio increases (surface area of solid particles increases)

the workability decreases.

1.3.2 Cement Content

Cement fineness has no major influence on the workability of concrete although the finer

the cement the greater the water content requirements. Drastic reduction in cement content

2

Introduction

for given water content in conventional concrete would produce a harsh mixture. Concrete

mixture with high cement content show excellent cohesiveness but tends to be sticky.

1.3.3 Aggregate Characteristics

High coarse aggregate to fine aggregate ratio can produce low workable and harsh mixture

which exhibits segregation also. On the other hand, more amounts of fine aggregate lead

higher workability, but more fine aggregate content makes concrete less durable. The

particle size of coarse aggregate influences the water requirement for given consistency.

Bigger size particles have less surface area, therefore it requires less cement paste content

to lubricate surface to reduce internal friction. For the same cement paste content, properly

graded aggregate gives more workable mix because of least voids in the same. Shape and

surface texture of aggregate affects the workability of the mixture. For the same workable

mix, angular shape and rough texture aggregates are required more water content

compared to the rounded shape and smooth surface aggregates.

1.3.4 Use of Admixtures

After water content, the important factor which affects the workability is the admixture.

Water reducing and high range water reducing admixtures are used to increase the

consistency of the mix for constant water content. Use of appropriate dosage of plasticizer

or superplasticizer increases the workability of reference concrete (concrete without

plasticizers or superplasticizers) by many folds. Air entraining agents reduces the internal

friction between the particles. It acts as an artificial fine aggregate with the smooth surface.

Air bubbles reduce the friction between particles by ball bearing effects and give mobility

to particles. Entrained air in concrete also reduces the bleeding and segregation. Similarly,

use of fine glassy pozzolanic materials gives better workability, although having more

surface area.

There are other minor factors which affect the workability such as cement fineness, but the

influence of this is still controversial.

3

Introduction

Admixtures 1.4

Concrete admixtures are added before or at the time of mixing to enhance plastic or

hardened properties of concrete. Concrete admixtures are defined as a material other than

water, cement, aggregate, and fiber reinforcement that is used as an ingredient of mortar or

concrete mix.

Classification of Admixtures 1.5

Admixtures widely vary in chemical composition and sometimes perform more than one

function. Therefore it is difficult to classify them according to their function. As per

mechanism of action, chemical admixtures are classified into two categories. Surface

active admixtures act on the cement- water system by influencing the surface tension of

water and by absorbing on the surface of binder particles. Set controlling admixtures affect

the chemical reaction between cement compounds and water, from several minutes to

hours after addition. Mineral admixtures are finely ground insoluble materials, either from

natural sources or from byproducts of some industries.

IS 9103: 1999 “Concrete Admixture – Specification” [6] covers the chemical admixtures

including superplasticizers, to be added to cement concrete immediately before or during

the mixing to achieve the desired properties of the concrete, in plastic or hardened state. IS

9103: 1999 [6] covers the following admixtures: a) Accelerating admixtures, b) Retarding

admixtures, c) water reducing admixture, d) Air-entraining admixtures, e)

Superplasticizing admixtures. ASTM C 494 [7], “Standard Specification for Chemical

Admixtures for Concrete,” also classifies admixtures into seven types as follows: Type A

Water-reducing admixtures; Type B Retarding admixtures; Type C Accelerating

admixtures; Type D Water-reducing and retarding admixture; Type E Water-reducing and

accelerating admixtures; Type F Water-reducing, high-range, admixtures; and Type G

Water-reducing, high-range, and retarding admixtures.

Superplasticizer 1.6

Superplasticizer is also known as high range water reducing admixture. Superplasticizer

reduces three to four times water content in given concrete mixtures compared to the

mixture containing normal water reducing admixture. Superplasticizer helps in lowering

the water-cement ratio so it contributes to enhancing the durability of concrete. The

4

Introduction

chloride content in admixture shall be declared by the manufacturer. Superplasticizers are

expected to be chloride free. Admixtures which contain relatively high chloride content

may accelerate the rate of corrosion in prestressing steel.

1.6.1 Mechanism of Action of Superplasticizer

Superplasticizer consists of the long chain, high molecular weight anionic surfactants with

a large number of polar groups in the hydrocarbon chain. Superplasticizer adsorbed on

cement particles and imparts a strong negative charge, which helps the surface tension of

the surrounding water considerably and enhances the fluidity of the mix. Generally mixes

with superplasticizer do not encounter segregation because of the colloidal size of the long

chain particles of the admixture that obstructs the bleed water flow channels in concrete.

Superplasticizer creates well dispersion of cement particles in water and accelerates the

rate of hydration. Rapid loss of the consistency or slump was observed with use of the

first-generation superplasticizer.

Polyacrylates, polycarboxylic, and polyethylene- based copolymers are new generation

superplasticizer, which has comb-like molecular structures. New generation

superplasticizer works as the dominant cement dispersion mechanism, inhibition of

reactive sites through dispersion instead of electrostatic repulsion.

FIGURE 1.1 Diagrammatic Illustration of Mechanisms by which Superplasticizers

can Disperse Cement Particles (P.K. Mehta)[8]

5

Introduction

In steric repulsion, one side of the polymer chain gets adsorbed on the surface of the

cement particle, while the long unabsorbed side creates the steric repulsion. The grafted

side chains of comb superplasticizers protrude and extend from the adsorbed-cement-

surface site to hinder neighboring cement particles to reach the range within which vander

Waal’s force of attraction would be effective. Figure 1.1 illustrates these mechanisms.

Effects of steric repulsion last longer than electrostatic repulsion, therefore at lower dosage

new generation superplasticizers have greater influence over the slump retention compared

to naphthalene or melamine-sulfonate type superplasticizers.

1.6.2 Advantages and Disadvantages of Superplasticizer

There are few advantages achieved when superplasticizers are used

1. It significantly reduced the water content of mixes.

2. It also reduced the cement content.

3. It increased the workability of the mix.

4. Placement efforts reduced the use of superplasticizer.

5. More rapid rate of early strength development

6. Permeability decreased

7. Increased long-term strength and durability

Following are the disadvantages of the use of superplasticizers:

1. Use of admixture added additional cost although ease in concrete placement may be

reduced its effect

2. Compared to conventional concrete, it has greater slump loss

3. Less responsive to some cement and therefore compatibility study is required

before use of superplasticizer

4. Minor discoloration of light-coloured concrete

1.6.3 Estimation of Superplasticizers

Estimation of admixture is not easy, particularly for superplasticizers or retarder. It also

depends on fresh and hardened properties of mix and admixtures as supplied. For

estimation of admixture, analysis and data interpretation can only be done by an

experienced researcher in chemical admixtures.

6

Introduction

Estimation of admixtures (superplasticizers) as supplied is required for following purposes

1. To determine the chief organic components of the admixtures, such as

lignosulfonate, hydroxycarboxylic acids or carbohydrate. Chromatographic and

infrared (IR) spectroscopy are known techniques to identify or/and estimate the

main components of the admixtures.

2. To check whether the composition of the various admixture shipments from

manufactures is the same on IR spectrum carried out along with other simple

physical and chemical measures such as specific gravity, pH, and total solid

determination

3. To determine the amount of a particular component, such as chloride, with a

potentially damaging effect on prestressed concrete. The minimum concentration of

a component that could damage concrete should be known.

Superplasticizer specifications are provided by the manufacturer with details mentioned

above.

Estimation of admixtures in concrete is required for followings

1. To analyze the effect of superplasticizers on concrete

2. To check some problems which may be caused by water reducers such as excessive

retardation in setting time and low strength development

3. To avoid the use of improper type and dosage of admixtures

4. To solve “admixture problems” in some cases, this in fact related to concretes with

deficient in cement, or to improper batching of cement.

1.6.4 Field Problems in Use of the Superplasticizers

Use of nominal dosage of superplasticizer in very stiff (zero slumps) concrete improves the

consistency of matrix but it does not become perceptible. High dosage of superplasticizers

may increase the slump of the stiff mix but it is uneconomical. Therefore slump of

reference mix (i.e. concrete without superplasticizer) is an important parameter.

Superplasticizers and cement compatibility studies are the primary consideration for many

construction sites.

Generally, for the trial mix, laboratory mixers are inefficient when the small quantities of

superplasticizers are used. Workability of the mix is affected by the method and addition

sequence of superplasticizers. A higher quantity of dust presents in manufactured sand or

crushed sand inferences the superplasticizers dosage and mix properties. Use of natural

7

Introduction

sand or combination of crushed sand and natural sand may reduce the problem up to

certain extent.

The shape of aggregate is not of primarily significant for concrete grade up to 30 or

40Mpa. For high strength concrete i.e. 60 or 80Mpa, low water-cement ratio is required.

To achieve specific workability of high strength concrete with low water-cement ratio and

pumped or long distance transportation requirements, shape of aggregates and use of

superplasticizers become essential. Specially manufactured well graded and cubical shape

aggregates are used for high strength concrete. In cases of more flaky or elongated

particles, a dosage of superplasticizer increases to achieve the same workability of the mix.

Flaky or elongated particles have more surface area than cubical shape particles. In fact,

the surface area of aggregate depends on the shape of particles. Surface area variation is

more in the fine aggregates particles than coarse aggregate particles. Larger the surface

area of aggregates, cement paste requirements become more and eventually

superplasticizers demand increases. Superplasticizers are costly so the higher dosage of

superplasticizers makes an uneconomical mix.

Need of Study 1.7

In recent years, the construction industry has changed significantly and demand greater

speed of construction has arisen. Today concrete is not just the material which contains

cement, water, and aggregate, but most of it also incorporates chemical or mineral

admixtures. The concrete technologist has to work out mix design of concrete to achieve

required fresh and hardened properties of concrete. Properties of concrete with admixture

depend on different chemical and mineralogical compositions and proportion of admixture

(Ferraris, C. F.) [9]. Chemical interaction of cement with admixture decides the fresh and

hardened properties of concrete.

Skeleton of concrete is made of the aggregates which are inert materials. In normal

concrete, one would like to minimize the paste content and maximize the aggregate volume

fraction for an economy. Cement paste alters the interstitial void space of the dry aggregate

system. Interstitial void space varies with aggregate characteristics such as the volume of

aggregates, grading of aggregates, shape characteristics of aggregates and surface

characteristics of aggregates. All these aggregate characteristics will be represented by one

consideration i.e. the surface area of aggregates.

8

Introduction

Flow behavior of the mixture is governed by the characteristics of cement paste. Cement

paste characteristics are enhanced by adding superplasticizer. Superplasticizer is adsorbed

by cement particles and helps to release trapped water from cement flocks by separating

and deflocculating cement particles. The lack of sufficient cement paste /mortar results in a

harsh mixture that does not flow well is prone to segregation and is difficult to finish.

Therefore cement paste and mortar characteristics are studied by various researchers to

understand the behavior of concrete.

A literature study shows that cement paste is the most complicated constituent of mortar or

concrete, consisting of fine cement particles undergoing a chemical reaction with and

within a water medium (Tattersall, 1976) [10]. Superplasticizer is added to the mixture to

achieve better fluidity. Superplasticizer dosage depends on various parameters such as the

type of cement, water cement ratio i.e. availability of free water, and type of

superplasticizer. A complete understanding of mortar or concrete workability, therefore,

must include a thorough understanding of the cement paste that suspends the aggregate.

Research Questions 1.8

Based on above study, following research questions are formed:

1. Since shape, size and surface characteristics play major role in governing

workability and are mainly described in qualitative terms, can a system be designed

and developed which can measure these characteristics in quantitative terms?

2. Usually, the number of trials are required to fix superplasticizer’s dosage to achieve

the desired workability, is it possible to develop a superplasticizer dosage

prediction model for the desired workability to reduce trials?

Objective and Scope of Research Work 1.9

The workability of cement paste reduces by introducing aggregate in it as discussed in

literature review summary. Cement mortar is prepared by adding fine aggregate into paste

and concrete is produced by further addition of coarse aggregate. Since the action of

aggregate remains same, present work is limited to study of mortar which can be extended

to concrete later.

9

Introduction

Base on the above research questions following objective is aimed at,

• To develop a prediction model for the dosage of superplasticizer to obtain

the desired workability of mortar. This relationship will be useful to reduce

the trials to achieve the desired workability of mortar.

To identify major parameters which affect the workability of mortar, and to obtain a

relationship between them which will be achieved by;

i. Study the effect of water-cement ratio and superplasticizer dosage on the

workability of the cement paste and cement mortar.

ii. Study the effect of surface area of aggregate on the workability of cement

mortar.

iii. To develop a methodology to estimate the superplasticizer dosage for the

desired workability.

Organization of Thesis 1.10

This thesis consists of six chapters. Chapter 1 outlines the brief introduction of workability

and factors affecting workability, mechanism of superplasticizers, field problems in the use

of superplasticizer, the need of study, research questions, objective, and scope of research

work. Chapter 2 contains a review of workability measurement tests, and particle

characteristic measurement technology by previous researchers. Chapter 3 describes the

basic properties of experimental materials and formation of manufactured fine aggregate

zones used during the research work.

Chapter 4 presents the detail of research methodology and an experimental program which

divided into six phases i.e. Pilot study, characterization of aggregate grading, shape and

size, compatibility study, cement mortar workability study, statistical analysis of test

results, and prediction model for superplasticizer dosage to obtain the desired workability.

Chapter 5 deals with test results analysis and validation of developed models for prediction

of superplasticizer dosage. In the end, chapter 6 provides emerged conclusion and

recommendation for future research work.

10

Chapter 2

Literature Review

General 2.1

The flow properties of cement paste, mortar and concrete have an important role in

designing concrete mixes. In construction field terms like workability, flowability, and

cohesion are interchangeably used to describe the behaviour of concrete under the

condition of flow. Though these terms are very subjective in its own, fundamental and

quantitative information of concrete flow is required.

Concrete is said to be “fresh” before the period of its final setting. Despite following sound

procedures to make good quality of fresh concrete, the voids present in the concrete affect

the performance of concrete particularly into achieving desired “workability”.

The term workability is broadly defined; no single method is capable of measuring all

aspects of workability of cement paste, cement mortar or concrete. Only some

conventional methods are in use to measure the performance of the fresh concrete, mainly

the workability. An excerpt of the research work carried out in this field is discussed under.

Workability Measurement Tests and Flow Characteristic of 2.2Cement Paste and Mortar

Many researchers have given the classification of workability tests based on the principle

of measurement. Tattersall [11] has divided workability measurement tests into three classes

as shown in Figure 2.1.

Hackley and Ferraris [12] have classified workability tests in four categories as per flow

behavior such as confined flow test, free flow test, vibrating flow tests, and rotational

rheometers and suggested various workability measurement tests depending on the type of

mix.

11

Literature Review

FIGURE 2.1 Classification of Workability Test by Tattersall[11]

Agullo et al. [13] have studied the fluidity of superplasticized cement paste using Marsh

cone test. Figure 2.2 shows dimensions of Marsh cone test which was used to obtain a

practical measure of fluidity of cement pastes which contains superplasticizer and silica

fume. A Marsh cone flow times versus different initial reference volumes of cement paste

was found out to decide initial pouring volume of cement paste as shown in Figure 2.3.

The flow times of pastes with superplasticizer and with varying W/C as 0.28, 0.33 and 0.40

were determined to study the effect of w/c ratio. It was found that the flow times

determined using the Marsh cone test provide satisfactory indication of the relative fluidity

of the cement paste and this approach is useful in practical applications for the selection of

Workability measurement classes by Tattersall (1991)

Class-I Qualitative Class-II Quantitative Empirical Class-III Quantitative Fundamental

Workability, Flowability, Pumpability, Finishability, etc.

Slump, Compacting factor, Flow table spread, Vebe Time,

etc.

Viscocity, Mobility, Fluidity, Yield value, etc.

FIGURE 2.3 Marsh Cone Flow Time Versus

Initial Reference Volume

FIGURE 2.2 Marsh Cone for

Cement Paste

12

Literature Review

superplasticizers and their optimum dosages. Test results have shown that for all cases

there was a superplasticizer saturation dosage beyond which there is no significant increase

in fluidity takes place.

Sakir Erdogdu [14] carried out an experimental study on the compatibility of

superplasticizer with three types of cement having the different composition. In this study

three types of cement which were blended cement (KC 32.5), Pozzolanic cement (TC

32.5), and Portland cement (PC 42.5) with different cement contents of 300, 350, and 400

kg /m3 were used for preparing concrete mixes. Admixture (specific gravity = 1.2 kg/l) was

added to mixing water in three different proportions as 1%, 2%, and 3% by weight of each

cement respectively. To achieve equal workability of all mixes target slump ranging 5±9

cm was set. Concrete cube specimens (15 X 15 X 15 cm3) without admixture were cast for

comparisons. The optimal cement contents were found to be 400 kg/m3, 350 kg/m3 and 300

kg/m3 for KC 32.5, TC 32.5 and PC 42.5 respectively and the maximum strength gain in

concrete was achieved with a 3% admixture addition regardless type of cement.

Marsh cone test, Mini spread test, and rheometer were used to understand flow behaviour

of superplasticized cement paste by Jayashree and Gettu [15]. Portland cement (OPC-53

grade) was used along with four different families of superplasticizers such as

Lignosulphonate, Polynaphthalene sulphonate based, Polymelamine sulphonate based and,

Polycarboxylate Ether based. The solid content of superplasticizers was varying from 32 %

to 44%. All mixes have the water-cement ratio of 0.35. Flow behaviour of cement paste

with different types and dosages of superplasticizers were determined by Marsh cone test

and Mini-slump flow test and their results (represented through the Bingham and Herschel-

Bulkley models) were compared with the results determined by the viscometer. The study

indicates that all three tests show same trend with a change in superplasticizer dosage.

Bouvet et al [16] have performed Mini-slump flow test and Marsh cone tests. Cement paste

mixes were made using a water-cement ratio 0.37 and two superplasticizers dosages i.e.

0% and 1.15% (derived from self-compacting concrete). The computational model was

prepared to analyze the different region and corresponding flow types i.e. flowing fresh

cementitious materials for concrete. A new equation for final spread diameter has been

proposed which depends on viscosity.

Jayasree et al. [17] have summarized state of art on cement and superplasticizers interaction

and discussed test methods to find the effectiveness of superplasticizers. Cement paste

which includes superplasticizers exhibits non-Newtonian characteristics, which depend on

the type of superplasticizer and its dosage. Ordinary Portland cement 53 grade (according

13

Literature Review

to IS 12269-2004 [18]) and superplasticizers (SP) from the three different families:

Naphthalenes (SNF), Melamines (SMF), Polycarboxylates Ether (PCE) with dosage

varying from 0.1 to 1% by weight of cement were used to study the effect of the different

types of superplasticizer on the flow behaviour of cement paste. Cement paste transition

from linear viscoelastic to non- Newtonian and subsequently to linearly viscous fluid was

observed with the increase in superplasticizer dosage. Marsh cone test was used to

determine the optimum dosage of superplasticizer for different mixes. Optimum dosages

determined by mechanical test (Marsh cone test) were closed to the dosages at the

transition to the linearly viscous behaviour.

An attempt was made by Gengying Li and Xiaozhong Wu [19] to find an influence of fly

ash and its mean particle size on certain engineering properties of cement mortars. An

experimental investigation has been made to study the effect of fly ash and its mean

particle size (PD) on workability and strength. To evaluate the compressive strength and

bond strength, cubes were prepared with the size of 10 cm X 10 cm X 10 cm. Flow table

test was used to measure workability or fluidity. Total 12 mixes of cement mortar

incorporating different mean particle size fly ash were used in the experimental program.

The significant increase in long-term strength (compressive and bond strength) was

observed in cement mortar mixes incorporating the coarser fly ash. The fluidity of

composite mortar enhanced due to replacement of cement and lime with fly ash.

Guneyisi et al. [20] have studied the effect of marble powder and slag on the properties of

self-compacting mortars. Self-compacting mortars (SCMs) were particularly anticipated

for rehabilitation and repair of reinforced concrete structures. Authors have studied the

effect of marble powder and ground granulated blast furnace slag on fresh properties of

self-compacting mortar. The marble powder was obtained as an industrial by product

during sawing, shaping, and polishing of marble. Portland cement, marble powder, ground

granulated blast furnace, Polycarboxylic-Ether type superplasticizer with a specific gravity

of 1.07 and mixture of Natural River sand and limestone sand as fine aggregate were used

in the study. Nineteen self-compacting mortar mixtures were made having a constant

water-binder ratio of 0.40 and the total binder content of 550 kg/m3. Fresh properties of the

self-compacting mortar were tested by mini-slump flow diameter, mini-V funnel flow

time, initial and final setting times, and viscosity. Compressive strength and ultrasonic

pulse velocity were also performed for hardened self-compacting mortar. Test results

indicate that addition of marble powder increased fresh properties but decreased the

hardened properties of self-compacting mortars. Use of ground granulated blast furnace

14

Literature Review

slag decreased viscosity and V-funnel flow time while increased the setting times of self-

compacting mortars.

Chandra and Björnström [21] used mini flow table test to study the influence of cement and

superplasticizers type and dosage on the fluidity of cement mortars. Concrete quality is

affected by the flow behaviour of cement paste, which is nothing but the dispersion of

cement particles in the medium of water. Superplasticizer provides better dispersion of

cement particles. The study focuses the influence of lignosulfonic acid (LS) and melamine

sulfonic acid (SMF)-based superplasticizers on the fluidity of mortars made with ordinary

Portland (OPC), low alkali (LAC) and white cement (WC) at the different water to cement

ratio. Addition of lignosulfonic acid based superplasticizer in cement mortar provided

better fluidity than melamine sulfonic acid based superplasticizer. White cement shows

high workable mixes with both types of superplasticizers compared to ordinary Portland

cement and low alkali cement. Low C3A+C4AF and alkali content and higher SO3 content

might be the reason for the high workability of white cement mixes.

Harini et al. [22] investigated effects of size and type of fine aggregates on the flowability of

mortar with use of mini flow table test. River and crusher sand were used with four single

sizes namely 1.18 mm, 0.600 mm, 0.300 mm, 0.150 mm. Total 103 mortar mixes were

prepared with two different water-cement ratios and three different sand to cement

proportions. Angularity test based on ASTM C1252 [23] was performed to study the

influence of shape and surface texture of aggregate. Sizes of aggregate and uncompacted

void content have the major impact on the flowability of cement mortar. Test results

indicate that flowability of mortar was greatly affected by size and shape characteristics of

aggregates.

Haach et al. [24] have studied the influence of aggregate grading and water-cement ratio on

workability and hardened properties of mortars. The workability as one of the most

important properties of mortar, which was the assembly of several properties such as

consistency, plasticity, and cohesion but plasticity and cohesion were difficult to measure,

therefore consistency was frequently used as the measure of workability. The consistency

of mortar was obtained by means of the flow table test (as per EN 1015-3) [25].

Compressive and flexural tests (as per EN 1015-11)[26] were carried out on prismatic

specimens of 40 mm X 40 mm X 160 mm. Test results illustrate that sand grading affects

the consistency of the mix and cement mortar produced from fine sand requires a higher

amount of water. It also shows that sand grading has no influenced on compressive

strength of cement mortar.

15

Literature Review

Aggregate Shape Characteristics Assessment Techniques 2.3

Aggregate occupies approximately 60 to 80 percent of the volume of concrete, so it is

important to identify the characteristics of aggregate. Aggregate characteristic does not

only affect the strength of concrete but also influences structural performance and

durability of concrete. Natural aggregates are either formed by weathering and abrasion

process or by the artificial crushing of bigger parent mass [4]. The microstructure of parent

rock, prior exposure condition, and processing factor decides characteristic of aggregate

that significantly affect concrete properties [8]. Petrographic classification, chemical, and

mineral composition, strength, hardness, specific gravity, color, pore structure, physical

and chemical stability depend on parent rock properties.

Aggregate properties such as particle shape and size, surface texture and absorption are not

associated with parent rock. In general, mortar or concrete properties have been preferably

found by characteristics of aggregate because it influences both fresh and hardened

properties. The research work carried out for aggregate shape characteristics assessment

techniques has discussed under.

Particle Shape and Size 2.4

Particle shape and size influence the concrete mix proportion significantly. The shape of

aggregate can be defined by sphericity, form, and roundness [27]. If three axes or dimension

of the particle are nearly same then the particle is classified as spherical. The form of

particle which is also known as shape factor is used to differentiate between particles

which have same sphericity [28]. If longest axes, intermediate axes, and shortest axes are

represented by L, I and S respectively, then;

𝑺𝒑𝒉𝒆𝒓𝒊𝒄𝒊𝒕𝒚 = �𝑺.𝑰𝑳𝟐

𝟑 , 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝒔

√𝑳𝑰 𝒐𝒓 𝑺𝒉𝒂𝒑𝒆 𝒇𝒂𝒄𝒕𝒐𝒓 = 𝑳𝑺

𝑰𝟐 (Eq. 2.1)

However, various researchers have given different definitions of shape parameters which

are also not correlated with each other. Apart from sphericity and form, there are two

common terms elongation index and flakiness index which are used to state shape of

aggregate. Method for determination of flakiness index and elongation index is given in IS-

2386 (Part-I)-1963 (reaffirmed-1999) [29].

16

Literature Review

Roundness and angularity are also two other characteristics to define particle shape [30].

Particles losing edges and corners by attrition process become well rounded such as wind-

blown sands, as well as sand and gravel from seashore or riverbeds. Aggregate

manufactured by crushing of rocks has sharp and well-defined edges which are called

angular particle [8]. The shape of the particle also can be classified as angular, sub-angular,

sub-rounded, rounded, and well-rounded [31]. Visual assessment of shape characteristic of

particle has been given by Ahn [32] in Figure 2.4.

FIGURE 2.4 Visual Assessment of Shape Characteristic of Particle by Ahn [32] (a)

Derived From Measurements of Sphericity and Roundness (b) Based Upon

Morphological Observations

17

Literature Review

Concrete mix is prepared by various size particles. Particle size distribution is represented

by grading and grading of coarse and fine aggregate is given in IS-383:1970 (reaffirmed-

2002) [33]. It is important to select suitable grading of and maximum size of aggregate. For

example use of coarser sand leads to the production of the harsh and unworkable mix while

the use of very fine sand increases water requirement for the desired workability (which

also increases cement requirement for given water cement ratio) and uneconomical. Well-

graded aggregates reduce the void ratio and produce the most workable and economical

concrete.

As the quality of aggregate influences concrete mix design and properties, it is necessary to

measure the quality of aggregate before it is used for concrete manufacturing. Most

popular field test to measure the quality of aggregate is sieve test. Duration of sieve test on

dry materials varies from 30 minutes to 2 hours and a longer time is required when

materials need to wash before testing. Assessment of shape characteristic and other

parameters which can affect concrete properties is not possible with sieve test. Therefore, it

is essential to develop rapid assessment techniques for quality control of aggregate. For

rapid assessment of aggregate quality various procedure and testing devices have been

evolved by different researchers in last two decades [34].

Particle Characteristic Measurement Technologies 2.5

It is necessary to develop an understanding of aggregate characteristic as discussed. Many

efforts have been made to discover rapid, automated and accurate techniques for

measurement of particle shape characteristic. Various principle and measurement

techniques concise review have been given by McCave I.N., and Syvitski J.P.M. [35].Schematic view of four generalizes techniques have been given in Figure 2.5. Out of all

four techniques, only automated sieve analysis is developed for the construction industry.

FIGURE 2.5 Different Technologies for Analyzing Particle Characteristic

Particle characteristic measurement technologies

Digital Image Processing

Fluid sedimentation methods Laser diffraction spectroscopyAutomated Sieve Analyser

18

Literature Review

Selection of a suitable method for measurement depends on various parameters such as

estimated range of particle size, solubility, ease of handling, flowability, cost, specific

requirements and time. Figure 2.6 shows the graphical representation of the accuracy of

various methods for the range of particle size [34]. Fluid sedimentation and sieve analysis

require comparatively longer time than other two methods. Laser diffraction technique is

used to analyze particle size rapidly but it is applicable for certain particle size range (fine

particles). Suspension of the coarse particle to capture diffraction images for a long time is

difficult. An image analysis technique covers larger range (0.04 mm to 50mm) as shown in

Figure 2.6.

FIGURE 2.6 Graphical Representation of Accuracy Various Technologies for Wide

Range of Particles

2.5.1. Sieve Analysis

Particle sizes and gradation of material have been found out by sieve analysis. For

obtaining particle gradation, it is required to arrange an appropriate set of sieves with mesh

size, increasing from bottom to top and shake sieves by the putting sample on top sieve.

The particle passes through sieve depends on the orientation of particle, a ratio of particle

size and sieve opening, various movement (horizontal and vertical) and duration of sieve

shaker.

Particle size decides the method of sieving such as air jet sieving, wet sieving or dry

sieving. Figure 2.7 represents the various sieving method versus particle size range. Sieve

analysis is inexpensive, easy to perform in the field and covers a wide range of particle size

Accuracy

Grain Size (mm)0.04 0.3 2 50

Image AnalysisLaser Diffraction Fluid Sedimentation

19

Literature Review

but it is labor intensive and time-consuming. It requires cleaning and maintenance of sieves

also. Automated sieve analyzer is a device which can perform sieve analysis accurately and

give computer-generated reports of sieve test. It also has a facility for emptying and

cleaning the sieves. RETSCH- solutions in milling and sieving is one of the companies

which provides a range of automated sieving device for air jet, wet and dry sieving.

FIGURE 2.7 Sieving Method versus Particle Size

2.5.2. Fluid Sedimentation Method

Fluid sedimentation method may be classified as incremental or cumulative. The

incremental method measures particle concentration at a predetermined depth from the free

surface of suspension. The weight of particles extracted from sedimentation column

determines the proportion by weight of the sample under test that consists of particles

having a diameter less than that corresponding to the velocity of fall at the time of

sampling. In a cumulative method, the mean concentration of unsettled particles is

measured over the whole distance from the surface level of the suspension to a known

depth below the surface or alternatively the total sediment of a known depth is measured

(IS-5282:1969) [36].

Particle settlement can be either gravitational or centrifugal. Gravitational sedimentation is

applicable to relatively larger particle because rate of settlement for small size particle is

too low to give a practical analysis time under gravitational method. Sometimes very small

size particle never settles by gravitational sedimentation unless particle density is

extremely high. Therefore centrifugal sedimentation analysis is used for smaller particle.

IS-5282:1969(reaffirmed-2000) [36] is an Indian standard which covers liquid

sedimentation methods for determination of particle size of powder. IS-5282:1969 [36] has

given following methods for particle size measurement.

a) Fixed position pipette incremental method-pipette at the top

b) Fixed position pipette incremental method - pipette at side

c) Centrifugal sedimentation method

Air Jet Sieving

Wet Sieving

Dry Sieving

1m

Particle Size

1μm 10μm 100μm 1mm 10mm 100mm

40 μm 125mm

20 μm 20mm

20μm200μm

20

Literature Review

Particle size is calculated using stokes’ law in the following form:

𝐷 = �18ɳℎ

�𝜌𝑝 − 𝜌𝑓�𝑔𝑡�0.5

(Eq. 2.2)

Where D= particle diameter in cm ɳ= fluid viscosity in poise g = acceleration due to gravity in cm/ sec2 h=distance in centimeter through which particle falls in time t in sec ρp=particle density in g/ml ρf=fluid density in g/ml

Smaller particle settles faster in high gravitational force compared to Brownian diffusion.

Modification of Stokes’ law is required to encounter a variation of gravitation force with

distance from the center of rotation. Following equation [37] is used to measured particle

diameter.

𝐷 = �18ɳ ln

𝑅𝑓𝑅𝑜

��𝜌𝑝 − 𝜌𝑓�𝑤2𝑡��

0.5

(Eq. 2.3)

Where D= particle diameter in cm ɳ=fluid viscosity in poise Rf= final radius of rotation in cm Ro= initial radius of rotation in cm ρp=particle density in g/ml ρf=fluid density in g/ml w= rotational velocity in radians/sec t= time required to sediment from Ro to Rf in sec

In the modified form of Stokes’ law equation, time is the only variable parameter if

centrifuge running at constant speed and temperature. Particle diameter can be measured

with use of stokes’ law and modified stokes’ law. Liquid fluid sedimentation method is

applicable from 0.01 micron to about 50 microns particle size. Fluid sedimentation method

requires simple and inexpensive equipment. It also used to measure a wide range of

particle with considerable accuracy and reproducibility. The major limitation of this

approach is that it measures the particle size in terms of an equivalent diameter of the

sphere falling through the fluid. Therefore particle shape characteristic is not obtained

directly by this approach. This method requires temperature control to avoid suppress

convectional currents. Particles also have to be insoluble in suspending liquid.

“CPS Disc Centrifuge, Models DC12000, DC18000, DC20000 and DC24000”

manufactured by Sinsil international and “SediGraph 5100” manufactured by Micromeritic

Instrument corporation are devices used for fluid sedimentation methods.

21

Literature Review

2.5.3. Laser Diffraction Spectroscopy

Particle scatters light is not new information. Particle interacts with light by reflection,

diffraction, adsorption, and refraction. Laser diffraction spectroscopy is a well-known

technique used for particle’s size assessment. The core idea behind laser diffraction

spectroscopy is a measurement of scattering light angle to evaluate particle size. Large size

particle is scattering light at a small angle and small size particle is scattering light at a

wide angle. Loizeau et al. [38] and Buurman et al. [39] have studied application and accuracy

of laser diffraction techniques for earth materials.

ISO 13320:2009 [40] has covered particle size analysis by laser diffraction. This method

covers submicron to millimeter size range (general range - 0.02micron to 2mm) for particle

sizing. Laser diffraction spectroscopy analyzes particles much faster than conventional

sedimentation method for fine particles. Large numbers of particles sampled in each

measurement give freedom of repeatability. A major limitation of this approach is

suspending coarse particle for the required time to capture diffraction images for analysis.

It is also an expensive method of particle sizing. This method gives output such as volume

and specific surface area of particle considering particle as a sphere.

Many companies manufactured laser diffraction equipment, including Malvern

Instruments. Malvern Instrument’s Mastersizer3000 uses laser diffraction techniques to

measure particle size range 0.01 micron to 3.5 millimeter. Mastersizer 3000 particle size

range also depends on sample and sample preparation.

2.5.4. Digital Image Analysis

Digital image analysis is a process to gather information regarding the characteristic of the

particle through computer programing. It is vital to capture aggregate image with proper

lighting and background for digital image analysis. Each particle boundary is obtained by

digital image analyzer programs. These programs are designed to sense boundary of

particle though tracing the outline, pixel counting or line scanning. Digital image analysis

gives useful data and information on shape characteristics of particle apart from its size.

Digital image analysis techniques such as photogrammetry, X-ray tomography, and laser

profiling have been tried by various researchers.

Kemeny et al. [41], Ferniund [42], and Kuo et al. [43] [44] have analyzed earth materials

through digital image analysis. Digital image analysis is a quick technique to obtain the

characteristic of aggregate and real-time quality control is possible with it [45]. In the recent

22

Literature Review

era, large number of particles’ analysis is possible within a fraction of the time with digital

image analysis. It is also possible to develop an automated method for digital image

analysis to reduce time and efforts of the human. Kumara et al. [46] have studied particle

size distribution of granular materials by sieve analysis and image analysis. They also

suggested use of black color sheet to minimize effect of particle shadow for digital image

analysis. Rodriguez et al. [47] have carried out a study of image analyses for soil particles.

They emphasized on establishment of a methodology for digital image processing because

results are affected by the various parameters such as image acquisition procedure, image

processing, and the choice of quantity. They have also listed and used shape describing

quantities for soil particles as shown in Table 2.1.

TABLE 2.1 List of Shape Describing Quantities (Rodriguez et al., 2008) [47]

Sr

#

Shape

quantity

Equation /

Definition Figures References

1 Sphericity DaDc

Wadell,1935[48]

2 Degree of

circularity 𝑃𝑎𝑃𝑝

Wadell, 1935[48]

3 Roundness

𝐴𝑝𝐴𝑐

Tickell, 1938[49]

4 Roundness/

circularity 4𝜋𝐴𝑝𝑃𝑝2

Riley, 1941[50]

5

Inscribed

circle

sphericity

�𝐷1𝐷𝑐

Riley, 1941[50]

23

Literature Review

Sr

#

Shape

quantity

Equation /

Definition Figures References

6 Circularity 𝑃𝑝2

𝐴𝑝

Blott&Pye 2008[51]

7 Roughness 𝑃𝑝

𝑃𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑣

Janoo, 1998[52]

8 Roughness ∑𝑟𝑖 𝑁⁄𝑟𝑖𝑛𝑐

Wadell, 1932[48]; Krumbein&Sloss, 1951[53]; Mitchell & Soga, 2005[54]

9 Sphericity �𝑏𝑐𝑎2

3

Krumbein, 1941[55],

Stückrath et al.,

2006[56]

10 Aspect ratio 𝑀𝑎𝑗𝑜𝑟𝑀𝑖𝑛𝑜𝑟

Image Analysis

Pro

Ap Area of the particle outline

Da Diameter of a circle with an area equal to that of the particle outline

Dc Diameter of smallest circumscribed circle

Pp Perimeter of particle outline

Pa Perimeter of a circle of the same area as particle outline

Ac Area of the smallest circumscribing circle

Dinsc Diameter of the largest inscribed circle

Pconv Perimeter, convex

Digital image analysis is also useful to investigate shape properties of natural and crushed

aggregate. Correlation between shape characteristic of aggregate and concrete compressive

strength has been carried out by Rýza Polat et al. [57].Digital imaging systems are available

as a commercial product or tools for research laboratories to evaluate aggregate shape

characteristics. Malvern Instrument’s Morphologi G3 is one of the products which

measures particle shape and size characteristics by static image analysis technique.

24

Literature Review

MorphologiG3 is used to measure the particle shape and size parameters such as circle

equivalent diameter, length, width, perimeter, area, max distance, sphere equivalent

volume, fiber total length, fiber width, Aspect ratio, circularity, convexity, elongation, high

sensitivity circularity, solidity fiber elongation and, fiber straightness. This equipment

measured various parameters for particle size range of 0.5 microns to 1 millimeter.

Generally, two-dimensional images have been captured and analyzed to obtain

characteristics of aggregate. It is difficult to perform three-dimensional analyses with this

technique. Typically digital image analysis helps to find area fraction rather than volume

fraction. Although some of the researchers have tried to find out three-dimensional image

analyses of aggregate particles from an orthogonal projection. Kuo et al., [43] have used

transparent sample tray with two perpendicular faces to capture orthogonal projection. One

face of the tray has the adhesive surface to stick aggregate on it.

FIGURE 2.8 Illustration of Sample Tray And Aggregate

After capturing an initial image, a tray is rotated at 90 degrees and the orthogonal image

has been taken for analysis. Illustration of sample tray and aggregate are shown in Figure

2.8. Long, intermediate and short dimensions are used to find flatness and elongation of

particle while other data such as area and perimeter are used to find other shape indexes. It

is still difficult to find volume fraction of aggregate by this method.

Three-dimensional properties of an aggregate particle such as shape or surface properties

are measured through X-ray computed tomography (CT) technique. This technique is very

expensive for assessment of aggregate shape characteristic. X-ray CT technique also

requires monitoring of radiation along with stringent safety. Three dimensional (3D) laser

scanning technique is also used for quantifying aggregate shape or surface characteristic.

This technique is preferable due to cost-effectiveness in comparison with X-ray computed

tomography (CT) technique.

25

Literature Review

Lenarno and Tolppanen [58] have developed a new approach based on 3D laser scanning for

characterization of dimensions, shape, and roughness of coarse aggregate. Regular and

irregular shaped particle surface area measured by three orthogonal view and 3D laser

scanning has been studied by Pan and Tutumluer [59]. They have also compared surface

area by both the methods and suggested application of it in asphalt mixture design. 3D

laser scanning process time requirement depends on resolution and size of the aggregate

particle. Longer scanning time is required for high resolution and bigger size particle.

Literature Review Summary 2.6

Literature study revealed following aspects of the selection of workability measurement

test, effects of superplasticizer and its dosage on the workability of cement paste and

mortar, and particle shape characteristic assessment techniques.

a) Selection of a test method to measure workability is based on mix characteristic.

Test methods for very low workability mix and high workability mix are different.

b) Superplasticizer interacts with cement only and remains neutral towards aggregates

(if they are inert). However, workability reduces with the introduction of

aggregates in cement paste which is mainly governed by volume of aggregates,

grading of aggregates, the shape of aggregates, and surface characteristics of

aggregate.

c) Fresh and hardened properties of cement mortar or concrete depending on the

quality of aggregate. Therefore construction industry requires a methodology to

analyse aggregate quality quickly.

d) Selection of methodology for aggregate shape characteristic measurement depends

on certain criteria such as aggregate size, accuracy, the reliability of the method, the

time required to analyze the sample, human efforts requirement, measurement of

other characteristics of particle apart from size, robustness of testing equipment,

initial cost of equipment, maintenance and operational cost.

e) Digital image analysis method has a potential to estimate size and shape

characteristics of aggregate rapidly and accurately.

f) Two dimensional (2D) image analyses of aggregate give broad idea of aggregate

quality compared to procedure suggested in Indian standards.

g) Three dimensional (3D) analyse is the latest development in digital image analysis

field but it requires a high initial cost for setup.

26

Literature Review

h) In general, a camera and a computer are required for two dimensional (2D) image

analysis techniques. Therefore, there is a need to study shape parameters of

aggregate by two dimensional (2D) image analyses and its effect on the

performance of cement mortar or concrete mix.

i) Significant research efforts are put-in to understand the flow characteristics of self-

consolidated mortar/concrete, but very fewer citations are available on the

estimation of superplasticizer dosage for intermediate/medium workability.

27

Chapter 3

Experimental Materials and Basic Properties

General 3.1

This chapter discusses in detail basic properties of materials used in the present research

work. Some of the basic tests are performed on materials to define the physical properties

of materials. Chemical and physical properties of materials used during the experimental

work are mentioned below.

Cement 3.2

Portland cement (conforming to OPC 53 grade of the Indian standard IS 12269–1987) is

used for all tests of cement paste and mortar. The cement is tested according to IS

4031:1988 [60] and its physical properties test results are given in Table 3.1. The standard

consistency of cement paste is measured by Vicat apparatus and it is 29%.

TABLE 3.1 Physical Properties of Cement (Brand: UltraTech Cement)

Sr. No. Physical testing of cement Results

obtained

According to IS

12269:1987 [18]

1 Setting Time

Initial (Minutes)

Final (Minutes)

135

230

30 min (Min)

600 min(Max)

2 Soundness : Expansion by

Le-chatelier Method (mm)

2.0

20 (max)

3 Compressive strength (MPa)

3 days

7 days

28 days

29.6

40.2

56.7

27.0 (min)

37.0 (min)

53.0 (min)

28


3.2.1 Precaution and Handling of Cement

Cement gets damaged by contact with air moisture or water; therefore, cement bags are

kept in the dry place. If cement comes into the contact with moisture then hydration

process starts and it becomes unfit to use.

The major consideration in all processes involving the handling and organizing of cement

bags is to avoid damage or contamination of cement prior to use for testing. Cement bags

are stored at least 150 to 200mm above the floor to avoid the contact of water.

FIGURE 3.1 Cement Storage

Cement bags are completely enclosed by polyethylene sheet as shown in Figure 3.1. Same

cement manufactured brand is used during entire research work.

Fine Aggregate 3.3

Natural sand which passes through 4.75mm sieve and retained on 150 μm sieve, which

satisfies the Indian standard specification IS: 383-1970, is used as the fine aggregates.

Specific gravity and water absorption values were 2.41 and 0.40 % by mass respectively

for fine aggregates.

Sieving of the natural sand is carried out to obtain different fractions and zones for the

study as per IS-383:1970. Total five fractions i.e. 4.75 to 2.36mm (F1), 2.36 to 1.18mm

(F2), 1.18 to 0.60mm (F3), 0.60mm to 0.30mm (F4), and 0.30 to 0.15mm (F5) are

separated from natural sand. Zone formation is carried out considering the limits given in

IS-383:1970 [61] (reaffirmed-2002).Table 3.2 shows various zones of fine as per IS-

383:1970 (reaffirmed-2002) [61].

29


TABLE 3.2 Zone of Fine Aggregate as per IS-383:1970 [61]

IS Sieve

Designation

Percentage passing for

Grading Zone-I Grading Zone-

II

Grading Zone-

III

Grading Zone-

IV

10mm 100 100 100 100

4.75mm 90-100 90-100 90-100 95-100

2.36mm 60-95 75-100 85-100 95-100

1.18mm 30-70 55-90 75-100 90-100

600 micron 15-34 35-59 60-79 80-100

300 micron 5-20 8-30 12-40 15-50

150 micron 0-10 0-10 0-10 0-15

Out of all sieves, 600-micron sieve has distinct range i.e. without overlapping of

percentage passing for various zones as shown in Table 3.2. For manufactured sand zones

(MFZ) of fine aggregate, the average of 600-micron percentage passing is taken and all

other sieve percentage passing is set accordingly. Table 3.3 shows percentage passing for

the various manufactured sand zone.

TABLE 3.3 Manufactured Sand Zone (MFZ) from Various Fractions

IS Sieve

Designati

on

Grading

for zone-I

MF

Z-I

Grading

for zone-II

MF

Z-II

Grading

for zone-

III

MF

Z-

III

Grading

for zone-

IV

MF

Z-

IV

10 mm 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100

4.75 mm 90 100 100 90 100 100 90 100 100 95 100 100

2.36 mm 60 95 77.5 75 100 87.5 85 100 92.5 95 100 97.5

1.18 mm 30 70 50 55 90 72.5 75 100 87.5 90 100 95

0.60 mm 15 34 24.5 35 59 47 60 79 69.5 80 100 90

0.30mm 5 20 12.5 8 30 19 12 40 26 15 50 32.5

0.15mm 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 10 0 0 15 0

Percentage retains on each sieve is derived from percentage passing from each sieve.

According to percentage retains, various fractions are added and mixed it properly to make

various zones. Various fractions and manufactured sand zones are washed to remove the

effect of ultra-fine particles on superplasticizer dosages.

30


Superplasticizer 3.4

Superplasticizers are used to study the change in the properties of fresh mixes.

Superplasticizers are absorbed on the surface of the binder particles, and it would cause

deflocculating and dispersion of binder particles. It results in improvement in mix

workability for same water content.

(a) SNF-F1 (Fosroc) (b) SNF-B1 (BASF)

(c) SMF-S1 (Sika) (d) PCE-B1 (BASF)

FIGURE 3.2 Different Superplasticizers

31


Four different superplasticizers available in the market, Poly naphthalene sulphonate

(SNF-F1), Poly naphthalene sulphonate (SNF-B1), Melamine Formaldehyde Condensate

(SMF-S1) and Polycarboxylic Ether (PCE-B1) are selected for compatibility study as

shown in Figure 3.2. Table 3.4 shows the properties of superplasticizers given in datasheet

of the manufacturer.

TABLE 3.4 Properties of superplasticizers

Sr

#

TEST

DATA SNF-F1 SNF-B1 SMF-S1 PCE-B1

1 Aspect Dark Brown

Liquid

Dark Brown

Liquid

Colorless

liquid

Light Brown

Liquid

2 Chemical

Type

Poly

naphthalene

sulphonate

Poly

naphthalene

sulphonate

Melamine

Formaldehyde

Condensate

Polycarboxylic

Ether

3 Relative

Density

1.2-1.23 at 27

˚C

1.20 ± 0.02 at 25

˚C 1.25 at 20 ˚C

1.20 ± 0.02 at 25

˚C

4 pH Value 7-8 ≥ 6 8-12 ≥ 6

5 Chloride

Content

(%)

Nil <0.2 <0.1 <0.2

All superplasticizer comply with IS 9103: 1999 “Concrete Admixture – Specification”.

Selection of superplasticizer for the experimental work has been carried out by

compatibility study.

Water 3.5

Ordinary portable water free from turbidity, organic content and salts is used for all the

mixes. The temperature of water varied between 27 ˚C to 29 ˚C during the experimental

program.

32

Chapter 4

Experimental Program

General 4.1

In the present chapter, flow chart of research work is added for a better understanding of

work done. To achieve the objective of research work, the entire study is divided into six

phases. The scope of present study is limited to cement mortar. The process pursued in the

entire experimental work, i.e. surface area measurement of fine aggregates, compatibility

study of cement superplasticizers, and cement mortar workability is explained in detail.

Modified mini flow table test has been performed to obtain fresh properties of mixes.

Observations made during experimental work are also described in this chapter. During the

entire experimental program, the type of cement, fine aggregate, water, and

superplasticizer are kept same to avoid any adverse effects on properties of mixes, since

basic properties of these materials would affect the fresh properties of the mix.

Research Methodology 4.2

Figure 4.1 shows the flow chart of research work. The pilot study has been carried out to

select suitable experimental test and methodology for research work. For achieving the

objective of the research, it is proposed to carry out experimental work, to develop an

analytical model based on statistical analysis of test results and to validate the proposed

model. Research methodology consists of following six phases.

Phase I Pilot Study

Phase II Characterization of aggregate grading, shape, and size i.e. analysis of

particle characteristic

Phase III Selection of superplasticizer i.e. Compatibility study

Phase IV Cement mortar workability study

Phase V Statistical analysis of test results and development of a prediction model

Phase VI Proposed methodology to predict superplasticizer dosage to obtain desired

workability and its application.

33


Literature study and selection of Topic

Pilot study for selection of research methodology

Phase-I

Division of work plan into various phases

Research methodology to find surface area of fine

aggregate

Cement mortar workability study

Cement superplasticizer compatibility study to selection appropriate

superplasticizer

Digital Image Analysis for each fractions

Phase-II

Modified mini flow table test

Phase-IVPhase-III

Combination of results for statistical analysis and selection of statistical test

Statistical analysis of experimental data and development of models

Phase-V

Proposed prediction methodology for superplasticizer dosage to obtain

desired workability

Phase-VI

Modification in test equipments to satisfy requirement

FIGURE 4.1 Flow Chart of Research Methodology

34


Phase I Pilot Study 4.3

The Pilot study is aimed to find a suitable test to measure fresh behavior of mortar for low

to high workability. Various test methods have been developed to measure behaviour of

fresh cement mortar. Workability indicators are developed based on different test methods.

These indicators are applicable only for a specific range of workability. An attempt has

been made to establish an applicable range of workability for various test methods and

correlate the workability indicators of any two tests for a given mix. However, it is

observed that the indicators are applicable to distinct ranges of workability and therefore

no unique indicator can address a wide range of cement mortar workability.

Further, the effort has been done to modify the Mini flow table test that attempts to address

a wider range of cement mortar workability. The modified Mini flow table test is found to

be applicable to a wide range i.e. very low to very high workable mix.

4.3.1 Materials

Portland cement (conforming to OPC 53 grade of the Indian standard IS 12269–2004) [18]

is used for all tests of cement paste and mortar. The fine aggregates are natural sand with a

specific gravity of 2.41 and an absorption value of 0.40% by mass. Sieve analysis test is

performed as per Indian standard specification IS: 383-1970 [61]. Table 4.1 shows test

results of sieve analysis of fine aggregates and it does indicate zone –III of fine aggregates.

TABLE 4.1 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates

Sieve no. Percent passing Specification of

IS: 383-1970[61]

10 mm 100 90-100

4.75mm 95.2 90-100

2.36mm 89.2 85-100

1.18mm 79.8 75-100

600 μm 69.8 60-79

300 μm 22.4 12-40

150 μm 2.4 0-10

35


Cement mortar is prepared in the proportion of 1:1 of cement and fine aggregates. Cement,

fine aggregates, and water as per mix requirements are taken into mixing bowl. Mixing is

stopped after 2 minutes and sides of the mixing bowl have been scrapped for 20 to 30

seconds. Again mixing is carried out for 3 minutes ± 15 seconds to get the homogeneous

mix.

4.3.2 Flow Characteristic of Cement Mortar (Marsh Cone Test)

The Marsh cone test has been performed to know the relative fluidity of cement mortar. A

metal cone with 12 mm nozzle diameter is used. 1000 ml cement mortar volume is poured

into the metal cone and time required to 500 ml flow out is measured using a stopwatch.

Test results are recorded in terms of flow time (seconds). Lower flow time indicates

greater fluidity of cement mortar compared to higher flow time. Figure 4.2 shows the set

up for the Marsh cone test.

FIGURE 4.2 Set Up for Marsh Cone Test

36


4.3.3 Consistency of Fresh Cement Mortar (Mini Flow Table Test)

A truncated cone, with 50 mm height, 100 mm bottom diameter, and 70 mm top diameter

is filled by cement mortar. A truncated cone is lifted gently and 15 jolts in 15 seconds are

applied. The cement mortar spread is measured in terms of the average diameter of flow

i.e. average of four symmetrically distributed measurements. Percentage of spread is

calculated by taking the average diameter of flow with respect to the original diameter of

mortar before the test as the reference value.

High workable mix spread is more than the diameter of flow table i.e. 250mm. Therefore,

modification in the diameter of Mini flow table has carried out by following Domone [62].

Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4 show original Mini flow table and Modified Mini flow table test

set up respectively. An acrylic sheet having diameter 450 mm and weight 492 grams is

attached to the base plate of the Mini flow table.

FIGURE 4.3 Original Mini Flow Table

Test Setup

FIGURE 4.4 Modified Mini Flow Table

Test Setup

4.3.4 Marsh Cone Test Results and Discussion

The cement mortar mixes are prepared with the initial w/c ratio as 0.40 and varying it in

incremental sequence. Cement and fine aggregate proportion is taken as 1:1. It is observed

that when the Marsh cone test is performed up to water cement ratio 0.72, the mix gets

clogged in the cone. Hence, the Marsh cone test is applicable after the w/c ratio of 0.72, as

cement mortar mix is relatively fluid after that w/c ratio.

4.3.5 Mini Flow Table Test Results and Discussion

Mini flow table test is suitable for stiff workable to medium workable mortar mix. If the

diameter of cone and spread of the mix are same then it is defined as a stiff mix. High

workable mix spread is more than the diameter of flow table i.e. 250 mm. Therefore, a base

of 450 mm has been attached to the original Mini flow table.

37


4.3.6 Summary

A series of cement mortar sample with varying water cement ratio are performed by

different tests to understand the suitability of test for low to highly workable mixes. In the

present work, the stiff mix or zero spread is considered as a low workable and the mortar

spread greater than 290mm without bleeding and segregation is defined as highly workable

mix [62]. Marsh cone test is applicable to measure flow behaviour of cement mortar above

water cement ratio 0.72. It was not possible to find the correlation between original Mini

flow table test and Marsh cone test. Modified Mini flow table test having the diameter of

450mm was applicable for entire range i.e. very low to high workable mix. Hence, use of

Marsh cone test was limited to pilot study. Original and Modified Mini flow table test

results show only 5 % variations for various mixes.

Phase II Characterization of Aggregate Grading, Shape and Size 4.4

A given sand sample has a large variation in particle size, shape, volume, and surface

characteristics. Hence, characterization method should be able to cover the entire range of

sand fractions i.e. 0.150 mm to 4.75 mm. Shape, size, volume, and surface characteristics

can be clubbed in single parameter i.e. the surface area of the particle. There is a definite

relationship between two dimensional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) surface areas of

regular shape particles.

On the same line, in the present study, it is assumed that definite relationship exists

between 2D surface area of randomly oriented particle and their 3D surface area. Digital

image analysis (DIA) technique is selected to cover the entire range of sand particles and

determine 2D surface area of given particles. Digital image analysis is a process to gather

information regarding a characteristic of particle through computer programming. It is vital

to capture aggregate image with proper lighting and background for digital image analysis.

Each particle boundary is obtained by digital image analyzer programs. These programs

are designed to sense boundary of particle through tracing outline, pixel counting or line

scanning.

4.75 to 2.36 mm 2.36 to 1.18 mm 1.18 to 0.60mm 0.60 to 0.30mm 0.30 to 0.15mm

FIGURE 4.5 Various Fractions of Fine Aggregate

38


Various fractions of the fine aggregate are segregated as per IS-383:1970 [61] (reaffirmed-

2002) for digital image analysis. Figure 4.5 shows particles of various fractions of fine

aggregate.

The methodology adopted for determination of surface area for a given sample is described

as under.

Step 1. Selection of thirty particles randomly from each fraction

Step 2. Determination of surface area of thirty particles by DIA

Step 3. Calculation of average surface area of each particle

Step 4. Determination of weight of n number of particles from sample

Step 5. Calculation of average weight of each particle

To get average surface area of given sand sample, following steps are to be followed

Step 1. Carry out sieve analysis to divide into requisite fractions

Step 2. Weight of given fraction is determined

Step 3. Determine the number of particles in given fraction as the average weight of

one particle of that fraction is known

Step 4. Determine total surface area of given fraction by multiplying average

surface area of one particle of that fraction and number of particles

Step 5. Sum the average surface areas of all the fractions

4.4.1 Surface Area Measurement for Fine Aggregate Particles

The fine aggregate of size varies from 0.150mm to 4.75mm are used for sieve analysis.

The samples are sieved as per IS 2386 (Part I)-1963 [29].

Digital Image Analysis (DIA) to find Surface area of fine aggregate particles

4.75mm to 2.36 mm

2.36mm to 1.18 mm

0.600 mm to 0.300 mm

1.18mm to 0.600 mm

0.300 mm to 0.150 mm

DIA of 30 particles

DIA of 30 particles

DIA of 30 particles

DIA of 30 particles

DIA of 30 particles

FIGURE 4.6 Flowchart for Digital Image Analysis

39


The different fractions retained on sieve sizes 4.75mm, 2.36mm, 1.18mm, 0.600mm,

0.300mm and 0.150mm are gathered for further digital analysis as shown in Figure 4.6.

Sieve analysis test was conducted by handshaking.

4.4.2 Digital Image Analysis

Digital image analysis is a two-step process: i) Image acquisition ii) Analysis of acquired

image to calculate surface area.

4.4.3 Image Acquisition Process

The high-quality image of the aggregate particle is needed to perform digital image

analysis. The image acquisition set up consists of a camera on the photographic stand,

black sheet, and light sources are required to capture high-quality images. The black sheet

gives a dark background in the image which allows distinguishing the particle easily. The

dark background and proper adjustment of light sources help to avoid shadows of the

particle. The single particle image is captured for fine aggregate fractions 4.75mm to

2.36mm, 2.36mm to 1.18mm, 1.18mm to 0.600mm, and 0.600mm to 0.300mm. Fine

aggregate fraction 0.300mm to 0.150mm particles are placed and spread out carefully so

that they are not touching and overlapping each other. The distance between particle and

camera lens is maintained to get a clear and sharp image of aggregate particles.

FIGURE 4.7 Image Acquisition System

40


A captured image of the particle is also checked on the computer screen. If it found

unsatisfactory then the same process has been carried out once again. Fine aggregate

particles are anisotropic material and it prefers orientation of a particle to be stable on a flat

surface. Therefore, thickness (i.e., short axis) of particles cannot be measured since 2-D

images measure only the long and intermediate axes. Setup for image acquisition system is

shown in Figure 4.7.

A measuring ruler is also captured in the image with the particle to set the scale during

image analysis. Images are captured with digital single lens reflex camera (Canon EOS 5D

Mark- IV) with a 24-105 mm lens which can measure up to 30.4 million pixels.

4.4.4 Image Analysis Process

The captured image is analyzed further using software ImageJ 1.47 V on a computer.

ImageJ 1.47 V can read many image formats such as TIFF, GIF, JPEG, BMP, DICOM,

and FITS. JPEG format images are taken for analysis of particles. Image J is a powerful

tool to analyze images and calculate area from the pixel value. It also supports image

analysis functions such as sharpening, edge detection, contrast manipulation, smoothing,

and noise removal. Process flow chart for surface area calculation of particle is shown in

Figure 4.8.

The scale of the image, i.e. pixels/mm is set using the ruler in the image. The original RGB

image is converted into grey scale (8 bit) image. The threshold value is set and the image

has been converted to the binary image which has black objects and white background. To

remove the noises and sharpen the edges of particle some steps are very important such as

Erode, Dilate, and Fill holes. Erode removes pixels from the edge, while Dilate adds pixels

to the edges of black objects. Fill holes command fills the holes in the black objects. Erode

and dilate process numbers should be remained same to ensure no addition or removal of

the pixel from black objects.

The image is analyzed for measurement of the surface area of the particle. The surface area

of a particle is defined as the area of selection in square pixels or in calibrated square units

(e.g. mm2, µm2, etc.) Step by step process for measurement of the surface area of the

particle is given in Table 4.2.

41


Capture a high quality image of aggregate particle

Set the scale

Convert the image in monochrome (8 bit)

Set the threshold value

Convert it into binary image

Remove noise points both inside and outside of aggregate

particle domain

Matched the original image with binary image

Yes / No ?

No

Adj

ust t

he

thre

shol

d va

lue

Detect the edge curve of particle

Yes

Calculate the surface area of particle

FIGURE 4.8 Flow Chart of Surface Area Calculation of Particle

42


TABLE 4.2 Determination of Surface Area of Particle by Image J

1. Open original image via File → Open →

select original image from computer

2. Set measurement scale

a. Draw a line over a 10mm section of

ruler

b. Analyze → Set scale

c. In set scale window enter 10 into the

‘known distance’ box and change the

unit of measurement box to mm,

mark ‘Global’ box

d. Draw a new line and confirm the

measurement scale is correct.

3. Convert original RGB image of particle to

grayscale (8-bit)

Image → Type → 8-bit

4. Set the threshold of the particle image

Image → Adjust → threshold

5. Convert the image into a binary image

Process → Binary → Make Binary

43


6. Crop the image as per requirements

Select the area to be cropped by rectangular

box

Image → Crop

7. Remove noises from the image

Process → Noise → Remove Outliers

Select dark in ‘Which outliers’ and mark

preview. Adjust radius value to remove

noises from image

8. Fill the holes

Process → Binary → Fill holes

9. Erode or dilate if necessary

Process → Binary → Erode

Process → Binary → Dilate

10. Calculate the surface area of particle

Analyze → Analyze Particles

Count:1

Total Area: 20.73 mm2

An individual particle from fraction 4.75 mm to 2.36 mm, 2.36 mm to 1.18 mm, 1.18 mm

to 0.600 mm, and 0.600 mm to 0.300 mm is captured and analyzed to calculate the surface

area of particles. For fraction 0.300 mm to 0.150 mm, particles are very fine and therefore

44


they are captured and analyzed in three different images. Total 150 particles are analyzed

by ImageJ software as shown in Figure 4.6. The results of surface area measurement of 30

particles from each fraction are saved in the spreadsheet file to calculate the average area

of one particle.

4.4.5 Validation of Digital Image Analysis

The process is validated using standard objects of known dimensions such as coins, and

known shape object. Vernier caliper is used to measure the dimensions of the coin.

FIGURE 4.9 Measurement of Coin Diameter by Vernier Caliper

A digital image of this coin is captured by the camera and analyzed by Image J software.

As shown in Figure 4.9 the diameter of the coin measured by Vernier caliper is 24.92 mm

and analyzed by ImageJ software is 24.923 mm.

A particle from size 4.75 mm to 2.36mm has been taken for validation of the digital image

analysis process. First of all the longest dimension of particle has measured by Vernier

caliper as shown in Figure 4.10. Image of the same particle has captured for the digital

image analysis by ImageJ software as shown in Figure 4.11.

45


FIGURE 4.10 Measurement of

Particle Dimension by Vernier Caliper

FIGURE 4.11 Particle Image for Analysis

The digital image analysis of particle results by ImageJ software is given in Table 4.3. It

indicates that particle dimension is 7.26 mm and 7.27mm as per Vernier caliper and digital

image analysis respectively.

TABLE 4.3 Digital Image analysis results of Particle by ImageJ

Size of particle Area (mm2) Perimeter (mm) Width (mm) Height (mm)

4.75mm to 2.36mm 23.83 20.26 7.27 4.32

4.4.6 Weight to Number of Particle Relationship

These images and surface areas are two dimensional (2D) representation of an actual fine

aggregate particle, a three dimensional (3D) analysis is a much better but it requires a

costlier setup. The thickness and volume of particles are not possible to obtain directly

from 2D image analysis of particles. Therefore, it is not possible to find the quantity of

particle in terms of mass, volume or numbers. A simple logical method is adopted to

calculate the weight to the number of particles for each fraction.

Approximately 10 grams, 2 grams, 0.3 grams, 0.1 grams and 0.05 grams sample are taken

for fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm, 2.36mm to 1.18mm, 1.18mm to 0.600mm, 0.600mm to

0.300mm, and 0.300mm to 0.150mm respectively. A high precision laboratory weighing

46


balance (Sartorius BT 224 S) with 0.0001 gram readability is used to weigh the sample as

shown in Figure 4.12.

FIGURE 4.12 Weighing Balance

Numbers of particles are calculated manually for fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm, 2.36mm to

1.18mm, and 1.18mm to 0.600mm while digital image analysis by Image J is used to

calculate the number of particles for remaining finer fractions i.e. 0.600mm to 0.300mm,

and 0.300mm to 0.150mm. The average weight of the sample and average numbers of

particles are calculated for each fraction. The average weight of one particle is derived

based on this relationship as shown in Table 4.4.

TABLE 4.4 Weight to number of particles

Sieve size fraction (mm)

Average weight of sample (gram)

Average number of Particles

Average weight of one particle(gram)

4.75-2.36 10.04 162 0.061914 2.36-1.18 2.0144 203 0.009933 1.18-0.60 0.3115 252 0.001239 0.60-0.30 0.1225 569 0.000215 0.30-0.15 0.0475 2012 0.000024

47


4.4.7 Determination of Surface Area of Given Sample

Sieve analysis test is performed to divide the sample into requisite fractions. Weights of

fractions are determined and numbers of particles in each fraction are calculated as the

weight to the number of particle relationship is available. Surface areas of each fraction are

calculated by multiplying the number of particles and average surface area of particle.

Average surface area of given sample is determined by the summation of all fractions

surface areas.

Phase III Selection of Superplasticizer i.e. Compatibility Study 4.5

A variation in the characteristic of cement and type and dosage of superplasticizer creates

compatibility issues. Therefore, it is advisable to select an appropriate type of admixture.

Marsh cone test and Mini-slump test are performed to establish the compatibility.

Cement -Superplasticizer compatibility study

W/C : 0.30 W/C : 0.40 W/C : 0.50

SNF-F1 (Polynaphalene

sulphonate)

WC Ratio

SP DesignationSNF-B1

(Polynaphalene sulphonate)

SMF-S1 (Melamine Formaldehyde Condensate)

PCE-B1 (Polycarboxylater

ether)

Marsh Cone Test Mini Slump Test

Figure 4.13 Flow Chart for Compatibility Study

Superplasticizers are added to cementitious mixes in order to improve the fresh properties.

The same superplasticizer does not produce the same fluidity of mix with different types of

cement, nor do different superplasticizers produce the same fluidity with the same cement.

Therefore, laboratory experiments are required to study the cement superplasticizers

compatibility. To study the influence of water cement ratio on the dosage of

superplasticizer water cement ratio varied as 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 by weight. As shown in

Figure 4.13 cement superplasticizer compatibility study is performed with four different

superplasticizers.

48


4.5.1 Marsh Cone Test for Cement Paste

The Marsh cone test is performed to know the relative fluidity of cement paste. A metal

cone with 8 mm nozzle diameter is used. 1000 ml cement paste volume is poured into the

metal cone and time required to 500 ml flow out is measured using a stopwatch. Test

results are recorded in terms of flow time (seconds). Lower flow time indicates greater

fluidity of cement paste compared to higher flow time. A dosage, after which there is a no

significant increase in the fluidity of cement paste, is called optimum dosage of

superplasticizer (ODS).

4.5.2 Mini-slump Test for Cement Paste

Kantro [63] has developed a Mini-slump test to understand the flow behaviour of cement

paste. A Mini-slump cone, having height = 57 mm, bottom diameter = 38 mm and top

diameter = 19 mm is filled by cement paste. Figure 4.14 shows the set up for Mini-slump

test for cement paste.

The Mini-slump cone is lifted after one minute. Two diagonals and two medians average

are recorded as average flow diameter (AFD). Optimum dosage of superplasticizer is

considered from following two parameters. The first parameter is a maximum spread of the

cement paste without bleeding and the second parameter is 170 ± 10mm average flow

diameter [64].

(a) Mini Slump Cone

(b) Measurement of Flow

Diameter

FIGURE 4.14 Mini Slump Test Set Up

If the optimum dosage of superplasticizer is not in the range prescribed by the

manufacturer then it is considered as incompatible.

49


Phase IV Cement Mortar Workability Study 4.6

Workability of cement mortar can be determined by various tests. A pilot study is carried

out to judge their suitability and modified Mini flow table test was selected (Domone [62]).

In this test, a truncated cone of height= 50mm, bottom diameter =100mm and top diameter

=70mm was used. Cement mortar is filled and a truncated cone is lifted gently and15 jolts

in 15 seconds are applied. The fluidity of cement mortar is measured in terms of the

average diameter of flow. Visual observations are also made to identify bleeding and

segregation of cement mortar.

4.6.1 Measurement of Cement Mortar Workability

The experimental program is designed to estimate the superplasticizer dosage for desired

workability of cement mortar. For each water cement ratio, optimum dosage of

superplasticizer (ODS) has found out. Cement to fine aggregate proportions varied as 1:1,

1:2, 1:3, and 1:4. Six different dosages of superplasticizer are taken to study the effect of

superplasticizer on cement mortar workability i.e. 0% ODS (without superplasticizer),

0.25ODS, 0.50ODS, 0.75 ODS, 1.00ODS, and 1.25ODS. To study the effect of surface

area of fine aggregate on workability and dosage of superplasticizer five different fractions

and four different zones are prepared. First of all, segregation of different size of particles

with help of sieving is carried out to get five different fractions of fine aggregate.

FIGURE 4.15 Hobart Mixture

50


Hobart mixture as shown in Figure 4.15 is used to prepare a cement paste and mortar.

Modified Mini flow table test is performed to measure workability of cement mortar with

different water cement ratio, cement fine aggregate proportions, and superplasticizer

dosages. Total 648 tests are performed to get the relation between the water cement ratio,

dosage of superplasticizer, surface area and workability of mortar.

Test results indicate the cement mortar workability in terms of average flow diameter or

spread of mix. This test is very useful to identify the workability of different mixes. The

workability of cement mortar mix is varying from the stiff to segregation for present work.

Modified Mini flow table is also suitable test to know the characteristics of cement mortar

through visual observations. Remarks are also mentioned with the results of the modified

Mini flow table test based on the visual observations.

FIGURE 4.16 Stiff Mix

FIGURE 4.17 Bleeding and Segregation

Stiff mix indicates the zero workability as shown in Figure 4.16. There is no spread of mix

or change in the diameter of the base after applying 15 jolts.

Some mixes show the segregation and bleeding effects as shown in Figure 4.17. These

results are not considered for the further analysis. Cement mortar workability tests are

carried out for various fractions and zone as shown in Figure 4.18.

51


FIGURE 4.18 Flow Chart for Workability of Cement Mortar

W/C

: 0.3

0W

/C :

0.40

W/C

: 0.5

0

Cem

ent M

orta

r

OD

S: 0

OD

S: 0

.25

OD

S: 0

.50

OD

S: 0

.75

Zone

-IZo

ne-II

Zone

-III

Zone

-IV

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:1

Cem

ent:

FA

Zone

SP D

osag

e

WC

Rat

io

(b) W

orka

bilit

y of

Cem

ent m

orta

r for

var

ious

zon

es

W/C

: 0.3

0W

/C :

0.40

W/C

: 0.5

0

Cem

ent M

orta

r

OD

S: 0

OD

S: 0

.25

OD

S: 0

.50

OD

S: 0

.75

4.75

mm

to

2.36

mm

2.36

mm

to

1.18

mm

1.18

mm

to

600

mic

ron

600

mic

ron

to

300

mic

ron

1:2

1:3

1:4

1:1

Cem

ent:

FA

Frac

tion

SP D

osag

e

WC

Rat

io

(a) W

orka

bilit

y of

Cem

ent m

orta

r for

var

ious

frac

tions

300

mic

ron

to

150

mic

ron

OD

S: 1

.00

OD

S: 1

.00

OD

S: 1

.25

OD

S: 1

.25

52


Phase V Statistical Analysis of Test Results 4.7

To predict the superplasticizer dosages for the desired workability of cement mortar for

various fractions and zones, statistical analysis is carried out using SPSS software and

models are developed.

Phase VI Prediction Model for Superplasticizer Dosage to Obtain 4.8Desired Workability

Based on the study and statistical analysis of test results, a methodology is proposed to

estimate superplasticizer dosage for the desired workability of cement mortar.

53

Chapter 5

Test Results Analysis and Validation

General 5.1

In the present chapter, test results of the study have been divided into three parts and

presented in graphical form for better understanding. Test results of digital image analysis

for fine aggregate particles are presented in the first part of the chapter. The relationship

between sieve size and surface area of fine aggregate is also established based on digital

image analysis. Compatibility study of various types of superplasticizers with cement is

discussed in the second part. Test results of cement compatibility study are used in

selecting the appropriate superplasticizer. In the third part, results of cement mortar

workability study for different fractions and zones are presented. Mathematical models are

derived from the test results to predict the dosage of superplasticizer and are validated

through tests.

Digital Image Analysis Test Results for Fine Aggregate Particles 5.2

Digital image analysis method is used to find the surface area of the fine aggregate

particles. The value of an average surface area depends upon the sample size. The random

sampling method is used to select the sample size (i.e. n) from the population. Generally,

distribution of the mean of any sample is normal for n= 25 [65], therefore n= 30 is selected

as a sample size for each fraction. Figure 5.1 to 5.5 shows the histogram of particles

surface area for fractions 4.75mm to 2.36mm, 2.36mm to 1.18mm, 1.18mm to 0.600mm,

0.600mm to 0.300mm, and 0.300mm to 0.150mm respectively. Average surface area of

particles for fractions 4.75mm to 2.36mm, 2.36mm to 1.18mm, 1.18mm to 0.600mm,

0.600mm to 0.300mm, and 0.300mm to 0.150mm are 18.91mm2, 8.40mm2, 1.57mm2,

0.39mm2, and 0.12mm2respectively. Appendix A shows the surface area of particles for all

fractions in chart form.

54


FIGURE 5.1Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm

Figure 5.1 shows the range of surface area is between 9.60mm2 to 28.34mm2 for fraction

4.75mm to 2.36mm. The standard deviation for fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm is 4.913mm2.

FIGURE 5.2 Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 2.36 to 1.18mm



55


FIGURE 5.3 Histogram of Surface Area (mm2) for Fraction 1.18mm to 0.60mm






56




0.30mm to 0.15mm. The standard deviation for fraction 0.30mm to 0.15mm is

0.034mm2.The average surface area of one particle and weight is calculated as described in

section 4.4.Appendix B shows weight and number of particles for each fraction. Table 5.1

represents the surface area of particle and weight of single particle for various fractions.

TABLE 5.1 Calculation of Surface Area (2D) and Weight

Sieve size fraction

(mm)

Average surface area of one

Particle(mm2)

n=30

Approximate weight of one

particle(gm)

4.75-2.36 18.91 0.061914

2.36-1.18 8.40 0.009933

1.18-0.60 1.57 0.001239

0.60-0.30 0.39 0.000215

0.30-0.15 0.12 0.000024

Where n= number of particles

The average surface area of the particle is correlated with an average sieve size opening.

Figure 5.6 represents the linear regression of surface area of fine aggregate and average

sieve sizes opening.

57


FIGURE 5.6 Linear Regression of Surface Area and Average Sieve Size Opening

An expression of sieve size as a function of surface area of aggregate is developed which

yields R2 value of 0.987.

𝑌 = 5.898 ∗ 𝑋 − 2.25 Eq. 5.1

Where Y = Surface area of single particle (mm2)

X = Average of sample passing and retaining sieve size (mm)

The range of the average of sample passing and retaining sieve size is 0.225mm to

3.555mm. Appendix C shows the calculation of surface area from sieve analysis for the

manufactured sand zone- I and random sand sample.

Cement Superplasticizer Compatibility Test Results 5.3

Since the superplasticizer acts only on cement particles, the compatibility study is carried

out on cement pastes only. Four commonly available superplasticizers such as Poly

naphthalene sulphonate based (SNF-F1 Fosroc), Poly naphthalene sulphonate based (SNF-

B1 BASF), Melamine Formaldehyde Condensate based (SMF-S1 Sika) and Polycarboxylic

Ether based (PCE-B1 BASF) are selected for compatibility study. Marsh cone and Mini-

slump tests are performed to find the optimum dosage of superplasticizer (SP).

Optimum dosage of superplasticizer (ODS) is normally determined by following criteria.

a. Optimum dosage of superplasticizer is considered from following two parameters

for Mini-slump test. The first parameter is that paste should not show any bleeding

and second parameter is that spread should attain 170 ± 10mm average flow

diameter [64].

y = 5.8988x - 2.2503R² = 0.9875

-5.00

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50 4.00

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Sieve size(mm)

58


b. A dosage, after which there is a no significant difference in Marsh cone time (in

seconds), is called optimum dosage of superplasticizer.

Table 5.2 to Table 5.5 shows the test results of cement superplasticizer compatibility study

(Marsh cone test and Mini-slump test) for four different superplasticizers.

5.3.1 Superplasticizer-1 (SNF-F1)

Test results of Marsh cone test and Mini-slump test for water cement ratio 0.30,0.40 and

0.50 are given in Table 5.2.

Water Cement Ratio 0.30: The poly-naphthalene sulphonate based superplasticizer (SNF-

F1) shows Marsh cone time of 107 seconds and average flow diameter 140mm at 5 percent

dosage of superplasticizer. Marsh cone test results indicate clogging of cement paste below

5% dosage of superplasticizer. This dosage of superplasticizer is greater than prescribed

range by the manufacturer and it also has an adverse effect on setting time and strength of

the mix. Therefore SNF-F1 superplasticizer is considered incompatible for water cement

ratio 0.30.

Water cement ratio 0.40: Marsh cone time and average flow diameter are 10 seconds and

162.5mm respectively for 1.75 percent dosage of superplasticizer. Addition of 2 percent of

superplasticizer gives Marsh cone time 8.5 seconds and average diameter 174 mm for Mini

flow table test.

Water Cement ration 0.50: Addition of 1.00, 1.25 and 1.50 percent superplasticizer

dosage in the mix with water cement ratio 0.50 give 7 seconds, 6 seconds, and 6 seconds of

Marsh cone time respectively. It is hard to find optimum dosage of superplasticizers by

Marsh cone test because there is no or negligible difference in recorded time of Marsh

cone test. However, Mini-slump test gives distinguished average flow diameter of 1.00,

1.25 and 1.50 percent superplasticizer dosages. Mini-slump test results show 149.50mm,

156.00mm, and 168.75mm average flow diameter for 1.00, 1.25 and 1.50 percent

superplasticizer dosages respectively.

Optimum dosage of superplasticizer is 1.5 percent for water cement ratio 0.50 based on the

criteria of average flow diameter should be in the range of 170 ± 10mm. Since Mini Slump

test covers the entire range of water cement ratio, Mini-slump test results are considered to

decide the optimum dosage of superplasticizer.

59


TABLE 5.2 Test Results of Polynaphthalene Sulphonate Superplasticizer (SNF-F1)

Water cement

ratio

Cement (gm)

Water (gm)

SP (%)

SP (gm)

Marsh Cone Time (sec)

Flow Diameter (mm) Average Diameter

(mm) D1 D2 D3 D4

0.30

1800 540 2.00 36.00 * 125 124 123 126 124.50

1800 540 3.00 54.00 * 128 124 129 130 127.75

1800 540 4.00 72.00 * 130 132 133 130 131.25

1800 540 5.00 90.00 107 138 141 143 138 140.00

0.40

1500 600 0.50 7.50 20 132 138 133 138 135.25

1500 600 0.75 11.25 19 135 136 137 140 137.00

1500 600 1.00 15.00 16 147 138 142 144 142.75

1500 600 1.25 18.75 14 145 148 150 152 148.75

1500 600 1.50 22.5 14 155 158 159 160 158.00

1500 600 1.75 26.25 10 160 163 165 162 162.50

1500 600 2.00 30.00 8.5 171 175 178 172 174.00

0.50

1300 650 0.50 6.50 9 140 145 148 138 142.75

1300 650 0.75 9.75 8 143 149 150 152 148.50

1300 650 1.00 13.00 7 148 150 152 148 149.50

1300 650 1.25 16.25 6 159 152 155 158 156.00

1300 650 1.50 19.50 6 165 168 170 172 168.75

* indicates clogged of test sample

The poly-naphthalene sulphonate based superplasticizer (SNF-F1) shows incompatibility

for the water cement ratio 0.30 whereas, The optimum dosage of poly-naphthalene

sulphonate based superplasticizer (SNF-F1) for water cement ratio 0.40 and 0.50 is 1.75 %

and 1.5% respectively as discussed in above section.

5.3.2 Superplasticizer-2 (SNF-B1)

Water Cement Ratio 0.30: For 5 percent dosage of superplasticizer, the clogging of

cement paste is observed for poly-naphthalene sulphonate based superplasticizer (SNF-

B1). The average flow diameter is 129.00 mm for 5 percent dosage of superplasticizer.

Therefore, it is not satisfying any criteria for optimum dosage of superplasticizer. Use of 5

percent dosage of superplasticizer is not recommended as per manufacturer datasheet.

SNF-B1 shows incompatibility with cement for water cement ratio 0.30.

60


Water Cement Ratio 0.40: For 0.75, 1.00, 1.25 percent dosage of superplasticizer, the

average flow diameters are 158.50mm, 163.25mm, and 176.00mm respectively as

illustrated in Table 5.3. Therefore optimum dosage of superplasticizer is 1 percent for

water cement ratio 0.40.

Water Cement Ratio 0.50: Marsh cone times are 10 seconds, 9 seconds, and 8 seconds

for the 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 percent dosage of superplasticizer respectively. The cement

paste mixes prepared with 0.50, 0.75, and 1.00 percent superplasticizer give the average

flow diameter 146.75mm, 150.75mm, and 168.20mm respectively. Therefore optimum

dosage of superplasticizer is 1 percent for water cement ratio 0.50.

TABLE 5.3 Test Results of Polynaphthalene Sulphonate Superplasticizer (SNF-B1)

Water cement

ratio

Cement (gm)

Water (gm)

SP (%)

SP (gm)

Marsh cone time (sec)

Flow diameter (mm) Average Diameter

(mm) D1 D2 D3 D4

0.30

1800 540 2.00 36.00 * 125 124 123 126 124.50

1800 540 3.00 54.00 * 128 124 127 125 126.00

1800 540 4.00 72.00 * 128 126 129 127 127.50

1800 540 5.00 90.00 * 130 127 129 130 129.00

0.40

1500 600 0.50 7.50 31.00 134 135 133 134 134.00

1500 600 0.75 11.25 14.16 165 152 148 169 158.50

1500 600 1.00 15.00 11.00 160 169 163 161 163.25

1500 600 1.25 18.75 10.00 169 180 172 183 176.00

0.50

1300 650 0.25 3.25 14.00 140 135 138 140 138.25

1300 650 0.50 6.50 10.00 144 149 148 146 146.75

1300 650 0.75 9.75 9.00 143 156 151 153 150.75

1300 650 1.00 13.00 8.00 169 163 168 173 168.25


5.3.3 Superplasticizer-3 (SMF-S1)

Table 5.4 shows the test results of the Mini-slump test and Marsh cone test for melamine

formaldehyde condensate (SMF-S1) based superplasticizer.

Water Cement Ratio 0.30: The addition of 2.75 percentage of superplasticizer gives the

average flow diameter 162.5mm and the time taken for 500 ml of cement paste volume

61


flow out of Marsh cone (i.e. Marsh cone time) is 58 seconds. Therefore, the optimum

dosage of superplasticizer is considered as 2.75 percent based on Mini-slump test.

Water Cement Ratio 0.40: Similarly, the average flow diameter is 163.50mm for 1.25

percent dosage of superplasticizer. Therefore, 1.25 percent dosage of superplasticizer is

taken as an optimum dosage of superplasticizer for water cement ratio 0.40.

Water Cement Ratio 0.50: the average flow diameter is 158.75 and 172.50mm for

superplasticizer dosage of 0.75 percent and 1.00 percent. As per Mini flow table criteria,

1.00 percent dosage has been considered as an optimum dosage of superplasticizer.

TABLE 5.4 Test Results Of Melamine Formaldehyde Superplasticizer(SMF-S1)

Water cement

ratio

Cement (gm)

Water (gm)

SP (%)

SP (gm)



(mm) D1 D2 D3 D4

0.3

1800 540 1.50 27.00 * 126 130 129 125 127.50

1800 540 1.75 31.50 99 140 135 138 139 138.00

1800 540 2.00 36.00 83 149 147 146 146 147.00

1800 540 2.25 40.50 81 149 143 144 145 145.25

1800 540 2.50 45.00 65 153 158 156 157 156.00

1800 540 2.75 49.50 58 169 159 156 166 162.50

1800 540 3.00 54.00 51 170 184 176 169 174.75

0.4

1500 600 0.50 7.50 48 135 142 138 141 139.00

1500 600 0.75 11.25 38 144 149 147 148 147.00

1500 600 1.00 15.00 30 158 153 159 154 156.00

1500 600 1.25 18.75 26 160 166 163 165 163.50

1500 600 1.50 22.50 19 170 173 175 170 172.00

0.5

1300 650 0.25 3.25 11 149 153 148 150 150.00

1300 650 0.50 6.50 9 156 154 157 156 155.75

1300 650 0.75 9.75 8 159 160 159 157 158.75

1300 650 1.00 13.00 7 167 177 174 172 172.50


Marsh cone time is 58 seconds, 26 seconds, and 7 seconds at an optimum dosage of

superplasticizer for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 respectively. The average flow

diameter is 162.5mm, 163.5mm, and 172.50mm at an optimum dosage of superplasticizer

for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 respectively.

62


These results of Marsh cone test and Mini-slump test indicate that Mini-slump test is easy,

consistent, and more reliable to find an optimum dosage of superplasticizer. Therefore,

Mini-slump test results are considered to find the optimum dosage of superplasticizer.

5.3.4 Superplasticizer-4 (PCE-B1)

Table 5.5 illustrates the test results of Mini-Slump test and Marsh cone test for water

cement ratio 0.30, 0.40 and 0.50.

Water Cement Ratio 0.30: For 1.25 percent superplasticizer dosage, the Marsh cone time

is 77 seconds and the average flow diameter is 177.50mm. Therefore, 1.25 percent dosage

is an optimum dosage of superplasticizer for water cement ratio 0.30.

Water Cement Ratio 0.40: The average flow diameters are 159.75 and 168.25 for

superplasticizer dosages 0.75 percent and 1.00 percent respectively. As per Mini flow table

criteria, 1.00 percent is considered as an optimum dosage of superplasticizer.

Water Cement Ratio 0.50: The superplasticizer dosage 0.75 percent shows the average

diameter 173.50mm. Therefore, the superplasticizer dosage 0.75 is taken as optimum

dosage of superplasticizer. Considering the Mini-slump test criteria, the optimum dosages

of Polycarboxylic Ether based superplasticizer for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50

are 1.25 percent, 1.00 percent, and 0.75 percent respectively.

TABLE 5.5 Test Results of Polycarboxylic Ether Superplasticizer (PCE-B1)

Water cement

ratio

Cement (gm)

Water (gm)

SP (%)

SP (gm)



(mm) D1 D2 D3 D4

0.30

1800 540 0.75 9.00 92 120 127 123 125 123.75

1800 540 1.00 13.50 79 151 142 149 150 148.00

1800 540 1.25 18.00 77 178 175 179 178 177.50

1800 540 1.50 22.50 75 180 182 176 179 179.25

0.40

1500 600 0.50 3.75 21 142 146 144 142 143.50

1500 600 0.75 7.50 17 159 162 156 162 159.75

1500 600 1.00 11.25 11 166 168 169 170 168.25

1500 600 1.25 15.00 11 189 187 185 189 187.50

0.50 1300 650 0.50 1.95 7 156 150 155 151 153.00

1300 650 0.75 3.25 6 174 171 175 174 173.50

1300 650 1.00 6.50 6 211 201 193 210 203.75

63


5.3.5 Summary of compatibility study

Polycarboxylic Ether (PCE-B1) based superplasticizer shows good compatibility with

water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 as represented in Table 5.6. Optimum dosage of

superplasticizer (ODS) for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40 and 0.50 are 1.25%, 1% and

0.75% of weight of cement respectively. Hence, Polycarboxylic Ether based

superplasticizer is selected for the present study.

TABLE 5.6 Summary of Cement Superplasticizer Compatibility Study

Designation Chemical type

Optimum Dosage of Superplasticizer

(%)

w/c=0.3 w/c=0.4 w/c=0.5

SNF-F1 Polynaphalenesulphonate ** 1.75 1.5

SNF-B1 Polynaphalenesulphonate ** 1 1

SMF-S1 Melamine Formaldehyde Condensate 2.75 1.25 1

PCE-B1 Polycarboxylic Ether 1.25 1 0.75

** indicates more than 5% superplasticizer dosage- Incompatible

Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Fractions 5.4

After resolving the compatibility issues of superplasticizer, workability studies of cement

mortar with different sand fraction is taken up. Modified Mini flow table test is selected to

find out the workability of the cement mortar with and without superplasticizers.

Superplasticizer dosages are varied from 25% of Optimal Dosage (i.e. 0.25ODS) to 125%

of Optimal Dosage (i.e. 1.25ODS). Six different dosages of superplasticizer i.e. 0% ODS

(without superplasticizer), 0.25ODS, 0.50ODS, 0.75ODS, 1.00ODS, and 1.25ODS are

taken into consideration to study the effect of superplasticizer on the workability of the

cement mortar.

Cement and fine aggregate proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 are chosen to vary surface

area of fine aggregate. The surface area of the different fractions is calculated using digital

image processing as shown in Appendix C. (Table C.4 and Table C.5)

Figure 5.7 to 5.21shows the relationship between cement mortar workability and surface

area of fine aggregate for various fractions including different dosages of superplasticizer.

64


Appendix D shows the details of test carried out to find workability of cement mortar for

different fractions.

5.4.1 Fraction F1 (4.75mm to 2.36mm)

The surface area of aggregates for cement mortar proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 are

1.06x105 mm2, 1.42x105 mm2, 1.60x105 mm2, and 1.71x105 mm2 respectively for fraction

F1 (Refer Appendix D, Table D.1).

FIGURE 5.7 Influence of Surface Area and Superplasticizer Dosage on Cement

Mortar Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Fraction F1

Figure 5.7 illustrates the test results of workability for fraction F1 (4.75mm to 2.36mm size

particles), different dosages of superplasticizer, and water cement ratio 0.30. The range of

cement mortar workability varies from stiff to the average flow diameter 336.5 mm. Figure

5.7 shows reduction in workability with an increase in surface area for all the dosage of

superplasticizer. The workability of mortar has not changed significantly by increasing the

amount of superplasticizer more than an optimum dosage (i.e. 1.25ODS).

Cement mortar workability test results are depicted in Figure 5.8 for water cement ratio

0.40, fraction F1 (4.75mm to 2.36mm size particles), and different dosages of

superplasticizer. From the test results, it can be seen that the superplasticizer dosages

0.50ODS, 0.75ODS, and 1.00ODS give highest workable mix for proportion 1:1, 1:2, and

1:3 respectively. The cement mortar proportion 1:4 shows the stiff mix for all the dosages

of superplasticizer. The increase in the superplasticizer dosage more than 0.50ODS,

0.75ODS, and 1.00ODS lead to segregation for proportion 1:1, 1:2, and 1:3 respectively.

050

100150200250300350400

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)

Surface Area (mm2 x 100000)

Without SP(0ODS) 0.25ODS 0.50ODS

0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

65




Cement mortar mix prepared with 0.50ODS gives the maximum workable mix for

proportion 1:1. The mix prepared by proportion 1:4 shows the stiff behavior for all dosages

of superplasticizer as illustrated in Figure 5.9.

For water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50, the average flow diameters for cement mortar

mix without superplasticizer and proportion 1:1 are 113.90mm, 191.90mm, and 237.22mm

respectively. Therefore, the mixture with a water cement ratio 0.50 has 108%, and 24%

higher workability compared to water cement ratio 0.30, and 0.40 respectively.



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

1.0 1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

66




2.96x105 mm2, 3.94x105 mm2, 4.44x105 mm2, and 4.73x105 mm2 respectively for fraction

F2 (Refer Appendix D, Table D.4). Cement mortar mix prepared without superplasticizer

shows the stiff behavior as illustrated in Figure 5.10 for water cement ratio 0.30 and

Fraction F2 (2.36mm to 1.18mm size particles).





050

100150200250300350400

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

67


The highest workable mix is achieved by adding the 1.00ODS for cement mortar

proportion 1:1. The average flow diameter 112.30mm (i.e. for 0% ODS) is increased to

342.25mm (i.e. for 1.00ODS). It shows that the use of superplasticizer increases the flow

spread 205%.

Figure 5.11 shows the test results of fraction F2 (2.36mm to 1.18mm size particles),

different dosages of superplasticizer and water cement ratio 0.40. It is noticed that the

maximum workable cement mortar mix is obtained by adding 0.75ODS.



Superplasticizer dosage more than 0.50ODS leads segregation in the mix as illustrated in

Figure 5.12. The average flow diameter for cement mortar mixes are 104.55mm,

137.38mm, 152.19mm, 160.87mm, 163.56mm, and 158.57mm for 0%ODS, 0.25ODS,

0.5ODS, 0.75ODS, 1ODS, and 1.25ODS, respectively for cement mortar proportion 1:4. It

shows that the increase of superplasticizer dosages increases the cement mortar workability

until the flow spread reached to the certain maximum value.


For fraction F3, the surface area of aggregates for cement mortar proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:3,

and 1:4 are 4.44x105 mm2, 5.91x105 mm2, 6.66x105 mm2, and 7.10x105 mm2 respectively

(Refer Appendix D, Table D.7).

050

100150200250300350400

2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (

mm

)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

68




Figure 5.13 shows the cement mortar workability results for water cement ratio 0.30,

different dosages of superplasticizer, and fraction F3 (1.18mm to 0.60mm size particles). It

is evidenced that the addition of 0.75ODS has significantly increased the workability of

cement mortar for proportion 1:1. Cement mortar mixes show stiff behavior for cement

mortar proportion 1:3 and 1:4. Cement mortar workability increases by 22% with the

addition of 1.25ODS compared to mix without superplasticizer for cement mortar

proportion 1:2.



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

69


Figure 5.14 illustrated that for cement mortar proportion 1:1, the average flow diameter are

188.54mm, 284.27mm, 314.24mm, and 358.00mm for 0 % ODS, 0.25ODS, 0.5ODS, and

0.75ODS respectively. It shows that the 90% increase in the mix workability by addition of

0.75ODS.

Figure 5.15 shows the average flow diameter mixes prepared with 0.50ODS are

352.25mm, 282.03mm, 182.29mm, and 100.00mm for cement fine aggregate proportion

1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 respectively. For the same superplasticizer dosage and water cement

ratio, it is noted that the mix workability is reduced with an increase in the surface area.The

maximum workable mixes are obtained by addition of 0.50ODS. Segregation is observed

for mixes prepared with dosage higher than 0.50% ODS.




For fraction F4, the surface area of aggregates for cement mortar proportions 1:1, 1:2, 1:3,

and 1:4 are 6.26x105 mm2, 8.33x105 mm2, 9.39x105 mm2, and 10.01x105 mm2 respectively

(Refer Appendix D, Table D.10).

Cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, the average flow diameter for

cement mortar prepared by 0.75ODS are 319.48mm, 100.00mm, 100.00mm, and

100.00mm respectively. From the test results, it can be seen that the addition of 0.75ODS

in the mix gives the highest workability for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1. For

050

100150200250300350400

4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

70


water cement ratio 0.30 and fraction F3, cement fine aggregate proportion 1:2 to 1:4 shows

stiff behaviour for all dosages of superplasticizers as depicted in Figure 5.16.





Figure 5.17 shows the test results for water cement ratio 0.40, different dosages of

superplasticizer, and fraction F4 (0.60mm to 0.30mm size particles). It can be seen that the

superplasticizer dosages 0.75ODS and 1.00ODS, flow spread behavior is more or less

same regardless the dosage of superplasticizer for water cement ratio 0.40 and fraction F4.

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

AFD

(mm

)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

71




For water cement ratio 0.50 and fraction F4, the addition of 0.75% ODS gives highest

workable cement mortar for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 and 1:2 as shown in

Figure 5.18. The mix prepared by cement mortar proportion 1:3 and 1:4 shows stiff

behavior irrespective of superplasticizer dosage because of higher surface area.


mixes without superplasticizer and cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 are 109.34mm,

197.28mm, and 256.92mm respectively as shown in Figure 5.16 to 5.18. Therefore cement

mortar mix prepared without superplasticizer and with water cement ratio 0.40 and 0.50

gives 81 % and 135 % more workable mix compared to mix prepared with water cement

ratio 0.30.



18.24x105 mm2, 24.28 x105 mm2, 27.36x105 mm2, and 29.18x105 mm2 respectively for

fraction F5 (Refer Appendix D, Table D.13).

Figure 5.19 shows test results for water cement ratio 0.30, different dosages of

superplasticizer, and fraction F5 (0.30mm to 0.15mm size particles). For 0 % ODS,

0.25ODS, 0.50ODS, 0.75ODS, 1.00ODS and 1.25ODS, the average flow diameter for

cement mortar mixes are 100.25mm, 116.36mm, 131.88mm, 142.22mm, 274.56mm and

289.02mm respectively for cement mortar proportion 1:1. It is noted that the addition of

050

100150200250300350400

6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

72


0.75ODS increases the flow characteristic of cement mortar by 42 % while addition of

1ODS and 1.25ODS increase the cement mortar workability by 174% and 188%

respectively.



The cement mortar proportion 1:2, 1:3, and 1:3 shows the stiff behavior of the mix

regardless the increase in superplasticizer dosage. These observed phenomena are

reasonable because the finest fraction F5 has maximum surface area and water cement

ratio is 0.30.



0.00

50.00

100.00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

0.0050.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00

18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

73


Figure 5.20 illustrates the test results of workability for fraction F5 (0.30mm to 0.15mm

size particles), different dosages of superplasticizer, and water cement ratio 0.40. The

range of cement mortar workability varies from stiff to the average flow diameter 342 mm.

Figure 5.20 shows reduction in workability with increase in surface area for all the dosage

of superplasticizer. The workability of mortar (i.e. stiff mix) has not changed by

increasing the amount of superplasticizer for cement mortar proportion 1:3, and 1:4.

It can be seen that the superplasticizer dosages 0.75ODS and 1.00ODS, flow spread

behavior is more or less the same regardless the dosage of superplasticizer for water

cement ratio 0.50 and fraction F5. There is a significant change in cement mortar

workability by addition of superplasticizer in cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 as

illustrated in Figure 5.21.



Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Zones 5.5

Zone I, Zone II, Zone III and Zone IV sand have been manufactured as discussed in

section 3.3 to study the effect of superplasticizer and surface area of fine aggregate on the

workability of cement mortar.

The relationship between cement mortar workability and surface area of fine aggregate for

various zones including different dosages of superplasticizer are shown in Figure 5.22 to

5.33.

0.0050.00

100.00150.00200.00250.00300.00350.00400.00

18 20 22 24 26 28 30

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

74


Test results of cement mortar workability with different proportion and dosage of

superplasticizer are given in Appendix E. The surface area of the different manufactured

sand zones are calculated using digital image processing as shown in Appendix C. (Table

C.1 and Table C.3)

5.5.1 Zone I (Manufactured)



manufactured sand zone I (Refer Appendix E, Table E.1).

Figure 5.22 shows the test results for manufactured sand zone I, different dosages of

superplasticizer and water cement ratio 0.30. It is evident that addition of 0.75ODS is

significantly increased the mix workability for cement mortar proportion 1:1 and 1:2.


Mortar Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone I

There is no significant difference in the cement mortar workability prepared with 0.75

ODS and 1.00 ODS for water cement ratio 0.30 and manufactured sand zone I. Although

the highest workable mix is produced by addition of 1.00 ODS for all the cement fine

aggregate proportions. For instance, the addition of 1.00ODS gives the average flow

diameter are 338.50mm, 236.80mm,103.48mm and 100.00mm for cement mortar

proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 respectively.

050

100150200250300350400

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

75




The average flow diameter for 0% ODS, 0.25ODS, 0.50ODS, 0.75ODS, 1.00ODS, and

1.25ODS are 100.01mm,120.51mm, 137.89mm, 159.82mm, 158.49mm and 169.49mm

respectively for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:3 as illustrated in Figure 5.23. It

indicates that the increase of superplasticizer dosages increases the cement mortar

workability until the flow spread reached to the certain maximum value. It can be seen that

the addition of 0.75ODS for cement mortar proportion 1:1, the average flow diameter is

increased from 201.50mm (i.e. 0%ODS) to 354.25mm.



050

100150200250300350400

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0 8.5 9.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)

Surface area (mm2 x 100000)


0.75ODS 1ODS 1.25ODS

76


During the modified Mini flow table test, bleeding is observed for mix prepared by

dosages higher than 0.50ODS for cement mortar proportion 1:1. The observation for

bleeding and segregation are marked specifically and it is not considered for further

analysis. Cement mortar proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, the average flow diameter for

cement mortar mixes with 0.50ODS are 348.25mm, 285.22mm, 225.39mm, and 100.00mm

respectively as shown in Figure 5.24. It indicates that the increase in the surface area of

fine aggregate decreases the spread of the flow for constant water cement ratio and

superplasticizer dosage

5.5.2 Zone-II (Manufactured)





Mortar Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone II

Figure 5.25 shows that the average flow diameter for 0% ODS, 0.25ODS, 0.50ODS,

0.75ODS, 1.00ODS, and 1.25ODS are 114.40mm, 161.65mm, 167.15mm, 313.02mm,

342.50mm and 324.47mm respectively for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1. It is

evident that addition of 0.75ODS is significantly increased the mix workability and reaches

to the range of average flow diameter 300mm to 360mm for cement mortar proportion 1:1.


superplasticizer, and manufactured sand zone II. Cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1,

050

100150200250300350400

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

77


1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, the average flow diameter for cement mortar mixes with 0.75% ODS are

347.50mm , 300.50mm, 131.22mm, and 100.00mm respectively. Maximum workable

cement mortar mix obtained by addition of 0.75ODS. Cement mortar proportion 1:4 shows

the stiff behavior regardless of any dosage of superplasticizer.





Cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, the average flow diameter for

cement mortar mixes with 0.50ODS are 342.50mm, 303.09mm, 185.65mm, and 100.00mm

050

100150200250300350400

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)

Surface area (mm2 x 100000)


0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

6.5 7.5 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

78


respectively as illustrated in Figure 5.27. Segregation was observed for mix prepared with

dosage higher than 0.50ODS for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1.


mixes without superplasticizer and cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 are 114.40mm,

200.63mm, and 263.57mm respectively as shown in Figure 5.24 to 5.26. It shows that the

spread of flow increased with the increase in water cement ratio. Cement mortar mix

prepared without superplasticizer and with water cement ratio 0.40 and 0.50 gives 75% and

130% more workable mix compared to water cement ratio 0.30.

5.5.3 Zone-III (Manufactured)


8.49x105 mm2, 11.31x105 mm2, 12.74x105 mm2, and 13.59x105 respectively for



Mortar Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone III


superplasticizer, and manufactured sand zone III. Cement mortar highest workability is

obtained by mix prepared by adding 1.00ODS. For cement mortar proportion 1:1, the

average flow diameter without superplasticizer and 1.00ODS are 102.37mm, and

328.75mm respectively. It is evident that addition of 1.00ODS in mix increases the fluidity

of mix by 221% for cement mortar proportion 1:1. Test results indicate that addition

0.75ODS and 1.00ODS give almost same workable mix for cement mortar proportion 1:1.

050

100150200250300350400

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

79


Figure 5.29 shows cement mortar proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4, the average flow

diameter for cement mortar mixes with 0.75 ODS are 356.75mm, 233.03mm, 110.58mm,

and 100.00mm respectively. It shows reduction in workability with increase in surface area

(i.e. increase the fine aggregate to cement ratio).





Figure 5.30 shows that without the addition of superplasticizer the average flow diameters

are 278.61mm, 204.21mm, 102.51mm, and 100.00mm for cement fine aggregate

proportion 1:1, 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4 respectively. It shows reduction in workability with

0

100

200

300

400

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)


x 100000


0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

8.0 9.0 10.0 11.0 12.0 13.0 14.0

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

80


increase in surface area. To achieve maximum workable cement mortar mixes 1.00ODS,

0.75ODS, and 0.50ODS are required for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50

respectively for Zone III as shown in Figure 5.28 to 5.30. The workability of mix increased

a little bit or segregation is observed by adding dosage higher than mentioned above.

5.5.4 Zone-IV (Manufactured)


9.85x105 mm2, 13.11x105 mm2, 14.77x105 mm2, and 15.76x105 mm2 respectively for



Mortar Workability for Water Cement Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Zone IV

Figure 5.31 shows test results for water cement ratio 0.30, different dosages of

superplasticizer, and manufactured sand zone IV. It has been noted that cement mortar

remains stiff for the mix without superplasticizer i.e. 0% ODS. For cement fine aggregate

proportion 1:1, the maximum workable mix has been achieved by the addition of

1.00ODS. There is no effect of dosages of superplasticizer on the workability of cement

mortar for proportion 1:2, 1:3, and 1:4.

Figure 5.32 illustrates the test results of workability for zone-IV, different dosages of

superplasticizer, and water cement ratio 0.40. Test result shows that the highest workable

cement mortar is achieved by addition of 1.00ODS. For cement fine aggregate proportion

1:1, the average flow diameter without superplasticizer and 1.00ODS are 187.71mm, and

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

81


342.25mm respectively. Therefore addition of 1.00ODS in mix increases fluidity of mix by

82% for cement mortar proportion 1:1.





It is noted that the workability of mix reduced by increase the fine aggregate cement ratio

for same superplasticizer dosage and water cement ratio. For water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40,

and 0.50, the average flow diameters for cement mortar mixes without superplasticizer and

cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 are 100.03mm, 187.71mm, and 276.11mm

respectively as shown in Figure 5.31 to 5.33. Therefore cement mortar mix prepared

050

100150200250300350400

9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

050

100150200250300350400

9.5 10.5 11.5 12.5 13.5 14.5 15.5 16.5

Aver

age

Flow

Dia

met

er (m

m)



0.75ODS 1.00ODS 1.25ODS

82


without superplasticizer and with water cement ratio 0.40 and 0.50 gives 88 % and 176 %

more workable mix compared to the water cement ratio 0.30.

Summary of Workability Test Results 5.6

To get the relationship between the water cement ratio, dosage of superplasticizer, the

surface area of fine aggregate and workability of cement mortar (i.e. average flow

diameter), total 648 tests have been performed on different fractions and manufactured

sand zones of fine aggregated. Major observations regarding the test results are as follows.

1. Cement mortar characteristics were depended on various parameters such as water

cement ratio, cement and fine aggregate proportion (i.e. surface area of fine

aggregate), and dosage of the superplasticizer.

2. Test results obtained for cement mortar workability show the complete range of

workability, it varies from stiff to segregation and bleeding. Stiff mix represents

very low or zero workability while segregation represents lack of cohesiveness in

the mix.

3. The maximum average flow diameters without superplasticizer for fraction F1,

fraction F2, fraction F3, fraction F4, and fraction F5 are 237.22mm, 232.26mm,

253.06mm, 256.92mm, and 241.27 mm respectively. Therefore spread of flow in

percentage for fraction F1, fraction F2, fraction F3, fraction F4, and fraction F5 are

14%, 13%, 15%, 16%, and 14% respectively.

4. The maximum average flow diameters without superplasticizer for manufactured

sand zone I, zone II, zone III, and zone IV are 257.7mm, 263.57mm, 278.61mm,

and 276.11mm respectively. Therefore spread of flow in percentage for fraction

zone1, zone 2, zone 3 and zone4 are 16%, 16%, 18%, and 18% respectively.

5. The maximum average flow diameters with superplasticizer for fraction F1,

fraction F2, fraction F3, fraction F4, and fraction F5 are 336.5mm, 356mm,

358mm, 362.5mm, and 350.13mm respectively. Therefore spread of flow in

percentage for fraction F1, fraction F2, fraction F3, fraction F4, and fraction F5 are

24%, 26%, 26%, 26%, and 25% respectively.

6. The maximum average flow diameters for manufactured sand zone I, zone II, zone

III, and zone IV are 354.25mm, 347.5mm, 356.57mm, and 357.50mm

respectively. Therefore spread of flow in percentage for fraction zone I, zone II,

zone III, and zone IV are 25%, 25%, 26%, and 26% respectively.

83


7. Therefore, use of superplasticizer improves the workability (% spread of flow) of

mix from 16% to 26% (maximum value from all fractions) for fraction and from

18% to 26% (maximum value from all zones) for zone.

8. The maximum spread of flow without superplasticizer was observed for water

cement ratio 0.50 and cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1 for all fractions and

zones.

9. The workability of cement mortar (1:1) mixes prepared with manufactured sand

zone II and without the use of superplasticizers are 114.4mm, 200.63mm, and

263.57 for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 respectively.

10. The maximum workability of cement mortar (1:1) mixes prepared with

manufactured sand zone II and with the use of superplasticizers are 324.27mm,

347.5mm, and 342.5 for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 respectively.

11. The workability of mixes for water cement ratio 0.30, 0.40, and 0.50 improve by

210%, 147%, and 79% with the use of superplasticizer. The similar trend in

cement mortar characteristic was observed for all fractions and zones.

12. The more workable mix is produced with the use of superplasticizer irrespective of

water cement ratio. It is also observed that the effectiveness of the use of

superplasticizer in lower water cement ratio is more compared to high water

cement ratio.

13. Cement fine aggregate proportions from 1:1 to 1:4 are considered to study the

effect of surface area of fine aggregate. The maximum workability (i.e. average

flow diameter) of cement mortar for cement fine aggregate proportion 1:1, 1:2,

1:3, and 1:4 are 347.50mm, 307.16mm, 135.31mm, and 100.12mm respectively

for manufactured sand zone II and water cement ratio 0.40. The surface area of

fine aggregate is more in cement fine aggregate proportion 1:4 compared to 1:1.

14. The workability of cement mortar mixes reduces with an increase of surface area

of fine aggregate. The similar observations are made for all water cement ratio,

different fractions, and different manufactured sand zones.

84


Statistical Analysis 5.7

Statistical analysis is performed using SPSS software to develop the models for various

fractions and zones to predict the dosages of superplasticizer for the desired workability of

cement mortar. The water cement ratio is selected from the target strength requirement of

any mixes. The workability (average flow diameter) is also targeted such as strength for

any mixes. The geometry (size and shape) of fine aggregate decides the surface area of fine

aggregate. To achieve the desired workability of the mix, superplasticizer dosage is

depended on the water cement ratio, average flow diameter, and surface area of fine

aggregate. Table 5.7 shows the dependent and independent variables for all models.

TABLE 5.7 Detail of Nine Models for Regression Analysis

Sr. No. Model Description Dependent Variable Independent Variables

1 F1 4.75 to 2.36mm

Superplasticizer dosage

(u)

Water cement ratio (u1) Surface area of fine

aggregate (u2) Average flow diameter (u3)

2 F2 2.36 to 1.18mm

3 F3 1.18 to 0.60mm

4 F4 0.60 to 0.30mm

5 F5 0.30 to 0.15mm

6 Z1 Manufactured sand

zone-I


zone-II


zone-III


zone-IV

Linear regression models are carried out to get the relationship between superplasticizer

dosage (u, %), water cement ratio (u1, unitless), the surface area of fine aggregate (u2,

mm2), and average flow diameter of cement mortar (u3, mm) for each fraction and zones.

Total nine models are developed which are presented in Table 5.8.

85


TABLE 5.8 Summary of Models

Model Equations R2 p-value

F1 u = -0.383+(-4.435*u1)+(1.26E-05*u2)+ (4.40E-03*u3) 0.89 1.85E-08

F2 u = -0.362+(-5.134*u1)+(5.26E-06*u2)+ (4.92E-03*u3) 0.88 7.56E-10

F3 u = -0.316+(-4.929*u1)+(3.29E-06*u2)+ (5.03E-03*u3) 0.84 1.57E-08

F4 u = -0.476+(-4.559*u1)+(2.32E-06*u2)+ (5.29E-03*u3) 0.84 3.28E-08

F5 u = -1.159+(-5.742*u1)+(1.33E-06*u2)+ (6.53E-03*u3) 0.87 4.90E-08

Z1 u = -0.641+(-4.088*u1)+(2.98E-06*u2)+ (3.73E-03*u3) 0.72 4.17E-08

Z2 u = -0.433+(-4.455*u1)+(2.28E-06*u2)+ (3.80E-03*u3) 0.65 7.45E-07

Z3 u = -0.37+(-4.216*u1)+(1.76E-06*u2)+ (3.89E-03*u3) 0.72 6.21E-08

Z4 u = -0.749+(-4.871*u1)+(1.82E-06*u2)+ (5.64E-03*u3) 0.81 1.98E-08

An expression for superplasticizer percentage for fraction F1 is given below

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.383 + (−4.435 ∗ 𝑤/𝑐) + (1.26𝐸 − 05 ∗ 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎) + (4.40𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

(Eq. 5.1)

It is observed that expression of superplasticizer dosage as a function of a constant, water

cement ratio, the surface area of fine aggregate and average flow diameter is reliable as the

R2 is very high and p is low (p <0.05) for all the nine models.

Validation of Developed Correlation 5.8

The goal of the present study is to predict the dosage of superplasticizer for the desired

workability of cement mortar mix. Prediction of superplasticizer dosage for desired

workability model has been developed and tested to verify its applicability. Total 7

samples of fine aggregates (natural sand) have been collected from different parts of

Gujarat state to validate the developed equations for various zones as illustrated in Figure

5.34. Locations of collected samples are shown by blue star mark in the Gujarat state map.

86


FIGURE 5.34 Location of Collected Sample for Validation

Sieve analysis test is carried out for each sample to find the zone of the sand sample. Sieve

analysis test results are also used to find the surface area of the fine aggregate sample using

the surface area and weight relationship depicted in Table 5.1.

TABLE 5.9 Details of Sand Samples

Sr. No Location details Zone of sand 1 Chota Udepur-Orasang River Zone I 2 Panchmahal-Goma River Zone II 3 Rajkot-Aji River Zone II 4 Junagadh Zone III 5 Patan-Banas River Zone III 6 Kutch Zone III 7 Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River (Piparaj) Zone IV

Table 5.9 shows the sample locations, and zone of the sand based on sieve analysis. Some

data such as water cement ratio, cement fine aggregate proportions, and the average flow

diameter are assumed for validation of developed models. The expression has been

selected based on the zone of the fine aggregate sample.

87


The dosage of superplasticizer is predicted with the help of developed models (Table 5.8)

and assumed data such as water cement ratio, cement fine aggregate proportion, and the

targeted average flow diameter. Cement mortar mix is prepared with the predicted dosage

of superplasticizer. Mini flow table test is performed to measure the workability of the

cement mortar mix. The cement mortar spread is measured in terms of the average

diameter of flow i.e. average of four symmetrically distributed measurements.

Experimental average flow diameter result is compared with an assumed average flow

diameter. The variation in the test result is calculated to verify the developed models.

Similarly, random assumption of water cement ratio, cement fine aggregate proportion, and

the average flow diameter has been made for remaining fine aggregate samples.

Experimentations are carried out to find applicability of developed models.

Appendix F shows the verification procedure of developed models to predict the

superplasticizer dosage for the desired workability. Variations in predicated and targeted

workability of cement mortar for all samples are summarized in the Table 5.10.

TABLE 5.10 Variations in Predicated and Actual Workability

Sr. No Location details Zone of sand Variation (%)

1 Chota Udepur-Orasang River Zone I 2.46 2 Panchmahal-Goma River Zone II 10.46 3 Rajkot-Aji River Zone II 11.57 4 Junagadh Zone III 5.12 5 Patan-Banas River Zone III 8.90 6 Kutch Zone III 9.33

7 Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River (Piparaj) Zone IV 6.53

It has been observed that variation in predicated and actual workability of cement mortar is

in the range of 2.46% to 11.57%. Therefore, developed models are validated.

88


Proposed Methodology for prediction of superplasticizer 5.9

The proposed methodology for prediction of superplasticizer dosage for the desired

workability is given in Appendix G.

The proposed methodology is divided into following steps

Step 1 Available data (Refer Appendix G)

Data for the mix is assumed based on some parameters. For example, water cement ratio is

selected based on strength requirements. Cement type is given by client or construction

site. The average flow diameter is also targeted based on workability requirements of a

mixture. Superplasticizer is selected based on type and availability in the market.

Therefore, the first step is to collect the information of necessary data for the study such as

water cement ratio, average flow diameter (targeted), type of cement, and superplasticizer.

Step 2 Compatibility study (Refer Appendix G)

Cement paste characteristic is one of the major constituents in the present study as

discussed in introduction and literature review chapter. Cement paste characteristics

depend on water cement ratio, type of cement and superplasticizer. As discussed in step 1

water cement ratio and cement type are selected based on strength requirement and

construction site data respectively. Therefore it is very important to select appropriate

superplasticizer. The compatibility of superplasticizer can be determined as discussed in

earlier chapters. If selected superplasticizer is not compatible with cement then there are

two options. The first option is to change the type or brand of superplasticizer and find

compatible superplasticizer for further use. The second option is to change the type of

cement which is feasible in some of the cases.

Use of an appropriate type of superplasticizer gives suitable characteristic of cement paste.

Step 3 Determination of surface area of fine aggregate (Refer Appendix G)

Determination of surface area of fine aggregate is vital to find the dosage of

superplasticizer for the desired workability. Sieve analysis of given sample is carried out to

identify the zone of the sand and proportions of various fractions. Two approaches are

suggested to determine the surface area of fine aggregate. In first approach which is more

precise, the surface area of fine aggregate is determined by digital image analysis and by

calculating the average weight of particles of various fractions of given sample. This

process is worthwhile to derive the relationship between surface areas and weight for given

sample. The second approach which is less time consuming does not require any

sophistication and is easy to apply in field. In this approach, surface area and weight

89


relationship (Eq. 5.1) as suggested by the authors can be used to determine the surface area

of given sample. Since the authors have derived the relationship for natural river sand, the

second approach is suggested for natural fine aggregates only. Methodology to determine

the surface area of fine aggregate from sieve analysis is specified in Appendix C.

Step 4 Behavior study of cement mortar (Refer Appendix G)

Literature and present research work confirms that the behavior of cement mortar depends

on various parameters. Therefore it is necessary to check the cement mortar characteristics

by adding the maximum dosage of superplasticizer suggested by the manufacturer of

superplasticizers. Cement mortar should be workable at the maximum dosage of

superplasticizer. It should neither be stiff nor be excessively bleeding or segregating. For

the stiff mix at a maximum dosage of superplasticizer, it is suggested to do the adjustment

in the gradation of fine aggregate and water content, or change the superplasticizer. If the

bleeding or segregation is observed in the mix then use of lower dosage of superplasticizer

is suggested till the segregation is stopped.

Step 5 Prediction of dosage of superplasticizer (Refer Appendix G)

If cement mortar is satisfactorily workable at a maximum permissible dosage of

superplasticizer as given in step 4, select the suitable prediction equation (Refer Table 5.8)

according to the zone of fine aggregate and desired workability of cement mortar to

determine the dosage of superplasticizer.

The proposed methodology to determine the superplasticizer dosages for the desired

workability of cement mortar is mainly targeted to reduce the trials in the field.

90

Chapter 6

Conclusions and Recommendations

Conclusions 6.1

The research was aimed at finding out a methodology to estimate the superplasticizer

dosage and reduce the trials for measuring workability of cement mortar. From

experimental results, the following conclusions can be drawn:

1. The Mini-slump test is a good indicator of the relative fluidity of superplasticized

cement paste. It is also an appropriate test to find the optimum dosage of

superplasticizer compared to Marsh cone test.

2. Digital image analysis method has a potential to estimate size and shape

characteristics of aggregate rapidly and accurately. Two dimensional (2D) image

analyses of aggregate give a broad idea of aggregate quality compared to procedure

suggested in various standards. A small arrangement of a camera and a computer

can be used for two dimensional (2D) image analysis techniques which can fairly

estimate shape and size characteristics of fine aggregates.

3. Surface area calculated by digital image analysis for each fraction confirms to the

linear relationship with sieve size. Correlation of surface area to the square size

opening of sieve is proposed as

Y = 5.898 ∗ X − 2.25 Eq. 6.1

Where Y = Surface area of single particle (mm2)

X = Average of sample passing and retaining sieve size (mm)

It has R2 value of 0.987.

4. Models to correlate water cement ratio, workability of mortar, the surface area of

fine aggregates with the dosage of superplasticizer for various fraction (F1 to F5)

and various zone (Z1 to Z4) has been established (Table 5.8) which are having a

very high value of correlation coefficient.

91

Conclusions and Recommendations

5. A methodology to estimate superplasticizer dosage for the desired workability has

been proposed in Appendix G which can be used to reduce the trials in the field.

Recommendations for Future Work 6.2

It is recommended that using the same approach, a model can be developed for concrete to

estimation superplasticizer dosage for the desired workability of concrete.

92

References

1. ASTM C 125-93 (1993). Standard definitions and terms relating to concrete and concrete aggregates. American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, Pennsylvania, USA

2. ACI Committee 116 (2000). “Cement and Concrete Terminology,” ACI 116R-00, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice. Detroit, MI.

3. Ferraris, C.F. (1999), “Measurement of the Rheological Properties of High Performance Concrete: State of the Art Report,” Journal of Research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 104(5), 461-478

4. Neville, A. (1996). Properties of Concrete. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

5. IS: 10262 (2009), Recommended Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design, Bureau of India Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

6. IS: 9103(1999). Concrete Admixtures–Specification (First Revision), Bureau of Ind

ian Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

7. ASTM, C. (1999). 494. Standard specification for chemical admixtures for concrete, 4.

8. Mehta, P. K., Mehta, P. J. K., & Monteiro, P. J. (2006). Concrete: microstructure, properties, and materials.

9. Ferraris, C. F., Obla, K. H., & Hill, R. (2001). The influence of mineral admixtures

on the rheology of cement paste and concrete. Cement and concrete research, 31(2), 245-255.

10. Tattersall, G. H. (1976). Relationships between the British Standard tests for workability and the two-point test. Magazine of Concrete Research, 28(96), 143-147.

11. Tattersall, G.H. (1991). Workability and Quality Control of Concrete. London: E&FN Spon.

12. Hackley, V., & Ferraris, C. F. (2001). The Use of Nomenclature in Dispersion Science and Technology,(Special Report 960-3). Gaithersburg, MD: National Institute of Standards and Technology.

93

13. Agullo, L., Toralles-Carbonari, B., Gettu, R., & Aguado, A. (1999). Fluidity of cement pastes with mineral admixtures and superplasticizer—A study based on the Marsh cone test. Materials and Structures, 32(7), 479-485.

14. Erdoǧdu, Ş. (2000). Compatibility of superplasticizers with cements different in composition. Cement and concrete research, 30(5), 767-773.

15. Jayasree, C., & Gettu, R. (2008). Experimental study of the flow behaviour of super

plasticized cement paste. Materials and Structures, 41(9), 1581-1593.

16. Bouvet, A., Ghorbel, E., & Bennacer, R. (2010). The mini-conical slump flow test: Analysis and numerical study. Cement and concrete research, 40(10), 1517-1523.

17. Jayasree, C., Krishnan, J. M., & Gettu, R. (2011). Influence of superplasticizer on the non-Newtonian characteristics of cement paste. Materials and structures, 44(5), 929-942.

18. IS 12269 (2004), Indian standard specification for 53 grade ordinary portland cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

19. Li, G., & Wu, X. (2005). Influence of fly ash and its mean particle size on certain engineering properties of cement composite mortars. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(6), 1128-1134.

20. Gesoğlu, M., Güneyisi, E., & Özbay, E. (2009). Properties of self-compacting concretes made with binary, ternary, and quaternary cementitious blends of fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica fume. Construction and Building Materials, 23(5), 1847-1854.

21. Chandra, S., & Björnström, J. (2002). Influence of cement and superplasticizers type and dosage on the fluidity of cement mortars—Part I. Cement and Concrete Research, 32(10), 1605-1611.

22. Harini, M., Shaalini, G., & Dhinakaran, G. (2012). Effect of size and type of fine aggregates on flowability of mortar. KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(1), 163-168.

23. ASTM, C. (2003). 1252 Standard Test Methods for Uncompacted Void Content of Fine Aggregate (as Influenced by Particle Shape, Surface Texture, and Grading). American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA.

94

24. Haach, V. G., Vasconcelos, G., & Lourenço, P. B. (2011). Influence of aggregates grading and water/cement ratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars. Construction and Building Materials, 25(6), 2980-2987.

25. EN, B. (1999). 1015-3: 1999. Methods of test for mortar for masonry part 3: Determination of consistence of fresh mortar (by flow table).

26. EN, B. (1999). 1015-11: 1999. Methods of test for mortar for masonry Part 11: determination of flexural and compressive strength of hardened mortar.

27. Galloway, J. E. (1994). Grading, shape, and surface properties. ASTM special technical publication, 169, 401-410.

28. Hudson, B. (1999). Modification to the fine aggregate angularity test. In Proceedings, Seventh Annual International Center for Aggregates Research Symposium, Austin, TX.

29. IS: 2386 (Part I) -1963, Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete, Part I: Particle Size and Shape, Tenth Reprint March 1993, Bureau of India Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

30. Mora, C. F., Kwan, A. K. H., & Chan, H. C. (1998). Particle size distribution analysis of coarse aggregate using digital image processing. Cement and Concrete Research, 28(6), 921-932.

31. Popovics, S. (1979). Concrete-making materials. Hemisphere Pub. Corp.

32. Ahn, N. S., & Fowler, D. W. (2000). An experimental study on the guidelines for using higher contents of aggregate microfines in Portland cement concrete (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin).

33. IS: 383 (1970), Indian standard specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete, 9th reprint, 2002, Bureau of India Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

34. Rauch, A., Hass, C., & Kim, H. (1999, April). State of the art in aggregate classification: review of aggregate gradation technologies. In Proceedings of the 7th annual international center for aggregates research symposium, University of Texas at Austin.

95

35. McCave, I. N., & Syvitski, J. P. (1991). Principles and methods of geological particle size analysis. Principles, methods and application of particle size analysis, 3-21.

36. IS 5282 (1969), Indian standard liquid sedimentation methods for determination of particle size of powders, New Delhi, Bureau of India Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

37. David Scott, Stephen Harding, & Arthur Rowe (2005). Analytical ultracentrifugation: techniques and methods. Royal Society of Chemistry.

38. LOIZEAU, J. L., Arbouille, D., Santiago, S., & VERNET, J. P. (1994). Evaluation of a wide range laser diffraction grain size analyser for use with sediments. Sedimentology, 41(2), 353-361.

39. Buurman, P., Pape, T., & Muggler, C. C. (1997). LASER GRAIN-SIZE DETERMINATION IN SOIL GENETIC STUDIES 1. PRACTICAL PROBLEMS. Soil Science, 162(3), 211-218.

40. ISO13320 (2009), Particle Size Analysis - Laser Diffraction Methods, International Standards Organization.

41. Kemeny, J. M., Devgan, A., Hagaman, R. M., & Wu, X. (1993). Analysis of rock fragmentation using digital image processing. Journal of Geotechnical Engineering, 119(7), 1144-1160.

42. Fernlund, J. M. (1998). The effect of particle form on sieve analysis: a test by image analysis. Engineering Geology, 50(1), 111-124.

43. Kuo, C. Y., Frost, J., Lai, J., & Wang, L. (1996). Three-dimensional image analysis of aggregate particles from orthogonal projections. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, (1526), 98-103.

44. Kuo, C. Y., Rollings, R. S., & Lynch, L. N. (1998). Morphological study of coarse aggregates using image analysis. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 10(3), 135-142.

45. Maerz, N. H. (2004). Technical and computational aspects of the measurement of aggregate shape by digital image analysis. Journal of Computing in Civil Engineering, 18(1), 10-18.

96

46. Kumara, G. H. A., Hayano, K., & Ogiwara, K. (2012). Image analysis techniques on evaluation of particle size distribution of gravel. Int. J. Geomate, 3(1), 290-297.

47. Rodriguez, J., Johansson, J., & Edeskär, T. (2012). Particle shape determination by two-dimensional image analysis in geotechnical engineering. In Nordic Geotechnical Meeting: 09/05/2012-12/05/2012 (pp. 207-218). Danish Geotechnical Society.

48. Wadell, H. (1935). Volume, shape, and roundness of quartz particles. The Journal of Geology, 43(3), 250-280.

49. Tickell, F. G., & Hiatt, W. N. (1938). Effect of angularity of grain on porosity and permeability of unconsolidated sands. AAPG Bulletin, 22(9), 1272-1274.

50. Riley, N. A. (1941). Projection sphericity. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 11(2), 94-97.

51. Blott, S. J., & Pye, K. (2008). Particle shape: a review and new methods of characterization and classification. Sedimentology, 55(1), 31-63.

52. Janoo, V. (1998). Quantification of shape, angularity, and surface texture of base course materials (No. CRREL-SR-98-1). COLD REGIONS RESEARCH AND ENGINEERING LAB HANOVER NH.

53. Krumbein, W. C., & Sloss, L. L. (1951). Stratigraphy and sedimentation (Vol. 71, No. 5, p. 401). LWW.

54. Mitchell, J. K., & Soga, K. (2005). Fundamentals of soil behaviour, Third edition, Wiley New Jersey.

55. Krumbein, W. C. (1941). Measurement and geological significance of shape and roundness of sedimentary particles. Journal of Sedimentary Research, 11(2).

56. Stückrath, T., Völker, G., & Meng, J. H. (2006, November). Classification of shape and underwater motion properties of rock. In 3rd Chinese-German joint symposium on coastal and ocean engineering. China: Tainan.

57. Polat, R., Yadollahi, M. M., Sagsoz, A. E., & Arasan, S. (2013). The correlation between aggregate shape and compressive strength of concrete: digital image processing approach. International Journal of Structural and Civil Engineering Research, 2, 62-80.

97

58. Lanaro, F., & Tolppanen, P. (2002). 3D characterization of coarse aggregates. Engineering geology, 65(1), 17-30.

59. Pan, T., & Tutumluer, E. (2010). Imaging-based direct measurement of aggregate surface area and its application in asphalt mixture design. International Journal of Pavement Engineering, 11(5), 415-428.

60. IS 4031 (1988), Methods of Physical Tests For. Hydraulic Cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002

61. IS 383 (1970) , Indian standard specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, Manak Bhawan, Bahadur Shah Zafar Marg, New Delhi, 110002.

62. Domone, P. (2006). Mortar tests for self-consolidating concrete. Concrete international, 28(04), 39-45.

63. Kantro, D. L. (1980). Influence of water-reducing admixtures on properties of cement paste—a miniature slump test. Cement, Concrete and Aggregates, 2(2), 95-102.

64. Nanthagopalan, P., & Santhanam, M. (2008). A new approach to optimisation of paste composition in self-compacting concrete. Indian concrete journal, 82(11), 11-18.

65. Johnson, R. A. (2001). Miller & Freund's Probability and Statistics for Engineers. Iie Transactions, 33(9), 823-825.

98

Publications

1. Measuring behavior of fresh cement paste. In International Conference on Advances in Construction Materials and Systems (ICACMS-2017) (pp. 11–15), (2017).

2. Critical Review of Aggregate Shape Characteristic Assessment Techniques. In UKIERI Concrete Congress- Concrete Research Driving Profit and Sustainability (pp. 1041–1054), (2015).

3. Correlating workability of superplasticized paste, mortar and concrete-present scenario. In UKIERI Concrete Congress- Innovations in Concrete Construction (pp. 425–440), (2013).

4. Selection of test method to quantify workability of cement paste and mortar for very low workable to high workable. International Journal of Engineering Sciences & Research Technology, 4(12), 854–860, (2015).

5. State Of Art Paper : Investigation of Workability of Cement Paste, Cement Mortar And Concrete. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies E-ISSN2249–8974, Vol. II (Issue I), 16–23, (2012).

99

Appendix A: Surface Area of 30 Particles for Different Fractions

FIGURE A.1 Particles surface area for fraction 4.75mm to 2.36mm



20.73

26.47

20.41

17.0216.50

21.10

16.86

28.3427.20

19.96

10.9311.5911.37

20.3618.02

16.16

19.9922.43

14.29

9.60

23.8323.57

16.5414.42

21.32

26.87

19.67

16.07

18.8216.80

0.00

5.00

10.00

15.00

20.00

25.00

30.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Particle

9.82

7.818.79 8.63

9.96

11.1710.52

7.33

10.12

8.23

10.90

7.286.62

8.64 8.918.11

9.01

7.25

5.43

9.35 8.96

5.84

8.147.57

8.757.79

8.478.99

7.48

6.22

0.00

2.00

4.00

6.00

8.00

10.00

12.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Particle

2.16

1.911.71

2.30

1.69

1.15

1.711.93

1.44 1.45 1.52 1.46

2.48

1.291.16

1.43 1.351.20

1.56

1.98

1.28

1.69

1.09

2.10

1.841.68

1.54

1.23

0.76

1.08

0.00

0.50

1.00

1.50

2.00

2.50

3.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Particle

100



0.48

0.30

0.48

0.28

0.36

0.46

0.26 0.24

0.300.34

0.48

0.31

0.47

0.25 0.24

0.45

0.27

0.38

0.26

0.33

0.63

0.52

0.28

0.22

0.47

0.54

0.29

0.520.58 0.57

0.00

0.10

0.20

0.30

0.40

0.50

0.60

0.70

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Particle

0.16

0.11

0.07

0.15

0.13

0.09

0.07

0.10

0.13

0.06

0.12

0.16

0.13

0.150.17

0.13

0.17

0.07

0.11

0.15

0.13

0.10

0.18

0.12

0.170.15

0.11 0.11

0.07

0.12

0.00

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.12

0.14

0.16

0.18

0.20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

Surf

ace

area

(mm

2 )

Particle

101

Appendix B : Weight to Number of Particle Relationship for Different Fractions

Sieve size

fraction

(mm)

Sample Weight

of sample

(gram)

Number

of

Particles

Average

weight of

sample

(gram)

Average

number

of

Particles

Approximate

weight of one

particle

4.75-2.36

SA1 10.0782 164

10.0424 162.2 0.061914

SA2 10.0511 167

SA3 10.0104 185

SA4 10.0212 143

SA5 10.0511 152

2.36-1.18

SB1 2.0102 225

2.0144 202.8 0.009933

SB2 2.0164 208

SB3 2.0191 182

SB4 2.0122 216

SB5 2.0141 183

1.18-0.60 SC1 0.3225 273

0.3115 251.5 0.001239 SC2 0.3005 230

0.60-0.30 SD1 0.1244 540

0.1225 568.5 0.000215 SD2 0.1206 597

0.30-0.15 SE1 0.0438 1992

0.0475 2012 0.000024 SE2 0.0512 2032

102

Appendix C : Surface Area Calculation

Surface area calculation for Manufactured Sand Zone-I

Table C.1 and C.2 show the procedure of surface area calculation for Manufactured sand

zone-1.

TABLE C.1 Manufactured Sand Zone 1(MFZ-1) from Different Fractions

IS Sieve

Designation Grading for zone-I MFZ-I

10 mm 100 100 100

4.75 mm 90 100 100

2.36 mm 60 95 77.5

1.18 mm 30 70 50

0.60 mm 15 34 24.5

0.30mm 5 20 12.5

0.15mm 0 10 0

Sample = 1000 gram

TABLE C.2 Surface Area Calculation

Particle

size (mm)

Percentage

retained

Weight

retained

(grams)

Approximate

weight of one

particle

(grams)

Number

of

particles

Average

surface area

of one

particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 22.5 225 0.061914 3634 18.91 68713

2.36-1.18 27.5 275 0.009933 27686 8.40 232635

1.18-0.60 25.5 255 0.001239 205883 1.57 323728

0.60-0.30 12 120 0.000215 556898 0.39 214692

0.30-0.15 12.5 125 0.000024 5294737 0.12 651494

Total Area = 1491264

Table C.3 represents the surface area of different manufactured sand zones.

103

TABLE C.3 Surface Area of Different Manufactured Zone

Zone Weight of sample

(grams)

Surface area

(mm2)

MFZ-I 1000 1491264

MFZ-II 1000 1980015

MFZ-III 1000 2427084

MFZ-IV 1000 2814878

TABLE C.4 Surface Area Calculation for Different Fractions

Particle

size

(mm)

Weight

retained

(grams)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (grams)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 1000 0.061914 16152 18.91 305394

2.36-1.18 1000 0.009933 100675 8.40 845946

1.18-0.60 1000 0.001239 807384 1.57 1269525

0.60-0.30 1000 0.000215 4640816 0.39 1789101

0.30-0.15 1000 0.000024 42357895 0.12 5211955

TABLE C.5 Surface Area of Different Fractions

Fraction Weight of sample (grams) Surface area (mm2)

Fraction-F1

(4.75 to 2.36mm) 1000 305394

Fraction-F2

(2.36 to 1.18mm) 1000 845946

Fraction-F3

(1.18 to 0.60mm) 1000 1269525

Fraction-F4

(0.60 to 0.30mm) 1000 1789101

Fraction-F5

(0.30 to 0.15mm) 1000 5211955

104

Surface Area Calculation for Random Sand Sample from Sieve Analysis

Sand sample = 1000 gm

TABLE C.6 Sieve Analysis

IS Sieve

Designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 12 12 1.2 98.8

4.75 mm 70 82 8.2 91.8

2.36 mm 120 202 20.2 79.8

1.18 mm 130 332 33.2 66.8

0.60 mm 480 812 81.2 18.8

0.30mm 152 964 96.4 3.6

0.15mm 12 12 1.2

Pan 36

Fineness

Modulus = 2.4

Zone of Sand

=II

TABLE C.7 Surface Area Calculation of Random Sample

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 225 0.061914 1131 18.91 21377.58

2.36-1.18 275 0.009933 12081 8.40 101513.56

1.18-0.60 255 0.001239 104960 1.57 165038.20

0.60-0.30 120 0.000215 2227592 0.39 858768.48

0.30-0.15 125 0.000024 6438400 0.12 792217.22

Total

weight

= 952

Total Area = 1938915.04

105

Appendix D : Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Fractions

TABLE D.1 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Fine Aggregate Fraction F1 (4.75 to 2.36mm)

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 113.90 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 0.00 0.00 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 0.31 1.09 128.35 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 0.31 0.73 100.18 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 0.31 0.55 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 0.31 0.44 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 0.63 2.19 163.43 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 0.63 1.46 104.85 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 0.63 1.09 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 0.63 0.88 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 0.94 3.28 319.96 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 0.94 2.18 149.11 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 0.94 1.64 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 0.94 1.31 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 1.25 4.38 303.75 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 1.25 2.91 213.88 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 1.25 2.19 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 1.25 1.75 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.30 1.50 5.25 336.50 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.30 1.50 3.50 195.75 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.30 1.50 2.63 103.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.30 1.50 2.10 100.00 171021

* Stiff mix ** Segregation

106


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 191.10 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 118.47 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 101.62 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 0.00 0.00 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 0.25 0.88 275.25 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 0.25 0.58 173.68 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 0.25 0.44 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 0.25 0.35 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 0.50 1.75 300.70 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 0.50 1.17 234.57 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 0.50 0.88 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 0.50 0.70 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 0.75 2.63 309.46 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 0.75 1.75 247.60 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 0.75 1.31 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 0.75 1.05 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 1.00 3.50 ** 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 1.00 2.33 266.28 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 1.00 1.75 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 1.00 1.40 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.40 1.25 4.38 ** 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.40 1.25 2.91 ** 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.40 1.25 2.19 100.00 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.40 1.25 1.75 100.00 171021


107


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 237.22 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 190.49 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 107.58 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.19 0.66 296.81 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.19 0.44 237.83 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.19 0.33 188.45 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.19 0.26 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.38 1.31 323.65 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.38 0.87 277.38 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.38 0.66 187.66 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.38 0.53 100.00 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.56 1.97 ** 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.56 1.31 306.42 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.56 0.98 * 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.56 0.79 * 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.75 2.63 ** 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.75 1.75 313.39 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.75 1.31 * 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.75 1.05 * 171021

1:1 350.00 350.00 0.50 0.94 3.28 ** 106888

1:2 233.00 466.00 0.50 0.94 2.18 ** 142314

1:3 175.00 525.00 0.50 0.94 1.64 ** 160332

1:4 140.00 560.00 0.50 0.94 1.31 * 171021


108


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 112.30 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 102.83 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 145.62 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.08 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.13 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 256.02 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 110.76 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 322.50 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 143.81 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.38 342.25 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 157.00 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 332.25 296081

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 134.47 394211

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.11 444122

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.18 473730


109


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 193.05 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 115.49 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.20 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 273.45 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 156.61 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 102.61 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 311.29 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 199.15 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 124.43 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 347.75 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 235.00 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 156.85 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00 473730

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 249.15 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 * 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 * 473730

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 296081

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 ** 394211

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 * 444122

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 * 473730


110


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 232.36 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 169.49 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 106.97 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 104.55 473730

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 304.26 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 254.81 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 121.71 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 137.38 473730

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 356.00 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 288.59 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 214.00 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 152.19 473730

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 ** 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 280.95 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 187.61 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 160.87 473730

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 ** 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 ** 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 163.56 473730

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 296081

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 ** 394211

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 ** 444122

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 158.57 473730


111


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 125.73 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.46 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 130.95 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.07 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 206.62 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 105.23 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 313.67 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 114.31 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.38 332.75 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 117.91 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 308.58 444334

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 121.86 591598

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 * 666500

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 * 710934


112


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 188.54 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 123.53 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.25 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 284.27 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 152.22 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 103.82 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 314.24 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 203.51 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 112.08 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 358.00 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 164.35 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 117.33 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00 710934

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 220.93 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 111.60 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 444334

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 209.07 591598

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 106.27 666500

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 * 710934


113


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 253.06 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 195.78 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 108.41 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.65* 710934

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 314.43 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 240.96 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 115.57 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 352.25 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 282.03 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 182.29 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 ** 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 272.16 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 137.07 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 * 710934

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 264.76 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 126.40 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 101.20* 710934

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 444334

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 255.51 591598

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 120.71 666500

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 140.02** 710934


114


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 109.34 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 833721

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 125.41 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.00* 833721

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 159.73 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 100.00* 833721

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 319.48 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 100.00* 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.38 318.87 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 100.29 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 ** 626185

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 105.61 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.04* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.18* 1001897


115


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 197.28 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 112.28 833721

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.72* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 262.21 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 141.36 833721

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 308.48 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 155.64 833721

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 347.50 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 182.32 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 352.25 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 183.27 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 358.25 626185

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 160.15 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 100.02* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 100.88* 1001897


116


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 256.92 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 178.90 833721

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.81* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 316.59 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 204.23 833721

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 348.00 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 253.37 833721

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 362.50 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 282.66 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 100.00* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 279.79 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 100.16* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1001897

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 626185

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 272.73 833721.1

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 100.14* 939278

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 102.53* 1001897


117


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.25* 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 116.36 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 131.88 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 142.22 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.38 274.86 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 289.02 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 100.00* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.00* 2918695


118


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 160.11 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.43 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 192.79 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 100.12* 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 253.42 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 106.20 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 342.00 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 112.62 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 125.64 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 119.81 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 100.00* 2918695


119


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 241.27 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 118.42 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.21* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 301.10 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 143.75 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 317.69 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 168.48 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 343.75 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 182.64 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 350.13** 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 177.10 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 100.00* 2918695

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 1824184

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 181.07 2428771

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 100.00* 2736277

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 100.00* 2918695


120

Appendix E : Workability of Cement Mortar for Different Zones

TABLE E.1 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone I

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 101.70* 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.18* 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 131.48 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 104.07 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 203.03 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 123.45 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 329.50 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 232.68 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.02* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.28 338.50 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 236.80 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 103.48* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 228.85 694929

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 107.21 782914

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.01* 835108


121


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 201.50 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 136.39 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.01* 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 213.01 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 204.54 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 120.51 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 308.14 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 224.65 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 137.89 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 354.25 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 284.95 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 159.82 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 295.14 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 158.49 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.08* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 305.23 694929

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 169.49 782914

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 107.53* 835108


122


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 257.70 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 214.95 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 116.11 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 317.15 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 267.08 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 168.45 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 348.25 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 285.22 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 225.39 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00 835108

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 310.07 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 241.77 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.06* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 ** 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 256.73 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 103.65* 835108

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 521942

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 ** 694929

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 262.05 782914

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 111.73 835108


123

TABLE E.4 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone II

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 114.40 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 161.65 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.47* 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 167.15 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 104.53 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 313.02 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 113.66 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.28 342.50 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 218.88 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 324.47 693005

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 204.97 922687

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.03* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.00* 1108808


124


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 200.63 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 125.98 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 251.70 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 167.43 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 109.40 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 315.43 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 246.50 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 132.11 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 347.50 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 300.50 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 131.22 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 307.16 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 118.81 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 693005

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 299.34 922687

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 135.31 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 100.12* 1108808


125


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 263.57 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 221.27 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 136.38 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 315.97 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 260.51 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 147.04 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 342.50 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 303.09 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 185.65 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 ** 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 314.16 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 220.46 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.05* 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 323.03 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 227.91 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 104.68 1108808

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 693005

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 ** 922687

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 222.73 1039508

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 108.50 1108808


126

TABLE E.7 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone III

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 102.37* 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 131.67 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.12* 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 163.42 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 103.62* 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 320.57 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 110.69 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.28 328.75 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 158.68 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 338.00 849479

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 112.17 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.02* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.08* 1359167


127


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 201.15 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 131.87 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 252.64 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 189.10 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 100.00* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 312.40 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 205.67 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 100.18* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 356.75 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 233.03 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 110.58 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 ** 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 278.81 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 113.80 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 849479

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 274.93 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 113.21 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 100.05* 1359167


128


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 278.61 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 204.21 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 102.51* 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 315.41 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 234.85 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 126.24 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 336.50 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 270.77 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 143.34 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 ** 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 296.59 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 171.52 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.00* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 300.49 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 183.57 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 100.11* 1359167

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 849479

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 303.06 1131021

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 181.28 1274219

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 102.29* 1359167


129

TABLE E.10 W/C Ratio 0.30 and Manufactured Sand Zone IV

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.03* 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.31 1.09 120.73 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.31 0.73 100.00* 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.31 0.55 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.31 0.44 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.63 2.19 151.82 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.63 1.46 100.00* 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.63 1.09 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.63 0.88 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.3 0.94 3.28 201.40 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 0.94 2.18 100.00* 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 0.94 1.64 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 0.94 1.31 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.25 4.28 320.70 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.25 2.91 100.06* 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.25 2.19 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.25 1.75 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.3 1.50 5.25 321.62 985207

1:2 233 466 0.3 1.50 3.50 103.90 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.3 1.50 2.63 100.18* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.3 1.50 2.10 100.20* 1576332


130


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.00 0.00 187.71 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.00 0.00 109.65 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.25 0.88 232.54 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.25 0.58 124.37 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.25 0.44 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.25 0.35 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.50 1.75 281.58 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.50 1.17 168.79 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.50 0.88 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.50 0.70 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.4 0.75 2.63 280.35 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 0.75 1.75 196.00 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 0.75 1.31 100.00* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.00 3.50 342.25 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.00 2.33 216.57 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.00 1.75 100.10* 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.00 1.40 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.4 1.25 4.38 ** 985207

1:2 233 466 0.4 1.25 2.91 245.08 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.4 1.25 2.19 104.21 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.4 1.25 1.75 100.02* 1576332


131


C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

Ratio

SP

(%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

Average

Flow Dia.

(mm)

Surface area

(mm2)

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.00 0.00 276.11 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.00 0.00 174.22 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.00 0.00 104.36 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.00 0.00 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.19 0.66 302.47 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.19 0.44 202.97 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.19 0.33 111.96 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.19 0.26 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.38 1.31 334.75 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.38 0.87 215.91 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.38 0.66 129.72 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.38 0.53 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.56 1.97 357.50 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.56 1.31 263.09 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.56 0.98 151.84 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.56 0.79 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.75 2.63 ** 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.75 1.75 296.99 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.75 1.31 158.30 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.75 1.05 100.00* 1576332

1:1 350 350 0.5 0.94 3.28 ** 985207

1:2 233 466 0.5 0.94 2.18 298.63 1311733

1:3 175 525 0.5 0.94 1.64 136.58 1477811

1:4 140 560 0.5 0.94 1.31 100.17* 1576332


132

Appendix F : Validation of Developed Models

Location = Chota Udepur-Orasang River

Assumed data

Water cement ratio = 0.30

Cement fine aggregate proportion = 1:2

Average flow diameter (targeted) = 200mm

TABLE F.1 Sieve Analysis of Sample 1 (Chota Udepur)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 68 68 6.80 93.20

2.36 mm 112 180 18.00 82.00

1.18 mm 284 464 46.40 53.60

0.60 mm 278 742 74.20 25.80

0.30mm 228 970 97.00 3.00

0.15mm 26 996 99.60 0.40

Pan 04 1000

Fineness Modulus = 3.42 Zone of Sand =I

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 112 0.061914 1809 18.91 34207

2.36-1.18 284 0.009933 28592 8.40 240169

1.18-0.60 278 0.001239 224374 1.57 352268

0.60-0.30 228 0.000215 1060465 0.39 413581

0.30-0.15 26 0.000024 1083333 0.12 130000

Total weight

= 928 Total Area = 1170226

Area of fine aggregate per gram = 1261 mm2

Experimental data


Weight of cement = 233 gm

133

Weight of fine aggregates = 466 gm

Total surface area of fine aggregates = 587635 mm2

The general expression to predict the superplasticizer dosage is given below

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 𝐴 + (𝐵 ∗ 𝑤/𝑐) + (𝐶 ∗ 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒) + (𝐷 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03

Sieve analysis test results confirmed the zone I for the fine aggregate sample.

Prediction of dosage of superplasticizer (SP) for the desired workability of cement

mortar


Where A = -0.641

B = -4.088

C = 2.98E-06

D = 3.73E-03

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.641 + �−4.088 ∗𝑤𝑐� + (2.98𝐸 − 06 ∗ 𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒 𝑎𝑔𝑔𝑟𝑒𝑔𝑎𝑡𝑒)

+ (3.73𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.641 + (−4.088 ∗ 0.3) + (2.98𝐸 − 06 ∗ 587635) + (3.73𝐸 − 03 ∗ 200)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.63

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Targeted

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:2 233 466 0.30 0.63 1.47 205.04 200 2.46

Chota Udepur-Orasang River sample gives 2.46 % variation in predicated and actual


134

Location = Panchmahal-Goma River

Assumed data




TABLE F.2 Sieve Analysis of Sample 2 (Panchmahal)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 20 20 2.00 98.00

2.36 mm 50 70 7.00 93.00

1.18 mm 190 260 26.00 74.00

0.60 mm 244 504 50.40 49.60

0.30mm 392 896 89.60 10.40

0.15mm 74 970 97.00 3.00

Pan 30 1000

Fineness

Modulus = 2.72

Zone of Sand

=II

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 50 18.91 0.061914 808 15271

2.36-1.18 190 8.4 0.009933 19128 160677

1.18-0.60 244 1.57 0.001239 196933 309185

0.60-0.30 392 0.39 0.000215 1823256 711070

0.30-0.15 74 0.12 0.000024 3083333 370000

Total

weight = 950 Total Area = 1566202


135

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03

Sieve analysis test results confirmed the zone II for the fine aggregate sample.


mortar


Where A = -0.433

B = -4.455

C = 2.28E-06

D = 3.80E-03


+ (3.80𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.433 + (−4.455 ∗ 0.4) + (2.28𝐸 − 06 ∗ 865533) + (3.80𝐸 − 03 ∗ 150)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.58

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Targeted

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:3 175 525 0.40 0.58 0.575 134.31 150 10.46

Panchmahal-Goma River sample gives 10.46 % variation in predicated and actual


136

Location = Rajkot-Aji River

Assumed data




TABLE F.3 Sieve Analysis of Sample 3 (Rajkot-Aji River)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 49 49 4.90 95.10

2.36 mm 62 111 11.10 88.90

1.18 mm 132 243 24.30 75.70

0.60 mm 173 416 41.60 58.40

0.30mm 462 878 87.80 12.20

0.15mm 108 986 98.60 1.40

Pan 14 1000

Fineness

Modulus = 2.68

Zone of Sand

=II

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 62 18.91 0.061914 1001 18936

2.36-1.18 132 8.4 0.009933 13289 111628

1.18-0.60 173 1.57 0.001239 139629 219217

0.60-0.30 462 0.39 0.000215 2148837 838047

0.30-0.15 108 0.12 0.000024 4500000 540000

Total



137

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03

Sieve analysis test results confirmed the zone II for the fine aggregate sample.


mortar


Where A = -0.433

B = -4.455

C = 2.28E-06

D = 3.80E-03


+ (3.80𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.433 + (−4.455 ∗ 0.5) + (2.28𝐸 − 06 ∗ 645400) + (3.80𝐸 − 03 ∗ 350)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.14

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Targeted

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:1 350 350 0.50 0.14 0.496 309.50 350 11.57

Rajkot-Aji River sample gives 11.57 % variation in predicated and actual workability

of cement mortar.

138

Location = Junagadh

Assumed data




TABLE F.4 Sieve Analysis of Sample 4 (Junagadh)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 0 0 0.00 100.00

2.36 mm 65 65 6.50 93.50

1.18 mm 115 180 18.00 82.00

0.60 mm 130 310 31.00 69.00

0.30mm 530 840 84.00 16.00

0.15mm 140 980 98.00 2.00

Pan 04

Fineness

Modulus = 2.38

Zone of Sand

=III

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 65 18.91 0.061914 1050 19853

2.36-1.18 115 8.4 0.009933 11578 97252

1.18-0.60 130 1.57 0.001239 104923 164730

0.60-0.30 530 0.39 0.000215 2465116 961395

0.30-0.15 140 0.12 0.000024 5833333 700000

Total



139

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03

Sieve analysis test results confirmed the zone III for the fine aggregate sample.


mortar


Where A = -0.370

B = -4.216

C = 1.76-06

D = 3.89E-03


+ (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.370 + (−4.216 ∗ 0.4) + (1.76𝐸 − 06 ∗ 924025) + (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 180)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.27

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Targeted

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:2 233 466 0.40 0.27 0.62 189.71 180 5.12

Junagadh sample gives 5.12 % variation in predicated and actual workability of

cement mortar.

140

Location = Patan-Banas River

Assumed data




TABLE F.5 Sieve Analysis of Sample 5 (Patan-Banas River)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 57 57 5.70 94.30

2.36 mm 66 123 12.30 87.70

1.18 mm 105 228 22.80 77.20

0.60 mm 152 380 38.00 62.00

0.30mm 440 820 82.00 18.00

0.15mm 138 958 95.80 4.20

Pan 42 1000

Fineness

Modulus = 2.57

Zone of Sand

=III

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 66 18.91 0.061914 1066 20158

2.36-1.18 105 8.4 0.009933 10571 88795

1.18-0.60 152 1.57 0.001239 122680 192607

0.60-0.30 440 0.39 0.000215 2046512 798140

0.30-0.15 138 0.12 0.000024 5750000 690000

Total



141

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03



mortar


Where A = -0.370

B = -4.216

C = 1.76-06

D = 3.89E-03


+ (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.370 + (−4.216 ∗ 0.3) + (1.76𝐸 − 06 ∗ 925638) + (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 125)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.48

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/C

ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Targeted

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:2 233 466 0.30 0.48 1.11 113.88 125 8.90

Patan-Banas River sample gives 8.90 % variation in predicated and actual


142

Location = Kutch

Assumed data




TABLE F.6 Sieve Analysis of Sample 6 (Kutch)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 0 0 0 100

4.75 mm 10 10 1.00 99.00

2.36 mm 59 69 6.90 93.10

1.18 mm 120 189 18.90 81.10

0.60 mm 136 325 32.50 67.50

0.30mm 501 826 82.60 17.40

0.15mm 140 966 96.60 3.40

Pan 34 1000

Fineness

Modulus = 2.39

Zone of Sand

=III

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 59 18.91 0.061914 953 18020

2.36-1.18 120 8.4 0.009933 12081 101480

1.18-0.60 136 1.57 0.001239 109766 172333

0.60-0.30 501 0.39 0.000215 2330233 908791

0.30-0.15 140 0.12 0.000024 5833333 700000

Total



143

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03



mortar


Where A = -0.370

B = -4.216

C = 1.76-06

D = 3.89E-03


+ (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.370 + (−4.216 ∗ 0.5) + (1.76𝐸 − 06 ∗ 926454) + (3.89𝐸 − 03 ∗ 300)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.32

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/c

Ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Assumed

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:2 233 466 0.50 0.32 0.736 272.01 300 9.33

Kutch sample gives 9.33 % variation in predicated and actual workability of cement

mortar.

144

Location = Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River

Assumed data




TABLE F.7 Sieve Analysis of Sample 7 (Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River)

IS sieve

designation

Weight retained

(gm)

Cumulative

weight retained

(gm)

Percentage

weight retained

Cumulative

percentage

passing

10 mm 8 8 0.80 99.20

4.75 mm 27 35 3.50 96.50

2.36 mm 57 92 9.20 90.80

1.18 mm 89 181 18.10 81.90

0.60 mm 698 879 87.90 12.10

0.30mm 111 990 99.00 1.00

0.15mm 10 1000

Pan 1000

Fineness

Modulus = 2.19

Zone of Sand

=IV

Particle

size (mm)

Weight

retained

(gm)

Approximate

weight of one

particle (gm)

Number of

particles

Average

surface area of

one particle

(mm2)

Surface area

(mm2)

4.75-2.36 27 18.91 0.061914 436 8246

2.36-1.18 57 8.4 0.009933 5738 48203

1.18-0.60 89 1.57 0.001239 71832 112776

0.60-0.30 698 0.39 0.000215 3246512 1266140

0.30-0.15 111 0.12 0.000024 4625000 555000

Total



145

Experimental data







Zone A B C D

Zone I -0.641 -4.088 2.98E-06 3.73E-03

Zone II -0.433 -4.455 2.28E-06 3.80E-03

Zone III -0.370 -4.216 1.76E-06 3.89E-03

Zone IV -0.749 -4.871 1.82E-06 5.64E-03

Sieve analysis test results confirmed the zone IV for the fine aggregate sample.


mortar


Where A = -0.749

B = -4.871

C = 1.82E-06

D = 5.64E-03


+ (5.64𝐸 − 03 ∗ 𝐴𝐹𝐷)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = −0.749 + (−4.871 ∗ 0.3) + (2.98𝐸 − 06 ∗ 709397) + (3.73𝐸 − 03 ∗ 250)

𝑆𝑝 (%) = 0.49

C : FA

Weight

of

cement

(gm)

Weight

of sand

(gm)

W/c

Ratio SP (%)

Weight

of SP

(gm)

AFD

(mm)

Assumed

AFD

(mm)

Variation

(%)

1:1 350 350 0.30 0.49 1.71 233.68 250 6.53

Ahmedabad-Sabarmati River sample gives 6.53 % variation in predicated and actual


146

Given Data:

Workability : Average flow diameter (spread),

Water cement ratio, Superplasticizer: Type and

brand, Proportion of cement and fine aggregate,

Cement: Ordinary Portland Cement

Compatibility Study of

Cement Superplasticizer

Change cement or

superplasticizer

Rejected

Accepted

Sieve analysis of fine aggregate

sample

Proposed Methodology Flow Chart for Prediction of Superplasticizer Dosage for Desired

Workability

Determination of surface area of fine

aggregate

Select approach

Sample preparation and

Image acquisition

Approach-1

Use surface area and

weight relationship for

various fractions

suggested by authors

Image analysis to

determine surface area

of particles

Calculation of average

surface area of particle

Approach-2

Calculation of number of

particles contented in

given weight

Calculation of average

weight of particle

Determine surface area of fine

aggregate based on sieve analysis

and surface area and weight

relationship

Derive relationship

between surface area

and weight for each

fractions

Behavior study of cement mortar at

maximum dosage of superplasticizer

Is mix workable?Stiff Mix or Segregation

No

Select the equation according to

zone of fine aggregate

Change water

content, SP or

adjust gradation

Use Lower Dosage of SP

(till segregation is stopped)

Stiff

mix

Segregation Yes

Predict the dosage of

superplasticizer (SP) for desired

workability of cement mortar

Methodology to Determination of Surface

Area of Given Sample by Approach1

Step 1. Select thirty particles randomly from

each fractions

Step 2. Determine surface area of thirty

particles by DIA

Step 3. Calculate average surface area of each

particle

Step 4. Determine weight of n number of

particles from sample

Step 5. Calculate average weight of each

particle

To get average surface area of given sand

sample, following steps are to be followed

Step 1. Carry out sieve analysis to divide in

requisite fractions

Step 2. Weight of given fraction is determined

Step 3. Determine the number of particles in

given fraction as the average weight of one

particle of that fraction is known

Step 4. Determine total surface area of given

fraction by multiplying average surface area of

one particle of that fraction and number of

particles

Step 5. Sum the average surface areas of all the

fractions

Appendix G Flow Chart of Proposed Methodology

147

ESTIMATION OF SUPERPLASTICIZER DOSAGE TO ACHIEVE …...CERTIFICATE . I certify that the work...

Documents

Transcript of ESTIMATION OF SUPERPLASTICIZER DOSAGE TO ACHIEVE …...CERTIFICATE . I certify that the work...