International Journal of
Advanced Multidisciplinary Application

Volume 3, Issue 5

• Author(s)Rajesh Kumar, Sunita Devi, Mohan Shankar
• AffiliationDepartment of Civil Engineering, Rajiv Gandhi Institute of Technology, Bangalore, Karnataka, India Department of Structural Engineering, Bapuji Institute of Engineering and Technology, Davangere, Karnataka, India
• Page No.32-38
• Volume, Issue & YearVolume 3, Issue 5, May 2026
• Published On2026/05/05
• JournalInternational Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Application (IJAMA)
• ISSN No.3048-9350
• DOIhttps://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20077999

Abstract

The increasing demand for high-performance concrete (HPC) in Indian infrastructure projects, combined with mounting regulatory pressure to reduce the carbon footprint of construction materials, has intensified research into supplementary cementitious materials (SCMs) as partial replacements for Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). Fly Ash (FA), a by-product of coal-fired thermal power generation — of which India produces approximately 220 million tonnes annually — and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), generated from blast furnace iron production at rates exceeding 10 million tonnes per year in India, are both established pozzolanic and latent hydraulic SCMs whose individual effects on concrete properties are extensively documented. However, ternary blends combining FA and GGBS at optimised proportions under M30 grade conditions specific to Karnataka's tropical climate and locally sourced aggregates remain underexplored.
This study investigates fresh, hardened mechanical, and durability properties of M30 grade concrete incorporating FA (10%, 20%, 30% cement replacement by weight), GGBS (10%, 20% replacement), and a ternary blend (10%FA + 10%GGBS) across seven mix designs. Properties evaluated include workability (slump, compacting factor), compressive strength at 28, 56, and 90 days, flexural and split tensile strength, water absorption, chloride permeability by Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT per ASTM C1202), and SEM/EDX microstructural analysis at 28 days. Load-deflection response of reinforced concrete beams (150×200×1200 mm) and Mercury Intrusion Porosimetry (MIP) pore structure evolution at ages 3-90 days provide additional structural performance and microstructural development data.
The ternary blend achieves 90-day compressive strength of 40.8 MPa (35.5% above control), chloride permeability of 640 C (51.5% reduction versus control), and CO₂ emissions of 318 kg/m³ (22% reduction). SEM analysis confirms dense interfacial transition zones and reduced calcium hydroxide crystallinity in SCM-modified specimens. The M30+20%GGBS mix achieves 90-day compressive strength of 37.6 MPa with water absorption of 2.6%, confirming GGBS's superior densification capability. The ternary blend is recommended as the optimal formulation balancing structural performance, durability, and environmental sustainability for M30 grade reinforced concrete in tropical Karnataka construction conditions.

Keywords: high-performance concrete, fly ash, GGBS, supplementary cementitious materials, M30 grade, compressive strength, durability, chloride permeability, SEM, EDX, carbon footprint, Karnataka

References

1. [1] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2013). IS 12269:2013 – Ordinary Portland Cement, 53 Grade – Specification. BIS, New Delhi.
2. [2] Bureau of Indian Standards. (2019). IS 10262:2019 – Concrete Mix Proportioning – Guidelines. BIS, New Delhi.
3. [3] Chidiac, S. E., & Panesar, D. K. (2008). Evolution of mechanical properties of concrete containing ground granulated blast furnace slag and effects on the scaling resistance test at 28 days. Cement and Concrete Composites, 30(2), 63-71.
4. [4] Hammond, G., & Jones, C. (2011). Embodied Carbon: The Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE). BSRIA, Bracknell.
5. [5] Kosmatka, S. H., Kerkhoff, B., & Panarese, W. C. (2002). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures. Portland Cement Association.
6. [6] Kumar, B., Tike, G. K., & Nanda, P. K. (2007). Evaluation of properties of high-volume fly-ash concrete for pavements. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 19(10), 906-911.
7. [7] Lothenbach, B., Scrivener, K., & Hooton, R. D. (2011). Supplementary cementitious materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 41(12), 1244-1256.
8. [8] Mehta, P. K., & Monteiro, P. J. M. (2014). Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
9. [9] Neville, A. M. (2011). Properties of Concrete (5th ed.). Pearson Education.
10. [10] Rajamane, N. P., Annie Peter, J., & Ambily, P. S. (2007). Prediction of compressive strength of concrete with fly ash as sand replacement material. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(4), 319-324.
11. [11] Siddique, R., & Khan, M. I. (2011). Supplementary Cementing Materials. Springer.
12. [12] Oner, A., & Akyuz, S. (2007). An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for the compressive strength of concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 29(6), 505-514.
13. [13] Shariq, M., Prasad, J., & Masood, A. (2013). Effect of GGBFS on time dependent compressive strength of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 38, 558-566.
14. [14] Siddique, R. (2004). Performance characteristics of high-volume Class F fly ash concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 34(3), 487-493.
15. [15] Singh, M., & Siddique, R. (2013). Effect of coal bottom ash as partial replacement of sand on properties of concrete. Resources, Conservation and Recycling, 72, 20-32.

Explore Our Related Journals

Looking for the right journal for your next manuscript? Explore our international peer-reviewed journals covering engineering, management, computer science, artificial intelligence and multidisciplinary research.