The Effects of Silica Fume and Fly Ash on the Scaling Resistance and Flexural Strength of Pavement Concretes
Source abstract
Abstract
ABSTRACT The purpose of this study is to investigate the effects of Silica Fume (SF) and Fly Ash (FA) additives on the frost salt scaling resistance and flexural strength properties of pavement concrete. An attempt is also made to attain a more durable and higher strength concrete by a suitable combination of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), SF and FA. SF and FA are used as cement replacement in proportions of 0, 5, 10% and 0, 5, 10, 15% by weight respectively. Flexural strength is tested after 7, 28 and 91 days of the lime saturated water curing period. The experimental results indicate that using FA only decreases while SF only slightly increases 28-days flexural strength. On the other hand, using SF and FA together shows relatively more strength gain. Among all those tested, maximum 28 days flexural strength of 4.53 MPa is obtained for the mix proportions of 85% OPC + 10% FA and 5% SF. SF significantly decreases the amount of liquid absorption by capillary suction and has a significant effect on the scaling resistance. In addition, all the ternary mixtures showes better scaling resistance than the control mixture with 100% OPC. KEYWORDS: Concrete PavementFly AshSilica FumeFlexural StrengthDurabilityFrost and Deicing Salt Resistance
Source: openalex_inverted_index · Quality: baseline
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Concrete and Cement Materials Research · Building materials and conservation · Recycling and utilization of industrial and municipal waste in materials production
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (29)
Show source-provided references
1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). 1993. Washington, D.C, US: Guide for design of pavement structures.
2. Alexander M. G. · Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering · 45 · 20
3. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.02410.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.024 ↗
4. Carette G. · 1983 · 765
5. 10.1016/j.matlet.2003.10.00710.1016/j.matlet.2003.10.007 ↗
6. Collepardi M. · Concrete International · 1999 · 21 · 69
7. 10.3141/1668-0110.3141/1668-01 ↗
8. 10.1617/1399810.1617/13998 ↗
9. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.03.02610.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.03.026 ↗
10. Federal Airport Administration (FAA) · 1995
11. Karayollar Genel Müdürlüğü (KGM) · 2006
12. 10.1016/S0008-8846(98)00242-710.1016/S0008-8846(98)00242-7 ↗
13. 10.1016/0008-8846(82)90019-910.1016/0008-8846(82)90019-9 ↗
14. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MDOT) · 1996
15. Ozyildirim C. · ACI Mater J · 1994 · 91 · 587
16. 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.08.00210.1016/j.cemconcomp.2006.08.002 ↗
17. 10.1680/macr.1987.39.138.1910.1680/macr.1987.39.138.19 ↗
18. RILEM Recommendation. 1996.RILEM TC 117 FDC: CDF Test- Test method for the freeze-thaw resistance of concrete with sodium chloride solution. Materials and Structures29–528. 52310.1007/BF02485951 ↗
19. Rostam S. · 1989
20. 10.1016/S0958-9465(97)00020-610.1016/S0958-9465(97)00020-6 ↗
21. Setzer M. J. · Concrete Precasting Plant and Technology · 1997 · 63 · 100
22. 10.3141/1775-0810.3141/1775-08 ↗
23. 10.1016/S0008-8846(99)00096-410.1016/S0008-8846(99)00096-4 ↗
24. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.00510.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.005 ↗
25. 10.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.00310.1016/j.cemconres.2007.03.003 ↗
26. Westergaard H. M. · Trans. Am. Soc. Civil. Eng. · 1948 · 113 · 42510.1061/TACEAT.0006179 ↗
27. 10.1016/S0167-577X(03)00146-010.1016/S0167-577X(03)00146-0 ↗
28. 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.01.00210.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.01.002 ↗
29. Yener E. · 2004