International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI) 1401-1402
STUDY ON COMPARISON OF SELF CURING OF CONCRETE BY USING NORMAL COARSE AGGREGATE AND RECYCLED COARSE AGGREGATE
Gajula Geetha1, Damera Ramachander2. 1 Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute, Hyderabad,India. 2 Associate professor , Department of Civil Engineering, Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute, Hyderabad,India.
Abstract Curing is the name given to the procedure used for promoting the hydration of the cement and consist a control of temperature and moisture movement from the concrete. Curing allows continuous hydration of cement and consequently continuous gain in the strength, once curing stops strength gain of the concrete also stops. Proper moisture conditions are critical because the hydration of the cement virtually ceases when the relative humidity within the capillaries drops below 80%. Proper curing of concrete structures is important to meet performance and durability requirements. In conventional curing this is achieved by external curing applied after mixing, placing and finishing. Self-curing or internal curing is a technique that can be used to provide additional moisture in concrete for more effective hydration of cement and reduced self-desiccation. When concrete is exposed to the environment evaporation of water takes place and loss of moisture will reduce the initial water cement ratio which will result in the incomplete hydration of the cement and hence lowering the quality of the concrete. An experimental study carried out an investigated the use of water-soluble polyethylene glycol (PEG 6000) as self-curing agent. In this study compressive, tensile and flexural strength of self-curing concrete for 7 and 28 days and compared the use of different coarse aggregate (i.e. M35, M45 of normal coarse aggregate and recycled aggregate) and found out optimum strength. *Corresponding Author:
GENERAL
Gajula Geetha, Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute, Hyderabad India.
The experimental programme was planned as the following.
Published: April 22, 2016 Review Type: peer reviewed Volume: III, Issue : II
Citation: Gajula Geetha, Research Scholar (2016) "STUDY ON COMPARISON OF SELF CURING OF CONCRETE BY USING NORMAL COARSE AGGREGATE AND RECYCLED COARSE AGGREGATE"
INTRODUCTION Curing Curing is the process of controlling the rate and extent of moisture transport from concrete during Cement hydration. It may be either after it has been placed in position (or during the manufacture of concrete products), thereby providing time for the hydration of the cement to occur. Since the hydration of cement does take time in days, and even weeks rather than hours curing must be undertaken for a reasonable period of time, if the concrete is to achieve its potential strength and durability. Curing may also encompass the control of temperature since this affects the rate at which cement hydrates. The curing period may depend on the properties required of the concrete, the purpose for which it is to be used, and the ambient conditions, i.e. the temperature and relative humidity of the surrounding atmosphere. Curing is designed primarily to keep the concrete moist, by preventing the loss of moisture from the concrete during the period in which it is gaining strength.
Total 120 cubes, 120 cylinders, 120 prisms were cast which involves different dosages (0%, 0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self-curing agent PEG-6000 for four different mixes (Mix A1,A2 and Mix B1,B2), under different curing conditions (indoor, conventional). The compaction factor test was conducted for all mixes to know the fresh property of concrete. Compressive strength test was conducted at 7and 28 days of curing and to investigate the water retentivity capacity the cubes were weighed for every three days from the date of casting. The accuracy of the digital weighing machine used is 5 gm. Strength graph is plotted against percentage of self-curing agent; water retentivity graph is plotted for average weight loss verses number of days of curing. FLOW CHART OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME FOR CONCRETE
244
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
FLOW CHART OF EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME FOR CONCRETE
compaction factor and different dosage of PEG 6000 is shown in Figure. The following are the observations on Compaction factor test. i) In case of specimens with PEG 6000 of Mix A it is clear that compaction factor for 0.5% dosage of self curing agent is less when compared to other dosages 1% and 2%. ii) In case of specimens with PEG 6000 of Mix B 1% dosage compaction factor is more compared to other dosages (1% and 2%). iii) It is also clear that compaction factor is more for Mix B in 1% and 2% when compared to Mix A. iv) It is also observed that in Mix A the compaction factor is increased with increase of % of PEG 6000. But in Mix B it is increased from 0.5% to 1% and then it is decreased. Water Retentivity Test Water Retentivity Test Results for Mix A1
SPECIMENS MOULDED Cube specimens: Cube size: cube moulds of 150 x 150 x 150 mm size. Total number of cubes casted: 96. Cylinder specimens: Cylinder size: cylinder moulds of 150 mm diameter x 300 mm length. Total number of cylinders casted: 96. Prism specimens: Prism size: prism moulds of 100 mm x 100 mm x 500 mm size. Total number of prisms casted: 96. Material quantity was shown in the table 3.3 TESTING OF SPECIMENS After the specimen prepared for testing on universal testing machine to find the Mechanical properties such as compressive strength on cubes, flexural strength on prisms, split tensile strength on cylinders. Testing Procedure for Compressive Strength The specimens were tested in accordance with IS 516:1969, the testing was done on universal compression testing machine of 2000kN velocity. The machine has the facility to control the rate of loading with a control valve. The machine has been calibrated to the required standards. The platens are cleaned, oil level is checked and kept ready in all respects for testing. As shown in the plate 4 and 11. RESULTS & DISCUSSION As per Experimental programme results for different experiments were obtained. They are shown in table format or graph, which is to be presented in this chapter. STUDIES ON CONCRETE COMPACTION FACTOR TEST The compaction factor test is performed to calculate the compaction factor, and to know more about workability. The test results are shown in table 4.1. The plot of the
Concrete with high molecular weight PEG subjected to indoor curing was studied by weighing the samples at regular intervals of 3 days, with digital weighing machine of accuracy 5gms up to 28 days.The results were recorded in table 4.2.The analysis of results or average weight loss of individual specimen is shown in table 4.3.The average weight loss is shown in fig.4.2. The following are the observations on water retentivity of concrete. i) It is clear that 0% dosage of self curing agent is losing more weight when compared to other dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2% of self curing agent). ii) It is also observed that 2% dosage of self curing agent shows lower weight loss when compared to other dosages (0%, .5% and 1% of self curing agent). Water Retentivity Test Results for Mix A2 Concrete with high molecular weight PEG subjected to indoor curing was studied by weighing the samples at regular intervals of 3 days, with digital weighing machine of accuracy 5 gm up to 28 days. The results were recorded in table 4.4. The analysis of results or average weight loss of individual specimen is shown in table 4.5.The average weight loss is shown in fig.4.3. The following are the observations on water retentivity of concrete. (i) It is clear that 0% dosage of self curing agent is losing more weight when compared to other dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2% of self curing agent). (ii)It is also observed that 1% dosage of self curing agent shows lower weight loss when compared to other dosages (0%, .5% and 2% of self curing agent) Water Retentivity Test Results for Mix B 1 Concrete with high molecular weight PEG subjected to indoor curing was studied by weighing the samples at regular intervals of 3 days, with digital weighing machine of accuracy 5 gm up to 28 days. The results were recorded in table 4.6. The average weight loss is shown in fig.5.6.The analysis of results or percentage weight loss of individual specimen are shown in table 4.7. The following are the observation on water retentivity of concrete. i.It is clear that conventional concrete with indoor curing is losing more weight when compared to other dosages 0.5%, 1% and 2% of self curing agent.
245
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
ii.It is also clear that 2 % dosage of S.C.A result is almost nearer when compared to the dosages of conventional concrete with indoor curing. But it is not appreciable when compared with 0.5%. iii.It is also observed that 2 % dosage of S.C.A shows less weight loss when compared to other dosages. Water Retentivity Test Results for Mix B 2 Concrete with high molecular weight PEG subjected to indoor curing was studied by weighing the samples at regular intervals of 3 days, with digital weighing machine of accuracy 5 gm up to 28 days. The results were recorded in table 4.8.The average weight loss is shown in fig4.5.The analysis of results or percentage weight loss of individual specimen are shown in table 4.9. The following are the observation on water retentivity of concrete. (i) It is clear that conventional concrete with indoor curing is losing more weight when compared to other dosages 0.5%, 1% and 2% of self curing agent. (ii) It is also clear that 1 % dosage of S.C.A result is almost nearer when compared to the dosages of conventional concrete with indoor curing. But it is not appreciable when compared with 2%. (iii)It is also observed that 1% dosage of S.C.A shows less weight loss when compared to other dosages. TESTING OF SPECIMENS Compressive Strength Results for Mix A1 The compressive strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. i) The compressive strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 14 days. ii) The strength of the conventional concrete specimen with indoor curing also showed better compressive strength when compared to 0.5% and 1% of S.C.A at 28days. iii) The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 2% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. iv) The compressive strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 14 and 28 days. v) The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 0.5% are shown better compressive strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. vi) 1% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 2%. vii) 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7 days in case of indoor curing. viii) The compressive strength is more for 0%, 2% and 1% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. ix) 0.5% S.C.A has shown less compressive strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Split tensile Strength Results for Mix A1 The split tensile strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent.
i) The split tensile strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 28 days. ii) The strength of the conventional concrete specimen with indoor curing also showed better split tensile strength when compared to 0.5% and 1% of S.C.A at 28days. iii) The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 2% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. iv) The split tensile strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 14 and 28 days. v) The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 0.5% are shown better split tensile strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. vi) 1% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 2%. vii) 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7 days in case of indoor curing. viii) The split tensile strength is more for 0%, 2% and 1% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. ix) 0.5% S.C.A has shown less split tensile strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Flexural Strength Results for Mix A1 The flexural strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. i) The flexural strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 28days. ii) The strength of the conventional concrete specimen with indoor curing also showed better flexural strength when compared to 0.5% and 1% of S.C.A at 28days. iii) The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 2% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. iv) The flexural strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 14 and 28 days. v) The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 0.5% are shown better flexural strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. vi) 1% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 2%. vii) 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7 days in case of indoor curing. viii) The flexural strength is more for 0%, 2% and 1% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. ix) 0.5% S.C.A has shown less flexural strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Compressive Strength Results for Mix A2 The compressive strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent.
246
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
i. The compressive strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 28 days. ii. The strength of the conventional concrete specimen with indoor curing also showed better compressive strength when compared to 1% and 0.5% of S.C.A at 28days. iii. The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 1% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. iv. The compressive strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 28 days. v. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 0.5% are shown better compressive strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. vi. 2% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 1%. vii. 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7days in case of indoor curing. viii. The compressive strength is more for 1% and 2% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. 0.5% S.C.A has shown less compressive strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Split tensile Strength Results for Mix A2 The split tensile strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. i. The split tensile strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 14 days. ii. The strength of the conventional concrete specimen with indoor curing also showed better split tensile strength when compared to 0.5% and 1% of S.C.A at 28days. iii. The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 1% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. iv. The split tensile strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 14 and 28 days. v. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 2% are shown better split tensile strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. vi. 1% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 2%. vii. 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7 days in case of indoor curing. viii.The split tensile strength is more for 0%, 2% and 1% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. ix. 0.5% S.C.A has shown less split tensile strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Flexural Strength Results for Mix A2 The flexural strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. x. The flexural strength of 2% of S.C.A is more when compare to other dosages upto 28 days. xi. The strength of the conventional concrete specimen
with indoor curing also showed better flexural strength when compared to 0.5% and 1% of S.C.A at 28days. xii. The specimen with 2% dosage shown better performance when compared to specimen with 0.5% and 2% of SCA and also conventional concrete at 28days. xiii. The flexural strength of 2% of S.C.A of indoor curing is equal to conventional concrete of wet curing at 14 and 28 days. xiv. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages other than 0.5% are shown better flexural strength when compared to conventional concrete of wet curing. xv. 1% of S.C.A has shown better strength than conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing at early age i.e. upto 7days but not as good as 2%. xvi. 2% S.C.A shown better strength at 28 days & 1% has shown better performance at 7 days in case of indoor curing. xvii. The flexural strength is more for 0%, 2% and 1% of S.C.A and also conventional concrete in indoor curing when compared to conventional concrete in wet curing. xviii. 0.5% S.C.A has shown less flexural strength when compared to other wet and indoor curing. Compressive Strength Result for Mix B1 The compressive strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. i.The compressive strength of specimen with conventional concrete is more for both wet and indoor curing when compare to other dosages. ii. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages (0.5% and 2%) are shown less compressive strength when compare to 1% of S.C.A. iii. The compressive strength of specimen with 1% PEG is nearly equal to 2% PEG. iv. The compressive strength of conventional concrete of wet curing is more when compare to other dosages of indoor curing. v. Conventional concrete has shown better strength in both indoor & wet curing than other specimens having SCA with different dosages. vi. Mix B with PEG is not shown better results when compare to Mix A with PEG.
Split tensile Strength Result for Mix B1 The Split tensile strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. vii. The split tensile strength of specimen with conventional concrete is more for both wet and indoor curing when compare to other dosages. viii. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages (0.5% and 2%) are shown less tensile strength when compare to 1% of S.C.A. ix. The split tensile strength of specimen with 1% PEG is nearly equal to 2% PEG. x. The tensile strength of conventional concrete of wet curing is more when compare to other dosages of indoor curing. xi.Conventional concrete has shown better strength in both indoor & wet curing than other specimens having SCA with different dosages.
247
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
xii. Mix B with PEG is not shown better results when compare to Mix A with PEG. flexural Strength Result for Mix B1 The flexural strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self curing agent. i. The flexural strength of specimen with conventional concrete is more for both wet and indoor curing when compare to other dosages. ii. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages (0.5% and 2%) are shown less flexural strength when compare to 1% of S.C.A. iii. The flexural strength of specimen with 1% PEG is nearly equal to 2% PEG. iv. The flexural strength of conventional concrete of wet curing is more when compare to other dosages of indoor curing. v. Conventional concrete has shown better strength in both indoor & wet curing than other specimens having SCA with different dosages. vi. Mix B with PEG is not shown better results when compare to Mix A with PEG.
0.5% of SCA for Mix B2 at 7 days. • The split tensile strength is nearly same for Mix B2 at 28 days for 0% and 0.5% of SCA. • The split tensile strength is more for 2% of SCA for Mix A2 at 28 days of age. • The split tensile strength is more for 1% of SCA for Mix B2 at 28 days of age. • The flexural strength is more for Mix A2 at 7 and 28 days when compared to Mix B2. • The flexural strength is more for Mix A at 2% of SCA and it is very low at same 0.5% of SCA for Mix B at 7 days. • The flexural strength is nearly same for 0% and 0.5% of SCA for Mix B2 at 7 days. • The flexural strength is nearly same for Mix B2 at 28 days for 0% and 0.5% of SCA. • The split tensile strength is more for 2% of SCA for Mix A at 28 days of age • The split tensile strength is more for 1% of SCA for Mix B2 at 28 days of age
Compressive Strength Result for Mix B2 The compressive strength test was conducted at 7 and 28 days of age for conventional concrete with wet and indoor curing and also for concrete with different dosages (0.5%, 1% and 2%) of self-curing agent. i. The compressive strength of specimen with conventional concrete is more for both wet and indoor curing when compare to other dosages. ii. The strength of the specimen in which S.C.A of different dosages (0.5% and 2% ) are shown less compressive strength when compare to 1% of S.C.A. iii. The compressive strength of specimen with 1% PEG is nearly equal to 2% PEG. iv. The compressive strength of conventional concrete of wet curing is more when compare to other dosages of indoor curing. v. Conventional concrete has shown better strength in both indoor & wet curing than other specimens having SCA with different dosages. vi. Mix B with PEG is not shown better results when compare to Mix A with PEG
Compaction factor for different percentages of PEG 6000
Avg Weight Loss for Mix A2 (CUBES) For the Different Dosages of PEG 6000
Comparison of Mix A2 and Mix B2 • The compressive strength is more for Mix A2 at 7 and 28 days when compared to Mix B2. • The compressive strength is more for Mix A at 2% of SCA and it is very low at same 0.5% of SCA for Mix B at 7 days. • The compressive strength is nearly same for 0% and 0.5% of SCA for Mix B2 at 7 days. • The compressive strength is nearly same for Mix B2 at 28 days for 0% and 0.5% of SCA. • The compressive strength is more for 2% of SCA for Mix A2 at 28 days of age. • The compressive strength is more for 1% of SCA for Mix B2 at 28 days of age. • The split tensile strength is more for Mix A2 at 7 and 28 days when compared to Mix B2. • The split tensile strength is more for Mix A at 2% of SCA and it is very low at same 0.5% of SCA for Mix B at 7 days. • The split tensile strength is nearly same for 0% and
Avg Weight Loss for Mix A2 (CYLINDERS) For the Different Dosages of PEG 6000
248
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
CONCLUSIONS& SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDIES General After the analysis of the result of the experimental programme the following conclusions were arrived for self curing agent polyethylene glycol (PEG6000) and comparison of different aggregates are obtained. Conclusions a) Due to the use of PEG6000 Avg Weight Loss for Mix A2(PRISMS) For the Different Dosages of PEG 6000
Avg Weight Loss for Mix B1 (CUBES) For the Different Dosages of PEG 6000
Variation of 28 days compressive strength with different dosages of PEG6000
• The workability of concrete with low w/c ratio has significant effect due to higher molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG6000). • Water retention of the concrete with low w/c ratio in conjunction has significant effect due to addition of higher molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG6000). • The compressive strength of concrete with lower w/c ratio and with lower dosage of polyethylene glycol (PEG6000) is beneficial. • The use of higher molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG6000) with higher w/c ratio is not beneficial. b)Conclusions from comparative studies of different coarse aggregate • Effectiveness of self-curing concrete is affected by w/c ratio and percentage dosages of self-curing agent. • Water retention of concrete mixes incorporating selfcuring agent is higher compared to conventional concrete mixes. • The compressive strength of concrete with low w/c ratio has significant effect due to change in curing regime. • The mix which shows lower weight loss need not give higher compressive strength. • Water retention of concrete with lower w/c ratio incorporating higher molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG 6000) with lower dosage is more beneficial. c)Due to the use of Normal coarse aggregate Workability of concrete has increased due to PEG 6000 when compared to conventional concrete. Water retention of the concrete with low w/c ratio in conjunction has significant effect due to addition of higher molecular weight polyethylene glycol (PEG6000).
Variation of 7 days split tensile strength with different dosages of PEG6000
Compressive strength increases from 0.5% to 2% the increases in strength at 2% is maximum then of conventional concrete in both the grades (M35, M45).split tensile strength increased from 0.5% to 2% at 2% is greater then of conventional concrete in both the grades. Flexural strength increased from 0.5% to 2%. The increases in strength at 2% is maximumof conventional concrete in both the grades . d)Due to the use of Recycled coarse aggregate
Variation of 28 days split tensile strength with different dosages of PEG6000
Workability of concrete has increased due to PEG 6000 when compared to conventional concrete. Compressive strength increases from 0.5% to 1% and then decreases at 2% the increases in strength at 1% is maximum then of conventional concrete in both the grades (M35, M45). split tensile strength increased from 0.5% to 1% and then decrease at 2% the increase in strength at 1% is maximum greater then of conventional concrete in both the grades.
249
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
Flexural strength increased from 0.5% to 1%. The increases in strength at 1% is maximum of conventional concrete in both the grades. The strength is more for normal coarse aggregate compared to recycled coarse aggregate.
REFERENCES
EXPERIMENTAL IMAGES
2. Roland Tak Yong Liang, Robert Keith Sun, “Compositions and Methods for Curing Concrete”, Patent No.: US 6,468,344 B1, Date of Patent Oct. 22, 2002.
1. Wen-Chen Jau“Self-curing Concrete”, United States Patent Application Publication, Pub. No: U.S. 2008/0072799 A1, Pub.date: Mar. 27,2008.
3. A.S.El-Dieb, “Self-curing Concrete: Water Retention, hydration and moisture transport”, Construction and Building Materials Vol.21 (2007) 1282-1287. 4. A.S. El-Dieb, T.A. El-Maaddawy and A.A.M. Mahmoud, “Water-Soluble Polymers as Self-Curing Agent in Silica Fume Portland Cement Mixes”, ACI Material Journal Vol.278 (2011) 1-18. Specimens after casting
5. M. Collepardi, A. Borsoi, S. Collepardi, R. Troli and M. Valente ,“Self-Curing, Shrinkage-Free Concrete ”,ACI Material Journal SP 234-47 (2006) 755-764. 6. R.K. Dhir, P.C. Hewlett and T.D. Dyer,” Durability of ‘Self-Cure’ Concrete”,Cement and Concrete Research, Vol. 25. No. 6, 1153-1158,1995. 7. R.K. Dhir, P.C. Hewlett and T.D. Dyer, “An investigation into the feasibility of formulating ' self-cure' concrete”, Materials and Structures Vol.27(1994), 606-615. 8. Raghavendra Y.B and Aswath M.U,” Experimental investigation on concrete cured with various curing Methods-A Comparative Study”, International Journal of Advanced Scientific Research and Technology, Issue: 2, Vol.3 (2012) 577-584.
Compression Testing Machine of Capacity 2000 KN
9. Jagannadha Kumar M.V, Srikanth M, Rao K.Jagannadha,”Strength Characteristics of Self-curing Concrete”, International Journal of Research in Engineering & Technology,Issue:1,Vol.1(2012) 51 -57. 10. Ambily,P.S and Rajamane N.P, “Self-curing Concrete an Introduction”, Structural Engineering Research Centre, CSIR, Chennai. 11. Text book on “ Concrete Technology- “Theory and Practice” by M.S.SHETTY
Flexural test for prism A2
12. ACI Committee 308R-01, 2008, “Guide to Curing Concrete”, American Concrete Institute,Farmington Hills, MI.
Compressive test for cube A1
250
International Journal of Research and Innovation (IJRI)
Author
Gajula Geetha, Research Scholar, Department of Civil Engineering, Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute, Hyderabad,India.
Damera Ramachander, Associate professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Aurora’s Technological and Research Institute, Hyderabad,India.
251