Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

www.elsevier.com/locate/cemconcomp

An experimental study on optimum usage of GGBS for

the compressive strength of concrete
A. Oner
b

a,*

, S. Akyuz

a
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Kocaeli University, 41010 Kocaeli, Turkey
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Civil Engineering, Istanbul Technical University, Maslak, Istanbul 80626, Turkey

Received 24 March 2006; received in revised form 27 December 2006; accepted 11 January 2007
Available online 25 January 2007

Abstract
This paper presents a laboratory investigation on optimum level of ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS) on the compressive
strength of concrete. GGBS was added according to the partial replacement method in all mixtures. A total of 32 mixtures were prepared
in four groups according to their binder content. Eight mixes were prepared as control mixtures with 175, 210, 245 and 280 kg/m3 cement
content in order to calculate the Bolomey and Feret coecients (KB, KF). For each group 175, 210, 245 and 280 kg/m3 dosages were
determined as initial dosages, which were obtained by removing 30 percent of the cement content of control concretes with 250, 300,
350, and 400 kg/m3 dosages. Test concretes were obtained by adding GGBS to concretes in an amount equivalent to approximately
0%, 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%, 90% and 110% of cement contents of control concretes with 250, 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3 dosages. All specimens were moist cured for 7, 14, 28, 63, 119, 180 and 365 days before compressive strength testing.
The test results proved that the compressive strength of concrete mixtures containing GGBS increases as the amount of GGBS
increase. After an optimum point, at around 55% of the total binder content, the addition of GGBS does not improve the compressive
strength. This can be explained by the presence of unreacted GGBS, acting as a ller material in the paste.
2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Calciumsilicatehydrate (CSH); Compressive strength; Eciency; GGBS; Strength development

1. Introduction
Mineral admixtures such as ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS), y ash and silica fume are commonly
used in concrete because they improve durability and
reduce porosity; improve the interface with the aggregate.
Economics (lower cement requirement), energy, and environmental considerations have had a role in the mineral
admixture usage as well as better engineering and performance properties. The lower cement requirement also leads
to a reduction for CO2 generated by the production of
cement [14]. The engineering benets from the use of mineral admixtures in concrete result partly from their particle
*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 262 335 1168 1120; fax: +90 262 335
2812.
E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Oner).
0958-9465/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007.01.001

size distribution characteristics, and partly from the pozzolanic and cementitious reactivity [5,6].
Granulated blast-furnace slag is a by-product in the
manufacture of pig iron and the amounts of iron and slag
obtained are of the same order. The slag is a mixture of
lime, silica, and alumina, the same oxides that make up
Portland cement, but not in the same proportion [7,8].
The composition of blast-furnace slag is determined by that
of the ores, uxing stone and impurities in the coke charged
into the blast furnace. Typically, silicon, calcium, aluminum, magnesium, and oxygen constitute 95% or more of
the blast-furnace slag. To maximize hydraulic (cementitious) properties, the molten slag must be chilled rapidly
as it leaves the blast furnace. Rapid quenching or chilling
minimizes crystallization and converts the molten slag into
ne-aggregate-sized particles generally smaller than a
4.75 mm (No. 4) sieve, composed predominantly of glass.

506

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

This product is referred to as granulated iron blast-furnace

slag. GGBS is obtained by nely grinding of this material
[9].
The hydration of the Portland cement results from the
production of portlandite crystal [Ca(OH)2] and amorphous calcium silicate hydrate gel [C3S2H3] (CSH) in
large amounts. Hydrated cement paste involves approximately 70% CSH, 20% Ca(OH)2; 7% sulpho-aluminates
and 3% secondary phases. The Ca(OH)2 which appears
as the result of the chemical reactions aect the quality of
the concrete adversely by forming cavities as it is partly
soluble in water and lacks enough strength. The use of
ground granulated blast-furnace slag has a positive eect
on binding the Ca(OH)2 compound, which decreases the
quality of the concrete. At the end of the reaction of the
slag and Ca(OH)2, hydration products, such as CSH
gel, are formed [1012].
The cementitious and pozzolanic behavior of ground
granulated blast furnace slag is essentially similar to that
of high-calcium y ash. At 40%, 50% or 65% cement
replacement by weight, Hogan and Meusel [13] found that
up to 3 days of age, strength contribution of slag to ASTM
C 109 [14] mortars was low; however, strength similar to
the reference Portland cement was achieved at 7 days,
and higher strength thereafter [5].
ASTM C 989 denes slag activity index (SAI) as the percentage ratio of the average compressive strength of slag
cement (5050%) mortar cubes to the average compressive
strength of reference cement mortar cubes at a designated
age. According to ASTM C 989, GGBS is classied into
three grades Grade 80, Grade 100, and Grade 120,
depending on the relative compressive strength [9,15,16].
Hwang and Lin [17] have determined compressive
strength of GGBS mortars at dierent ages and at various
replacement levels. They showed that there is a maximum
percentage of GGBS replacement to obtain an equivalent
strength of the concrete mixture without GGBS. Papadakis
[10,18] studied the eciency factor and design of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) in concrete and
reported that when SCM replaced aggregates, higher
strength values, compared to the control mixtures were
obtained. When SCM replaces cement, the strength was
reduced. In order to estimate the k values, the following
empirical Eq. (1) was used. Using the mean measured values of the compressive strength of the control specimen, the
parameter K was estimated. The eciency factor (k) values

for the SCM-concrete of the present work were calculated

using Eq. (2).



1
fc K
a
W =C


1
a
fc K
W =C kP

1
2

Babu and Rao [18] investigated the eciency factor of

GGBS in concrete. It is reported that the overall strength
eciency factor (k) of GGBS was a combination of the
two factors the general eciency factor (ke) and the percentage eciency factor (kp) which depend on the age and
percentage of replacement, respectively. Pekmezci and
Akyuz [19] have calculated the maximum content of the
natural pozzolan for maximizing the compressive strength
of concrete, and found the optimum pozzolan-to-cement
ratio as 0.28. In this work, Bolomey strength relationship
was used. The Bolomey and (a) coecients were calculated
by using concrete mixtures with no natural pozzolan. By
using the compressive strength values of the concretes with
natural pozzolan, and the Bolomey and (a) coecients calculated from the control mixes, the cement content to
replace the natural pozzolan was calculated. Oner et al.
[11], have used Bolomey and Feret equations, and calculated the optimum y ash content to maximize the strength
as 40%.
In this paper, an experimental investigation of optimum
usage of GGBS in concrete was carried out. The optimum
values and eciency of GGBS were determined for
concrete with various cement dosages by the compressive
strength test results, Bolomey and Feret strength equations.
2. Experimental programme
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Cement
The cement used was CEM I 42.5 ordinary Portland
cement which conformed to EN 197-1 [20]. Specic gravity
of cement used was 3.10. The Blaine specic surface area
was 3513 cm2/g. Initial and nal setting times of the cement
were 02:42 and 03:32 h, respectively. The remaining cement
on 200, 90, and 45 lm sieves were 0%, 7.5% and 24.2%,
respectively. The chemical composition and physical properties are given in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 1
Chemical compositions (%) of binding materials
Binder

Cement
GGBS
a
b

Chemical compositions (%)

SiO2

Al2O3

Fe2O3

CaO

MgO

SO3

Na2O

K2O

Cl

20.72
39.18

4.88
10.18

2.95
2.02

61.83
32.82

1.39
8.52

2.33

0.19
1.14

0.67
0.30

0.0060

Loss on ignition.
Insoluble material.

LOIa

IMb

3.17
1.0

0.63
0.88

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

Table 2
Physical properties of binding materials
Physical test

Cement

GGBS

Specic gravity (g/cm )

Fineness: specic surface (cm2/g)
Fineness (retained on 90 lm sieve)
Fineness (retained on 45 lm sieve)

3.10
3513
7.5
24.2

2.87
4250
0
0.8

Vicat time of setting (min)

Initial
Final

162
212

2.1.2. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS)

A Grade 100 class (ASTM C 989) [15] GGBS was
provided by a cement manufacturer in Turkey. The slag
activity index of GGBS was 75.2% and 96.3% for 7 and
28 days, respectively. The specic gravity was 2.87 gr/cm3
and Blaine specic surface area was 4250 cm2/g. The
GGBS remaining on 90 lm and 45 lm sieves were 0%
and 0.8%, respectively. The chemical composition and
physical properties of GGBS are presented in Tables 1
and 2.
2.1.3. Aggregates
Crushed limestone with a density of 2.70 gr/cm3, a maximum particle size of 19 mm and a neness modulus of 5.61
was used as coarse aggregate in this study. The ne aggregate was crushed limestone powder with a density of
2.68 gr/cm3, and neness modulus of 2.25. Volume percentages of coarse and ne aggregate were 50% and 50%,
respectively and kept the same in all mixtures. Specic
gravity, neness modulus and grading of ne, coarse and
mix aggregates are given in Table 3.

507

tion of the compressive strength. Casting of cubes was

conducted in two layers. Each layer was compacted by
internal vibration and top surface was leveled and
smoothed using a trowel. After casting, all the molded
specimens were covered with plastic sheets and water-saturated burlap and left in the curing room for 24 h at the temperature of 23 2 C. After 24 h, concrete specimens were
demolded and cured in 20 2 C lime-saturated water
until the time of the compressive strength. The test specimens were cured according to ASTM C192-88 [21].
2.3. Testing of the specimens
The mixtures of concrete containing GGBS added
partial cement replacement of 0%, 15%, 30%, 50%, 70%,
90% and 110% by weight were tested for compressive
strength development. The workability of fresh concrete
including slump was measured and air content and unit
weight of the fresh concrete were determined after the mixing was nished. The slump of the control mixtures was
120 mm and the water was adjusted to have a concrete with
a slump of 120 10 mm for the GGBS concrete. The slump
and air content of fresh concrete were determined following
ASTM C143 [22] and ASTM C231-04 [23], respectively.
The compressive strength of hardened concrete was
measured. For each mixture, the compressive strength was
determined on six cubic specimens of 15 cm at 7, 14, 28,
63, 119, 180 and 365 days. At the age of 7, 14, 28, 63, 119,
180 and 365 days, the specimens were taken out of water
and tested for strength of a temperature of 23 2 C. Concrete specimens were coded with cement content and GGBS
content of 1 m3. The compositions of the concretes are
given in Table 4.

2.2. Specimen preparation and curing

A total of 32 mixtures were prepared. Eight of them
were prepared as control mixtures, four of which were
mix designs with 250, 300, 350 and 400 kg/m3 cement content and the remaining were four mix designs with 175, 210,
245 and 280 kg/m3 cement content, four groups of mixtures
were prepared, each containing eight recipes and using the
cement content of one of the control mixture as the base
for the recipe (Table 4).
All the concrete mixtures were mixed for a total of
4 min. in a laboratory pan mixer. From each concrete mixture, forty-two 150 mm cubic were cast for the determina-

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Properties of fresh concrete
The unit weight, slump, and air content of the fresh
concrete are given in Table 4. The eect of GGBS on the
workability of concrete can be seen in this table. The water
content in this table was determined according to target
workability (120 10 mm slump). As the GGBS content
increased, the water used in the mix design also increased.
Since GGBS replaced the aggregate portion of the control

Table 3
Physical properties and sieve analysis of aggregates
Aggregate type

Specic
gravity
(g/cm3)

Crushed limestone No II
Crushed limestone No I
Crushed limestone
powder
Mix

2.70
2.70
2.68
2.69

Mix proportion
(%)

Maximum size
(mm)

Percentage passing
Sieve size (mm)

Fineness
modulus

31.5

16

0.5

0.25

20
30
50

19
12
4

100
100
100

77
100
100

1
62
100

0
8
100

0
4
76

0
3
49

0
1
30

0
1
20

6.22
5.21
2.25

100

19

100

95

69

52

39

25

15

10

3.95

508

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

Table 4
Mix proportioning (kg/m3) and properties of fresh concrete
Concrete

C250GGBS00.0
C175GGBS00.0
C175GGBS37.5
C175GGBS75.0
C175GGBS125.0
C175GGBS175.0
C175GGBS225.0
C175GGBS275.0
C300GGBS00
C210GGBS00.0
C210GGBS45.0
C210GGBS90.0
C210GGBS150.0
C210GGBS210.0
C210GGBS270.0
C210GGBS330.0
C350GGBS00
C245GGBS00.0
C245GGBS52.5
C245GGBS105.0
C245GGBS175.0
C245GGBS245.0
C245GGBS315.0
C245GGBS385.0
C400GGBS00
C280GGBS00.0
C280GGBS60.0
C280GGBS120
C280GGBS200
C280GGBS280
C280GGBS360
C280GGBS440
a
b

Mix proportioning (kg/m3)

Properties of fresh concrete

a

Cement

GGBS

Water

CA

FA

Expected
slump (mm)

Slump
(mm)

Theoretical unit
weight (kg/m3)

Actual unit
weight (kg/m3)

Air content
(%)

250
175
175
175
175
175
175
175
300
210
210
210
210
210
210
210
350
245
245
245
245
245
245
245
400
280
280
280
280
280
280
280

0
0
37.5
75
125
175
225
275
0
0
45
90
150
210
270
330
0
0
52.5
105
175
245
315
385
0
0
60
120
200
280
360
440

219
209
215
218
223
230
238
248
225
214
219
224
231
240
251
261
232
218
225
230
239
250
263
279
239
224
231
236
247
263
278
295

1111
1166
1135
1109
1073
1033
991
948
1075
1140
1106
1072
1027
979
927
877
1037
1114
1073
1036
982
924
864
799
999
1087
1041
999
936
866
796
723

732
768
748
731
707
681
654
624
708
751
729
707
677
645
611
578
684
735
708
683
647
609
569
526
659
716
686
659
617
570
525
477

120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10
120 10

120
115
120
115
120
120
120
125
120
120
115
115
120
120
120
125
120
120
115
120
115
125
125
125
120
120
115
115
115
120
120
125

2312
2318
2310.5
2308
2303
2294
2283
2270
2308
2315
2309
2303
2295
2284
2269
2256
2303
2312
2303.5
2299
2288
2273
2256
2234
2297
2307
2298
2294
2280
2259
2239
2215

2317
2329
2319
2314
2303
2295
2286
2274
2313
2323
2317
2306
2296
2284
2271
2260
2306
2323
2307
2302
2288
2271
2253
2233
2300
2315
2302
2295
2278
2254
2233
2213

1.6
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.6
1.5
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.8
1.7
1.6
1.7
1.4
1.7
1.7
1.8
1.9
1.9
1.8
1.7
1.5
1.7
1.8
1.9
2
2
1.8

Coarse aggregate.
Fine aggregate.

mixtures, the water content of the GGBS containing concretes increased due to higher specic surface of the GGBS
particles. However, due to reactivity of the mineral pozzolan, the increase in the water content of the concrete mixtures containing GGBS does not necessarily present
adverse results. Due to the pozzolanic properties of the
mineral admixtures, the water-to-binder ratio of the concrete mixtures should be taken into account. As the
water-to-binder ratio decreases with the addition of GGBS,
the eect of GGBS on the workability can be considered as
armative. In general, for a constant workability, the
GGBS containing concrete mixtures require less water,
compared to the concrete mixtures without any mineral
admixtures [9,24]. The entrapped air content of the
concrete ranged from 1.4% to 2%.

was taken for every testing age. The compressive strength

test results are given in Table 5.
It is observed that the early age strength values of GGBS
concrete mixtures are lower than the control mixtures. As
the curing period is extended, the strength values of the
GGBS concrete mixtures increase more than the control
mixtures. After 1 year, the GGBS concrete mixtures exhibit
higher strength values compared to the control mixtures
with equivalent binder content. Since the pozzolanic reaction is slow and depends on the calcium hydroxide availability, the strength gain takes longer time for the GGBS
concrete. The chemical reaction of the Portland cement is
expressed as follows:
Cement (C3 S, C2 S) +H2 O (H) ! CSHgel +Ca(OH)2 (CH)
3

3.2. Compressive strength development

Compressive strength of concrete mixtures made with
and without GGBS was determined at 7, 14, 28, 63, 119,
180 and 365 days of curing. The average of six samples

The pozzolanic reaction is [5,10,25];

Ca(OH)2 (CH) + SiO2 (S) + H2 O (H) ! CSHgel

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

509

Table 5
Compressive strength gain of concretes
Concrete

Cube compressive strength (MPa)

7 day

14 day

28 day

63 day

119 day

180 day

365 day

C250GGBS00.0
C175GGBS00.0
C175GGBS37.5
C175GGBS75.0
C175GGBS125.0
C175GGBS175.0
C175GGBS225.0
C175GGBS275.0
C300GGBS00
C210GGBS00.0
C210GGBS45.0
C210GGBS90.0
C210GGBS150.0
C210GGBS210.0
C210GGBS270.0
C210GGBS330.0
C350GGBS00
C245GGBS00.0
C245GGBS52.5
C245GGBS105.0
C245GGBS175.0
C245GGBS245.0
C245GGBS315.0
C245GGBS385.0
C400GGBS00
C280GGBS00.0
C280GGBS60.0
C280GGBS120
C280GGBS200
C280GGBS280
C280GGBS360
C280GGBS440

15.3
9.2
12.7
16.4
18.6
19.1
18.5
17.1
19.9
12.4
16.7
21.2
23.9
24.4
24.1
22.2
24.9
16.1
20.8
25.6
29.6
30.1
29.5
26.6
29.1
19.6
24.0
29.8
33.8
34.4
33.3
30.2

17.6
9.7
13.4
17.4
20.2
20.6
20.1
18.5
22.7
13.7
18.3
23.1
26.1
26.6
26.3
24.3
27.8
17.9
22.9
28.3
32.4
33.0
32.4
29.2
32.6
21.9
26.7
33.1
37.5
38.1
37.0
33.5

22.7
13.0
18.1
23.5
27.0
27.8
27.2
25.1
28.9
17.5
23.6
30.0
34.0
34.9
34.5
31.8
35.0
22.6
29.0
36.1
41.4
42.3
41.5
37.5
40.4
27.5
33.7
41.8
47.5
48.4
47.0
42.7

23.2
13.3
19.3
26.8
31.7
33.1
32.9
30.4
29.8
18.0
25.0
33.0
40.0
40.9
40.7
37.8
35.9
23.0
30.3
39.2
47.7
48.5
48.1
43.5
41.5
28.3
35.2
45.9
54.5
55.3
54.9
49.6

23.7
13.6
20.0
28.1
34.8
36.5
36.1
33.7
30.4
18.3
26.7
35.8
43.4
45.4
45.3
42.4
36.5
23.5
33.0
42.5
51.7
53.5
53.7
49.0
42.4
28.9
37.8
49.1
58.3
59.9
59.9
55.2

24.6
14.1
20.5
29.0
36.2
38.2
38.0
35.8
31.5
18.8
27.6
37.1
45.2
47.4
47.5
44.7
37.9
24.3
34.3
44.3
54.0
56.0
56.3
51.7
44.0
29.8
39.1
51.0
60.8
62.6
62.8
58.3

25.9
14.5
21.4
30.5
38.4
40.8
40.9
38.7
33.1
19.8
28.9
39.1
47.9
50.5
50.7
47.9
40.0
25.6
36.2
46.9
57.4
59.7
60.2
55.2
46.3
31.2
41.1
53.8
64.5
66.7
67.2
62.4

As it can be seen from the above reactions, calcium

hydroxide is produced by the hydration of Portland cement
and consumed by the pozzolanic reaction. The pozzolanic
reaction can only takes place after the Portland cement
hydration starts [26]. It can be seen that the mixture with

Compressive Strength (MPa)

C175GGBS00, 0
C175GGBS175, 0

C175GGBS37, 5
C175GGBS225, 0

Strength gain from 7 to

365 day (%)
69.3
57.6
68.5
86
106.5
113.6
121.1
126.3
66.3
59.7
73.1
84.4
100.4
107
110.4
115.8
60.6
59
74
83.2
93.9
98.3
104.1
107.5
59.1
59.2
71.3
80.5
90.8
93.9
101.8
106.6

the highest GGBS addition presents the highest compressive strength increase from the seventh day to one year. This
shows that as the GGBS content is increased, the strength
gain increases in time. The compressive strength gains of
the GGBS concrete mixtures are presented in Figs. 14.

C175GGBS75, 0
C175GGBS275, 0

C175GGBS125, 0

38
32
26
20
14
8
0

28

56

84

112

140

168
196
Age (day)

224

252

280

308

Fig. 1. Compressive strength development of 175 dosage concrete.

336

364

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

Compressive Strength (MPa)

510

C210GGBS00, 0

C210GGBS45, 0

C210GGBS90, 0

C210GGBS210, 0

C210GGBS270, 0

C210GGBS330, 0

C210GGBS150, 0

47
41
35
29
23
17
11
0

28

56

84

112

140

168
196
Age (day)

224

252

280

308

336

364

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig. 2. Compressive strength development of 210 dosage concrete.

C245GGBS00, 0

C245GGBS52, 5

C245GGBS105, 0

C245GGBS245, 0

C245GGBS315, 0

C245GGBS385, 0

C245GGBS175, 0

57
51
45
39
33
27
21
15
0

28

56

84

112

140

168
196
Age (day)

224

252

280

308

336

364

Compressive Strength (MPa)

Fig. 3. Compressive strength development of 245 dosage concrete.

C280GGBS00, 0

C280GGBS60, 0

C280GGBS120

C280GGBS280

C280GGBS360

C280GGBS440

C280GGBS200

66
60
54
48
42
36
30
24
18
0

28

56

84

112

140

168
196
Age (day)

224

252

280

308

336

364

Fig. 4. Compressive strength development of 280 dosage concrete.

3.3. Determination of the optimum content of GGBS in

concrete mixtures according to the compressive strength
values
Bolomey and Feret strength equations are used to determine the equivalent cement content of GGBS concrete
mixtures [26];


fc K B

C
a
W h


5

where KB is the Bolomey coecient, a is a coecient

depending mainly on time and curing, fc is the compressive
strength of concrete (N/mm2), C is cement content in

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

concrete (kg/m3), W is the water content in concrete

(kg/m3), h is the air content in concrete (m3/m3).

2
c
fc K F
6
cwh

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

280

C ' (kg/m 3 )

240
200
160
120
80
40
0
0

40

80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
GGBS (G - kg/m 3 )

Fig. 6. The relation with equivalent cement content and used GGBS
content at the age of 28 days for Feret equation.

175 Dosage

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

420
360
C ' (kg/m3)

where KF is the Feret coecient, fc is the compressive

strength of concrete (N/mm2), c is cement content in concrete (m3/m3), w is the water content in concrete (m3/m3),
h is the air content in concrete (m3/m3).
The Bolomey (KB) and Feret (KF) coecients are calculated from the slope of the 28th, 180th and 365th day
strength values for the concrete mixtures without GGBS
addition. The calculated coecients are as follows;
KB = 35,367 MPa (28 days), 38,697 MPa (180 days) and
40,999 MPa (365 days), KF = 354,559 MPa (28 days),
384,573 MPa (180 days) and 404,376 MPa (365 days).
a in Bolomey equation, gives the best correlation with
the values of 0.417, 0.424 and 0.430 for 28, 180 and 365
days, respectively.
For the concrete mixtures with GGBS, the Bolomey and
Feret equations are converted to Eqs. (7) and (8) and the
equivalent cement contents C 0 and c 0 are calculated based
on the compressive strength values, calculated from test
results. C 0 and c 0 are the equivalent cement contents. The
relation between the equivalent cement content C 0 and
the GGBS content (G) is calculated with Bolomey and
Feret strength equations and presented in Figs. 59. The
relation is dened by an equation in the form of
C 0 = aG2 + bG, which passes through the origin and has
a maximum value. Similar C 0 = G curves with high regression coecients are obtained by the Bolomey and Feret
equations. The equations in the form of C 0 = aG2 + bG
and regression coecients (R2) are given for 365 days in
Table 6.


C C0
fc K B
a
7
W h

2
c c0
fc K F
8
c c0 w h

175 Dosage

511

300
240
180
120
60
0
0

40

80

120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
GGBS (G - kg/m3)

Fig. 7. The relation with equivalent cement content and used GGBS
content at the age of 365 days for Bolomey equation.

175 Dosage

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

420

175 Dosage

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

280

C ' (kg/m3 )

240

C ' (kg/m3)

360
300
240
180
120

200

60

160

120

80

40

80 120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
GGBS (G - kg/m3)

Fig. 8. The relation with equivalent cement content and used GGBS
content at the age of 365 days for Feret equation.

40
0
0

40

80

120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440 480
GGBS (G - kg/m3)

Fig. 5. The relation with equivalent cement content and used GGBS
content at the age of 28 days for Bolomey equation.

In order to nd the GGBS content, which yields the

highest compressive strength, the peak values of the C 0 G
curves are calculated by the derivative of these curves.

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

Optimum GGBS Content - Bolomey and Feret Equations - 28-Day

Optimum GGBS Content (kg/m3)

Optimum GGBS Content - Bolomey and Feret Equations - 365-Day

410
360
310
260
210
170

190

210

230

250

270

290

Cement Dosage (kg/m3)

Fig. 9. The optimum GGBS contents at the age of 28, 180 and 365 days
compressive strengths (Bolomey and Feret equations).

The GGBS contents below this level are highly eective but
the strengths are low. The contents above this level have
lower eciency and lower strength. For this reason, the
GGBS content determined by the peak values has the optimum eciency. Table 7 presents the optimum GGBS contents calculated by the derivative of the C 0 G curves.
Optimum amounts of GGBS added for compressive
strength in concrete with GGBS have been approximately
5559% of the total amount of binding material. There
have been some studies supporting this result in the literature. However, the replacement method is mostly used in
these studies. Hogan and Meusel [13] and Meusel and Rose
[27] reported that the greatest 28-day strengths are found
with blends of 4050%. Hwang and Lin [17] observed that
optimum amount of GGBS for compressive strength is
approximately 50% for 90 days.
It can be seen from Fig. 7 that the Bolomey and Feret
equations yield similar values of optimum GGBS content.
This result validates the used method. The optimum

strength values of GGBS concrete mixtures can be calculated by the 28th, 180th and 365th day compressive
strength values with Bolomey and Feret equations, depending on the cementitious material contents. Average strength
values can be used for the cementitious contents in between
the cementitious contents used in the analysis.
The eciency is dened as the slope of the line connecting any point on the C 0 G curve to the origin. By superpose
of the C 0 G curve and the C 0 = G line, the GGBS contents,
at which the eciency is 1, is evaluated. At these contents,
the GGBS amount has the same performance properties
with the equal amount of cement.
The C 0 equivalent cement content values for the GGBS
contents are calculated from the C 0 G curves. By calculating the ratio of C 0 equivalent cement content to GGBS
content, the eciency factor k is found. Figs. 10 and 11
present the eciency factors depending on GGBS content
at for the 28-day-old specimens. It can be seen from these
graphs that for the similar cement contents, as the amount
of GGBS increase, the eciency of GGBS decreases.

k Efficiency Factor for 175 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 245 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 210 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 280 Dosage

1.20
k "Efficiency Factor"

512

1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0

40

80

120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440

GGBS (kg/m3)

Fig. 10. The relation with eciency factor and GGBS content at the age
of 28 days for Bolomey equation.

Table 6
The equations in the form of C 0 = aG2 + bG and regression coecients (R2) for 365-day compressive strengths
Cement
dosage (kg/m3)
Bolomey
equation

Equation
R2

Feret
equation

Equation
R2

175

210

245

280

C 0 = 0.003318G2 +
1.595491G
0.995

C 0 = 0.002790G2 +
1.629085G
0.996

C 0 = 0.002407G2 +
1.667904G
0.998

C 0 = 0.001955G2 +
1.623471G
0.997

C 0 = 0.003283G2 +
1.604802G
0.986

C 0 = 0.002875G2 +
1.683002G
0.994

C 0 = 0.002543G2 +
1.752755G
0.997

C 0 = 0.002102G2 +
1.727501G
0.996

Table 7
The optimum GGBS content for 28-, 180- and 365-day compressive strengths
Cement dosage (kg/m3)

Optimum GGBS content for Bolomey equation (kg/m3)

Optimum GGBS content for Feret equation (kg/m3)

28 days

180 days

365 days

28 days

180 days

365 days

175
210
245
280

216
269
323
376

234
287
344
408

240
292
346
415

218
269
321
372

237
288
343
404

244
293
345
411

k"Efficiency Factor"

k Efficiency Factor for 175 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 245 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 210 Dosage

k Efficiency Factor for 280 Dosage

1.20
1.00
0.80
0.60
0.40
0

40

80

120 160 200 240 280 320 360 400 440

GGBS (kg/m3)

Fig. 11. The relation with eciency factor and GGBS content at the age
of 28 days for Feret equation.

All the curves presented in Figs. 510 are second-degree

curves, which pass through the origin and a maximum, and
comply with the test results. The maximum points for the
optimum usage of GGBS contents decrease even tough
the GGBS content increase. It can be concluded that, after
a certain limit, GGBS cannot be used eciently as a binder, but rather as ller in the concrete. As the cement content increases, the hydration product calcium hydroxide
also increases and more calcium silicate hydrates are
formed due to reaction with GGBS. For this reason,
GGBS can be used more eciently.
4. Conclusion
The following conclusions can be drawn from this
experimental study:
1. When the water-to-binder ratios of the mixes is taken
into account, it can be concluded that as the GGBS content increases, the water-to-binder ratio decreases for the
same workability, and thus, the GGBS has positive
eects on the workability (Fig. 12).
2. The early age strength of GGBS concretes was lower
than the control concretes with the same binder content.
However, as the curing period is extended, the strength

Strength gain from 7 day to 365 day (%)

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

175 Dosage

513

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

135
125
115
105
95
85
75
65
55

50

100

150

200
250
300
GGBS (kg/m3)

350

400

450

Fig. 13. Strength gain from 7 to 365 day in concrete containing GGBS.

increase was higher for the GGBS concretes. The reason

is that, the pozzolanic reaction is slow and the formation
of calcium hydroxide requires time (Fig. 13).
3. The compressive strength of GGBS concrete increases as
the GGBS content is increased up to an optimum point,
after which the compressive strength decreases. There is
an optimum level for the ecient use of GGBS content,
which yields the highest strength.
4. The optimum level of GGBS content for maximizing
strength is at about 5559% of the total binder content.
5. After a maximum point C 0 G curves decrease, which
may be due to the existence of excess GGBS in the medium, which cannot enter into reaction. This indicates
that the GGBS, which could not enter into reaction,
behave like ne aggregate.

Acknowledgements
The experimental work was carried out at the laboratories of Construction Materials in Department of Civil
Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, University of Kocaeli. We would like to thank ABM Engineering A.S . for providing the GGBS, cement and aggregates.
References

175 Dosage

210 Dosage

245 Dosage

280 Dosage

1.3
Water / Binder ratio

1.2
1.1
1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0

50

100

150

200
250
3
GGBS (kg/m )

300

350

400

450

Fig. 12. The relation with GGBS content and water/binding ratio for
equal workability.

[1] Badogiannis E, Papadakis VG, Chaniotakis E, Tsivilis S. Exploitation of poor Greek kaolins: strength development of metakaolin
concrete and evaluation by means of k-value. Cement Concrete Res
2004;34:103541.
[2] Roy DM, Arjunan P, Silsbee MR. Eect of silica fume, metakaolin,
and low-calcium y ash on chemical resistance of concrete. Cement
Concrete Res 2001;31:180913.
[3] Ferraris CH, Obla KH, Hill R. The inuence of mineral admixtures
on the rheology of cement paste and concrete. Cement Concrete Res
2001;31:24555.
[4] Chan WWJ, Wu CML. Durability of concrete with high cement
replacement. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30(6):86579.
[5] Mehta PK. Pozzolanic and cementitious by-products as mineral admixtures for concrete a critical review, SP-79. ACI; 1983.
p. 148.
[6] Malhotra VM, Mehta PK. Pozzolanic and cementitious materials.
Advances in Concrete Technology. London: Gordon and Breach;
1996.

514

A. Oner, S. Akyuz / Cement & Concrete Composites 29 (2007) 505514

[7] Sha W, Pereira GB. Dierential scanning calorimetry study of

hydrated ground granulated blast-furnace slag. Cement Concrete Res
2001;31:3279.
[8] Domone PL, Soutsos MN. Properties of high-strength concrete mixes
containing PFA and GGBS. Mag Concr Res 1995;47:35567.
[9] ACI Committee 233. Ground granulated blast-furnace slag as a
cementitious constituent in concrete, ACI 233R-95, American Concrete Institute; 1995.
[10] Papadakis VG, Tsimas S. Supplementary cementing materials in
concrete Part I: eciency and design. Cement Concrete Res
2002;32:152532.
[11] Oner A, Akyuz S, Yildiz R. An experimental study on strength
development of concrete containing y ash and optimum usage of y
ash in concrete. Cement Concrete Res 2005;35:116571.
[12] Roy DM, Idorn GM. Hydration, structure, and properties of blastfurnace slag cements, mortars, and concrete. J Am Concrete Inst
1982;79:44557.
[13] Hogan FJ, Meusel JW. Evaluation for durability and strength
development of a ground granulated blast furnace slag. Cement
Concrete Aggr 1981;3:4052.
[14] ASTM C109. Standard test method for compressive strength of
hydraulic cement mortars. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol.
04.02; 1993.
[15] ASTM C 989. Standard specication for ground granulated blastfurnace slag for use in concrete and mortars. Annual Book of ASTM
Standards, vol. 04.02; 1994.
[16] Ganesh Babu K, Sree Rama Kumar V. Eciency of GGBS in
concrete. Cement Concrete Res 2000;30:10316.

[17] Hwang CL, Lin CY. Strength development of blended blast-furnace

slag cement mortars. SP 91. ACI; 1986. p. 132340.
[18] Papadakis VG, Antiohos S, Tsimas S. Supplementary cementing
materials in concrete Part II: a fundamental estimation of the
eciency factor. Cement Concrete Res 2002;32:15338.
[19] Pekmezci BY, Akyuz S. Optimum usage of a natural pozzolan for the
maximum compressive strength of concrete. Cement Concrete Res
2004;34:21759.
[20] European Standard EN 197-1. Cement: Part 1. Composition,
specications and conformity criteria for common cements. CEN,
Brussels; 2000.
[21] ASTM C 192. Standard practice for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol.
04.02; 2000.
[22] ASTM C 143. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic cement
concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol. 04.02; 1988.
[23] ASTM C 231. Test method for air content of freshly mixed concrete
by the pressure method. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, vol.
04.02; 1988.
[24] Erdogan YT. Concrete. Ankara: Metu Press; 2003 [in Turkish].
[25] Memon AH, Radin SS, Zain MFM, Trottier JF. Eect of mineral
and chemical admixtures on high-strength concrete in seawater.
Cement Concrete Res 2002;32:3737.
[26] Neville AM. Properties of Concrete. 4th and nal ed. New
York: Longman; 1995, ISBN 0-582-23070-5.
[27] Meusel JW, Rose JH. Production of granulated blast furnace slag at
sparrows point, and the workability and strength potential of
concrete incorporating the slag, SP-79. ACI; 1983. p. 86790.