Strength and Mechanical Properties of Nano Fly
Strength and Mechanical Properties of Nano Fly
Strength and Mechanical Properties of Nano Fly
net/publication/343205705
CITATIONS READS
5 155
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Harihanandh Manickam on 25 July 2020.
Research Paper
STRENGTH AND MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF NANO FLY
ASH CONCRETE
M.Harihanandh1, M.Sivaraja2*
2. Mix outline can be characterized as the procedure The average compressive strength values after the 28
of selecting elements of cement and deciding their days curing of the different specimen were listed
relative extents with the object of creating cement below.
of certain base quality and strength as financially Table 1. Compressive Strength of Specimen
as could be expected under the circumstances. Types of Concrete Compressive
S.No
The blend configuration was done according to IS (M20 Grade) Strength in N/mm2
10262-2009 rule and last blend extent for M20 1 CC 25.76
evaluation of cement was acquired as 1:2:3 2 RFAC 27.38
3. Mechanical Properties of Concrete 3 NFAC 34.50
a) Compressive Strength Test
The solid shape examples were set in pressure testing
machine and the load is to be connected without stun
and expanded persistently at a rate of roughly 140
kg/cm2 per min until the resistance of the example to
the expanding load separates and no more
noteworthy burden can be limited. The most amazing
weight associated with the samples is to be recorded
and the nearness of the strong and any unusual
components in the sort of failure is noted.
Compressive Strength of the Cube = P / A
Where,
P = Maximum applied load to the specimen during the test Fig. 1. Compressive Strength of Specimen
A = The cross sectional area of the cube specimen. For the mix of M20 concrete, the CC produces the
The average value of the three test values is to be strength of 25.76 N/mm2 and the RFAC has lack of
taken as the representative of the corresponding mix. strength at its earlier stage after the 28 days curing it
b) Split Tensile Strength Test has the value of 6.288% increased in strength while
The chamber example is set on a level plane between adding a 23% of Raw fly ash in it.
the stacking surface of the pressure testing machine The Nano fly ash Concrete (NFAC), have the
and the load is connected until the failure of the compressive strength of 34.50 N/mm2. This strength
barrel, brought about along the vertical diameter. has the value of 34% improved from CC.
Slender pressing portions of appropriate materials, b) Split Tensile Strength Test
for example, plywood are set between the examples The average split tensile strength values after the 28
and stacking platens of the testing machine the days curing of the different specimen were listed
pressing strip is sufficiently delicate to permit below.
circulation of the load over a large contact region. At Table 2. Split Tensile Strength of Specimen
that point the load is connected until the failure of the Types of Concrete Split Tensile
S.No
chamber, along the vertical measurement. (M20 Grade) Strength in N/mm2
Split tensile strength = 2P/ πdl 1 CC 3.38
2 RFAC 3.47
Where,
3 NFAC 5.36
P = Compressive load on the cylinder
l = Length of the cylinder
d = Diameter of the cylinder
c) Flexural Strength Test:
The crystal is placed in all universal testing machine
and the load is to be associated without stagger until
the case falls level and the best weight associated
with the case in the midst of the test is to be recorded.
The nearness of the broke faces of the strong and any
astounding components in the sort of failure is to be
noted. The flexural nature of sample is to be
conveyed as the modulus of burst (fb), which is
comparable to the division between the lines of the
pliable side of the nearer backing, measured on the Fig. 2. Split Tensile Strength of Specimen
The split tensile strength of the CC specimen is 3.38
center line of the tractable side of the case in cm is to
be found out to the nearest 0.5 kg/cm2 as takes after. N/mm2, The RFAC specimen provides 2.660%
When a > 133 mm, fb= PL / bd2 improved strength as well as NFAC gives 58.57%
improved split tensile strength over the conventional
When a < 133 mm, fb= 3Pa / bd2
concrete (CC) specimen.
Where,
a = Distance measured in between crack and nearest c) Flexural Strength Test
support The average flexural strength test values after the 28
b = Width of the specimen in mm days curing of the different specimen were listed
d = Didth of the specimen in mm below.
L = Length in “mm” of the span on which the specimen Table 3. Flexural Strength of Specimen
was supported Types of Concrete Modulus of Rupture
P = Maximum load in “kg” applied to the specimen S.No
(M20 Grade) in N/mm2
If “a‟ is less than 110 mm for a 100X100X500 mm 1 CC 5.2
specimen, the results of the test to be discarded. 2 RFAC 5.19
Experimental Results & Discussion: 3 NFAC 6.92
a) Compressive Strength Test
Int J Adv Engg Tech/Vol. VII/Issue II/April-June,2016/596-598
M.Sivaraja et al., International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945
CONCLUSION
Through ball milling process, the size of the
fly ash has been converted in to Nano size.
This size confirmation has kept in Fig. 4.
The percentage of replacement of the Nano
fly ash has the value of 23%. It gives higher
strength.
The compressive strength test result, the
NFAC attain the strength of 34.50 N/mm2.
This is 34% more than the CC Specimen.
The split tensile strength test result, the
NFAC attain the strength of 5.36 N/mm2.
Fig. 3. Flexural Strength of Specimen This is 58.57% more than the CC Specimen
The flexural strength of the CC specimen is 5.2 The flexural strength test result, the NFAC
N/mm2, The RFAC specimen provides similarity in attain the strength of 6.92 N/mm2. This is
strength and the NFAC gives 33.07% improved 33.07% more than the CC Specimen
flexural strength over the conventional concrete (CC) These test results are shown that, the nano
specimen. fly ash particles are completely fill the pores
4. SEM Analysis Report. of the concrete and makes the concrete
The size confirmation and the particle distribution are much denser.
to found from this SEM image report. REFERENCES
1. Erni Setyowati, (2014), “Eco-Building Material of
Styrofoam Waste and Sugar Industry Fly-ash Based on
Nano-Technology” Procedia Environmental Sciences
20 ( 2014 ) 245 – 253.
2. Faiz U.A. Shaikh , Steve W.M. Supit (2015)
“Compressive strength and durability properties of high
volume fly ash (HVFA) concretes containing ultrafine
fly ash (UFFA)” Construction and Building Materials
82 (2015) 192–205.
3. Gengying Li (June 2004), “Properties of highvolume
fly ash concrete incorporating nanoSiO2”, Cement and
Concrete Composites”, 34(6), pp 1043-1049.
4. Hui Li (2004), “Microstructure of cement mortar with
nanoparticles”,Nano composites, Part B Engineering,
35, pp 185-189.
5. J. Babu Rao1 *, P. Narayanaswami etal., (2010)
“Thermal stability of nano structured fly ash
Fig. 4. Typical SEM image - Nano Fly Ash Concrete synthesized by high energy ball milling” International
(NAFC) Journal of Engineering, Science and Technology Vol.
2, No. 5, 2010, pp. 284-299.
6. Malhotra,V.M., Zhang,M.H., Read,P.H. and Ryell,J
(2000), “Long term mechanical properties and
durability characteristics of high strength/high
performance concrete incorporating supplementary
cementing materials under outdoor exposure
conditions”, ACI J. Issue. 97, pp 518– 525.
7. Md. Moinul, Md. Saiful, Strength behaviour of mortar
using fly ash as partial replacement of cement, 2010,
Concrete Research Letters Vol 1(3)-September.
8. Perumalsamy Balaguru and Ken Chong (2006),
“Nanotechnology and concrete research oppurtunities”,
Proceedings of ACI Session, pp1928.
9. Prince Arulraj.G, Jemimah Carmichael.M (2011)
“Effect of NanoFlyash on Strength of Concrete”
International Journal Of Civil And Structural
Engineering Volume 2, No 2, 2011, pp 475-482.
Fig. 5. Typical SEM image – Raw Fly Ash Concrete 10. Sri Tudjono,, Purwanto, etal., (2014), “Study the effect
(RAFC) of adding nano fly ash and nano lime to compressive
strength of mortar” Procedia Engineering 95 ( 2014 )
426 – 432.