Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Studies in ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete containing GGBFS

Mohd Shariq a,⇑, Jagdish Prasad b, Amjad Masood c
a
Civil Engineering Section, University Polytechnic, Faculty of Engineering & Technology, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, India
c
Department of Civil Engineering, Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh, India

h i g h l i g h t s

" Deep focus has been given to study the ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete containing GGBFS.
" Ultrasonic pulse velocity method is very effective nondestructive measurement for compressive strength of concrete.
" A new model has been proposed for age-dependent dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete containing GGBFS.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This paper presents the results of experimental investigations into the time-dependent ultrasonic pulse
Received 25 June 2012 velocity (UPV) of concrete containing GGBFS. The UPV was determined at the age of 3, 7, 28, 56, 90, 150
Received in revised form 3 October 2012 and 180 days for twelve concrete mixes using the prism specimens of plain and GGBFS concrete. The
Accepted 21 November 2012
amount of cement replaced by GGBFS was varied from 20% to 60%. The UPV of concrete containing GGBFS
Available online 28 December 2012
has been found to be lower than that of plain concrete for all percentage replacements of cement at all
ages and for all the mixes. Relationship between cube and cylinder compressive strength and UPV for
Keywords:
GGBFS based concrete has been presented. A new model for time-dependent dynamic modulus of
Ground granulated blast furnace slag
UPV
elasticity of concrete containing GGBFS has been proposed.
Curing age Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Dynamic modulus of elasticity

1. Introduction influence upon the velocity of compression waves. The velocity

In the recent trend of concrete construction, it is recognized that
the ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) is one of the
ingredient of concrete [1]. The GGBFS is a mineral admixture ob-
tained from the iron and steel industries. It is used as partial
replacement for cement in concrete, which results in low cement
consumption and subsequently benefits the environment. Further,
its use improves the mechanical properties of concrete, reduces the
heat of hydration and decreases the permeability of concrete and
the alkali aggregate reactivity. Consequently, this will have pro-
found bearing on the performance of reinforced and pre-stressed
concrete.
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) is one of the popular non-
destructive techniques for evaluating the qualitative assessment
of homogeneity of concrete and compressive strength of the exist-
ing structures. The UPV technique is also significant in calculating
the dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete [2]. In UPV
technique, Strength and other mechanical properties of concrete,
⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9897903968; fax: +91 571 2700528.
E-mail address: mshariqdce@gmail.com (M. Shariq).
of these waves also depends upon the density and elasticity of
the material. Hence, the UPV is useful for the determination
of quality and uniformity of concrete, estimation of static and
dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete and measurement of
time-dependent behavior of concrete [3].
In the past, many studies have been carried out related to the
use of UPV technique on assessment of strength of plain concrete;
Kaplan [4] determined the relationship between the compressive
strength and UPV for concrete in columns. It was revealed that
the strength predicted from the relationship was 18% lesser than
the strength of concrete in columns. Rajagopalan et al. [5] devel-
oped the correlation between the UPV and compressive strength
of concrete. UPV and compressive strength was measured at differ-
ent ages from 1 day to 28 days. It was shown that, at the age of
7 days, the assessment of compressive strength based on UPV mea-
surement is more reliable than the tests at 28 days. Narayanan and
Ramaswamy [6] predicted the concrete strength from the short-
term test by using the ultrasonic pulse method. A relationship
was suggested for the prediction of long-term strength from
UPV measurements made at early ages. Reynolds et al. [7] calcu-
lated the elastic constants of wet and dry concrete by using the

0950-0618/$ - see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.11.070
 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950 945

theoretical model and obtained the densities using three types of Table 1
ultrasonic wave. Anderson and Seals [8] predicted the long-term Physical properties of ordinary Portland cement.

in situ strength from short-term nondestructive tests. A non- Characteristics Value obtained Values specified
destructive testing procedure for predicting long-term strength experimentally by IS: 8112
was proposed. Popovics et al. [9] studied the behavior of ultrasonic Blaine’s fineness (m2/kg) 245 225 (Min.)
pulses in concrete. It was revealed that the UPV in the longitudinal Specific gravity 3.15 –
direction of a cylinder is different from the UPV in lateral direction Soundness (mm) (By Le Chatelier 1.5 10 (Max.)
test)
and the pulse velocity in concrete increased with higher frequency. Normal consistency (%) (Percent of 27 30
Kaushik et al. [10] conducted the experiments on 1300 concrete cement by weight)
specimens using UPV technique. The relationship between the Setting time (min)
UPV and compressive strength for both undamaged concrete and (i) Initial 105 30 (Min.)
concrete damaged by chemical attack was investigated. Abdel- (ii) Final 180 600 (Max.)
Jawed and Afaneh [11] investigated the effect of some factors such Compressive strength (MPa)
as water–cement ratio, curing conditions, moisture content and (i) 3-Days 24.9 23.0
degree of compaction, which influence the ultrasonic pulses in (ii) 7-Days 34.4 33.0
(iii) 28-Days 45.9 43.0
concrete. It was concluded that the moisture content showed in-
verse relationship between compressive strength and UPV of
concrete. Effect of water–cement ratio showed time-dependent
relation between compressive strength and UPV and effect is more Table 2
pronounced at later ages. Trtnik et al. [12] conducted the experi- Physical properties of GGBFS.

ments to find the effect of aggregate, initial concrete temperature, Characteristic Observed Requirement as per BS:
type of cement, environmental temperature, and w/c ratio on UPV value 6699
of concrete and predicted the strength of concrete by using the Fineness (m2/kg) 340 275 (Min.)
UPV. The relationship between ultrasonic pulse velocity, static Specific gravity 2.86 –
and dynamic Young’s modulus and shear modulus was also Soundness (mm) (Le Chatelier 1.5 10 (Max.)
Expansion)
analyzed.
A thorough examination of the literature has revealed that there Normal consistency (%)
(i) OPC + 20% GGBFS 28.5
are many studies, which have been carried out, to find the effect of
(ii) OPC + 40% GGBFS 29.5 –
GGBFS on UPV such as; Swamy and Bouikni [1] carried out the (iii) OPC + 60% GGBFS 31.0
experiments on concrete incorporating 50% and 65% GGBFS con-
Setting time (min)
tent. It was observed that under continued wet curing, concrete (i) Initial 150 Not less than OPC
at both replacements showed higher UPV than the plain concrete. (ii) Final 309 –
Demirboga et al. [13] observed that the UPV for concrete contain- Compressive strength (MPa)a
ing 50%, 60% and 70% GGBFS was lower than that observed in plain (i) 7-Days 25 12.0 (Min.)
concrete at all ages of curing period. He has developed the expo- (ii) 28-Days 40 32.5 (Min.)
nential relationship between the UPV and compressive strength a
70% GGBFS and 30% OPC.
for high-volume mineral admixture concrete. Panesar and Chidiac
[14] evaluated the early age compressive strength and dynamic
modulus of elasticity of dry-cast concrete with varying percentages Table 3
of GGBFS by using the UPV technique. Oz and Turkmen [15] eval- Physical properties of aggregates.
uated the exponential relationship between UPV and destructive
Characteristic Fine aggregate Coarse aggregate
compressive strength of concrete containing GGBFS at the ages of
3, 7, 28 and 90 days. They found that with 10% GGBFS the compres- Grading Zone-II (IS: 383-1970) –
Fineness modulus 2.45 6.8
sive strength and UPV is highest at 90 days. Atici [16] carried out
Specific gravity 2.61 2.63
the comparative study between multivariable regression analysis Density (loose) (kN/m3) 15.4 14.3
and artificial neural networks on experimentally obtained com- Water absorption (%) 0.85 1.5
pressive strength of concrete with different GGBFS contents and
strength obtained from UPV measurement.
The literature shows that, due to the use of GGBFS in concrete Ordinary Portland Cement of 43 grade (OPC 43) was used throughout the inves-
mixes, the hydration process is slower than the OPC concrete mixes tigation and stored in airtight silos to prevent exposure to moisture. The physical
and concretes containing GGBFS require more curing period than properties of cement determined as per IS 4031-1988 [17] are given in Table 1.
The GGBFS procured from Maharashtra, India was used in this study. The physical
OPC concretes [12]. However, in the literature review made in the
properties of GGBFS are given in Table 2.
scope of this research work, no references were found to assess The locally available river sand passing through IS: 480 sieve (aperture 4.75 mm
the quality of GGBFS based concretes using the UPV measurement square) and retained on IS: 15 sieve (150 lm size) was used as fine aggregate. The
at different curing periods and ages of concrete. Therefore, the focus physical properties of the fine aggregate are given in Table 3 [18]. The locally available
of this paper is to emphasize detailed information on the time- crushed stone aggregate of maximum nominal size of 16 mm was used as coarse
aggregate. The physical properties of coarse aggregate are also given in Table 3
dependent UPV of concrete containing different percent replace- [18]. In the present investigation, potable water was used for mixing and curing [19].
ment of cement by GGBFS. The present study is useful for the
assessment of life of concrete structures containing GGBFS.
2.2. Mixture proportions

2. Experimental program Three plain concrete mixes designated as M10, M20 and M30 with cube com-
pressive strength of 46.5, 37.0 and 27.0 MPa respectively were prepared [20]. The
2.1. Material properties ratio of fine aggregate to coarse aggregate was 0.6, for maintaining the maximum
density of combined aggregate. Initially, coarse and fine aggregates were mixed
The properties of concrete mix ingredients such as cement, fine aggregate, thoroughly for about 1 min and then cement was added to this dry mix. The re-
coarse aggregate, water and GGBFS conformed to the specifications laid down in quired quantity of water was then added for casting of specimens. The details of
the relevant Indian Standard codes. the design mixes and the properties of fresh concrete are given in Table 4.
946 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950

Table 4
Concrete mix proportions.

Mix ID Direct replacement of GGBFS (%) Cement (kg/m3) GGBFS (kg/m3) FA (kg/m3) CA (kg/m3) w/b ratio Slump (mm) CF
M10 0 400 0 665 1107 0.45 41 0.90
M11 20 320 80 43 0.90
M12 40 240 160 49 0.92
M13 60 160 240 51 0.91
M20 0 350 0 680 1132 0.50 46 0.91
M21 20 280 70 45 0.91
M22 40 210 140 51 0.92
M23 60 140 210 54 0.90
M30 0 320 0 688 1145 0.55 51 0.92
M31 20 256 64 53 0.93
M32 40 192 128 59 0.95
M33 60 128 192 61 0.96

FA = Fine aggregate; CA = Coarse aggregate; w/b = water to binder ratio; CF = Compaction factor.

GGBFS concrete mixes were prepared after re-proportioning the three plain
concrete mixes. The ratio of fine aggregate to coarse aggregate was kept constant
throughout the investigation. The cement in the plain concrete mixes was directly
replaced by the equal weights of 20%, 40% and 60% of GGBFS to obtain correspond-
ing GGBFS based concrete. GGBFS replacement up to 40% may be useful for rein-
forced cement concrete and pre-stressed concrete, whereas, 60% replacement
may be used for mass concrete works. The water to binder ratio for a particular
mix was also kept constant. The details of GGBFS based concrete mixes and the
properties are summarized in Table 4. It may be seen from this table that there
are four mixes – one plain and three GGBFS based – in the three mix groups (M1,
M2 and M3). Thus, there are twelve concrete mixes as given in Table 4.

2.3. Casting and testing procedure

Prism specimens (100  100  500 mm) were cast for the measurement of UPV
of concretes. The material was weighed in required proportions. The weighed ingre-
dients were thoroughly mixed for 2 min in a rotating drum type mixer. The mix was
poured in the molds in three layers on the vibration table and each layer was vi-
brated for half a minute. After 2 h of casting, the surface of specimens was leveled
with a trowel. To find early age UPV of concrete, 15 specimens from each mix were Fig. 1. A specimen under test.
tested after the curing periods of 3, 7 and 28 days (i.e. five specimens were tested at
each curing period) on surface dry condition. The temperature of curing tank was 3.1. The effect of GGBFS on UPV of concrete with time
maintained at 27 ± 2 °C. Remaining specimens, which were cured for 28 days were
taken out from the curing tank and stored at room temperature (i.e. 27 ± 2 °C and
relative humidity was 60–65%) till the time of testing i.e. at the age of 56, 90, 150 The experimental evolution of UPV of plain and GGBFS with
and 180 days. time has been shown in Figs. 2–4 for the three mix groups M1,
The UPV tests were carried on prism specimens as per the guidelines of IS: M2 and M3 respectively. The trend of variation of the UPV with
13311 (Part-1) – 1992 [21]. The UPV tester PUNDIT (Portable ultrasonic non- age of concrete is discussed below:
destructive digital indicating tester) equipment consist of the ultrasonic tester 58
E-48, two transducer i.e. one transmitter and one receiver head 54 kHz type, two
connecting cables, one calibration rod, one bottle of coupling agent for proper con- (i) As expected, the UPV of concrete increases with age but at a
tact between the surface and two 1.5 V alkaline D type batteries. Data was gener- decreasing rate for all the concrete mixes.
ated for all twelve plain and GGBFS based concrete mixes at the ages of 3, 7, 28, (ii) The UPV of GGBFS based concrete has been found to be
56, 90, 150 and 180 days. For each mix and age, an average of 5 prisms has been
lower than the plain concrete for all replacements of cement
reported. The total numbers of prisms tested were 5  7 (Ages)  12 (No. of
mixes) = 420. An equal number of cubes of 150 mm size and cylinders of 150 mm by GGBFS at all ages and for all the mixes. The reason may be
diameter and 300 mm long were also tested in compression at all ages for establish- due to the slow rate of hydration, porosity and solid skeleton
ing a relationship between cylinder and cube strength for GGBFS concrete. This
relationship was required for comparing the compressive strength obtained from 5.1
UPV test. The setup for measuring UPV of concrete is shown in Fig. 1. The UPV of
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (km/s)

concrete was taken as the average of five specimens. The following formula is used
for calculating the dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete [1]:
4.7
ð1 þ lpr Þð1  2lpr Þ
E d ¼ qV 2 ð1Þ
ð1  lpr Þ

where Ed is dynamic modulus of elasticity in MPa, q is density of concrete in kN/m3, 4.3

V is pulse velocity in km/s and lpr is dynamic Poisson’s ratio of concrete
For determining the density of concrete at different ages, the specimens were
weighed at ages of 3, 7, 28, 56, 90, 150 and 180 days. The density and Poisson’s ratio
of concrete is taken as 2450 kN/m3 and 0.2 respectively for the entire study and for 3.9
M10-Plain Concrete
all the concrete mixes [22]. M11-20% GGBFS
M12-40%GGBFS
M13-60% GGBFS
3.5
3. Results and discussion 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200
Time (days)
The following observations have been made from the tests re-
sults and are discussed under the following sub-heads. Fig. 2. Evolution of UPV of concrete with age for mix group M1.
 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950 947

5.0 (v) It is observed that the 28 days UPV of plain concrete has
been attained by the GGBFS concrete with cement replace-
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (km/s)

ment of 20% and 40% within 90 days but it is not attained

4.5 even in 180 days for 60% GGBFS concrete.

Kaushik et al. [10] found that, the ultrasonic pulse velocity has
4.0 influenced by the properties of materials used in concrete, such as
type of cement, type of aggregate, aggregate-cement ratio and
water–cement ratio. It has been observed that the compressive
3.5 M20-Plain Concrete
strength decreases with increase in the GGBFS content in concrete
M21-20% GGBFS [23]. Amongst GGBFS based concrete 40% cement replacement has
M22-40% GGBFS been found to be optimum. As the compressive strength of con-
M23-60% GGBFS
3.0 crete increases, the UPV also increases due to the denser internal
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 structure of the concrete body. At early ages, the rate of gain of
Time (days) compressive strength of GGBFS based concrete is slow and hence,
the rate of gain of UPV is slow. Due to the pozzolanic reaction in
Fig. 3. Evolution of UPV of concrete with age for mix group M2.
GGBFS based concrete, the UPV of concrete with 40% GGBFS has
been found higher.
From the above observations, it is clear that the 28 days curing
4.5 is insufficient for concrete containing different percentages of
Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity (km/s)

GGBFS used in the present investigation.

4.0

3.5 3.2. Effect of GGBFS on quality of concrete and UPV with time

3.0
2.5
0 25 50 75 100
Time (days)
Fig. 4. Evolution of UPV of concrete with age for mix group M3.
of concrete matrix, which results in reduction of the com-
pressive strength of concrete with the addition of GGBFS.
In an earlier study, Shariq et al. [23] have discussed the effect
of GGBFS on time-dependent compressive strength of
concrete.
(iii) Among GGBFS based concrete, up to the age of 56 days, the
UPV value decreases with increase of GGBFS content. How-
ever, after the age of 56 days for the concrete with cement
replacement of 40% by GGBFS, the UPV is observed to be
higher than the concrete with 20% and 60% GGBFS content.
(iv) The average gain in UPV of concrete at 180 days over and
above its corresponding value at 28 days varies from 6% to
8% for plain concrete mixes. Whereas, for GGBFS concrete
with cement replacement of 20%, 40% and 60%, the increase
in UPV is 5–9%, 9–12% and 7–10% respectively. Further, the
gain increases with increase in the percentage of GGBFS
replacement, which is due to the delayed setting of GGBFS.
IS: 13311 (Part 1) – 1992 [21] has given the range of UPV rating
M30-Plain Concrete for expressing the quality of concrete. For the excellent quality of
M31-20% GGBFS concrete UPV shall be greater than 4.5 km/s; for good concrete
M32-40% GGBFS UPV shall be 3.5–4.5 km/s; for fair or medium concrete it is 3.0–
M33-60% GGBFS
3.5 km/s and for poor concrete UPV shall be less than 3.0 km/s.
125 150 175 200 The effect of GGBFS on quality of concrete with age for all mixes
has been shown in Table 5.
The assessment of quality of concrete with age for plain con-
crete mixes shows that the quality of concrete is found to be good
at early ages. However, as the time passes, the quality of concrete
changes from good to excellent for M10 and M20 plain concrete
mixes. For plain concrete mix M30, the quality of concrete at later
ages is found to be good. The reason is that the quality of concrete
depends upon the strength of concrete and at later ages; the
strength goes on increasing for all concrete mixes. The UPV values
decreased with increase of GGBFS percentage in concrete. The
quality of concrete is found to be good in GGBFS based concrete
at early ages for all percentage replacement. However, as the time
passes, the quality of concrete changes from good to excellent for
concrete mix group M1 and M2 containing 20% and 40% GGBFS
replacement as compared with concrete mixes containing 60%
GGBFS replacement. For mix group M3, with the passage of time,
the quality of concrete is found to be good for all percent replace-
ment of GGBFS. Amongst the GGBFS based concrete, 40% GGBFS
replacement shows good to excellent quality at later ages, due to
the higher compressive strength, than the samples with 20% and
60% replacement of GGBFS in concrete.

Table 5
Effect of GGBFS on quality of concrete mixes with time.

Time (days) Quality of concrete for all twelve mix

M10 M11 M12 M13 M20 M21 M22 M23 M30 M31 M32 M33
3 G G G G G G G F G F F F
7 G G G G G G G G G G F F
28 E G G G G G G G G G G F
56 E G E G G G G G G G G G
90 E E E G E G G G G G G G
150 E E E G E G E G G G G G
180 E E E E E G E G G G G G

E = Excellent; G = Good; F/M = Fair or medium and P = Poor.

948 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950

3.3. Relationship between compressive strength and UPV For cylinder specimens:

fc0 ¼ 0:294e1:044Vp for plain concrete ð6Þ

Past studies show that, there is no unique relationship between
UPV and compressive strength of concrete [22]. However, the UPV
of concrete is affected by change in the hardened cement paste, fc0 ¼ 0:199e1:14Vp for 20% GGBFS ð7Þ
which is influenced by water/cement ratio. It has been observed
and reported, that the UPV travels faster through water-filled voids fc0 ¼ 0:1e1:29Vp for 40% GGBFS ð8Þ
as compared to concrete with air-filled voids [22]. Thus it can be
said that the UPV is also affected by moisture condition of concrete. fc0 ¼ 0:175e1:16Vp for 60% GGBFS ð9Þ
With these limitations, the UPV test can be used to assess the
where fc is cube compressive strength of concrete; is cylinder fc0
strength of concrete. These limitations also affect the strength
compressive strength of concrete; Vp is ultrasonic pulse velocity of
properties of concrete due to the addition of GGBFS in concrete
concrete.
mixes [23]. Therefore, relationship between compressive strength
Figs. 5 and 6 show that good relationship is found between
of concrete containing different percent replacement of GGBFS
compressive strength of concrete and UPV for plain concrete
and UPV has been developed.
mixes. Among GGBFS concrete mixes, for concrete mixes contain-
Figs. 5 and 6 show the relationship between cube and cylinder
ing 40% GGBFS, good relationship is found between compressive
compressive strength and UPV of all plain concrete mixes and
strength of concrete and UPV as compared with 20% and 60%
concrete mixes containing 20%, 40% and 60% replacement of GGBFS
GGBFS concrete.
respectively, at all ages. Figs. 5 and 6 can be used to asses the
strength of plain and GGBFS concrete at any age of concrete. Based
3.4. Dynamic modulus of elasticity of plain and GGBFS based concrete
on the experimental results, exponential relationship between
combined results of cube and cylinder compressive strength and
Figs. 7–9 show the development of dynamic modulus of elastic-
UPV of plain concrete and concrete containing 20%, 40% and 60%
ity with time for both plain as well as GGBFS based concrete.
GGBFS respectively has also been proposed as:
Figs. 7–9 show that the dynamic modulus of elasticity is higher
For cube specimens:
for plain concrete as compared to the concrete with cement
replacement of 20%, 40% and 60% by GGBFS at all ages and for all
fc ¼ 0:333e1:065Vp for plain concrete ð2Þ mixes. For cement replacement of 20%, the 28 days dynamic mod-
ulus of elasticity value of the plain concrete is attained within
fc ¼ 0:23e1:16Vp for 20% GGBFS ð3Þ 90 days for all mixes. For cement replacement of 40% by GGBFS, this
dynamic modulus is attained within 56–90 days of the plain con-
fc ¼ 0:114e1:13Vp for 40% GGBFS ð4Þ crete for all the mixes. The dynamic modulus of the plain concrete
could not be attained even at 180 days for cement replacement of
fc ¼ 0:195e1:19Vp for 60% GGBFS ð5Þ 60%. Amongst the different GGBFS based concrete, at early ages,
the dynamic modulus of elasticity decreases with increase in the

60 60
Cube compresive strength (MPa)

Cube compresive strength (MPa)

Plain Concrete 20% GGBFS

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s) Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)

60 60
Cube compresive strength (MPa)

Cube compresive strength (MPa)

40% GGBFS 60% GGBFS

50 50

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s) Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)

Fig. 5. Relationship between cube compressive strength and UPV for all concrete mixes.
 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950 949

Cylinder compresive strength (MPa)

Cylinder compresive strength (MPa)

50 50
Plain Concrete 20% GGBFS
40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
3.5 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.7 5 3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s) Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)

50 50
Cylinder compresive strength (MPa)

Cylinder compresive strength (MPa)

40% GGBFS 60% GGBFS

40 40

30 30

20 20

10 10

0 0
3.3 3.6 3.9 4.2 4.5 4.8 5.1 3.1 3.4 3.7 4 4.3 4.6 4.9
Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s) Ultrasonic pulse velocity (km/s)

Fig. 6. Relationship between cylinder compressive strength and UPV for all concrete mixes.

percent replacement of cement with GGBFS. After 56 days, the dy- of elasticity. The development of dynamic modulus of elasticity
namic modulus of elasticity is observed to be higher for 40% increases as the percent replacement of cement increases. The ce-
replacement than that at 20% and 60% replacement. ment replacement of 40% by GGBFS has been found to be optimum.
The dynamic modulus of elasticity development with time from
28 to 180 days is 12–16% for all plain concrete mixes whereas it is 3.5. Proposed model for dynamic modulus of elasticity with time
11–18%, 18–26% and 15–20% for 20%, 40% and 60% cement replace-
ment respectively for all GGBFS based concrete. At the age of Experimental results obtained in the present study reveal that
28 days, the variation of dynamic modulus of elasticity for 20%, the dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete depends upon the
40% and 60% GGBFS replacement is in range of 91–95%, 89–92% quality of concrete in green state, age of concrete and percent
and 81–87% respectively for all the plain concrete mixes. At the replacement of cement by GGBFS. Therefore, a model is developed
age of 180 days, this variation slightly increases in the range of for the prediction of dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete as a
92–95%, 95–98% and 84–90% of the plain concrete dynamic modu- function of age, water/cement ratio, and percentage of GGBFS con-
lus of elasticity for 20%, 40% and 60% GGBFS replacement tent. The following best-fit expression is obtained based on the
respectively. multiple regression analysis of the test data:
From the above observations, it has been found that the devel-  
t
opment of dynamic modulus of elasticity with time for GGBFS ðEd Þt ¼ ðw=cÞ0:088 expð0:061ps ÞðEd Þ28 ð10Þ
1:167 þ 0:965t
based concrete is higher than plain concrete’s dynamic modulus

55 50
Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

50 45

40
45
35
40
30
35
25
M10-Plain Concrete M20-Plain Concrete
30 M11-20% GGBFS M21-20% GGBFS
M12-40% GGBFS
20 M22-40% GGBFS
M13-60% GGBFS M23-60% GGBFS
25 15
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200
Time (days) Time (days)

Fig. 7. Evolution of dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete with age for mix Fig. 8. Evolution of dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete with age for mix
group M1. group M2.
950 M. Shariq et al. / Construction and Building Materials 40 (2013) 944–950

40 (iv) For plain concrete mixes, the increase of UPV from 28 to

Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)

180 days is 7%. Whereas, for GGBFS concrete with cement

35 replacement of 20%, 40% and 60%, the increase in UPV is
5–9%, 9–12% and 7–10% respectively.
30 (v) The 28 days UPV of plain concrete has been attained by the
GGBFS concrete with cement replacement of 20% and 40%
25 within 90 days but it is not attained even in 180 days for
60% GGBFS concrete.
20 (vi) The quality (according to Indian standard) of concrete at
M30-Plain Concrete early ages is found to be good for all concrete mixes, but at
15 M31-20% GGBFS later age, quality of concrete has been found to be excellent
M32-40% GGBFS for all plain concrete mixes. The quality of GGBFS based con-
M33-60% GGBFS
10 crete at early ages is found to be good for all percent replace-
0 25 50 75 100 125 150 175 200 ment and has been found excellent for 40% GGBFS
Time (days) replacement after the age of 28 days.
(vii) The relationship between compressive strength and UPV of
Fig. 9. Evolution of dynamic modulus of elasticity of concrete with age for mix
concrete can be used to assess the strength of concrete at
group M3.
any age and for all percentage replacement of GGBFS in
concrete.
50 (viii) A new model for time-dependent dynamic modulus of elas-
Predicted Dynamic Modulus of

45 ticity of concrete containing GGBFS has been proposed

40 which is found to be in good agreement with experimentally
35 obtained values.
Elasticity (GPa)

30 +10%

25
20
15
10
5 [3] Guide book on non-destructive testing of concrete structures. In: Training
0 course series no. 17, International atomic energy agency, Vienna; 2002.
0 5 10 15
Measured Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity (GPa)
Fig. 10. Comparison of measured and predicted values of dynamic modulus of
elasticity of concrete using proposed model.
where (Ed)t is dynamic modulus of elasticity at the age of t days in
MPa, (Ed)28 is dynamic modulus of elasticity at 28 days, (w/c) is
water to cement ratio and ps is the percentage replacement of
cement by GGBFS.
The prediction of dynamic modulus of elasticity from the above
expression has been compared with the experimentally obtained
results and is as shown in Fig. 10. It shows that the measured
and predicted values are reasonably in good agreement. Also,
92% data predicted by proposed relationship between dynamic
modulus of elasticity and time is in agreement with the experi-
mentally obtained data with an error band of ±10%.
4. Conclusions
The conclusions derived from the above experimental study are
based on specific materials, mixtures and laboratory conditions
used in the present research work are described here under:
(i) The UPV of GGBFS based concrete is lower than the plain
concrete for all replacements of cement by GGBFS at all ages
and for all the mixes.
(ii) It is observed that the 28 days curing is insufficient for con-
crete containing different percentage of GGBFS used in the
present research work.
(iii) Amongst the GGBFS based concrete, after the age of 56 days
for the concrete with cement replacement of 40% by GGBFS,
the UPV is observed to be higher than the concrete with 20%
and 60% GGBFS content. Thus, 40% cement replacement has
been found to be optimum.
References
-10%
[1] Swamy RN, Bouikni A. Some engineering properties of slag concrete as
influence by mix proportioning and curing. ACI Mater J 1990;87:210–20.
[2] ASTM C 597. Standard test method for pulse velocity through concrete, ASTM
standards, USA; 2002.
20 25 30 35 40 45 50 [4] Kaplan MF. Compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity relationship for
concrete in columns. ACI J 1958;29:675–88.
[5] Rajagopalan PR, Prakash J, Narasimhan V. Correlation between ultrasonic pulse
velocity and strength of concrete. Indian Concr J 1973:416–8.
[6] Narayanan R, Ramaswamy HS. Short-term test for the prediction of concrete
strengths using ultrasonic pulse method. Indian Concr J 1976:275–8.
[7] Reynolds WN, Wilkinson SJ, Spooner DC. Ultrasonic wave velocities in
concrete. Mag Concr Res 1978;30:139–44.
[8] Anderson DA, Seals RK. Pulse velocity as a predictor of 28- and 90-day
strength. ACI J 1981:116–22.
[9] Popovics S, Rose JL, Popovics JS. The behavior of ultrasonic pulses in concrete.
Cem Concr Res 1990;20:259–70.
[10] Kaushik SK, Jaisingh L, Jaisingh MP. Ultrasonic testing of concrete. Indian Concr
J 1995:687–93.
[11] Abdel-Jawad YA, Afaneh M. Factors affecting the relationship between
ultrasonic pulse velocity and concrete compressive strength. Indian Concr J
1997:373–6.
[12] Trtnik G, Kavcic F, Turk G. Prediction of concrete strength using ultrasonic
pulse velocity and artificial neural networks. Ultrasonics 2009;49(1):53–60.
[13] Demirboga R, Turkmen I, Karakoc MB. Relationship between ultrasonic
velocity and compressive strength for high-volume mineral-admixture
concrete. Cem Concr Res 2004;34:2329–36.
[14] Panesar DK, Chidiac SE. Ultrasonic pulse velocity for determining the early age
properties of dry-cast concrete containing ground granulated blast-furnace
slag. Can J Civ Eng 2007;34(5):682–5.
[15] Oz A, Turkmen I. Relationship between destructive and non-destructive
method of concretes containing natural zeolite and blast furnace slag. Sci
Res Essays 2010;5(18):2742–51.
[16] Atici U. Prediction of the strength of mineral admixture concrete using
multivariable regression analysis and an artificial neural network. Expert Syst
Appl 2011;38(8):9609–18.
[17] IS: 4031 (Part 1–15). Indian standard methods of physical tests for hydraulic
cement, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi; 1999.
[18] IS: 383. Indian standards specification for coarse and fine aggregates from
natural sources for concrete, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi, India;
1970.
[19] IS: 456. Indian standard code for design of plain and reinforced concrete
structures, Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, India; 2000.
[20] IS: 10262. Indian Standard: Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, India; 1982.
[21] IS: 13311 (Part-1). Non-destructive testing of concrete – methods of tests,
Bureau of Indian Standard, New Delhi, India; 1992.
[22] Neville AM. Properties of concrete. Singapore: Pearson Education Pte. Ltd.; 2005.
[23] Shariq M, Prasad J, Masood A. Effect of GGBFS on time dependent compressive
strength of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2010;24:1469–78.