14MCLC07

Study on Mechanical And
Durability Properties of
Engineered Cementitious Composites Using
Polypropylene Fibers
By
Nagesh J. Mehta
14MCLC07
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NIRMA UNIVERSITY
AHMEDABAD-382481
MAY-2016
.
Study on Mechanical And
Durability Properties of
Engineered Cementitious Composites Using
Polypropylene Fibers
Major Project Report
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Master of Technology
in
Civil Engineering
(Computer Aided Structure Analysis and Design)
By
Nagesh J. Mehta
(14MCLC07)
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
NIRMA UNIVERSITY
AHMEDABAD-382481
MAY-2016
.
Declaration
This is to certify that
a. The thesis comprises my original work towards the Degree of Master of Technology in
Civil Engineering (Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design) at Nirma University
and has not been submitted elsewhere for a degree.
b. Due acknowledgment has been made in the text to all other materials used.
Nagesh J. Mehta
.
Certificate
This is to certify that Major Project entitled ”Study on Mechanical And Durabil-
ity Properties of Engineered Cementitious Composites Using Polypropylene
Fibers” submitted by Mr. Nagesh J. Mehta(14MCLC07), towards the partial ful-
fillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Technology in Civil Engineering
(Computer Aided Structural Analysis and Design) of Nirma University, Ahmedabad is
the record of work carried out by him under my supervision and guidance. In my opin-
ion, the submitted work has reached a level required for being accepted for examination.
The results embodied in this major project, to the best of my knowledge, haven’t been
submitted to any other university or institution for award of any degree or diploma.
Dr. Urmil V. Dave Dr. P. V. Patel

Guide and Professor, Head of Department,
Department of Civil Engineering, Department of Civil Engineering,
Institute of Technology, Institute of Technology,
Nirma University, Nirma University,
Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad.
Dr. P. N. Tekwani
Director, Examiner
Institute of Technology,
Nirma University,
Ahmedabad. Date of Examination
.
Abstract
Fiber present in cementitious matrix tends to reinforce the performance of the composite
under any mode of loading. The bond between fiber and matrix elevates the performance
of that composite material. Ductile nature and tight crack width are two unique feature of
Engineered cementitious not seen in Fiber reinforce concrete. This makes ECC superior
to normal concrete which possess inherent weakness in terms of brittle nature.
Todays construction industry is very cost sensitive. Cost effectiveness, feasibility and
beneficiary are the three main requirements when any material is introduced to commer-
cial market. Since fibers increases the cost of the composite and due to lack of knowledge
about its dosage or optimum proportion its acceptability is affected. Fiber proportion
can be optimized provided the ductile nature of ECC is not compromised.
ECC mixture consumes higher cement content approximately three to five times than
that of normal concrete. The best way to tackle with this problem is to substitute cement
by industrial by product well know as GGBS (Ground granulated blast furnace slag) pro-
vided the green ECC should show satisfactory performance as compared to ECC.
In this investigation performance of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes for varying polypropy-
lene fiber dosage is evaluated. Mechanical properties like compression, flexure, split tensile
strength, impact energy, abrasion resistance and bond strength are evaluated. Dumbbell
shaped specimen are also prepared and tested for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes in order
to observe its performance under direct tension.
Test result reflects that gradual increment is observed with increase in fiber dosage for
flexural strength,split tensile strength,direct tensile strength of all ECC and ECC-GGBS
mixes at age of 28 and 56 days. GGBS also increases the mechanical properties of all
ECC-GGBS mixes after 28 days .Abrasion resistance also increases with increase in fiber
dosage. ECC-GGBS mixes shows lesser wear resistance as compared to ECC mixes for
same fiber dosage at 28 days.
Fiber contributes significantly for increasing impact energy of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes
at the age of 28 days.Ductile failure is observed of all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes while
brittle failure is observed for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes without fibers.Bendable nature
of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes has been observed by conducting plate test and it is also
observed that bendability increases with increase in fiber dosage and age. Polypropylene
Fibers has a tendency to diminish the crack width furthermore restrains the crack prolif-
eration.
To study the effect of local environmental condition on ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes.
Different durability test like acid attack, chloride attack and sulphate attack are also car-
ried out at 30 and 60 days respectively.
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes without fiber losses higher measure of mass and compressive
strength when compared with ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes with fibers under sulphuric
acid, sodium chloride and sodium sulphate exposure respectively .Resistance against acid
attack,chloride attack and sulphate attack increases with increase in fiber dosage.
x
It is observed that ECC-GGBS mixes shows much better performance as compared to

ECC mixes against acid attack,chloride attack and sulphate attack for same amount of
fiber dosage.Because GGBS reduces the amount of calcium hydroxide in aggregate paste
interface resulting in more dense and strong micro structure
.
Acknowledgement
I would first of all like to thank Dr.U.V.Dave, Guide M.Tech. Department of Civil En-
gineering (CASAD), Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad whose keen
interest and excellent knowledge base helped me to carry out the dissertation work. His
constant support and interest in the subject equipped me with a great understanding of
different aspects of the project work.
I further extend my thanks to Dr. P. V. Patel, Head, Department of Civil Engineer-

ing, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad and Dr. P. N. Tekwani,
Director, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad for providing all kind of
required resources during my study.
My sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. S. P. Purohit, Professor, Department of Civil

Engineering, Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad for his continual kind
words of encouragement throughout the Dissertation work.
I am thankful to Mr. P. N. Raval, Laboratory Assistant, Concrete technology lab-

oratory, Nirma University for his assistance during testing.
I am highly indebted to Almighty, my family members and my friends by whose blessings,

endless love and support, help me to complete my study and encouraged me in all possible
way.
Abbreviation, Notation and Nomenclature
ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite

FRC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiber Reinforced Concrete
GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ground Granulated Blast Furnance Slag
ECC-GGBS . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% ground
granulated blast furnace slag
ECC-0% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite with 0% fiber dosage.
ECC-1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite with 1% fiber dosage.
ECC-1.5% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite with 1.5% fiber dosage.
ECC-GGBS-0% . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% ground
granulated blast furnace slag and 0% fiber dosage.
ECC-GGBS-1% . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% ground
granulated blast furnace slag and 1% fiber dosage.
ECC-GGBS-1.5% . . Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% ground
granulated blast furnace slag and 1.5% fiber dosage.
ECC-Flyash-1% Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% flyash and
1% fiber dosage.
ECC-Flyash-1.5% . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite incorporated with 20% flyash
and 1.5% fiber dosage.
MoE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Modulus of Elasticity
Contents
Declaration v
Certificate vii
Abstract ix
Acknowledgement xii
Abbreviation, Notation and Nomenclature xiii
Contents xvi
List of Tables xviii
List of Figures xxi
1 Introduction 1
1.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Need of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.3 Objectives of Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.5 Organisation of Major Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2 Literature Review 9
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Literature review on mechanical properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Flexural Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
2.2.3 Impact Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.4 Split Tenslie Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.5 Pull out Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.2.6 Plate Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.3 Literature Review on Durability Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
xiv
xv CONTENTS
2.3.1 Chloride Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

2.3.2 Rapid Chloride Penetration Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.3.3 Drying Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.4 Findings From Literature Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3 Experimental Programme 21
3.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2 Material Properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.1 Cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.2 GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
3.2.3 Polypropylene Fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.4 Aggregrate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.2.5 Admixure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.6 Marsh Cone Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.2.7 Priliminary Investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
3.3 Testing of Plain ECC Mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3.1 Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3.2 Split Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.3.3 Modulus of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.3.4 Flexural Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.3.5 Bond Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.3.6 Direct Tension Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.3.7 Abrasion Resistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.8 Impact Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
3.3.9 Acid Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.10 Chloride Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
3.3.11 Sulphate Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
4 Results of Mechanical Properties and Discussion 49

4.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.2 Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.3 Compressive Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.4 Split Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
4.5 Modulus Of Elasticity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.6 Flexural Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.7 Bond Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.8 Direct Tensile Strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
4.9 Abrasion Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.10 Impact Energy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.11 Plate Elements under Flexural Loading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.12 Crack Width Measurement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.13 Flexural Testing on Plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
5 Results of Durability Properties and Discussion 81

5.1 General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.2 Acid Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
5.3 Chloride Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
CONTENTS xvi
5.4 Sulphate Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
6 Concluding Remarks and Future Scope of Work 101

6.1 Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.2 Concluding Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
6.3 Future Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
Appendix A 104
Bibliography 105
List of Tables
1.1 Different ECC mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

1.2 Mechanical Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.3 Durability Test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2.1 Various Mixes Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Various Mixes Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Comparision for steel and recron 3s fiber ECC for Flexure Strength . . . . 12
2.4 Mix Design for SHCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1 Physical Properties of cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

3.2 Chemical Properties of Cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Properties of GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.4 Properties of Polypropylene Fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.5 Gradation of Coarse Aggregate (10 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.6 Gradation of Coarse Aggregate (20 mm) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.7 Gradation of Fine Aggregate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
3.8 Chemical Admixure properties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.9 Marshcone Test Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
3.10 Compressive Strength of trail mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
3.11 Split Tensile Strength of trial mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
3.12 Compressive strength of ECC-GGBS and ECC-Flyash mixes . . . . . . . . 33
3.13 Split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS and ECC-Flyash mixes . . . . . . . . 33
3.14 Mix design of ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.15 Mix design of ECC-GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.1 Density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
4.2 Compressive Strength result of ECC mixes at different days . . . . . . . . 52
4.3 Split tensile strength of ECC mixes at different days . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
4.4 Modulus of Elasticity for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4.5 Flexural strength result of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.6 Bond Strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.7 Direct Tensile Strength of ECC mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.8 Direct Tensile Strength of ECC-GGBS mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
4.9 Weight loss of abrasion specimens for ECC mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.10 Weight loss of abrasion specimen for ECC-GGBS mix . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.11 Percentage weight loss of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix after abrasion test . . 75
4.12 Impact Result of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.13 Impact Energy of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
xvii
LIST OF TABLES xviii
4.14 Dimensions and result of plate elements under flexural loading . . . . . . . 78

4.15 Dimension of specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure . . 83
5.2 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure . . 84
5.3 Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric
acid exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
5.4 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix under chloride exposure . . . 88
5.5 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under chloride exposure . . . . . 89
5.6 Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after chloride
exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
5.7 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under sodium sulpahte exposure 95
5.8 Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under sodium sulphate exposure 96
5.9 Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sodium
sulphate exposure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
List of Figures
1.1 Mihara Bridge, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.2 ECC link slab , Grover street bridge, Michigan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Scope of Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1 Compressive Strength for various ECC mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

2.2 Flexural strength for various cement:sand ratio . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Flexural strength for various ECC mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.4 Split tensile strength for varying recron fiber dosage . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.5 Pull out test result for various fibers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.6 Crack width from crack viewr FCV30 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.7 Mix design of ECC and ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.8 Chloride penetration depth . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.9 Geometry of dumbbell shaped specimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.10 Chloride penetration into neat SHCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.11 Chloride penetration for water repellent SHCC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
2.12 Continious air curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.13 Continious wet curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.14 Wet/Dry curing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.15 Mix proportion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2.16 Drying Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
2.17 Autogeneous Shrinkage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.1 Close View of Polypropylene Fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

3.2 Marsh cone test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
3.3 Pan Mixture Machine for ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
3.4 Plain ECC Cube in Compression Testing Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
3.5 Test Setup for Split Tensile Strength of ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.6 Test Setup for Modulus of Elasticity of ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
3.7 Flexure Test Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.8 Plain ECC Beam in Flexure Testing Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
3.9 Bond Test ECC Specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.10 Bond Strength Test of Reinforced ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.11 Geometry of Direct Tension Test Specimen and Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.12 Dorry Abrasion Machine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
3.13 Drop-Weight Test Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.1 % Increase in Density of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixe w.r.t ECC-0% . . . . 50
xix
LIST OF FIGURES xx
4.2 % Increase in compressive Strength of ECC With increase in fiber dosage

and days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.3 % Increase in compressive strength of ECC-GGBS With increase in fiber
dosage and days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
4.4 % Increase in compressive strength of ECC as compared to ECC-GGBS . . 54
4.5 % Increase in compressive strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes
at 56 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.6 Ductile and Brittle failure of Cube specimens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
4.7 % Increment in split tensile strength of ECC with increase in fiber dosage
and days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.8 % Increment in split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS with increase in fiber
dosage and days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
4.9 % Increase in split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS as compared to ECC . . 59
4.10 % Increase in split tensile strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at
56 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
4.11 Failed specimens of ECC under split tensile strength . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.12 Stress-strain curve for ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix at 56 days . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.13 Increment in Modulus of Elasticity for different ECC mixes at 56 days w.r.t
28 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.14 % Increase in modulus of elasticity of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes
at 56 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.15 % Increment in flexural strength of ECC with increase in fiber dosage and
days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.16 % Increment in flexural strength of ECC-GGBS with increase in fiber
dosage and days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
4.17 % Increment in Flexural Strength of ECC-GGBS as compared to ECC . . 66
4.18 % Increase in flexural strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at 56
days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
4.19 % Increment in bond strength at 56 days w.r.t to 28 days . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.20 Load v/s slip for ECC at age of 28 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
4.21 % Increase in bond strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at 56 days 70
4.22 Load v/s Displacement for ECC at 28 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.23 % Increase in direct tensile strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes
at 56 days . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
4.24 Failed specimens of ECC under direct tension test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.25 % Weight loss after abrasion test for ECC mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
4.26 failed specimens of ECC under impact test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.27 Failed specimens of ECC-GGBS under impact test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77
4.28 Preperation and testing of plate elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.29 Bending of plates and cracking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.30 Crack measurement on 10mm plate for ECC-1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.31 Plate specimen of 10mm thickness of ECC-1% . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.32 Testing of plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
4.33 Testing of plates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
5.1 Visual Apperance of ECC after Sulphuric Acid Exposure . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.2 Visual Apperance of ECC-GGBS after Sulphuric Acid Exposure . . . . . . 82
5.3 % Reduction in Mass of ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure . . . . . 82
xxi LIST OF FIGURES
5.4 % Reduction in Mass of ECC after sulphuric acid exposure . . . . . . . . . 85

5.5 % Reduction in compressive strength after Acid Exposure of ECC . . . . . 85
5.6 % Reduction in compressive strength after Acid Exposure of ECC . . . . . 86
5.7 Change in Ultrasonic Pulse Velosity for Acid Exposure of ECC . . . . . . . 87
5.8 % Gain in mass for ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.9 % Gain in mass for ECC-GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
5.10 % Reduction in compressive strength for ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.11 % Reduction in compressive strength for ECC-GGBS . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
5.12 Change in Ultrasonic Pulse velocity for Chloride Exposure of ECC . . . . . 93
5.13 Visual appearance of ECC specimens after sulphate exposure . . . . . . . . 93
5.14 Visual appearance of ECC-GGBS specimens after sulphate exposure . . . . 94
5.15 % Gain in mass for ECC when exposed to sodium sulphate . . . . . . . . . 97
5.16 % Gain in mass for ECC-GGBS when exposed to sodium sulphate . . . . . 97
5.17 Reduction in compressive strength for ECC when exposed to sodium sulphate 99
5.18 Reduction in compressive strength for ECC-GGBS when exposed to sodium
sulphate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
5.19 Change in Ultrasonic Pulse velocity for Sulphate Exposure of ECC . . . . 100
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 General
Concrete which is basically referred as brittle material but can exhibit ductility when
Reinforced with appropriate fiber dosage. Since last few decades trend of using fibers
for producing ready mixed concrete, shotcrete and precast concrete has been increased
significantly. Fibers manufactured from different materials like steel, glass, wood, jute,
plastic etc. and synthetic fibers like polypropylene, carbon, polyester etc. are used for
making concrete. Fibers are used in ECC in low volume dosage generally up to 2 percent
by volume, various properties including durability of ECC can be enhanced when used in
high dosages. Engineered cementitious composite belongs to family of FRC (fiber rein-
forced ECC) it is also known as bendable concrete, it exhibits ductility due to multiple
crack formation because of its strain hardening behavior. ECC consists of same materi-
als as that of normal concrete just use of coarse aggregates is eliminated as it leads to
nonuniform distribution of fiber in matrix and results into fiber lumping which affects
strain hardening behavior and ultimately to its ductility. Fiber distribution or disper-
sion is very important property reduction in the effective fiber number at phase of failure
may reduce tensile capacity because of this micro silica sand with size 110 micro meter
is sometimes used in ECC mixture Because Cement content in ECC is approximately 5
times more than that used in normal concrete it leads to high cost followed by high heat
of hydration and shrinkage. High cement content also leads to increase in carbon di-oxide
emission into atmosphere contributing to air pollution and global warming. Since last
several decades replacement of cement using fly ash or ground granulated blast furnace
slag has also increased.In countries like Korea and America bottom ash is also effectively
and successfully used as material in ECC Engineered cementitious composite have been
used in many areas of civil engineering field like bridge deck, repair and rehabilitation etc.
Some of the example are shown in Figure 1.1 and 1.2.
1
CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 2
Figure 1.1: Mihara Bridge, Japan
Figure 1.2: ECC link slab , Grover street bridge, Michigan

3 CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1.2 Need of Study

Three major challenges for todays civil engineers are safety, durability and sustainable
development. Huge amount of money is spent for repair and rehabilitation of structures
every year.The cost of infrastructure system can be economized by partial replacement of
cement with GGBS thereby developing green ECC and further reducing the emission of
green house gases. ECC has potential to be used in various civil engineering application.
But before this material can be used in a commercial application there are number of issues
that need to be addressed such as type of fiber to be selected and its optimum dosage
required. The performance of ECC also need to be evaluated for different mechanical and
durability properties according to local environmental conditions.
1.3 Objectives of Study

To study various parameters following objectives are decided for major project.
• To evaluate change in various mechanical properties such as compressive strength,

flexural strength, split tensile strength and modulus of elasticity for ECC mixes with
varying fiber dosage and GGBS proportion at age of 28 and 60 days respectively.
• To compare the performance of ECC by varying fiber dosage and amount of GGBS
proportion in terms of parameters such as impact energy and abrasion at the age of
28 days.
• To observe the change in bond strength and direct tensile strength of ECC for
varying fiber dosage and GGBS proportion. at 28 and 60 days respectively.
• To study the change in durability properties such as sulphate reistance,chloride

resistance and acid resistance of ECC for varying fiber dosage and GGBS proportion.
• To observe the behaviour of ECC plates with varying GGBS proportion under flex-
ural loading.
1.4 Scope of Work

The present investigation consists of evaluation of mechanical and durability properties of
ECC. ECC and ECC-GGBS are two different types of mixes cast using varying dosages
of fibers during the experimental work.
Scope of work is divided into various phases as enlisted below.Figure 1.3 shows the
schematic diagram of scope of work.
Figure 1.3: Scope of Work

Phase 1:
1 Table 1.1 shows different trials of cement to sand ratio used for ECC mix with three
different fiber dosages.
Table 1.1: Different ECC mix
Sr. No Cement:Sand Ratio Fiber Dosage

1 1:0.5 1%,1.5% and 2%
2 1:1 1%,1.5% and 2%
3 1:1.5 1%,1.5% and 2%
2 Selection of optimum dosage of polypropylene fibers and cement to sand ratio for ECC
mix is based on trial mixes results of compressive strength and split tensile strength.
3 At the end of phase:1, cement to sand ratio (1:0.5) is opted along with 1% and 1.5%
fiber dosage for further investigation on ECC.
Phase 2:
1 Replacement of cement content by fly ash and GGBS.
2 Trial mixes are carried out for cement to sand ratio (1:0.5) with 1.5% fiber dosage by
partial replacement of cement by 20% GGBS. Similarly another mix was prepared by
20% Fly ash replacement.
3 At the end of phase 2: 20% GGBS as partial replacement of cement is opted for further
investigation on ECC.
Phase 3:
1 Table 1.2 represents different mechanical tests to be conducted for ECC along with
dimension of the specimens and day of testing and their respective codal provisions.
2 Four specimens are cast for abrasion resistance to evaluate average results.Three spec-
imens are cast for other mechanical test to take the average result.
Table 1.2: Mechanical Test
Sr. No Name of Test: Days

Compression IS 516 [18]
1 28 56
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
Flexure IS 516 [18]
2 28 56
100 mm × 100 mm × 500mm
Split Tensile IS 5816 [17]
3 28 56
150 mm × 300mm
Modulus of Elasticity IS 516 [18]
4 28 56
150 mm × 300mm
Bond strength IS 2770 [22]
5 28 56
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
Impact test ACI 544.2R [25]
6 28 -
152 mm × 63.5mm
Abrasion test IS 2386 [26]
7 28 -
86 mm × 50 mm ×32mm
Direct tension test [13]
8 28 56
100 mm × 100 mm ×540mm
Plate test [18]
9 28 -
100 mm × 10 mm ×10mm
Phase 4:
1 Table 1.3 represents different types of durability test to be conducted for ECC along
with dimensions of specimens and their respective codal provisions.
2 Durability test and its results will resemble the suitability of ECC for local environ-
mental condition.
Table 1.3: Durability Test
Sr. No Name of Test: Days

Chloride Resistance IS 4456 [27]
1 30 60
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
Sulphate Resistance IS 4456 [27]
2 30 60
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
Acid Resistance IS 4456 [27]
3 30 60
150 mm × 150 mm × 150 mm
1.5 Organisation of Major Project

This investigation is related to mechanical and durability properties of ECC for different
fiber dosage and GGBS proportion.Brief overview of each chapter and related content has
been explained briefly below.
• Chapter 1 deals with introduction of ECC. Need of study,objective of study and
scope of work has been discussed in this chapter.
• Chapter 2 includes literature review based on different research work carried out by
various researchers related to major project.It comprises of mix proportioning and
various types of fibers,mechanical properties and durability properties of ECC.
• Chapter 3 includes material properties, casting and testing procedure to be carried

out for evaluation of mechanical & durability properties of ECC.It also includes mix
design procedure of ECC.
• Chapter 4 contains results and discussion on mechanical properties of ECC.It also

consists of results and discussion related to plate elements of ECC.It also discuss
about crack width measurement and behaviour of ECC plates under flexural loading.
• Chapter 5 includes all results and discussion related to durability property of ECC.
• Chapter 6 comprises of concluding remarks,summary and recommendation for future

scope of work on the basis of work carried out in major project.
Chapter 2
Literature Review
2.1 Introduction
To accomplish the objective as mentioned in chapter 1 literature review related to various
aspects have been carried out.Here number of literature has been studied covering vari-
ous aspects such utilization of different types of fibers in ECC,fiber dosage,replacement
of cement with fly ash,replacement of cement with GGBS etc and number of research
conducted by researches are summarised in this chapter.
2.2 Literature review on mechanical properties
2.2.1 Compressive Strength

Li and Lepech[1] investigated that for cement to sand to fly ash ratio 1:0.8:1.2 with
water content 0.56% and using 2% of PVA (poly vinyl alcohol) fibers and 1.2% of high
range water reducers the compressive strength for 4,7,14 and 28 days was found to be
30.31, 51.96, 61.52 and 64.20 MPa respectively.
Zhuge et al.[2] adopted two different ECC mix design by varying water to cement
ratio and cement to aggregate ratio, the first mix was of lightweight ECC having 2%
of superplasticizer, 0.25 water content and 1:0.36 cement to sand ratio for PVA fibers
(poly vinyl alcohol) having proportion of 0%, and 1.5% the compressive strength for 28
days was found to be 22 and 68 MPa respectively. For second mix of ECC having 2% of
superplasticizer , 0.43 water content and 1:1 cement to sand ratio for PVA fibers (poly
vinyl alcohol) having proportion of 0%, and 2% the compressive strength for 28 days was
found to be 15 and 36 MPa respectively.
Zhuge et al.[2] developed an innovative lightweight ECC by replacing a fraction volume of
cement with lightweight hollow glass microsphere additives. For the first mix of lightweight
ECC having 2% of superplasticizer, 0.30 water content and 1:0.46 cement to sand ratio
for PVA fibers (poly vinyl alcohol) having proportion of 1.5% and spherical additives of
10% the compressive strength for 28 days was found to be 63 MPa. For second mix of
9
CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW 10
having 2% of superplasticizer , 0.45 water content and 1:1 cement to sand ratio for PVA
fibers (poly vinyl alcohol) having proportion of 2% and spherical additives of 10% the
compressive strength for 28 days was found to be 33 MPa.
Bang et al.[3] investigated that by replacing the cement content of ECC by fly ash (FA)
silica sand (SS) by 25% and the fine aggregates are replaced by bottom ash at the rate of
10%,20% and 30% for water to binder ratio 0.60,PVA fiber at the rate of 2%. mix design
and compressive strength result as shown below in Table 2.1 and Fig 2.1 respectively.
Table 2.1: Various Mixes Adopted
Blast
Fly Silica Bottom
Mixture Cement Furnace PCSP
Ash Sand Ash
Designation (kg/m3 ) Slag (% of binders)
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 )
(kg/m3 )
References ECC 758 0 0 609 0 0
ECC-FA 569 190 0 537 0 0.20
ECC-SL 569 0 190 598 0 0.10
ECC-FASL 569 95 95 568 0 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA10% 569 95 95 511 57 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA20% 569 95 95 454 114 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA20% 569 95 95 397 171 0.20
Figure 2.1: Compressive Strength for various ECC mixes
2.2.2 Flexural Strength

Rathod[4] investigated for ECC having for w/c ratio 0.35 and superplasticizer dosage
at the rate of 2% and recron 3s fiber dosage at the rate of 4% for cement to sand ratio
11 CHAPTER 2. LITERATURE REVIEW
1:0.5, 1:1, 1:1.5, and 1:2 respectively beams were casted for 20 and 30 mm depth flexural
strength observed after 28 days is as shown in Figure.2.2.
Bang et al.[3] investigated that by replacing the cement content of ECC by fly ash (FA)
silica sand(SS) by 25% and the fine aggregates are replaced by bottom ash at the rate
of 10%,20% and 30%. Various Mix proportion adopted are as shown in Table 2.1 and
flexural strength for various ECC as shown in Figure 2.3.
Figure 2.2: Flexural strength for various cement:sand ratio
Table 2.2: Various Mixes Adopted
Blast
Fly Silica Bottom
Mixture Cement Furnace PCSP
Ash Sand Ash
Designation (kg/m3 ) Slag (% of binders)
(kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 ) (kg/m3 )
(kg/m3 )
References ECC 758 0 0 609 0 0
ECC-FA 569 190 0 537 0 0.20
ECC-SL 569 0 190 598 0 0.10
ECC-FASL 569 95 95 568 0 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA10% 569 95 95 511 57 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA20% 569 95 95 454 114 0.20
ECC-FASL-BA20% 569 95 95 397 171 0.20
Figure 2.3: Flexural strength for various ECC mixes
Halvaei et al.[5] incorporated low modulus fibers like acrylic, polypropylene and ny-
lon 66 for ECC mix 1:0.8:1.2 ratio of cement to sand to fly ash, for water content 0.56
and superplasticizer at the rate of 1% for fiber dosage at the rate of 2% The flexural
strength observed after 28 days of curing is 7.64 MPa,6.58 MPa and 7.20 MPa for acrylic,
polypropylene and nylon 66 fibers respectively.
Patodi et al.[4] investigated that for, 500 mm long beam samples having 100 mm x 20 mm
and 100 mm x 45 mm cross sections were tested under four point loading arrangement
for 1:0.5 cement to sand ratio , fly ash content of 0% to 30% ,Comparison between
performance of 4% Recron and 3% steel fiber is made they observed that steel fiber ECC
failure pattern was like brittle while for recron fiber ECC failure pattern was like fracture
controlled brittle nature similar to that of normal ECC, results are as shown in Table 2.3
Table 2.3: Comparision for steel and recron 3s fiber ECC for Flexure Strength
C:S Ratio Beam Fly Ash Ultimate (N/mm2 )

Depth (%) Strength Steel
(mm) Recron fiber
Fiber
1:0.5 20 0 6.42 2.86
1.05 20 30 8.25 3.76
1.05 45 0 6.20 4.33
1.05 45 30 8.01 5.05
2.2.3 Impact Energy

Patel et al.[4] investigated that for ECC with w/c ratio 0.35, 1:0.5 cement to sand
ratio and recron 3s fiber at rate of 4% having superplasticizer dosage of 1% and for self-
compacting ECC(SCECC) with w/c ratio 0.35, 1:1.5 cement to sand ratio and recron 3s
fiber at the rate of 1% having 1% superplasticizer doasage the impact strength in avg.
no of blows after 28 days of curing was found out to be 297 and 59 for ECC and SCECC
respectively.
Rathod[6] investigated that for steel and recron 3s fiber having dosage 3% by volume of
cement having 1:0.5 cement to sand ratio, 0.35 w/c ratio and superplasticizer dosage of
1% for 0% and 30% fly ash replacement impact strength in avg. no of blows after 28 days
of curing is 19,11,297 and 201 for steel fiber ECC ,steel fiber ECC with 30% fly ash ,for
recron fiber ECC and recron fiber ECC with 30% fly ash respectively.
2.2.4 Split Tenslie Strength

Li and Lepech[1] investigated that for cement to sand to fly ash ratio 1:0.8:1.2 with
water content 0.56% and using 2% of PVA (poly vinyl alcohol) fibers and 1.2% of high
range water reducers the tensile strength for 4,7,14 a 28 days was found to be 4.80 MPa,
5.34 MPa, 5.52 MPa and 5.94 MPa respectively.
Patodi et al.[8] investigated for 1:0.5 cement to sand ratio with 0.35 w/c ratio having 0.6
% superplasticizer dosage for recron fiber upto 5% in fraction briquette specimen tested
for flexural test after 28 days of curing, load v/s displacement graph as shown in Figure
2.4.
Figure 2.4: Split tensile strength for varying recron fiber dosage
2.2.5 Pull out Test

Halvaei et al.[5] incorporated low modulus fibers like acrylic, polypropylene and nylon
66 for ECC mix 1:0.8:1.2 ratio of cement to sand to fly ash, for water content 0.56 and
superplasticizer at the rate of 1% for fiber dosage at the rate of 2% pullout length observed
after 28 days of curing is as shown in Figure 2.5
Figure 2.5: Pull out test result for various fibers
2.2.6 Plate Test

Cleopatra et al.[12] investigated for the effect of plate thickness on the crack width
and crack propagation characteristics.ECC plates of dimension 40 × 400 was opted along
with varying thickness of 10, 20 and 30 mm respectively.The common thickness used for
repair and rehabilitation ranges from 10 to 30 mm this was the logic behind the selection
of plate thickness.As shown in Figure 2.6 Crack viewer FCV30 was utilized for measuring
crack width.Crack width ranges from 0.08 to 0.1 mm for thickness of plate from 10mm
to 30mm. It was also observed the increase in plate thickness has no significant effect on
crack width and crack propagation of ECC.
Figure 2.6: Crack width from crack viewr FCV30

2.3 Literature Review on Durability Properties
2.3.1 Chloride Attack

Li et al.[9] investigated for chloride penetration for ECC and ECC Mix design is as shown
in Figure 2.7 For each mix φ75 x 150 mm cylinders were prepared and after 28 days of
Figure 2.7: Mix design of ECC and ECC
curing specimens were sealed with silicon coating expect their bottoms and they were
kept under 3% NaCl solution at room temperature, cylinder was tested under split tensile
test and split opened and sprayed with 0.1N silver nitrate solution after every 30,60 and
90 days of immersion because of reaction silver nitrate in the nonchloride effected zone
turns brown and effected zone turns into white,result of chloride penetration depth is as
shown in Figure 2.8.
Figure 2.8: Chloride penetration depth

Table 2.4: Mix Design for SHCC
Sr.no Material Quantity

1 Cement 715 kg/m3
2 Sand 715 kg/m3
3 Silica fume 26 kg/m3
4 Water 429 kg/m3
5 Fly Ash 306 kg/m3
6 PVA Fibers 2% by vol.
Zang et al.[10] investigated for chloride penetration for which dumbbell shaped specimens
were prepared and part of them are prepared by adding 2% aqueous silane solution for
achieving water repellent SHCC(strain hardening cementitious composite),geometry of
dumbbell shape specimen is as shown in Figure 2.4.Table 2.9 represents mix design of
SHCC. At the age of 14 days a tensile strain of 2%,1% and 0.5% has been applied to
Figure 2.9: Geometry of dumbbell shaped specimen
specimens under UTM, the ends of the specimen are removed or cut off by means of
diamond saw and so the specimen of following dimension was obtained 90 x 65 x 30 mm
and they were loaded in compression upto100% and 50% of the ultimate load, chloride
penetration is measured for damaged and undamaged blocks for which specimens are kept
under 5% NaCl solution for 11 hours and then surface layer of each blocks were grounded
successfully with diamond grinding head ,the powder obtained by the means of grinding
is used to measure chloride content by utilizing ion sensitive electrode. Result of chloride
penetration profile for neat and water repellent SHCC specimens as shown in Figure 2.10
and 2.11.
Figure 2.10: Chloride penetration into neat SHCC
Figure 2.11: Chloride penetration for water repellent SHCC

For neat SHCC with 100% compressive load more chloride has penetrated as comapred
to 50% compressive load while as also compared to specimen prepared with water repel-
lent solution for 100% compressive load hence water repellent treatment has significantly
reduced the chloride penetration depth.
2.3.2 Rapid Chloride Penetration Test

Shamran et al.[11] studied the performance of ECC in terms of chloride permeability,two
ECC mixtures having fly ash to cement ratio (FA/PC) of 1.2 and 2.2, (W/CM) of 0.27
and (ECC-1 and ECC-2,respectively) were prepared Polyvinyl alcohol (PVA) fibers, and
superplasticizer (SP) were used .For chloride ion penetration under splitting tensile loading
disc shaped specimens of different mixture were pre-loaded to 0.75, 1.00 and 1.25 mm
deformation level to obtain various number of Micro cracks prior exposure to various
curing conditions .Three different curing regimes (CA continuous air, W/D wet/dry
cycle and CW continuous wet) were used to put on different environmental exposures
the results obtained are as shown in Figure 2.12, 2.13 and 2.14 respectively.It was also
observed that chloride ion penetration decreases with time However, after 60 days CW
and W/D curing, hydrated cement and FA particles remains hydrated results into reduced
pore sizes along with densified matrix and reduces the chloride ion permeability of the
ECC-2 drastically.
Figure 2.12: Continious air curing

Figure 2.13: Continious wet curing
Figure 2.14: Wet/Dry curing
2.3.3 Drying Shrinkage

Li and shuxin[9] investigated Drying Shrinkage by using polyvinyl alcohol fiber. The
PVA fiber having length of 12 mm, diameter of 39 m, Youngs modulus of 25.8 MPa.In
order to reduce interface bond the surface of fiber was treated with oil coating to and the
oiling proportion is 1.2%.The volume fraction of fiber is 2% and fly ash of class F. The
mix design of PVA-ECC (referred as M45) is given in Figure 2.15. Drying shrinkage test
Figure 2.15: Mix proportion
was carried out according to ASTM C157/C157M-99 and C596-01. The specimens were
demolded after one day before they were shifted to various humidity environments they
were placed in water for 2 days and the measurement was started. Because of the high
binder content in ECC, the drying shrinkage of PVA-ECC M45 is near about 80% more
than normal structural ECC. autogenous deformation was measured in the first two days,
primarily due to chemical shrinkage,results of drying shrinkage as shown in Figure 2.16
and 2.17.
Figure 2.16: Drying Shrinkage
Figure 2.17: Autogeneous Shrinkage
2.4 Findings From Literature Review

Through various literature review it has been observed that by incorporation of differ-
ent types of fibers like poly vinyl alcohol,polypropylene fibers and steel fibers flexural
strength,split tensile strength and direct tensile strength increases gradually.Significant
amount of increment is also observed in compressive strength,bond strength and modulus
of elasticity.Partial Replacement of cement by fly ash,GGBS and bottom ash also elevates
the performance of ECC at later age.Performance of ECC with steel fibers in terms of
impact energy and abrasion resistance is more as compared to ECC with polypropylene
fibers.Crack width measurement of ECC incorporated with poly vinly alcohol fibers is
also done to measure its tight width crack ability.And it also shows high performance in
durability properties like chloride attack,Freeze thaw etc.
Chapter 3
Experimental Programme
3.1 General
In this chapter, material properties, mix design procedures adopted, method of casting
employed, evaluation of mechanical properties of PCC elements,test setup of the speci-
mens, test procedures and test parameters are covered.
3.2 Material Properties

Materials used for the experimental investigation are processed GGBS as source material,
Ordinary Portland Cement, aggregates,water and admixture.
3.2.1 Cement
53 grade ordinary Portland cement is used for the experimental work. The physical and
chemical properties are given by ”Nirmax” cement manufacture company. The chemical
and physical properties of cement are presented in Table 3.1 and Table 3.2 respectively.
3.2.2 GGBS
GGBS is used in present experimental investigation. GGBS supplied by Stallion Engery
Ltd., Rajkot, Gujarat. The properties of GGBS as given by manufacturer is shown in
Table 3.3.
Wet Sieve Analysis

Wet sieving test is conducted for evaluating the percentage of material passing 45-micron
sieve. In this test, 100 gm of GGBS is taken in 45-micron sieve. The material is washed
with a jet of water and keep it well agitated. The washing is continued till it appear no
21
CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME 22
Table 3.1: Physical Properties of cement
Results Specifications
Sr. No. Properties
obtained (IS: 12269 [26])
Compressive Strength (MPa)
3 days 29.17 27 (min)
1
7 days 40.02 37 (min)
28 days 55.19 53 (min)
2 Fineness (m2 /kg) 309 225 (min)
Setting Time (minute)
3 Initial Setting time 125 30 (min)
Final setting time 218 600 (max)

Soundness
4 Le-chatelier (mm) 1 10 (max)
Autoclave (%) 0.13 0.8 (max)
Table 3.2: Chemical Properties of Cement
Results Specifications
Sr. No. Properties
Obtained (IS: 12269-1987)[26]
1 Loss on ignition (%) 1.81 4 (max)
2 Sulphuric Anhydride (%) 2.77 3.5 (max)
3 Magnesia (%) 3.6 6 (max)
4 Insoluble Residue (%) 0.95 2 (max)
5 Chloride Content (%) 0.045 0.10 (max)
6 Lime Saturation Factor (%) 0.92 0.80 to 1.02
7 Alumna Iron Ratio (%) 1.25 0.66 (min)
more turbid. After washing of sieve, the sieve is allow to dry in an oven with residue.
The residue from the sieve after drying, is weighed on a balance sensitive to 0.1 percent
of the weight of the test sample. The percentage of material passing sieve on wet sieving
is reported to the nearest 0.1 percent by weight of the test sample.Results of wet sieve
analysis is mentioned in Table 3.3.
23 CHAPTER 3. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME
Pozzolanic Activity Index
The main purpose of this test is to check the effect of GGBS as pozzolon when 20% of
cement is replaced with GGBS. When cement ECC with GGBS is compared with control
ECC, minimum achievable strength of cement ECC with GGBS on 28-day is required
to be 80%. Pozzolanic activity index is a ratio of strength of GGBS blended ECC and
strength of control ECC. In control ECC, materials i.e. cement and ennore sand are taken
as 225 gms and 675 gms, respectively and are mixed thoroughly well.50 mm cubes are
cast with this mix in two layers thoroughly pressing with the thumb. Mould is tamped
for minimum 5 times for better consolidation of the matrix. In this GGBS blended ECC,
20% OPC is replaced with fly ash. Three cubes are made of both type of ECC. Cubes
are tested at the age of 28 days to evaluate compressive strength of both types of ECC.
Pozzolonic activity index is determined by following equation.
Strength of Fa blended ECC

Pozzolanic Activity Index (PAI) : × 100 (3.1)
Strength of control ECC
Results of PAI is derived below:

49.2
Pozzolanic Activity Index (PAI): 54.12 × 100
Pozzolanic Activity Index (PAI): 90.9%
Table 3.3: Properties of GGBS
Requirement
Test as per
Sr. no. Characteristic
Results IS standard-
12089-1987
1. Colour White -
2. Specific surface area (sq.mt./ kg) 379 275 min.
3. Loss of ignition (%) 0.6 3 max
4. SiO2 36.8 -
5. Al2O3 17.12 -
6. CaO 34.4 -
7. Fe2O3 0.92 -
8. Glass content 92.5 85 min.
9. Specific gravity 2.91 -
10 Size below 45-micron sieve 89 % -
11 Size above 45-micron sieve : 11 % -
3.2.3 Polypropylene Fibre

Polypropylene fibres are used in the present investigation having properties as shown
in Table 3.4. It’s resistance to acids and alkalies is excellent. The close-up view of
polypropylene fibre are shown in Figure 3.2.
Table 3.4: Properties of Polypropylene Fibers
Sr.no Properties Unit

1 Length 12mm
2 Density 1000 kg/m3
3 Specific Gravity 0.91
Figure 3.1: Close View of Polypropylene Fibre
3.2.4 Aggregrate
Locally available 10 mm and 20 mm crushed aggregates have been used as coarse ag-
gregates. Locally available river sand is used as fine aggregate for ECC. The aggregates
are tested for properties in accordance with the IS standards. Tests for fine and coarse
aggregates are conducted as per IS: 2386 and IS: 383, respectively. Physical properties
and sieve analysis results of 20 mm aggregates, 10 mm aggregates and fine aggregate are
presented in Table 3.5, 3.6 and 3.7 respectively.
Table 3.5: Gradation of Coarse Aggregate (10 mm)
Sieve Mass % of Mass Cumulative % Cumulative %

Size Retained (gms) Retained of Mass Retained of Passing
80 mm 0 0 0 100
40 mm 0 0 0 100
20 mm 0 0 0 100
10 mm 63 6.3 6.3 93.7
4.75 mm 902 90.2 96.5 3.5
2.36 mm 35 3.5 100 0
1.18 mm 0 0 100 0
600 0 0 100 0
300 0 0 100 0
150 0 0 100 0
Total 1000 100 602.8
Fineness modulus = 602.8/100 =6.028
3.2.5 Admixure
Superplasticizer has been used to achieve proper workability of control ECC. Fosroc
Auramix-300 has been used to improve workability and reduce W/C ratio of fresh ECC.
Table 3.8 shows the chemical properties of Fosroc Auramix-300.
3.2.6 Marsh Cone Test
Determination of optimum dosage of superplasticizer plays a very important role in mak-

ing durable and long-lasting ECC. This is done with the help of Marsh Cone test. In this
experiment, the time taken for cement paste with different dosage of super plasticizer is
measured. The super plasticizer selected is Fosroc Auramix-300. Table ?? presents the
results of Marsh Cone Test. Super plasticizer dosage given in percentage is with respect
to the weight of cement taken in the mix of cement paste. Figure 3.2 presents the results
obtained from the test in graphical form. The optimum dosage is the amount when the
curve almost becomes flat. Here it is observed that the optimum dosage of superplasti-
cizer is 0.7% by weight of cement.
Table 3.6: Gradation of Coarse Aggregate (20 mm)
Sieve Mass % of Mass Cumulative % Cumulative %

Size Retained (gms) Retained of Mass Retained of Passing
80 mm 0 0 0 100
40 mm 0 0 0 100
20 mm 650 32.5 32.5 67.5
10 mm 1270 63.5 96 4
4.75 mm 80 4 100 0
2.36 mm 0 0 100 0
1.18 mm 0 0 100 0
600 0 0 100 0
300 0 0 100 0
150 0 0 100 0
Total 2000 100 728.5
Fineness modulus = 728.5/100 = 7.29
Figure 3.2: Marsh cone test
Casting of ECC
Weighing and batching process of all ingredients of ECC mix such as cement, fine ag-
gregate, water and super plasticizers is done with required accuracy before starting the
mixing process.
Table 3.7: Gradation of Fine Aggregate
Mass % of Mass Cumulative % of Cumulative %

Sieve Size
Retained (Grams) Retained Mass Retained of Passing
80 mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
40 mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
20 mm 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
10 mm 3.50 0.35 0.35 99.65
4.75 mm 14.30 1.43 1.78 98.23
2.36 mm 31.30 3.13 4.90 95.10
1.18 mm 313.50 31.35 36.25 63.75
600 micron 207.00 20.70 56.95 43.05
300 micron 272.20 27.22 84.16 15.84
150 micron 110.50 11.05 95.22 4.78
Lower than 150 0.00 2.17 - 2.62
Total 1000 100 279.61
Fineness Modulus = 279.61/100 = 2.79
Table 3.8: Chemical Admixure properties
Sr.No. Parameter Observation

1. Physical state Light yellow liquid
2. Chemical name of the active ingredient Polycarboxylic ether
3. PH 6
4. Chloride content Nil
Table 3.9: Marshcone Test Results
Sr.no. Super plasticizer Dosage % Time (second)

1. 0.4 80
2. 0.5 60
3. 0.6 56
4. 0.7 50
5. 0.8 48
6. 0.9 46
First all fine aggregates are added in pan mixer and mixing is continued the 20 to 25
second to make mix consistent. The cement is added in the pan mixer and mixer is al-
lowed to rotate continuously.
At time of mixing, water, polypropylene fiber and admixture are added gradually in
the pan mixer. The machine is rotated till the uniform mix is achieved.Pan mixture is as
shown in Figure3.3.
Figure 3.3: Pan Mixture Machine for ECC

3.2.7 Priliminary Investigation

Few trial mixes were casted for concluding polypropylene fiber dosage and cemetitious
material proportion.
ECC
Three different ECC mixes opted for trial mix are (1:0.5),(1:1) and (1:1.5).For each mix
sand proportion is varied while cement proportion is kept same.Polypropylene fiber dosage
is varied from 1%,1.5% and 2% for each trail mixes.For concluding final mix and fiber
dosage.Results at the end of 7 days were evaluated in terms of compressive strength and
split tensile strength
From Table 3.10 and 3.11 results of compressive Strength and Split tensile strength for
varying fiber dosage are evaluated after 7 days. ECC mix (1:0.5) was opted for further
research work as it shows better result as compared to other mixes and it was also ob-
served that with increase in sand proportion in ECC mix strength decreases.
Polypropylene fiber dosage of 1% and 1.5% was adopted for further investigation as 2%
fiber dosage shows results at par with 1.5% .
Table 3.10: Compressive Strength of trail mixes
Average
Fiber Compressive
ECC Compressive
Days Dosage Strength
mixes Strength
in % (MPa)
(MPa)
24.70
1 24.80 24.46
23.90
29.30
(1:0.5) 1.5 29.50 29.48
29.60
33.83
2 33.75 33.82
33.88
20.18
1 20.25 20.26
20.35
25.45
(1:1) 7 1.5 25.56 25.54
25.62
29.25
2 29.15 29.13
28.98
16.10
1 15.95 16.02
16.00
21.85
(1:1.5) 1.5 21.72 21.77
21.75
24.85
2 24.92 24.88
24.88
Table 3.11: Split Tensile Strength of trial mixes
Average
Fiber Split Tensile
ECC Split Tensile
Days Dosage Strength
mixes Strength
in % (MPa)
(MPa)
1.35
1 1.60 1.5
1.55
3.21
(1:0.5) 1.5 3.40 3.32
3.35
4.20
2 4.38 4.33
4.42
1.35
1 1.28 1.29
1.25
2.85
(1:1) 7 1.5 2.88 2.88
2.92
3.92
2 3.88 3.92
3.95
1.15
1 1.05 1.06
0.98
2.45
(1:1.5) 1.5 2.52 2.48
2.48
3.40
2 3.36 3.39
3.42
ECC-GGBS and ECC-Flyash
Partial replacement of cement by GGBS and fly ash is done by 20%,for ECC mix of
(1:0.5) for fiber dosage of 1% and 1.5% respectively.Results after 7 days are concluded for
compressive strength and split tensile strength as shown in Table 3.12 and 3.13. ECC with
fly ash exhibit better performance as compared to GGBS.ECC with GGBS was finalized
for research work as no significant work is carried out for ECC by incorporating GGBS.
Table 3.12: Compressive strength of ECC-GGBS and ECC-Flyash mixes
Average Average
Compressive Compressive
Mix Compressive Mix Compressive
Days Strength Strength
Type Strength Type Strength
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
21.10 22.82
ECC-GGBS-1% 20.60 20.8 ECC-Flyash-1% 22.78 22.75
20.80 22.65
7
24.90 22.98
ECC-GGBS-1.5% 24.70 24.8 ECC-Flyash-1.5% 23.05 23.05
24.80 23.12
Table 3.13: Split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS and ECC-Flyash mixes
Average Average
Split Split
Split Split
Mix Tensile Mix Tensile
Days Tensile Tensile
Strength Strength
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
2.68 2.88
ECC-GGBS-1% 2.70 2.66 ECC-Flyash-1% 2.80 2.81
2.59 2.76
7
3.5 3.70
ECC-GGBS-1.5% 3.40 3.42 ECC-Flyash-1.5% 3.79 3.74
3.37 3.74
Mix Design
Mix Design Calculation of ECC for 1 m3 :

Cement density = 1440 kg/m3 .
Sand density = 1532 kg/m3 .
Admixture dosage( = 0.7% by weight of cementitious materials.
Water to cement ratio = 0.33. Mix proportion = (1:0.5) (cement : sand)
Assuming 35% void content for dry mix.
Mix proportion = 1 + 0.5= 1.5
Dry Volume = 1 × 1.35 = 1.35.
Cement content = (1.35/1.5) × 1 × 1440 = 1296 kg.
Sand content = (1.35/1.5) × 0.5 × 1532 =689.4 kg.
Water content =0.33 × 1296 = 427.68 kg.
Admixture content = (0.70 × 427.68)/100= 9.072 kg
As the plasticizers is used reducing water content by 30%.
Water content = 0.7 × 427.68 = 299.37 kg
Polypropylene Fibers by vol.=10 kg.
GGBS proportion for ECC-GGBS= 20% replacement by cement content. GGBS propor-
tion= 0.20 × 1296 =259.2 .kg
Mix Design of ECC mixes and ECC-GGBS mixes is as shown in Table 3.14 and 3.15
respectively.
Table 3.14: Mix design of ECC
ECC-0% ECC-1% ECC- 1.5%

Sr.no Ingredient
kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3
1 Cement 1296 1296 1296
2 Sand 689 689 689
3 Water 299 299 299
4 Admixture 9 9 9
5 Polypropylene fibers 0 10 15
Table 3.15: Mix design of ECC-GGBS
ECC-GGBS-0% ECC-GGBS-1% ECC-GGBS 1.5%

Sr.no Ingredient
kg/m3 kg/m3 kg/m3
1 Cement 1037 1037 1037
2 GGBS 259 259 259
3 Sand 689 689.4 689
4 Water 299 299 299
5 Admixture 9 9 9
6 Polypropylene fibers 0 10 15
3.3 Testing of Plain ECC Mixes

The discussion on different mechanical & durability properties such as compressive strength,
flexural strength, split tensile strength, Modulus of elasticity, bond strength, abrasion re-
sistance, impact energy, sulphate resistance, chloride attack and acid resistance on ECC
mixes are covered in detailed in this section.
3.3.1 Compressive Strength

The compression testing machine of 2000 kN is used to evaluate compressive strength
of different types of ECC mixes. For the compressive strength test, 150mm × 150mm
× 150 mm cubes are tested in compression as per IS 516 [18]. Equation of finding out
compressive strength of the cube specimens is given below. Figure 3.5 shows test set up
for finding compressive strength of cube.
P × 103
Compressive Strength (N/mm2 ) = (3.2)
A
Where, P = Failure load of cube (kN)

A = Area of cube (150mm × 150mm)
3.3.2 Split Tensile Strength

The compression testing machine of 2000 kN is used to evaluate split tensile strength of
different mixes of ECC. Indirect method is used for finding the tensile strength of the
ECC. For this test, cylinder of size 150 mm diameter × 300 mm height is tested in accor-
dance with the test procedures given in IS: 5816 [17].
Equation of finding out split tensile strength of the cylinder specimens is as given
below.
Figure 3.4: Plain ECC Cube in Compression Testing Machine
2 × P × 103
Split T ensile Strength (N/mm2 ) = (3.3)
π×L×d
Where, P = Failure load of cylinder (kN)

L = Height of Cylinder (300 mm)
d = Diameter of Cylinder (150 mm)
Figure 3.8 shows the test set up for split tensile strength of ECC cylinder.
Figure 3.5: Test Setup for Split Tensile Strength of ECC
3.3.3 Modulus of Elasticity

Modulus of Elasticity of ECC specimens has been determine with the help of extensome-
ter. Cylinder specimen of 150 mm diameter and 300 mm height is used for evaluating
the modulus of elasticity of ECC as per the test procedure given in IS : 516[18]. The
extensometers are fixed with the recording points at the same end. The load is applied
continuously and without shock. Displacement is measured at equal load interval. Plot
is drawn stress vs. strain from above results. Slope of the given plot proposes the mod-
ulus of elasticity of ECC specimen. Arrangement of ECC specimen for the said test is
presented in Figure 3.9.
P × 103
Stress = (3.4)
A
δl
Strain = (3.5)
L
Stress
M oE = (3.6)
Strain
Figure 3.6: Test Setup for Modulus of Elasticity of ECC
3.3.4 Flexural Strength

The flexural strength is measured by performing flexural test on plain ECC specimens.
The flexural testing machine of 100 kN is used to evaluate flexural strength of ECC
specimens. For flexural strength test, beam of size 100 mm × 100 mm × 500 mm is cast
in accordance with the test procedure given in IS 516 [18]. Figure 3.6 shows set up for
testing of beams. Figure 3.7 shows ECC specimen which is being tested in flexural testing
machine.
For evaluating the flexural strength of ECC beams, following eq. is used.
P × L × 103
F lexural Strength (N/mm2 ) = (3.7)
B × d2
Where, P = Failure load of cylinder (kN)

L =Length between support of ECC specimen (mm)
B =Width of the beam (mm)
D = Depth of beam (mm)
Figure 3.7: Flexure Test Setup
Figure 3.8: Plain ECC Beam in Flexure Testing Machine

3.3.5 Bond Strength

This test provides a standardized procedure for comparison of bond strength of all four
mixes of ECC. Cube specimen of 150 mm with 12 mm diameter reinforcement has been
used to evaluate the bond strength of ECC as per the test procedure given in IS : 2770
[22]. The test carried out is known as Pull-Out Test. In this Pull out test, the load is
recorded at a relative slip of 0.002 mm at free end of the specimen. Bond strength is cal-
culated by value obtained from failure load divided by the surface area of the embedded
length of the bar.
The dial gauges used for measuring slip are having a least count of 0.0025mm. The
testing machine has sufficient capacity to conduct the pull-out test. Dial gauges are at-
tached with the specimen in such a way that movement of the reinforcing bar with respect
to ECC is measured at both the loaded and unloaded ends of the bar. Figure 3.12 presents
ECC specimen for pull out test. Figure 3.13 presents test setup for pull out test.
Figure 3.9: Bond Test ECC Specimens
Three specimens of all six type of ECC mix has been prepared and tested. The test
specimens are mounted in universal testing machine in such a manner that the bar is
pulled axially from the cube. The end of the bar at which the pull is applied is the one
that projects from the face of the cube while it is being cast. The loading is applied to
the reinforcing bar at the rate not greater than 230 N/min. The movements between
the reinforcing bar and ECC cube, as indicated by the dial gauge is read at a sufficient
number of intervals throughout the test to provide at least 15 readings by the time a slip
of 0.25 mm occurs at the loaded end of the bar.
The loading is continued and the readings of the movement of reinforcement bar recorded
at appropriate intervals until the yield point of the reinforcing bars is reached, the ECC
cube has failed or minimum slippage of 2.5 mm occurred at the loaded end. Bond strength
is calculated by dividing the failure load at the slip specified, by the surface area of the
embedded length of the bar. Average results of three elements are taken for the final
result.
P × 103
Bond Strength = (3.8)
π×L×D
Where,
P = Failure Load (kN)
L = Embedded Length of Reinforcement Bar
D = Diameter of Reinforcement Bar
Figure 3.10: Bond Strength Test of Reinforced ECC
3.3.6 Direct Tension Test

Dumbbell shaped specimen are casted to measure direct tensile strength of ECC. The
cross section of the specimen for direct tension test is 100x100x540mm with the enlarged
ends to provide dumbbell shape. The geometry of the direct tension test specimen and
Test setup is shown in below Fig 3.11
(a) dumbell shaped specimen (b) Direct Tension Test Setup
Figure 3.11: Geometry of Direct Tension Test Specimen and Setup
The evaluation of the direct tensile strength is carried out by the simple approach in
which the compression load on frame transmits direct tension load to the specimen. The
test is performed by initially lifting the outer frame till the specimen can be installed into
it.
The frame is loaded into the universal testing machine where compression load is applied
to the frame and the specimen is subjected to axial tension load. This is due to the reason
in which the lower jaw of the frame pulls the specimen downward while the upper jaw is
static in position and ultimately the specimen fails under direct tension [13].
3.3.7 Abrasion Resistance

The abrasion test has been performed as per IS:2386 [26] on dorry abrasion machine as
shown in Figure 3.11. It decides the suitability of rock as road material. The dorry
abrasion machine consists of a flat circular cast-iron or steel disc of not less than 60 cm
diameter which revolves in horizontal plane about a vertical shaft. The arrangement for
holding two test specimens in diametrically opposite direction is made and the specimens
are so placed in vertical direction that their lower ends are pressed with a prescribed
pressure against the surface of disc. A convenient funnel is also attached for continuously
feeding a standard sand upon the disc. The distance from the centre of disc to the centre
of the specimen is 26 cm. The test procedure is described below.
1. The size of specimen 86mm × 50mm × 32mm is prepared to conduct the test for
each type of ECC. The four specimens are prepared of each type of ECC mix.
2. The specimen is made to press on the top of disc with a pressure of total 2000 gm
with sample tray.
3. The disc is revolved through 500 revolutions at a speed of about 28-30 r.p.m., i.e.,
nearly for 16-18 minutes.
4. The standard buzzard silica sand is used with specification of at least 75% passing
0.6 mm sieve, all passing 0.85 mm and retained on 0.3 mm sieve is used.
5. The specimens are taken out and weighted again. The percentage loss in weight of
ECC specimen is calculated from the following mathematical expression:
100 × (A − B)
Percentage loss in weight = (3.9)
A
Where,
A = Weight of ECC Specimen before testing
B = Weight of ECC Specimen after testing
Figure 3.12: Dorry Abrasion Machine

3.3.8 Impact Energy

The impact resistance of the ECC specimens is performed by using drop weight method
of Impact test recommended on drop weight equipment as presented in Figure 3.10 by
using provision of ACI: 544.2R [25]. The size of ECC specimens is 152 mm in diameter
and 63.5 mm in thickness. The weight of hammer is 45.4 N with a drop of 457 mm. The
specimens are coated with a thin layer of petroleum jelly or a heavy grease at bottom and
placed on the base plate within the positioning lugs with the finished face up to restrict
movement of the specimen during testing. The hardened steel ball is placed on the top
of the specimen within the bracket.
The drop hammer is placed with its base upon the steel ball and held there with just
enough down pressure to keep it from bouncing off the ball during the test. The hammer
is dropped repeatedly. The number of blows (N1) required for the first visible crack of
the specimen is recorded and the number of blows (N2) required for ultimate failure of
specimen is recorded.
Figure 3.13: Drop-Weight Test Equipment
The impact energy of the ECC specimens is evaluated using mathematical equation as
follows.
n×m×V2
Impact energy (U ) = (3.10)
2
Where,
n = number of blows
m = mass of hammer = Wg
g
V = the velocity of the hammer at impact = t
q
2×H
t = the time required for the hammer to fall from a height of 457 mm= g
H = falling height of hammer
3.3.9 Acid Attack

The test is performed as per IS:4456 [27] to study the effect of sulfuric acid on control
ECC and its comparison with ECC-GGBS.
Test Specimens & Test Parameters
The ECC specimen size 150 × 150 × 150 mm is casted for evaluating change in compres-
sive strength and change in mass, respectively. The acid resistance of different ECC mix
is determined by measuring the residual compressive strength and change in mass after
acid exposure at 30 and 60 days of time intervals. Cubes are immersed in sulfuric acid
solution after 28 days of water curing.
Test Procedure
Sulfuric acid solution with 5% concentration is used as the exposure solution. The ECC
specimens are immersed in the H2 SO4 solution in a tank. The pH value of the solution is
measured at every week interval and is maintained at 3 throughout the test by considering
the initial pH as reference sulfuric acid or water is added and by trial and error and the
initial pH value is achieved.
Change in Compressive Strength & Mass
The change in compressive strength is evaluated by testing the compressive strength

of the ECC specimens after 30 and 60 days of sulfuric acid exposure. The ECC specimens
are weighed prior to keep them into the sulfuric acid solution. After removing them out
from the tank after completion of exposure, respective specimens are wiped clean and
weighed. The weights of the specimens are measured using the weighing scale. The spec-
imens are tested in saturated surface dry condition. For achieving the saturated surface
dry condition, the specimens are removed from the acid solution andsub sequentiallyy
tested.
3.3.10 Chloride Attack

The effect of chloride on all mixes of ECC are studied during the present investigation.The
test is performed as per IS:4456 [27]. Marine structures are subjected to chloride attack
and due to the penetration of chloride the reinforcement is subjected to corrosion.

Specimen selected for compressive strength test and change in mass test of all mixes
of ECC are 150 × 150 × 150 mm cubes. Three specimens for each test are cast for
compressive strength test and change in mass test. The chloride resistance of all mixes of
ECC is determined by measuring the residual compressive strength and change in mass
after chloride exposure. Specimens are immersed in chloride solution after 28 days of
curing period.
Test Procedure
Sodium chloride solution with 5% concentration is used as the solution for chloride ex-
posure for ECC during the test. The ECC specimens are immersed in the Nacl solution
in a tank. To prepare the solution of 5% concentration, for each 100 gm solution 95 gm
of water and 5 gm of Sodium chloride powder is added. The pH value of the solution is
measured at every week interval and maintained at 7 throughout the test by considering
the initial pH as reference.
The change in compressive strength after chloride exposure is determined by evaluat-

ing the compressive strength of the specimens after 30 and 60 days of exposure. The
weight of each specimen is measured before immersion in the solution and after 30 and
60 days of exposure. The weights of the specimens are measured using the weighing
scale. The specimens are tested in saturated surface dry condition. The ECC specimens
removed from the chloride exposure are wiped clean, and then tested immediately.
3.3.11 Sulphate Attack

The test is performed as per IS:4456[27] to study the effect of sulphate on all mixes of ECC.
150 × 150 × 150 mm cubes of all mixes of ECC are cast and tested to evaluate change in
compressive strength and change in mass, respectively. Average results of three specimens
for each test are cast for compressive strength test and change in mass test. The sulphate
resistance of both types of ECC is determined by measuring the residual compressive
strength and change in mass after sulphate exposure at various time intervals. Cubes are
immersed in sulphate solution after 28 days of curing period.
Test Procedure
Sodium sulphate with 5% concentration is used as the exposure solution for ECC. The
ECC specimens are immersed in the Na2 SO4 solution in a tank. To prepare the solution
of 5% concentration, for each 100 gm solution 95 gm of water and 5 gm of Sodium sul-
phate powder is added. The pH value of the solution is measured at every week interval
and is maintained at 8 throughout the test by considering the initial pH as reference, the
sodium sulphate powder or water is added and by trial and error and the initial pH value
is achieved.
The change in compressive strength is evaluated by testing the compressive strength

of the ECC specimens after 30 and 60 days of sulphate exposure. The weight of each
specimen is measured before immersion in the solution and after 30 and 60 days of sul-
phate exposure. The weights of the specimens are measured using the weighing scale.
The specimens are tested in saturated surface dry condition. For achieving the saturated
surface dry condition, the specimens are removed from the sulphate solution and sub se-
quentially tested.
Chapter 4
Results of Mechanical Properties

and Discussion
4.1 General
Test results of ECC and ECC-GGBS of varying fiber dosage for different mechanical
properties like compressive strength,spilt tensile strength,M.o.E,flexural strength,bond
strength,direct tensile strength,abrasion test and impact energy are deliberated in this
chapter.
4.2 Density
Density of different ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are estimated at the age of 28 and
56 days as shown in Table 4.1.Density of ECC mixes ranges from 2270 kg/m3 to 2350
kg/m3 .Density of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes increases with increase in fiber dosage.Density
of polypropylene fibers is about 1000 kg/m3 .
Figure 4.1 represents percentage increment in density w.r.t to ECC-0% as compared to

all other mixes at 28 days.For ECC mixes negligible increment of 0.2% and 0.43% is ob-
served for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% respectively. 0.08%,0.2% and 0.48 % is the increment
calculated for ECC-GGBS- 0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively at the
age of 28 days.
49
CHAPTER 4. RESULTS OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND DISCUSSION 50
Figure 4.1: % Increase in Density of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixe w.r.t ECC-0%
51 CHAPTER 4. RESULTS OF MECHANICAL PROPERTIES AND DISCUSSION
Table 4.1: Density
Average Average
Mix Mix
Days Density Density Density Density
Type Type
(kg/m3) (kg/m3)
2275 2279
ECC-0% 2288 2282 ECC-GGBS-0% 2290 2284
2282 2282
2294 2294
28 ECC-1% 2285 2288 ECC-GGBS-1% 2298 2293
2285 2286
2286 2285
ECC-1.50% 2293 2292 ECC-GGBS-1.50% 2295 2293
2296 2298
4.3 Compressive Strength

Compressive strength at the age of 7,28 and 56 days is evaluated and results for various
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are as shown in Table 4.2.For final result average of three
specimen’s results are taken.For all mixes of ECC and ECC-GGBS it has been observed
that with increase in the age and fiber dosage compressive strength also increases.
As shown in Table 4.2,Maximum compressive strength is observed for mixes of ECC and
ECC-GGBS with 1.5% fiber dosage at the age of 7,28 and 60 days respectively.42.87 MPa
and 41.10 MPa is the compressive strength for ECC-GGBS-1.5% and ECC 1.5%. 37.77
MPa and 39.63 MPa is the strength obtained for ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-1%.For ECC-
0% mix maximum strength measured is 30.53 MPa and 31.82 MPa for ECC-GGBS-0%
at the age of 56 days respectively.
Change in Compressive Strength with increase in Fiber Dosage :In Figure 4.2
compressive strength of ECC-0% mix is taken as base and percentage increase in com-
pressive strength with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated.Compressive strength of ECC-
1%mix at 28 and 56 days increased by 22.1% and 34.2% respectively. For ECC-1.5% mix
split tensile strength at 28 and 56 days increases by 23.7% and 34.62% respective
In Figure 4.3 Compressive Strength of ECC-GGBS- 0% mix is taken as base and per-
centage increase in compressive strength with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated. Com-
pressive strength increased by 27.05% and 38.1% for ECC-GGBS-1% mix at 28 and 56
days respectively.For ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix compressive strength increases by 24.5% and
34.7% at 28 and 56 days respectively.
Increase in Compressive Strength Due to GGBS:As shown in Figure 4.6b the

strength development of GGBS is slower at early age as compared to normal portland
cement.Because of this in ECC-GGBS % increment in compressive strength is lower as
Table 4.2: Compressive Strength result of ECC mixes at different days
Average Average
Compressive Compressive
Mix Compressive Mix Compressive
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
18.3 13.3
ECC
ECC-0% 18.5 18.2 14.2 14.03
-GGBS-0%
17.9 14.6
24.7 21.1
ECC
7 ECC-1% 24.8 24.46 20.6 20.8
-GGBS-1%
23.9 20.8
29.3 24.9
ECC
ECC-1.5% 29.5 29.48 24.7 24.8
-GGBS-1.5%
29.6 24.8
29.15 25.4
ECC
ECC-0% 28.8 28.71 25.9 25.5
-GGBS-0%
28.2 25.2
35.1 32.9
ECC
28 ECC-1% 35.25 35.08 32.5 32.4
-GGBS-1%
35.93 32.8
38.63 35.23
ECC
ECC-1.5% 38.52 38.54 35.18 35.24
-GGBS-1.5%
38.48 35.33
30.55 31.78
ECC
ECC-0% 30.62 30.53 31.73 31.82
-GGBS-0%
30.44 31.95
37.85 39.56
ECC
60 ECC-1% 37.75 37.77 39.62 39.63
-GGBS-1%
37.72 39.71
41.2 42.86
ECC
ECC-1.5% 41.15 41.1 42.98 42.87
-GGBS-1.5%
40.96 42.78
Figure 4.2: % Increase in compressive Strength of ECC With increase in fiber dosage and
days
Figure 4.3: % Increase in compressive strength of ECC-GGBS With increase in fiber

dosage and days
Figure 4.4: % Increase in compressive strength of ECC as compared to ECC-GGBS
compared to ECC,but during later period of age % increment in compressive strength of

ECC-GGBS is more as compared to ECC.At the age of 56 days compressive strength in-
creased by 4.05%,4.96% and 4.32% for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-
1.5% as compared to ECC mixes with same fiber dosage respectively.
Increase in Compressive Strength of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC 0% at 56

days:Figure 4.5 reflects that ECC-0% is taken as the base and % increment in strength
for all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age
of 60 days .23.71% and 34.62% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5%
mixes respectively.4.22%,22.8% and 40.4% is the % increment observed for ECC-GGBS-
0%, ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS- 1.5% w.r.t ECC 0% at 56 days respectively.
Figure 4.6 shows ductile failure of ECC-1.5% due to addition polypropylene fibers as they
arrest the crack width along with formation of crack while figure 4.6b shows brittle failure
of ECC-0% specimen as it breaks into two pieces due compression testing.
Figure 4.5: % Increase in compressive strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at

56 days
(a) Ductile failure of ECC Specimen (b) Brittle failure of specimen without
with fibers fibers
Figure 4.6: Ductile and Brittle failure of Cube specimens

4.4 Split Tensile Strength

The splitting tensile strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are measured at the age of
7, 28 and 56 days.The results of split tensile strength are presented in Table 4.9 For all
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes it has been observed that with increase in the age and fiber
dosage split tensile strength also increases.
It has been observed that split tensile strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix with 1.5%
fiber dosage is higher as compared to all ohter mixes at the age of 7, 28 and 56 days.At
the age of 56 days 5.97 MPa and 5.70 MPa is the split tensile strength obtained for ECC-
GGBS-1.5% and ECC-1.5% mix respectively. 4.79 MPa and 4.59 MPa is the strength
observed at 56 days for ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-1% mix respectively. 3.31 and 3.15
MPa is the observed strength for ECC-GGBS-0% and ECC-0% at the age of 56 days
respectively.
Table 4.3: Split tensile strength of ECC mixes at different days
Average Average
Split Split
Split Split
Mix Tensile Mix Tensile
Days Tensile Tensile
Strength Strength
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
1.35 1.25
ECC
ECC-0% 1.60 1.50 1.38 1.27
-GGBS-0%
1.55 1.18
3.21 2.68
ECC
7 ECC-1% 3.40 3.35 2.70 2.62
-GGBS-1%
3.35 2.59
4.20 3.5
ECC
ECC-1.5% 4.38 4.33 3.40 3.42
-GGBS-1.5%
4.42 3.37
2.60 2.10
ECC
ECC-0% 2.55 2.59 1.98 2.04
-GGBS-0%
2.62 2.05
4.35 3.32
ECC
28 ECC-1% 4.42 4.38 3.50 3.42
-GGBS-1%
4.39 3.45
5.35 3.95
ECC
ECC-1.5% 5.50 5.42 4.20 4.10
-GGBS-1.5%
5.43 4.15
3.12 3.35
ECC
ECC-0% 3.25 3.15 3.28 3.31
-GGBS-0%
3.10 3.32
4.61 4.75
ECC
60 ECC-1% 4.58 4.59 4.84 4.79
-GGBS-1%
4.60 4.78
5.68 6.05
ECC
ECC-1.5% 5.73 5.70 5.98 5.97
-GGBS-1.5%
5.71 5.90
Change in Split Tensile Strength with increase in Fiber Dosage and Days:In
Figure 4.7 split tensile strength of ECC-0% mix is taken as base and percentage increase
in strength with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated.split tensile strength of ECC-1%
mix at 28 and 56 days increased by 68% and 92.6% respectively. For ECC-1.5% mix split
tensile strength at 28 and 56 days increases by 46% and 79% respectively.
Figure 4.7: % Increment in split tensile strength of ECC with increase in fiber dosage and
days
Figure 4.8: % Increment in split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS with increase in fiber
dosage and days
In Figure 4.8 split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS- 0% mix is taken as base and percentage
increase in split tensile strength with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated. For ECC-
GGBS-1% mix split tensile strength at the age of 28 and 56 days increased by 67.04%
and 98% respectively.For ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix split tensile strength increases by 44.7%
and 80.36% respectively.
Figure 4.9: % Increase in split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS as compared to ECC

Increase in split tensile Strength Due to GGBS:As shown in Figure 4.9 the strength
development of GGBS is slower at early age as compared to normal portland cement. Be-
cause of this in ECC-GGBS % increment in split strength is lower as compared to ECC
but during later period of age % increment in split tensile strength of ECC-GGBS is
more.At the age of 56 days split tensile strength increased by 5%,4.4% and 4.7% for
ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively as compared to ECC
mixes with same fiber dosage.
Increase in Split Tensile Strength of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC 0% at 56

for all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age
of 56 days .45.7% and 80.9% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5%
mixes respectively. 5%,52.06% and 89.5% is the % increment in strength observed for
ECC-GGBS-0%, ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS- 1.5% respectively.
Figure 4.10: % Increase in split tensile strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at
56 days
Figure 4.11 shows cylinder specimens after testing,specimen without fiber content bursts
into two pieces while specimen with fibers does not breaks due to addition of fibers.
(a) Failed specimem of ECC (b) Fibers resisting the crack width
Figure 4.11: Failed specimens of ECC under split tensile strength
4.5 Modulus Of Elasticity

The Modulus of elasticity for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated at the age of 28
and 56 days as shown in Table 4.4.Stress-Strain curve of ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix at 56
days is as shown in Figure 4.12.Slope of stress-strain curve gives modulus of elasticity
of ECC. Tangent modulus method has been used to find stress-strain curve for different
ECC mixes.
M odulusof Elasticity = 5.66/0.000168 = 33690
Figure 4.12: Stress-strain curve for ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix at 56 days
Percentage increment in Modulus of Elasticity at 56 days w.r.t to 28 days is shown in Fig-

ure 4.13.Modulus of elsticity is 5.6%,3.2% and 2.8% times higher as compared to 28 days
for ECC-0%, ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% mixes respectively.Modulus of elasticity increases
by 13.4%,13.1% and 9.3% at 56 days as compared to 28 days for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-
GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% resspectively.
Increase in M.o.E of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC-0% at 56 days: Figure

4.14 reflects that ECC-0% is taken as the base and % increment in strength for all
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age of 56
days.20.12% and 23.56% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% mix
respectively.3.9%,23.45% and 26.4% is the increment observed for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-
GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively w.r.t ECC-0% at the age of 56 days.
Table 4.4: Modulus of Elasticity for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes
M.o.E Average M.o.E Average

Mix Mix
Days in M.o.E in in M.o.E in
Type Type
MPa MPa MPa MPa
25250 24248
ECC-0% 24980 25007.00 ECC-GGBS-0% 23950 24116.00
24791 24150
30573 28910
30 ECC-1% 30725 30737.67 ECC-GGBS-1% 28455 28820.00
30915 29095
31980 30280
ECC-1.5% 31650 31784.33 ECC-GGBS-1.5% 30402 30482.33
31723 30765
26660 27690
ECC-0% 26130 26413.33 ECC-GGBS-0% 27380 27450.67
26450 27282
31485 32673
56 ECC-1% 31650 31728.33 ECC-GGBS-1% 32126 32608.00
32050 33025
32420 33690
ECC-1.5% 32980 32638.33 ECC-GGBS-1.5% 33112 33390.00
32515 33368
Figure 4.13: Increment in Modulus of Elasticity for different ECC mixes at 56 days w.r.t
28 days
Figure 4.14: % Increase in modulus of elasticity of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at

56 days
4.6 Flexural Strength

The flexural strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are as shown in Table 4.17 for 7,28
and 56 days respectively. For all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes it has been observed that
with increase in the age and fiber dosage flexural strength also increases. Maximum flex-
ural strength is observed for ECC and ECC-GGBS mix with 1.5% fiber dosage at the
age of 7,28 and 60 days respectively.For ECC-GGBS-1.5% and ECC-1.5% 9.45 MPa and
8.98 MPa is the flexural strength obtained at age of 60 days respectively.At the age of 60
days 8.27 MPa and 7.91 MPa is the strength obtained for ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-1%
respectively. 5.91 MPa and 5.58 MPa is the observed strength for ECC-GGBS-0% and
ECC-0% at the age of 60 days respectively.
Change in flexural Strength with increase in Fiber Dosage and Days:In Figure
4.15 flexural strength of ECC-0% mix is taken as base and percentage increase in strength
with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated.Flexural strength of ECC-1% mix at 28 and 56
days increased by 49.7% and 70% respectively. For ECC-1.5% mix split tensile strength
at 28 and 56 days increases by 41.7% and 60.9% respectively.
Figure 4.15: % Increment in flexural strength of ECC with increase in fiber dosage and
days
In Figure 4.16 flexural strength of ECC-GGBS-0% mix is taken as base and percentage
increase in flexural strength with increase in fiber dosage is evaluated. For ECC-GGBS-
1% mix flexural strength at the age of 28 and 60 days increased by 66.2% and 40%
respectively.For ECC-GGBS-1.5% mix split tensile strength at the age of 28 and 60 days
increases by 40% and 59.8% respectively.
Table 4.5: Flexural strength result of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes
Average Average
Flexural Flexural
Mix Flexural Mix Flexural
(MPa) (MPa)
(MPa) (MPa)
3.2 2.8
ECC
ECC-0% 3.5 3.28 2.5 2.55
-GGBS-0%
3.15 2.35
4.91 3.96
ECC
7 ECC-1% 5.23 5.14 3.88 3.92
-GGBS-1%
5.32 3.94
6.31 3.96
ECC
ECC-1.5% 6.4 6.35 4.05 4.04
-GGBS-1.5%
6.35 4.12
4.62 3.29
ECC
ECC-0% 4.45 4.5 3.42 3.35
-GGBS-0%
4.58 3.35
6.78 5.58
ECC
28 ECC-1% 6.66 6.74 5.48 5.57
-GGBS-1%
6.80 5.66
7.58 6.23
ECC
ECC-1.5% 7.85 7.70 6.35 6.33
-GGBS-1.5%
7.65 6.40
5.55 5.98
ECC
ECC-0% 5.62 5.58 5.86 5.91
-GGBS-0%
5.59 5.90
7.92 8.35
ECC
60 ECC-1% 7.85 7.91 8.16 8.27
-GGBS-1%
7.96 8.32
8.93 9.55
ECC
ECC-1.5% 9.15 8.98 9.38 9.45
-GGBS-1.5%
8.88 9.42
Figure 4.16: % Increment in flexural strength of ECC-GGBS with increase in fiber dosage
and days
Figure 4.17: % Increment in Flexural Strength of ECC-GGBS as compared to ECC

Increase in flexural strength Due to GGBS:As shown in Figure 4.17 the strength
development of GGBS is slower at early age as compared to normal portland cement.
Because of this in ECC-GGBS % increment in flexural strength is lower as compared
to ECC but during later period of age % increment in flexural strength of ECC-GGBS
is more.At the age of 60 days flexural strength increased by 5.5%,4.55% and 5.2% for
ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively as compared to ECC
mixes with same fiber dosage respectively.
Increase in flexural strength of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC 0% at 56 days:

Figure 4.18 reflects that ECC-0% is taken as the base and % increment in strength for
all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age of
60 days. 41.7% and 60.93% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5%
mixes respectively. 5.9%,48% and 69.35% is the % increment in strength observed for
ECC-GGBS-0%, ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS- 1.5% respectively
Figure 4.18: % Increase in flexural strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at 56

days
4.7 Bond Strength

Bond Strength at age of 28 and 56 days has been evaluated for ECC and ECC-GGBS
mixs as shown in Table 4.19.
5495
Bond Strength = = 9.74M P a (4.1)
3.14 × 150 × 12
Table 4.6: Bond Strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes
Average Average
Bond Bond
Bond Bond
Mix Strength Mix Strength
Type in Type in
in in
MPa MPa
MPa MPa
9.37 9.10
ECC-0% 9.25 9.25 ECC-GGBS-0% 8.88 8.98
9.13 8.96
9.75 9.20
30 ECC-1% 9.52 9.58 ECC-GGBS-1% 9.34 9.28
9.48 9.29
9.74 9.52
ECC-1.5% 9.78 9.74 ECC-GGBS-1.5% 9.38 9.45
9.69 9.44
9.88 9.98
ECC-0% 9.83 9.83 ECC-GGBS-0% 9.90 9.92
9.78 9.88
10.24 10.34
56 ECC-1% 10.18 10.17 ECC-GGBS-1% 10.30 10.30
10.10 10.27
10.28 10.55
ECC-1.5% 10.35 10.33 ECC-GGBS-1.5% 10.45 10.48
10.37 10.43
Figure 4.20 shows load v/s slip for ECC mixes at 28 days. Figure 4.19 shows increase
in bond strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes at 56 days w.r.t to 28 days.6.15% and
10.46% is the increment noted for ECC-0% and ECC-GGBS-0% mixes.6.38% and 10.55%
Figure 4.19: % Increment in bond strength at 56 days w.r.t to 28 days
increment is observed for ECC-1% and ECC-GGBS-1% respectively.6.2% and 11.02% is

the increment gained for ECC-1.5% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively.
Figure 4.20: Load v/s slip for ECC at age of 28 days
Increase in bond strength of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC-0% at 56 days:

Figure 4.21 reflects that ECC-0% is taken as the base and % increment in strength for
all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age
of 56 days. 3.4% and 5.08% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5%
mixes respectively.1%,4.7% and 6.6% is the increment observed for ECC-GGBS-0%, ECC-
GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% mixes w.r.t ECC-0% at 56 days.
Figure 4.21: % Increase in bond strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at 56 days
4.8 Direct Tensile Strength

Direct Tensile strength is evaluated for 28 and 56 days for different mixes of ECC and
ECC-GGBS.Average of three specimens are taken for final results.
Direct Tensile Strength is calculated by:
F orce(P )
Direct T ensile Strength = (4.2)
Area(A)
where,
P = load at failure in Newtons
A = cross section area of specimen i.e 100mm x 100mm
16600
Direct T ensile Strength = = 1.66M P a (4.3)
10000
Table 4.7 and 4.8 represents direct tensile strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes re-
spectvely.For 56 days max. direct strength is 2.91 MPa and 2.19 MPa observed for
ECC-GGBS-1.5% and ECC-1.5% mixes with displacement of 9.01mm and 8.18mm re-
spectively.For ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-1% direct 1.68 MPa and 1.51 MPa is observed
direct tensile strength with 7.63mm and 6.99mm displacement respectively .
Direct tensile strength observed for ECC-GGBS-0% and ECC-0% is 0.70 MPa and 0.65
MPa having displacement of 2.81mm and 2.59mm respectively at the age of 56 days.
Figure4.22 represents load v/s displacement for ECC mixes at theage of 28 days.It is
observed that direct tensile strength and displacement of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes in-
creases with increase in fiber dosage and days and GGBS also increases the direct tensile
strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes at later days.
Increase in direct tensile strength of all ECC mixes w.r.t to ECC 0% at 56

Table 4.7: Direct Tensile Strength of ECC mixes
Average
Direct
Direct Average
Mix Tensile Displacement
Days Tensile Displacement
Type Strength in mm
Strength in mm
(MPa)
(MPa)
0.58 2.25
ECC-0% 0.65 0.59 2.35 2.20
0.53 2
1.33 6.3
28 ECC-1% 1.3 1.33 6 6.23
1.35 6.38
1.66 7.2
ECC-1.5% 1.69 1.66 7.3 7.13
1.64 6.9
0.62 2.50
ECC-0% 0.67 0.65 2.65 2.59
0.65 2.63
1.52 6.95
56 ECC-1% 1.54 1.51 7.15 6.99
1.47 6.88
1.9 8.18
ECC-1.5% 1.95 1.91 8.32 8.18
1.87 8.05
Table 4.8: Direct Tensile Strength of ECC-GGBS mixes
Average
Direct
Direct Average
Mix Tensile Displacement
Days Tensile Displacement
Type Strength in mm
Strength in mm
(MPa)
(MPa)
0.45 1.5
ECC-GGBS-0% 0.47 0.48 1.65 1.67
0.51 1.85
1.10 5.85
28 ECC-GGBS-1% 1.15 1.15 5.32 5.55
1.21 5.48
1.35 5.95
ECC-GGBS-1.5% 1.39 1.37 6.20 6.09
1.37 6.11
0.74 2.95
ECC-GGBS-0% 0.69 0.70 2.85 2.81
0.67 2.63
1.63 7.45
56 ECC-GGBS-1% 1.65 1.68 7.6 7.63
1.75 7.85
2.23 9.23
ECC-GGBS-1.5% 2.15 2.19 8.76 9.01
2.18 9.05
for all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is evaluated with increase in fiber dosage at the age of
56 days. 132.3% and 193.84% is the % increment calculated for ECC-1% and ECC-1.5%
mixes respectively. 7.69%, 158.46% and 230.9% is the increment observed for ECC-GGBS-
0%, ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% mixes w.r.t ECC-0% at 56 days.
Figure 4.24 shows close view of dumbell shaped speciemen after direct tensile test.ECC
specimens without fiber breaks into two pieces while rest specimens of ECC mixes with
fibers shows ductile failure.
Figure 4.22: Load v/s Displacement for ECC at 28 days
Figure 4.23: % Increase in direct tensile strength of ECC 0% as compared to all mixes at
56 days
4.9 Abrasion Test

The abrasion test results for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are presented in Table 4.9 and
4.10 Percentage weight loss of ECC-0% and ECC-GGBS-0% is higher as compared to all
other mixes at 28 days.
Sample Calculation
100 × (A − B) 100 × (305 − 247)
P ercentage loss in weight = = = 19% (4.4)
A 305
(b) Failed specimen of ECC with0% fiber

(a) ECC specimens with fiber dosage dosage
Figure 4.24: Failed specimens of ECC under direct tension test
Table 4.9: Weight loss of abrasion specimens for ECC mix
Mix Type
Sr.no
ECC-0% ECC-1% ECC-1.5%
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(gram) (gram) (gram) (gram) (gram) (gram)
2 314 259 285 262 307 291
3 305 247 290 270 298 278
4 310 262 295 273 295 282
5 307 258 291 270 302 287
Average 309 256.5 290.25 268.75 300.5 284.5
As shown in Figure 4.25 5.5% and 6.7% is the minimum percentage weight loss ob-
served for ECC-1.5% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% as compared to all other mixes. 7.42%
and 7.6% is the percentage weight loss calculated or for ECC-1% and ECC-GGBS-1%
respectively.ECC-0% and ECC-GGBS-0% mixes shows higher percentage weight loss
which is 17.2% and 18.35% respectively.It is observed that with increment in fiber dosage
abrasion resistance of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes increases
4.10 Impact Energy

The impact test has been performed in drop weight impact testing machine. The spec-
imen of diameter 152 mm and 63 mm height has been used to find out impact energy
test.Average of three specimens are taken for final results.
Sample Calculation For Impact Test
n×m×V2 4 × 0.00453 × 2994.82
Impact energy (U ) = = = 61kN.mm (4.5)
2 2
Table 4.10: Weight loss of abrasion specimen for ECC-GGBS mix
Mix Type
Sr.no
ECC-GGBS-0% ECC-GGBS-1% ECC-GGBS-1.5%
Initial Final Initial Final Initial Final
1 Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight Weight
(gram) (gram) (gram) (gram) (gram) (gram)
2 312 254 275 253 305 281
3 309 247 280 256 296 279
4 312 258 286 257 293 277
5 302 254 276 256 300 276
Average 309 253.25 279.25 255.5 300.5 278
Table 4.11: Percentage weight loss of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix after abrasion test
Percentage Weight Loss After Abrasion Test

Mix Type
Weight loss ECC-0% ECC-1% ECC-1.5% ECC-GGBS-0% ECC-GGBS-1% ECC-GGBS-1.5%
17.5 8.07 5.3 18.5 8 7.5
19 7 6.7 20 8.5 5.7
Percentage weight loss
16.4 7.4 5.1 18.3 9.5 5.9
16 7.24 5 16.3 7.6 8
Average percentage weight loss 17.2 7.42 5.5 18.35 8.4 6.7
Figure 4.25: % Weight loss after abrasion test for ECC mixes
Where,
n = number of blows
44.5
m = mass of hammer = Wg = 9810 = 0.00453kg
V = the velocity of the hammer at impact = gt = 9810
= 2994.38 mm/s
0.03352 q q
2×H
t = the time required for the hammer to fall from a height of 457 mm= g
= 2×457
9810
= 0.3052 sec
H = falling height of hammer = 457mm
Table 4.12: Impact Result of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix
First Final First Final

Mix Crack Crack Mix Crack Crack
Specimen no
Type Blows Blows Type Blows Blows
(N1) (N2) (N1) (N2)
1 2 3 2 2
2 2 3 1 3
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
3 1 2 1 1
Round Average 2 3 1 2
1 18 145 13 110
2 13 130 10 106
ECC-1% ECC-GGBS-1%
3 15 135 8 100
1 23 190 14 165
2 18 178 11 142
ECC-1.5% ECC-GGBS-1.5%
3 15 173 16 156
Table 4.12 represents the numbers of blows required for first crack and final crack of ECC
and ECC-GGBS mixs. Table 4.13 represents impact energy of ECC and ECC-GGBS
mixes during first crack and final crack.ECC mixes shows higher impact energy for first
and final crack as compared to ECC-GGBS mixes for same fiber dosage.ECC-1.5% shows
highest impact strength follwed by ECC-1% and trailed by ECC-0% respectively.Impact
specimen with fibers shows reduced crack width as shown in Figure 4.26 and 4.27 compared
to specimens without fibers.It is observed that impact energy increases with increase in
fiber dosage.
Table 4.13: Impact Energy of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix
Mix Type First Crack First Crack Energy (kN.mm) Final Crack Final Crack Energy (kN.mm)
ECC-0% 2 41 3 61
ECC-1% 15 304.6 137 2782.2
ECC-1.5% 19 385.8 180 3656
ECC-GGBS-0% 1 20.3 2 41
ECC-GGBS-1% 10 203 105 2132.4
ECC-GGBS-1.5% 14 284 154 3128
(a) ECC 1.5% fiber dosage (b) ECC 1% fiber dosage
Figure 4.26: failed specimens of ECC under impact test
(a) ECC-GGBS 1.5% fiber dosage (b) ECC-GGBS 1% fiber dosage
Figure 4.27: Failed specimens of ECC-GGBS under impact test

4.11 Plate Elements under Flexural Loading

The objective of study is to observe the bendable nature of ECC.Initially 3 different
sized plates of dimensions as shown in Table 4.14.Plates of varying thickness are casted
and tested under flexural loading for ECC-1% mix. For each thickness of plate single
Table 4.14: Dimensions and result of plate elements under flexural loading
Length Width Thickness

Load
Sr.no in in in
in kN
mm mm mm
1 500 100 10 0.5
2 500 100 20 1.5
3 500 100 30 2
specimen was casted and tested under flexural loading after 7-days of curing period.Table
4.14 represents test results of the plate elements under flexural loading it is observed that
all the three specimens exhibit bendable behaviour along with multiple cracking
(a) Casting of Plate Specimens (b) Testing under flexure for 20 mm plate
Figure 4.28: Preperation and testing of plate elements
(a) Bended specimens of different thickness (b) Multiple cracking
Figure 4.29: Bending of plates and cracking
From Figure 4.29 plate with 10 mm thickness bends maximum as compared to other
plates and shows multiple cracking pattern.
Based on the results of flexure test on plates. 10mm thickness was finalized to examine
ductile behaviour and crack width of ECC-1% and ECC-GGBS-1% mixes.
4.12 Crack Width Measurement

It is done by placing microscope having least count of 0.1mm.On the surface of the crack
width of the failed plate specimen of ECC-1% mix.Average of three reading was taken
from different crack location for final crack width.From Figure 4.30 and 4.31 shows the
enlarged view of crack width of 10mm thcik plate specimen.Average reading of 0.2mm
is the crack width obtained from microscopic readings. Figure 4.30 reflects that fibers
restrict the crack propagation along with reducing the crack width
(a) Enlarged crack view-1 and 2 (b) Enlarged crack view-3
Figure 4.30: Crack measurement on 10mm plate for ECC-1%
Figure 4.31: Plate specimen of 10mm thickness of ECC-1%
4.13 Flexural Testing on Plates

After 28 days of curing plates of ECC-1% and ECC-GGBS-1% mixes were tested under
flexural loading,the distance between bottom of place and base of the machine was 44
mm as shown in Figure 4.32.
During flexural test all the plate specimen bended to 44 mm without reaching ultimate
failure load as shown in Figure 4.32. Because of this limitation this ultimate failure load
and further bending behaviour of all ECC plate specimens was not observed.
In order to study the exact behaviour of ductile nature of ECC. Plate size should be
further increased in terms of width and length and testing of the plate should be done
with appropriate working mechanism.
Table 4.15: Dimension of specimens
Total
Length Width Thickness
Sr.no Mix type no. of
in mm in mm in mm
specimen
1 ECC- 1% 3 500 100 10
2 ECC-GGBS-1% 3 500 100 10
(a) Bended specimen of ECC-1% (b) gap between plate & base of machine
Figure 4.32: Testing of plates
(a) Bended specimen of ECC-1% (b) Bended specimen of ECC-GGBS-1%
Figure 4.33: Testing of plates

Chapter 5
Results of Durability Properties and

Discussion
5.1 General
This chapter includes resluts of durability properties of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes for
acid attack,chloride attack and sulphate attack after 30 and 60 days of exposure period.
5.2 Acid Attack

Acid resistance of all ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes are studied by immersing specimens in
sulfuric acid tank for 30, and 60 days of exposure period. Acid resistance is evaluated by
visual appearance, measuring change in mass and change in compressive strength after
exposure period.
Visual Apperance : After 60 days exposure of sulphuric acid solution visual appearance
of ECC and ECC-GGBS specimens are shown in figure 5.1 and 5.2,it can be seen clearly
from the figure that specimens surface colour changes to whitish for all ECC-0% and
ECC-GGBS-0% mixes,both the mixes also shows distortion and errosion on surface.It
is also observed that there is no sign of cracking and spalling on rest of all ECC and
ECC-GGBS mixes containing fibers.
Figure 5.1: Visual Apperance of ECC after Sulphuric Acid Exposure
81
CHAPTER 5. RESULTS OF DURABILITY PROPERTIES AND DISCUSSION 82
Figure 5.2: Visual Apperance of ECC-GGBS after Sulphuric Acid Exposure
Change in Mass Change in mass observed after 30 and 60 days of sulphuric acid exposure
for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is shown in Table 5.1 and 5.2 and figure 5.3 and 5.4
represent percentage reduction in mass for different ECC mixes at the age of 30 and 60
days.
Decrease in mass for ECC-0% ,ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% mix is 13.77%,1.12% and 0.82%
respectively.11.44%,0.90% and 0.74% is the decrement observed for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-
GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively at 60 days of acid exposure.
It is also observed that ECC-GGBS mixes shows better resistance against sulphuric acid
as compared to ECC mixes.It is also recorded that with increase in fiber dosage resistance
against sulphuric acid also increases this is due to presence of polypropylene fibers.
Figure 5.3: % Reduction in Mass of ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure

83 CHAPTER 5. RESULTS OF DURABILITY PROPERTIES AND DISCUSSION
Table 5.1: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure
Mass Mass
Mix Speci- Mix Speci-
Days Exposure in Exposure in
Type mens Type mens
kg kg
1 7.69 1 7.77
2 7.73 2 7.73
Before Before
3 7.70 3 7.69
Avg. 7.71 Avg. 7.73
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 7.20 1 7.15
2 7.15 2 7.23
After After
3 6.82 3 7.05
Avg. 7.057 Avg. 7.14
1 7.79 1 7.81
2 7.732 2 7.71
Before Before
3 7.691 3 7.74
Avg. 7.74 Avg. 7.75
30 ECC-1% ECC-GGBS-1%
1 7.73 1 7.77
2 7.70 2 7.68
After After
3 7.67 3 7.71
Avg. 7.70 Avg. 7.72
1 7.78 1 7.72
2 7.72 2 7.812
Before Before
3 7.75 3 7.76
Avg. 7.75 Avg. 7.76
1 7.77 1 7.71
2 7.68 2 7.79
After After
3 7.71 3 7.73
Avg. 7.72 Avg. 7.74
Table 5.2: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid exposure
Mass Mass
Speci- Speci-
Days Mix Type Exposure in Mix Type Exposure in
mens mens
kg kg
1 7.78 1 7.75
2 7.80 2 7.82
Before Before
3 7.71 3 7.69
Avg. 7.76 Avg. 7.75
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 6.75 1 6.92
2 6.65 2 6.82
After After
3 6.68 3 6.86
Avg. 6.69 Avg. 6.87
1 7.79 1 7.77
2 7.71 2 7.69
Before Before
3 7.81 3 7.78
Avg. 7.77 Avg. 7.75
1 7.69 1 7.72
2 7.65 2 7.62
After After
3 7.71 3 7.69
Avg. 7.68 Avg. 7.677
1 7.73 1 7.752
2 7.75 2 7.76
Before Before
3 7.76 3 7.741
Avg. 7.747 Avg. 7.751
1 7.69 1 7.67
2 7.67 2 7.72
After After
3 7.69 3 7.69
Avg. 7.683 Avg. 7.693
Change in Compressive Strength Change in compressive strength has been observed

by testing the specimens of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes after 30 and 60 days of sulphuric
acid exposure period.Compressive strength of specimens with water exposure at respected
ages has been adopted as the reference compressive strength. Table 5.3 represents change
in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes after sulphuric axid exposure for
30 and 60 days.
Figure 5.5 and 5.6 represents decrease in compressive strength of ECC-0%,ECC-1% and
ECC-1.5% is about 22.11%,1.61% and 0.89% respectively for 60 days of sulphuric acid
Figure 5.4: % Reduction in Mass of ECC after sulphuric acid exposure
exposure period. 19.87%,1.29% and 0.70% for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-

GGBS-1.5% respectively for 60 days of soduim chloride exposure period.It is observed that
with increase in fiber dosage of polypropylene fibers redution in compressive strength
decreases. It is also observed that by incorporating GGBS in ECC mix shows good
resistance against sulphuric acid and reduction in compressive strength also decreases.
Figure 5.5: % Reduction in compressive strength after Acid Exposure of ECC
Figure 5.7 and represents ultrasonic pulse velocity reading in order to study the quality of
ECC after acid exposure of ECC.No gradual change in U.P.V reading has been observed.
Table 5.3: Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphuric acid
exposure
Strength Average Strength Strength Strength Average Strength Strength

Days Mix Type in in w.r.t to Mix Type in in w.r.t to,
MPa MPa no exposure MPa MPa no exposure
27.1 29.1
ECC-0% 27.95 27.33 30.53 ECC-GGBS-0% 29.25 29.22 31.82
26.94 29.3
37.57 39.47
30 ECC-1% 37.54 37.57 37.77 ECC-GGBS-1% 39.41 39.44 39.63
37.59 39.45
40.90 42.72
ECC-1.50% 40.97 40.93 41.1 ECC-1.50% 42.68 42.68 42.83
40.92 42.65
24.32 26.25
ECC-0% 24.25 24.22 31.10 ECC-GGBS-0% 26.15 26.23 32.74
24.1 26.3
38.1 40.1
60 ECC-1% 37.95 37.98 38.6 ECC-GGBS-1% 39.75 39.90 40.42
37.88 39.85
41.52 43.47
ECC-1.50% 41.68 41.61 41.98 ECC-GGBS-1% 43.42 43.41 43.72
41.62 43.35
Figure 5.6: % Reduction in compressive strength after Acid Exposure of ECC

Figure 5.7: Change in Ultrasonic Pulse Velosity for Acid Exposure of ECC
5.3 Chloride Attack

Chloride resistance can be evaluated by the means of measuring change in mass,change
in compressive strength and visual appearance after stipulated period of time. chloride
resistance is evaluated for 30 and 60 days exposure period in the present study.
Change in Mass Change in mass observed after 30 and 60 days of sodium chloride
exposure for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is shown in table 5.4 and 5.5 and Figure 5.8
and 5.9 represent %gain in mass for different ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes at the age of
30 and 60 days .0.77%,0.52% and 0.34% is the percentage increment in mass observed for
ECC-0%,ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% respectively. 0.68%,0.43% and 0.26% is the percentage
gain in mass of ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively for
60 days exposure period.
It is also observed that ECC-GGBS shows better resistance against chloride as compared
to ECC and it is also recorded that with increase in fiber dosage resistance against chloride
attack also increases.
Table 5.4: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS mix under chloride exposure
Mass Mass
Type mens Type mens
kg kg
1 7.73 1 7.78
2 7.75 2 7.73
Before Before
3 7.77 3 7.69
Avg. 7.75 Avg. 7.73
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 7.77 1 7.81
2 7.81 2 7.75
After After
3 7.80 3 7.75
Avg. 7.79 Avg. 7.77
1 7.78 1 7.75
2 7.72 2 7.77
Before Before
3 7.70 3 7.75
Avg. 7.73 Avg. 7.76
1 7.8 1 7.76
2 7.76 2 7.82
After After
3 7.74 3 7.78
Avg. 7.77 Avg. 7.79
1 7.74 1 7.72
2 7.79 2 7.81
Before Before
3 7.70 3 7.76
Avg. 7.74 Avg. 7.76
1 7.75 1 7.73
2 7.76 2 7.82
After After
3 7.78 3 7.78
Avg. 7.76 Avg. 7.78
Table 5.5: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under chloride exposure
Mass Mass
Type mens Type mens
kg kg
1 7.75 1 7.70
2 7.78 2 7.73
Before Before
3 7.7 3 7.77
Avg. 7.74 Avg. 7.73
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 7.78 1 7.78
2 7.81 2 7.77
After After
3 7.82 3 7.81
Avg. 7.80 Avg. 7.79
1 7.72 1 7.78
2 7.71 2 7.71
Before Before
3 7.76 3 7.74
Avg. 7.73 Avg. 7.74
1 7.782 1 7.81
2 7.75 2 7.75
After After
3 7.78 3 7.77
Avg. 7.77 Avg. 7.777
1 7.81 1 7.79
2 7.75 2 7.75
Before Before
3 7.71 3 7.73
Avg. 7.76 Avg. 7.76
1 7.83 1 7.80
2 7.78 2 7.75
After After
3 7.74 3 7.78
Avg. 7.78 Avg. 7.77
Change in Compressive Strength Change in compressive strength has been observed

by testing the specimens of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes after 30 and 60 days of sodium
chloride exposure period.Compressive strength of ECC specimens with water exposure at
respected ages has been adopted as the reference compressive strength,Table 5.6 repre-
sents change in compressive strength after sodium chloride exposure of 30 and 60 days
for all ECC mixes
Figure 5.10 and 5.11 indicates the percentage reduction in compressive strength of differ-
Figure 5.8: % Gain in mass for ECC
Figure 5.9: % Gain in mass for ECC-GGBS

ent ECC mixes after 30 and 60 days of sodium chloride exposure. Decrease in compressive
strength is about 0.91%,0.52% and 0.39% for ECC-0%,ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% respec-
tively for 60 days of soduim chloride exposure period.
Reduction in compressive strength of ECC-GGBS mixes is about 0.67%,0.47% and
0.33% for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively for 60 days
of soduim chloride exposure period. It is observed that with increase in fiber dosage of
polypropylene fibers reduction in compressive strength decreases. It is also observed that
by incorporating GGBS in ECC mix shows good resistance against sodium chloride and
reduction in compressive strength also decreases.
Table 5.6: Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after chloride expo-
sure

30.35 31.64
ECC-0% 30.32 30.34 30.53 ECC-GGBS-0% 31.6 31.64 31.82
30.34 31.69
37.61 39.49
30 ECC-1% 37.63 37.61 37.77 ECC-GGBS-1% 39.53 39.49 39.63
37.59 39.46
41.05 42.76
ECC-1.50% 40.93 40.99 41.1 ECC-1.50% 42.68 42.73 42.83
40.98 42.75
30.81 32.51
ECC-0% 30.85 30.82 31.10 ECC-GGBS-0% 32.5 32.52 32.74
30.79 32.55
38.42 40.2
60 ECC-1% 38.38 38.40 38.6 ECC-GGBS-1% 40.23 40.23 40.42
38.4 40.26
41.8 43.58
ECC-1.50% 41.83 41.82 41.98 ECC-GGBS-1% 43.6 43.58 43.72
41.82 43.55
Figure 5.12 represents ultrasonic pulse velocity reading in order to study the quality of
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes after chloride exposure.No gradual change in U.P.V reading
has been observed.
Figure 5.10: % Reduction in compressive strength for ECC
Figure 5.11: % Reduction in compressive strength for ECC-GGBS

Figure 5.12: Change in Ultrasonic Pulse velocity for Chloride Exposure of ECC
5.4 Sulphate Attack

Sulphate resistance can be evaluated by the means of measuring change in mass,change
in compressive strength and visual appearance after stipulated period of time. Sulphate
resistance is evaluated for 30 and 60 days in the present study.
Visual Apperance After 60 days exposure of sulphate solution visual appearance of

ECC specimens of different mixes are shown in Figure 5.13 and 5.14,it can be seen clearly
from the figure that no change in the visual appearance of ECC as compared to specimen
with no exposure and it is also observed that there is no sign of cracking,spalling and
surface erosion on all types of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes.
Figure 5.13: Visual appearance of ECC specimens after sulphate exposure

Figure 5.14: Visual appearance of ECC-GGBS specimens after sulphate exposure
Change in mass
Change in mass observed after 30 and 60 days of sodium sulphate exposure for different
ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is as shown in Table 5.7 and 5.8. Figure 5.15 and 5.16 repre-
sent %gain in mass for different ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes at the age of 30 and 60 days
respectively. The percentage increament in mass observed is 0.81%,0.56% and 0.43% for
ECC-0%,ECC-1% and ECC-1.5% respectively for 60 days exposure period.0.75%,0.47%
and 0.35% increment in mass is calculated for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-
GGBS-1.5% respectively for 60 days exposure period.
It is also observed that ECC-GGBS shows better resistance against sodium sulphate as
compared to ECC and it is also recorded that with increase in fiber dosage resistance
against sulphate also increases this due to presence of polypropylene fiber in the matrix.
Table 5.7: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under sodium sulpahte exposure
Mass Mass
Type mens Type mens
kg kg
1 7.71 1 7.69
2 7.67 2 7.74
Before Before
3 7.76 3 7.77
Avg. 7.71 Avg. 7.73
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 7.76 1 7.75
2 7.73 2 7.767
After After
3 7.80 3 7.81
Avg. 7.764 Avg. 7.78
1 7.79 1 7.79
2 7.74 2 7.73
Before Before
3 7.72 3 7.69
Avg. 7.75 Avg. 7.73
1 7.83 1 7.81
2 7.76 2 7.77
After After
3 7.77 3 7.72
Avg. 7.79 Avg. 7.77
1 7.78 1 7.76
2 7.77 2 7.80
Before Before
3 7.71 3 7.74
Avg. 7.75 Avg. 7.76
1 7.8 1 7.78
2 7.79 2 7.81
After After
3 7.74 3 7.76
Avg. 7.78 Avg. 7.78
Table 5.8: Change in mass of ECC and ECC-GGBS under sodium sulphate exposure
Mass Mass
Type mens Type mens
kg kg
1 7.7 1 7.76
2 7.72 2 7.74
Before Before
3 7.78 3 7.76
Avg. 7.73 Avg. 7.75
ECC-0% ECC-GGBS-0%
1 7.76 1 7.83
2 7.81 2 7.79
After After
3 7.82 3 7.81
Avg. 7.80 Avg. 7.81
1 7.72 1 7.78
2 7.78 2 7.77
Before Before
3 7.71 3 7.71
Avg. 7.74 Avg. 7.75
1 7.78 1 7.81
2 7.82 2 7.8
After After
3 7.74 3 7.76
Avg. 7.78 Avg. 7.79
1 7.71 1 7.72
2 7.74 2 7.75
Before Before
3 7.76 3 7.78
Avg. 7.74 Avg. 7.75
1 7.74 1 7.74
2 7.77 2 7.78
After After
3 7.8 3 7.81
Avg. 7.77 Avg. 7.77
Change in Compressive Strength

Change in compressive strength has been observed by testing the specimens of ECC and
ECC-GGBS mixes after 30 and 60 days of sodium sulphate exposure period. Compressive
strength of ECC specimens with water exposure at respected ages has been adopted as
the reference compressive strength.Table 5.9 represents change in compressive strength
after sodium sulphate exposure of 30 and 60 days for all ECC mixes.Figure 5.17 and 5.18
indicates the percentage reduction in compressive strength of different ECC mixes.
Decrease in compressive strength is about 3.62%, 0.62% and 0.44% for ECC-0%,ECC-1%
Figure 5.15: % Gain in mass for ECC when exposed to sodium sulphate
Figure 5.16: % Gain in mass for ECC-GGBS when exposed to sodium sulphate
and ECC-1.5% respectively for 60 days of soduim sulphate exposure period. it is observed
that with increase in fiber dosage of polypropylene fibers reduction in compressive strength
decreases.
Reduction in compressive strength of ECC-GGBS mixes is about 2.91%,0.51% and 0.35%
for ECC-GGBS-0%,ECC-GGBS-1% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% respectively for 60 days of
soduim chloride exposure period. It is also observed that by incorporating GGBS in ECC
mix shows good reistance against sodium sulphate and reduction in compressive strength
also decreases.
Table 5.9: Change in compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sodium sulphate
exposure

29.95 31.20
ECC-0% 29.85 29.89 30.53 ECC-GGBS-0% 31.30 31.28 31.82
29.88 31.35
37.66 39.51
30 ECC-1% 37.59 37.60 37.77 ECC-GGBS-1% 39.48 39.47 39.63
37.55 39.42
40.96 42.74
ECC-1.50% 40.98 40.96 41.1 ECC-1.50% 42.72 42.72 42.83
40.94 42.7
29.95 31.75
ECC-0% 30.05 29.97 31.10 ECC-GGBS-0% 31.83 31.79 32.74
29.92 31.78
38.32 40.25
60 ECC-1% 38.37 38.36 38.6 ECC-GGBS-1% 40.18 40.21 40.42
38.39 40.21
41.83 43.54
ECC-1.50% 41.77 41.80 41.98 ECC-GGBS-1% 43.57 43.57 43.72
41.79 43.59
Figure 5.17: Reduction in compressive strength for ECC when exposed to sodium sulphate
Figure 5.18: Reduction in compressive strength for ECC-GGBS when exposed to sodium
sulphate
Figure 5.19: Change in Ultrasonic Pulse velocity for Sulphate Exposure of ECC
Figure 5.19 represents ultrasonic pulse velocity reading in order to study the quality
of ECC and ECC-GGBS after sulphate exposure .No gradual change in U.P.V reading
has been observed.
Chapter 6
Concluding Remarks and Future

Scope of Work
6.1 Summary
Present investigation includes three mixes of ECC and ECC-GGBS respectively. All
the three ECC mixes does not include GGBS. Partial replacement of cement by 20%
GGBS is done for all the three mixes of ECC-GGBS. ECC-0% and ECC-GGBS-0%
mixes are without fibers. ECC-1% and ECC-GGBS-1% consists of polypropylene fibers
by 1% respectively. ECC-1.5% and ECC-GGBS-1.5% consists of polypropylene fibers
by 1.5% respectively. Mechanical properties included in this investigation are compres-
sive strength, flexural strength, split tensile strength, modulus of elasticity,direct tensile
strength,impact strength, abrasion resistance and bond strength. Plate test under Flexu-
ral loading on the mixes of ECC and ECC-GGBS is conducted.Compressive strength,split
tensile strength,flexural strength of all mixes of ECC and ECC-GGBS are evaluated at the
age of 7,28 and 56 days. Direct tensile strength,bond strength and modulus of elasticity
is evaluated at the age of 28 abd 56 days respectvely.Impact energy,abrasion resistance
and plate test is evaluated at the age of 28 days.
Durability tests like sulphate resistance, chloride resistance and acid resistance are per-
formed after 28 days of normal water curing. After normal curing for 28 days, the exposure
of sulphate, chloride and acid is given for 30 and 60 days. UPV test is conducted for ECC
and ECC-GGBS specimens after the exposure of 60 days.
An attempt has been made to study the effect of GGBS and increasing dosage of polypropy-
lene fibers on the mechanical and durability properties of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes.
6.2 Concluding Remarks

Following concluding remarks are made on the basis of the work conducted in major
project.
1 Compressive strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes increases with increases in fiber
101
CHAPTER 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK 102
dosage of polypropylene fibers. GGBS also contributes for increase in compressive

strength after 28 days.Strength of ECC-GGBS mixes is observed to be higher as com-
pared to ECC mixes for same amount of fiber dosage at the age of 56 days.
2 Split Tensile Strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is significantly influenced by the
addition of fiber.Addition of GGBS also plays important role in increasing split tensile
strength at later age of ECC-GGBS mixes.
3 No gradual increment in Modulus of Elasticity for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes is ob-
served with increment in fiber dosage. GGBS contributes in increasing strength of
ECC-GGBS mixes after 28 days.
4 Fibers plays prominent role in increasing flexural strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS
mixes.It is also observed that flexural stregnth of ECC and ECC-GGBs mixes increases
with increase in fiber dosage.Strength increment is observed higher for ECC-GGBS
mixes as compared to ECC for same amount of fiber dosage at the age of 56 days due
to incorporation of GGBS.
5 Bond strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes does not shows any significant improve-
ment due to addition of fibers.GGBS incorporation shows increase in bond strength of
ECC-GGBs mixes after 28 days.
6 Fibers plays dominant role in increasing direct tensile strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS
mixes.Direct tensile strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes increases with increase
in fiber dosage.At the age of 56 days direct tensile strength of ECC-GGBS mixes is
observed to be higher as compared to ECC mixes for same amount of fiber dosage.
7 Weight loss of specimens for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes under abrassion test decreases
with increase in fiber dosage .It is observed that wear resistance of ECC mixes is higher
as compared ECC-GGBS mixes for same amount of fiber dosage.GGBS does not play
any significant role for decreasing wear resistance of ECC-GGBS mixes.
8 Gradual increment is observed in impact energy for ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes with
increase in fiber dosage.Impact energy of ECC mixes is noted higher as compared to
ECC-GGBS mixes for same amount of fiber dosage at the age of 28 days.Incorporation
of GGBS does not show any significant increase in impact energy for ECC-GGBS mixes
at the age of 28 days.
9 In the study related to acid exposure it is evaluated from the results that by incor-
porating GGBS,acid resistance of ECC-GGBS mixes increases as compared to ECC
mixes for same amount of fiber dosage. Reduction in terms of compressive strength
and change in mass decreases by the addition GGBS and increasing fiber dosage.
10 Resistance of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes against chloride attack increases with in-
crease in fiber dosage.Addition of GGBS leads to better performance ECC-GGBS as
compared to ECC for same amount of fiber dosage.
103 CHAPTER 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK
11 Increasing fiber dosage increases the resistance agaisnt sulphate attack for ECC and
ECC-GGBS mixes.By incorporating GGBS sulphate resistance of ECC-GGBS mixes
increases as compared to ECC mixes for same amount of fiber dosage.
The above results indicates significant improvement in mechanical properties such as com-
pressive strength ,direct tensile strength,split tensile strength,flexural strength,abrasion
resistance and impact energy attempted in this investigation. Minor improvement is also
noted in Modulus of Elasticity and bond strength of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixes.Addition
of GGBS also increases the performance of ECC-GGBS mixe against acid attack,chloride
attack and sulphate attack.
6.3 Future Scope of Work

The study may be further extended to incorporate following viewpoints:
1 Investigation of mechanical properties i.e. compressive strength, flexural strength, split

tensile strength and modulus of elasticity for ECC mixes upto the age pf 90 and 180
days ages.
2 Investigations related to durability test i.e. chloride resistance, sulphate resistance and
acid resistance and carbonation of ECC mix upto the age of 90 and 180 days respectively.
3 The behavior of RC beam, column and beam-column joint may be investigated using
ECC.
4 Investigation can further be carried out by changing the replacement amount of GGBS
and Fly ash of that of ordinary portland cement
5 Study related to micro structure of ECC can be done.

CHAPTER 6. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND FUTURE SCOPE OF WORK 104
Appendix A
List of Papers Published
• Mehta N. and Dave U.,”Study on Mechanical Properties of Engineered Cementitious
Composite Using Polypropylene Fibers”,8th National Civil Engineering Students
Symposuim (AAKAR), Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, Maharashtra,March
16.
• Mehta N. and Dave U.,”Study on Mechanical Properties of Engineered Cemen-

titious Composite Using Polypropylene Fibers”,National Level Techno- Manage-
ment Colloquium-NU-TECH’16,Institute of Technology,Nirma University ,Ahmed-
abad,Gujarat,February 16.
Bibliography
[1] Li V. and Lepech M. large scale processing of engineered cementitious composite.ACI

Material Journal, Vol.105,Aug-2008 ,pp 352-365.
[2] Zhuge et al.”Material properties and impact resistance of a new lightweight Engi-
neered cementitious composite”.23rd Australasian conference on the mechanics of
structures and materials,Dcember 2014,pp 501-508.
[3] Bang J et al.”Development of ecoefficient Engineered cementitious composite s using

supplementary cementitious materials as a binder and bottom ash aggregate as fine
aggregate”,International journal of polymer science,March 2015,pp 325-343.
[4] Rathod J et al.”Comparative study of Engineered cementitious and self compacting

Engineered cementitious composite on responce under impact loading”,international
journal of emerging technology and advanced engineering,vol.2,february 2012,pp 879-
889.
[5] Halvaei M et al.”Performance of low modulus fibers in engineered cementitious

composites: flexural strength and pull out resistance”,Advanced materials re-
search,vol.687,2013,pp 762-775.
[6] Rathod J.”Effect of single fiber pull out test result on flexural performance of
ECC”.civil and environmental engineering,vol.4,2014,pp 70-79
[7] Rathod J.”Comparative study of the steel and polyester fiber reinforced composite
under impact load”.Asian resonance,vol-3,2014,pp 351-356
[8] Rathod J.and Patodi S.”A comparative study of recron and steel fiber reinforced
engineered cementitious composites”,New building and construction world,vol.03-
2010,pp 221-232
[9] Li.V and Shuxin.W.”Engineered Cementitious composite with high volume fly
ash”,ACI material journal,title no 104-M25,May-June 2007,pp 458-465
[10] Zhang.P et al.”Water and Chloride Penetration into Strain Hardening Cement-based
Composites Under and After Imposed Strain”,Qingdao Technological University-
China,june 2010,pp 45-52.
[11] Sahmaran M et al.”The Effect of self healing on the durability performance of micro-
cracked ECC”,VIII International Conference on Fracture Mechanics of ECC and
ECC Structures,FraMCoS-8,2012,pp 1052-1061
105
BIBLIOGRAPHY 106
[12] Cleopatra P et al.”Effect of Plate Thickness on Crack Propagation Characteristics of

Engineered Cementitious Composites”. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences,vol- 4:542-
547,2011,pp 611-623
[13] Vayeda R. and Patel P.”Assessment of direct tensile strength of ECC”,M.Tech Thesis,
Institute of Technology, Nirma University, Ahmedabad, 2011.
[14] Wang S. and Li V.”Lightweight engineered cementitious composites”HPFRCC4

workshop,University of Mixhigan,USA,379-390,2003,pp 754-762.
[15] Peled A. and Shah S.”Processing effect in cementitious composites:extrusion and

casting”,Journal of material in civil engineering,192-199,2003,pp 125-131.
[16] Bureau of Indian Standards, Method of test for pozzolanic materials, No. 1727, 1967.
[17] Bureau of Indian Standards, Splitting tensile strength of ECC method of test, No.
5816, 1999.
[18] Bureau of Indian Standards, Methods of tests for strength of ECC, No. 516, 1959.
[19] Bureau of Indian Standards, Methods of test for aggregate for ECC, No. 2386, 1963.
[20] Bureau of Indian Standards, Specification for Coarse and fine aggregate from natural
sources for ECC, No. 383, 1970.
[21] Bureau of Indian Standards, Specification for fly ash for use as pozzolana and ad-
mixture, No. 3812, 2003.
[22] Bureau of Indian standards, Methods of Testing Bond in reinforced ECC Part-1
Pull-out test, No. 2770 (Part-1), 1965.
[23] Bureau of Indian Standards, Specification for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement,
No. 12269, 1987.
[24] Bureau of Indian Standards, ECC Mix Design - Guideline, No. 10262, 2009.
[25] American ECC Institute Committee, Measurement of properties of fiber reinforced

concrete, No. 544.2R, 2004.
[26] ECC Society, Testing aggregates, Method for determination of aggregate abrasion
value (AAV), No. 812-113, 1990.
[27] Bureau of Indian Standards, Methods of test for chemical resistant ECCs, No. 4456,
1987.

14MCLC07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

14MCLC07

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

14MCLC07

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Study on Mechanical And

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Major Project Report

Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the degree of

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

Dr. Urmil V. Dave Dr. P. V. Patel

It is observed that ECC-GGBS mixes shows much better performance as compared to

I further extend my thanks to Dr. P. V. Patel, Head, Department of Civil Engineer-

My sincere thanks and gratitude to Dr. S. P. Purohit, Professor, Department of Civil

I am thankful to Mr. P. N. Raval, Laboratory Assistant, Concrete technology lab-

I am highly indebted to Almighty, my family members and my friends by whose blessings,

ECC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Engineered Cementitious Composite

Abbreviation, Notation and Nomenclature xiii

List of Tables xviii

List of Figures xxi

2.3.1 Chloride Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

4 Results of Mechanical Properties and Discussion 49

5 Results of Durability Properties and Discussion 81

5.4 Sulphate Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

6 Concluding Remarks and Future Scope of Work 101

1.1 Different ECC mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.1 Various Mixes Adopted . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Physical Properties of cement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

4.14 Dimensions and result of plate elements under flexural loading . . . . . . . 78

1.1 Mihara Bridge, Japan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Compressive Strength for various ECC mixes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.1 Close View of Polypropylene Fibre . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

4.1 % Increase in Density of ECC and ECC-GGBS mixe w.r.t ECC-0% . . . . 50

4.2 % Increase in compressive Strength of ECC With increase in fiber dosage

5.1 Visual Apperance of ECC after Sulphuric Acid Exposure . . . . . . . . . . 81

5.4 % Reduction in Mass of ECC after sulphuric acid exposure . . . . . . . . . 85

Figure 1.1: Mihara Bridge, Japan

Figure 1.2: ECC link slab , Grover street bridge, Michigan

1.2 Need of Study

1.3 Objectives of Study

• To evaluate change in various mechanical properties such as compressive strength,

• To study the change in durability properties such as sulphate reistance,chloride

1.4 Scope of Work

Figure 1.3: Scope of Work

Table 1.1: Different ECC mix

Sr. No Cement:Sand Ratio Fiber Dosage

1 Replacement of cement content by fly ash and GGBS.

Table 1.2: Mechanical Test

Sr. No Name of Test: Days

Table 1.3: Durability Test

Sr. No Name of Test: Days

1.5 Organisation of Major Project

• Chapter 3 includes material properties, casting and testing procedure to be carried

• Chapter 4 contains results and discussion on mechanical properties of ECC.It also

• Chapter 6 comprises of concluding remarks,summary and recommendation for future

2.2 Literature review on mechanical properties

2.2.1 Compressive Strength

Table 2.1: Various Mixes Adopted

Figure 2.1: Compressive Strength for various ECC mixes

2.2.2 Flexural Strength

Figure 2.2: Flexural strength for various cement:sand ratio

Table 2.2: Various Mixes Adopted