Indexed in

Scopus Compendex and Geobase Elsevier, Chemical

Abstract Services-USA, Geo-Ref Information Services-USA

ISSN 0974-5904, Volume 05, No. 01

www.cafetinnova.org February 2012, P.P. 180-185

Strength Performance of Pond Ash Concrete

R. S. BANG1, Y. M. GHUGAL2 and I. K. PATERIYA3
1
Civil Engineering Dept., Government Polytechnic, Jalna, MS, India
2
APMD, Government College of Engineering, Aurangabad, 431005, MS, India
3
PMGSY, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi., India
Email: rsbang@rediffmail.com, ghugal@rediffmail.com, pateriya1@gmail.com

Abstract: Pond ash is produced at alarming rate as a coal fuel waste from thermal power plants in India. It is similar
to fly ash, except coarser in size and transported to ponds in the form of slurry. With environmental concerns, it
becomes very important to consume this waste. On the other hand, ecological balance is disturbed due to rapid
consumption of natural sand as fine aggregate in conventional concrete. Hence it is tried to utilize pond ash as fine
aggregate with natural sand for sustainable development of concrete industry in India. Eighteen concrete matrices
were designed with 25 and 50 percent pond ash by replacing natural sand as fine aggregate and test specimens were
prepared for compressive, flexural and split tensile strength. The concretes of M20, M30 and M40 grades with 25
percent pond ash and 75 percent crushed sand shows compressive strength at 28 days curing 23.49, 14.68 and 9.93
percent higher than the conventional companion mixes respectively. For these mixes the flexural strength was 11.11,
7.30 and 4.88 percent higher and split tensile strength was 4.93, 8.57 and 8.33 percent higher than their conventional
companion mixes respectively. The strength development was observed up to 365 days. This investigation shows a
wide scope for utilizing pond ash as fine aggregate in concrete. This study will result in contribution towards twin
objectives of waste disposal and natural resource conservation together.
Keywords: Pond ash, Natural sand, Crushed sand, Compressive strength, Flexural strength, Split tensile strength.

Introduction: The ash ponds cause severe respiratory and other

ailments, visual and aesthetic problems in almost all the
Safe and economic disposal of industrial waste
major industrial cities in India. Hence, there is a need to
including coal ash from thermal power plants continues
effectively use this pond ash. In the present
to remain a cause of concern to the industrial societies.
investigation, the possibility of partial replacement of
Alternative use of these waste products in civil
natural sand (NS) with pond ash as well as total
engineering applications, extensively researched and
replacement of natural sand with pond ash and crushed
widely adopted in continental Europe and America, is
sand (CS) in making concrete is studied. Utilization of
steadily being realized in developing countries including
pond ash can result not only in reducing the magnitude
India.[1] Nearly 73% of India’s total installed power
of the environmental problems, but also to exploit pond
generation capacity is thermal-based, of which coal-
ash as a raw material for value added products and
based generation is 90%, the remaining comprising
conserve traditional materials.
diesel, wind, gas and steam. The 85 utility thermal
power stations in India, besides the several captive Literature Review:
power plants, use bituminous and sub-bituminous coal
Bapat et al[3] studied the compressive strength of
and produce large quantities of fly ash. The thermal
concrete containing high volumes of pond ash as a
power stations in India at present generate nearly 125
replacement of cement and compared with Portland
million ton of coal ash every year, out of which only
cement concrete and concrete made with the fly ash.
about 15% is presently utilized in cement, concrete,
They found that pond ash was successfully used in high
bricks and geotechnical applications. The high ash
volumes to make concrete of lower strength. Sushil
content of Indian coal (30-50%) is contributing to these
kumar[4] investigated the effect of addition of ponded fly
large volumes of fly ash. As a general practice in India,
ash on the workability of concrete for 20, 40, 60 and
fly ash and bottom ash are mixed with water and
80% of fine aggregate replaced with ponded ash and
transported to ash ponds. The ash thus deposited in pond
with extra cement and extra water added to restore
is called as Pond Ash (PA).The World Bank has
workability. He estimated that a maximum of 40% of
cautioned India that by 2015, land disposal of coal ash
fine aggregate can be replaced with ponded fly ash with
would call for about 1000 square kilometers.[2]
the addition of 30% of extra cement which would then

#02050124 Copyright © 2012 CAFET-INNOVA TECHNICAL SOCIETY. All rights reserved.

 R. S. BANG, Y. M. GHUGAL and I. K. PATERIYA
generally lead to uneconomical mixes. Mangaraj et al [5]
reported the study of flow of cement mortars and
workability of cement concrete where the fine aggregate
was replaced up to 30% with pond ash and reported
suitability for medium strength concrete. Fly ash
collected through Electrostatic precipitators has been
widely accepted in construction industry as a pozzolanic
material. Pond ash being coarser and less pozzolanic is
not being used. Ranganath et al[6-7] in their study on
pond ash has shown that particles below 45um have a
positive influence on the strength of cement concrete at
10% and 20% replacement of cement and concluded
that pond ash contains both reactive small particles and
non-reactive or poorly reactive large particles. About
1000 million tons of pond ash is currently available in
India, almost free of cost. Source of natural sand is
getting depleted and also becoming costly. Based on the
investigations, the crushed sand concretes show higher
compressive, split tensile and flexural strength than the
corresponding concretes with natural sand as fine
aggregate.[8-10]
Experimental Programme:
Materials:
Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) conforming to IS
1489 (Part 1) – 1991[11] was used throughout the project
work. The physical properties of PPC are tabulated in
Table 1. The physical and chemical characteristics of
PA, CS and NS are shown in Table 2. The
characteristics analysis of pond ash shows that it has
lower specific gravity, more carbon content and higher
loss on ignition. Sieve analyses of pond ash, natural
sand and crushed sand and their combined grading are
as shown in Table 3. The fine aggregate consisting of
25%PA ranges in zone II while 50% PA lie in zone III,
as per IS 383-1970[12].
Crushed natural rock stone aggregate of nominal size up
to 25 mm and aggregate passing 12.5 mm having
specific gravity 2.96, Bulk density 1620 kg/m3 and 1580
kg/m3, water absorption 1.32 and 1.46 percent and
fineness modulus 7.57 and 6.13 respectively. The super
plasticizer ‘Roff super plast – 320’ with a specific
gravity 1.16 was used in the proportioning of cement
content for desired workability.
Concrete Mix Proportioning:
Concrete mixes were designed in accordance with the
guidelines on concrete practice as per SP 23:1982[13]
and IS 456:2000[14]. The mixes were designed as per IS
10262: 1982[15] for M20, M30 and M40 grades of
concrete, with replacement of natural sand by pond ash
to the extent of 25 and 50 percent and total replacement
of natural sand with pond ash and crushed sand in the
same proportions of 25 and 50 percent. To maintain
International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering
ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 180-185
181
workability super plasticizer was used. The adopted mix
proportions are summarized in Table 4.
Casting of Test Specimens:
The exact amount of concrete ingredients were weighed
on an electronics balance with 10 gm accuracy and
mixed thoroughly in the laboratory concrete mixer till
consistent mixes were achieved. The workability of
fresh concrete was measured in terms of slump value
and compaction factor. The standard cubes of 150 mm
size, beams of 100x100x500 and standard cylinder of
150 mm diameter and 300 mm height were cast in steel
moulds and compacted on a vibrating table. Total
eighteen mixes were designed for M20, M30 and M40
concrete. The average standard deviation of
compressive strength of natural sand pond ash concrete
(NSPAC) and crushed sand pond ash concrete (CSPAC)
was less than 2.50. Comparative compressive strength
with varying percentage of pond ash with natural sand
as well as crushed sand of M20, M30 and M40 mixes
are shown in Fig. 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The
compressive strength of NSPAC mixes is compared
with that of CSPAC mixes as shown in Table 5. The
comparative test results of flexural tensile strength and
split tensile strength for NSPAC and CSPAC are shown
in Table 6 and Table 7 respectively.
Discussion on Test Results:
In general, the workability of the pond ash concrete
reduces with the increase in percentage of pond ash
which phenomenon would be due to the specific surface
effect of the mixture and also probably due to the higher
water absorption capacity of pond ash. But on combined
grading and use of superplasticizer, the workability can
be restored to a large extent. In fact, pond ash concrete
mixes were better than conventional concrete mixes due
to the increased cohesiveness and total absence of
bleeding. The slump of the fresh concrete for all mixes
was found to be in the range of 80 mm to 160 mm.
It is observed that the presence of 25% PA with 75%
NS in concrete improves the compressive strength at 56
days of curing by 11.63%, 14.81% and 8.71% over the
28-days strength of control mixes of M20, M30 and
M40 concrete respectively. While the presence of 25%
PA with 75% CS in concrete improves the compressive
strength at 56 days of curing by 23.6%, 16.75% and
14.95% over the 28-days strength of control mixes of
M20, M30 and M40 concrete respectively. At 28 days
curing period, the compressive strength of NSPAC25
was observed on lower side in the range of 83% to 97%
while for CSPAC25, it was on higher side in the range
of 7% to 20% compared to the respective controlled
mixes. The 28-days strength of CSPAC was 25% to
33% higher than that of companion NSPAC. For longer
period of curing i.e. 365 days, the concrete strength rose
 182 Strength Performance of Pond Ash Concrete

continuously. The similar trends were observed for split fine aggregate at 28-days curing period recorded higher
and flexural strengths of NSPAC and CSPAC. strengths up to about 25%.
• In the present investigation with prolonged curing
Conclusion:
period, 50% replacement of PA as fine aggregate is
Based on the present study of NSPAC and CSPAC, found feasible. If small drop in the strength at 28 days
following conclusions are drawn. may be up to 10% can be tolerated, then 25% PA can be
• It is observed that 25% PA content with NS as fine utilized as fine aggregate with natural sand. In case of
aggregate gives consistently higher compressive CSPAC, 25% PA replacement level show increase in
strength, flexural strength, and split tensile strength at strength at 28 days curing period and can be used with
56-days of curing period and small drop of about 10% at advantage as alternative to the natural sand.
28-days curing period. But 25% PA content with CS as
Table 1: Physical Characteristics of Portland Pozzolana Cement
No. Test Characteristics IS:1489-1991
1 Specific gravity 3.10 3.10 - 3.14
2 Fineness, m2/ kg 321 ≥ 300
3 Soundness, mm 1.5 < 10
4 Normal consistency % 30.50
5 Initial setting time 164 minute ≥ 30
6 Final setting time 244 minute ≤ 600
7 28 days Compressive strength 63.5 MPa ≥ 33
Table 2: Physical and Chemical Characteristics of PA, CS and NS
A. Physical Properties
Property Pond ash Crushed sand Natural Sand
Specific Gravity 2.33 2.65 2.60
Bulk Density, kg/m3 824 1762 1750
Fineness Modulus 1.23 2.75 3.03
Water absorption, % 2.89 2.35 1.80
B. Chemical Characteristics (%) as per IS: 4032-1968[16]
Constituent Compounds Pond ash Crushed sand Natural Sand
Total Silica(SiO2) 66.24 66.48 76.66
Alumina (Al2O3) 19.50 7.85 11.45
Iron Oxide (Fe2O3) 8.74 12.26 3.72
Calcium oxide (CaO) 1.59 3.12 3.90
Magnesium oxide (MgO) 0.35 1.38 0.75
Sodium oxide(Na2O) 0.38 3.56 1.15
Potassium oxide(K2O) 0.05 0.50 1.83
Titanium dioxide (TiO2) Nil 3.31 Nil
Loss of Ignition at 10000C 3.15 1.54 0.54
Table 3: Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates

IS Percentage passing (IS:383-1970)[14]

Sieve PA25+ PA50+ PA25+ PA50+ PA75+ Zone Zone
(mm) PA CS NS Zone II
CS75 CS50 NS75 NS50 NS25 III IV
10.0 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
4.75 100 98.53 99.74 98.90 99.27 99.81 99.87 99.94 90-100 90-100 95-100
2.36 100 78.50 75.70 83.88 89.25 81.78 87.85 93.93 75-100 85-100 95-100
1.18 99.79 65.12 55.62 73.79 82.46 66.66 77.71 88.75 55-90 75-100 90-100
0.600 99.26 42.38 35.35 56.60 70.82 51.33 67.31 83.28 35-59 60-79 80-100
0.300 61.44 26.28 19.93 35.07 43.86 30.31 40.69 51.06 8-30 12-40 15-50
0.150 16.44 12.35 10.50 13.37 14.40 11.99 13.47 14.96 0-10 0-10 0-15

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 180-185
 R. S. BANG, Y. M. GHUGAL and I. K. PATERIYA 183

Table 4: Mix Proportions (kg/m3)

Pond CA
Cement FA Water SP Slump Compaction
Sr. No Mix ash (A1+A2)
(kg) (kg) (lt/m3) (lt/m3) (mm) factor
(kg) (kg)
1 20NSPA00 330 --- 712 1150 165 3.3 150 0.91
2 20NSPA25 319 153 459 1135 160 3.19 120 0.90
3 20NSPA50 310 238 238 1120 155 3.1 110 0.88
4 30NSPA00 355 --- 685 1090 178 3.55 160 0.90
5 30NSPA25 341 148 446 1160 171 3.41 130 0.88
6 30NSPA50 322 230 230 1148 161 3.22 105 0.86
7 40NSPA00 438 --- 670 1030 219 4.38 140 0.88
8 40NSPA25 420 140 420 1020 210 4.2 120 0.85
9 40NSPA50 402 221 221 1005 201 4.02 100 0.85
10 20CSPA00 340 --- 760 1070 170 3.40 140 0.90
11 20CSPA25 322 153 459 1062 161 3.22 120 0.88
12 20CSPA50 311 243 243 1060 152 3.11 100 0.85
13 30CSPA00 385 --- 750 1040 173 3.85 120 0.88
14 30CSPA25 367 147 440 1026 184 3.67 110 0.86
15 30CSPA50 351 228 228 1054 176 3.51 100 0.85
16 40CSPA00 450 --- 740 1024 175 4.50 100 0.86
17 40CSPA25 418 142 426 1020 167 4.18 85 0.84
18 40CSPA50 395 215 215 1016 158 3.95 80 0.82
Table 5: Comparative Cube Compressive Strengths
Cube compressive strength (28 days)
Mix M20 M30 M40
NS CS % variation NS CS % variation NS CS % variation
PA00 31.46 32.46 03.18 39.63 42.50 07.24 49.35 49.35 00.00
PA25 30.56 38.85 27.13 36.15 45.45 25.73 40.84 54.25 32.84
PA50 24.85 31.15 25.35 32.22 41.25 28.03 37.15 48.18 29.69
Cube compressive strength (365 days)
PA00 39.84 44.65 12.07 50.85 54.25 06.69 60.48 63.30 04.66
PA25 41.04 50.24 22.42 53.18 59.60 12.07 62.12 69.42 11.75
PA50 38.72 46.38 19.78 50.25 55.80 11.04 56.55 65.00 14.94
Table 6: Comparative Flexural Tensile Strengths
Flexural tensile strength (28 days)
Mix M20 M30 M40
NS CS % variation NS CS % variation NS CS % variation
PA00 4.50 4.61 02.44 5.00 5.10 2.00 5.50 5.58 1.45
PA25 4.40 5.00 13.64 4.75 5.22 9.89 5.02 5.65 12.55
PA50 4.05 4.42 09.14 4.40 4.96 12.73 4.70 5.23 11.28
Flexural tensile strength (56 days)
PA00 4.85 4.95 02.06 5.30 5.45 2.83 5.85 6.00 2.56
PA25 4.78 5.25 09.83 5.20 5.65 8.65 5.65 6.12 8.32
PA50 4.35 4.70 08.05 4.95 5.32 9.69 5.23 5.75 9.94

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 180-185
184 Strength Performance of Pond Ash Concrete

Figure 1: Comparative Compressive Strength of M20-NSPAC and CSPAC

Figure 2: Comparative Compressive Strength of M30-NSPAC and CSPAC

Figure 3: Comparative Compressive Strength of M40-NSPAC and CSPAC

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 180-185
 R. S. BANG, Y. M. GHUGAL and I. K. PATERIYA 185

Table 7: Comparative Split Tensile Strengths

Split tensile strength (28 days)
Mix M20 M30 M40
NS CS % variation NS CS % variation NS CS % variation
PA00 3.45 3.50 01.45 3.85 3.96 02.86 4.20 4.35 03.57
PA25 3.38 3.62 07.10 3.70 4.18 12.97 3.91 4.55 16.37
PA50 3.15 3.22 02.22 3.44 3.70 07.56 3.65 4.08 11.78
Split tensile strength (56 days)
PA00 3.75 3.90 04.00 4.10 4.22 02.93 4.55 4.61 01.32
PA25 3.85 4.16 08.05 4.21 4.41 04.75 4.62 4.90 06.06
PA50 3.40 3.85 13.24 3.94 4.25 07.87 4.11 4.56 10.95
References: pond ash and crusher stone dust as fine aggregate,
International Conference of IABSE at Bankok,
[1] American Coal Ash Association, (2003) Fly ash
Thailand 9-11 Sep., pp.170-171.
facts for highway engineers (Report no. FHWA-IF-
[9] Chitlange M.R., Bang R.S. and Pajgade P.S. (2010)
03-109), Federal Highway Administration,
Appraisal of artificial sand concrete, Journal of the
Washington DC, USA, June, pp76
Institution of Engineers (India), vol. 90, Feb, pp.
[2] Tata Energy Research Institute (TERI) (2000) -
10-12.
Managing fly ash. (report)
[10] Sahu, A. K., Kumar Sunil, and Sachin A. K., (2003)
[3] Bapat, J. D, Sabnis, S. S., Hazaree, C. V., and
Crushed stone waste as fine aggregate for concrete,
Deshchowgule, A. D., (2006) Ecofriendly concrete
The Indian Concrete Journal, vol-77, No.1, January,
with High volume of Lagoon ash, Journal of
pp. 845-847.
Material in Civil Engineering ASCE, May/ June,
[11] IS1489: 1991, Specification for Portland Pozzolana
pp. 453-461.
Cement: part I - fly ash based (Third Revision)
[4] Sushil kumar (1992) Use of fly ash as fine
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
aggregate in concrete, M. E. Thesis, Civil
[12] IS 383-1970, Specification for coarse and fine
Engineering, Delhi college of Engineering,
aggregates from natural sources for concrete (2nd
University of Delhi, Delhi.
revision) Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi,
[5] Mangaraj B. K., and S. Krishnamoorthy (1994) Use
India.
of ponded fly ash as part replacement of fine
[13] SP 23:1982, Indian standard hand book on concrete
aggregate in mortar and concrete, Indian Concrete
mixes (Amendment No. 1) Bureau of Indian
Journal, vol.68, no.5, May, pp.279-282.
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[6] Ranganath R. V., B. Bhattacharjee, and S.
[14] IS 456:2000, Code of Practice for Plain and
Krishnamoorthy (1998) Influence of size fraction of
Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards,
ponded ash on its pozzolanic activity, Cement and
New Delhi.
Concrete Research, vol. 28 No. 5, May, pp749-761.
[15] IS 10262: 1982, Recommended Guidelines for
[7] Ranganath R. V., B. Bhattacharjee, and S.
concrete mix Design, Bureau of Indian Standards,
Krishnamoorthy (1999) Reproportioning of
New Delhi, India.
aggregate mixes for optimal workability with pond
[16] IS 4032: 1968, Indian standard Method of chemical
ash as a fine aggregate in concrete, Indian Concrete
Analysis of Hydraulic Cement, Bureau of Indian
Journal, vol.73, No.7, July, pp.441-449.
Standards, New Delhi, India.
[8] Bang R. S., Chitlange M. R. and Pateriya I. K.
(2009) Appraisal of eco-friendly concrete by using

International Journal of Earth Sciences and Engineering

ISSN 0974-5904, Vol. 05, No. 01, February 2012, pp. 180-185