ACI MATERIALS JOURNAL
Title no. 108-M72
Design and Elaboration of Concrete Mixtures Using
Steelmaking Slags
by Juan Manuel Manso, David Hernández, Maria Milagros Losáñez, and Javier Jesús González
The use of electric arc furnace oxidizing slag (EAFS) is discussed in
this paper as a high-quality coarse aggregate for the manufacture
of concrete. Ladle furnace reducing slag (LFS) is also discussed,
both as a fine aggregate and a potentially hydraulic material. A
single system is used for proportioning this type of concrete, in
which the presence of very fine inert materials is a determinant.
The properties of this type of fresh concrete are evaluated, which in
some cases exhibit rapid setting. In a hardened state, their physico-
mechanical properties are those of high-quality concretes, showing
outstanding compressive strength. It is concluded that high propor-
tions of EAFS and moderate proportions of LFS may be used in the
manufacture of precast concretes, and that, in this case, the latter
demonstrates considerable hydraulic activity.
Keywords: electric arc furnace slag; ladle furnace slag; rapid setting;
recycling; strength; workability.
INTRODUCTION
The cement, mortar, and concrete industry is a sector
of activity that currently contributes notably to the global
emission of greenhouse gases, mainly in the form of
carbon dioxide (CO2).1 In the case of portland cement,
this gas is emitted due to the decomposition of its raw
materials, calcination processes, and the combustion of
fuel in its manufacture, being the most critical from this
point of view.2 The use of industrial by-products to replace
natural aggregates can induce important benefits in direct
sustainability, reducing landfill deposits and the exploitation
of natural resources.3-6
Two kinds of electric steelmaking by-products may
constitute sources for recycling: electric arc furnace
oxidizing slag (EAFS) and ladle furnace reducing slags
(LFS). Production per tonnes (2207 lb) of steel manufactured
amounts to approximately 0.16 tonnes (353 lb) of EAFS and
0.04 tonnes (88 lb) of LFS.7 Both contain the normal oxides:
silica, alumina, lime, and magnesia. The basicity of LFS
(generated in the basic refining process) is higher than that
of EAFS (generated in the acid-refining process); and the
latter has a considerable amount of iron oxide, comprising
nearly half its total mass.
The recycling of these types of slags in the field of
construction and civil engineering is an important line of
research. Prominent studies over the last decade suggest
that they may be considered high-quality materials,8,9 hence
the need to investigate appropriate applications. Potential
volumetric expansion is a notorious feature in the use of
both types of slag; however, their weak hydraulicity after air
cooling leaves these products outside the field of ecological
and sustainable “slag cements.”
Accordingly, one may distinguish between two categories
regarding their application: first, their use in rigid mixtures,
among which are masonry mortar, hydraulic concrete, or
bituminous mixtures10; and secondly, flexible or nonrigid
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011
TECHNICAL PAPER
matrixes, such as road bases, soil slag, and embankments,
among others. The work presented in this paper is an
innovation in this field and centers on the application of slag
types in hydraulic concrete matrixes made with portland
cement. It proposes the use of crushed and weathered EAFS
as a coarse aggregate for concretes, in which the fine aggregate
is also partially composed of EAFS (thereby avoiding its use
as landfill material), limestone sand, and LFS. This innovative
use of LFS requires a detailed analysis of its behavior as filler
in concrete mixtures, its hydraulic properties, and its inter-
action with portland cement. It is also necessary to evaluate
the properties of concretes obtained in fresh and hardened
states, as the results will demonstrate their effectiveness.
The practical aspects of mixture proportioning are considered
essential to this work to make innovative use of these by-products
in civil construction and building, and employing approaches that
are technically and economically feasible.
RESEARCH SIGNIFICANCE
Certain steelmaking by-products, such as EAFS and LFS,
can both be used as components of normal concrete. The
proportioning and manufacture of this concrete calls for
special considerations because of its low workability and
rapid setting times. However, the general quality of well-
manufactured slag concretes in terms of their mechanical
properties is rather good.
Experimental Investigation
Several research projects, as reported in the scientific and
technical literature on the subject are at present and have in
the recent past been undergoing developments in this field,
and are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Since the early 1990s, various authors11-19 have proposed
systematic characterizations with a view to the possible
reuse of EAFS. In relation to this study, in the 1990s,
some authors20,21 have analyzed the use of EAFS as aggre-
gates in concrete mixtures. Later on, the results obtained
by numerous authors22-28 all reported satisfactory results.
Chang et al.29 performed a carbonation curing to use EAFS
in concrete mixtures. Qasrawi et al.30 proposed the use of
iron oxide scale and Etxeberria et al. 31 proposed the use of
foundry sand in the preparation of concrete. Faraone et al.32
and Rodríguez et al.33 characterized high-quality mortars
using EAFS.
ACI Materials Journal, V. 108, No. 6, November-December 2011.
MS No. M-2011-032.R2 received February 13, 2011, and reviewed under Institute
publication policies. Copyright © 2011, American Concrete Institute. All rights
reserved, including the making of copies unless permission is obtained from the
copyright proprietors. Pertinent discussion including author’s closure, if any, will be
published in the September-October 2012 ACI Materials Journal if the discussion is
received by June 1, 2012.
673
Juan Manuel Manso is Head of the Civil Engineering Department of the University
of Burgos, Burgos, Spain. He graduated as a civil engineer from the University of
Cantabria, Santander, Spain, and received his engineering doctorate from the
University of Burgos in 2001. His research interests include the reuse of steelmaking
by-products in civil engineering applications as well as in the management of building
and demolition wastes, and the field of polyester-resin concrete reinforced with
nonmetallic bars.
David Hernández is the Technical Director of the Technical and Scientific Research
Service of the University of Cantabria, Cantabria, Spain, from which he also graduated
as a physicist, and he received his PhD in 2003 from the University of Navarra,
Spain. His research interests include physical metallurgy and characterization of
metallurgical slag (blast furnace and ladle furnace), among others.
Maria Milagros Losáñez is the Director Manager of Gikesa in the Laboratory of
Testing in Building Materials and Civil Engineering, Gipuzkoa, Spain. She graduated
as a Construction Engineer in 1984 from the University of Burgos, as an Architect in
1996 from the University of the Basque Country, San Sebastián, Spain, and received
her PhD from the University of the Basque Country in 2006. Her research interests
include mortar, concrete, and the use of by-products in construction.
Javier Jesús González is a Full Professor of Materials Science at the Industrial
Technology Engineering School of the University of the Basque Country. He graduated
as a mechanical engineer in 1976 from the University of Basque Country, as a civil
engineer in 1982 from the Politechnical University of Madrid, Madrid, Spain, and
received his PhD from the University of Cantabria in 1987. His research interests
include the reuse of steelmaking by-products in civil engineering applications,
mortars, concrete, and the mechanical behavior of engineering materials.
Positive results were also obtained by Shi et al.34-36 when
they proposed investigating the potential hydraulic properties
of LFS after chemical activation. Further works concerning
LFS were published by Drissen and Art37 and Posch et
al.,38 which characterized the product as a material.
Slag recycling technology in Japan is highly advanced in
almost every possible area. Prime examples, among others,
are offered in References 39 to 43.
It is also worth mentioning that Maslehuddin et al.,44
Beshr et al.,45 and Pellegrino and Gaddo46 applied EAFS
as a coarse aggregate in combination with a fine aggregate
that was a natural product. These approaches produced high-
quality concrete, and Pellegrino and Gaddo46 proposed a
mixture proportioning adjusted to Bolomey’s curve.
The work of Khokhar et al.47 is also relevant in the field of
concrete mixture designs containing mineral additions.
Some works of the present authors48-51 reported the use
of EAFS, both as a coarse and fine aggregate. The results in
terms of strength and durability were favorable.
Materials
Water and cement—Urban mains water supply: pH
= 7.5; soluble salts = 90 mg/L (0.006 lb/ft3); chlorides
= 19 mg/L (0.001 lb/ft3); sulfates = 13 mg/L (0.0008 lb/
ft3); hydrocarbons = 9 mg/L (0.0006 lb/ft3); and portland
cement is Type I/42.5 R (refer to Table 1 for principal
characteristics).
Limestone sand—Crushed limestone sand was used
as a suitable fine aggregate. Its grading is detailed in
Table 2, as it has a fineness modulus of approximately 2.5,
and its apparent specific gravity is 2.7 Mg/m3 (167 lb/ft3). Its
Table 1—Physical properties and chemical composition of portland cement and ladle furnace slag
Composition percent and properties CaO SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO
Portland cement 62 21 5 3.5 1.5
LFS 58 17 12 — 10
674
chemical composition is mainly calcium carbonate (>90%)
with silica, alumina, and magnesia in lower proportions.
EAFS—The EAFS used in this study had to undergo the
following processes prior to its use:
• The reduction of its original size after cooling (pieces
from 0.1 to 20 kg [0.22 to 44 lb]) to standard aggregate
sizes after moderate primary crushing to maximum
sizes of 0.5 in. (12.5 mm);
• The magnetic elimination of metallic iron (sometimes
in proportions of up to 20%); and
• Weathering for a minimum of 14 weeks, including daily
irrigation.
The physico-chemical properties of this slag and its grading
are shown in Tables 2 and 3.
Spontaneous weathering is an inexpensive procedure
that ensures the volumetric stability of EAFS necessary
in its use as a coarse aggregate in concrete mixtures. The
material is laid out and cured in thin layers, which are turned
every week. A subsequent test performed in accordance
with ASTM D479252 demonstrates and verifies that the
expansivity does not exceed the standard limit value of 0.5%
proposed by the ASTM D2940.53
A maximum aggregate size of 0.5 in. (12.5 mm) was
specified in this work for the following reasons: 1) the
specimen sizes used in the test (cylinders and cubes of 100 mm
[4 in.] maximum length); and 2) current applications for
this type of concrete are employed in precast structures for
urban use (curb stones, flagstones, balustrades, banisters,
barriers, and so on) in which the maximum aggregate size is
classically 0.5 in. (12.5 mm).
The fine fraction from the moderate primary crushing of
EAFS is in general too large to be used as fine aggregate
according to ASTM C33/C33M54; Fig. 1 shows the
appearance of these EAFS fine particles. Hence, the mixture
of this EAFS fine fraction with limestone sand or other
mineral products allows one to obtain a suitable fine fraction
of aggregate, and therefore a high-quality concrete in terms
of porosity and mechanical strength.55,56
LFS—The LFS discussed in this paper was subjected to
the following processes prior to its use in concrete:
• Weathering for some days accompanied by water
irrigation to hydrate the free lime and to produce the
disintegration of the as-cooled particles sized up to 1 in.
(25 mm); and
• The elimination of metallic iron by magnetic procedures
and final sieving through a No. 30 (0.6 mm [0.02 in.])
sieve to obtain the quality of material fineness suitable
for this application, whereas fractions larger than
0.6 mm (0.02 in.) can be ground or reweathered.
The main physical and chemical properties of LFS are
summarized in Table 1.
The weathering of LFS is performed to hydrate the
very-reactive free lime in the form of calcium oxide,
producing portlandite (calcium hydroxide) in a slightly
exothermic reaction. Simultaneously, this reaction produces
a volumetric expansion, which leads to total disintegration
of particle sizes into a dusty form, similar to cement in its
Specific gravity, Blaine, m2/kg
Others SO3 Free MgO Free CaO Mg/m3 (lb/ft3) (ft2/lb)
1 2.7 — 3.3 3.13 (193) 410 (2002)
1.5 1 3 to 4 10 to 20 2.65 (164) 206 (1006)
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011
Table 2—Grading of EAFS slag and limestone sand (relevant ASTM C33/C33M specifications)
Sieve size, Coarse EAFS, Coarse ASTM C33/C33M, Fine EAFS, Limestone sand, Fine ASTM C33/C33M,
mm (in.) ASTM No. wt.% passing wt.% passing wt.% passing wt.% passing wt.% passing
19.6 (0.75) 3/4 in. 100 100 — — —
12.5 (0.50) 1/2 in. 94 90 to 100 — — —
9.5 (0.37) 3/8 in. 64 40 to 70 100 100 100
4.8 (0.19) No. 4 1 0 to 15 96 99.8 100
2.4 (0.09) No. 8 0.2 0 to 5 68 85.2 95 to 100
1.2 (0.05) No. 16 — — 42 56.9 80 to 100
0.6 (0.025) No. 30 — — 26 39.1 50 to 85
0.3 (0.0125) No. 50 — — 17 28.4 25 to 60
0.15 (0.00625) No. 100 — — 9.8 22.2 10 to 30
0.075 (0.003125) No. 200 — — 5.6 18.2 —
Note: 1 mm = 0.039 in.

Table 3—Properties of electric arc furnace slag

Property Coarse slag Fine slag
Size, mm (in.) 4 to 12.5 (0.16 to 0.5) 0 to 4 (0 to 0.16)
Proportion after primary crushing, % 76 24
Apparent specific gravity, Mg/m3 (lb/ft3) 3.35 (207) 3.70 (228)
Porosity, % 9.7 13.5
Water absorption, % 2.88 3.65
Los Angeles loss/Micro Deval loss, % 18 14
Expansion average (ASTM D4792), % 0.20 0.25

Chemical composition, %
Sum of iron oxides SiO2 CaO Al2O3 MgO MnO Others
42.5 15.5 24 7.5 5 4.5 1

appearance. Subsequent long weathering of several weeks of

LFS leads to the carbonation of portlandite,57 but this factor
is incidental to the use of LFS due to the agglomeration of
particles produced. The free magnesium oxide contained
in LFS remains unreactive for long periods of time, and
spontaneous hydration requires several years.
The most frequent particle sizes of LFS, using the Malvern
analysis, are in the ranges of 5 to 8 mm and 50 to 80 mm (1.96
× 10–4 to 3.15 × 10–4 in. and 1.96 × 10–3 to 3.15 × 10–3 in). The
scanning electron microscopy (SEM) image in Fig. 2 shows
two types of pieces: single particles of a few microns in size,
and particles or aggregates sized 50 to 80 mm (1.96 × 10–3 to
3.15 × 10–3 in.). The results of the sieve analysis were
less significant: the No. 100 retains less than 10% of total
mass, whereas the No. 200 retains approximately 30% of
the total mass.
In relation to its chemical basicity values (two units) as the Fig. 1—SEM micrography of EAFS.
quotient between the CaO and the SiO2 + Al2O3, the work of
Posch et al.38 indicates the presence of spinel (minor), AC3 (refer to the D-1 reference mixture in the first data column in
(major), A7C12 (medium), and free CaO (medium) in this Table 5), any deviation from which relates to the particular
slag. The results of LFS X-ray diffraction analysis shown in type of research activities (remainder of mixtures on
Table 4 and Fig. 3, in combination with chemical analysis, Table 5). The envisaged workability is typical of concretes
confirm the predictions based on the work of Posch et al.38 and, that are used for precast pieces in the construction industry,
in addition, reveal the presence of nonhydraulic allotropic where energetic concrete compaction is the norm; also, the
forms of dicalcium silicate as the other main compounds. use of EAFS as coarse and fine aggregate leads to low values
in the slump. The use of plasticizer admixtures is advised if
Concrete mixtures an increase in concrete fluidity is considered necessary.
Concrete mixtures were prepared according to certain Initial conditions of mixtures:
initial or general conditions based on previous experience • Cement content = 350 kg/m3 (21.6 lb/ft3);

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011 675

 • Mixture ratio coarse aggregate/fine aggregate/cement =
3/3/1;
• Target mean compressive strength at 28 days = 35 MPa
(5.08 ksi); and
• No admixtures.
EAFS was introduced into the mixtures with a low degree
of humidity and its moisture content was negligible in the
aforementioned mixture proportions. The fundamental
control parameter evident in the manufacture and application
of these mixtures, when using a porous and sharp aggregate
such as EAFS, is their consistency-workability measured
by the slump test in the Abrams cone.58 It is necessary to
reconsider the significance of a conventional w/c in concrete
made with the usual type of cement (without mineral
additions) and aggregates (siliceous and limestone) in
relation to this research. In this case, the EAFS aggregate
absorbs and retains a significant quantity of water, the
cement contains a proportion of inert mineral filler, and the
Fig. 2—SEM micrography of LFS. inclusion of LFS as fine aggregate in mixtures demands
additional water due to its low particle size that almost rivals
that of cement.
LFS is a new material and little is known about its use in
hydraulic mixtures. Its behavior when undergoing weathering
as a raw material has been analyzed,57 but its behavior when
used with portland cement in concrete mixtures that require
strength and durability is uncertain.
A total of five different mixtures were manufactured
and tested. Initially, two mixtures (Mixtures D-1 and
D-2) were prepared—followed later by Mixtures D-3 and
D-4 and finally Mixture D-5. The batches had a mass of
approximately 30 L (1.06 ft3), from which 24 cubic specimens
(100 x 100 x 100 mm [4 x 4 x 4 in.]) were poured into molds,
left to set for 24 hours, and then demolded and placed in a
moist room at 20°C (68°F) at 98% relative humidity.
Fig. 3—X-ray diffraction analysis of LFS. The criteria to fix the proportions in these mixtures is an
attempt to conduct an extensive survey on well-performed
Table 4—Components of LFS mixtures containing EAFS, limestone sand (LS), and LFS
Component Formula Key % as fine aggregate. The coarse aggregate is the same (EAFS)
Diopside CaMg(SiO3)2 D a1 type and proportion in all the mixtures. Taking into account
the different densities of the fine aggregate components
Merwinite Ca3MgSi2O8 Mw a2
(EAFS, LS, and LFS), the quantity of the ingredients per m3
Wollastonite CaSiO3 W a3 (ft3) of concrete in Table 5 (columns marked with †) do not
Larnite, bredigite, ingesonite Ca2SiO4 L, B, In a4 clearly indicate the initial criteria, and only the proportions
in each different batch (columns marked with *) clarify the
Calcium-olivine Ca2SiO4 O a5
precise criteria of proportioning.
Spinel MgAl2O4 S 2 In this study, Mixture D-1 is the reference mixture. As
Mayenite Ca12Al14O33 My 8 shown in Table 5, the coarse aggregate was an EAFS gravel
sized 4 to 12.5 mm (0.16 to 0.50 in.), totaling 50% of the
Calcium aluminate CaAl2O4 AC 2 overall aggregate weight. The fine aggregate was composed
Tricalcium aluminate Ca3Al2O6 T 7 of EAFS fine fraction added to limestone sand in the same
Jasmundite Ca11(SiO4)4O2S J 1
proportions, leading to a suitable grading based on previous
experience.48 This condition and a global w/c = 0.6 applied
Fluorite CaF2 F 2 to Mixture D-1 should, in theory, correspond to a plastic
Iron-magnesium oxides (wustite) (Fe,Mg)O I 2 workability (with a slump of 30 to 60 mm [1.2 to 2.4 in.]);
Portlandite Ca(OH)2 P 16
however, the actual slump resulted in 20 mm (0.8 in.) due to
the sharp form of the fine EAFS fraction. An increase in the
Periclase MgO M 3 amount of water employed proved ineffective due to its low
Aluminium metallic Al A 2 effectiveness in relation to the increased workability and to
Note: Sai = 55%. the notable drop in compressive strength.
Mixture D-2 was similar to the first mixture, including
• Water and cement (apparent water-cement ratio (w/c)): partial addition of LFS as the fine aggregate—half the
0.6 to 0.8; limestone sand of Mixture D-1 was replaced with LFS.
• Workability: 30 to 60 mm (1.2 to 2.4 in.) slump in the Hence, it was estimated that the amount of water needed to
Abrams cone test; maintain workability should be higher (w/c = 0.7) due to the

676 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011

Table 5—Concrete mixture proportions and workability
D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5
Mixture * † * † * † * † * †
Water, kg (lb) 6 (13.2) 215 (474) 7 (15.4) 250 (551) 6.5 (14.3) 240 (529) 8 (17.6) 270 (595) 5.6 (12.3) 215 (474)
Cement, kg (lb) 10 (22) 360 (794) 10 (22) 355 (783) 10 (22) 370 (816) 10 (22) 340 (750) 8 (17.6) 305 (672)
w/c 0.6 0.7 0.65 0.8 0.7
LFS, kg (lb) 0 (0) 7.5 (16.5) 265 (584) 7.5 (16.5) 280 (617) 15 (33) 515 (1124) 7.5 (16.5) 285 (628)
Limestone
Fine aggregate 0/5, 15 (33) 540 (1190) 7.5 (16.5) 265 (584) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0)
sand
kg (lb)
EAFS 15 (33) 540 (1190) 15 (33) 530 (1168) 22.5 (50) 830 (1830) 15 (33) 515 (1124) 22.5 (50) 860 (1896)
Coarse aggregate
EAFS 30 (66) 1080 (2381) 30 (66) 1060 (2337) 30 (66) 1110 (2447) 30 (66) 1030 (2249) 30 (66) 1150 (2535)
4/12.5, kg (lb)
Abrams cone slump, mm (in.) 20 (0.8) 35 (1.4) 5 (0.2) 45 (1.8) 5 (0.2)
*
First subcolumn is mass of each component used in mixture.
†
Second subcolumn is dosage per cubic meter of concrete.

high fineness of the LFS, which in this case gave a result in Table 6—Mixture setting time measured in
the interval of 30 to 60 mm (1.2 to 2.4 in.). The presence of Vicat apparatus
fine LFS particles improved its workability. Mixture D-1 D-2 and D-3 D-4 D-5
In a second step, Mixtures D-3 and D-4 were prepared. In
Weight ratio LFS/PC 0/10 7.5/10 15/10 7.5/8
Mixture D-3, the limestone sand in Mixture D-2 was replaced
by EAFS sand and, in hindsight, the planned decrease in the Weight ratio LFS/PC, % 0/100 43/57 60/40 49/51
w/c to maintain workability (less fineness, w/c = 0.65) was Water, % weight 24 27 29.5 28
deemed an error: the slump decreased to 5 mm (0.2 in.) due
Initial setting, minutes 114 42 18 16
to the particular geometry of fine EAFS. In Mixture D-4, the
limestone sand in Mixture D-2 was replaced by LFS (finer Final setting, minutes 190 70 41 39
and blunt), and the w/c was increased to a high value (0.8),
which gave an acceptable slump of 45 mm (1.8 in.). to the clinker. The proportions between PC and LFS used in
In a third step, in Mixture D-5, which has Mixture D-3 these normal-consistency pastes were the same proportions
as its reference, the cement content was decreased to of both materials contained in Mixtures D-1 to D-5. The
300 kg/m3 (18.5 lb/ft3) (–15%) with a slow increase in the results of the setting times recorded in these tests are shown
w/c up to 0.7 to maintain a suitable amount of water. The in Table 6.
results for workability in this case were, as expected, very The results on the normal-consistency paste corresponding
similar to the original D-3 mixture (5 mm [0.2 in.]). to Mixture D-1 reflects the initial and final setting of the
Considering the values of the w/c and the obtained slumps, portland cement used in this work (refer to Tables 1 and 6).
this paper presents a first characteristic in the behavior of Pastes reflecting the proportions of LFS to PC in the other
slags in concrete mixtures. The role of LFS is next to that mixtures show shorter initial and final setting times. This
of the lime in hydraulic mixtures, increasing the plasticity corresponded with Mixtures D-4 and D-5, which were the
and the demand of water due to its fine, blunt, and smooth most likely to undergo this problem due to their higher LFS/
particles. However, in contrast to this, the crushed EAFS PC ratios. Setting times were longer in Mixtures D-2 and
is porous and its particles are angular with sharp edges; D-3 than in Mixtures D-4 and D-5, but also clearly below the
both of these factors lead to a decrease in workability, suitable values demonstrated by Mixture D-1. Hence, it is
especially when the fine aggregate has this morphology. important to consider the risk of overly rapid setting, which
Mixtures D-3 and D-5 with higher EAFS fine aggregate can make laying of these concrete Mixtures D-2 to D-5 in
contents have the lowest slump (5 mm [0.2 in.]), whereas practical construction difficult or even impossible. It can
Mixture D-4 with the high LFS content presents the higher be confidently stated from an analysis of the data presented
slump (45 mm [1.8 in.]). in Table 6, that it is inadvisable to exceed the proportion
40/60 in the LFS/PC ratio.
EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS AND DISCUSSION A recent paper by the authors57 has shown the results of
Setting properties severe weathering and hydration on several types of LFS.
Rapid setting was observed during the mechanical mixing The calcium silicates of LFS (in their allotropic forms)
of the components in some cases; the concrete mixer present low to zero hydraulicity (without the use of chemical
became blocked after a few minutes, making a satisfactory activators), but the calcium aluminates (monocalcium
mixture impossible. Initially, this situation was observed in aluminate, tricalcium aluminate, and mayenite) can present
Mixture D-4—which has the highest content of LFS—but a considerable degree of hydraulicity. Therefore, the
also in Mixture D-3 and then in Mixture D-5. proportion of reactive calcium aluminates contained in the
It was decided that a similar test to that prescribed in original portland cement (tricalcium aluminate proposed in
the ASTM C191-0859 (setting times in portland cement) the Bogue formulation) is increased by its mixture with LFS,
should be applied to different proportional mixtures of and this, it may be hypothesized, could be the possible cause
portland cement and LFS. A paste of normal consistency of the observed rapid setting. The addition of supplementary
was prepared, taking the PC-LFS mixtures as a compound calcium sulfate provides a viable solution to the questions
cement in which the LFS could be considered an addition raised and confirms the diagnosis.

ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011 677

Table 7—Physical properties and compressive mechanical test results of hardened concrete
Mixture D-1 D-2 D-3 D-4 D-5
3 3
Bulk specific gravity, Mg/m (lb/ft ) 2.73 (169) 2.73 (169) 2.84 (175) 2.69 (166) 2.83 (175)
3 3
Apparent specific gravity, Mg/m (lb/ft ) 3.06 (189) 3.09 (191) 3.18 (196) 3.12 (193) 3.11 (192)
Physical data Water absorption, % weight 5.5 6.3 5.7 7.2 5.6
Total porosity, % 14.3 16.3 15.1 18.5 14.8
Matrix porosity, % 9 11.3 8.9 13.7 8.4
At 7 days 35.4 (5.1) 39.8 (5.8) 55.3 (8) 24.9 (3.6) 34.1 (4.9)
At 28 days 46.6 (6.8) 52.9 (7.7) 60.4 (8.8) 31.5 (4.6) 47.6 (6.9)
Compressive strength, MPa (ksi) At 90 days 52.2 (7.6) 58.3 (8.5) 64 (9.3) 35.1 (5.1) 51.2 (7.4)
At 180 days 54.9 (8) 62.8 (9.1) 70.6 (10.2) 37.3 (5.4) 53.7 (7.8)
At 360 days 58.9 (8.5) 67.2 (9.7) 80.5 (11.7) 39 (5.7) 54.2 (7.9)

Certainly, the addition of a small quantity (2% on weight
of cement) of calcium sulfate (gypsum) to Mixtures D-4 and
D-5, and 1% to Mixtures D-2 and D-3 slowed lead time
setting to usual values of over 3 hours. This procedure
slowed an overly rapid hydration of aluminates from PC
and LFS leading to the formation of primary ettringite (refer
to Hewlett60).These observations raise pertinent questions
relating to the future use of LFS in hydraulic mixtures.
Physico-mechanical properties of hardened concrete
Table 7 presents the physical data regarding densities,
water absorption, and porosity of the different mixtures
employed in the tests. EAFS is a heavy and porous material,
and when it is used as aggregate it will produce higher density
and higher porosity values than those commonly found in
commercial hardened concrete. The fifth row of Table 7 cites
matrix porosity as the difference between the total porosity
of mixtures measured by the classical immersion procedure
and detailed in the previous row and the porosity of its EAFS
coarse and fine aggregate specified in Table 3.
Mixtures D-3 and D-5 are the densest of the series, which
is understandable, as both Mixtures D-3 and D-5 contain
larger amounts of heavy EAFS. Moreover, Mixture D-4 is
the most porous; it has the highest ratio (w/c = 0.8)—a value
that is clearly excessive.
Compressive mechanical tests were performed on
the 100 x 100 x 100 mm (4 x 4 x 4 in.) cube specimens at 7,
28, 90, 180, and 360 days after pouring the fresh concrete.
A factor of approximately 0.8 is used to estimate coarse
corresponding values of compressive strength in equivalent
cylindrical specimens of 150 x 300 mm (6.7 x 11.8 in.).
Table 7 lists the results of the mechanical compression test.
The portland cement contained reactive calcium silicates
and aluminates, and the LFS contained, at the outset of the
test, inert calcium silicates, reactive calcium aluminates
(AC3, Mayenite), and portlandite. The Blaine fineness of
PC is 400 m2/kg (1953 ft2/lb) and the fineness in the LFS is
lower at 200 m2/kg (977 ft2/lb). The strength results obtained
in Mixtures D-1, D-2, and D-3 demonstrate hydraulic
reactivity of LFS in these types of concretes, probably
interacting and catalyzed by the components and hydraulic
reactions of PC. The presence of reactive aluminates in LFS
largely contributes to the short-term compressive strength of
the mixtures.
The correct proportioning of these types of concrete
mixtures, containing very porous EAFS aggregate and
relevant proportions of LFS as fine aggregate, is a very
important consideration related to their ultimate design,
manufacture, and efficiency of the modes of use in which
they are employed. This question, which is discussed in
this section, is not accurately addressed in the scientific
and technical literature on the subject. To obtain useful
results, it is necessary to design these mixtures on the basis
of two conditions: the matrix porosity, and the suitable and
equilibrate content between the very fine fraction of inert
aggregates (with a size under 0.063 mm [0.025 in.] passing
the No. 200 sieve) and the hydraulic reactive fine fraction,
provided by the portland cement and the remainder of
reactive materials as LFS.
In this paper, the authors propose to evaluate the hydraulic
activity of LFS, stating that a fraction of the total LFS mass
in mixtures is active and the remainder of the LFS will
be considered inert. To quantify the question, the initial
hypothesis cites that the hydraulically active fraction is
a part of the finer fraction (passing the No. 200 sieve) for
LFS, and the thick particles retained by the No. 200 sieve are
inert. Thus, this LFS may be characterized by the following
proportions and properties:
• A less fine inert fraction (30% of total weight retained
by a No. 200 sieve);
• A fine fraction that is hydraulically active (approximately
40% of the total weight); and
• A fine inert fraction (approximately 30% of the total weight).
These numerical values are proposed on the basis of this
research team’s experience with LFS and on the composi-
tions and proportions presented in Table 4. They will be
confirmed or otherwise by the results of the calculations
performed on the concrete mixtures in this paper.
Mixture D-1—Reference Mixture D-1 may be considered
a “conventional” concrete mixture suitable for use in the
manufacture of precast elements if a low slump is required.
Its density is higher than commercial concrete due to the
use of EAFS aggregate. The evolution of its strength over
time (refer to Fig. 2) is understandable when observing that
capillary water retained in EAFS results in a delayed curing
and, therefore, the mixture may be considered well-graded
and well-proportioned in relation to its water and inert
fines content. This mixture demonstrates a good strength
evolution in compression (refer to Table 7) of 46.6 MPa
(6.8 ksi) at 28 days and 58.9 MPa (8.5 ksi) at 1 year.
The matrix porosity in Mixture D-1 has been calculated
at 9% (refer to Table 7); values below 10% are considered
excellent, and tolerable at below 12%. If the porosity

678 ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011

exceeds 12%, the compressive mechanical strength clearly
decreases, as can be observed in Mixture D-4.
The amount of effective water can be estimated as 163 L/m3
(0.163 ft3/ft3) of concrete by subtracting the EAFS absorbed
water (2.88% or 3.65%, refer to Table 3) from the total water
added to the mixture. Hence, the effective w/c in this mixture
is 163/360 = 0.45, which is consistent with a matrix porosity
of 9%.
The amount of inert fines (passing the No. 200 sieve) in this
mixture is approximately 145 kg/m3 of concrete (9.0 lb/ft3),
yielding these numerical data from the addition of the fines
provided by: a) cement (5% limestone filler by weight),
18 kg (39.7 lb); b) limestone sand (18.2% fines that pass the
No. 200 sieve by weight), 98 kg (216 lb); and c) EAFS fine
aggregate (5.6% of EAFS fine fraction by weight), 30 kg
(66.1 lb).
• This value of 145 kg/m3 (9.0 lb/ft3) is reasonably
correct according to the experience of concrete makers
and researchers, and even Article 31.1 of the Spanish
Standard EHE-0858 sets the maximum value for inert
fines in normal concrete at 175 kg/m3 (10.8 lb/ft3).
This value should depend, in a first approach, on the
maximum aggregate size and on the cement content
of the concrete. An ideal value of inert fines of
approximately 150 kg/m3 (9.3 lb/ft3) is considered for
this type of concrete, with a maximum aggregate size
of 12.5 mm (0.5 in.) and a cement content of 350 kg/m3
(21.6 lb/ft3).
Mixture D-2—Mixture D-2 contained an LFS amount
that replaced half the limestone sand in Mixture D-1. This
addition of LFS implied an increase in water demand to
maintain workability due to its increased fineness; in fact, a
ratio of w/c = 0.7 leads to a slump of 35 mm (13.8 in.). The
effective water, calculated as in Mixture D-1, was 200 kg/m3
(12.3 lb/ft3), and the effective w/c was estimated at 200/355
= 0.54, a value higher than the Mixture D-1 value, which
corresponded to a matrix porosity result of 11.3%, as
reflected in Table 7. These data (effective w/c versus matrix
porosity) obtained for Mixtures D-1 and D-2 suggest a single
and direct correlation between both factors.
The amount of total inert fines had to be increased in this
mixture with respect to Mixture D-1, which related to the
LFS inert fraction. Based on the aforementioned hypothesis
regarding LFS composition, it is possible to estimate an
amount of 175 kg/m3 (10.8 lb/ft3) of inert fines (passing
the No. 200 sieve) in this mixture, which is well within
the safety margin, while it maintains a value of matrix
porosity below 12%. The inert fraction of fines furnished
by the LFS (approximately 30% of added LFS by weight)
is 80 kg/m3 (4.9 lb/ft3), which replaces the limestone sand
fines (49 kg/m3 [3 lb/ft3] passing the No. 200 sieve); the fines
from the cement and the EAFS fines are similar to those in
Mixture D-1.
The mechanical compressive strength of Mixture D-2 is
higher than that of Mixture D-1 over time, according to the
data listed in Table 7, reaching a value of 52.9 MPa (7.7 ksi)
at 28 days and 67.2 MPa (9.7 ksi) at 1 year. Considering this
fact and the negative impact on the strength of the matrix
porosity value (slightly higher than that of Mixture D-1),
one can deduce that LFS exhibits an outstanding degree
of hydraulic properties. According to the hypothesis given
for LFS, the amount of reactive LFS is 105 kg (231.5 lb)
but, undoubtedly, as a conglomerate that is less effective
than the portland cement. To summarize, Mixture D-2 may
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011
be considered a good, reasonable quality slag concrete,
containing a slight excess of water and inert fines (175 kg/m3
[10.8 lb/ft3]) due mainly to those furnished by the LFS.
Mixture D-3—The same amounts of LFS and PC and
the same LFS/PC ratio are maintained in Mixture D-3
as in Mixture D-2, with the added innovation that all the
Mixture D-2 limestone sand content is replaced by EAFS
fine aggregate—a “coarse sand” with fewer fine particles
than the limestone sand. The design for Mixture D-3 had
less water (w/c = 0.6) and the consistency slump was only 5
mm (0.2 in.). The water absorbed by the additional porous
EAFS fine aggregate compensates to excess the capillary
water demand of the replaced limestone sand.
The effective w/c of Mixture D-3, calculated as in
Mixture D-1, was 178/370 = 0.48 and the matrix porosity
was 8.9%; both values were very similar to those of
Mixture D-1. Taking into account the same considerations
as for Mixtures D-1 and D-2 on the calculation of the
inert fine fraction weights, the total amount of inert fines
was 145 kg/m3 (9.0 lb/ft3) in Mixture D-3, as in Mixture D-1.
Hence, it would appear prudent to estimate some similarity
between the performances of Mixture D-3 and Mixture D-1.
Additionally, it was estimated that Mixture D-3 had an
amount of reactive LFS of 110 kg/m3 (6.8 lb/ft3), according
to the initial hypothesis on LFS composition.
In summary, Mixture D-3 may be considered well
graded, of excellent strength, and with an adjusted water
content that produces low workability. After the first week,
the mechanical strength was 55.3 MPa (8 ksi), while the
maximum value after 1 year was 80.5 MPa (11.7 ksi)
in 100 x 100 x 100 mm (4 x 4 x 4 in.) cubic specimens,
equivalent to approximately 65 MPa (9.4 ksi) in the
conventional 150 x 300 mm (6.7 x 11.8 in.) cylindrical specimens,
using a conversion factor of 0.8 as stated previously.
These results may be explained by considering the
development of hydraulic reactivity in the LFS. The
hydration of calcium aluminates contained in the LFS was
probably the key to understanding the high short-term
strength of Mixture D-3. The rapid setting observed in
Mixtures D-3 and D-2 may be considered as the start of a
more complete hydraulic reaction of LFS calcium aluminates
in these mixtures, which demonstrate a positive result in
relation to strength. It is hypothesized that the differences,
relating to strength, between Mixtures D-3 and D-2 were
due to the matrix porosity values and the proportions of inert
fines; Mixture D-3 was a better graded and proportioned
mixture than Mixture D-2. Mixtures D-1 and D-3 were
mixtures that performed very well, whereas the workability of
Mixture D-3 was adversely affected by the higher proportion
of EAFS sand.
Mixtures D-4 and D-5—Mixtures D-4 and D-5 contained
higher proportions of LFS than the previous mixtures; the
LFS/PC ratio was in excess of 40/60. As previously stated,
rapid setting and the presence of potentially expansive
compounds in the LFS, such as magnesium oxide, created
an unstable situation, which was the reason for proposing
the limit at 40/60.
Mixture D-4 was similar to Mixtures D-2 or D-3, except for
the replacement of a portion of the fine aggregate with LFS.
Likewise, Mixture D-4 was similar to Mixture D-1 except
for the total replacement of the limestone sand by LFS. The
LFS/PC ratio at 60/40 in Mixture D-4 was too high, in that it
increased the demand for water to obtain good workability.
The rapid setting in Mixture D-4 was foreseeable due to the
679
excess LFS. Its consistency was adequate (45 mm [1.8 in.]),
but it had the greatest matrix porosity and the lowest density
of the entire set of specimen mixtures. The values for matrix
porosity (13.7%) and the effective w/c (222/340 = 0.65) in
Mixture D-4 were obviously too high.
The evolution of compressive strength was correct but
the values at 7, 28, 90, 180, and 360 days were the lowest
in the set, which demonstrate that Mixture D-4 performed
poorly in comparison to the other mixtures, although the
value of the 28-day compressive strength of 31.5 MPa
(4.6 ksi) (equivalent to 25 MPa [3.6 ksi] in a cylindrical
specimen) was acceptable. The excessive content of LFS
leads to values of 200 kg/m3 (12.3 lb/ft3) for the inert fines
in Mixture D-4. As similar calculations had been proposed
for previous mixtures in the series, this amount of inert fines
was considered unsafe in view of the strength and durability
requirements of the mixture. The strength maintained
acceptable values due to the hydraulic properties of PC and
LFS, but the design of the mixture was too loose.
Mixture D-5 can be compared to Mixture D-3 but, in this
case, the portland cement content had been reduced without
any reduction in the LFS. As a consequence, the LFS/PC ratio
was virtually 50/50 and exceeded the recommended value of
40/60. The original w/c was higher than in Mixture D-3, but
the reduction of cement led to a lower amount of water and a
low slump consistency of 5 mm (0.2 in.), which was similar
to Mixture D-3. The effective w/c was adequate—151/305
= 0.5—and the matrix porosity (8.4%) of Mixture D-5 was
very close to the values for Mixture D-3, and a positive
performance was inferred from these results.
The estimated amount of inert fines (140 to 150 kg/m3
[8.6 to 9.3 lb/ft3]) was acceptable, but its lower cement
content decreased its mechanical strength, which was lower
than Mixture D-3 but similar to Mixture D-1, and evolved
well over time. Mixture D-5 was also a well-graded mixture
that performed quite well, but in which the LFS/PC ratio
was excessive.
Finally, it seems that the aforementioned hypothesis stated
in Section 6 is acceptable, with regard to the proportions of
LFS composition and its behavior as a potentially reactive
material, when used in these concrete mixtures. The authors
must underline that these hypotheses are based on experience,
and on the chemical and crystalline composition of this
specific LFS, and that this is invalid for other applications of
LFS with different chemical and crystalline structures other
than those cited and discussed herein. Additionally, after the
results of this work, the authors propose an amount for this
type of LFS that should not exceed 200 kg/m3 (12.3 lb/ft3)
as the optimum content for this type of LFS in concretes
containing in excess of 300 kg of portland cement per m3
(18.5 lb/ft3).
CONCLUSIONS
The results of these tests raise the following conclusions
and comments:
• After suitable crushing and subsequent weathering, the
EAFS is converted into an excellent coarse aggregate for
concrete. Its high density produces heavy concrete, and
its high water absorption produces a delayed curing in
the mixtures, which increases the long-term compressive
strength. The fine fraction of EAFS can also be used and
mixed with other types of fine aggregates.
• The LFS used in this study can be considered a
“cementitious” material in conjunction with portland
680
cement. Other kinds of LFS with different calcium
aluminates contents should perform differently. In
general, an increase in the short-term compressive
strength and a decrease in the setting time of concretes
may be expected according to their use.
• The inclusion of LFS in its dusty form in concrete is
only advisable under appropriate conditions, because its
chemical reactivity in the presence of portland cement
must be taken into account. It is recommended that
the proportions of LFS versus Type I portland cement
should not exceed a ratio of 40/60 by weight, and that
the total amount of LFS should not exceed 200 kg/m3 of
concrete (12.3 lb/ft3).
• To design high-quality concrete using steelmaking
slags, in the experience of this research group, the
following rules should be respected:
◦◦ Appropriate primary crushing and weathering of EAFS;
◦◦ Suitable proportioning between the coarse and fine
fraction aggregates;
◦◦  Adequate use of fine inert aggregates, such as
siliceous or limestone sand;
◦◦ Correct preparatory treatment and limited amounts
of LFS; and
◦◦  Limited initial slump in consistency. Plasticizer
admixtures may subsequently be added to reach
higher workability.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors wish to express their gratitude to the Spanish Ministry of
Science and Technology for supporting this work through Research Project
MAT 2004-02205.
REFERENCES
1. Hendriks, C. A. et al., “Emission Reduction of Greenhouse Gases from
the Cement Industry,” Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on
Greenhouse Gas Control Technologies, Interlaken, Austria, Aug. 30-Sept.
2, 1998, IEA GHG R&D Programme, UK.
2. “Energy Conservation Potential in the Cement Industry,” Federal Energy
Administration, Washington, DC, 1975. (available as NTIS PB 245159)
3. Akinmusuru, J. O., “Potential Benefitial Uses of Steel Slag Wastes for
Civil Engineering Purposes,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, V. 5,
1991, pp. 73-80.
4. Naik, T. R., “Greener Concrete Using Recycled Materials,” Concrete
International, V. 24, No. 7, July 2002, pp. 45-49.
5. Bektas, F., and Wang, H., “Effects of Crushed Clay Brick Aggregate
on Mortar Durability,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 23, No. 5,
2009, pp. 1909-1914.
6. Mehta, P. K., “Global Concrete Industry Sustainability,” Concrete
International, V. 31, No. 2, Feb. 2009, pp. 45-48.
7. Palacios, J. M.; Arana, J. L.; Larburu, J. I.; and Iniesta, L., “La
Fabricación del Acero (Steel Manufacture),” UNESID, 2002.
8. Geiseler, J., “Use of Steelworks Slags in Europe,” Waste Management
& Research, V. 16, No. 1-3, 1996, pp. 59-63.
9. Motz, H., and Geiseler, J., “Products of Steel Slags, An Opportunity
to Save Natural Resources,” Waste Management, V. 21, No. 3, 2001,
pp. 285-293.
10. Pasetto, M., and Baldo, N., “Experimental Evaluation of High
Performance Base Course and Road Base Asphalt Concrete with Electric
Arc Furnace Steel Slags,” Journal of Hazardous Materials, V. 181, 2010,
pp. 938-948.
11. Cen, Y., and Chen, Q., “Experiment on Crushing EAF Slag,” SEAISI
Quarterly, V. 22, No. 4, 1993, pp. 81-85.
12. López, F. A.; López-Delgado, A.; and Balcázar, N., “Physico-
Chemical and Mineralogical Properties of EAF and AOD Slags,” Afinidad
LIII, V. 461, 1996, pp. 39-46.
13. Goldring, D. C., and Juckes, L. M., “Petrology and Stability of Steel
Slags,” Ironmaking & Steelmaking, V. 24, No. 6, 1997, pp. 447-456.
14. San José, J. T., “Reutilización y Valoración en Obra Civil de Escorias
de Horno Eléctrico de Arco Producidas en la CAPV,” Arte y Cemento,
V. 124, No. 6, 2000.
15. Luxán, M. P.; Sotolongo, R.; Dorrego, F.; and Herrero, E.,
“Characteristics of the Slags Produced in the Fusion of Scrap Steel by
EAF,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 30, No. 4, 2000, pp. 517-519.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011
 16. Vázquez-Ramonich, E., and Barra, M., “Reactivity and Expansion of
Electric Arc Furnace Slag in their Application in Construction,” Materiales
de Construcción, V. 51, No. 263-264, 2001, pp. 137-148.
17. Frias Rojas, M.; Sánchez de Rojas, M. I.; and Uria, A., “Study of
the Instability of Black Slags form EAF Steel Industry,” Materiales de
Construcción, V. 52, No. 267, 2002, pp. 79-83.
18. Juckes, L. M., “The Volume Stability of Modern Steelmaking
Slags,” Mineral Processing and Extractive Metallurgy (Transactions of
the Institution of Mining and Metallurgy, Section C), V. 112, No. 3, 2003,
pp. 177-197.
19. Dippenaar, R., “Industrial Uses of Slag (The Use and Re-use of Iron
and Steelmaking Slags),” Ironmaking & Steelmaking, V. 32, No. 1, 2005,
pp. 35-46.
20. Alizadeh, R. et al., “Utilization of Electric Arc Furnace Slag as
Aggregates in Concrete,” Environmental Issue, CMI report, Tehran, Iran, 1996.
21. Bäverman, C., and Aran Aran, F., “A Study of the Potential of
Utilising Electric Arc Furnace Slag as Filling Material in Concrete,” Studies
in Environmental Science, V. 71, 1997, pp. 373-379.
22. Geyer, R. T.; dal Molin, D.; and Vilella, A. C. F., “Evaluation of the
Durability of the Reinforced Concrete with Electric Arc Furnace Addition,”
Congresso Annual Associaçao Brasileira de Metalurgia e Materiais, V. 56,
2001, pp. 127-136.
23. Moon, H. Y.; Yoo, J. H.; and Kim, S. S., “A Fundamental Study on
the Steel Slag Aggregate Concrete,” Geosystem Engineering, V. 5, No. 2,
2002, pp. 38-45.
24. Shekarchi, M. et al., “Study on Electric Arc Furnace Slag Properties
to be Used as Aggregates in Concrete,” CANMET/ACI International
Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete Technology, Bucharest,
Romania, 2003.
25. Shekarchi, M. et al., “Study of the Mechanical Properties of
Heavyweight Preplaced Aggregate Concrete Using Electric Arc Furnace
Slag as Aggregate,” International Conference on Concrete Engineering and
Technology, Malaysia, 2004.
26. Papayianni, I., and Anastasiou, E., “Concrete Incorporating High
Volumes of Industrial By-Products,” Role of Concrete in Sustainable
Development—Proceedings of International Symposium Dedicated
to Professor Surendra Shah, Aristotle University Greece. R. K. Dhir,
M. D. Newlands, and K. A. Payne, eds., Sept. 2003, Dundee, UK, 2003,
Thomas Telford Publishers, pp. 595-604.
27. Vazquez-Ramonich, E., and Barra, M., “Durability of Concretes with
Steel Slag as Aggregates,” Workshop on R+D+I in Technology of Concrete
Structures—A Tribute to Dr. Ravindra Gettu, Barcelona, Spain, Oct. 2004,
pp. 23-30.
28. Anastasiou, E., and Papayianni, I., “Standards for the Use of Steel
Industry By-Products as Aggregates for the Production of Concrete,”
Proceedings of the 1st Hellenic Conference of EVIPAR on Utilization of
Industrial By-products in Construction, 2005, pp. 347-356.
29. Chang J.; Wang S.; and Shao Y., “Manufacture of Electric Arc
Furnace Slag Aggregate and Concrete through Carbonation Curing,” Kuei
Suan Jen Hsueh Pao/Journal of the Chinese Ceramic Society, V. 35, No. 9,
2007, pp. 1264-1273.
30. Qasrawi, H.; Shalabi, F.; and Asi, I., “Use of Low CaO Unprocessed
Steel Slag in Concrete as Fine Aggregate,” Construction & Building
Materials, V. 23, 2009, pp. 1118-1125.
31. Etxeberria, M.; Pacheco, C.; Meneses, J. M.; and Berridi, I.,
“Properties of Concrete Using Metallurgical Industrial By-Products as
Aggregates,” Construction & Building Materials, V. 24, No. 9, 2010,
pp. 1594-1600.
32. Faraone, N.; Tonello, G.; Furlani, E.; and Maschio, S., “Steelmaking
Slag as Aggregate for Mortars: Effects of Particle Dimension on
Compression Strength,” Chemosphere, V. 77, 2009, pp. 1152-1156.
33. Rodríguez, A.; Manso, J. M.; Aragón, A.; and González, J. J.,
“Strength and Workability of Masonry Mortars Manufactured with Ladle
Furnace Slag,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling, V. 53, No. 11, Sept.
2009, pp. 645-651.
34. Shi, C., and Quian, J., “High Performance Cementing Materials from
Industrial Slags—A Review,” Resources, Conservation and Recycling,
V. 29, No. 3, 2000, pp. 195-207.
35. Shi, C., “Characteristics and Cementitious Properties of Ladle Slag
Fines from Steel Production,” Cement and Concrete Research, V. 32, No. 3,
2002, pp. 459-462.
ACI Materials Journal/November-December 2011
36. Shi, C., and Hu, S., “Cementitious Properties of Ladle Slag Fines
under Autoclave Curing Conditions,” Cement and Concrete Research,
V. 33, No. 11, 2003, pp. 1851-1856.
37. Drissen, P., and Art, K. J., “Entstehung feinkörniger
Pfannenschalcken,” Rep. Forshungsinstituts, FEHS, V. 7, No.1, pp. 12-16.
38. Posch, W.; Presslinger, H.; and Hiebler, H., “Mineralogical Evaluation
of Ladle Slags at Voestalpine Stahl GmbH,” Ironmaking & Steelmaking,
V. 29, No. 4, 2002, pp. 308-312.
39. Kanagawa, A., and Kuwayama, T., “The Improvement of Soft Clayey
Soil Utilizing Reducing Slag Produced from Electric Arc Furnace,” Denki
Seiko, V. 68, No. 4, 1997, pp. 261-267.
40. Morino, K., and Iwatsuki, E., “Durability of Concrete Using Electric
Arc Furnace Oxidizing Slag Aggregates,” Proceedings International
Conference, N. Swamy, ed., Sheffield, UK, 1999, pp. 213-222.
41. Watanabe, T.; Okamoto, T.; and Takahashi, H., “Development
of a New Dust and Slag Treatment Technology,” SEAISI 2000 Australia
Conference, Proceedings V. 1, S3, P6, Perth, Australia, May 2000.
42. Hino, M., and Miki, T., “New Role of Steelmaking Slags for the
Environmental Protection of Ocean,” Shiraishi Memorial Lecture of the
Iron Institute of Japan, Tokyo, Japan, 2001, pp. 44-45.
43. Sasamoto, H.; Tsubone, A.; Kamiya, Y.; and Sano, K., “Development
of Fishing Block Using EAF Refining Slag,” Journal of the Iron and Steel
Institute, V. 89, No. 4, 2003, pp. 461-465.
44. Maslehuddin, M. et al., “Comparison of Properties of Steel Slag
and Crushed Limestone Aggregate Concretes,” Construction and Building
Materials, V. 17, 2003, pp. 105-112.
45. Beshr, H.; Almusallam, A. A.; and Maslehuddin, M., “Effect of
Coarse Aggregate Quality on the Mechanical Properties of High-Strength
Concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 17, 2003, pp. 97-103.
46. Pellegrino, C., and Gaddo, V., “Mechanical and Durability
Characteristics of Concrete Containing EAF Slag as Aggregate,” Cement
and Concrete Composites, V. 31, No. 9, Oct. 2009, pp. 663-671.
47. Khokhar, M. I. A. et al., “Mix Design of Concrete with High Content
of Mineral Additions: Optimisation to Improve Early Age Strength,”
Cement and Concrete Composites, V. 32, 2010, pp. 377-385.
48. Manso, J. M.; González, J. J.; and Polanco, J. A., “Electric Arc
Furnace Slag in Concrete,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, V. 16, No. 6, 2004, pp. 639-645.
49. Manso, J. M.; Losáñez, M. M.; Polanco, J. A.; and González, J. J., “Ladle
Furnace Slag in Construction,” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,
ASCE, V. 17, No. 5, 2005, pp. 513-518.
50. Manso, J. M.; Polanco, J. A.; Losáñez, M. M.; and González, J. J.,
“Durability of Concrete Made with EAF Slag as Aggregate,” Cement and
Concrete Composites, V. 28, 2006, pp. 528-534.
51. Polanco, J. A.; Manso, J. M.; Setién, J.; and González, J., “Strength
and Durability of Concrete Made with Electric Steelmaking Slag,” ACI
Materials Journal, V. 108, No. 2, Mar.-Apr. 2011, pp. 196-203.
52. ASTM D4752-00(2006), “Standard Test Method for Potential
Expansion of Aggregates from Hydration Reactions,” ASTM International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2006, 3 pp.
53. ASTM D2940/D2940M-09, “Standard Specification for Graded
Aggregate Material For Bases or Subbases for Highways or Airports,”
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2009, 3 pp.
54. ASTM C33/C33M-11a, “Standard Specification for Concrete
Aggregates,” ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2011, 11 pp.
55. Wu, W.; Zhang, W.; and Ma, G., “Optimum Content of Copper Slag
as a Fine Aggregate in High Strength Concrete,” Materials & Design,
V. 31, 2010, pp. 2878-2883.
56. Aquino, C. et al., “The Effects of Limestone Aggregate on Concrete
Properties,” Construction and Building Materials, V. 24, 2010, p. 2363.
57. Setién, J.; Hernández, D.; and González, J. J., “Characterization of
Ladle Furnace Basic Slag for Use as a Construction Material,” Construction
and Building Materials, V. 23, No. 5, 2009, pp. 1788-1794.
58. “Instrucción del Hormigón Estructural EHE – 08,” Ministerio de
Fomento, Gobierno de España, Secretaría General Técnica, Centro de
Publicaciones, Madrid, Spain, 2008.
59. ASTM C191-08, “Standard Test Methods for Time of Setting
of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat Needle,” ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2008, 8 pp.
60. Hewlett, P. C., ed., Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, fourth
edition, Arnold Publishers, London, UK, 1998.
681