Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Abrasion resistance and mechanical properties of Roller Compacted

Concrete with GGBS
S. Krishna Rao a,⇑, P. Sravana a, T. Chandrasekhar Rao b
a
Civil Engineering, JNTUH, Hyderabad, Telangana 500085, India
b
DMSSVH College of Engineering, Machilipatnam, AP 521002, India

h i g h l i g h t s

The Cantabro loss test is used to measure the abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete.

A relationship is established between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion loss of GGBS Roller Compacted Concrete.

Relationships are established between mechanical and abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete.

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

Article history: In this experimental study, seven different mixtures of Roller Compacted Concrete (RCC) were adopted in
Received 12 September 2015 which cement was partially replaced by six kinds of replacements (10%, 20%, 30%, 40%, 50% and 60%) of
Received in revised form 2 February 2016 Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS). The main objective of this experimental work was to
Accepted 1 April 2016
investigate the effect of GGBS on the mechanical properties and abrasion resistance of RCC. Flexural,
compressive, split tensile strength and abrasion resistance tests (Cantabro test and abrasion resistance
with rotating cutter test) were conducted for the ages of 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days of curing.
Keywords:
The strength values of RCC specimens were decreased for 3 days when GGBS content increased. But at
Abrasion resistance
Cantabro loss
the age of 7 days and 28 days the strengths were considerably higher than control mix concrete up to
Flexural strength 50% replacement of GGBS. Beyond 28 days, the strength increases with the presence of GGBS up to
GGBS 60% of replacement level. Also it was concluded that increasing GGBS content has increased abrasion
Surface abrasion loss resistance of RCC at all replacement levels. On the other hand there was a strong correlation exists
Roller Compacted Concrete between the GGBS content, weight loss with compressive, flexural and split tensile strength.
Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Roller Compacted Concrete is a special concrete, compacted by
vibratory rollers and it has a zero slump and it is a placed without
formwork and the method of construction is very similar to
Asphalt pavement construction [1]. RCC pavements are very stron-
ger and more durable than Bituminous/Asphalt pavement, and no
ruts are formed under high axle loads. Also RCC can resist degrada-
tion from materials such as diesel, petrol and other lubricants [2].
Roller Compacted Concrete performance is generally evaluated
with respect to mechanical or engineering properties such as Flex-
ural strength and Elastic modulus. However, Roller Compacted
Concrete abrasion resistance is very essential parameter for
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: snkrishnarao@gmail.com (S.K. Rao), sravana.jntu@gmail.com
(P. Sravana), hoshikonni@gmail.com (T.C. Rao).
pavements, over which frictional forces are applied due to the
relative forces between surface course and vehicular traffic [3,4].
Generally, the abrasion resistance of any concrete is affected by
various parameters, viz., type of fine and coarse aggregate, aggre-
gate proportion, and strength of concrete, mix proportion, use of
any supplementary cementitious materials, fibre content, curing
methods and method of surface finish [5–7]. The abrasion resis-
tance of concrete can be increased by changing the porosity and
void content with addition of some of the supplementary cementi-
tious materials like Fly ash, silica fume, GGBS and Chemical admix-
tures like Plasticizers and super plasticizers [8,9]. Use of high
volume fly ash in Roller Compacted Concrete can increase com-
pactability and hence improve the strength properties [10].
Tarun R. Naik et al. [11] investigated the effect of source of fly
ash on Abrasion resistance of concrete by replacing the cement
with fly ash of three Sources (Class – C) at 40, 50 and 60% levels.
The abrasion resistance of concrete was evaluated by ASTM C
944 [35] test (Modified) and found that the source and amount

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.04.004
0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
926 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933

of fly ash on the abrasion resistance of concrete was remarkable Table 1

and noticeable. Tsong Yen et al. [12] studied the influence of class Properties of cement and GGBS.

F fly ash on the abrasion resistance of high strength concrete based Cement and GGBS characteristics
on the ASTM C 1138 [36] test procedure. The test results indicated Component (%) Cement GGBS
that up to 15% replacement level of fly ash, the abrasion resistance
Chemical analysis
was improved, and beyond 15% level it results in lowering the Loss Ignition 1.8 1.01
abrasion resistance. Antionio Nanni [13] studied the Abrasion SiO2 20.4 34.4
resistance of RCC based on ASTM C 779 [37], procedure C, ball bear- Fe2O3 3.2 2.65
ings. This test method was simple and reliable. He reported that Al2O3 3.9 15.6
CaO 63 33.1
field cut core samples showed good results in comparison with lab-
MgO 2.4 8.9
oratory prepared samples. Li Beixing et al. [14] investigated the Na2O – 0.62
effect of M-sand on strength and abrasion resistance of pavement K2O – 0.6
cement concrete by using surface abrasion test with rotating – SO3 3 2.46
cutter method. He reported that with increase in M-sand of micro
Physical properties
fines (4.3% to 20% by mass) increased the strengths and improved Fineness (Blaine), m2/kg 285 422.2
abrasion resistance of concrete. % of passing 45lm 88.5 98.0
Nader Ghafoori and Yuzheng [15] studied the effect of dry Compressive strength, MPa
bottom ash on the long term durability of RCC, and found that the 3 days 29.00 –
abrasion resistance is superior under air - dry conditions of bottom 7 days 40.00 –
ash than under wet – Conditions of bottom ash. They were used the 28 days 58.00 –
Specific gravity 3.15 2.82
method of ASTM C779 [37] to evaluate the abrasion resistance.
Farzad Soleymani [16] investigated the effect of Sio2 nano particles
on the abrasion resistance of concrete using ASTM C 1138
method [36] and measured the depths of wear at 7 days, 28 days Table 2
and 90 days. He concluded that the abrasion resistance was Properties of aggregate.

increased with 1.0% weight of nanoparticles and abrasion resistance S. Property Test value
is correlated to both compressive strength and curing conditions. no.
Fine Coarse
Kolli Ramujee and M. Pothuraju [17] studied the abrasion resistance aggregate aggregate
of Geo polymer composites and found that it had improved perfor- 1 Fineness modulus 2.65 8.0
mance characteristics. They used ASTM C 1138-1997 [36] method 2 Specific gravity 2.68 2.88
of abrasion resistance of concrete (Under water method). 3 Silt content 0.8% Nil
Cristian Gaedicke et al. [18] assessed the abrasion resistance of 4 Bulking 7.0% –
5 Sieve analysis test results Particle size distribution curve
concrete core in virgin aggregate and recycled aggregates used in
shown in Fig. 1
pervious concrete. They used the abrasion test methods like impact 6 Water absorption 0.1% 0.5%
abrasion test (ASTM C 1747) [34] and surface abrasion resistance 7 Aggregate impact value, % – 21.50
test (ASTM C 944) [35]. Test results revealed that impact abrasion 8 Aggregate crushing value, % – 20.40
method has a low coefficient of variation and was able to differen- 9 Combined flakiness & elongation – 21.90
value, %
tiate the results among other mixtures considered in the research
work. Xiang Shu et al. [19] compared the performance of labora-
tory and field produced previous concrete mixtures. The abrasion
resistance of both types of samples were tested using Cantabro loss Pervious Concrete (PCPC) in terms of Abrasion resistance. They
test (ASTM C 131) [39] and found that field cores showed higher investigated the abrasion durability of PCPC by using three test
Cantabro loss than the field mixture concrete specimens made methods, namely Cantabro test, Loaded wheel test, surface
with the standard rodding compacting method. Ali Mardani et al. abrasion test using drill press with rotating water. They found that
[20] investigated the abrasion resistance of road concrete by using Cantabro loss test resulted good repeatability and lowest variation.
71 mm cube specimens and results indicated that the abrasion Yoshiko Takada et al. [24] investigated the changes in mix pro-
resistance has been increased with increase in compressive portions on the strength and durability of PCP and results indicated
strength. that change in W/C ratio did not contribute to abrasion loss. The
G.B. Ramesh Kumar and Umesh Kumar Sharma [21] presented a test methods used in their investigation on were Cantabro loss,
research paper on the methodologies of abrasion tests for wear test (ASTM C 779) [37]. A. Bonicelli et al. [25] studied the
determining the abrasion resistance of concrete. In their work they effect of fine sand and addition on pervious concrete and con-
classified various abrasion testing methods as i) Abrasion resis- cluded that addition of 5% of sand to the total aggregates can
tance of concrete by sand blasting method (ASTM C 418) [38], ii) improved mechanical and surface properties. The Cantabro loss
Methods for obtaining & testing of drilled cores (ASTM C 944) was reduced with addition of 5% sand.
[35], iii) abrasion resistance of horizontal concrete surface testing
(ASTM C 779) [37], iv) Under water method of abrasion resistance
of concrete (ASTM C 1138) [36]. They proposed the suitability of 1.1. Research significance
the above methods for various structures.
Rafat Siddique [22] conducted research on high – volume Class From the detailed review of literature it was concluded that no
F fly ash concrete performance characteristics. Class F fly ash was significant test procedure is available to evaluate the abrasion
introduced at 40%, 45%, 50% partial replacement levels to study resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete, as this is an important
fresh and hardened concrete properties including abrasion resis- and fundamental property when it has been used in pavement
tance up to the age of 356 days. Test results indicate that at applications. Most of the researchers correlated the compressive
91and 365 days the abrasion resistance was significantly improved strength with abrasion resistance. There was a common notion
at 50% replacement levels. Qiao Dong et al. [23] developed a that abrasion resistance is a function of strength properties of
methodology for measuring durability of Portland Cement concrete. However the abrasion resistance in terms of wear loss,
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933 927

Table 3
Quantities of materials per one m3 of RCC of 5 N/mm2 flexural strength.

Concrete Mix proportion (kg/m3)

mix
Cement GGBS CA Sand Water W/C W/B
ratio ratio
G0 295 0 1209 801 114 0.39 0.39
G10 265 30 1209 801 117 0.44 0.40
G20 235 60 1209 801 119 0.51 0.40
G30 205 90 1209 801 126 0.61 0.43
G40 175 120 1209 801 130 0.74 0.44
G50 145 150 1209 801 147 1.01 0.50
G60 115 180 1209 801 155 1.35 0.53

W/C = Water to Cement ratio; W/B = Water to binder ratio.

weight loss may be affected by surface finish and use of different

pozzolans etc.
Different methods have been used by various researches to Fig. 1. Particle size distribution curve for fine, coarse and all in aggregate.

study the abrasion resistance of concrete pavements. No method

clearly simulates the abrasive action of vehicular traffic on the rigid
pavements. Therefore, this research highlights the importance of
abrasion resistance of RCC and effect of GGBS on the strength
and abrasion resistance of RCC pavements. Experimental investiga-
tions were reported on the basis of Cantabro Test and surface
abrasion resistance test.
1.2. Scope of the experimental work
2.2. Fine aggregate
River Sand was collected from nearby quarry of Krishna River, India was used as
fine aggregate in all concrete mixes used in the experimental work. This aggregate
was air dried and then cleaned to remove organic matter from it. The properties of
fine aggregate used are listed in Table 2. The sand used was conforming to Zone III
of IS: 383-1970 [28].

The scope of the experimental investigation is to identify 2.3. Coarse aggregate

appropriate method of tests for evaluation of abrasion resistance
Igneous rock material consisting of granite was crushed into small aggregate
of RCC. The procedure for measuring abrasion resistance shall
was used as coarse aggregate in the Preparation of RCC. The maximum size of
be simple and adaptable to field and laboratory applications. As aggregate was 20 mm. The grain Size distribution and other properties are listed
the RCC utilizing low water content and if the curing of RCC in Table 2. The gradational requirements of combined aggregate were as per ACI
pavement surface is improper it would result in affecting the 211.3R-02 (Table A3.2) [29].
durability and consequently the surface finish may be affected.
The main objectives of this experimental research work are:
2.4. Water
i) To study the effect of GGBS on the strength properties of RCC
The water used in RCC mix design was potable and drinking water.
(Compression, Flexural and Split tension) for specified flexu-
ral strength of 5 MPa.
ii) To investigate the abrasion resistance of RCC by conducting
2.5. Ground Granulated Blast furnace Slag (GGBS)
Cantabro test and surface abrasion resistance test, in which
cement is partially replaced with GGBS. The GGBS used in this research project was collected from the Toshali Cements
iii) To investigate the use of Cantabro test for RCC abrasion Pvt Ltd located at Visakhapatnam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. The GGBS was
resistance. ground in a laboratory mill to a Blaine fineness of 4222 cm2/g. The Physical and
chemical properties of GGBS are given in Table 2.
iv) To develop a correlation between Cantabro loss and surface
abrasion weight loss for GGBS Roller Compacted Concrete
for pavements applications.
2.6. Mix Proportioning

2. Materials and methods
2.1. Cement
Ordinary Portland Cement OPC 53 Grade was used in the present experimental
investigation and satisfying the requirements of IS: 12269-1987 specifications [26].
Physical Properties and oxide composition of cement were presented in Table 1.
Cement was tested as IS 4031 [27].
Mix proportioning of RCC was done using ACI 211 3R-02-2004 [29] method.
This method was developed for Roller Compacted Concrete pavements of Rigid
pavement category and it is limited to mix design with nominal maximum size
of aggregate of 20 mm as per ACI 325.10R-99 [1]. The RCC mix was proportioned
for specified target flexural strengths of 5.0 N/mm2 [30–32]. The cement content
of control mix of RCC was 295 kg/m3. In six RCCP mixtures 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 and
60% by weight of cement was replaced with GGBS. The identification of mix propor-
tions and quantity of material are given in Table 3.

Table 4
Compressive, splitting tensile and flexural strength results (MPa).

Mix Compressive strength (MPa) Split tensile strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa)
3-d 7-d 28-d 90-d 3-d 7-d 28-d 90-d 3-d 7-d 28-d 90-d
G0 14.7 26.50 43.20 49.50 1.90 2.78 3.18 3.60 3.8 4.80 6.80 7.20
G10 13.5 27.84 43.72 50.27 1.71 2.91 3.54 4.55 2.48 4.68 7.04 7.58
G20 13.1 28.12 44.28 52.11 1.55 3.24 3.90 5.05 2.31 4.72 7.42 7.81
G30 12.8 30.44 44.85 55.70 1.48 3.48 4.61 5.90 2.18 4.95 7.70 8.05
G40 12.4 32.50 45.15 58.28 1.23 3.60 4.80 6.20 2.03 5.10 7.90 8.20
G50 11.8 31.90 44.61 56.00 1.02 3.37 4.52 6.10 1.95 5.05 7.67 8.11
G60 9.40 31.05 43.27 54.10 0.94 3.21 3.77 5.71 1.7 4.80 7.15 7.82
928 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933

Fig. 2. Shapes of specimens at different revolutions.

3. Test procedures

3.1. Compressive strength

Compressive strength of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag

Roller Compacted Concrete (GRCC) specimens was measured at 3,
7, 28 and 90 days of curing age as per IS 516 [33]. The specimens
were casted and demoulded after 24 h and kept for curing. Then
they were tested in compression testing machine of 3000 kN
capacity by applying load at the rate of 4.5 kN/s until the resistance
of the cube to the applied load breaks down. The test results are
presented in Table 4.

3.2. Flexural strength Fig. 4. Variation of Cantabro loss with % of GGBS at 7 days.

Concrete prism specimens of size 500  100  100 mm3 were

used for measuring flexural strength in beam moulds and they
were compacted with modified proctor’s rammer. They were
demoulded and kept for curing after one day. Then Flexural
strength test were conducted on UTM of capacity 1000 kN by third
point loading at 3, 7, 28 and 90 days as per IS:516 [33]. The test
results were presented in Table 4.

Fig. 5. Variation of Cantabro loss with % of GGBS at 28 days.

3.3. Split tensile strength

Cylindrical Specimens of size 150  300 mm size were tested

under split tension loading at 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days
as per IS 516 [33]. The CTM apparatus had a loading capacity of
Fig. 3. Variation of Cantabro loss with % of GGBS at 3 days. 300 Ton. The test results are presented in Table 4.
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933
Fig. 6. Variation of Cantabro loss with % of GGBS at 90 days.
Fig. 7. Variation of Cantabro loss with % of GGBS at different ages at 300
revolutions.
Fig. 8. Variation of surface abrasion loss with % of GGBS at different ages.
3.4. Cantabro loss
The Cantabro abrasion resistance test was conducted with a Los
Angeles abrasion testing machine by without placing abrasive
charges in the form of steel balls in accordance with ASTM C
1747 [34]. In this test, each set consisting of 3 cylindrical speci-
mens of size 300 mm diameter and 100 mm height were placed
in Los Angeles abrasion testing machine. Initial weight of each
specimen (w1) is recorded before placing into the machine. Then
this machine was allowed to rotate at various revolution levels
such as 100 revolutions, 200 revolutions, 300 revolutions, 400 rev-
olutions and 500 revolutions (Fig. 2). At each level of revolution the
abraded specimens were cleaned from any loose debris and
weighed accurately to measure w2. Finally the percentage loss
was calculated using the following equation:
ðw1  w2 Þ
Cantabro Loss;% ¼  100
w1
where, w1 = Initial weight of the test specimen, g; w2 = Final weight
of the test specimen, g.
929
Fig. 9. (a)–(c) Relation between Cantabro loss and strength.
3.5. Surface abrasion resistance (using rotating cutter with drill press)
The surface abrasion resistance test was conducted using ASTM
C 944 [35] method and with a drill press with a rotating cutter.
Three cylindrical specimens of size 300 mm  100 mm were used
to measure the weight loss in %. Each of the specimens was placed
in the drill press and the rotating cutter is mounted slowly until it
touches the surface of the specimen. Then the device is set to rotate
for two minutes at a speed of 200 rpm with a vertical load of 98 N.
The total diameter of the rotating cutter was 82.50 mm. Then the
specimen was removed from the device and its surface was
cleaned and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. Three such measure-
ments were taken at each 2 min interval such that the total time
of conduct of this test was 6 min. Average weight loss of three
specimens in percentage was recorded. The surface abrasion
weight loss is calculated using the following equation:
ðw1  w2 Þ
Surface abrasion weight loss; % ¼  100 ð2Þ
w1
4. Test results and discussions
ð1Þ 4.1. Compressive strength
The compressive strength test results were presented in Table 4.
For 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. At 3 days age, all mixtures
930 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933
Fig. 10. (a)–(c) Relation between surface abrasion and loss and flexural strength.
(G10, G20, G30, G40, G50 and G60) shows lower compressive
strength relative to the control mix concrete (G0). The results at
the age of 7 days, 28 days and 90 days indicated that there has
been continuous and significant contribution of GGBS on compres-
sive strength of RCC compression with the control mix concrete G0
(0% GGBS). The increase in strength from 7 days to 28 days was
between 39% and 63%, where as the increase in strength for
28 days to 90 days was between 15% and 29%. This increase in
strength is due to the pozzolanic reaction of GGBS with cement
and it is more stable at later ages.
4.2. Split tensile strength
Split tensile strength of GRCC mixtures was tested at the ages of
3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. The test results were given in
Table 4. The variation in split tensile strength with GGBS content
was congruent to the trend observed in compressive strength. Split
tensile strength was decreased with increase in GGBS content at
early age of 3 days curing. At 90 days the split tensile strength was
found to increase at 28% and 51% respectively for mixtures G10,
G20, G30, G40, G50 and G60 in comparison with 28 days strength.
Thus increase in strength was due to pozzolanic reaction of GGBS.
4.3. Flexural strength
The flexural strength of GRCC mixtures was determined at the
ages of 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. The test results were
presented in Table 4. Like compressive strength, flexural strength
of GRCC mixtures also increased significantly from 7 days age of
curing. Control mix concrete (G0) achieved flexural strength of
6.80 MPa at the age 28 days, 7.20 MPa at the age of 90 days. Mix
G10 achieved flexural strength of 7.04 MPa at the age of 28 days
and 7.58 MPa at the age of 90 days. Similarly mixtures G20, G30,
G40, G50 and G60 achieved 7.42 MPa, 7.70 MPa, 7.90 MPa,
7.67 MPa and 7.15 MPa respectively at the age of 28 days and
7.81 MPa, 8.05 MPa, 8.20 MPa, 8.11 MPa, and 7.82 MPa at the age
of 90 days respectively. The strength increase from 28 days to
90 days was between 4% and 9% for all seven mixtures.
4.4. Effect of w/c ratio on flexural strength of Roller Compacted
Concrete
The shape of the strength curve shown in Fig. 12 indicates that
at the left hand portion of the optimum water-cement ratio, in
spite of lower water-cement ratio, the water content is not suffi-
cient enough for the hydration reaction to be completed and also
the voids in specimens increase with lower water content could
be the reason for gaining low flexural strength. The right hand por-
tion of the strength curve (Fig. 12) demonstrate the Abram’s Law
which indicates the reduction in flexural strength with increasing
water-cement ratio. Therefore Abram’s law is not valid for water-
cement ratio lower than the optimum (Fig. 12).
4.5. Cantabro loss
The Percent weight loss i.e. Cantabro loss was determined for
three specimens of each set for all seven RCC mixtures (G0, G10,
G20, G30, G40, G50 and G60) as per ASTM C 1747 specifications
and the test results shown Figs. 3–6 for all mixtures at the ages
of 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days. This test was capable of dif-
ferentiating various mixtures for abrasion resistance (Cantabro
loss) as indicated by 8.44% and 28.75% at 3 days for 300 revolutions
for all mixtures as shown in Fig. 7.
The Cantabro loss (%) for mixtures G0, G10, G20, G30, G40, G50
and G60 at the age of 3 days for 300 revolutions was 8.44%, 10.80%,
11.43%, 15.43%, 16.93%, 22.02% and 28.78% respectively, whereas
at 7 days, the loss was 8.15%, 10.56%, 11.32%, 14.81%, 15.10%,
17.52% and 18.14% respectively, this increase in weight loss was
attributed to decrease in strength attainment at the early ages of
concrete due to instable pozzolanic reaction of GGBS with cement
at early ages.
However at 28 days, the Cantabro loss (%) for seven mixtures
was 6.48%, 5.81%, 5.22%, 4.71%, 4.12%, 4.01% and 6.49% respectively
at 300 revolutions, whereas at 90 days, the Cantabro loss (%) was
5.1%, 4.77%, 4.23%, 3.56%, 3.36%, 2.91% and 5.01% respectively at
300 revolutions. The decrease in weight loss or increase in Abrasion
resistance was due to the increase in strength up to 50% level of
replacement of GGBS. Hence there was a correlation between Can-
tabro loss and various strength (Compression, Flexure and Splitting
Tension) shown in Fig. 9(a), (b) and (c) was found as follows.
4.5.1. Empirical relationship between 28 days strength and Cantabro
loss at 300 revolutions
a) For Compressive Strength
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 1:280ðCs Þ þ 61:78; R2 ¼ 0:906 ð3Þ
b) For Flexural Strength
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 2:398ðFs Þ þ 22:97; R2 ¼ 0:856 ð4Þ
c) For Split Tensile Strength
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 1:549ðSts Þ þ 11:53; R2 ¼ 0:821 ð5Þ
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933
Fig. 11. (a)–(d) Relation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion loss at different ages.
where Cbl = Cantabro loss, %; Cs = Compressive Strength, MPa;
Fs = Flexural Strength, MPa; Sts = Split tensile strength, MPa.
From the above Eqs. (3)–(5) it was concluded that there was a
correlation existed between strength and Cantabro loss. However,
the presence of a strong correlation was existing between
compressive strength and Cantabro loss (R2 = 0.906).
4.6. Surface abrasion resistance
The surface abrasion resistance test was conducted at the age of
3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days for all RCC mixtures using
ASTM C 944 [35] specifications. Fig. 8 shows the surface abrasion
resistance of RCC mixtures at various ages. Fig. 8 presents at
2 min interval conducted on three separate areas of RCC specimens
at 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days of testing.
At 3 days, the %weight loss for control mix G0, G10, G20, G30,
G40, G50 and G60 was 0.45%, 0.48%, 0.51%, 0.59%, 0.66%, 0.74%,
and 0.88% respectively, where as it was 0.32%, 0.38%, 0.41%,
0.46%, 0.505, 0.57% and 0.55% respectively for 7 days of curing
age. These results showed that at 3 days and 7 days curing ages
the surface abrasion resistance has been decreased for all mixtures
in compression with control mix (R10). Thus was due to the slow
pozzolanic reaction of GGBS at early ages.
However, at 28 days the %weight loss for control mix G0, G10,
G20, G30, G40, G50 and G60 was 0.23%, 0.21%, 0.18%, 0.16%,
0.12%, 0.15%, and 0.24% respectively, where as it was 0.16%,
0.11%, 0.09%, 0.02%, 0.01%, 0.055% and 0.18% respectively for
90 days of curing for mixtures G0, G10, G20, G30, G40, G50 and
G60 respectively. These results showed that at 28 days and 90 days
age the GRCC mixtures have been higher surface abrasion resis-
tance up to 50% replacement, and beyond 50% replacement the
surface abrasion resistance was decreased due to the fact that
the GGBS acts as a filler, rather than cementitious material.
Fig. 8 shows the variation of abrasion resistance (%weight loss)
with age of concrete for all RCC mixtures G0, G10, G20, G30, G40,
931
G50 and G60. From this figure, it can be seen that the surface abra-
sion resistance in terms of percent weight loss increased with
increase in GGBS content up to 50% for 28 days and 90 days. Also
the %weight decreased with the increase in age for all RCC mix-
tures. Abrasion test results indicated that the strength of GRCC
was an important factor affecting the surface abrasion resistance
and this can be statistically shows as follows.
From Fig. 10(a) –(c), it was concluded that there was a
strong correlation was existing between surface abrasion loss
and compressive strength of GRCC (R2 = 0.959) in compressive
strength and Flexural strength and Split tensile strength, where
R2 = 0.871 and R2 = 0.815 respectively. Following are the empirical
relationships between various strengths and Surface abrasion
weight loss.
4.6.1. Empirical relationship between 28 days strength and surface
abrasion loss
a) For Compressive Strength
Sal ð%Þ ¼ 0:056ðCs Þ þ 2:664; R2 ¼ 0:959 ð6Þ
b) For Flexural Strength
Sal ð%Þ ¼ 0:103ðFs Þ þ 0:946; R2 ¼ 0:871 ð7Þ
c) For Split Tensile Strength
Sal ð%Þ ¼ 0:065ðSts Þ þ 0:450; R2 ¼ 0:815 ð8Þ
where Sal = Surface abrasion loss, %; Cs = Compressive Strength,
MPa; Fs = Flexural Strength, MPa; Sts = Split tensile strength, MPa.
4.7. Comparison of Cantabro test and surface abrasion resistance test
These two tests are generally presented a similar trend over RCC
mixtures at various ages of curing. The specimens used in both the
932 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933
Fig. 12. Relation between 28 days flexural strength and w/b ratio.
tests are similar size and shape. The weight loss reduction in sur-
face abrasion resistance test was smaller and between (0.05%)
and 0.88% for all seven GRCC mixtures at all ages, whereas the in
Cantabro test, the percent weight loss was higher and between
2.91% and 28.75% for mixtures G0, G10, G20, G30, G40, G50 and
G60 at the age of 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days.
There was a correlation existed between Cantabro loss and sur-
face abrasion loss for various replacement levels of GGBS as shown
in Fig. 11(a)–(d). The empirical equations are as follows.
4.7.1. Relation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion weight loss
at 3 days of curing
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 45:57ðSal Þ  11:79; R2 ¼ 0:990
4.7.2. Relation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion weight loss
at 7 days of curing
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 44:03ðSal Þ  6:159; R2 ¼ 0:981
4.7.3. Relation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion weight loss
at 28 days of curing
2
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 22:77ðSal Þ þ 1:605; R ¼ 0:943
4.7.4. Relation between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion weight loss
at 90 days of curing
Cbl ð%Þ ¼ 11:50ðSal Þ þ 3:197; R2 ¼ 0:941
From the above regression analysis a general relationship
between Cantabro loss and surface abrasion loss was made and it
showed a strong correlation was existed since the regression co
efficient R2 provide higher values of 0.990, 0.981, 0.943 and
0.941 at 3 days, 7 days, 28 days and 90 days respectively for all
GRCC mixtures.
5. Conclusions
Following conclusions are drawn from the experimental work:
1. The replacement of cement with six percentages of GGBS con-
tent reduced the compressive strength, Flexural strength and
Splitting tensile strength at the age of 3 days, but there was a
continuous and significant improvement in strength observed
at 7, 28 and 90 days. As the water/ binder ratio increases up
to an optimum level (0.45), there has been increase in strength,
but beyond optimum water /binder ratio considerable decline
in strengths were observed.
2. Abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete with GGBS as
mineral admixture was strongly influenced by its compressive
strength irrespective of GGBS content.
3. The abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete was found
to increase with the increase of curing age for all seven mixtures.
4. A stronger relationship was existed between compressive
strength and abrasion resistance of RCC with GGBS than that
between Flexural strength to abrasion for all concrete mixtures.
5. Abrasion resistance of Roller Compacted Concrete was found to
be mainly dependent on Compressive strength rather than Flex-
ural tensile strengths.
6. The Cantabro test was effectively differentiated the seven RCC
mixtures with GGBS as partial replacement of cement at all
ages, thus it can be used for measuring Abrasion resistance of
Roller Compacted Concrete Pavements.
7. The comparison between the Cantabro test and surface abrasion
resistance test showed that their measurements can be strongly
correlated by a linear regression where GGBS is used as mineral
admixture.
References
[1] ACI 325.10R-95, State-of-the-art report on roller-compacted concrete
pavements, in: ACI Manual of Concrete Practice ACI, USA, 2000, p. 32.
[2] T.R. Naik, Y.M. Chun, R.N. Kraus, S.S. Singh, L.L.C. Pennock, B.W. Ramme,
Strength and durability of roller-compacted HVFA concrete pavements, Pract.
Period. Struct. Des. Constr. 6 (4) (2001) 154–165.
ð9Þ [3] Z.Q. Shi, D.D.L. Chung, Improving the abrasion resistance of mortar by adding
latex and carbon fibers, Cem. Concr. Res. 27 (8) (1997) 1149–1153.
[4] K. Turk, M. Karatas, Abrasion resistance and mechanical properties of self-
compacting concrete with different dosages of fly ash/silica fume, Indian J. Eng.
Mater. Sci. 18 (1) (2011) 49–60.
[5] T.C. Liu, Abrasion resistance of concrete, ACI J. Proc. 78 (5) (1981).
[6] J. Sustersic, E. Mali, S. Urbancic, Erosion-abrasion resistance of steel fibre
reinforced concrete, in: Durability of Concrete. Second International
ð10Þ Conference, August 4–9, 1991, Montreal, Canada, Durability of Concrete.
Second international Conference, vol. 2, 1991. No. SP 126-39.
[7] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, M.M. Hossain, Abrasion resistance of high-strength
concrete made with class C fly ash, ACI Mater. J. 92 (6) (1995).
[8] M.J. Shannag, High strength concrete containing natural pozzolan and silica
fume, Cement Concr. Compos. 22 (6) (2000) 399–406.
[9] M.N. Hague, O. Kayalı, Properties of high-strength concrete using a fine fly ash,
Cem. Concr. Res. 28 (10) (1998) 1445–1452.
ð11Þ [10] M.N. Haque, M.A. Ward, Marginal materials in roller compacted concrete for
pavement construction, ACI J. Proc. 83 (4) (1986). ACI.
[11] T.R. Naik, S.S. Singh, B.W. Ramme, Effect of source of fly ash on abrasion
resistance of concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (5) (2002) 417–426.
[12] T. Yen, T.H. Hsu, Y.W. Liu, S.H. Chen, Influence of class F fly ash on the
abrasion–erosion resistance of high-strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 21
(2) (2007) 458–463.
[13] A. Nanni, Abrasion resistance of roller compacted concrete, ACI Mater. J. 86 (6)
ð12Þ (1989).
[14] B. Li, G. Ke, M. Zhou, Influence of manufactured sand characteristics on
strength and abrasion resistance of pavement cement concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (10) (2011) 3849–3853.
[15] N. Ghafoori, Y. Cai, Laboratory-made roller compacted concretes containing
dry bottom ash: Part II? Long-term durability, ACI Mater. J. 95 (3) (1998).
[16] F. Soleymani, Abrasion resistance of concrete containing SiO2 nanoparticles in
different curing media, J. Am. Sci. 8 (8) (2012).
[17] K. Ramujee, M. Potharaju, Abrasion resistance of geopolymer composites,
Procedia Mater. Sci. 6 (2014) 1961–1966.
[18] C. Gaedicke, A. Marines, F. Miankodila, Assessing the abrasion resistance of
cores in virgin and recycled aggregate pervious concrete, Constr. Build. Mater.
68 (2014) 701–708.
[19] X. Shu, B. Huang, H. Wu, Q. Dong, E.G. Burdette, Performance comparison of
laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures, Constr. Build.
Mater. 25 (8) (2011) 3187–3192.
[20] A. Mardani-Aghabaglou, H. Hosseinnezhad, O.C. Boyacı, Ö. Arıöz, C.H. Ç
_
imbeton, I.Ö. Yaman, K. Ramyar, Abrasion resistance and transport properties
of road concrete, 2014.
[21] G.R. Kumar, U.K. Sharma, Standard test methods for determination of abrasion
resistance of concrete, Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 5 (2) (2014) 155–162.
[22] R. Siddique, Performance characteristics of high-volume Class F fly ash
concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (3) (2004) 487–493.
 S.K. Rao et al. / Construction and Building Materials 114 (2016) 925–933
[23] Q. Dong, H. Wu, B. Huang, X. Shu, K. Wang, Development of a Simple and Fast
Test Method for Measuring the Durability of Portland Cement Pervious
Concrete, 2010.
[24] Y. Takada, E. Nakayama, K. Sasaki, T. Suzuki, S Mori, O. Kamada, Study of mix
proportion and quality control of porous concrete pavement used on urban
expressway, J. Jpn. Soc. Civ. Eng. 71 (2015) 19–35.
[25] A. Bonicelli, F. Giustozzi, M. Crispino, Experimental study on the effects of fine
sand addition on differentially compacted pervious concrete, Constr. Build.
Mater. 91 (2015) 102–110.
[26] IS 12269-1987, Indian Standard 53 Grade OPC, 1987.
[27] IS 4031-1999, Methods of Physical Tests for Hydraulic Cement, 1999.
[28] IS 383-1970, Indian Standard Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates
From Natural Sources for Concrete (Second Revision), 1970.
[29] ACI 211 3R-02, Guide for Selecting Proportions for No-Slump Concrete, 2002.
[30] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Design and analysis of Roller Compacted Concrete
pavements in low volume roads in India, i-Manager J. Civ. Eng. 5 (2) (2015).
[31] Rao S.K., P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Experimental investigation on Pozzolanic effect
of fly ash in Roller compacted concrete pavement using manufactured sand as
fine aggregate, Int. J. Appl. Eng. Res. 10 (8) (2015) 20669–20682.
933
[32] S.K. Rao, P. Sravana, T.C. Rao, Investigation on pozzolanic effect of Fly ash in
Roller Compacted Concrete pavement, IRACST-Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 5 (2)
(2015) 202–206. <http://www.estij.org/papers/vol5no22015/1vol5no2.pdf>.
[33] IS: 516-1959, Indian Standard Code of Practice – Methods of Test for Strength
of Concrete, BIS, New Delhi, 1959.
[34] ASTM C 1747, Standard Test Method for Determining Potential Resistance to
Degradation of Pervious Concrete by Impact and Abrasion, 2011.
[35] ASTM C 944, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete (or)
Mortar Surface by the Rotating Cutter Method, ASTM International, 2012.
[36] ASTM C 1138, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete
(Under Water Method), ASTM International, 1997.
[37] ASTM C 779, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Horizontal
Concrete Surface, ASTM International, 2012.
[38] ASTM C 418, Standard Test Method for Abrasion Resistance of Concrete of
Concrete by Sand Blasting Method, ASTM International, 2005.
[39] ASTM C 131-06, Standard Test Method for Resistance to Degradation of Small-
Size Coarse Aggregate by Abrasion and Impact in the Los Angeles Machine,
2006.