Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash

for Predicting Compressive Strength of Fly

Ash Concrete

Khuito Murumi and Supratic Gupta

Abstract Fly ash is used as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete.

In order to determine the strength of fly ash concrete similar to ordinary Portland
cement concrete at a required age, one of the methods of designing concrete mix is
by using efficiency factor (k-value) concept. This paper presents the utility of this
concept for predicting the strength of fly ash concrete. The 28 days strength-based
efficiency factor is 0.54 for 25 % fly ash and 0.35 for 45 % fly ash. The proposed
efficiency factor is applicable to wide range of strength and fly ash percentage.

Keywords Cement Compressive strength Electrostatic precipitators Fly ash




k-value Water to binder ratio

1 Introduction

Fly ash is used as a supplementary cementitious material worldwide. It is generally

collected using electrostatic precipitators in thermal power stations. Fly ash can be
either siliceous or calcareous and is used in concrete as pozzolanic material or
mineral admixture or both. The reaction of active silica in the fly ash with calcium
hydroxide produced during cement hydration contributes an additional strength to
concrete [1]. Concrete gets better durability on proper curing as fly ash decreases
the pores of concrete [2].
Although it is well-documented in literature that fly ash improves the work-
ability, strength and durability, there is no established method for predicting the
strength of concrete and design such that 28 days strength is assured. Among the
research group, Pusa [3] presented certain efficiency factor (k-values) for design of

K. Murumi
S. Gupta (&)

Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Delhi, Hauz Khas 110 016, New Delhi, India
e-mail: supratic@yahoo.com
K. Murumi
e-mail: khuitomurumi@gmail.com

© Springer India 2015 1747

V. Matsagar (ed.), Advances in Structural Engineering,
DOI 10.1007/978-81-322-2187-6_133
1748 K. Murumi and S. Gupta

fly ash concrete with limited experimental data. In this research, further experi-
mental results are presented to support this theory.

2 The Formulation

The first step in designing concrete is based on the assumption that strength of
concrete depends on water cement (w/c) ratio. Research to project porosity as the
controlling factor [4] does exist, this is difficult to be measured. Hence, it is
assumed that the w/c ratio is the most important factor deciding the strength of
concrete. The second consideration is the definition of water in the numerator. The
aggregates or any particle capable of absorbing water would absorb water in the
mixing stage provided there is enough time for the absorption, and therefore, this
excess water should be subtracted from the design water content. Also, any extra
adsorbed water trapped around any particle like sand should also be taken care of
while calculating water content. When supplementary cementitious materials like
fly ash is used, the cementitious material, c in Eq. 1 is considered as binder,
B (Eq. 2). In this research, it is assumed that the compressive strength is a unique
function of water to binder (w/B) ratio and that the k-value is a function of fly ash
percentage, F at a given age. The assumed relations are given as,

fc ¼ fðw=cÞ ð1Þ

fc ¼ fðw=BÞ ð2Þ

B ¼ c þ kf ð3Þ

k ¼ fðFÞ ð4Þ

where
fc compressive strength to be achieved (MPa)
c cement content (kg/m3)
f fly ash content (kg/m3)
B effective binder or equivalent cement content (kg/m3)
K efficiency factor or k-value of fly ash
F` fly ash percentage of total cementitious material (kg/m3)

To explain this concept, three cases are shown for mix proportioning of fly ash
concrete, when fly ash is used to partially replace an ordinary Portland cement
(OPC) (Eq. 5). The first case represents a control mix with water and cement
contents, denoted by w0 and c0 , respectively. The second case represents a mix with
same water quantity, but by decreasing cement content from c0 to c1 and intro-
ducing fly ash, f1 and efficiency factor, k1 : The denominator, that is, effective binder
or equivalent cement content, remains equal in the first two cases. The third case
Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash … 1749

represents any other case with different water ðw2 Þ, cement ðc2 Þ and fly ash ðf2 Þ:
A new efficiency factor, k2 is used with fly ash, f2 in order to obtain same w/B ratio
as the other two cases.

w0 w1 ð¼ w0 Þ w2
¼ ¼ ð5Þ
c0 þ 0 c1 þ k1 f1 c2 þ k2 f2

It is assumed that all these three cases would give similar compressive strength as
they have same w/B ratio as per Eqs. 2–4. In this paper, a combination of only fly
ash and OPC is considered.

3 The Efficiency Factor (K-Value) Concept for Design

of Fly Ash Concrete

Smith [5] first presented the concept of efficiency factor of fly ash. Since then,
similar work had been carried out by several researchers such as Dunstan [6], Bijen
and Selst [7], Hassaballah and Wenzel [8], Babu and Rao [9–11], Papadakis and
Tsimas [1], Papadakis et al. [12], Oner et al. [13], Vollpracht and Brameshuber
[14], Yildirim et al. [15], Cho and Jee [16], Cho et al. [17] and Dinakar [18]. Babu
and Rao [9–11] developed “overall efficiency factor” that depends on fly ash per-
centage and age at which the strength is required to be equal. Therefore, one may
have efficiency factor for 7, 28, 90 days or even 365 days.
BS EN 206 [19] specifies k-value of 0.4 for fly ash conforming to BS EN 450-1
[20]. This is for fly ash up to a maximum of 25 % by mass of total cementitious
material for CEM I conforming to BS EN 197-1 [21]. If one re-calculates the
efficiency factor for fly ash usage greater than 25 % by adjusting the amount of fly
ash usage, a decreasing graph would be obtained. A comparison of these are
provided in Fig. 1. This shows that this relationship would be conservative and
therefore provide higher strength.

Fig. 1 Efficiency factor

comparison
1750 K. Murumi and S. Gupta

Pusa [3] conducted experiments to compute k-values for fly ash percentage in the
range of 20–40 %. The values were significantly lower than the one proposed by
Babu and Rao [9]. This paper presents the efficiency factor of fly ash for 25 and
45 % fly ash at 28 days. One limitation of this work is that this method needs
verification for different types of fly ash. This was tested only for fly ash produced
in northern India.

4 Materials Used

Cementitious materials: The cementitious materials used were ordinary Portland

cement of grade 43 conforming to the specifications of IS 8112: 2013 [22] and
siliceous fly ash conforming to the specifications of IS 3812 (Part 1) [23] procured
from a thermal power plant in northern India. The fly ash was equivalent to class
F fly ash of ASTM C618-12a [24] with low amount of calcium oxide. Tables 1 and
2 show the chemical properties and physical properties of cement and fly ash used,
respectively.
Aggregates: River sand having a specific gravity of 2.62 was used as fine
aggregate while the coarse aggregate had specific gravity of 2.67 (for 10 mm size)
and 2.80 (for 20 mm size). The fine and coarse aggregates conformed to IS 383
[25]. The sand was of grading zone II of IS 383 [25].
Water: The water used in the experiment was potable. The test results con-
formed to the requirements of IS 456 [26].
Admixture: The admixture was a polycarboxylate ether (PCE)-based super-
plasticiser with pH value exceeding 6 and specific gravity of 1.08 at 25 °C. The
admixture conformed to the specifications of IS 9103 [27].

Table 1 Chemical and physical properties of OPC

S. Chemical properties Test S. Physical properties Test
No. result No. result
1 (CaO − 0.7 SO3) ÷ (2.8 0.88 1 Blaine’s fineness 290
SiO2 + 1.2 Al2O3 + 0.65 Fe2O3) (m2/kg)
2 AI2O3 ÷ Fe2O3 1.43 2 Soundness
3 Insoluble residue (% by mass) 1.94 (a) Le Chatelier 1.0
expansion (mm)
4 Magnesia (% by mass) 0.95 (b) Autoclave expan- 0.05
sion (mm)
5 SO3 (% by mass) 1.8 3 Compressive strength 56.3
(MPa), at 28 days
6 Loss on ignition (% by mass) 1.82
7 Total chlorides (% by mass) 0.014
Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash … 1751

Table 2 Chemical and physical properties of fly ash

S. Chemical properties Test S. Physical properties Test
No. result No. result
1 SiO2 + Al2O3 + Fe2O3 93.8 1 Blaine’s fineness (m2/kg) 343
(% by mass)
2 SiO2 (% by mass) 62.4 2 Particle retention on 45 μm 29
3 Reactive silica (% by 26 sieve, wet sieving (% by mass)
mass)
4 MgO (% by mass) 0.70 3 Lime reactivity (MPa) 5.1
5 SO3 (% by mass) 0.18 4 Compressive strength of neat 90.3
6 Na2O (% by mass) 0.21 cement mortar (% of plain
cement mortar cubes)
7 Cl (% by mass) 0.03
8 Loss on ignition (% by 1.3 5 Soundness by autoclave test 0.08
mass) (%)

5 Casting Methodology and Testing

The coarse aggregates (10 and 20 mm) were used in saturated surface dry (SSD)
condition. SSD moisture content of the natural sand was 1.2 %, determined using a
frustum cone as per ASTM C128—07a [28]. The sand was usually in moist con-
dition and therefore appropriate water correction was done before casting.
A tilting drum-type mixer was used to prepare the concrete. Aggregates were
first dry-mixed. Cement and fly ash were then added along with approximately
70 % of the design water. After few minutes of mixing, admixture was added to the
remaining water and used in the mix. Table vibrators were used to vibrate the
moulds for full compaction. The admixture dosage was so as to maintain similar
workability with slump range of about 80–150 mm. 100 mm cube specimens were
used. Test was carried out at 7 and 28 days for compressive strength. The speci-
mens in the moulds were covered with plastic sheets to minimise evaporation of
water and removed after 24 h and then cured in water tank until the testing day. The
curing water temperature varied from 25 to 29 °C.

6 Mix Design, Results and Discussion

Table 3 shows the mix design and results of control concrete, that is, without fly
ash. Figure 2 correspondingly shows the plot of compressive strength versus w/c
ratio for this case.
 1752

Table 3 Mix proportioning details and strength results for control concrete
Mix No. F (%) k- w/B Mix proportioning: weight of materials (kg/m3) Admixture Slump (mm) Strength
value (MPa)
w c f s 10 mm 20 mm kg/m3 7d 28 d
1 0 1.00 0.31 160 516 0 670 490 580 1.5 85 56.3 67.0
2 0 1.00 0.30 145 483 0 700 457 680 2.4 120 51.5 64.9
3 0 1.00 0.35 150 430 0 670 485 640 3.4 130 44.4 55.9
4 0 1.00 0.35 150 430 0 768 720 441 4.3 100 44.9 55.0
5 0 1.00 0.35 150 430 0 768 469 703 4.3 100 50.6 61.5
6 0 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 710 480 680 1.8 80 36.4 46.5
7 0 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 708 484 618 6.0 110 33.1 44.0
8 0 1.00 0.40 155 390 0 710 485 590 3.1 110 34.5 45.9
9 0 1.00 0.45 165 370 0 800 460 630 4.1 100 34.0 42.0
10 0 1.00 0.45 148 330 0 715 602 671 4.6 100 32.9 39.4
11 0 1.00 0.45 170 380 0 670 480 695 1.5 130 29.6 37.5
K. Murumi and S. Gupta
Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash … 1753

Fig. 2 Compressive strength 100

Compressive strength (MPa), 28 d

versus w/B ratio: 0 % fly ash OPC: 28 d
80 Power (OPC: 28 d)
y = 12.97x-1.39
R² = 0.95
60

40

20

0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
w/c

Table 4 shows the mix design and results for 25 and 45 % fly ash content. In this,
the efficiency factor (k-value) of fly ash is varied and used in calculating the w/B
ratio until the compressive strength of the fly ash concrete coincides with the plot of
the control concrete. Figures 3 and 4 are the plots of strength versus w/B ratio for 25
and 45 % fly ash cases, respectively. For 0 % fly ash, it is calculated as 1.0 as per
the definition of efficiency factor. After several trials, k-values of 0.54 and 0.35
were found to be appropriate for 25 and 45 % fly ash, respectively, that matched
well with 0 % fly ash case.
Figure 5 shows combined data and compared with an equation in Popovics [4]
indicating similarity with the present result. It may be noted that 45 % fly ash case
approaches the high volume fly ash category. But because of the efficiency factor
used in the design of concrete, the 28 days compressive strength remains almost
equal to that of OPC concrete. The popular belief that use of higher fly ash would
lead to lower strength is negated when appropriate efficiency factor is used and
strength is logically compared with the appropriate w/B ratio.
With increase in fly ash percentage F, the powder content increases. This
increase is very beneficial at low strength range as one can use lower cement
content and still maintain sufficient powder ensuring a good mix. But at higher
strength, w/B is low, thus resulting in lower water content and usually higher
cement content. In such condition, using higher fly ash percentage F results in
excessively high powder content and the mix becomes cohesive and increases
admixture demand.
Further, even at cement content of 350 kg/m3 (mix no. 19; w/B = 0.29), a
strength of 73.7 MPa could be achieved, which is an M 65 concrete of IS 456 2000
and qualifies “standard concrete” criterion. This could be achieved comfortably in
45 % fly ash case. Concrete grade of M30 up to M65, could be therefore achieved
by using appropriate efficiency factor.
 1754

Table 4 Mix proportioning details and strength results of fly ash concrete
Mix No. F (%) k- w/B Mix proportioning: weight of materials (kg/m3) Admixture Slump (mm) Strength (MPa)
value w c f s 10 mm 20 mm kg/m3 7 days 28 days
12 25 0.54 0.32 125 330 110 600 504 761 4.0 90 45.4 65.0
13 25 0.54 0.35 171 417 139 768 362 514 2.2 160 41.9 55.9
14 25 0.54 0.36 155 365 120 700 385 635 2.4 160 33.2 51.4
15 25 0.54 0.40 170 365 120 655 449 595 3.9 110 29.8 43.6
16 25 0.54 0.40 182 388 129 778 357 516 2.3 115 36.8 47.3
17 25 0.54 0.45 176 334 111 855 364 515 2.2 120 36.0 40.2
18 25 0.54 0.45 175 330 110 600 420 745 4.4 140 27.3 41.1
19 45 0.35 0.29 130 350 290 600 451 676 6.4 180 48.2 73.7
20 45 0.35 0.29 125 330 270 640 458 687 7.2 230 46.7 67.5
21 45 0.35 0.33 167 392 321 699 319 428 5.0 160 44.6 64.9
22 45 0.35 0.38 179 368 301 665 325 470 3.3 200 40.2 56.1
23 45 0.35 0.40 170 330 270 640 397 595 2.1 170 34.0 45.2
24 45 0.35 0.41 160 304 249 647 388 582 3.0 180 30.6 42.4
25 45 0.35 0.43 174 318 260 763 318 487 2.6 210 29.1 46.3
K. Murumi and S. Gupta
Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash … 1755

Fig. 3 Compressive strength 100

Compressive strength (MPa), 28 d

versus w/B ratio: 25 % fly ash 25% F: 28 d
OPC Trendline: 28 d
80
Power (25% F: 28 d)
y = 13.46x-1.35
60 R² = 0.94

40

20

0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
w/B

Fig. 4 Compressive strength 100

Compressive strength (MPa), 28 d

versus w/B ratio: 45 % fly ash 45% F: 28 d

OPC Trendline: 28 d
80
Power (45% F: 28 d)

60 y = 14.48x-1.30
R² = 0.90

40

20

0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
w/B

Fig. 5 Compressive strength 100

Compressive strength (MPa), 28 d

versus w/B ratio: 0, 25 and Combined data: 28 d

45 % fly ash Curve 7 of Fig. 5.11 (Popovics, 1998)
80
Power (Combined data: 28 d)

60

40 y = 13.29x-1.37
R² = 0.93

20 Curve 7 of Fig. 5.11, p. 325 (Popovics, 1998):

fc (MPa) = [0.518 - 17.818 log (w/c)] x 6.9
0
0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50
w/B
1756 K. Murumi and S. Gupta

7 Conclusions

Fly ash has become an important constituent material in present concrete. Use of
this material would not only reduce cement, but also reduce fine and coarse
aggregates requirement thereby making the construction process more sustainable.
The proposed efficiency factors are based on fly ash percentage, F. The following
conclusions can be drawn based on this research.
1. Use of efficiency factor is effective to predict compressive strength of concrete.
However, minor adjustment and detailed experimental verification are
necessary.
2. The 28 days strength-based efficiency factor is 0.54 for 25 % fly ash and 0.35 for
45 % fly ash.
3. Even at 45 % fly ash, which approaches high volume fly ash range, there would
be no reduction in strength if appropriate efficiency factor is used.
4. The proposed efficiency factor is applicable to wide range of strength and fly ash
percentage.
5. A “standard concrete” of M65 grade could be achieved with cement content of
350 kg/m3 only (w/B = 0.29).

Acknowledgment The authors would like to thank personnel of Badarpur Thermal Power Station
of National Thermal Power Corporation (NTPC) Ltd. for providing fly ash freely. Assistance
rendered by Mr. Gautam Barai, Mr. Pradeep Negi and other staffs of Concrete Structures Labo-
ratory, Department of Civil Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi, New Delhi,
India is gratefully acknowledged.

References

1. Papadakis VG, Tsimas S (2002) Supplementary cementing materials in concrete, part I:

efficiency and design. Cement Concr Res 32(10):1525–1532
2. Aïtcin P-C (1998) High-performance concrete. E & FN Spon, London
3. Pusa V (2011) Study on mechanical and durability properties of concrete with specific
reference to fly ash. Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi
4. Popovics S (1998) Strength and related properties of concrete, a quantitative approach. Wiley,
New York
5. Smith IA (1967) The design of fly-ash concretes. In: Institution of civil engineers proceedings,
vol 36(4), pp 769–790
6. Dunstan ER Jr (1986) A concrete proportioning odyssey—the optimum/pessimum fly ash
percentage. A paper presented at the ACI fall meeting, ACI, Baltimore
7. Bijen J, Selst VR (1993) Cement equivalence factors for fly ash. Cem Concr Res 23
(5):1029–1039
8. Hassaballah A, Wenzel TH (1995) A strength definition for the water to cementitious materials
ratio. ACI SP 153–24 153:417–438
9. Babu KG, Rao GS (1993) Efficiency of fly ash in concrete. Cement Concr Compos 15
(4):223–229
Evaluating the Efficiency Factor of Fly Ash … 1757

10. Babu KG, Rao GS (1994) Early strength behaviour of fly ash concretes. Cem Concr Res 24
(2):277–284
11. Babu KG, Rao GS (1996) Efficiency of fly ash in concrete with age. Cem Concr Res 26
(3):465–474
12. Papadakis VG, Antiohos S, Tsimas S (2002) Supplementary cementing materials in concrete,
part II: a fundamental estimation of the efficiency factor. Cement Concr Res 32
(10):1533–1538
13. Oner A, Akyuz S, Yildiz R (2005) An experimental study on strength development of concrete
containing fly ash and optimum usage of fly ash in concrete. Cem Concr Res 35(6):1165–1171
14. Vollpracht A, Brameshuber W (2010) Performance-concept, k-value approach-which concept
offers which advantages? In: International RILEM conference on material science. RILEM
Publications SARL, Bagneux, France
15. Yildirim H, Sumer M, Akyuncu V, Gurbuz E (2011) Comparison of efficiency factors of F and
C types of fly ashes. Constr Build Mater 25(6):2939–2947
16. Cho HB, Jee NY (2011) Prediction model for cementing efficiency of fly ash concrete by
statistical analyses. Adv Mater Res 250–253:1293–1296
17. Cho HB, Jee NY, Shin NY (2012) Strength prediction of fly ash concrete using cementing
efficiency by statistical analysis. Adv Mater Res 374–377:1774–1777
18. Dinakar P (2012) Design of self-compacting concrete with fly ash. Mag Concr Res 64
(5):401–409
19. BS EN 206 (2013) Concrete-specification, performance, production and conformity. British
Standards Institute (BSI), London
20. BS EN 450-1 (2012) Fly ash for concrete. Definition, specifications and conformity criteria.
British Standards Institute (BSI), London
21. BS EN 197-1 (2011) Cement: composition, specifications and conformity criteria for common
cements. British Standards Institute (BSI), London
22. IS 8112 (2013) Ordinary Portland cement, 43 grade-specification (second revision). Bureau of
Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi, India
23. IS 3812 (Part 1) (2013) Pulverized fuel ash-specification, Part 1, for use as pozzolana in
cement, cement mortar and concrete (third revision). Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New
Delhi, India
24. ASTM C618-12a (2012) Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural
pozzolan for use in concrete. ASTM International, West Conshohocken
25. IS 383 (1970) Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for concrete
(second revision). Reaffirmed 2002, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi, India
26. IS 456 (2000) Plain and reinforced concrete—code of practice (fourth revision). Up to
Amendment No. 4, 2013, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi, India
27. IS 9103 (1999) Concrete admixtures-specification (first revision) (incorporating amendment
nos. 1 and 2). Reaffirmed 2004, Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), New Delhi, India
28. ASTM C128-07a (2007) Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity),
and absorption of fine aggregate. ASTM International, West Conshohocken