INVESTIGATION ON BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH ... II/IJAET VOL II...International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945 IJAET/Vol.II/ Issue I/January-March 2011/190-202

International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945

IJAET/Vol.II/ Issue I/January-March 2011/190-202

Research Article

INVESTIGATION ON BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH

PERFORMANCE REINFORCED CONCRETE COLUMNS

WITH METAKAOLIN AND FLY ASH AS ADMIXTURE P.Muthupriya*, Dr.K.Subramanian**, Dr.B.G.Vishnuram***

Address for Correspondence

*Senior Lecturer, Department of Civil Engineering, VLB Janakiammal College Of Engineering And

Technology, Coimbatore-641 042.

** Professor & Head, Department of Civil Engineering, Coimbatore Institute Of Technology,

Coimbatore-641 014.

***Principal, Easa College of Engineering and Technology, Coimbatore-641105.

E Mail [email protected], [email protected],[email protected]

ABSTRACT

An experimental investigation was carried out to study the behaviour of High Performance Reinforced Concrete

column (HPRC) to assess the suitability of HPRC columns for the structural applications. High Performance

Concrete used (HPC) in this study was produced by partial replacement of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)

with metakaolin and Fly ash. As many as six mixes of HPC were considered with three mixes viz. M2,M3 M4

for the replacement of cement with metakaolin by mass equal to 5%,7.5% and 10%. Whereas for other three

mixes such as M5,M6,M7 the replacement for OPC was done by metakaolin and flyash keeping a constant value

of 10% fly ash in addition to 5%,7.5% and 10% of metakaolin respectively. Besides the concrete mix M1 made

of normal concrete was also adopted for comparison purpose. Seven each for long and short columns were cast

and tested in the structural engineering laboratory in the loading frame of 1000kN capacity. The size of short

columns was 100x100x1000mm and for these long columns the size adopted was 100x100x1500mm. Short

columns were tested under concentric axial load and the long columns were tested under compression and

uniaxial bending with minimum eccentricity. The failure of short columns were prematured and showed high

brittleness whereas in the case of long columns there were good buckling effect but the failure concentrated

either at column head portion or at the base due to spalling of concrete accompanied with heavy cracks. The

performance of short columns was studied by evaluation of ductility index and stiffness whereas for long

columns ductility was obtained from load versus deflection curves and moment curvature curves. It was

observed that the behaviour of HPRC columns was marginally better than those of normal concrete. Of course,

from the literature survey it was learnt that high performance reinforced concrete columns require closer spacing

of lateral ties or else confinement externally for enhanced performance. Besides the companion specimens such

as cubes, cylinders and prism beams were also cast and tested to study the strength characteristics such as

compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural strength of HPC mixes adopted in this study. There is a

good increase for all the above mentioned strength for HPC mixes adopted in this study.

KEYWORDS: HPC, fly ash, Metakaolin, High performance reinforced concrete columns, ductility index and

ductility parameter

INTRODUCTION

General

Cement concrete is the most extensively used

construction material. Maintenance and repair

of concrete structures is a growing problem

involving significant expenditure. As a result

carried out world wide, it has been made

possible to process the material to satisfy more

stringent performance requirements, especially

long – term durability. High performance is

generally assumed to be synonymous with

high strength, although this is not true in every

case. Unacceptable rates of deterioration due

to environmental effects indicate that only

compliance with strength requirements,

although need, is not adequate to ensure long –

term, durability, which is the primary

requirement for high performance. It is

generally accepted, that the high performance

of the very concrete contributes to low

permeability, stronger and denser transition

zone between aggregate and cement paste in

the concrete. This also adds to the abrasion

resistance of concrete. According to ACI “

High Performance Concrete is defined as

concrete which meets special performance and

uniformity requirements that cannot always be

achieved routinely by using conventional



materials and normal mixing, placing and

curing practices.

MATERIALS USED

• Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 53 grade

conforming to IS 8112.

• Locally available river sand was used as fine

aggregate.

• Crushed granite coarse aggregate of size

12.5mm was used.

• Potable water was used for mixing and

curing purpose.

• Metakaoline and flyash are used as mineral

admixtures.

• A commercially available sulphonated

naphthalene formaldehyde based

superplasticizer (CONPLAST SP 430) was

used as chemical admixture to enhance the

workability of the concrete.

EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

The mixes M1, M2, M3 and M4 were obtained

by replacing 0, 5, 7.5 and 10 percent of the

mass of cement by metakaoline.

The mix M5, M6 and M7 were obtained by

replacing the mass of cement by metakaoline

and flyash. The water binder ratio (w/b) of

0.32 for all mixes was maintained. Chemical

admixture used for the project is sulphonated

naphthalene type super plasticizer Conplast

SP430.All the test specimens such as cubes,

cylinders and prisms were cast using steel

moulds. Machine oil was applied in the mould

before casting of HPC specimens. The

constituents of concrete are thoroughly mixed,

placed and well compacted. The specimens

were removed from the mould after 24 hours

and cured in water. The cube specimen were

used for compressive strength test and

durability study. The cylinder specimens were

used to study split tensile strength test and

prisms were used to determine flexural

strength.

The compressive strength test is conducted in

the Compression Testing Machine of 2000 kN

capacity, the test results are listed in Table 5.

Table I Properties of 53 Grade OPC

Test particulars Result obtained Requirements as per IS:8112-

1989

Specific gravity 3.15 3.10-3.15

Normal consistency (%) 31 30-35

Initial setting time (minutes) 37 30 minimum

Final setting time (minutes) 570 600 maximum

Compressive strength (MPa)

a) 3 days

b) 7 days c) 28 days

34

45

64

33

43

53

Table II Properties of Aggregates

Result obtained Result obtained Test particulars

Fine Aggregate Coarse Aggregate

Specific gravity 2.67 2.65

Fineness modulus 2.25 5.96

size Passing through

4.75mm sieve

Passing through 20mm sieve and retained in

10mm sieve



Table III Properties Of Metakoalin

S.No Property Value

1. Average particle size um

2. Residue 325 mesh 0.5 (% max)

3. Surface Area 15 m2/kg

4. Pozzolan Reactivity 1056 Ca(OH)2/gm

5. Specific gravity 2.5

6. Bulk density 300+ 30 (gm/1 lit)

7. Brightness 80 + 2

8. Physical foam off – White powder

Table IV Mix Proportion Details

Mix Cement

(kg/m3)

M

(kg/m3)

F

(kg/m3)

Fine

Aggregate

(kg/m3)

Coarse

Aggregate

(kg/m3)

SP

(Lit/m3)

w/b

M1 500 0 0 716.916 1046.76 4.16 0.32

M2 476.190 23.8 0 716.916 1046.76 6.25 0.32

M3 465.116 34.88 0 716.916 1046.76 7.30 0.32

M4 454.54 45.45 0 716.916 1046.76 8.40 0.32

M5 434.78 21.74 43.478 716.916 1046.76 10.42 0.32

M6 425.53 31.915 42.553 716.916 1046.76 10.42 0.32

M7 416.67 41.67 41.67 716.916 1046.76 10.42 0.32

Table V Compressive Strength Results

3Days 7Days 28Days 56Days 90 Days Mix % of

HRM

% of

Flyash (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa)

M1 0 0 41 50 60.5 65 77

M2 5 0 42.4 55.35 63.7 70 81.5

M3 7.5 0 46 57.5 67 72.95 84

M4 10 0 44.5 56.63 65.2 69 80

M5 5 10 43 54.5 66 70.42 82

M6 7.5 10 47.5 58.1 68.5 74 86.4

M7 10 10 46.2 54.05 64.8 71.5 84.5

DISCUSSIONS

The compressive strength for various mixes

M1 to M7 at the age of 3, 7, 28, 56 and 90

days are obtained from the test results. When

metakaolin is added as additional admixture,

there is a significant improvement in the

strength of concrete because of high

pozzolanic action to form more calcium

silicate hydrate (CSH) gel. The maximum

compressive strength obtained for Mix M6

(contains 7.5% of metakaolin and 10% of

flyash) was 68.5MPa whereas for Mix M3

with 7.5% of metakaolin the 28 days strength

is 67 MPa.

The increased strength is due to high reactive

silica present in metakaolin concrete. The

maximum compressive strength of concrete in

combination with metakaolin is based on two

parameters that are the replacement level and

the age of curing. Comparison of compressive

strength for various mixes is shown in Fig. 1.

Compressive strength results

0

20

40

60

80

100

M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7

Mix

Com

pre

ssive strength

(M

pa)

3 days

7 days

28 days

56 days

90 days

Fig 1 Compressive Strength Test Results



The increase in compressive strength for the

HPC is 5.35 %, 10.66 %, 7.77%, 9.09 %,

11.07 % and 7.1% higher compared to control

specimens at the age of 28 days

• Use of metakaolin and flyash is

necessary in the production of high

performance concrete due to lower

binder ratio and better hydration of

cement particles.

• The optimum percentage is

metakaolin (7.5 %) and flyash (10%)

for getting maximum strength and is

obtained in M6 mix The 28 days

compressive strength for M6 mix is

68.5MPa.

• The compressive strength mainly

depends on metakaolin because of

excellent pozzolanic properties to

produce high strength concrete.

• Metakaolin concrete attains high early

strength than flyash and metakaolin

combined concrete.

TEST SETUP

In this test axial loading was applied using a

hydraulic jack of 500 kN. An Electronic load

cell of capacity 500 kN was used to measure

the applied axial loads and was monitored by

load indicator. Axial load was transmitted to

the column through steel plates and neoprene

pads are placed over it to provide hinge

condition. The column specimens are adjusted

so that the centre line of the axial load

coincides with column faces. One number of

50 mm range Linear Voltage Differential

Transducer (LVDT) were used to measure the

mid-height deflection of the short column

specimens, read in electronic monitors. Strain

is measured in the top, Middle and bottom in

one face of the column. A typical test setup is

shown in fig.3.

Fig 2 Reinforcement Detail of Long and Short Column



Fig 3Typical Column Test set up in loading Frame

Details Of Column Casting And Testing

Plywood moulds are used for casting the

columns. Before Casting, oil was applied on

all the surfaces of the moulds. Cover blocks

were placed inside the mould to give proper

cover to the reinforcement. Concrete was

mixed using a tilting type laboratory mixer and

was poured into the moulds in layers. The

concrete was well compacted and after 24

hours of casting, the specimens were removed

from the mould and cured under water for a

period of 28 days. After curing the columns

were tested under uniaxial compression. To

facilitate easy loading of the columns, all the

columns were provided with column heads

both at top and bottom ends. In this test axial

loading was applied using a hydraulic jack of

500 kN. The loads are measured in the

Electronic load cell of capacity 500 kN and

deflections are noted down in the

Displacement indicator. Axial load was

transmitted to the column through steel plates

and neoprene pads placed over it to provide

hinge condition and to uniformly distribute the

load over the column head.

The column is supported at the base with

rubber pads to provided hinged end condition

and packed with filling materials like sand.

The column specimens are adjusted so that the

centre line of the axial load coincides with

column faces. Throughout the test setup, care

was taken to ensure the load was applied as

concentrically as possible. The plumb bob was

used to keep the columns perfectly vertical,

however some eccentricities are unavoidable.

Three numbers of 50 mm range Linear

Voltage Differential Transducers (LVDT)

were used to measure the deflection at top,

middle and bottom of the long column

specimens read in electronic monitors. The

strain was measured in the middle for long

columns on the compression and tension faces

using a Demountable mechanical (DEMEC)

strain gauge.

DISCUSSIONS

Control Short Column (SC)

The first specimen tested was the control

column SC with 0 % Flyash and 0 %

replacement of cement. The axial load was

applied gradually in increments of 25 kN.

When the load reached 185 kN, first crack



appeared at the column Head. As the load

increased, the cracks widened and propagated

around the initial crack. The maximum load

obtained for control column was 240 kN, at

which failure occurred at the column head due

to crushing of concrete with an explosive

sound. The ultimate load obtained in the test

was 25 % lesser than the theoretical load

carrying capacity of the column. This

necessitates adequate confining of transverse

reinforcement in HSC column with much

closer spacing. The spacing of lateral ties as

per IS 456-2000 cannot be applied in the case

of HSC columns. The test results for long

columns are listed in Tables 7.

Short Columns With Metakaolin

The metakaolin replaced columns SMKC1,

SMKC2 and SMKC3 showed similar

behaviour when axially loaded under the

loading frame. All the columns failed in

compression either by crushing of the concrete

core, together with the buckling of the

longitudinal reinforcement. The maximum

ultimate load of 256.5 kN was obtained for

SMKC3. The percentage increase in ultimate

load was 6.8 %. The other two specimens

showed an increase of 2.08 %, 5 %

respectively. The failure pattern of HSC short

columns are shown in figures 5 and 6.

Fig 4 Experimental Test set up for short

columns

Fig 5 Crushing of Concrete

Fig 6 Failure pattern in short columns

Fig 7 Test Set Up Of Control Columns

Short Columns With Metakaolin And

Flyash

The specimens SMKFC1,SMKFC2, SMKFC3

failed at loads 232 kN , 236.5 kN , 241 kN

respectively which are 9.4 %, 11.6 %, 13.7%

higher compared to compared to control

columns (LC).



The tests conducted by Razvi and Saatcioglu

on 250 mm square HSC Columns indicate

premature spalling of cover concrete occurred

in most of the column specimens prior to

development of strains associated with

concrete crushing. It was hypothesized that the

presence of closely spaced longitudinal and

transverse reinforcement forming a mesh of

reinforcement produced a natural plane of

separation between the cover concrete and

core. The separation of this plane was

triggered by high compressive stresses

associated with HSC as well as the difference

in mechanical properties of cover and core

concretes. The load versus axial deformation

curves are given in Figures 8 and 9.

Table VI Short Column Test Results

Specimen

Details

% Of

HRM

% Of

Flyash

First Crack

load (kN)

Ultimate

Load (kN)

Axial deformation at

Ultimate Load (mm)

SC1 0 0 185 240 1.35

SMKCI 5 0 193 245 1.32

SMKC2 7.5 0 201.5 252 2.45

SMKC3 10 0 207 256.5 2.15

SMKFC1 5 10 214 263 1.91

SMKFC2 7.5 10 220 265 2.04

SMKFC3 10 10 224 271 2.26

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3 4

Column load (kN)

Axial deformation (mm)

SC

SMKC1

SMKC2

SMKC3

Fig 8 Axial Load – Deformation for columns with metakaolin

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 1 2 3

Axial Deformation (mm)

Load (kN) SC

SMKFC1

SMKFC2

SMKFC3

Fig 9 Axial Load – Deformation for columns with metakaolin and Fly ash



DISCUSSIONS

Control Long Column (LC)

The first specimen tested was the control

column LC cast with normal concrete. The

axial load was applied gradually in increments

of 25 kN. When the load reached 150 kN, first

crack appeared at the column Head. As the

load increased, the cracks widened and

propagated around the initial crack. The

maximum load obtained for control column

was 212 kN, at which failure occurred at the

column head due to crushing of concrete. The

ultimate load obtained in the test was 24 %

lesser than the theoretical load carrying

capacity of the column. The long columns

with slenderness ratio 15, failed suddenly with

an explosive sound. Mau. S.T., et.al., (1998)

reported HSC columns has some intrinsic

disadvantages , one among them being the

extreme brittleness which imparts quality of

less ductility causing the structural members to

fail suddenly. The brittle nature of HSC can be

controlled by suitably confining the concrete

in compression zone. External confinement

can be provided by wrapping of the column

heads with GFRP strands.

Long Columns with Metakaolin

The metakaolin replaced columns LMKC1,

LMKC2 and LMKC3 showed similar

behaviour when axially loaded under the

loading frame. All the columns failed in

compression either by a shear band forming

diagonally across the section or crushing of the

concrete core, together with the buckling of

the longitudinal reinforcement. The maximum

ultimate load of 228 kN was obtained for

LMKC3. The percentage increase in ultimate

load was 7.5%. The other two specimens

showed an increase of 3.06%, 5.2%

respectively.

Long Columns with Metakaolin and Fly ash

The specimens LMKFC1, LMKFC2,

LMKFC3 failed at loads 232kN, 236.5kN,

241kN respectively which are 9.4%, 11.6%,

13.7% higher compared to compared to

control columns (LC). This type of failure is

similar to the studies of Tobay ozbakkaglu

and Murat Saatcioglu, in which the in place

strength of HSC experimentally recorded

column capacities are consistently over

estimated by the theoretical load calculations

unless the column is confined by properly

designed reinforcement. Chien- Hung Lin et

al., (2004) concluded that High Workability

Concrete Columns have higher stiffness, better

ductility and crack control ability than normal

concrete columns.

A decrease in concrete strength, increase of

longitudinal reinforcement, increase of

transverse reinforcement strength, and

decrease of transverse reinforcement spacing

improve the ductility of confined concrete and

columns effectively. The failure patterns in

HSC long columns are shown in figures 11

and 12. The load- deflection characteristics are

shown in figures 13 and 14. The moment-

curvature curve showing the comparison for

all long columns is in fig 15.

Table VII Long Column Testing Results

Specimen Details % Of HRM % Of

Flyash

First Crack

load (kN)

Ultimate

Load (kN)

Deflection at

Ultimate Load (mm)

LC1 0 0 155 212 9.4

LMKCI 5 0 162 218.5 10.58

LMKC2 7.5 0 168.5 223 11.2

LMKC3 10 0 186 237 11.5

LMKFC1 5 10 179 232 10.2

LMKFC2 7.5 10 181.4 236.5 12.02

LMKFC3 10 10 193 240 11.63



Fig 10 Test Set Up Of Control Columns

Fig 11 Crushing Failure at column head

Fig 12 Base Shear Failure

0

50

100

150

200

250

0 5 10 15

Axial load (kN)

Mid Height Deflection (mm)

LC

LMKC1

LMKC2

LMKC3

Fig 13 Load – Deflection Curves for Metakaolin Columns



0

50

100

150

200

250

300

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Axial load (kN)

Mid Height Deflection (mm)

LC

LMKFC1

LMKFC2

LMKFC3

Fig 14 Load – Deflection Curves for Metakaolin and Fly ash Columns

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

Moment (kNm)

curvature ( x 10 ^-6) rad/mm

LC

LMKC1

LMKC2

LMKC3

LMKFC1

LMKFC2

LMKFC3

Fig 15 Moment – Curvature Characteristics for Long columns

Ductilty Parameters

It is the ability to sustain inelastic deformation

without substantial decrease in the load

carrying capacity. This can be defined with

respect to strains, rotations, curvatures or

deflections. Strain based ductility definition

depends almost exclusively on the material;

while rotation or curvature based ductility

definition also includes the effects of shape

and size of the cross section.

Displacement ductility,

µ∆ = ∆u ⁄ ∆y

where, ∆y is the yield deformation

corresponding to yielding of the reinforcement

in a cross section and ∆u is the ultimate

deformation beyond which the force

deformation curve has a negative slope.

Curvature ductility,

µφ = φu ⁄ φy

Where φy is the curvature corresponding to a

major deviation from the linear M-φ curve for

a member and φu is the curvature beyond

which the M-φ curve has a negative slope.

Ductility Index = µφ/ µ∆

It is defined as the ratio of curvature ductility

and displacement ductility.

The Displacement Ductility, the Curvature

ductility and Ductility Index values are listed

in Tables 8, 9 and 10 respectively. Ductility

Index for HSC columns is shown in fig 16.



Table VIII Displacement Ductility

Column Details

Ultimate

Displacement ∆u ( mm)

Yield Displacement

∆y mm

Displacement Ductility

µ∆ = ∆u/ ∆y

LC 9.4 3.09 2.92

LMKC1 10.58 3.1 3.41

LMKC2 11.2 3.04 3.68

LMKC3 11.5 2.62 4.37

LMKFC1 10.2 2.12 4.81

LMKFC2 12.02 2.21 5.06

LMKFC3 11.63 2.54 4.72

Table IX Curvature Ductility

Column Details Ultimate Curvature

φu ( x 10-6) rad/mm

Yield curvature

φy ( x 10-6) rad/mm

Curvature Ductility

µφ = φu / φy

LC 4.29 1.025 4.4

LMKC1 4.19 1.157 4.85

LMKC2 4.51 1.162 5.24

LMKC3 4.12 1.48 6.1

LMKFC1 4.25 1.6 6.8

LMKFC2 4.67 1.755 8.2

LMKFC3 4.26 2.24 9.5

Table X Ductility Index

Column Details Displacement Ductility

µ∆

Curvature Ductility

µφ

Ductility Index

µφ/ µ∆

LC 2.92 4.4 1.5068

LMKC1 3.41 4.85 1.4222

LMKC2 3.95 5.24 1.3265

LMKC3 4.37 6.1 1.3958

LMKFC1 4.81 6.8 1.41372

LMKFC2 5.06 8.2 1.6205

LMKFC3 4.72 9.5 2.0127

Ductility Index

00.51

1.52

2.53

3.54

4.55

5.5

4.4 4.85 5.24 6.1 6.8 8.2 9.5

Curvature Ductility (µφ)

Deflection Ductility (µ∆)

Fig 16 Ductility Index for HSC columns



CONCLUSION

• Higher strength development is due to

pozzolanic reaction and filler effects of

metakaolin.

• Fresh concrete containing fly ash and

metakaolin is more cohesive and less

prone to segregation.

• Improved packing contributed by the very

small size of the particles of metakaolin

will improve the contact surface and thus

the bond between fresh metakaolin

concrete and the substrate namely

reinforcement, aggregates and old

concrete.

• The optimum percentage of metakaolin

and flyash for getting maximum strength

is 7.5% and is obtained in M6 mix.

• The compressive strength of high

performance concrete containing 7.5% of

metakaolin is 12% higher than the normal

concrete. As the age of concrete increases,

the compressive strength also increases.

Addition of metakaolin increases the

brittleness of the concrete.

• The use of mineral admixtures such as fly

ash and metakaolin, results in denser

microstructure of the concrete matrix

which enhance the durability properties.

Rate of water absorption of the test

specimens are lower compared to that of

specimens with normal concrete.

• The HSC short columns failed due to

crushing of concrete with an explosive

sound. The load carrying capacity of the

short columns increased with the increase

in percentage of admixtures. .The

maximum ultimate load was obtained for

SMKFC3 (271 kN) which is about 24 %

lesser than the estimated load.

• This is in agreement with the findings of

Mau. S.T., et al., 1998 that the High

strength concrete columns show sudden

failure with explosive sound which is due

to extreme brittle nature of HSC. The

brittleness can be completely eradicated by

suitably confining the concrete in the

compression zone It gives lateral

confinement to the core so that axial

compressive strength and ductility is

improved.

• The HSC long columns showed spalling of

cover concrete and with the incremental

load buckling phenomenon was observed

but failed ultimately due to crushing of

concrete in the Compression zone. The

maximum ultimate load was obtained for

LMKC3 at 237 kN which is about 20 %

lesser than the theoretical ultimate load.

Adequate confining of the column can be

done to improve the load carrying capacity

and ductility of the brittle HSC columns.

• Compressive strength Indices are

calculated for both long and short columns

and stiffness values are obtained for short

columns.

• The Ductility parameters namely

Displacement Ductility, Curvature

Ductility are show appreciable increase

compared to normal concrete columns.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The Authors greatly acknowledge the VLB

Janakiammal College of Engineering and

Technology, Coimbatore for their support and

motivation for carrying out this research.

REFERENCES

1. K.E.Hassan, J.G. Carbera, R.S.Maliehe, “The

Effect Of Mineral Admixtures On the

Properties Of High Performance Concrete”,

Cement and Concrete Composites, 22 2002,

pp. 267-271,2002.

2. Chien-Hung lin , Shih-Ping lin, and Chih-Han

Tseng , “High workability concrete columns

under concentric compression”, ACI Structural

Journal, Vol. No. 101, No.1, pp. 85-93, Jan-

Feb 2004,.

3. Patrick Paultre, “Influence of concrete strength

and transverse reinforcement yield strength on

behaviour of High strength columns”, ACI



Structural Journal , V.98, No.4, July – August

(2001).

4. Prakash K.B & Kulkarni,.D.K, “Effects of

addition of more than two chemical admixtures

on concrete properties”, Indian concrete

Journal, March 2006, pp. 17-21.

5. Shreeti S.Mavinkurve , Prabir C.Basu , “High

performance Concrete using high reactivity

metakaolin”, Indian concrete Journal, pp.

1077-1085, May 2003.

6. Tiwari A.K and Bandyopadhyay (2003),

“Metakaolin for High performance Concrete in

India”, The Indian Concrete Journal, April –

June, pp. 9-11.

7. D.L.Venkatesh Babu, S.C. Natesan, “Studies

on Strength and Durability Characteristics of

High Performance Silica Fume Concrete”,

Proceedings of the INCONTEST 2003, pp.

262 – 267, September 2003.

8. Dr.B.G.Vishnuram, “Behaviour of RC Square

columns retrofitted with GFRP Composites”

(2006), Ph.D thesis submitted to Bharathiar

university by, VLBJCET Coimbatore.

9. G.S.Venkatasubramani, Ruben selvaraj and

P.parameswaran , “Stability of axially loaded

slender reinforced concrete columns”, The

Indian concrete Journal, pp. 41-47, September

2006.

10. ACI Committee 363, (1995), “State-of-the-art-

Report-O –High Strength concrete”.

11. Adam Neville and Pierre-Claude Aitcin, “High

Performance Concrete – An Overview”,

Materials and Structures, Vol.32, pp. 111-117,

March 1998.

12. I.S. 383-1970, “Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for

concrete”, Bureau of Indian Standards, New

Delhi.

13. K.Arunachalam and P.Sabapathi,

“Experimental Investigation on the behaviour

of Confined High Strength Concrete square

columns” , Proceedings of the National

Conference on Recent Developments in

materials & Structures (REDEMAT -2004),

NIT Calicut, pp. 47-53, Dec 2-3,2004.

14. Mayank Rawal, “High performance admixture

as superplastisizer for concrete”, Civil

Engineering &Construction Review, June

2006, pp. 32-35.

15. Shetty M.S, “Concrete Technology (Theory

and Practice)”, S.Chand & Company Ltd. Pp.

280-281.

16. Suganya P., M.E Thesis Titled “Experimental

Investigation on Structural Behaviour of High

Performance Concrete”, VLBJCET, 2006.

17. T.Sekar and D.Jegatheeswaran, “Strength and Toughness of High Strength concrete columns

under uniaxial compression”, Proceedings of

National Conference on Frontline Areas of

Civil Engineering, April 2006, VLBJCET,

Coimbatore

INVESTIGATION ON BEHAVIOUR OF HIGH ... II/IJAET VOL II...International Journal of Advanced Engineering Technology E-ISSN 0976-3945 IJAET/Vol.II/ Issue I/January-March 2011/190-202

Documents