Comparison between Waste Fine Material Concrete and Conventional Concrete

Abstract

The growing demand for concrete and the environmental concerns associated with excessive cement consumption have encouraged the utilization of industrial by-products in concrete production. This study presents a comparison between conventional M25 grade concrete and waste fine material concrete incorporating silica fume and fly ash as partial replacements of cement. All concrete mixes were prepared using 100% crushed sand as fine aggregate and crushed stone as coarse aggregate. Silica fume was incorporated at replacement levels of 10%, 15%, and 20%, while fly ash was used at 10%, 20%, and 30%. In addition, combined mixes containing both silica fume and fly ash were investigated at total replacement levels of 10%, 20%, and 30% to evaluate their combined influence on concrete properties. The fresh concrete characteristics were determined through slump cone tests, whereas the hardened concrete properties were assessed using compressive strength, split tensile strength, and flexural strength tests at specified curing periods. The experimental findings showed that the incorporation of silica fume and fly ash affected both workability and strength development of concrete. Concrete containing combined proportions of silica fume and fly ash exhibited improved mechanical performance compared to conventional concrete due to enhanced particle packing and pozzolanic activity. The use of these waste fine materials also contributed to a reduction in cement consumption while maintaining the required strength characteristics. The study concludes that concrete produced with 100% crushed sand and suitable proportions of silica fume and fly ash can serve as an effective and sustainable alternative to conventional concrete, supporting resource conservation and environmentally responsible construction practices.

Introduction

This text describes an experimental study focused on making sustainable M25 grade concrete by partially replacing cement with industrial by-products such as silica fume and fly ash, aiming to reduce environmental impact while improving or maintaining concrete performance.

The motivation comes from the environmental burden of conventional concrete, especially high CO? emissions from cement production and depletion of natural resources. Since cement is the main binding material in concrete, the study explores how replacing part of it can support more eco-friendly construction without compromising strength and durability.

The materials used include Silica fume, Fly ash, and Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC 53 grade), along with crushed sand, coarse aggregates, and a plasticizer. Concrete was designed for M25 grade, with cement replaced at different levels (10%, 20%, 30%), individually and in combination.

Key methodology

• Fresh concrete tested using slump test (workability)
• Hardened properties tested at 3 and 28 days
• Strength tests included:
  • Compressive strength
  • Split tensile strength
  • Flexural strength
• Specimens included cubes, cylinders, and beams cured in water

Main findings

• Workability decreased with higher silica fume due to its ultra-fine particles, while fly ash improved flowability.
• Best overall performance was observed in combined mixes (SF + FA at ~20%).
• Compressive strength improved significantly:
  • Control mix: ~38 MPa (28 days)
  • Best mix (SF+FA 20%): ~44 MPa
• Split tensile strength also improved, indicating better crack resistance.
• Fly ash improved long-term strength, while silica fume boosted early strength.

Conclusion

1) The workability of concrete decreased with increasing silica fume and fly ash content due to the higher fineness and surface area of these supplementary cementitious materials. However, the use of a plasticizer maintained adequate workability for all mixes. 2) The conventional concrete mix achieved a 28-day compressive strength of 38.18 MPa, while all modified mixes exceeded the target strength requirement of M25 grade concrete. 3) The highest compressive strength of 44.33 MPa was obtained for the SF+FA20 mix, representing an improvement of approximately 16% compared to conventional concrete. This indicates the beneficial combined effect of silica fume and fly ash on strength development. 4) Split tensile strength increased significantly with the incorporation of waste fine materials. The maximum tensile strength of 2.70 MPa was recorded for the SF20 mix, demonstrating improved resistance to cracking and enhanced bond characteristics. 5) The highest flexural strength of 4.02 MPa was achieved by the FA20 mix, indicating that fly ash contributes positively to bending resistance and overall structural performance. 6) The combined mix SF+FA20 exhibited the best overall performance by providing the highest compressive strength along with satisfactory split tensile and flexural strengths, making it the optimum mix among all combinations investigated. 7) Strength development at both 3-day and 28-day curing periods confirmed that silica fume improves early-age strength, while fly ash contributes significantly to later-age strength through pozzolanic reactions. 8) The utilization of silica fume and fly ash as partial cement replacements enhances concrete performance while reducing cement consumption, thereby supporting sustainable and environmentally responsible construction practices. 9) Based on the experimental investigation, the SF+FA20 mix (10% silica fume + 10% fly ash replacement) is recommended as the optimum proportion for M25 grade concrete prepared with 100% crushed sand. 10) The replacement of a portion of cement with silica fume and fly ash can contribute to cost savings by reducing cement consumption while maintaining or improving the mechanical performance of concrete, making the proposed mixes economically attractive for practical applications. 11) The experimental results successfully fulfilled the objectives of the study by evaluating the effects of silica fume and fly ash on the fresh and hardened properties of concrete and identifying an optimum mix with enhanced strength and durability characteristics. 12) The study demonstrates that waste fine material concrete can effectively replace conventional concrete for structural applications while providing improved mechanical properties, resource conservation, reduced environmental impact, and potential economic benefits.

References

[1] Dr.Y.S. Patil, Dr.M.S. Kuttimarks (2015) “Study on Concrete by Replacement of Silica Fume” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). JETIR September 2015, Volume 11, Issue 9 pp. 54-65. [2] K. Gopala Rao, Dr. B. Krishna Rao. (2018), “Experimental Study on Partial Replacement of Cement by GGBS and Fly Ash in Conventional Concrete” International Research in Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IRJET), Volume 11 Issue XI Nov 2023, pp.28-40. [3] Ali Hassan, Muhammad Tariq (2014) “Partial Replacement of Cement with Fly ash to Produce Environmentally Friendly Concrete” International Journal of Engineering Research & technology (IJERT). Volume 7, Issue 19, pp. 24-32. [4] B G Naresh Kumar, Punith N, A P Puneeth Raj, Yashas P. (2019), “Study on Partial Replacement of Cement by Poultry Waste in Concrete” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology JETIR June 2019, Volume 6, Issue 6. [5] Dr. Pranab Jyoti Barman, Manash Pratim Deka, Ankita Gogoi (2025), “Comprehensive Study of Partial Replacement of Cement with Biochar in Concrete” A Multidisciplinary peer-reviewed Journal Int. J. ScienceDirect., 2025 Volume 12 Issue 8. [6] Wegdan W. El-Nadoury. (2016) “Eco-friendly concrete using by-products as partial replacement of cement” International Journal of Engineering Research & technology (IJERT) e-ISSN, Volume 9, Issue 13. [7] Arya S, Arun H J. (2017), “An Experimental Investigation on Mechanical Properties of Concrete by Partially Replacing Cement with Silica Fume and Fly Ash” International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology (IJERT) Vol. 6 Issue 05, May – 2017. pp. 28-36. [8] Lucas Sequeira, Javier Forero, Miguel Bravo, Luís Evangelista (2022) “Durability of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Portland Cement by Incorporating Reactive Magnesium Oxide and Fly Ash” Department of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Georesources, (ResearchGate) Volume7, Issue 18.pp. 88-95. [9] G.V.V. Raj Kishore (2021) Experimental study on Strength Attainment of concrete containing silica fume and fly ash” IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and Engineering Volume 5, Issue 17. pp. 21-32. [10] Mohammed Ramshad P, Salmanul Faris M (2018) “Comparison on Compressive Strength of Conventional Concrete with Red Mud Concrete” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Volume10, Issue 13. Pp. 32-41. [11] S. Divya, P. Atchaya, G. Gayatri (2021) “An Experimental Investigation on Partial Replacement of Cement by Rick Husk Ash” International Journal of Scientific Development and Research (IJSDR). Volume 6, Issue 3. pp. 66-70 [12] M. Arivazhagan, T. Balakrishnaan (2023) “Experimental Study on Partial Replacement of cement by Groundnut Shell Ash in Concrete” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). Volume 6, Issue 21, pp. 32-41. [13] Abdullahi M (2005), “Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks in Bosso and Shiroro Areas of Minna Nigeria”. International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET). 9 No. 2, pp. 126-132. [14] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 383:2016 – Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [15] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 2386 (Part 1-8): 1963 – Methods of Test for Aggregates for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [16] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 6240:2008 – Specification for Copper Slag, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [17] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 10262:2019 – Guidelines for Concrete Mix Design Proportioning, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [18] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 456:2000 – Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [19] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 516 (Part 1): 2020 – Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [20] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 1199:1959 – Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Fresh Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [21] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 4031 (Part 1-15): 1988 – Methods of Physical Tests for Hydraulic Cement, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [22] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 5816:1999 – Splitting Tensile Strength of Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [23] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 516 (Part 2): 2020 – Durability Testing Methods for Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India. [24] Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS), IS 15388:2003 – Guidelines for Utilization and Disposal of Industrial Waste Materials in Cement and Concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India

Copyright

Copyright © 2026 Jayant Satish Mehare, Prof. Riyaz Sameer Shah. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.