Optimizing Concrete Mixes by Concurrent Use of Fly

Ash and Quarry Dust

Chaturanga Lakshani Kapugamage,
Garisson Engineer, Sri Lanka Army
(e-mail: chatushani@yahoo.com)
Aruna Lal Amarasiri
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering,
University of Ruhuna
(e-mail: aruna@cee.ruh.ac.lk)
Wiranjith Priyan Solomon Dias, Department of Civil Engineering,
University of Moratuwa
(e-mail: priyan@civil.mrt.ac.lk)
Dissanayake Mudiyanselage Chandani Shyamali Damayanthi Bandara,
Maga Engineering (Pvt) Ltd
(e-mail: Chandanishyamali@yahoo.com)
Haniffa Mohamed Riyaz,
Sunken Lanka (Pvt) Ltd
(e-mail: rajasriyas@yahoo.com)
Patabandige Sumudu Prasanna Bandusena,
Site Engineer, SL Army
(e-mail: sumudupra@yahoo.com)

Abstract
The use of fly ash in concrete is desirable because of benefits such as useful disposal of a byproduct,
increased workability, reduction of cement consumption, increased sulfate resistance, increased
resistance to alkali-silica reaction and decreased permeability. However, the use of fly ash leads to a
reduction in early strength of concrete. The use of quarry dust in concrete is desirable because of
benefits such as useful disposal of a byproduct, reduction of river sand consumption, and increased
strength. However, the use of quarry dust leads to a reduction in the workability of concrete.
Therefore, the concurrent use of quarry dust and fly ash in concrete will lead to the benefits of using
such materials being added and some of the undesirable effects being negated. The decrease in early
strength by the addition of fly ash is ameliorated by the addition of quarry dust. The decrease in
workability by the addition of quarry dust is reduced by the addition of fly ash. This paper
investigates quantitatively the workability and strength of a concrete mix at 3-day, 7-day, and 28-day
age containing 0% - 45% of fine aggregate as quarry dust and 0-30% of cementitious materials as fly
ash. These findings guide the practitioner in selecting fly ash and quarry dust contents to meet
strength and workability requirements of a concrete mix. The concurrent use of the two byproducts
will lead to a range of economic and environmental benefits.
Keywords: Fly Ash, Quarry Dust, Economic, Concrete, Workability

1335

1. Introduction
Concrete is the most popular building material in the world. However, the production of cement has
diminished the limestone reserves in the world and requires a great consumption of energy. River
sand has been the most popular choice for the fine aggregate component of concrete in the past, but
overuse of the material has led to environmental concerns, the depleting of securable river sand
deposits and a concomitant price increase in the material. Therefore, it is desirable to obtain cheap,
environmentally friendly substitutes for cement and river sand that are preferably byproducts. Fly ash
(pulverized fuel ash) is used extensively as a partial replacement of cement. Fly ash is a byproduct of
coal consuming power plants but has not gained popularity in Sri Lanka as yet because the material is
not generated in Sri Lanka, and transportation costs make fly ash not significantly less costly than
cement. However, the material may gain popularity in the future with the commissioning of the
Norochcholai coal power plant. More fly ash may also be produced worldwide in the future with the
establishment of many coal power plants due to the rapid rise in petroleum prices. However, though
the inclusion of fly ash in concrete gives many benefits, such inclusion causes a significant reduction
in early strength due to the relatively slow hydration of fly ash. Nevertheless, fly ash causes an
increase in workability of concrete. Quarry dust has been proposed as an alternative to river sand that
gives additional benefit to concrete. Quarry dust is known to increase the strength of concrete over
concrete made with equal quantities of river sand, but it causes a reduction in the workability of
concrete. When examining the above qualities of fly ash and quarry dust it becomes apparent that if
both are used together, the loss in early strength due to one may be alleviated by the gain in strength
due to the other, and the loss of workability due to the one may be partially negated by the
improvement in workability caused by the inclusion of the other. This paper is generated from a
research project designed to determine whether such benefits could be obtained by the use of these two
materials together, and to quantify such benefits. Positive results will lead to the possibility of using
the two byproducts in large quantities, while reducing the dependency on chemical admixtures.

2. Properties of Fly Ash and Quarry Dust

The spherical shape of fly ash particles causes an improvement in the workability, and the particles
alter the flocculation of cement, with a resulting lowering of the quantity of water required [1]. The
addition of fly ash causes a reduction in the water required for a given slump, typically in the order of
5-15 % when compared with a Portland cement only mix. However, coarse fly ash with high carbon
contents can adversely affect workability [2]. Fly ash in a mix has a retarding effect, typically of
about 1 hour, which may be especially advantageous in hot weather such as those prevalent in Sri
lanka, while on the other hand, in cold weather, an accelerator may be required. Only the initial set is
delayed by the inclusion of fly ash, and the time between setting and final stiffening remains
unaffected [3]. The improvement in ultimate strength obtained with the use of fly ash is due to its
pozzolanic action and the ability of small fly ash particles to fit in between cement particles [3].
The reaction (hydration) of fly ash does not start until some time after mixing, and in the case of Class
F (low calcium) fly ash, can be delayed as much as one week or more. An explanation offered is that
the glassy material in concrete is broken down only when the pH in the pore water is at least about
13.2, which means that an amount of Portland cement must have hydrated [3]. Once the reaction does
occur, products of hydration are formed around the fly ash particles, and with time diffuse away and
precipitate within the capillary pores, causing a reduction in the capillary porosity. Conversely, Class

1336

C (high calcium) fly ash reacts directly with water to some extent. Because the reactions of fly ash
take a long time, extended curing times are required [2,3].
Fly ash causes an increase of strength because of the packing of the fly ash particles at the
aggregate-cement interface, but the beneficial impact of fly ash on both strength and workability is not
extended beyond 20 % of the cementitious material. Unlike in the case of strength and workability,
fly ash does not affect the properties of creep and shrinkage [3] , though some authors state that the
drying shrinkage is increased with the inclusion of fly ash [2]. As a result of the longer setting time
for concrete containing fly ash, it is more permeable at a young age, but with time, the permeability
drops down to very low values [3].
The median pore size becomes smaller when fly ash is included, and consequently the permeability is
lowered; therefore, the use of these cementitious materials improves the durability of concrete [3].
However, Dias et. al [4] found that sorptivity, and hence, water permeability increased with increasing
fly ash content in concrete that had not been cured at all. Amarasiri [5] showed that water
permeability of concrete containing fly ash is significantly affected by duration of curing. However,
the sorptivity of concrete that had been cured for 7 days or greater were independent of percent of fly
ash content. Thus, it is possible that concrete containing fly ash, which hydrates slower than cement,
needs longer curing times to become durable. In fact, it has been shown that concrete containing fly
ash tested after 56 days of curing had smaller sorptivity than control mixes without fly ash.
Researchers found that the carbonation of concrete containing fly ash was not significantly greater
than in control specimens without fly ash. Significant benefits in resistance to chlorine ingress were
noted, while slight increases in sulfate ingress were found. However, resistance to sulfate ingress was
not adversely affected by the inclusion of fly ash, presumably because of the decrease in C3A and
Ca(OH)2 in such concrete [4]. The evaluation of the effects of fly ash, and optimizing mix designs is
complicated by the variability of the quality of fly ash, even though it may be obtained from the
burning of coal at the same power plant. The periodic variations in the operation of the power plants
and differences in the coal used causes changes in the particle size distribution and chemical
composition of the fly ash produced. Conversely, ground granulated blast-furnace slag, and silica
fume are byproducts of highly controlled processes, and have much more consistent properties [3].
Quarry dust is made while blasting, crushing, and screening coarse aggregate. Quarry dust has rough,
sharp and angular particles, and as such causes a gain in strength due to better interlocking and a
concomitant loss in workability. The use of quarry dust sometimes causes an increase in the quantity
of cement required to maintain workability. A survey of samples from 6 quarry dust suppliers in the
Galle region of Sri Lanka revealed that they were all more well-graded than the river sand provided by
a supplier from the same region. The quarry dusts contained more fines smaller than the 200 m sieve
than the river sand (about 20% for quarry dust compared with 5% for river sand) [6] According to the
guidelines for mix design according to the Department of the Environment of the United Kingdom [7],
the finer the fine aggregate used in concrete, the higher the requirement of free water to maintain
workability. However, the mix-design procedure limits the analysis of fines content of a fine
aggregate to % passing 600 m sieve. Therefore, the guidelines should clearly be used with trial
mixes when inserting quarry dust.

1337

3. Research Methodology
One mix design was used for this research with a target strength of 30 N/mm2. River sand was
replaced by 0 (i.e. totally river sand), 15, 30, and 45% quarry dust, whilst cement was replaced with 0,
15, and 30% fly ash. The slump of the resulting mixes and the strength at 3-day, 7-day, and 28-day
age were obtained by testing three replicate 150 mm compressive strength cubes for each combination
of mix and testing age. Ordinary Portland Cement from a leading manufacturer was used as it the
widely used cement for construction in Sri Lanka. Gneissic crushed coarse aggregate of maximum
size 20 mm was used. River sand was used as the primary fine aggregate, and gneissic quarry dust
was used to partially replace it to find the effects of including quarry dust. One mix design was used
for the entire research project and it was as follows per cubic meter of concrete..

Cement 362 kg
Water 210 kg
Fine aggregate 818 kg
Coarse aggregate 985 kg
The moisture contents in the stockpiles were 1.83% for river sand and 2.00% for quarry dust, and
corrections were carried out for the differing moisture contents when partially replacing river sand
with quarry dust.
The combinations tested were as shown in Table 1. For all test series, 3 replicates each were made for
the three testing ages of 3 days, 7 days, and 28 days.
Table 1: Testing programme
Fly Ash Content
(% replacement
of cement)
0
15
30

Quarry Dust (% replacement of river sand)

0

Series 1
Series 5
Series 9

15

Series 2
Series 6
Series 10

30

Series 3
Series 7
Series 11

45

Series 4
Series 8
Series 12

A power driven drum type concrete mixer with revolving drum was used to mix the concrete, while
weight batching was used. Steel moulds were used to prepare concrete specimens of
150 mm x
150 mm x 150 mm for strength determination for each test. The slump was also tested of the fresh
concrete immediately after mixing. The concrete specimens were demoulded 24 hours after they were
cast and continuously moist cured in a curing tank unit the time of test.

4. Results and Discussion

The average strengths and slumps obtained from the above tests are shown in Table 2. For ease of
comparison and insightful analysis of the effects of replacement, the average strengths of the concrete
with replaced materials are reported as ratios of the average strength of the control without river sand

1338

and cement replacement. The strengths of the control mix at the three ages tested are shown in the
first row of data.
Table 2: Test results as strength ratios between the control mix and mix with cement and river sand
replaced
PFA
(%)

15

30

Quarry
dust (%)
0
15
30
45
0
15
30
45
0
15
30
45

Slump
(mm)
80
50
35
20
105
58
48
25
88
78
55
30

Age (days)
7
28
Strength ratio to control mix

20.21 N/mm2
1.17
1.20
1.24
1.00
1.05
1.10
1.10
0.85
0.86
0.83
0.92

25.31 N/mm2
1.12
1.13
1.20
0.95
0.99
1.00
1.04
0.86
0.86
0.82
0.90

33.47 N/mm2
1.12
1.13
1.16
1.04
1.09
1.15
1.15
1.05
1.05
1.03
1.10

Examining the strengths at 3-day age, it can be seen that the increasing of quarry dust content from 0
% to 45% has caused an increase of strength for fly ash contents of 0% and 15%. The increase is not
that consistent for 30% fly ash, though there is a distinct increase of strength for the concrete with
45% quarry dust compared with other quarry dust contents for concrete containing 30% fly ash.
Interestingly, the increase of strength with increase of quarry dust content is most apparent in the
concrete without fly ash, where a strength gain of 24% has been recorded by increasing the quarry dust
content from 0% to 45%. When combining all contents of quarry dust, the concrete with 15% fly ash
is about 8% lower in strength and concrete with 30% fly ash is about 25% lower in strength than
concrete with no fly ash at 3-day age.
Examining the data obtained at 7-day age, it can be seen that the increasing of quarry dust content
from 0% to 45 % has consistently caused an increase of the strengths of concrete containing 0% fly
ash and 15% fly ash. Again the gain in strength with increase in quarry dust content is not as clear cut
for concrete containing 30% fly ash. The increase in strength with increase of quarry dust content is
most apparent for concrete containing no fly ash. When combining all contents of quarry dust, the
concrete with 15% fly ash is about 11% lower in strength and concrete with 30% fly ash is about 23%
lower in strength than concrete with no fly ash at 7-day age.
Examining the data obtained at 28-day age, it can be seen that, in general, there is an increase in
strength with increasing quarry dust content though the increase is not as much as at 3-day age. Thus,
the addition of quarry dust affects concrete at 3-day age (early strength) more than concrete at 28-day
age. When combining all contents of quarry dust, the concrete with 15% fly ash is about equal in
strength and concrete with 30% fly ash is about 4% lower in strength than concrete with no fly ash.
According to some guidelines for mix design, only 30% of the fly ash should be considered when
calculating the water-cementitious material ratio for estimating the strength of a designed mix. It can
immediately be seen when examining the current data that this factor certainly underestimates the

1339

contribution to strength from fly ash, and how difficult it is to make generalizations regarding the
effects of including fly ash in a concrete mix.
Considering the slump data, it is apparent that there is a rapid loss of slump with the addition of quarry
dust, but the increase of slump with the addition of fly ash is not as significant. For the purposes of
selecting fly ash and quarry dust contents to meet a certain slump requirement, the data was processed
to generate a plot of equal slump lines, as shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Equal Slump Lines (mm)

From Figure 1, it can be seen that if a slump of 80 mm is required, using the above mix design it is
possible to use 0 % quarry dust and 0 % fly ash, or about 5 % quarry dust and 7 % fly ash, or 10 %
quarry dust and 22 % fly ash. The question then arises, how will these variations affect the concrete
strength at early age, say 7-day age. Then, based on data shown in Table 2 and interpolation, the 7day age strength would be approximately 25.3 N/mm2 for concrete with 0 % fly ash and 0 % quarry
dust, 26.0 N/mm2 for concrete with 5 % quarry dust and 7 % fly ash, and 23.3 N/mm2 for concrete
with 10% quarry dust and 22% fly ash. The last type of concrete is understandably weaker than the
control, because fly ash inhibits the rate of early strength development. If the strength at 28-day is
being targeted, it would be approximately 33.5 N/mm2 for concrete with 0 % fly ash and 0 % quarry
dust, 35.1 N/mm2 for concrete with 5 % quarry dust and 7 % fly ash, and 35.6 N/mm2 for concrete
with 10% quarry dust and 22% fly ash.
From the above discussion, it is apparent that the concurrent use of the two materials is possible,
causing environmental, monetary, and some durability benefits, while preserving the workability and
slump requirements of the concrete mix. Gaining the required strength at 28-day age even though fly
ash is included is feasible for all contents of fly ash and quarry dust tested. However, the loss of early
strength (at 3-day age) due to the inclusion of 30 % fly ash has not been entirely compensated by the
inclusion of up to 45 % quarry dust. Similarly the loss of strength at 7-day age due to the inclusion of

1340

fly ash has not been entirely compensated by the inclusion of up to 45 % quarry dust. The loss of
strength at 3-day age and 7-day age due to the inclusion of 15 % fly ash can be fully negated by the
inclusion of quarry dust.
However, making quantitative statements regarding the ability to use fly and and quarry dust
concurrently is hampered by the variability of fly ash, even from a single batching plant [3].
Similarly, the presence of very fine particles in the fine aggregate causes the cement to disperse and
increases hydration [8]. Therefore, two approaches are present to generalize the research showed
herein for any fly ash and quarry dust. One approach would be to develop a large database of test
results so that many types of fly ash and quarry dust are covered. Another, more practical solution
may be to carry out limited testing on a particular fly ash and quarry dust that is to be used at site. The
data presented in this paper may be valuable in estimating the ranges where substitution is practicable.
The use of the second approach over a period of time, and the publication of the results obtained will
lead to the data needed for the first approach being automatically generated.

5. Conclusions
Fly ash is a byproduct that can be used in concrete to obtain durability, cost, and environmental
benefits. However, its use has a drawback in that early strength is adversely affected. This is due to
the slower hydration of fly ash than cement. Quarry dust is a byproduct of quarrying, crushing, and
sieving aggregate. It is a very good replacement of river sand, which is in short supply currently.
However, the use of quarry dust causes a loss in workability of concrete. This paper looked at the
concurrent use of the above two byproducts, with the expectation that the decrease in early strength by
the addition of fly ash is ameliorated by the addition of quarry dust. The decrease in workability by
the addition of quarry dust is reduced by the addition of pulverized fuel ash. The loss in early strength
due to the addition of 15 % fly ash can be completely negated by the addition of 30 % quarry dust.
The strength at 28-day age has not been adversely affected at all by the addition of up to 30 % fly ash.
The addition of quarry dust causes a loss in slump; though such loss in slump can be significantly
reduced by the addition of fly ash.

6. Acknowledgements
The authors wish to acknowledge Holcim Lanka (Pvt) Ltd, who funded this research project.

7. References
[1] Cyr, M., Lawrence, P., and Ringot, E.(2006), Efficiency of mineral admixtures in mortars:
Quantification of the physical and chemical effects of fine admixtures in relation with compressive
strength, Cement and Concrete Research 36, pp. 264-277.
[2] Popovics, S. (1992), Concrete Materials: Properties, Specifications and Testing, Noyes
Publications, Park Ridge, New Jersey.
[3] Neville, A. M. (1996), Properties of Concrete, Fourth and Final Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc,
Malaysia, VVP.

1341

[4] Dias, W. P. S., Nanayakkara, S. M. A., and Ekneligoda T. C. (2003), Performance of Concrete
Mixes with OPC and PFA blends, Magazine of Concrete research, 55. No. 2. April. pp. 161-170.
[5] Amarasiri, A. L. (2003), A Study of the Fracture Properties of Medium-Strength Concrete Using
Notched Cylinders, Ph.D. Dissertation, Texas Tech University.
[6] De Silva, S. H. Y. I., Pushpakumara, R. K. S., Rajapaksha, R. W. C. N., Sathyadasan, A. (2007),
Engineering Properties and Structural Behaviour of Concrete, Undergraduate Project Report,
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Ruhuna.
[7] Teychenne, D. C., Nicholls, J. C., Franklin, R. E., Hobbs, D. W. (1990), Design of Normal
Concrete Mixes, Department of the Environment, United Kingdom. (Revision of original works by
Teychenne, D. C., Franklin, R. E, and Erntroy H.C., 1972).
[8] Dias, W. P. S. (1992), A survey of Some Sri Lankan Batching Plant Records, International
Conference on the Concrete Future, February, Kuala Lumpur, Malayasia.

1342