GGBS: the world’s most sustainable building material?

Introduction
Ground granulated blastfurnace slag (GGBS) is a hydraulic binder, i.e. a cement, which has been known and
used for 150 years. It improves the quality and durability of concrete, and its production is virtually CO2-free. Yet
its many advantages in producing sustainable, high-quality concrete remain underappreciated and underused.

In an increasingly resource-constrained and environmentally conscious world, all that is about to change.
Quality, sustainable concrete
Blastfurnaces produce pig iron, together with a slag by-product: a tightly controlled and stable material with the
same constituents, though in different proportions, to normal cement. If the slag is vitrified by rapid quenching as
it comes from the blastfurnace, its cementitious qualities are preserved.

Dried and ground to a fine powder, GGBS can be used to make quality, sustainable concrete. To ensure its
activation, GGBS is most often used with normal cement. It will typically replace 30 - 70% of cement on an equal
weight basis.
Reduction in CO2 emissions
The manufacture of normal cement (CEM I of EN 197) results in the emission of 930 kg of CO2/t of cement
(British Cement Association, 2009): approximately 50% from decarbonation of the limestone raw material
(process emissions), 40% from fossil fuel consumption, and 10% from generating the electricity used in the
process.

GGBS manufacture typically releases 35 kg of CO2/t of GGBS: less than 4% of the carbon footprint of normal
cement.
Solar reflectance
Concrete made with GGBS will have a high solar reflectance: studies in the US have shown increases of 20% in
reflection of sunlight by concrete with GGBS. This will reduce the “heat island” effect in urban developments, as
well as having other beneficial effects (reduced need for artificial lighting at night, safer roads from better
visibility). Significantly, the reflected sunlight is not infrared radiation, and so will not be trapped by the
greenhouse effect of the earth’s atmosphere.
Durability
Durability is essential to the long service life of concrete. In practice, concrete will deteriorate over time. The
factors driving this deterioration can be internal (e.g. alkali-silica reaction) or due to external aggressive
environments (e.g. sulfate attack, or the effects of chlorides on reinforced concrete).

GGBS substantially improves the ability of concrete to resist deterioration from all major threats to long service
life. Requiring the use of GGBS is now established best practice where long service lives must be achieved, even
in the most aggressive environments. GGBS concrete will even provide better fire resistance.
GGBS in concrete
GGBS can be used in concrete as GGBS or as CEM IIIs (combinations of cement and GGBS allowed under EN
197). There is no technical basis under which to prefer one option or the other: once in concrete, the GGBS
behaves the same, irrespective of whether or not it was previously mixed with cement. Nevertheless, opinions
are divided on the best approach. In the US and in certain EU countries (the UK, the Netherlands, Belgium and
Ireland) GGBS is widely used. Elsewhere in the EU, CEM IIIs dominate.

Using GGBS has two advantages over CEM IIIs: the concrete manufacturer can optimise the proportion of GGBS
according to the technical/environmental requirements to be met; and GGBS shipped directly to the concrete
plant will have lower embodied CO2 (avoiding energy use in additional transport to/from the cement plant and
mixing in a cement plant). For the lowest embodied CO2, GGBS use is to be preferred.

Source:
http://www.worldcement.com/news/cement/articles/GGBS_the_worlds_most_sustainable
_building_material.aspx#.Uy1ZDPmSxps
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag Blended Concrete

D. K. Jain, Research Scholar, J. Prasad, Associate Professor, and A. K. Ahuja, Associate

Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, I. I. T. Roorkee.

Cement concrete with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) continues to be the pre-eminent
construction materials due to its commendable performance in terms of strength aspects, but
durability of this is not satisfactory particularly when it is exposed to aggressive environment.
Same time, present global environmental requirements suggest the civil engineers for reducing the
consumption of OPC. Use of mineral admixtures like Blast Furnace Slag, Fly Ash and Silica Fume
etc. in concrete may be a suitable solution in such situation.

Based on literature available, the present paper discusses the effect of GGBFS blending in concrete
over its properties in fresh and hardened states. Factors affecting the hydration and strength
development of blended concrete are presented. The present paper discusses the resistance of
GGBFS blended concrete to Chloride attack, Sulphate attack, Carbonation, Aggregate-Silica
reaction and Frost attack with factors influencing its performance. Pore refinement and secondary
gel formation in the GGBFS blended concrete are the main reasons.

Introduction
OPC based concrete continues to be the pre-eminent construction materials for use in any type of
civil engineering structures because of its easiness in construction, its satisfying performance in
strength requirements, better durability in normal environment, in comparison to other
construction materials like steel, timber etc but at the same time some problems are also
associated with this. First is environmental pollution and large energy requirement in the
production of OPC. Production of one tonne OPC required approximate 4.0 G Joule energy and
produced approximate one tonne CO 2 gas in the environment. At present the cement industries
produced approximate 7% of total CO 2 produced in the world, which is very alarming to our
protective Ozone layer. Second problem is the lower durability in aggressive environment.
Concrete with OPC, which performed, very well over a period of about 100 years in the normal
environment showed substantial damage within a few years of construction in the aggressive
environment. Use of mineral admixtures like Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS),
Silica Fume (SF), Fly Ash (FA) etc. in concrete may be the better solution in above
conditions.These admixtures also offer benefits with respect to the cost of concrete. 

Based on the information available in literature the performance of GGBFS in blended concrete,
with respect to properties in fresh state, in strength development and in durability aspects are
discussed in the present paper. Durability aspects with reference to Chloride resistance, Sulphate
resistance, Aggregate-silica reaction and Frost resistance are described. Hydration process of
GGBFS and its reactivity with OPC is also discussed. Effects of important factors on properties of
blended concrete in fresh and hardened state are highlighted.
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag
Blast Furnace Slag is a by product obtained in the manufacturing of Pig iron in the Blast furnace
and is formed by the combination of earthy constituents of iron ore with lime stone flux.
Quenching process of molten slag by water is converting it into a fine, granulated slag of whitish
color. This granulated slag when finely ground and combined with OPC has been found to exhibit
excellent cementitious properties. Glass particles of GGBFS are the active part and consist of
Mono-silicate (Q0-type), like those in OPC clinker, which dissolve on activation by any medium.
Glass content in GGBFS is normally more than 85% of total volume. Specific gravity of GGBFS is
approximately 2.7-2.90, which is lower than of OPC. Bulk density of GGBFS is varying from 1200-
1300 kg/m3. Normal chemical composition of Indian GGBFS is shown in Table 1. GGBFS is more
closure to OPC in chemical composition in compare to other mineral admixtures.

Hydration of GGBFS
Hydration products of GGBFS are poorly crystalline Calcium Silicate Hydrate broadly similar to that
formed from hydration of OPC, but with lower Ca/Si ratio (Jimenez et al., 2003). Due to lower Ca/
Si ratio, these hydrates have more alkali retention capacity. Hydration products of GGBFS
effectively fill up the pores and increase the strength and durability of concrete. GGBFS requires
activation to initiate hydration and the availability of a medium for continuing the hydration
process. Slag hydration can be activated by using alkalies, lime, sulphate etc (Chemically
activation), or by fine grinding (Mechanically activation) or by increasing temperature of concrete
(Thermal activation). Various alkalies activators like Sodium hydroxide, Sodium carbonate, Sodium
sulphate, Sodium silicate (Water glass) etc. can be used for slag. Water glass activated slag
produced most cross-linked structures that results in increased mechanical strength of hydration
products, while Sodium hydroxide make hydration process of slag more intensive (Garcia et. al.,
2003). Due to higher activation energy of blast furnace slag relative to OPC, it has advantage of
thermal activation on its hydration (Roy and Idorn, 1982).

Table 1: Chemical Composition of GGBFS

Oxides Quantity Remark
SiO2 30 - 35% -
Al2O3 8 - 22% Higher in Indian Slag
CaO 27 - 32% Lower in Indian Slag
MgO 7 - 9% -
Fe2O3 8 - 10% Higher in Indian Slag

Reactivity of GGBFS with OPC

Hydration products like alkailies, lime and heat of OPC are activate the hydration of GGBFS
particles in blended cement concrete. Initially and during early hydration of concrete containing
GGBFS, the predominant reaction is with Alkalies hydroxide, but a subsequent reaction is with
Calcium hydroxide (Roy and Idorn, 1982). Reactivity of GGBFS with OPC in blended concrete is
depends on chemical & mineralogical composition, glass content, fineness etc. of the GGBFS. Type
of portland cement employed and curing conditions also has a significant effect on the rate of
formation of hydration products in blended concrete. On the basis of chemical composition of
GGBFS various indices have been proposed in the literature to evaluate its reactivity Table 2.
These formulas are not considering the effect of composition of OPC on hydration of blast furnace
slag. Mantel (1994) reported the more reliability on first three formulas. Reactivity of high glass
content slag is normally found more and greater fineness of slag also increases its reactivity due to
increase in surface area for reaction with activators. Use of rapid hardening cement in place of OPC
increases the reactivity of slag in blended concrete, due to more activators available at early age. 

Table 2: Indices for Reactivity of GGBFS

Indices as per Chemical
Recommended values
Composition
CaO / SiO2 1.3 - 1.4

(CaO + MgO) / SiO2 > 1.4

 (CaO + MgO) / (SiO2 + Al2O3) 1.0 - 1.3

(CaO + 0.56Al2O3 + 1.4MgO) / SiO2 > 1.65

(CaO + MgO + Al2O3) / SiO2 > 1.0

ACI (ACI 233R-95) recommends the use of Slag Activity Index (SAI) to evaluate its reactivity. SAI
is the percentage ratio of the average compressive strength of slag blended cement mortar cubes
(at 50% slag content), to the average compressive strength of reference cement mortar cubes at a
designated age. Based on SAI the GGBFS is classified into three grades namely, Grade 80, 100
and 120. Blended concrete with grade 120 normally achieved strength of OPC concrete at 3rd day
and after, while concrete with grade 100 achieved at 7th day and afterward. However, concrete
made with grade 80 GGBFS will have a lower strength at all ages and not recommended by ACI for
use in structural concrete.

Mix Proportioning
No specific mix proportioning method is available for GGBFS blended concrete. Simplest and most
common method of incorporating slag in concrete is a straight forward replacement of OPC by
equal weight, but due to the difference in specific gravity of these two materials slight adjustment
in aggregate content is needed for correct yield. Swami (1990) suggests that the total
cementitious material has to be increased by 10% for 50% replacement and by 20% for 65%
replacement level in blended concrete to attain a strength comparable to normal OPC concrete.
Babu and Kumar (2000) used the efficiency concept for developing equal 28 days compressive
strength for blended and normal concretes. They suggested the value of overall efficiency from
1.29 to 0.7 for 10 to 80% replacement level. Normally 30 to 50% replacement of cement by
GGBFS is adopted in the field.

Properties of Fresh Concrete

Use of GGBFS in concrete usually improves workability and decreases the water demand due to
higher smoothness of GGBFS particles and increase in paste volume of concrete. At higher
replacement level (> 50%) the water demand may increased for same workability (Sivasundaram
and Malhotra, 1992). The possible reason for this is the greater fineness of GGBFS particle, which
increases the surface area of binder in concrete at larger replacement level. Segregation and
bleeding chance in GGBFS blended concrete is lower. GGBFS blending increases the setting time of
concrete but gap between initial and final setting is reduced. Setting time of blended concrete is
reduced with increase in the fineness of GGBFS. Dose of air entraining agent require is higher for
GGBFS blended concrete in comparison to OPC concrete, to produce same air entrainment. Use of
GGBFS in concrete reduces the hydration temperature and also prolonged the time for peak
temperature of concrete as shown in Figure 1 (Brooks and Al-Kaisi, 1990). Results related to creep
and shrinkage shows the more detrimental effect of drying environment, or need of an early water
curing for better performance of GGBFS blended concrete.

Strength Development
Strength development of GGBFS blended concrete is quite different from OPC concrete. Strength
of blended concrete at early ages is lesser in compare to that of OPC concrete. Due to the
prolonged hydration process of slag the later age strength of blended concrete is higher than OPC
concrete. Results found by Geiseler et. al (1995) for the strength development of two equal grades
mortars with and without GGBFS are shown in Figure 2. They also observed the 100% increase in
strength of GGBFS blended mortar, after a period of 25 years, in compared to 28 day Strength.

Strength development of blended concrete depends on properties of GGBFS, type of OPC,

proportion of ingredients, and curing conditions. Olorunsogo and Wainwright (1998), studies the
effects of particle size distribution of GGBFS on compressive strength of blended mortar. They use
position parameter (x0) to serves as an indicator of the degree of fineness of slag and the slope of
curve (n) to represents the size range of particles of different GGBFS. They found that the strength
of mortar is reducing when value of position parameters (x 0) is increasing for constant slope value
(n), but effect of change in slope value (n) for constant position parameter (x 0) is very little
(Figure 3 a & b). 

Lim and Wee (2000) and Jain and Pal (1998) present the effect of replacement percentage and
fineness of GGBFS on strength development of blended concrete. They found that after the age of
28 days of moist curing, strength of 50, 65,and 80% GGBFS blended concrete are higher than the
OPC concrete, while at 91 days blended concretes (with all replacement level) shows higher
strength. Results of both studies show the optimum content of GGBFS equal to 50% for maximum
strength. Blended concrete with higher fineness of GGBFS shows higher strength up to the age of
28 days, but at the age of 91 days strength of concrete with GGBFS of different fineness is very
similar and significantly higher than the OPC concrete (fig 4 a & b). Therefore, toincrease the
strength development at early ages finer grinding of GGBFS is useful.

Curing condition has much more effects on strength development of GGBFS blended concrete due
to its slow and prolonged hydration. It required longer and continuous moist curing for complete
hydration of slag particles. Sanjayan and Sioulas (2000), Miura and Iwaki (2000) and Brooks and
Al-Kaisi (1990) studies the effects of curing conditions on strength of GGBFS blendedconcretes.
They found that early age strength development (up to 28 days) of GGBFS blended concrete is
increasing with curing temperature, but the effect on later strength is very little. Miura and Iwaki
(2000) found that the effects of curing method on strength development are found only after age
of 7 days. Blended concrete cured under water shows higher strength than sealed cured concrete.
The detrimental effect of isolating specimens from a continuous supply of moisture where more on
later age strength of GGBFS blended concrete. Temperature matched curing is also increases early
age strength of concrete, particularly in the case of high GGBFS content concrete.

Chloride Resistance
Chloride resistance of concrete is the most important aspects for durability of RC structures. When
chloride content in concrete reaches more than the threshold value, the protective layer of
alkalinity get broken and steel reinforcement will corrode in the presence of oxygen and humidity.
Hydration products of cementitious materials are also reacts with chloride and form Freidel's salt
that does not have any harmful effects on concrete durability.
GGBFS blending in concrete increases its resistance to chloride penetration. Effect of GGBFS is not
limited to the initiation of corrosion by chlorides, it also increases the critical chloride
concentration, beyond which unduly high corrosion progress occurs. Lower corrosion rate of steel
in blended concrete is attributed to the conjoint effect of lower permeability and a decrease in the
diffusion rate of chloride ions in these concrete. The reduction in the diffusion rate of chloride is
attributed to the reduction in the capacity of blended concrete to exchange anions, which is due to
the lower concentration of hydroxyl ions in the pore solution. 

Kumar et. al. (2002) presents the results of depth of chloride penetration in concrete after 6
months exposure in 3.5 % Sodium chloride solution and found that penetration decreases with
increase in GGBFS content. Corrosion studies of Jain and Pal (1998) show that corrosion resistance
of blended concrete with 50% or above GGBFS gives real advantages. Swamy (1986) observed
that in the first 10 mm layer, there was little difference in the amount of soluble chloride in OPC
and GGBFS blended concrete, but at larger depth chloride content in GGBFS concrete were
significantly lesser. Author reported that for a particular mix proportion the diffusion of chloride is
reduced with decrease in the w/cm ratio or with increase in GGBFS content (Figure 5). Wee et. al.
(2000) reported that the higher replacement level, higher fineness, and longer moist curing
increase the chloride resistance of GGBFS blended concrete (Figure 6). Hope and Ip (1987),
studies the corrosion of steel in blended concrete, after various cycles of wetting and drying in
3.5% sodium chloride solution and found that the corrosion of the steel is decreases with increase
in GGBFS content. Al-Amoudi et. al. (1993) studied the long term (7 years) corrosi on resistance
of concretes in 5% Sodium chloride solution and found the corrosion rate of 6.5 μm/year of steel
in GGBFS blended concrete while it is the 38 μm/year in OPC concrete. Gu et. al. (2000) reported
the supremacy of 55% GGBFS blended concrete with 28 days compressive strength of 45.6 MPa
over OPC concrete having strength of 61.1 MPa by RCPT test. The accumulated charge passed
through GGBFS blended concrete is found 670 coulombs while in normal OPC concrete, it is 1730
coulombs. Sivasundaram and Malhotra (1992) observed electrical charge ranged from 174 to 383
coulombs for various GGBFS blended concrete. Smith et. al. (2004), found that GGBFS blending
benefit the initial concrete resistivity and also tend to increase the resistivity with maturity. 

Zhang et. al. (1999) found that the charge passed during RCPT is 515, 775, & 675 for GGBFS
blended concrete cured under moist room, 7 days burlap & then laboratory air, and with curing
compounds, up to the age of testing while in OPC concrete with same curing conditions the values
are 1105, 1500, & 1135 coulombs, hence they reported that the very little effect of curing
conditions on chloride resistance concrete with low w/c ratio, although for all conditions the charge
passed for blended concrete is lower than for OPC concrete. Detwiler et al. (1994) reported that
the use of 30% slag has a far more effect on chloride resistance than lowering the w/c ratio from
0.5 to 0.4 in OPC concrete and they also found the increases in chloride diffusion with increase in
curing temperature.

Sulphate Resistance
Solid Sulphate does not attack the concrete severely but when chemicals are in solution, they find
the entry into porous concrete and react with the hydrated cement products. Sulphate attack of
concrete takes place by the reaction of sulphate ions with Calcium hydroxide and Calcium
aluminate hydrate and produced Gypsum & Ettringite with larger volume and lesser strength.
Concrete with GGBFS shows improved resistance to Sulphate attack because it has lesser
concentration of Calcium hydroxide and Calcium Aluminate hydrate in pore solution. Pore size and
volume refinement of paste in blended concrete also improve its Sulphate resistance, but it is not
a primary cause. Sulphate resistance of blended concrete depends on chemical composition of
GGBFS and cement, GGBFS content in concrete, curing condition, and type of ion associated with
Sulphate etc. 

C3A content of OPC and Alumina content of GGBFS are the primary factors related to chemical
composition of binders. A replacement level of 70% or more of OPC by high Alumina slag (13- 15
%) is required for improved Sulphate resistance, where as 50 % replacement level provides good
Sulphate resistance when low Alumina slag is used (Hooton and Emery, 1990). In the case of high
C3A cement the 70 –80% replacement of OPC is required for better Sulphate resistance. Increase
in GGBFS content in a mix increases its Sulphate resistance. Jain and Pal (1998) reported that
replacement of 50% OPC by GGBFS improved the Sulphate resistance of concrete, however 70%
replacement reduces the expansion of concrete significantly in Sulphate solution at the age of 6
months (Figure 7). Sulphate resistance of concrete also depends on C 3S/C2S ratio (Rasheeduzzafar
et. al. 1990). Low C3S/C2S ratio at a particular value of C3A increases the Sulphate resistance. Wee
et. al. (2000), reported that the reduction in w/cm ratio, or increase in GGBFS content, increases
the Sulphate resistance of blended concrete while change in fineness of GGBFS has no effect. 

GGBFS blended concrete shows good resistance to Sodium Sulphate, but shows quick deterioration
in Magnesium Sulphate attack (Figure 8). Rasheeduzzafar et. al. (1994) attributed this behavior to
the depletion of Calcium hydroxide in GGBFS blended concrete. In the absence of Calcium
hydroxide, Magnesium ions react more directly and extensively with C-S-H to generate
noncementitious M-S-H hydrate, results in aggravated deterioration. Osborne (1999) presents the
results of studies carried out at BRE (UK) and found the early curing of concrete is the most
significant factor for Sulphate resistance. A beneficial effect of initial short air curing on the long-
term Sulphate resistance is also reported by many researchers. This may be due to the formation
of a carbonated outer layer in concrete leading to blocking of the pores and refinement of pore
structures.

Aggregate-silica Reaction
Aggregate-Silica reaction (ASR) in concrete is a chemical reaction between the active silica
constituents of the aggregate and the alkalies (Na + and K+ ions) of the cement, which formed
silicate gel with increase in the volume. The result is the map cracking, and disruption in concrete.
Use of GGBFS in concrete reduces the risk of ASR, because of lowCa/Si ratio in the hydration
products. Low Ca/Si ratio increases its alkalies binding capacity. Hence, increase in GGBFS content
reduces the availability of alkalies for ASR in the concrete (Duchensne and Berude 1994) as shown
in fig 9. 

Level of GGBFS required to mitigate damaging ASR is influences by the type of reactive aggregate
and the quantity of alkalies available in the mix. Expansion due to ASR is decreases with increase
in GGBFS content in concrete, as shown in fig. 10 (Swamy, 1986). The 50% replacement of OPC
by GGBFS is found normally satisfactory for preventing ASR with any type of aggregates and
cement with less than 0.6% alkalies. As per ACI 233 report a minimum level of 40% GGBFS
cement replacement is needed to mitigation of ASR.

Carbonation
In the carbonation of concrete the Carbon Dioxide (CO 2) of environment reacts with hydrated
compounds of cement paste and forms Calcium Carbonate. Carbonation of concrete lowers the
alkalinity of pore solution and destroys the protective passive layer of reinforcement, hence
increases the chances of corrosion of steel reinforcement. 

Carbonation resistance of GGBFS blended concrete is comparable to OPC concrete. It depends on

the strength, GGBFS content and curing conditions of concrete with the environmental condition in
which the concrete were situated. Concrete with 50% GGBFS achieved similar resistance to
carbonation to that of OPC concrete mixture proportion, in moist environment. But higher GGBFS
content (70-80%) concrete has lower resistance, especially if associated wit h a sheltered or
drying climate. In dry environment concrete loss its moisture rapidly and hydration is ceases,
particularly in cover concrete portion. Under these dry conditions the GGBFS blending concrete
reaches lower strength and carbonated faster in earlier ages. Results of a typical field study under
industrial area on the carbonation depth is shown in fig 11, suggest a marginal increase in depth of
carbonation for GGBFS blended concrete.

Frost Resistance
Freezing and thawing of moisture inside the body of concrete is defined as frost action. Water
gains volume (By approximately 9%) when it freezes and looses when it melts. This volume
changes induce internal stresses, which do cracking, spalling, and scalling in concrete.

As in OPC concrete the air content has the greatest influence on the frost resistance of GGBFS
blended concrete. Frost resistance of both types concrete of similar strength and air content is
essentially the same. GGBFS blended concrete without Air entraining admixture (AEA) shows
significantly lower air content than in a typical OPC concrete. Dose of AEA required to entrain a
given volume of air is more for GGBFS blended concrete, this may be due to the increased
workability exhibited by the GGBFS blending and therefore easing the expulsion of entrapped air
(Sanjayan and Sioulas, 2000). Gifford and Gillot (1996) found that air voids in GGBFS concrete is
more finely divided and closely spaced than in OPC concrete with same air content. They reported
that freeze thaw durability of GGBFS blended concrete is at least as good as OPC concrete given
adequate air voids parameter. Due to the slower strength development at early ages in GGBFS
blended concrete, its frost resistance in low temperature environment can be increase by the use
of chemical activators. Deja (2003) reported that the air entraining of the concrete mix up to the
level of 5-6% gives good resistance to de-icing salt in frost condition.

Conclusion
Based on the discussions presented in this paper the following conclusion have been found out:

 GGBFS can be used as a high volume mineral admixture in concrete due to technological,
economical, and environmental benefits, without any compromise with its performance.
 GGBFS has the cementing property, but it required activation by any medium. Hydration
product of GGBFS is the same C-S-H gel with more dense and low Ca/Si ratio.
 Reactivity of GGBFS with OPC depends on the chemical and mineralogical composition of
both materials. Higher fineness and glass content increases the reactivity of GGBFS. Slag
Activity Index is the best way to predict the reactivity of GGBFS with OPC.
 GGBFS blending in concrete is increases the workability, consistency and reduces the
water demand, bleeding & segregation chances. GGBFS blending in concrete reduces its
hydration temperature and also prolonged the time for peak temperature of concrete.
 Due to the prolonged hydration of GGBFS the later age strength of GGBFS blended
concrete is higher than OPC concrete under adequate reactive material and moist curing
conditions.
 Chloride resistance of GGBFS blended concrete is higher than the OPC concrete due to its
lower permeability and different chemistry of pore solution. Chloride resistance increases
with increase in level of GGBFS in concrete.
 Sulphate resistance of concrete is increases with blending of GGBFS. Lower concentration
of C3A in OPC and Al2O3 in GGBFS are favorable for better Sulphate resistance.
 Carbonation of GGBFS blended concrete is comparable to normal OPC concrete. Blended
concrete exposed in long moist condition shows very little carbonation.
 GGBFS is very effective in reducing the expansion due to Aggregate-silica reaction in
concrete due to higher alkalies binding capacity of hydration products of GGBFS.
 Frost resistance of GGBFS blended concrete is as good as OPC concrete, subjected to the
availability of air voids. Dose of AEA required to produce same air content is higher in
blended concrete.
 To get complete advantages of GGBFS blending in concrete minimum 7 day moist curing is
must. Replacement level of 40 to 50% is the optimum from strength and durability
aspects.

References

1. ACI 233R-95 Committee Report, (1997), GGBFS as a Cementitious Constituents in

Concrete, ACI Manual of Concrete Practice, Part I
2. Al-Amoudi, O. S. B., Rasheeduzzafar, Maslehuddin, M., and Al-Mana, A. I., (1993),
Prediction of Long-term Corrosion Resistance of Plain and Blended Cement Concrete, ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 90, No. 6, pp. 564-570
3. Babu, K. G., and Kumar, V. S. R., (2000), Efficiency of GGBFS in Concrete, Cement and
Concrete Research, Vol. 30, pp. 1031- 1036
4. Bijen, J., (1996), Benefits of Slag and Fly Ash, Construction and Building Materials, Vol.
10, No. 5, pp. 309-314
5. Brooks, J.J., and Al-Kaisi, A. F., (1990), Early Strength Development of Portland and Slag
Cement Concrete Cured at Elevated Temperatures, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 5,
pp. 503-507
6. Deja, J., (2003), Freezing and De-Icing Salt Resistance of Blast Furnace Slag Concretes,
Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 25, pp. 357-361
7. Detwiler, R. J., Fapohunda, C. A., and Natale, J., (1994), Use of Supplementary Cementing
Materials to increase the Resistance to Chloride ion Penetration of Concrete Cured at
Elevated temperatures, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 91, No. 1, pp. 63-66
8. Duchesne, J., and Berube, M. A., (1994), Available Alkalies from Supplementary
Cementing Materials, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 91, No. 3, pp. 289-299
9. Garcia, J. I. E., Fuentes, A. F., Gorokhovsky, A., Fraire-Luna, P. E., and Mendoza-Suarez,
G., (2003), Hydration Products and Reactivity of Blast-Furnace Slag Activated by various
Alkalis, Journal of American Ceramic Society, Vol. 86, No. 12, pp. 2148-2153
10. Geiseler, J., Kollo, H., and Lang, E., (1995), Influence of blast furnace cements on
durability of concrete structures, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 92, No. 3, pp. 252- 257
11. Gifford, P. M., and Gillott, J.E., (1996), Freeze-Thaw Durability of Activated Blast Furnace
Slag Cement Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 93, No. 3, pp. 242- 245
12. Gu, P., Beaudoin, J. J., Zhang, M. H., and Malhotra, V. M., (2000), Performance of
Reinforcing Steel in Concrete Containing Silica Fume and Blast- Furnace Slag Ponded with
Sodium Chloride Solution, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 3, pp. 254-262
13. Hooton, R. D., and Emery, J. J., (1990), Sulphate Resistance of a Canadian Slag Cement,
ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 6, pp. 547-555
14. Hope, B. B., and Lp, A. K. C., (1987), Corrosion of Steel in Concrete made with Slag
Cement, ACI Materials Journal, Nov.- Dec., 525-531
15. Jain, M. K., and Pal, S. C., (1998), Utilisation of industrial slag in making high performance
concrete composites, Indian Concrete Journal, June, pp. 307- 315
16. Jimenez, A. F., and Puertas, F., (2003), Structure of Calcium Silicate Hydrates Formed in
Alkaline-Activated Slag: Influence of the Type of Alkaline Activator, Journal of American
Ceramic Society, Vol. 86, No. 8, pp. 1389-1394
17. Kumar, S., Rao, B. K., and Mishra, S., (2002), Chloride Penetration Resistance of Concrete
Containing Blast Furnace Slag, The Indian Concrete Journal, December, pp. 745-751
18. Lim, S. N., and Wee, T. H., (2000), Autogeneous Shrinkage of Ground- Granulated Blast-
Furnace Slag Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 587-593
19. Mantel, D. G., (1994), Investigation into the Hydraulic Activity of Five Granulated Blast
Furnace Slag with Eight Different Portland Cements, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 91, No. 5,
pp. 471-477
20. Miura, T., and Iwaki, I., (2000), Strength Development of Concrete Incorporating High
level of ground Granulated Blast- Furnace Slag at Low Temperatures, ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 97, No. 1, pp. 66- 70
21. Olorunsogo, F. T., and Wainwright, P. J., (1998), Effect of GGBFS Particle-Size Distribution
on Mortar Compressive Strength, A.S.C.E. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, August,
pp. 180-187
22. Osborne, G. J., (1999), Durability of Portland Blast-Furnace Slag Cement Concrete,
Cement and Concrete Composites, Vol. 21, pp. 11-21
23. Rasheeduzzafar, Al-Amoudi, O. S. B., Abduljauwad, S. N., and Maslehuddin, M., (1994),
Magnesium-Sodium Sulphate attack in Plain and Blended Cements, A.S.C.E. Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 201-221
24. Rasheeduzzafar, Dakhil, F. H., Al-Gahtani, A. S., Al-Saadoun, S. S., and Bader, M. A.,
(1990), Influence of Cement Composition on the Corrosion of Reinforcement and Sulphate
Resistance of Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 2, pp. 114- 122
25. Roy, D. M., and Idorn, G. M., (1982), Hydration, Structure, and Properties of Blast Furnace
Slag Cements, Mortar, and Concrete, ACI Materials Journal, Nov.– Dec., pp. 444-457
26. Sanjayan, J. G., and Sioulas, B., (2000), Strength of Slag-Cement Concrete Cured in place
and in other conditions, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 97, No. 5, pp. 603- 611
27. Sivasundaram, V., and Malhotra, V. M., (1992), Properties of Concrete Incorporating Low
Quantity of Cement and High Volumes of Ground Granulated Slag, ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 89, No. 6, pp. 554-563
28. Smith, K. M., Schokker, A. J., and Tikalsky, P. J., (2004), Performance of Supplementary
Cementitious Materials in Concrete Resistivity and Corrosion Monitoring Evaluations, ACI
Materials Journal, Vol. 101, No. 5, pp. 385-390
29. Swamy, R. N., (1986), Cement replacement Materials, Surrey University Press, London
30. Swamy, R. N., and Bouikini, A., (1990), Some Engineering Properties of Slag Concrete as
Influenced by Mix Proportioning and Curing, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 87, No. 3, pp. 210-
220
31. Wee, T. H., Suryavanshi, A. K., and Tin, S. S., (2000), Evaluation of Rapid Chloride
Permeability Test, Results for Concrete Containing Mineral Admixtures, ACI Materials
Journal, Vol. 97, No. 2, pp. 221- 23
Source: http://www.nbmcw.com/articles/concrete/585-ground-granulated-
blast-furnace-slag-blended-concrete.html