Hostname: page-component-7479d7b7d-767nl Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-08T14:24:49.126Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Consistency of Performance of Concretes With and Without Fly Ash

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 February 2011

Weston T. Hester*
Affiliation:
University of California, Department of Civil Engineering, Berkeley, California 94720
Get access

Abstract

Fly ash and other pozzolans are increasingly used in concretes that must consistently achieve high compressive strength and other measures of performance. In contemporary design and construction practice, however, there is some concern as to whether or not use of commercial fly ash materials contribute to or reduce variations observed in field compressive strengths and properties of the fresh concrete. Regardless of its potential for improving the performance of the concrete, if the daily ongoing use of commercial fly ash will decrease the consistency of the concrete produced, the use of fly ash will be curtailed. In this paper, the experiences of geographically diverse, specific concrete suppliers using their respective sources of fly ash are summarized in detail. The nominal compressive strength of concretes, made with and without fly ash, are analyzed statistically. Special attention is given to moderate- and high-strength concretes. In conclusion, it is shown that concretes made with fly ash may not be more consistent than concretes with only portland cement.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 1987

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Plowman, J.M., in “Magazine of Concrete Research”, 15, 44 (1963).Google Scholar
2. Pomeroy, C.D., in The Effect of Curing Conditions and Cube Size on the Crushing Strength of Concrete (Cement and Concrete Association, Great Britain, 1972), pp. 118.Google Scholar