Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Materials and Design

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /matdes

Technical Report

Use of calcium carbide residue and bagasse ash mixtures as a newcementitious material in concrete

Chaiyanunt Rattanashotinunt, Pongsiri Thairit, Weerachart Tangchirapat ⇑, Chai JaturapitakkulDepartment of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, King Mongkut’s University of Technology Thonburi (KMUTT), Bangkok 10140, Thailand

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 13 July 2012Accepted 19 October 2012Available online 29 October 2012

0261-3069/$ - see front matter Crown Copyright � 2http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2012.10.028

⇑ Corresponding author. Tel.: +66 2 470 9142; fax:E-mail address: weerachart.tan@kmutt.ac.th (W. T

a b s t r a c t

Calcium carbide residue (CCR) is a by-product of the acetylene gas production and bagasse ash (BA) is aby-product obtained from the burning of bagasse for electricity generation in the sugar industry. Themixture between CCR contains a high proportion of calcium hydroxide, while BA is a pozzolanic material,can produce a pozzolanic reaction, resulting in the products similar to those obtained from the cementhydration process. Thus, it is possible to use a mixture of CCR and BA as a cementitious material to sub-stitute for Portland cement in concrete. The results indicated that concrete made with CCR and BA mix-tures and containing 90 kg/m3 of Portland cement gave the compressive strength of 32.7 MPa at 28 days.These results suggested that the use of ground CCR and ground BA mixtures as a binder could reducePortland cement consumption by up to 70% compared to conventional concrete that requires 300 kg/m3 of Portland cement to achieve the same compressive strength. In addition, the mechanical propertiesof the alternative concrete including compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and elastic moduluswere similar to that of conventional concrete.

Crown Copyright � 2012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Many construction projects around the world today usePortland cement as a primary concrete binder. The production pro-cess for Portland cement requires large amounts of energy to burnthe raw material at temperatures of up to 1500 �C. Moreover, theproduction of 1 ton of Portland cement releases as much as900 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere [1]. As a result, Portland cementcontributes to environmental problems such as dust pollution andthinning of the ozone layer, which contributes to global warming.To reduce CO2 emissions, cement manufacturers have attemptedto reduce Portland cement consumption through the use of supple-mentary cementitious materials, such as fly ash and natural pozzo-lans, to partially replace Portland cement in concrete [2–5].However, Portland cement remains the most plentiful cementi-tious material in concrete.

As much as 12,000 tons of calcium carbide residue, a by-productof acetylene gas production, is generated per year in Thailand, andthis amount tends to increase every year. Most of this residue isdisposed as waste in landfills, leading to environmental problemsbecause there are so few possibilities for its use in other applica-tions. Consequently, attempts have been made to put calcium car-bide residue to better use, especially in concrete applications. Itwas found that mixing calcium carbide residue, which is rich in

012 Published by Elsevier Ltd. All r

+66 2 427 9063.angchirapat).

calcium hydroxide (Ca(OH)2), with certain pozzolans, which havehigh silicon dioxide (SiO2) and aluminum oxide (Al2O3) content,produces a pozzolanic reaction, resulting in end products similarto those obtained from the cement hydration process. Krammartet al. [6] reported that mortar made from a calcium carbide residueand fly ash mixture had a compressive strength of 20.9 MPa at90 days. The optimum ratio of calcium carbide residue to fly ashwas 30:70 by weight. Jaturapitakkul and Roongreung [7] studiedmortar containing calcium carbide residue and rice husk ash. Theyfound that the optimum ratio of calcium carbide residue to ricehusk ash to achieve the highest possible compressive strengthwas 50:50 by weight. The compressive strength of the mortarwas 15.6 MPa at 28 days and increased to 19.1 MPa at 180 days.

Bagasse ash, which is a by-product obtained from the burning ofbagasse for electricity generation in Central Thailand’s sugar indus-try, has recently been accepted as a pozzolanic material and can beused as a supplementary cementitious material in concrete [8–12].Although it is a pozzolanic material, much of this ash is still dis-posed in landfills every day, leading to environmental problemsin the region. Since the received bagasse ash from the sugar indus-try has large particle size and high porosity, so it needs more watercontent in the concrete mixture and thus results in a lower com-pressive strength of concrete. However, when bagasse ash isground into small particles, the compressive strength of the con-crete containing ground bagasse ash improves significantly [13].Chusilp et al. [14] found that ground bagasse ash can be used toreplace up to 30% of Portland cement by weight of the binder,

ights reserved.

(1a) Ground bagasse ash

C. Rattanashotinunt et al. / Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111 107

and the 28 and 90 days compressive strengths of the resulting con-crete may be higher than that of concrete without bagasse ash.

Previous research shows that bagasse ash is a good pozzolanicmaterial, while calcium carbide residue contains a high proportionof calcium hydroxide. Thus, it is possible to use a mixture of cal-cium carbide residue and bagasse ash as a new binder to substitutefor Portland cement in concrete work. This new concrete can notonly reduce concrete’s CO2 emissions by requiring very little orno Portland cement, but also increase the value of waste materialsby not sending them to landfills. Therefore, the objective of thisresearch is to evaluate a mixture of two types of waste, calciumcarbide residue and bagasse ash, as a new cementitious materialfor concrete. The resulting concrete’s mechanical properties suchas compressive strength, splitting tensile strength, and elasticmodulus were investigated and compared to that of Portland ce-ment concrete. The results obtained from this study will help edu-cate others on the effective use of this binder.

(1b) Ground calcium carbide residue

Fig. 1. Particle images of ground bagasse ash and ground calcium carbide residue.

Table 2Chemical compositions of the materials.

Chemical composition (%) OPC Ground BA Ground CCR

Silicon dioxide (SiO2) 20.9 55.0 4.3Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) 4.7 5.1 0.4Iron oxide (Fe2O3) 3.4 4.1 0.9Calcium oxide (CaO) 65.4 11.0 56.5Magnesium oxide (MgO) 1.2 0.9 1.7Sodium oxide (Na2O) 0.2 0.2 0.0Potassium oxide (K2O) 0.3 1.2 0.0Sulfur trioxide (SO3) 2.7 2.2 0.1Loss on Ignition (LOI) 0.9 19.6 36.1

2. Experimental program

2.1. Bagasse ash

Bagasse ash (BA) used in this study was obtained from the Thaisugar industry, where it was burned to generate electricity at atemperature of approximately 600–800 �C. The original BA wasnot suitable for use as a pozzolanic material in concrete due toits large particle size and high porosity. Kiattikomol et al. [15], Isaiaet al. [16], and Vazquez et al. [17] found that the pozzolanic activityand the filler effect of industrial ash depends on its particle sizeand fineness; thus, the original BA was ground by using grindingmachine until the particles retained on a 45 lm sieve (No. 325)were less than 3% by weight.

The physical properties of ground BA are shown in Table 1.Ground BA has a specific gravity of 2.27 and median particle sizeof 5.7 lm. The percentage of particles retained on a 45 lm sieve(No. 325) is 0.5% by weight. Fig. 1a. shows the particle image ofground BA which is in irregular particles with a crushed shape.

The chemical compositions of ground BA are shown in Table 2.Its major component was 55.0% of SiO2, and the total amount ofSiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3 was 64.2%, while the amounts of LOI andSO3 were 19.6% and 2.2%, respectively. It was noted that the LOIof the ground BA was higher than the limited value specified byASTM: C618 for a class N pozzolan. Results from previousresearches [11–14], however, suggested that ground BA had ahighly pozzolanic composition and could be used as a cementreplacement in mortar or concrete despite its LOI being higher than10%.

2.2. Calcium carbide residue

Calcium carbide residue (CCR) is a by-product of the acetylenegas production process. It has high water content and must bedried for approximately 3–4 days to reduce its moisture contentto approximately 1–2%. The CCR was ground by using grinding ma-

Table 1Physical properties of the materials.

Sample Specific gravity Retained on a45 lm sieve(No. 325) (%)

Median particlesize, d50 (lm)

OPC 3.15 13.5 14.6Ground BA 2.27 0.5 5.7Ground CCR 2.42 2.1 4.4

chine until the particles retained on a 45 lm sieve (No. 325) wereless than 3% by weight.

The physical properties of ground CCR are shown in Table 1.Ground CCR has a specific gravity of 2.42 and median particle sizeof 4.4 lm. The percentage of particles retained on a 45 lm sieve(No. 325) is 2.1% by weight. After grinding, the ground CCR hasirregular particles with a crushed shape, as shown in Fig. 1b.

The chemical compositions of ground CCR are reported in Table2. The major chemical composition of ground CCR was 56.5% ofCaO. In addition, the loss on ignition (LOI) of the ground CCR was36.1%, which is very high. The results also conformed to theresearch of Krammart and Tangtermsirikul [18], who reported anLOI of 31.7%. The LOI of the ground CCR was that high because itwas measured at a temperature of 950–1000 �C, but the materialmainly consists of Ca(OH)2 that decomposes into CaO and H2O(gas) at approximately 550 �C [7].

108 C. Rattanashotinunt et al. / Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111

2.3. Cement

Ordinary Portland cement type I (OPC) used in this study wasintroduced only as an accelerator, at rates of 10% and 20% byweight of the binder (CCR + BA + OPC), to promote the reactionbetween ground CCR and ground BA. Its physical and chemicalproperties are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively.

2.4. Aggregates

The coarse aggregate used in this study was crushed limestonewith a maximum size of 19 mm, a specific gravity of 2.7, a finenessmodulus of 7.2, and water absorption of 0.4%. The fine aggregatewas local river sand with a specific gravity of 2.6, a fineness mod-ulus of 3.2, and water absorption of 0.8%.

2.5. Optimum proportions of ground CCR and ground BA

To determine the optimum proportions of ground CCR andground BA in the mixture, mortar cube specimens of50 � 50 � 50 mm3 were used. A binder to sand ratio of mortarwas set at a constant of 1:2.75 by weight as specified by ASTM:C109/C109M. The mortar flow was maintained within the rangeof 105 to 115% by adjusting the water content in the mortar mix-ture. The mortar binder was a mixture of ground CCR and groundBA. The ground CCR was replaced by the ground BA at rates of30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, and 70% by weight of the binder (CCR + BA).All mortar specimens were cast and removed from the molds after24 h and then cured in saturated lime water until the testing age.The average of compressive strength of mortar for each age wasobtained from five specimens.

Fig. 2. presents the relationship between the compressivestrength and the replacement of ground CCR with ground BA atthe rates of 30%, 40%, 50%, 60%, and 70% by weight of the binder.It was shown that the mortar had a compressive strength rangingfrom 2.8 to 4.9 MPa at 7 days, and the compressive strengthincreased to between 8.1 and 12.5 MPa at 28 days. The optimal ra-tio of ground CCR to ground BA was declared to be 50:50 by weightbecause this ratio yielded the highest compressive strengths of4.9 MPa at 7 days and 12.5 MPa at 28 days.

2.6. Mix proportions for concrete and test specimens

The mix proportions for the concretes in this study are summa-rized in Table 3. The conventional concrete (CON) used 300 kg/m3

of ordinary Portland cement type I as a binder and had a target28 day compressive strength of 30 MPa. For CB concrete mixtures,

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

20 30 40 50 60 70 80

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Replacement by Ground Bagasse Ash (%)

28 days

7 days

Fig. 2. Relationship between compressive strength of mortar and replacement ofground BA in ground CCR and ground BA mixture.

the optimum 50:50 mixture of ground CCR and ground BA byweight was used as a binder for casting the concrete. CB concretescontained a binder content of 450 kg/m3 and had a ratio of fine tocoarse aggregates of 45:55 by volume. Water to binder ratio (W/B)of 0.40 was maintained in CB concretes, and a type F superplasti-cizer was employed to maintain the slump of fresh concrete be-tween 50 and 100 mm. In addition, ordinary Portland cementtype I was used to replace the binder of the CB concrete at ratesof 0%, 10%, and 20% by total weight of the binder (CCR + BA + OPC)and were denoted as CB0, CB10, and CB20, respectively.

In this study, the fresh CB concrete was prepared using a rotat-ing drum type mixer for 15 min. Cylindrical concrete samples witha diameter of 100 mm and a height of 200 mm were cast and com-pacted using a tamping rod. After casting, the specimens were al-lowed to set for 24 h, after which they were removed from themolds and cured in water. The concretes were tested at 7, 28, 60,and 90 days for compressive strength. The splitting tensile strengthand modulus of elasticity of all the concrete samples were alsodetermined at 28, 60, and 90 days. The mechanical properties ofCB concretes were investigated and compared to that of CON con-crete in which 300 kg/m3 of Portland cement was used as a binder.The average of three concrete specimens were used to representthe mechanical properties of concretes.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Workability

The results of initial slump test for all concrete mixtures areshown in Table 3. A type F superplasticizer was added to maintainthe slump of fresh concrete between 50 and 100 mm. It was foundthat samples CB0, CB10, and CB20 required 17.2, 16.7, and 16.2 kg/m3, respectively, of superplasticizer. The particle sizes of groundCCR and ground BA were finer than that of Portland cement; there-fore, they absorbed more water. For this reason, CB concretemixtures required more superplasticizer than CON concrete. Inaddition, the high LOI of two materials, ground BA and groundCCR, caused increase in superplasticizer requirement in the mix-ture [7,14,18]. Moreover, the particles of ground BA were angular,irregularly shaped, and characterized by a high porosity, like palmoil fuel ash [3] and rice husk ash [5], ground BA required moresuperplasticizer for lubrication to maintain the same workabilityas the CON concrete. The results also conformed to the study ofJaturapitakkul and Roonreung [7], who reported that mortar madefrom the mixture of ground calcium carbide residue and groundrice husk ash as a binder needed more superplasticizer in the mix-ture to maintain the same value of flow as compared to controlmortar.

3.2. Compressive strength

Fig. 3. shows the compressive strength development of CB con-cretes compared to CON concrete. CON concrete had a compressivestrength of 30.9 MPa at 28 days and increased to 36.2 and 37.1 MPaat 60 and 90 days, respectively. The compressive strength of CB0concrete was 22.9 MPa or 74% of CON concrete at 28 days anddeveloped to 27.8 MPa or 77% of CON concrete at 60 days. At90 days, CB0 concrete had compressive strength of 30.6 MPa or82% of CON concrete. The results indicated that the use of groundCCR and ground BA mixtures as a binder reduced the compressivestrengths of concrete by approximately 18–26% compared to CONconcrete. This could be attributed that the mix proportion of theCB0 concrete contained no Portland cement, and the compressivestrength of the concrete was derived solely from the pozzolanicreaction between ground CCR and ground BA, similar results were

Table 3Mix proportions of concretes.

Concrete Mix proportions (kg/m3) W/B Slump (mm)

OPC BA CCR Sand Limestone Super P. Water

CON 300 – – 810 1035 – 210 0.70 75CB0 – 225 225 735 942 17.2 180 0.40 80CB10 45 202.5 202.5 741 949 16.7 180 0.40 90CB20 90 180 180 747 956 16.2 180 0.40 80

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 20 40 60 80 100

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Age (days)

CB20

CON

CB10

CB 0

Fig. 3. Relationship between compressive strength of concrete and age.

0

10

20

30

40

50

0 10 20 30

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Replacement Level of Cement in CB Mixtures (% by weight)

90 days

60 days

28 days

7 days

CON

Fig. 4. Relationship between compressive strength of concrete and level of cementreplacement in ground CCR and ground BA mixture.

C. Rattanashotinunt et al. / Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111 109

found by Krammart et al. [6] and Jaturapitakkul and Roonreung [7].It should be noted that CB0 concrete gave compressive strength at90 days more than 80% of CON concrete although the CB0 concretedid not contain Portland cement. This result indicated that groundBA is a good pozzolanic material and high silica content in BA isvery reactive, which supports the finding of many researchers[11–14]. The compressive strength of CB10 and CB20 concretesat 28 and 90 days was 26.7, 32.7 and 35.6, 39.2 MPa or about86%, 106% and 96%, 106% of CON concrete. CB10 concrete had low-er compressive strengths than CON concrete. At the mixture ofground CCR and ground BA replacement by Portland cement of20%, the compressive strength of CB20 concrete was higher thanthat of CON concrete at all of the testing age. Furthermore, thecompressive strengths of CB concretes tended to increase at thelater age. This result agreed with that of Jaturapitakkul andRoongreung [7], who reported that the compressive strength ofmortar using a binder from a mixture of calcium carbide residueand rice husk ash tended to increase with curing age in a mannersimilar to the compressive strength development of Portlandcement mortar.

Relationship between compressive strength and percentreplacement of Portland cement in concrete made from groundCCR and ground BA mixture is shown in Fig. 4. It was found thatat 28 days, CB20 concrete using 90 kg/m3 of Portland cement asan accelerator had compressive strength of 32.7 MPa or 106% ofCON concrete and increased to 39.2 MPa or 106% of CON concrete,at 90 days. Generally, a higher quantity of Portland cement pro-vides more calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) and calcium hydroxide(Ca(OH)2), leading to better hydration and pozzolanic reaction. As aresult, the compressive strength of concrete develops faster withhigher Portland cement content. The results also suggested thatthe use of ground CCR and ground BA mixture as a concrete bindercould reduce Portland cement consumption by 70% compared toconventional concrete (CON), which requires as much as 300 kg/m3 of Portland cement to achieve the same compressive strength.In comparison to the concrete incorporating ground bagasse ash;replacing 10–20% of the Portland cement proved optimal [11–12], it was found that the use of ground CCR and ground BA

mixture as a concrete binder could reduce Portland cement con-sumption by 3 times when the compressive strengths of both con-cretes were approximately the same.

3.3. Splitting tensile strength

The splitting tensile strength of CB concretes tended to increasewith the increased of compressive strength. This result shows thatthe splitting tensile strength is related to the concrete’s compres-sive strength. At 28 days, the splitting tensile strengths of CB0,CB10, and CB20 concretes were 3.1, 3.4, and 3.4 MPa, respectively,and their compressive strengths were 22.9, 26.7, and 32.7 MPa,respectively. At 60 and 90 days, CB0, CB10, and CB20 concreteshad splitting tensile strengths of 3.4, 3.5, 3.8 and 3.4, 3.6,3.9 MPa, respectively. Furthermore, the splitting tensile strengthof CB concretes tended to increase with curing age.

The splitting tensile strength as a percentage of compressivestrength for CB concretes is shown in Fig. 5. This percentage rangedfrom 10% to 13% in CB concretes, which was similar to that of CONconcrete. Ganesan et al. [11] reported that the percentage of split-ting tensile strength of concrete incorporating ground bagasse ashwere in the range of 10–12%. The result also supported the previ-ous researches indicating that the splitting tensile strength of plainconcrete was approximately 10% of its compressive strength [19–20]. The study shows that the higher is the compressive strengthof concrete; the lower is the splitting tensile strength as a percent-age of compressive strength, a result that is consistent with otherresearches on conventional concrete [21–22].

3.4. Modulus of elasticity

The modulus of elasticity of CON concrete at 28 and 90 dayswas 28.3 and 35.5 GPa, respectively. For CB concretes, the modulusof elasticity of CB0, CB10, and CB20 concretes were 23.6, 25.6, and28.2 GPa, respectively, at 28 days, and were 26.1, 28.5, and28.7 GPa, respectively, at 60 days. At the age of 90 days, the CB0,CB10, and CB20 concretes had elastic modulus of 27.1, 30.8, and

0

5

10

15

20

15 20 25 30 35 40 45Perc

enta

ge o

f Sp

litin

g Te

nsile

Str

engt

h to

Com

pres

sive

Str

engt

h (%

)

Compressive Strength (MPa)

CB concretes

CON concrete

Fig. 5. Relationship between splitting tensile strength as a percentage of compres-sive strength and compressive strength of concrete.

110 C. Rattanashotinunt et al. / Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111

31.9 GPa, respectively. These results indicated that the modulus ofelasticity of CB concretes tended to increase with curing age. Theseresults agreed with that of Nassif et al. [23] and Sata et al. [24], whoreported that the modulus of elasticity of concretes containingpozzolanic materials, such as fly ash and natural pozzolans tendedto increase with curing age in a manner similar to the modulus ofelasticity development of conventional concrete.

The modulus of elasticity of concretes versus the compressivestrengths at 28, 60, and 90 days is shown in Fig. 6. The modulusof elasticity of CB concretes ranged from 23.6 to 31.9 GPa whilethat of CON concrete varied between 28.3 and 35.5 GPa, dependingon the compressive strength of concrete. Considering the samecompressive strength, the use of ground CCR and ground BA mix-tures as a binder did not significantly affect the modulus of elastic-ity of concrete compared to that of CON concrete. For example,CON and CB20 concretes had compressive strengths at 28 days of28.3 and 28.2 MPa, and their modulus of elasticity values were30.9 and 32.7 GPa, respectively. Similar results were found forthe concretes containing pozzolanic materials such fly ash, palmoil fuel ash, and rice husk bark ash [23,24]. Moreover, Neville[25] and Beshr et al. [26] reported that the modulus of elasticityof concrete was typically related to the strength of the aggregatesrather than the strength of the cement paste.

Eq. (1) was used to predict the modulus of elasticity of concrete.The coefficient of correlation for the relationship between squareroot of compressive strength and modulus of elasticity of CB con-cretes was 0.75. The results indicated that the modulus of elasticityof CB concretes were similar to that of CON concrete: theyincreased with the increased of compressive strength [25,27].

This study : ECB = 5.052 -0.462 ; R 2 = 0.75

0

10

20

30

40

50

7654

Mod

ulus

of

Ela

stic

ity (

GPa

)

CB concretes

CON concrete

(MPa)'cf

cf ′

Fig. 6. Relationship between modulus of elasticity and square root of thecompressive strength of concrete.

ECB ¼ 5:052ffiffiffiffif 0c

q� 0:462 ð1Þ

where ECB is the modulus of elasticity (GPa) and f 0c is the compres-sive strength (MPa).

4. Conclusions

Based on the experimental results, the conclusions can bedrawn as follows:

(1) The compressive strength of CB concrete samples rangedfrom 22.9 to 32.7 MPa at 28 days, and the compressivestrength development of CB concretes increased with curingage. The compressive strength of CB20 concrete (using90 kg/m3 of Portland cement) was 32.7 and 39.2 MPa, or106% and 106% of CON concrete (using 300 kg/m3 ofPortland cement) at 28 and 90 days, respectively.

(2) CB concretes with and without ordinary Portland cementtype I had mechanical properties similar to that of CON con-crete, i.e., the compressive strength increased with curingage, and the modulus of elasticity and splitting tensilestrength increased with the increased of compressivestrength of concrete. In addition, the use of 10–20% of ordin-ary Portland cement type I produced an increase in the com-pressive strength of concrete, depending on the replacementlevel.

(3) A mixture of ground CCR and ground BA in this study couldbe used as a new cementitious material to replace Portlandcement in concrete work and could not only reduce CO2

emissions due to the reduction in cement production butalso increase the value of waste materials rather than thealternative of sending them to landfills.

Acknowledgments

The authors gratefully acknowledge the financial support fromthe Thailand Research Fund (TRF) under TRF Senior Research Scho-lar, Grant No. RTA5380002 and King Mongkut’s University of Tech-nology Thonburi under the National Research University (NRU).

References

[1] Mehta PK. Global concrete industry sustainability. Concr Int 2009;31(2):45–8.[2] Gartner E. Industrially interesting approaches to ‘‘low-CO2’’ cements. Cem

Concr Res 2004;34(9):1489–98.[3] Tangchirapat W, Seating T, Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K, Siripahichgorn A.

Use of waste ash from palm oil industry in concrete. Waste Manage2007;27(12):81–8.

[4] Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Herfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM. Sustainabledevelopment and climate change initiatives. Cem Concr Res 2008;38(2):115–27.

[5] Khan R, Jabbar A, Ahmad I, Khan W, Khan AN, Mirza J. Reduction inenvironmental problems using rice-husk ash in concrete. Constr Build Mater2012;30:360–5.

[6] Krammart P, Martputhorn S, Jaturapitakkul C, Ngaopisadarn V. A study ofcompressive strength of mortar made from calcium carbide residue and flyash. Res Dev J 1996;7(2):65–75.

[7] Jaturapitakkul C, Roongreung B. Cementing material from calcium carbideresidue-rice husk ash. J Mater Civ Eng 2003;15(5):470–5.

[8] Martirena JF, Middendorf B, Gehrke M, Budelmann H. Use of wastes of sugarindustry as pozzolana in lime-pozzolana binders: study of the reaction. CemConcr Res 1998;28(11):1525–36.

[9] Singh NB, Singh VD, Rai S. Hydration of bagasse ash-blended Portland cement.Cem Concr Res 2000;30(9):1485–8.

[10] Paya J, Monzo J, Borrachero MV, Diaz-Pinzon L, Ordonez LM. Sugar-canebagasse ash (SCBA): studies on its properties for reusing in concreteproduction. J Chem Technol Biotechnol 2002;77:321–5.

[11] Ganesan K, Rajagopal K, Thangavel K. Evaluation of bagasse ash assupplementary cementitious material. Cem Concr Compos 2007;29(6):515–24.

C. Rattanashotinunt et al. / Materials and Design 46 (2013) 106–111 111

[12] Rukzon S, Chindaprasirt P. Utilization of bagasse ash in high-strength concrete.Mater Des 2012;34:45–50.

[13] Cordeiro GC, Toledo Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EMR. Pozzolanic activityand filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash in Portland cement and limemortars. Cem Concr Compos 2008;30(5):410–8.

[14] Chusilp N, Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K. Utilization of bagasse ash as apozzolanic material in concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(11):3352–8.

[15] Kiattikomol K, Jaturapitakkul C, Singpiriyakij S, Chututim S. A study of groundcoarse fly ashes with different finenesses from various sources as pozzolanicmaterials. Cem Concr Compos 2001;23(4–5):335–43.

[16] Isaia GC, Gastaldini ALG, Moraes R. Physical and pozzolanic action of mineraladditions on the mechanical strength of high performance concrete. CemConcr Compos 2003;25(1):69–76.

[17] Vazquez E, Hendriks C F, Janssen G M T. Influence of mechanical grinding onthe pozzolanic activity of residual sugarcane bagasse ash. In: InternationalRILEM conference on the use of recycled materials in building and structures;2004. p. 731–740.

[18] Krammart P, Tangtermsirikul S. Properties of cement made by partiallyreplacing cement raw materials with municipal solid waste ashes and calciumcarbide waste. Constr Build Mater 2004;18(8):579–83.

[19] Yazici H. The effect of silica fume and high-volume class C fly ash onmechanical properties, chloride penetration and freeze-thaw resistance ofself-compacting concrete. Constr Build Mater 2008;22(4):456–62.

[20] Siddique R, Schutter GD, Noumowe A. Effect of used-foundry sand on themechanical properties of concrete. Constr Build Mater 2009;23(2):976–80.

[21] Haque MN, Kayali O. Properties of high-strength concrete using a fine fly ash.Cem Concr Res 1998;28(10):1445–52.

[22] Shannag MJ. High strength concrete containing natural pozzolan and silicafume. Cem Concr Compos 2000;22(6):399–406.

[23] Nassif HH, Najm H, Suksawang N. Effect of pozzolanic materials and curingmethods on the elastic modulus of HPC. Cem Concr Compos2005;27(6):661–70.

[24] Sata V, Jaturapitakkul C, Kiattikomol K. Influence of pozzolan from various by-product materials on mechanical properties of high-strength concrete. ConstrBuild Mater 2007;21(7):1589–98.

[25] Neville AM. Aggregate bond and modulus of elasticity of concrete. ACI Mater J1997;94(1):71–4.

[26] Beshr H, Almusallam AA, Maslehuddin M. Effect of coarse aggregate quality onthe mechanical properties of high strength concrete. Constr Build Mater2003;17(2):97–103.

[27] Cetin A, Carrasquillo RL. High-performance concrete: influence of coarseaggregate on mechanical properties. ACI Mater J 1998;95(3):252–61.