EFFECT OF FLY ASH AND WASTE GLASS AS PARTIAL

REPLACEMENT FOR CEMENT AND COARSE

AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE

A Thesis Proposal Submitted to the Faculty of Civil

Engineering of the Isabela State University
City of Ilagan

In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree in

Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering

By:

Geraldo, Daniel G.
Martin, Remy Kate P.
Tacderan, Rosemarie E.
Terrenal, Marvill B.
Ulnagan, Shairyl S.

Engr. Robert R. Dancel, ME-CE, MEE

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT i
Adviser

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT i
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page..............................................................................................................................i
Acknowledgement..............................................................................................................iii
CHAPTER 1 (The Problem and Its Background)
Introduction.............................................................................................................1
Statement of the Problem.........................................................................................1
Objectives of the Study............................................................................................2
Significance of the Study.........................................................................................2
Scope and Delimitation of the Study.......................................................................3
Definition of Terms..................................................................................................3
CHAPTER 2 (Review of Related Literature)
Fly Ash as a Partial Replacement for Cement in Concrete......................................5
Properties of Fly Ash and its Significance to Concrete...........................................5
Types of Fly Ash......................................................................................................6
Potential of Fly Ash as a Partial Replacement of Cement in Concrete…………....7
Fineness of Fly Ash..................................................................................................8
Waste Glass as a Partial Replacement for Coarse Aggregate in Concrete…………9
Potential of Waste Glass as a Partial Replacement for Coarse
Aggregate in Concrete……………………………………………………………..9
Window Glass.........................................................................................................11
CHAPTER 3 (Conceptual and Theoretical Framework)
Conceptual Framework...........................................................................................12
Theoretical Framework...........................................................................................13
CHAPTER 4 (Methodology)
Materials.................................................................................................................14
Procedure...............................................................................................................14
Research Design.....................................................................................................16
Variables.................................................................................................................17
iii
 Statistical Treatment...............................................................................................17
Schedule..................................................................................................................17
References………………………………………………………………………………...18

iv
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The success of this study required the assistance of several people. Without them,
the researchers may not achieve their goals in conducting this study. The researchers
would like to thank the following individuals for their assistance and valuable guidance
in completing this study.

To Engr. Robert R. Dancel, Professor, Isabela State University, for his steadfast
drive to molding the researchers into exceptional students in the field of engineering
research by providing bright ideas and helpful remarks for the progress of this study,

The researchers' parents, for their encouragement, support, and morale boost in
pursuing this, as well as for providing financial assistance.

Finally, thanks to everyone who helped and provided excellent ideas and advice.
This study would not be possible without the help of classmates and close
friends. The researchers would like to express their heartfelt appreciation.
Above all, we thank Jesus Christ, our Lord and Savior, for providing us with the
wisdom, strength, knowledge, and abilities to pursue this study.

iii
 CHAPTER 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction
Concrete is the most widely used construction material in the world with an annual
production of about 10 billion tons at the global level (Bonnet et al., 2019). The materials needed
in producing concrete such as cement and aggregate calls for a higher supply as the increase in
population, and fast urbanization took place.
Cement manufacturing industry contribute over 4 billion tons of carbon dioxide every
year which is 8% of global carbon dioxide emission (Andrew and Le Quere, 2018). Likewise,
Aggregate is mined from the earth, either dug out of pits or blasted out of quarries wherein it
disrupts the existing movement of surface water and groundwater, interrupting natural water
recharge which led to a loss of existing animal wildlife, and loss of biodiversity as plants and
aquatic habitats are destroyed (Winfield and Taylor, 2016).
Various initiatives have been employed in response to the mitigation of the effects of
cement production and aggregate mining. The use of fly ash as a supplementary cementitious
material in concrete has been known almost since the start of the last century wherein the use of
fly ash as a partial replacement for cement have been conducted over the past decades. The last
60 years has seen the use of fly ash in concrete grow dramatically with close to 15 million tons
used in concrete (Thomas, 2017). The utilization of fly ash in Portland cement concrete (PCC)
has many benefits and improves concrete performance in both the fresh and hardened state. Fly
ash use in concrete improves the workability of plastic concrete, and the strength and durability
of hardened concrete. Fly ash use is also cost effective. When fly ash is added to concrete, the
amount of Portland cement may be reduced (Case, 2014).
Another encouraging track is to use glass waste to concrete (Mekki et al., 2018). Various
studies on the use of waste glasses as a partial substitute for fine and coarse aggregates have been
conducted over the past decades. (Ucol-Ganiron Jr., 2015), in his study titled, "Window Glass
Waste for Non-load Bearing Walls," stated that glass wastes in construction had proven their
potential for various applications such as asphalt, pipe beddings, backfills, and filler aggregate.
The mechanical properties of wastle glass aggregates are comparable to other aggregates in
terms of strength and durability (Zhang and Zhao, 2014; Limbachiya et al., 2016). It has been

1
demonstrated through various studies that the use of glass as aggregates in concrete is a
sustainable avenue for massive repurposing (Liu et al., 2014).
The researchers aim to investigate the significant performance of fly ash and waste glass
as a partial replacement for cement and coarse aggregate in concrete respectively.

Conceptual Framework

Normal concrete The effect in the

specimens compressive strength
Concrete specimens with Universal of concrete with fly
Testing ash and waste glass as
25%, 30%, 35% fly
Machine for partial replacement
ash and 15%, 10%, 5%,
compressive for cement and
waste glass as
strength. coarse aggregate.
replacement for coarse
aggregate and
cement.

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Figure 3 encompasses the flow of study conducted by the researchers. The initial
step of the study was to prepare concrete specimens with a mixture that of a normal
concrete, and specimens with 25%, 30%, 35% fly ash and 15%, 10%, 5%, waste glass as
replacement for coarse aggregate and cement. These specimens were tested using
Universal Test Machine to assess their compressive strength and their efficacy as partial
substitute to coarse aggregate and cement in concrete.

Statement of the Problem

This paper aims to investigate the potential of waste glass and fly ash as a partial
substitute for coarse aggregates and cement of concrete and to compare the compressive strength

2
of concrete with different percentage of fly ash and waste glass and of normal concrete.
In addition, the study aims to respond to the following:
1.) What is the mass of the control group and the experimental group?
2.) What is the compressive strength and flexural strength of the following
specimen?
a. Control Specimen
b. 25% fly ash, 15% waste glass
c. 30% fly ash, 10% waste glass
d. 35% fly ash, 5% waste glass
3.) Is there a significant difference between the control specimen and the
experimental specimen in terms of mass, compressive strength, and flexural
strength?

Hypothesis
There is no significant difference between the control and experimental group in terms of
mass and compressive strength.

Significance of the Study

This study serves as a benchmark for the engineering industry to adapt sustainability to
the rapid phase of innovation, thus, solving the emerging construction concerns connected to the
process of building infrastructures that supports maintain the economy and sustainable
environment which gives a great impact to the future generations. It also0020serves as a starting
point for future researchers who wish to engage in related research using other applications to
enhance the probable uses of waste glass and fly ash in structural applications.

Scope and Delimitation

This study mainly focuses on determining the effect of fly ash and waste glass as partial
replacement for cement and coarse aggregate in concrete.
This study is limited to the assessment of the mass, compressive strength, and flexural
strength of concrete with waste glass and fly ash as coarse aggregate and cement, respectively.
Only crushed plain-surface glass window with a thickness raging from 5mm to 10mm

3
that passed through US standard sieve size Number 1 (1" or 25.4mm) while retained to sieve size
Number 5 (3/8" or 9.5mm) and type F fly ash were used.
The researchers used cylindrical concrete specimens (6 inches in diameter and 12 inches
in height) and beam concrete specimens (6 inches in height, 6 inches in width, and 21 inches in
length) which were prepared and cured in accordance with ASTM C31/C31M. These specimens
are then tested using the Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens (ASTM C39/C39M-21) and Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength
Beam Concrete Specimens (ASTM C78-09). Digital weighing scale were used to determine the
mass of the specimens.

Definition of Terms
Class F Fly Ash - type of Fly Ash that used in the study. It provides more strength compared to
Class C Fly Ash due to its higher silica content and lessens permeability of concrete in the long
run, improving long-term durability and resistance to various forms of deterioration.
Concrete cylinder molds - a 6 inches diameter by 12 inches height molder used in making
cylindrical specimens.
Fly ash - a very fine, powdery material composed mostly of silica made from the burning of
finely ground coal in a boiler. It is a material used for the partial substitution of cement in
concrete. The said material is obtained from Pozzolanic Philippines Incorporation.
Ordinary Portland Cement - a fine powder that when mixed with water becomes the binding
material that holds aggregates together in concrete.
Tamping Rod – a 16mm diameter deformed bar used to eliminate air voids and excess air in
concrete when making cylindrical and beam specimens in the study.
Waste glass - plain surfaced glass material obtained from a local glass shop used in the partial
substitution of coarse aggregates.

4
 CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Mass

Table 5: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank of Cylindrical Specimens for Control Group
and Experimental Group in Terms of Mass
Concrete Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Mean Standard Rank
Designatio (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) Deviation
n (SD)
C0 13.556 13.866 13.701 13.70767 0.024 1
C25-15 13.133 13.866 13.543 13.514 0.135 4
C30-10 13.972 13.417 13.652 13.68033 0.078 3
C35-5 13.794 13.866 13.632 13.764 0.014 2

In examining the results presented in Table 5, the highest cylindrical specimen mass was
in C0 (Mean: 13.70767; SD: 0.024; Rank: 1) while the lowest was in C25-15 (Mean: 13.543;
SD: 0.135; Rank: 4). The low standard deviation indicates that the data are clustered around the
mean. The varying percentages of fly ash and crushed waste glass aggregates affect mass,
according to the mean score.

Table 6: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank of Rectangular Beam Specimens for Control
Group and Experimental Group in Terms of Mass
Concrete Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Mean Standard Rank
Designatio (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg) Deviation
n (SD)
C0 28.89 28.144 28.646 28.46 0.149 4
C25-15 28.492 28.853 28.224 28.523 0.1 1
C30-10 28.357 28.596 28.587 28.513 0.018 2
C35-5 28.694 28.401 28.309 28.468 0.04 3

The results of data showed in Table 6 states that the highest rectangular beam specimen
mass was in C25-15 ((Mean: 28.523; SD: 0.1; Rank: 1) while the lowest was in C0 (Mean:

5
28.46; SD: 0.149; Rank: 4). The low standard deviation indicates that the data are clustered
around the mean. The varying percentages of fly ash and crushed waste glass aggregates affect
mass, according to the mean score.

Compression

Table 7: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank of Cylindrical Specimens for Control Group
and Experimental Group in Terms of Compressive Strength
Concrete Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Mean Standard Rank
Designatio (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Deviation
n (SD)
C0 18.7 18.4 18.9 18.67 0.063 1
C25-15 14.5 14.9 14.6 14.67 0.043 4
C30-10 15.4 15.8 15.2 15.47 0.093 3
C35-5 16.3 16.5 16.1 16.3 0.04 2

The results presented in Table 7 show that C0 (Mean: 21.467; SD: 0.023; Rank: 1) scored
the highest compressive strength, whereas C25-15 (Mean: 15.3; SD: 0.05; Rank: 6) yielded the
lowest. The data indicates that the amount of crushed recycled glass aggregates substitute has an
impact on compressive strength.

Flexural

Table 6: Mean, Standard Deviation, and Rank of Rectangular Beam Specimens for Control
Group and Experimental Group in Terms of Flexural Strength
Concrete Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Mean Standard Rank
Designatio (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) (MPa) Deviation
n (SD)
C0 3.3 3.6 3.4 3.433 0.023 1
C25-15 1.8 1.8 1.9 1.833 0.003 4
C30-10 2.5 2.3 2.7 2.5 0.04 3
C35-5 3.1 3.1 2.9 3.03 0.013 2

6
Table 7. One-way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) of Control Group and Experimental
Group according to Mass, Compressive Strength, and Flexural Strength
Test F-Value P-value F-critical Significance Interpretation
Level
Cylindrical Specimen 0.552 0.661 4.066 0.05 Not Significant
Mass
Rectangular Beam 0.039 0.989 4.066 0.05 Not Significant
Mass
Compressive 72 3.95x10-6 4.066 0.05 Significant
Strength
Flexural 426.079 3.67x10-9 4.066 0.05 Significant
Strength