Experimental Study and Comparative Analysis of Fly Ash, GGBS, and Silica Fume in Nominal Concrete and Ternary Blended M25 Concrete

Notice

This is an unedited manuscript accepted for publication and provided as an Article in Press for early access at the author’s request. The article will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and galley proof review before final publication. Please be aware that errors may be identified during production that could affect the content. All legal disclaimers of the journal apply.

Year : 2026 | Volume : 14 | 03 | Page :
    By

    Ashok Kumar Suluguru,

  • N. Manikanda Devarajan,

  • Angadi Rani Swaruparani,

  • Selvamani Indrajith,

  • D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy,

  1. Associate Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, Malla Reddy University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  2. Associate Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Malla Reddy (MR) Deemed to be University, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  3. Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science Engineering, Malla Reddy Engineering College for Women, Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  4. Associate Professor, Department of Electronics and Communication Engineering, Malla Reddy Vishwavidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Hyderabad, Telangana, India
  5. Associate Professor, Department of Computer Science Engineering, Malla Reddy College of Engineering & Technology, Hyderabad, Telangana, India

Abstract

This study examines the effects of partially substituting 30% of cement by weight with ternary supplemental cementitious materials (TSCMs) with mix proportions of M1, M2, and M3. These materials include fly ash (10%,15%,15% in M1, M2, and M3), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) (10%,8%,10% in M1, M2, and M3), and silica fume SF (15%,10%,5% in M1, M2, and M3) on the mechanical and durability properties of M25 grade concrete as a sustainable construction solution. Because of ongoing pozzolanic processes, the ternary blended mix proportions, particularly mix M3, demonstrated enhanced workability (slump of 96mm) and compressive strength (38.6MPa) at 28 days, whereas increases in flexural strength (4.8MPa) suggested a denser microstructure with fewer voids. Additionally, water absorption tests showed that the ternary mixes performed better in terms of durability, especially M3. With 2.81% due to decreased permeability. The findings demonstrated that ternary blended mixtures outperformed nominal concrete in terms of workability, strength, and durability. In terms of water absorption, flexural strength, and compressive strength, Mix M3 fared better than all other mixes. Overall, the findings show that using fly ash, GGBS, and silica fume in combination to partially replace cement not only lessens the impact on the environment but also improves the strength and durability of concrete, making ternary blended concrete an efficient and sustainable building material.

Keywords: M25 grade concrete, Ternary blended concrete, Supplementary cementitious materials, Fly ash, Ground granulated blast furnace slag, Silica fume

How to cite this article:
Ashok Kumar Suluguru, N. Manikanda Devarajan, Angadi Rani Swaruparani, Selvamani Indrajith, D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Experimental Study and Comparative Analysis of Fly Ash, GGBS, and Silica Fume in Nominal Concrete and Ternary Blended M25 Concrete. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(03):-.
How to cite this URL:
Ashok Kumar Suluguru, N. Manikanda Devarajan, Angadi Rani Swaruparani, Selvamani Indrajith, D. Chandra Sekhar Reddy. Experimental Study and Comparative Analysis of Fly Ash, GGBS, and Silica Fume in Nominal Concrete and Ternary Blended M25 Concrete. Journal of Polymer & Composites. 2026; 14(03):-. Available from: https://journals.stmjournals.com/jopc/article=2026/view=242474


References

  1. K. Mehta, “Reducing the environmental impact of concrete.” ACI Concrete International, 23(10), 61–66. 2001.
  2. Thomas, M. H. Shehata, S. G. Shashiprakash, D. S. Hopkins, and K. Cail, “Use of ternary cementitious systems containing silica fume and fly ash in concrete.” Cement and Concrete Research, 29(8), 1207–1214. 1999.
  3. Siddique, R., and Khan, M.I, Supplementary Cementing Materials. Springer Berlin. 2011.
  4. M. Malhotra, and P. K. Mehta, High-performing, high-volume fly ash concrete. Supplemental Cementing Materials for Sustainable Development Inc. 2002.
  5. G. Papadakis , “Effect of fly ash on Portland cement systems: Part I – Low-calcium fly ash.” Cement & Concrete Research, 30(10): 1647-1654. 2000.
  6. Shi, C., Krivenko, P. V., and Roy, D, Alkali-Activated Cements and Concretes. Taylor & Francis.
  7. Ganesh, P. and Murthy, A. R. (2018). “Performance of ternary blended concrete incorporating fly ash, GGBS, and silica fume.” Construction and Building Materials 180: 506-516. 2006.
  8. Ramezanianpour, A.A., and Malhotra, V. M, “Effect of curing on strength and permeability of concretes incorporating SCMs.” Cement and Concrete Composites, 17(2), 125-133. 1995.
  9. Rao, G.A, “Development of strength with age of mortars containing silica fume.” Cement and ConcreteResearch,33(8),1207-1211. 2003.
  10. Kumar, S., and Gupta, R, “Mechanical and durability properties of concrete containing fly ash, GGBS, and silica fume.” International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 7(6), 30–38. 2016.
  11. ASTM C618: Standard Specification for Fly Ash and Natural Pozzolans. ASTM International.
  12. ASTM C989 Standard Specification for Slag Cement (GGBS). ASTM International.
  13. ASTM C1240. Standard Specification for Silica Fume Used in Cementitious Mixtures. ASTM International.
  14. Zhang, M.H., and Malhotra, V.M, “High-performance concrete incorporating silica fume and fly ash.” ACI Materials Journal, 92(6), 629–636. 1995.
  15. Papadakis, V. G., S. Antiohos, and S. Tsimas “Supplementary cementing materials in concrete – Part II: durability.” Cement & Concrete Research, 32(10), 1525–1532. 2002.

 

Ahead of Print Subscription Original Research
Volume 14
03
Received 30/03/2026
Accepted 07/04/2026
Published 01/05/2026
Publication Time 32 Days
1

Login


My IP

PlumX Metrics