Cited by 5Concrete and Cement Materials ResearchInnovative concrete reinforcement materialsConcrete Properties and Behavior

The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.

Experimental Research on Sustained Concrete with the Partially Substitutions of GGBS, Fly ash and Silica Fume as a Cementitious Material

Open access
Cheruvu, Rajasekhar, Rao, B Kameswara, Reddy, M Achyutha Kumar·2025·Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences

Abstract

The aim of this study is to figure whether adding more cementitious elements like fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS), and silica fume impacts the strength and durability of concrete. Concrete samples were put together with water-to-binder (w/b) ratios of 0.3, 0.4, and 0.5 after 28, 56, and 90 days of curing. After that, these ratios were tested before being employed. After 90 days, when 60% of the cement was replaced with fly ash at a water-to-binder (w/b) ratio of 0.3, the compressive strength reached 55.56 MPa. This is in contrast to the compressive strength of 32.89 MPa at 28 days. A 20% GGBS replacement also made the strength go up from 47.11 MPa after 28 days to 60.44 MPa after 90 days at the end of the trial. Adding 4% silica fume to each batch always made the strength grow stronger. The water sorptivity tests that were conducted to determine the durability performance showed that there was a substantial increase. The mixture with 20% GGBS and 4% silica fume, which had a water-to-binder (w/b) ratio of 0.4, had the lowest sorptivity value, which was 0.015 mm/min⁰·⁵. The study shows that alternative materials lower water permeability, structural integrity, and carbon emissions, promoting sustainable development. However, it knows that the building industry must source carefully and organize logistically to protect the environment.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5614/j.eng.technol.sci.2025.57.5.10

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 69 · Cited by 5

Metadata

Authors
Cheruvu, R., Rao, B. K., & Reddy, M. A. K.
Affiliations
Koneru Lakshmaiah Education Foundation (IN)
Venue
Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences
Published
2025-10-08
Volume
57
Issue
5
Pages
713-734
ISSN
  • 1978-3051 (ISSN-L)
  • 2338-5502
  • 2337-5779
OpenAlex
W4414967672
Cited by
5
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 5
FWCI
1.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Engineering and Technological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete and Cement Materials Research
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Innovative concrete reinforcement materials
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Civil and Structural Engineering › Concrete Properties and Behavior
Keywords
sustainable concrete, ground granulated blast furnace slag, fly ash, silica fume, partial cement replacement, compressive strength, water sorptivity, water-to-binder ratio, concrete durability, water permeability, carbon emission reduction

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review