UTILIZATION OF GGBFS AS CEMENT SUBSTITUTE TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT

Authors

  • Ranti Hidayawanti
  • Soetjipto Soewono
  • Yusnita Rahayu
  • FahdunIbnu Wachid
  • Rony Panca Adi Widodo

Keywords:

GGBFS, Cement, , Concrete, , Compressive Strength, Production Cost

Abstract

The rapid advancement in construction development is associated with numerous positive and negative impacts. One of the negative impacts is the decrease in natural resources used in cement production, such as limestone. Over the past few years, several kinds of preliminary studies and experiments have been carried out to improve the quality of concrete in terms of additives additions, treatments, improving quality of materials, and use of industrial waste as a reinforcement mixture. However, this study uses waste from burning iron, namely Grand Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) or cement slag, as a substitute because it has similar properties as cement, C3S2, increases elasticity, and reduces the heat of hydration. The substitution of fine aggregate with GGBFS is 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75% of the volume cement. From these variations, the most optimal is used to reduce the production cost of construction projects in accordance with initial setting time, compressive strength, linear regression, and slag activity index. The result showed that initial setting time increases with a variation of 75% for the optimum compressive strength test GGBFS. Furthermore, linear regression reaches a value of 0.9781, with a categorized strong relationship and applicable slag index activity values of grades 80, 100, and 120 approaching OPC 100. GGBFS does not only have a significant substitute for cement in concrete rather, it also reduces production cost by 3% and environmentally friendly.

Downloads

Published

2021-10-30

How to Cite

Ranti Hidayawanti, Soetjipto Soewono, Yusnita Rahayu, FahdunIbnu Wachid, & Rony Panca Adi Widodo. (2021). UTILIZATION OF GGBFS AS CEMENT SUBSTITUTE TO REDUCE PRODUCTION COST OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECT. GEOMATE Journal, 21(86), 9–16. Retrieved from https://geomatejournal.com/geomate/article/view/23

Most read articles by the same author(s)