Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Data in Brief logoLink to Data in Brief
. 2020 Jul 3;31:105961. doi: 10.1016/j.dib.2020.105961

Experimental data on compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity properties of sustainable mortar made with high content of GGBFS and CKD combinations

Hasan Sh Majdi a, Ali Abdulhussein Shubbar b,c,⁎, Mohammed Salah Nasr d, Zainab S Al-Khafaji a,e, Hassnen Jafer c, Muhammad Abdulredha f, Zainab Al Masoodi g, Monower Sadique b, Khalid Hashim b
PMCID: PMC7347978  PMID: 32671159

Abstract

The development in the construction sector and population growth requires an increase in the consumption of construction materials, mainly concrete. Cement is the binder in concrete, so increasing cement production will increase the energy consumed, as well as in the emission of carbon dioxide. This harmful effect of the environment led to the search for alternative materials for cement, as the waste or by-products of other industries is a promising solution in this case. Among these common materials are ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) and cement kiln dust (CKD). This dataset describes the compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity of mortar consisted of high content of GGBS and CKD combinations as a partial substitute for cement (up to 80%) at the ages of 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 90 and 550 days. This dataset can help the researchers to understand the behaviour of GGBS and CKD in high replacement levels for cement during early (1 day) and later ages (550 days). According to this understanding, the authors believe that the data available here can be used to produce more environmentally friendly mortar or concrete mixtures by significantly reducing the amount of cement used by replacing it with waste or by-products of other industries.

Keywords: Cement replacement, high replacement level, compressive strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity

Specifications Table

Subject Civil engineering
Specific subject area Building Materials, Concrete Technology, Mechanical and Durability Properties
Type of data Tables, Figures and Images.
How data were acquired Laboratory Experiments
Data format Raw and Analysed
Parameters for data collection Three different percentages of GGBS and CKD combinations are replaced the cement in a high levels (as well as the reference mixture without replacement) to produce sustainable mortar.
Description of data collection Data was obtained from laboratory experiments at the ages of 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 90 and 550 days of compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity properties of the hardened mortar
Data source location Liverpool, United Kingdom
Data accessibility The data are available within this article
Related research article Shubbar, Ali Abdulhussein, Hassnen Jafer, Muhammad Abdulredha, Zainab S. Al-Khafaji, Mohammed Salah Nasr, Zainab Al Masoodi, and Monower Sadique. "Properties of cement mortar incorporated high volume fraction of GGBFS and CKD from 1 day to 550 days." Journal of Building Engineering (2020): 101327. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2020.101327
Open in a new tab

Value of the Data

  • •

    This data composed of alternative cement materials in the concrete industry for building construction.

  • •

    The information provided by this data are useful to find a significant solution to environmental problems through the re-use of industrial waste in new other applications as well as reducing the CO2 emissions that result from the cement industry.

  • •

    The data in this article is beneficial in producing sustainable mortar in which cement content is significantly reduced.

  • •

    This data helps others to understand the behaviour of hardened mortar containing high levels of GGBS and CKD during early and later ages.

1. Data Description

The dataset provided here represented the information for examining the compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) properties of the hardened mortar containing different combinations of Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) and cement Kiln Dust (CKD) (in a high volume fraction) as alternatives of cement. Four mixtures were implemented, Control (reference mix without replacement) and three other mixtures included replacing the cement (by weight) with GGBFS and CKD combinations which designated as follows: T40 (26.7% GGBFS +13.3% CKD), T60 (40% GGBFS + 20% CKD), T80 (53.3% GGBFS + 26.7% CKD). The details of these mixtures can be found in [1]. The compressive strength and UPV tests were examined at 1, 2, 3, 7, 14, 21, 28, 56, 90 and 550 days of curing. The test results for Control, T40, T60 and T80 mixtures respectively are shown in Tables 1, 2, 3 and 4 (as well as in Figs. 1, 2, Fig. 3, Fig. 4) for compressive strength and in Tables 5, 6, 7 and 8 (as well as in Figs. 5, 6, Fig. 7, Fig. 8) for UPV. More detailed information about the compressive strength and UPV data can be found in the supplementary Excel datasets and in Ref. [1].

Table 1.

Results of the compressive strength (MPa) for the Control mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 8.75 17.1 23.34 30.67 35.84 35.81 40.14 38.82 40.7 44.24
Sample 2 8.41 16.9 23.25 34.52 35.72 37.41 37.47 39.63 40.8 44.31
Sample 3 7.97 17.2 22.03 34.03 36.11 36.92 34.55 39 40.9 44.16
Sample 4 8.47 17.3 24.97 33.2 35.91 37.42 37.42 39.22 40.4 44.26
Average 8.40 17.13 23.40 33.11 35.90 36.89 37.40 39.17 40.70 44.24
Open in a new tab

Table 2.

Results of the compressive strength (MPa) for T40 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 10.51 10.22 10.91 23.21 29.33 32.27 39.11 39.23 39.12 45.21
Sample 2 9.37 11.40 11.65 22.89 28.64 33.10 37.07 38.24 40.14 44.12
Sample 3 9.61 9.96 10.39 22.73 27.60 31.64 39.06 38.17 41.30 43.60
Sample 4 9.47 9.36 10.47 23.04 26.98 31.44 37.30 38.30 40.13 43.78
Average 9.74 10.24 10.86 22.97 28.14 32.11 38.14 38.49 40.17 44.18
Open in a new tab

Table 3.

Results of the compressive strength (MPa) for T60 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 4.67 6.84 9.58 23.18 23.88 29.88 36.94 36.8 40.62 43.41
Sample 2 3.95 7.81 8.93 22.64 24.87 28.96 35.97 37.62 39.75 43.52
Sample 3 4.74 7.4 9.74 22.34 24.76 29.55 37.77 37.47 39.62 41.34
Sample 4 4.94 7.29 10.11 22.22 25.12 30.02 36.75 38.72 40.33 41.42
Average 4.58 7.34 9.59 22.60 24.66 29.60 36.86 37.65 40.08 42.42
Open in a new tab

Table 4.

Results of the compressive strength (MPa) for T80 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 3.21 6.80 8.94 22.11 23.40 25.11 26.14 33.17 33.29 34.42
Sample 2 3.22 6.41 9.40 21.80 22.14 24.66 27.11 33.28 33.17 33.12
Sample 3 3.08 7.40 8.94 21.62 21.88 26.10 25.18 32.98 33.30 33.40
Sample 4 3.08 6.70 9.40 21.44 22.11 24.12 26.12 33.19 33.33 33.16
Average 3.15 6.83 9.17 21.74 22.38 25.00 26.14 33.16 33.27 33.53
Open in a new tab

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Average compressive strength of the Control mixture.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 2

Open in a new tab

Average compressive strength of T40 mixture.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 3

Open in a new tab

Average compressive strength of T60 mixture.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 4

Open in a new tab

Average compressive strength of T80 mixture.

Table 5.

Results of the UPV (m/s) for the Control mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 3175 3891 4032 4201 4202 4292 4310 4356 4453 4478
Sample 2 3181 3922 4082 4190 4238 4298 4304 4374 4478 4490
Sample 3 3195 3912 4055 4182 4237 4310 4292 4358 4452 4480
Sample 4 3187 3910 4051 4178 4274 4292 4310 4376 4456 4502
Average 3185 3909 4055 4188 4238 4298 4304 4366 4460 4488
Open in a new tab

Table 6.

Results of the UPV (m/s) for T40 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 2718 3551 3757 3974 4104 4122 4167 4216 4229 4299
Sample 2 2735 3543 3775 3997 4110 4128 4174 4226 4232 4317
Sample 3 2738 3547 3771 4022 4115 4172 4172 4214 4224 4311
Sample 4 2750 3548 3781 3995 4110 4140 4190 4211 4229 4317
Average 2735 3547 3771 3997 4110 4141 4176 4216 4228 4311
Open in a new tab

Table 7.

Results of the UPV (m/s) for T60 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 2641 3509 3721 3984 4087 4082 4149 4191 4197 4282
Sample 2 2688 3497 3721 4000 4082 4104 4162 4196 4199 4292
Sample 3 2666 3502 3733 3992 4098 4149 4149 4188 4201 4292
Sample 4 2668 3503 3714 3992 4082 4082 4184 4182 4202 4254
Average 2666 3503 3722 3992 4087 4104 4161 4189 4200 4280
Open in a new tab

Table 8.

Results of the UPV (m/s) for T80 mixture.

1 day 2 days 3 days 7 days 14 days 21 days 28 days 56 days 90 days 550 days
Sample 1 2579 3234 3540 3934 3945 4024 4051 4072 4084 4118
Sample 2 2593 3221 3564 3899 3969 4034 4053 4073 4078 4130
Sample 3 2581 3221 3560 3924 3991 4039 4028 4074 4084 4152
Sample 4 2566 3220 3561 3912 3974 4042 4082 4074 4079 4134
Average 2580 3224 3556 3917 3970 4035 4054 4073 4081 4133
Open in a new tab

Fig. 5.

Fig. 5

Open in a new tab

Average UPV of the Control mixture.

Fig. 6.

Fig. 6

Open in a new tab

Average UPV of T40 mixture.

Fig. 7.

Fig. 7

Open in a new tab

Average UPV of T60 mixture.

Fig. 8.

Fig. 8

Open in a new tab

Average UPV of T80 mixture.

2. Experimental Design, Materials, and Methods

The main aim of using GGBFS and CKD as cement replacement materials is to reduce the environmental burden of cement manufacturing. For example, the cement industry consumes high energy as well as emits a high amount of CO2 into the atmosphere [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7]. The cement industry contributes about 7% of CO2 production worldwide [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. The laboratory work was conducted through the utilisation of different combinations of these materials in the production of mortar i.e no course aggregate was used in all mixtures. For all mixtures, the water to binder (W/B) ratio and sand to binder (S/B) ratio was fixed as 0.4 and 2.5, respectively. The GGBFS/CKD ratio in all the investigated mixtures was 2. The mortars were cast in 100 × 100 × 100 mm cubes for UPV measurements according to BS 1881-203 [14] while the prism moulds with the dimensions of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were used for compressive strength measurements according to BS EN 196-1 [15]. More data (images) about the method of mixing, preparation of samples, curing, state of samples before testing and experimental setups of the UPV and compressive strength tests are illustrated in Figs. 9 to 11.

Fig. 10.

Fig. 10

Open in a new tab

Cubes and prism samples in the moulds and curing in water after demoulding.

Fig. 9.

Fig. 9

Open in a new tab

Raw materials and mixing of components for the preparation of samples.

Fig. 11.

Fig. 11

Open in a new tab

State of samples before testing and experimental setups of the UPV and compressive strength tests.

Declaration of Competing Interest

None.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the financial support provided for this research by Al- Mustaqbal University College, Babylon, Iraq. Additionally, the laboratory support for this research provided by Liverpool John Moors University, UK is gratefully acknowledged.

Footnotes

Supplementary material associated with this article can be found, in the online version, at doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105961.

Appendix A. Supplementary materials

Supplementary Data S1

Supplementary Raw Research Data. This is open data under the CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mmc1.xml (388B, xml)

References

  • 1.Shubbar A.A., Jafer H., Abdulredha M., Al-Khafaji Z.S., Nasr M.S., Al Masoodi Z., Sadique M. Properties of cement mortar incorporated high volume fraction of GGBFS and CKD from 1 day to 550 days. Journal of Building Engineering. 2020 [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hasan Z., Nasr M., Abed M. Combined Effect of Silica Fume, and Glass and Ceramic Waste on Properties of High Strength Mortar Reinforced with Hybrid Fibers. Int. Rev. Civ. Eng.(IRECE) 2019;10(5) [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Kubba H.Z., Nasr M.S., Al-Abdaly N.M., Dhahir M.K., Najim W.N. Influence of Incinerated and Non-Incinerated waste paper on Properties of Cement Mortar. 2020. IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and EngineeringIOP Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Shubbar A.A., Sadique M., Kot P., Atherton W. Future of clay-based construction materials–A review. Construction and Building Materials. 2019;210:172–187. [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Shubbar A.A., Sadique M., Shanbara H.K., Hashim K. Advances in Sustainable Construction Materials and Geotechnical Engineering. Springer; 2020. The Development of a New Low Carbon Binder for Construction as an Alternative to Cement; pp. 205–213. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Al-Khafaji Z.S., Al Masoodi Z., Jafer H., Dulaimi A., Atherton W. The Effect Of Using Fluid Catalytic Cracking Catalyst Residue (FC3R)" As A Cement Replacement In Soft Soil Stabilisation. International Journal Of Civil Engineering And Technology (IJCIET) Volume. 2018;9:522-533. [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Nasr M.S., Hussain T.H., Najim W.N. Properties of Cement Mortar Containing Biomass Bottom Ash and Sanitary Ceramic Wastes as a Partial Replacement of Cement. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET) 2018;9(10):153–165. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Nasr M.S., Hasan Z.A., Abed M.K. Mechanical Properties of Cement Mortar Made with Black Tea Waste Ash as a Partial Replacement of Cement. Engineering and Technology Journal. 2019;37(1 Part (c) special):45–48. [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Shubbar A.A., Al-Shaer A., AlKizwini R.S., Hashim K., Al Hawesah H., Sadique M. Investigating the influence of cement replacement by high volume of GGBS and PFA on the mechanical performance of cement mortar. 2019. in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and EngineeringIOP Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Shubbar A.A., Jafer H., Dulaimi A., Hashim K., Atherton W., Sadique M. The development of a low carbon binder produced from the ternary blending of cement, ground granulated blast furnace slag and high calcium fly ash: An experimental and statistical approach. Construction and Building Materials. 2018;187:1051–1060. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Shubbar A., Jafer H.M., Dulaimi A., Atherton W., Al-Rifaie A. The Development of a Low Carbon Cementitious Material Produced from Cement, Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag and High Calcium Fly Ash. International Journal of Civil, Environmental, Structural, Construction and Architectural Engineering. 2017;11(7):905–908. [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Nasr M.S., Shubbar A.A., Abed Z.A.-A.R., Ibrahim M.S. Properties of eco-friendly cement mortar contained recycled materials from different sources. Journal of Building Engineering. 2020 [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Shubbar A.A., Al-Jumeily D., Aljaaf A.J., Alyafei M., Sadique M., Mustafina J. Investigating the Mechanical and Durability Performance of Cement Mortar Incorporated Modified Fly Ash and Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as Cement Replacement Materials. 2019. in 2019 12th International Conference on Developments in eSystems Engineering (DeSE)IEEE. [Google Scholar]
  • 14.BSI . LONDON; BSI: 1986. Part 203: Recommendations for measurement of velocity of ultrasonic pulses in concrete. BS 1881-203. [Google Scholar]
  • 15.BSI . British Standard Inistitute; London: 2005. Methods of testing cement–Part 1: Determination of strength. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supplementary Data S1

Supplementary Raw Research Data. This is open data under the CC BY license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

mmc1.xml (388B, xml)

Articles from Data in Brief are provided here courtesy of Elsevier

RESOURCES