Apprehensions about Use of PPC:

1. PPC requires more water for workability. This increases water cement ratio
affecting final strength. So, more cement content is needed to maintain
strength. So, the economy expected is somewhat neutralised.
(13th Oct 2005, 1928 hours
Dear SEFIans,

This is with reference to Shri Daljeet's query on water for normal consistency
for OPC and PPC

PPC may require more water for normal consistency compared to OPC.

The above is not a serious problem and during actual mix design; use of suitable
SP and its dosage besides adjustments in proportions of other ingredients would be
sufficient.

W/C ratio of 0.32 is feasible with due attention to SP and its dosage besides other
ingredients during mix design operations. However, mix proportions for a given
concrete requirements of workability and strength for PPC is likely have to be
different from that for OPC.

* We need not finalise the selection of cement from tests only on

pastes; necessarily we have to think of mortar and concrete level
studies.

With regards to all

N P Rajamane
Scientist, SERC, CSIR, Chennai 600113)
2. Increased initial water demand for workability makes concrete porous and so,
less durable.
(As per actual mix design the density of PPC comes around 2350 Kg/Cum The
Specific Gravity of PPC is 2.80, Aggregates 2.65 in one typical mix design
ratio is 1:2:4 thus approximately 14% cement contents and for hydration of
cement 0.26 w/c is required the calculations could be some thing like this
Cement 0.14 2800 392
Water 0.03 1000 30
Aggregates 0.82 2650 2173
Voidless 1 2595
As per Site 2385
%age voids 8%
Using admixtures it can be brought down to 4-5%)
3. The pH value for PPC paste is lower due to which passivity around embedded
steel is reduced making it prone to corrosion. (The pH value for PPC concrete
is just 11.9 against 13 for OPC concrete, the required value for passivisation
around steel is 11.5, so margin is lower).
(IT IS TRUE THAT THE MIRGIN IS LOW)
4. Standard Specification/procedures are not available for mix design with PPC.
The procedures available for OPC do not give desired results and also, yield of
concrete is somewhat lower in PPC with same mix design.
(IT IS TRUE EVEN THERE IS NO LAB TO TEST AMONIA
CONTENMINATION IN PPC CEMENT)
5. The other specifications for Quality Control, Crack Widths, Stripping Times,
Creep Characteristics, Relaxation of Embedded Steel, Shrinkage, Coefficient
for Thermal Expansion, etc. need proper reconciliation with respect to PPC.
(BEING COMPARATIVELY NEW MATERIAL IT IS TRUE THAT THERE
IS NOT ENOUGH AUTHENTICATED LITRATURE AVAILABLE)
6. Characteristics of PPC Cements obtained with different processes ( mixing of
Flyash at time of grinding of clinker, mixing of Flyash with cement proper,
origin of Flyash etc) are different. Procedures need to be evolved for Field
Control.
(IT IS TRUE THE QUALITY OF FLY ASH VARIES )
7. Practically, rate of gain of strength between 7 days and 28 day age has been
slow compared to OPC. Cubes strengths are OK for 7day testing but “fail” in
28 day testing.
( I HAVE NEVER FACED SUCH PROBLEM SINCE THE PPC
AVAILABLE IN MARKET CLAIM 53-55 MPA WHERE AS CODAL NEED
ISONLY 33 MPA THE CHANCES OF FAILURE ARE VERY BLEAK. )
8. PPC contains substantially more radio-active material than OPC, creating
health hazards due to radio active decay, and also early disintegration of
concrete.
(THIS IS VERY NEW ISSUE IT ALL DEPENDS UPTON THE TYPE OF
FUEL/COAL BEING USED)