Mô hình sự phát triển cường độ của vật liệu cường độ thấp có kiểm soát

55 
Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng Số Đặc Biệt
Journal of Science of Lac Hong University
Special issue (11/2017), pp. 55-59
Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng
Số đặc biệt (11/2017), tr. 55-59
STRENGTH MODEL OF SOIL-BASED CLSM USING STAINLESS 
STEEL REDUCING SLAG BLENDED-CEMENT
Mô hình sự phát triển cường độ của vật liệu cường độ thấp có kiểm soát
Duc-Hien Le1, Khanh-Hung Nguyen2
1leduchien@tdt.edu.vn, 2nguyenkhanhhung@lhu.edu.vn
1 Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc Thang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam;
2Lac Hong University, Dong Nai Province, Vietnam
Đến tòa soạn: 15/07/2017; Chấp nhận đăng: 28/07/2017
Tóm tắt. Bài báo này nghiên cứu việc sử dụng xỉ thép không gi (SSRS) trong việc thay thế xi măng để sản xuất vật liệu cường độ
thấp có kiểm soát (CLSM). Cốt liệu chính của hỗn hợp CLSM được hình thành từ cát song và đất đào theo tỷ lệ theo thể tích 6:4. 
Tổng cộng có 12 hỗn hợp vữa được tạo ra khi thay đổi tỷ lệ xi măng thay thế lần lượt là 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% và tỷ lệ nước/chất 
kết dính 3.4, 3.6, và 3.8. Trong khi đó, khối lượng chất kết dính được giữ cố định 100 kg/m3. Cường độ chịu nén của các mẫu được 
thí nghiệm xác định ở các độ tuổi khác nhau. Kết quả cho thấy, tỷ lệ xỉ thay thế và tỷ lệ nước/ chất kết dính có ảnh hưởng đáng kể
đến cường độ chịu nén của mẫu. Đồng thời, dựa trên kết quả thực nghiệm, các tác giả đã thiết lập thành công mô hình sự phát 
triển cường độ chịu nén của vữa CLSM theo thời gian.
Từ khóa: Vật liệu cường độ tháp có kiểm soát (CLSM); Xi măng thay thế; Độ linh động; Cường độ chịu nén; Khả năng đào
Abstract. This paper deals with using stainless steel reducing slag (SSRS), a byproduct generated from stainless steel making 
process, as a cement substitute in production of soil-based controlled low-strength material (CLSM). In the CLSM mixture, surplus 
soil and river sand were blended well together with a sand-soil proportion of 6:4 by volume in order to produce fine aggregate. 
Totally, twelve mixtures were prepared for experiment when we changed in turn percentages of Portland cement replacement with
SSRS of 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% by weight and the water-to-binder ratio of 3.4, 3.6, and 3.8. Meanwhile, the binder content in 
each mixture was fixed at 100 kg/m3. Compressive strength of the CLSM was experimentally investigated at various curing ages. 
It was revealed that SSRS substitution level and water-binder ratio have a great effect on the compressive strength. In addition, 
an analytical model for predicting compressive strength of the CLSM from one to 56 days has been developed with high reliability.
Keywords: Controlled low-strength material (CLSM); Cement substitution; Flowability; Compressive strength; Excavatability
1. INTRODUCTION
Recently, controlled low-strength material (CLSM) has 
been popularly used in construction for backfill applications 
instead of granulated compacting soil. It is also known as 
other terms, such as flowable fill, plastic soil-cement, and 
unshrinkable fill [1]. High capacity of self-compacting/-
leveling in fresh, and almost no settlement after hardening 
are remarkable characteristics for this material. Cement, fine 
aggregate, and water are common constituents for CLSM 
mixtures. In spite of being similar to concrete in production, 
CLSM is not concrete and does not usually consider as a 
structure material [2]. According to the ACI Committee 
229R [1], CLSM has a compressive strength of 8.3 MPa or 
less. Previous studies have recommended that if future 
excavation is desired its strength should be less than 1.034 
MPa [3, 4]. With a noticeably low compressive strength 
requirement, various non-standard or waste materials have 
been successfully employed for CLSM production such as 
industrial byproducts, foundry sand, rubber tires [4-7]. This 
feature would be a major benefit for CLSM applications, 
leading to reduce the overall project cost, save natural 
materials for next generation. Over the past decades, it has 
been reported that residual soil after pipeline excavation 
could be reused as an alternative fine constituent in 
production of CLSM, which is effectively used as a backfill 
material around buried pipelines [8, 9]. Chen and Chang [10]
have provided a ready-mixed soil material (RMSM), a kind 
of cementitious soil slurry with its compressive strength 
lying between CLSM and soil cement material. Their 
research pointed out that excavated soil from different site 
projects would be acceptable for making RMSM after an 
adequate process of treatments. Moreover, Vipulanadan et 
al. [11] indicated that mixing clayey soil and foundry sand 
could form fine aggregate for producing CLSM. However, it 
should be noted that not all of excavated soils are considered 
as a source for CLSM. The ACI 229R recommends that silty 
sand containing up to 20% fines constituent, passing the No. 
200 sieve of ASTM D6193 [12], can be acceptable for 
CLSM making, whereas soil with clay fines may cause an 
incomplete mixing as a result of soils’ stickiness. As an 
attempt of waste soil consumption, previous studies have 
reported that combination of sand with unused soil was 
expected to improve the material grading. Wu and Lee [13]
employed surplus clay in CLSM production for subgrade 
material, but their proposed mixtures consumed a dramatic 
amount of cement (above 300 kg/m3). More lately, Sheen et 
al. [14, 15] have studied on CLSM containing different sand 
to soil proportions and claimed that the higher soil content in 
mixtures, the lower water is required for equivalent 
flowability.
On the other hand, the process of stainless steel 
production generates a large quantity of waste from melting 
scraps in plants. Approximately, producing each three tons 
of stainless steel will create one tone of waste [16]. Stainless 
steel reducing slag (SSRS) discharges from reducing 
condition of basic refining process, called as secondary steel 
making operation. In comparison with ground granulated 
blast furnace slag (GGBFS), generated from iron making, 
alloy steel slag contains several toxic ingredients such as 
chromium, lead, nickel, cadmium, which would be harmful 
for not only environment, but also human health [17, 18]. 
Therefore, it is necessary to treat them prior to their 
applications or removal. Chemical analysis reveals that 
stainless steel slag is mainly a compound of several metal 
Lê Đức Hiển, Nguyễn Khánh Hùng
 56 Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng Số Đặc Biệt
oxides (e.g., CaO, SiO2, and Al2O3), which is similar to 
GGBFS. In addition, literature observation showed that 
stainless steel reducing slag is highly variable in chemical 
composition [18]. Generally, the CaO and Al2O3 contents are 
found to be higher than those of other slag, whereas the FeO 
or Fe2O3 is observed to be much less [16]. In practice, a large 
quantity of steel making slag has been usually employed in 
production of aggregates for road pavement or concrete 
purposes, and in fertilizer production [19, 20]. Lately, 
however, there has been a potential application of these 
wastes as a hydraulic supplementary after relevant 
treatments [17, 19, 21]. 
The present study is addressed toward providing strength
model of an environment-friendly and low-cost CLSM using 
both SSRS and Portland cement as combined binder and
surplus soil as fine constituent. The findings derived from the 
research are expected to contribute a deep understanding and 
corrected usage of hazardous and excavating wastes as 
recycled sources that is a beneficial solution in making green 
building materials.
2. LABORATORY STUDIES
2.1 Materials used and mix-proportion
The SSRS used in this study has the specific gravity of 
2.84 and the specific surface area of 4515 cm2/g, Blaine. It 
was obtained form Lihwa Corp. (Taiwan). Ordinary Type I 
Portland cement (OPC) conformed to ASTM C150 [22] with 
the specific gravity of 3.15 and specific surface area of 3851
cm2/g was used in mixtures. The chemical and physical 
properties of the SSRS and OPC were shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Chemical and physical properties of OPC and SSRS
Analysis results OPC, Type I SSRS
§ Chemical analysis (%)
Silicon dioxide, SiO2
Aluminum oxide, Al2O3
Ferric oxide, FeO/Fe2O3
Calcium oxide, CaO
Magnesium oxide, MgO
Sulfur trioxide, SO3
Potassium oxide, K2O
Sodium oxide, Na2O
Titanium oxide, TiO2
Loss of ignition, L.O.I
20.87
4.56
3.44
63.14
2.82
2.06
-
-
-
2.30
22.97
4
0.08
51.26
8.1
-
-
-
0.09
-
§ Physical properties
Fineness (cm2/g)
Specific gravity
3851
3.15
4551
2.84
Fine aggregate was formed by well mixing concrete sand 
and surplus soil together in order to desirably improve the 
distribution of particles. The soil was obtained from a 
construction site (after eliminating almost organic 
substances) where the proposed CLSM is expected to use as 
a backfilled material for basement wall. Physical test shows 
that the collected surplus soil was a sandy-clayey soil, brown
in color, and had the liquid limit (LL) and plastic index (PI) 
of 22 and 2.3, respectively. Also, its fine ingredient (passing 
No. 200 sieve) was found to be nearly 11% and was 
classified as a SP-SM soil (poorly graded sand with silt) in 
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System
(USCS) [23]. The excavated soil used in the work was dried 
in air condition to evaporate majority of water content before 
use. Results of the sieve analysis of materials were plotted in
Fig. 1. Fineness modulus of the sand, soil, and combination 
were 2.60, 1.24, and 2.06, respectively.
The sand to soil proportion was chosen at a predetermined 
ratio of 6:4. The goal of mix design for the proposed CLSM 
is expected to achieve the essential requirements of 
excavatable CLSM with hand tools, commonly expressed in 
term of the 28-day unconfined compressive strength being 
less than 1.034 MPa [4, 8, 24]. The experimental work was 
conducted on three mix groups, namely M34, M36 and M38, 
corresponding to three levels of water-to-binder ratio (w/b), 
e.g. 3.4, 3.6, and 3.8, respectively. Moreover, the binder 
(OPC and SSRS) dosage was fixed at 100 kg/m3 for each 
mixture (about 5% of total mixture’s weight). In each mix 
group, SSRS substituted for OPC with various ratios, such as 
0% (reference), 10%, 20%, and 30%, by weight.
Fig. 1 Grain-size distribution of the sand, soil and 
combination.
2.2 Specimen preparation and testing procedures
Unconfined compressive strength test was conducted on 
100x200-cylindrical samples as per ASTM D4832 [25]. 
Fresh CLSM conformed the acceptance of flow consistency 
(200-300 mm) was filled in 100 mm diameter and 200 mm 
height moulds without requirement of vibration or 
compaction due to high flowability and self-compacting 
capacity of the material. All the cylinders were covered with 
wet burlap for 2-3 days and then slightly removed from the 
moulds. Thereafter, the specimens were carefully transferred 
and stored in curing environment (23 0C and 100% relative 
humidity) until achieving the testing ages (e.g., 07-, 28-, and 
56 days). During demoulding and handling process, all 
samples must be no damages or scratches. Each strength test 
was done on three cylinders and the averages were obtained.
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
3.1 Compressive strength development with times
Compressive strength of the proposed CLSM was tested 
at 1-, 7-, 28-, and 56 days. All the 28-day cylindrical groups 
have the average compressive strength of 0.42-0.81 MPa, 
which were well-matched the acceptable range (0.35-1.034
MPa) for excavatable CLSM [4, 8, 24]. The strength 
development of 10% SSRS specimens was typically 
illustrated in Fig. 2. As expected, a longer age of curing is a 
higher compressive strength due to continuation of 
cementitious-hydrated process. The strength-time 
relationships can be analytically expressed in a logarithmic 
function of (where a, b are 
experimental coefficients; t is the curing age, days). The R-
squared values were found to be equal or greater than 0.97,
and this strongly confirms that the logarithmic formula are 
highly reliable for describing strength evolution of the soil-
based CLSM. An analogous strength developing behavior 
57 
Mô hình sự phát triển cường độ của vật liệu cường độ thấp có kiểm soát
Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng Số Đặc Biệt
for CLSM prepared with Class C fly ash was also published 
by Türkel [26].
3.2 Effects of w/b and SSRS substitution level on 
compressive strength
Constituent materials and quantities have a great 
contribution to the performance of the CLSM because of 
being different in water demand. Among them, water-to-
binder ratio, cement content, as well as aggregate’s 
characteristics are widely admitted to be major factors [24]. 
In general, increasing the w/b may be accompanied by a 
noticeable strength reduction. It is an expected result for 
cementitious materials, usually reported in literature due to 
forming high pore volume in the matrix [13, 27]. For 
example, as seen in Fig. 3, when w/b varied from 3.4 to 3.8, 
the associated compressive strength at 56 days decreased 
approximately by 18% (0.88–0.72 MPa) and 14% (0.65–0.57
MPa) for specimens without and with 30% SSRS 
replacement, respectively.
Fig. 2 The compressive strength development as slag 
replacement level of 10%
Fig. 3 The 56-day compressive strength with respect to water-
binder ratio.
Moreover, Figs. 4(a)-(c) indicate that the compressive 
strength of SSRS specimens is significantly lower than that 
of control (without slag) at any testing ages. A gradual 
increase in slag content could result in a steady strength 
reduction for all samples at each curing age, up to 56 days. 
For instance, for M34 mixture with 30% SSRS substitution, 
the strength at 01-, 07-, 28-, and 56 days was declined by 
approximately 38%, 39%, 27%, and 25% in comparison with 
the controls, respectively. Similarly, for the M36 and M38 
mixtures, the corresponding strength drop were 34%, 41%, 
18%, 23% and 29%, 37%, 32%, 31%, respectively. From 
Fig. 4, there are best-fit straight line expressed well 
relationship between compressive strength and slag 
replacement level (R2 ³ 0.82), and this result was in
agreement with the previous research of Shafigh et al. [28],
who studied on lightweight concrete. In addition, it is 
revealed that the strength loss had a tendency to be higher at 
early age (one day) and lower at later ages (28- and 56 days). 
This behavior is logical because SSRS is not as good as OPC 
in contributing to strength, especially at early ages. 
(a) M34
(b) M36
(c) M38
Fig. 4 Relationship between compressive strength and SSRS 
ratio.
On the other hand, the 56-day compressive strength of 
30% SSRS specimens was observed to decrease by about 
25%, in average, comparing to the controls. This result was 
different from conventional concrete. Previous studies on 
concrete have reported that with a similar slag content in 
replacement with OPC, the compressive strength could be 
Lê Đức Hiển, Nguyễn Khánh Hùng
 58 Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng Số Đặc Biệt
comparable to that of plain concrete at 28- or 56 days [29-
31]. It is believed that very high water-binder ratio in CLSM 
mixture comparing to normal concrete is responsible for 
above strength reduction. Also, as a speculation, there would 
be a considerable strength gain in later ages beyond 56 days, 
which has been experimentally claimed by Shariq et al. [32], 
when they studied on concrete incorporating with GGBFS. 
Türkel [26] has been published a study on CLSM made with 
puzzolanic cement and Type C fly ash, in which its strength 
evolution was described with a similar manner.
3.3 The early and later-age strength relationships
Fig. 5 demonstrates the relationship between the one-day 
and later compressive strength of the CLSM specimens. The 
strength at 01-, 07-, 28-, and 56 days were ranged from 
0.13-0.25 MPa, 0.53-0.55 MPa, 0.42-0.81 MPa, and 
0.57-0.88 MPa, respectively. It can be realized that a higher 
one-day compressive strength a higher is certainly long-term 
strength and vice versa. In addition, the 07-, 28-, and 56-day
compressive strength are approximately 1.52, 3.72, 4.52
times as high as the one-day strength, in averages,
respectively. Also, from Fig. 5, the correlations between one-
day strength and 7-, 28,- 56-day strength can be expressed in 
linear forms; and these regression lines are graphically 
observed to be almost parallel, which was similar to the 
reports published by Wu and Lee [13], and Shafigh et al. 
[28]. This statement implies that there was probably a 
proportion of long-term strength to early strength, and it is 
helpful to predict later strength as soon as possible.
Fig. 5 Later-ages strength versus one-day strength
3.4 Compressive strength model
Developing a predicted-strength model being modified 
from the expression of Du et al. [24] is an additional attempt 
on this issue. Their predicted model was employed water-to-
cement ratio as only variable for describing strength 
evolution of air-entrained CLSM mixture containing bottom 
ash as fine aggregate. Based on the experimental data, 
compressive strength of the proposed CLSM up to 56 days 
can be analytically evaluated via the following equation (1), 
which was derived from the regression approach with two 
independent variables of mixing proportion, viz. water-to-
binder ratio and percentage of slag replacement:
(1)
where, is the compressive strength at curing ages of t
(days); is the water-to-binder ratio; ps (%) is the 
percentage of SSRS replacement; a(t), b1(t), and b2(t) are 
coefficients depending on curing ages, t (days), determined 
as follows via regression analysis:
Moreover, ACI Committee 209 [33] recommends the 
following equation (2) for evaluating cylinder compressive 
strength of concrete, based on the compressive strength 
measuring at 28 days, :
(2)
Fig. 6 indicates that the predicted strength from equation 
(1) was reasonably closer to the measured one than that of 
from equation (2), evidenced by the fact that almost the data 
points (marked in circles) are located within an error range 
of ± 10%. Indeed, equation (1), taking into account w/b and 
slag replacement ratio, gives a well-fitted result in strength 
prediction with a high determination coefficient (R2 = 0.97), 
a good indicator to check the “goodness” of the proposed 
formula.
Fig. 6 Comparison of measured and predicted strength
4. REMARKS
Several concluding remarks can be withdrawn from this 
study:
An equation for predicting the strength development has 
been reasonably established via regression technique, in 
which two mix proportion variables (w/b and SSRS ratio) as 
well as curing ages were taken account. Also, a verified test 
was independently conducted to validate the performance of 
the predicted formula. Testing result exhibited that the 
proposed model is highly reliable to evaluate compressive 
strength. However, the suggested formula should be further 
considered in practical uses because it has been built up 
based on limited data.
Increasing SSRS substitution ratio would lead to 
decrease the compressive strength because the reducing slag 
is not as good as OPC in contributing to strength, particularly 
at early ages. With 30% slag replacement, the 56-day 
compressive strength was observed a drop of 14-18% 
compared to the controls made with pure cement; and this 
strength reduction was expected in design due to 
convenience for controlling excavatability.
5. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The author would like to thank Professor Sheen Yeong-
Nain of National Kaohsiung University of Applied Sciences 
for the constructive discussions. 
R² = 0.97
0.00
0.15
0.30
0.45
0.60
0.75
0.90
1.05
0.00 0.15 0.30 0.45 0.60 0.75 0.90Measured strength (MPa)
Data
points
59 
Mô hình sự phát triển cường độ của vật liệu cường độ thấp có kiểm soát
Tạp chí Khoa học Lạc Hồng Số Đặc Biệt
6. REFERENCES
[1] ACI-229R, Controlled-low strength materials (reproved 2005). 
Farmington Hills (MI), 2005.
[2] Kuo, WT., Wang, HY., Shu, CY., Su, DS., "Engineering 
properties of controlled low-strength materials containing waste 
oyster shells", Construction and Building Materials, 46(0), 128-
33, 2013.
[3] Lachemi, M., Hossain, KMA., Shehata, M., Thaha, W.,
"Controlled low strength materials incorporating cement kiln dust 
from various sources", Cement and Concrete Composites, 30(5), 
381-92, 2008.
[4] Taha, RA., Alnuaimi, AS., Al-Jabri, KS., Al-Harthy, AS.,
"Evaluation of controlled low strength materials containing 
industrial by-products", Building and Environment, 42(9), 3366-
72, 2007.
[5] Folliard, KJ., Du, L., Halmen, C., Trejo, D., Leshchinsky, D., 
Sabol, S., NCHRP Report 597: Development of a Recommended 
practice for Use of controlled low-strength Material in highway 
construction, The National Academies Press; 2008.
[6] Nataraja, MC., Nalanda, Y.. "Performance of industrial by-
products in controlled low-strength materials (CLSM)", Waste 
Management, 28(7), 1168-81, 2008.
[7] Wang, HY,, Chen, BT,, Wu, YW., "A study of the fresh 
properties of controlled low-strength rubber lightweight 
aggregate concrete (CLSRLC)", Construction and Building 
Materials, 41(0), 526-31, 2013.
[8] Finney, AJ., Shorey, EF., Anderson, J., "Use of native soil in 
place of aggregate in controlled-low strength material (CLSM)",
International Pipelines Conference, Atlanta, Georgia, United 
States, 1-13. 2008.
[9] Wu, JY., "Soil-based flowable fill for pipeline construction",
Proceedings of Pipelines 2005: Optimizing Pipeline Design, 
Operations, and Maintenance in Today’s Economy,. Houston, 
Texas, USA., 925-38, 2005.
[10]Chen, JW, Chang, CF., "Development and Application of the 
Ready-Mixed Soil Material", Journal of Materials in Civil 
Engineering, 18(6), 722-29, 2006.
[11]Vipulanandan, C., ASCE, M., Weng, Y. and Zhang, C.,
"Designing flowable grout mixes using foundry sand", Clay and 
Fly Ash, Advances in grouting and ground modification, 215-33,
2000.
[12]ASTM: D6913., Standard test methods for particle-size 
distribution (Gradation) of soils using sieve analysis, 2009.
[13]Wu, JY., Lee, MZ., Benefical Reuse of construction surplus clay 
in CLSM, International Journal of Pavement Research and 
Technology, 4(5), 293-300, 2011.
[14]Sheen, YN., Zhang, LH., Le, DH., "Engineering properties of 
soil-based controlled low-strength materials as slag partially 
substitutes to Portland cement", Construction and Building 
Materials, 48: 822-9, 2013.
[15]Sheen, Y-N., Huang, L-J, Wang, H-Y., Le, D-H., "Experimental 
study and strength formulation of soil-based controlled low-
strength material containing stainless steel reducing slag",
Construction and Building Materials, 54:1-9, 2014.
[16]Huaiwei, Z., Xi, H., "An overview for the utilization of wastes 
from stainless steel industries", Resources, Conservation and 
Recycling, 55(8), 745-54, 2011.
[17]Sheen, YN., Wang, HY., Sun, TH., "A study of engineering 
properties of cement mortar with stainless steel oxidizing slag and 
reducing slag resource materials", Construction and Building 
Materials, 40: 239-45, 2013.
[18]Yildirim, IZ., Prezzi, P., "Chemical, Mineralogical, and 
Morphological Properties of Steel Slag", Advances in Civil 
Engineering, 13, 2011.
[19]Kriskova, L., Pontikes, Y., Cizer, Ö., Mertens, G., Veulemans,
W., Geysen D., et al., "Effect of mechanical activation on the 
hydraulic properties of stainless steel slags", Cement and 
Concrete Research, 42(6), 778-88, 2012.
[20]Pellegrino, C., Cavagnis, P., Faleschini, F., Brunelli, K.,
"Properties of concretes with black/oxidizing electric arc furnace 
slag aggregate", Cement and Concrete Composites, 37(0), 232-
40, 2013.
[21]Adolfsson, D., Robinson, R., Engström, F., Björkman, B.,
"Influence of mineralogy on the hydraulic properties of ladle 
slag", Cement and Concrete Research, 41(8), 865-71, 2011.
[22]ASTM: C150, Standard Specification for Portland Cement, 2002.
[23]Das B., Principles of Geotechnical engineering, 7th ed: Cengage 
Learning; 2007.
[24]Du. L., Folliard, KJ., D. T., "Effects of Constituent materials and 
quantities on water demand and compressive strength of 
controlled low-strength material", Journal of Materials in Civil 
Engineering, 14(6): 485-9, 2002.
[25]ASTM: D4832, Standard test method for preparation and testing 
of controlled low strength material (CLSM) Test Cylinders, 2002.
[26]Türkel, S., "Long-term compressive strength and some other 
properties of controlled low strength materials made with 
pozzolanic cement and Class C fly ash", Journal of Hazardous 
Materials, B137:261-6, 2006.
[27]Mehta, PK., Monteiro, P., "Concrete, microstructure, properties 
and materials", 3ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional, 2006.
[28]Shafigh, P., Jumaat, MZ., Mahmud, HB., Alengaram, UJ., "Oil 
palm shell lightweight concrete containing high volume ground 
granulated blast furnace slag", Construction and Building 
Materials, 40: 231-8, 2013.
[29]Beushausen, H., Alexander, M., Ballim, Y., "Early-age 
properties, strength development and heat of hydration of 
concrete containing various South African slags at different 
replacement ratios", Construction and Building Materials,
29(0),533-40, 2012.
[30]Chen, B., Liu, J., "Experimental application of mineral admixture 
in lightweight concrete with high strength and workability",
Construction and Building Materials, 22: 655-59, 2008.
[31]Wang, H-Y., Lin, C-C., "A study of fresh and engineering 
properties of self-compacting high slag concrete (SCHSC)", 
Construction and building materials, 42(0, 132-6, 2013.
[32]Shariq, M., Prasad, J., Abbas, H., "Effect of GGBFS on age 
dependent static modulus of elasticity of concrete", Construction 
and Building Materials,; 41(0), 411-8, 2013.
[33]ACI-Committee, 209, Prediction of Creep, shrinkage, and 
temperature effects in concrete structures, Farmington Hills 
(MI),1999.
BIOGRAPHY
Dr. Duc-Hien Le
Was born in 1979, Binh Dinh Province, Vietnam. He completed the Ph.D program in Civil
Engineering at KUAS, Taiwan. He is now lecturer of Faculty of Civil Engineering, Ton Duc
Thang University. His studies are related to construction materials, Sustainable materials in
construction
Mr. Hung-Khanh Nguyen
Was born in 1979, Tieng Giang Province, Vietnam. He is working a lecturer at Faculty of Civil
Engineering, Lac Hong University. His studies are related to construction, application software