Q: Reading a grading curve — horizontal segment between 20 mm and 4.75 mm If a grading (percent passing) curve is horizontal between the 20 mm IS sieve and the 4.75 mm IS sieve, what does it indicate about the aggregate fractions present?

Introduction / Context: A grading curve plots cumulative percent passing versus sieve size. The shape of this curve directly reveals the presence or absence of material in particular size ranges. Interpreting these shapes is critical to diagnosing workability issues, segregation, and paste demand in concrete mixes or asphalt blends. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard IS sieves: 20 mm down to 4.75 mm considered. “Horizontal” means percent passing is constant across the range. No measurement errors assumed. Concept / Approach: If the percent passing does not change between two sieve sizes, it implies that no additional material passes the smaller sieve compared with the larger one. In other words, there are no particles in that intermediate size band. Thus, a horizontal segment from 20 mm to 4.75 mm signifies an absence of particles larger than 4.75 mm and smaller than 20 mm—i.e., missing the entire intermediate fraction, including nominal 10 mm sizes and the exact boundary sizes, effectively indicating a gap-graded condition in that zone. Step-by-Step Solution: Observe the curve: a flat line between 20 mm and 4.75 mm.Interpretation: no change in passing percentage → no material in that size interval.Consequence: absence of 20 mm, 10 mm, and 4.75 mm fractions (and all intermediate sizes).Select “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Sieve analysis results would show the same mass retained on both sieves, confirming no intermediate fraction present. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only a single missing size underestimates the complete gap indicated by the horizontal segment. Common Pitfalls: Misreading semi-log plots where equal spacing does not mean equal size ratios; ignoring that “horizontal” signifies constant passing percentage. Final Answer: All of the above

Q: Use of Le Chatelier apparatus in cement testing The Le Chatelier method is primarily used to determine which property of cement?

Introduction / Context: Soundness is the ability of cement to retain its volume after setting without delayed expansion. Unsoundness may arise from excessive free lime or magnesia, causing cracking and disintegration. The Le Chatelier test detects such potentially harmful expansion under accelerated conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement; potential unsoundness due to free CaO/MgO. Le Chatelier apparatus measures expansion of a cement paste specimen. Controlled heating protocol is followed. Concept / Approach: In the Le Chatelier test, a split brass mould confining a cement paste is submerged in water and subjected to a specified heating regime. The separation of indicator points after treatment indicates expansion. Limits are set to ensure acceptable soundness. This procedure does not measure hardness, compressive strength, or broad durability; it specifically targets volumetric stability related to latent expansion constituents. Step-by-Step Solution: Prepare standard consistency paste and fill Le Chatelier mould.Cure briefly, then immerse and heat according to the test protocol.Measure the distance between the indicators before and after; compute expansion.Compare with permissible limits to judge soundness. Verification / Alternative check: Autoclave expansion is another method to evaluate soundness; results are correlated but use different conditioning (steam under pressure) to reveal potential expansion due to magnesia or other compounds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) Hardness is not a cement test parameter. (c) Strength tests use mortar cubes or prisms, not Le Chatelier. (d) Durability is a broad in-service concept, not a single lab test via this apparatus. Common Pitfalls: Poor paste preparation; incorrect heating rate; misreading the scale; confusing Le Chatelier limits with autoclave expansion criteria. Final Answer: Soundness of cement (undesirable expansion)

Q: IS sand grading zones — what does Zone I indicate? According to IS grading of fine aggregates for concrete, sands classified in Zone I are generally considered to be of which coarseness category?

Introduction / Context: Indian Standards categorize fine aggregates into grading Zones I to IV. These zones reflect particle size distributions that influence water demand, workability, pumpability, and finish. Designers choose sand zones to balance cohesiveness with economy and performance of the mix. Given Data / Assumptions: IS-based grading zones I–IV. Zone I lies toward coarser sands; Zone IV toward finer sands. Normal concrete applications are considered. Concept / Approach: Zone I sands have higher percentages retained on coarser sieves, thus they are designated as coarse. Coarser sand reduces paste demand and can improve economy by lowering water and cement requirements, but may compromise finishability if excessively coarse or poorly graded. Finer sands (Zones III–IV) increase water demand at a given slump and can improve finish, but may elevate shrinkage and require more cement or admixture to maintain workability and strength targets. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify zone trend: Zone I → coarse; Zone II → medium; Zone III → medium-fine; Zone IV → fine.Relate coarseness to mix behavior: coarser sands → lower water demand but reduced finishability.Select the correct category for Zone I: coarse sand. Verification / Alternative check: Gradation tables and fineness modulus values corroborate that Zone I corresponds to higher fineness modulus (coarser distribution). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b), (c), (d) misstate the coarseness implied by Zone I, which is not medium or fine. Common Pitfalls: Assuming Zone I is universally better; optimal performance depends on overall grading, paste content, and finishing requirements. Final Answer: Coarse sand

Q: Aggregate grading curves – Visual signature of gap grading On a particle size distribution (grading) curve plotted as percentage passing versus sieve size (log scale), how is a gap-graded aggregate visually represented over the missing size range?

Introduction / Context: Grading curves are essential tools for proportioning aggregates in concrete and asphalt. They reveal whether an aggregate is well-graded, uniformly graded, or gap-graded. Recognizing the visual cues helps diagnose workability, segregation, and void content issues quickly. Given Data / Assumptions: Plot: percent passing on the vertical axis, sieve size (log scale) on the horizontal axis. Gap grading means a deliberate absence (or near absence) of particles in a particular size band. We are interpreting the shape of the curve, not numerical values. Concept / Approach: In a grading curve, a change in percent passing occurs only if some material exists within that size interval. If no particles lie in a band (true “gap”), percent passing remains unchanged as sieve size varies across that band. Graphically, this appears as a horizontal segment since the ordinate (percent passing) is constant. Step-by-Step Solution: Define gap grading: negligible content in a certain size range.Relate to the curve: across the gap, % passing does not change.A constant ordinate across changing abscissa yields a horizontal line segment.Therefore, the correct visual is a horizontal line through that interval. Verification / Alternative check: Check example blend curves in mix design texts: gap-graded blends commonly show “flat spots” (horizontal portions) where sizes are intentionally omitted. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Vertical line: would imply an abrupt change at a single sieve, not an interval gap. N.E. or N.W. inclined lines: indicate increasing or decreasing % passing, i.e., material present across sizes. “None of these”: invalid since the horizontal segment is the standard representation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a flat spot due to measurement scatter with a true gap; verify with mass retained data and repeat tests. Final Answer: By a horizontal line (constant percent passing over that size interval)

Question 1

Water in concrete — effects of quality and quantity on strength Which of the following statements regarding the influence of mixing water on concrete strength and properties are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Mixing water governs workability and water–cement ratio, which is the primary driver of concrete strength and permeability. Impurities in water can interfere with hydration and reinforcement protection, while excess water increases porosity after drying. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal-weight concrete using potable-quality water where possible. Qualitative percentages reflect typical trends, not strict universal constants. Aggregate grading and compaction influence water demand. Concept / Approach: Clean water avoids deleterious ions and organics that can retard set or corrode steel. Finer aggregates and hand compaction require more water for the same slump than coarser aggregates and vibration. Extra water raises w/c, increasing capillary porosity and reducing strength; the approximate loss figures (15% for 10% extra water and about 50% for 30% extra) indicate the steep penalty of high w/c. Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm (a): poor water quality → adverse effects → true.Confirm (b): grading/compaction alter water demand → true.Confirm (c) and (d): illustrative strength-loss figures show sensitivity to excess water → true in principle. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical strength–w/c relationships (e.g., Abram’s law) corroborate large strength reductions with increasing water at constant cement content. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single statement alone would be incomplete; the collective “All of the above” captures the full picture. Common Pitfalls: Chasing workability with extra water instead of using admixtures or improving grading. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 2

Air-entrained cement/concrete — combined effects on properties Concrete made with an air-entrained cement generally:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Air entrainment intentionally creates a system of tiny, well-dispersed bubbles. These voids improve durability in freezing conditions and enhance workability, with a modest sacrifice in compressive strength at equal w/c. Given Data / Assumptions: Air contents typically 4–6% for moderate exposure. Mixes compared at equal cement and w/c ratio. Normal aggregates and curing conditions. Concept / Approach: Microscopic “ball bearing” action improves plasticity and cohesion, reducing segregation and bleeding. Entrained air provides pressure-relief pockets during freezing, increasing weathering resistance. However, the added voids reduce net load-bearing area, so strength at the same w/c is somewhat lower (often by about 10–15%). Step-by-Step Solution: Workability ↑ → (c) true.Bleeding/segregation ↓ → (d) true.Weathering resistance ↑ → (b) true.Strength at equal w/c ↓ → (a) true. Verification / Alternative check: Design guides include strength adjustment factors per percent entrained air and prescribe target air contents by exposure zone. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual effect occurs; the comprehensive choice is therefore correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing entrained air with harmful entrapped air due to poor compaction. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 3

Identification of deleterious salts in fine aggregates — likely source Sand is most likely to contain harmful soluble salts (chlorides, sulphates) if it is obtained from:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soluble salts in fine aggregates can cause efflorescence, corrosion of reinforcement, and setting/strength problems. Aggregate source strongly influences salt content and the extent of washing required before use. Given Data / Assumptions: Natural sands from typical sources. No special washing or desalination has been performed. Marine environments contain dissolved salts. Concept / Approach: Sea-bed sands are immersed in saline water, making chlorides/sulphates prevalent. River and nala sands may contain silt or organic impurities but usually carry much lower salt concentrations than marine sands. Therefore, marine sands require thorough washing/desalination and are often restricted by specifications. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare sources: marine > river/nala for salts.Select sea beds as the most likely to contain harmful salts. Verification / Alternative check: Standards specify chloride limits in aggregates and caution specifically against unwashed marine sand. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Nala/river sands can have clay/organic matter but not typically high salt levels like sea sand. “All” overstates the salt problem for freshwater sources. Common Pitfalls: Using unwashed marine sand in reinforced concrete can accelerate corrosion. Final Answer: Sea beds (marine sources).

Question 4

Aggregate grading and workability — interpreting the grading curve Which statements about aggregate grading and its effect on concrete are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregate grading influences packing density, paste demand, and segregation resistance. Both continuously graded and gap-graded systems are used, depending on the desired workability and finish while meeting stability requirements. Given Data / Assumptions: Grading curve is plotted as percent passing vs. sieve size. Concrete proportioning aims to minimize voids and paste demand while maintaining cohesion. Gap grading is executed with care to avoid segregation. Concept / Approach: While continuous grading often yields low voids, well-designed gap gradings can also achieve dense packing with appropriate fines and admixtures. Omitting a size appears as a flat segment on the grading curve. However, removing too much intermediate size can reduce interlock among fractions, increasing segregation risk even if short-term workability seems to improve. Step-by-Step Solution: (a) Continuous grading helpful but not the only route to low voids → correct.(b) Size omission → horizontal step on the grading curve → correct.(c) Gap grading → sometimes better workability but higher segregation risk → correct.Therefore, (d) All of the above. Verification / Alternative check: Mix design references describe both continuous and gap gradings, cautioning about stability and segregation control (e.g., fines content, admixtures, optimized packing models). Why Other Options Are Wrong: “None” conflicts with established grading behavior; each statement reflects recognized practice. Common Pitfalls: Equating “flowability” with “stability”; gap-graded mixes can be fluid yet prone to segregation without adequate fines. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 5

Cement storage terminology — what does “warehouse pack” mean? In cement warehousing and site storage practice, the phrase “warehouse pack” refers to which specific effect that occurs when bags are stacked for a period of time?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bulk storage and handling of bagged cement require careful practices to maintain quality. One common storage-related defect is called “warehouse pack.” Understanding what this term means helps site engineers and storekeepers prevent strength loss, poor workability, and lumps during batching. Given Data / Assumptions: Cement is stored in 50 kg bags stacked for days or weeks. Ambient humidity and stack height influence bag condition. Mechanical vibration and overburden pressure can densify material. Concept / Approach: “Warehouse pack” is not about warehouse capacity. It describes the gradual compaction and partial caking of cement in the lower bags caused by the sustained pressure of the upper layers plus minor vibrations. This densification can form hard lumps. Although these lumps can sometimes be broken before mixing, their presence signals deteriorating handling quality and risks of non-uniform batching and reduced performance if not addressed. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify mechanisms: static overburden + micro-vibrations → densification.Recognize symptoms: caked or lumpy cement in lower bags after prolonged stacking.Relate to consequences: poor dispersion in mixer, variable water demand, risk of strength loss.Select the definition capturing compaction of lower bags by pressure from upper layers. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturers recommend limiting stack height (often about 10 bags high), using dry pallets, rotating (first-in-first-out), and gently breaking lumps through sieving to mitigate warehouse pack, confirming the phenomenon is a pressure-induced compaction, not a capacity term. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Refers to capacity, not the material condition. (b) Mentions pressure but not the resulting compaction/caking, so it is incomplete. (d) Describes space utilization, not a material defect. (e) Incorrect because the defined phenomenon exists and is (c). Common Pitfalls: Stacking bags directly on damp floors; exceeding recommended stack heights; storing for long periods without rotation; ignoring early signs of caking and attempting to use such cement without proper screening. Final Answer: Compaction and caking in the lower bags due to sustained pressure from upper layers

Question 6

Main properties of dicalcium silicate (C2S) in Portland cement Considering early heat, rate of hydration, strength development, and chemical durability, which statement correctly describes C2S?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Portland cement clinker contains several principal phases: tricalcium silicate (C3S), dicalcium silicate (C2S), tricalcium aluminate (C3A), and tetracalcium aluminoferrite (C4AF). Each phase affects heat evolution, strength development, and durability differently. Recognizing the role of C2S is essential for mass concrete and long-term performance considerations. Given Data / Assumptions: C2S reacts more slowly than C3S. Mass concrete benefits from lower heat of hydration. Durability in sulphate environments is influenced mainly by low C3A and suitable C2S/C3S balance. Concept / Approach: C2S hydrates more slowly than C3S, thus producing lower early heat and strength. However, it contributes significantly to strength at later ages. Because the rapid-release heat source is smaller, mixes richer in C2S are often preferred for mass placements to reduce thermal gradients. C2S does not inherently have poorer sulphate resistance; problems in sulphate exposure are mostly tied to C3A content and ettringite formation. Therefore, the defining, correct statement here is that C2S generates less heat of hydration compared with C3S. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare kinetics: C2S (slow) vs. C3S (fast).Relate kinetics to thermal output: slower hydration → less early heat.Relate to strength: slower early gain but meaningful long-term contribution.Select the statement that matches these traits: lower heat of hydration. Verification / Alternative check: Heat-of-hydration curves consistently show reduced early peaks for cements with higher C2S, corroborating the selected statement. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (c) claim rapid hydration/rapid hardening, which is characteristic of C3S, not C2S. (d) C2S contributes significantly to later-age strength; the statement is misleading. (e) Sulphate attack is more a function of C3A; C2S is not the primary problem. Common Pitfalls: Assuming “less heat” means “less strength overall.” C2S supports long-term strength while reducing early heat, a benefit in mass concrete. Final Answer: Generates less heat of hydration

Question 7

Surface finish issues in fresh concrete — identifying the cause A concrete mix that makes it difficult to obtain a smooth, closed surface finish is most likely exhibiting which characteristic?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Finishability of concrete depends on mix proportioning, aggregate characteristics, and fresh properties such as cohesiveness and water demand. When the mortar fraction is inadequate or aggregate texture causes excessive drag, finishing becomes laborious and produces rough, open textures often described as “harsh.” Given Data / Assumptions: Fresh concrete experiencing difficulty in trowelling/closing the surface. No special finishing aids or surface hardeners considered. Standard aggregates and cement used. Concept / Approach: A harsh mix has high internal friction among particles, commonly due to angular or flaky aggregates, insufficient fines, or low paste content. Such mixes resist movement under the trowel and do not readily consolidate at the surface, hampering the development of a smooth finish. By contrast, bleeding pushes water to the surface, sometimes falsely easing trowel movement but damaging durability; segregation separates coarse aggregate, creating variable texture but not necessarily universal finishing difficulty. “Hardness” relates to the hardened state, not fresh finishing. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify symptom: difficult to close and smooth the surface.Link cause: inadequate paste or poor gradation → high internal friction.Distinguish from bleeding/segregation, which have different manifestations.Conclude: the issue is high internal friction (harshness). Verification / Alternative check: Improving sand grading, increasing fines, using rounded aggregates, or deploying water-reducing admixtures usually improves finishability, confirming the friction-based explanation. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Segregation causes uneven stone-rich zones, not a consistent inability to smooth the surface. (c) Hardness applies after setting/hardening. (d) Bleeding yields excess surface water; it can temporarily lubricate, yet harms surface quality later. Common Pitfalls: Adding extra water to “fix” finishability, which raises water–cement ratio and reduces durability; instead, adjust grading, paste content, and admixtures. Final Answer: High internal friction (harshness)

Question 8

Standard details of a cement bag used for storage and handling Which of the following specifications commonly describe a 50 kg cement bag and its storage geometry?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Site logistics for cement storage influence quality and economy. Familiarity with standard bag parameters helps estimate stack height, floor loading, warehouse capacity, and batching volume. This question consolidates commonly cited nominal values used in practice for a 50 kg cement bag. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary 50 kg (or 50 kg equivalent) cement bag. Bags are laid flat on pallets; dimensions vary slightly by manufacturer. Loose (bulk) volume is used for quick volumetric estimates, not precision batching. Concept / Approach: While exact dimensions vary, widely used references quote: nominal mass 50 kg; a bag laid flat measures roughly 70–75 cm by 40–45 cm (plan area ~2800–3400 cm², commonly rounded to ~3000 cm²); thickness per bag layer around 18 cm when stacked; and the loose volume of cement around 34–35 litres per 50 kg, used for preliminary volume calculations in the absence of mass batching. These values support calculations for stack planning (e.g., 10-bag high stacks), floor loading, and provisional mix planning on small sites. Step-by-Step Solution: Confirm nominal mass: 50 kg per bag (standard in many markets).Adopt typical geometry: ~40 × 70–75 cm → ~3000 cm² plan area.Use approximate thickness: ~18 cm per bag height in a flat stack.Recall loose volume: ~35 litres per bag for rough volumetric estimates. Verification / Alternative check: Warehousing guides and manufacturer sheets provide similar figures; on-site measurements typically confirm these orders of magnitude. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting any one item ignores the fact that all listed parameters are commonly accepted approximations together. Common Pitfalls: Confusing loose volume (approximate) with true bulk density under compaction; ignoring moisture or caking that alters handling; relying on volume rather than mass for precise mix control. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 9

Aggregate impact value (AIV) — suitability limits for different concretes For durability under impact and traffic, which of the following AIV limits are typically specified?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) assesses an aggregate’s resistance to sudden impact loading. Lower AIV indicates tougher aggregate, generally preferred for pavements and runways where repeated wheel loads impose dynamic effects. Knowing recommended AIV limits helps select aggregates appropriate to service conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: AIV is measured by standardized impact testing. Service severity increases from building floors to pavements to runways. Lower AIV → higher impact resistance. Concept / Approach: For general building concrete, somewhat higher AIVs are tolerated because dynamic impact demand is lower. For road pavements and especially airfield runways, aggregates must be tougher; limits around 30 are often cited. Therefore, the graded set of limits (≈45 for buildings; ≈30 for pavements/runways) aligns with standard practice and forms the basis of aggregate acceptance for concrete exposed to traffic. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate service type to impact demand: building < pavement ≤ runway.Map demand to AIV: stricter limits as impact loads become severe.All stated limits match common recommendations; select “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Civil materials manuals list similar cutoffs, sometimes with modest local variations; the hierarchy remains consistent: the more severe the impact, the lower the acceptable AIV. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing any single limit overlooks the context-dependent nature of AIV acceptance. “None of these” contradicts established guidance. Common Pitfalls: Using a single AIV threshold for all applications; ignoring that skid resistance and abrasion (LA abrasion) also affect suitability. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 10

Bulk density, specific gravity, and absorption — effects on concrete Which statements about aggregates and their influence on concrete are correct?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregates dominate concrete volume and control fresh and hardened behaviors. Their physical properties—bulk density, specific gravity, absorption, and porosity—directly influence mix proportioning, moisture corrections, and performance. Understanding these relationships is central to producing consistent, durable concrete. Given Data / Assumptions: Similar rock types for fine and coarse fractions. Normal structural concrete mix design procedures. Standard test methods for density, absorption, and moisture. Concept / Approach: Fine aggregate often packs with fewer large voids than coarse aggregate, giving a slightly higher bulk density for the same rock type. Specific gravity supports conversion between mass- and volume-based proportions and is essential when calculating absorbed vs. surface moisture. Higher absorption and porosity increase the amount of water drawn from the paste, raising effective water demand and reducing workability if not compensated. Consequently, highly absorptive aggregates must be brought to SSD (saturated surface-dry) condition or water corrections applied during batching to maintain the intended water–cement ratio and slump. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize bulk density trends: fine aggregate may show ~10% higher bulk density than coarse of the same rock due to packing.Use specific gravity to compute mass–volume relationships and moisture corrections.Account for absorption/porosity: higher absorption lowers apparent workability if extra water is not provided.Conclude all listed statements are valid and interrelated. Verification / Alternative check: Trial mixes show slump recovery when water corrections or SSD aggregates are used with porous sands, confirming the direct link between absorption and workability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting individual statements ignores the holistic impact of aggregate properties on concrete. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring daily moisture variation in sand; not reweighing moisture corrections; assuming identical bulk density across aggregate shipments. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 11

Reading a grading curve — horizontal segment between 20 mm and 4.75 mm If a grading (percent passing) curve is horizontal between the 20 mm IS sieve and the 4.75 mm IS sieve, what does it indicate about the aggregate fractions present?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: A grading curve plots cumulative percent passing versus sieve size. The shape of this curve directly reveals the presence or absence of material in particular size ranges. Interpreting these shapes is critical to diagnosing workability issues, segregation, and paste demand in concrete mixes or asphalt blends. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard IS sieves: 20 mm down to 4.75 mm considered. “Horizontal” means percent passing is constant across the range. No measurement errors assumed. Concept / Approach: If the percent passing does not change between two sieve sizes, it implies that no additional material passes the smaller sieve compared with the larger one. In other words, there are no particles in that intermediate size band. Thus, a horizontal segment from 20 mm to 4.75 mm signifies an absence of particles larger than 4.75 mm and smaller than 20 mm—i.e., missing the entire intermediate fraction, including nominal 10 mm sizes and the exact boundary sizes, effectively indicating a gap-graded condition in that zone. Step-by-Step Solution: Observe the curve: a flat line between 20 mm and 4.75 mm.Interpretation: no change in passing percentage → no material in that size interval.Consequence: absence of 20 mm, 10 mm, and 4.75 mm fractions (and all intermediate sizes).Select “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Sieve analysis results would show the same mass retained on both sieves, confirming no intermediate fraction present. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only a single missing size underestimates the complete gap indicated by the horizontal segment. Common Pitfalls: Misreading semi-log plots where equal spacing does not mean equal size ratios; ignoring that “horizontal” signifies constant passing percentage. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 12

Use of Le Chatelier apparatus in cement testing The Le Chatelier method is primarily used to determine which property of cement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Soundness is the ability of cement to retain its volume after setting without delayed expansion. Unsoundness may arise from excessive free lime or magnesia, causing cracking and disintegration. The Le Chatelier test detects such potentially harmful expansion under accelerated conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement; potential unsoundness due to free CaO/MgO. Le Chatelier apparatus measures expansion of a cement paste specimen. Controlled heating protocol is followed. Concept / Approach: In the Le Chatelier test, a split brass mould confining a cement paste is submerged in water and subjected to a specified heating regime. The separation of indicator points after treatment indicates expansion. Limits are set to ensure acceptable soundness. This procedure does not measure hardness, compressive strength, or broad durability; it specifically targets volumetric stability related to latent expansion constituents. Step-by-Step Solution: Prepare standard consistency paste and fill Le Chatelier mould.Cure briefly, then immerse and heat according to the test protocol.Measure the distance between the indicators before and after; compute expansion.Compare with permissible limits to judge soundness. Verification / Alternative check: Autoclave expansion is another method to evaluate soundness; results are correlated but use different conditioning (steam under pressure) to reveal potential expansion due to magnesia or other compounds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) Hardness is not a cement test parameter. (c) Strength tests use mortar cubes or prisms, not Le Chatelier. (d) Durability is a broad in-service concept, not a single lab test via this apparatus. Common Pitfalls: Poor paste preparation; incorrect heating rate; misreading the scale; confusing Le Chatelier limits with autoclave expansion criteria. Final Answer: Soundness of cement (undesirable expansion)

Question 13

IS sand grading zones — what does Zone I indicate? According to IS grading of fine aggregates for concrete, sands classified in Zone I are generally considered to be of which coarseness category?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Indian Standards categorize fine aggregates into grading Zones I to IV. These zones reflect particle size distributions that influence water demand, workability, pumpability, and finish. Designers choose sand zones to balance cohesiveness with economy and performance of the mix. Given Data / Assumptions: IS-based grading zones I–IV. Zone I lies toward coarser sands; Zone IV toward finer sands. Normal concrete applications are considered. Concept / Approach: Zone I sands have higher percentages retained on coarser sieves, thus they are designated as coarse. Coarser sand reduces paste demand and can improve economy by lowering water and cement requirements, but may compromise finishability if excessively coarse or poorly graded. Finer sands (Zones III–IV) increase water demand at a given slump and can improve finish, but may elevate shrinkage and require more cement or admixture to maintain workability and strength targets. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify zone trend: Zone I → coarse; Zone II → medium; Zone III → medium-fine; Zone IV → fine.Relate coarseness to mix behavior: coarser sands → lower water demand but reduced finishability.Select the correct category for Zone I: coarse sand. Verification / Alternative check: Gradation tables and fineness modulus values corroborate that Zone I corresponds to higher fineness modulus (coarser distribution). Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b), (c), (d) misstate the coarseness implied by Zone I, which is not medium or fine. Common Pitfalls: Assuming Zone I is universally better; optimal performance depends on overall grading, paste content, and finishing requirements. Final Answer: Coarse sand

Question 14

Effect of lowering water–cement (w/c) ratio on concrete performance Decreasing the water–cement ratio, while maintaining adequate workability by proper mix design/admixtures, generally leads to which set of improvements?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The water–cement ratio (w/c) is the dominant parameter governing the porosity of hardened cement paste. Lowering w/c produces a denser microstructure that benefits almost every durability-related property, provided the mix remains sufficiently workable for full compaction and proper curing is ensured. Given Data / Assumptions: Workability maintained via optimized grading and admixtures, not by adding water. Proper consolidation and curing. Ordinary Portland or blended cements. Concept / Approach: Lower w/c reduces capillary pore volume, increasing density and decreasing permeability. Reduced permeability improves frost resistance by limiting freezable water and eases internal hydraulic pressures. Denser paste and stronger interfacial transition zones (ITZ) enhance abrasion resistance and bond to reinforcement. With better paste quality and reduced moisture gradients, creep and drying shrinkage tend to diminish as well (though aggregate stiffness and paste volume also play roles). Thus, a holistic improvement across multiple properties follows from controlled reduction in w/c. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate w/c ↓ to porosity ↓ → density ↑ and permeability ↓.Link lower permeability to improved frost durability and reduced scaling.Connect denser ITZ to higher wear resistance and rebar bond.Note reductions in creep/shrinkage due to stiffer, less porous paste and lower paste volume. Verification / Alternative check: Durability indexes (e.g., rapid chloride permeability, sorptivity) and abrasion tests consistently show improvements as w/c decreases, when compaction and curing are adequate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting only one benefit ignores that multiple properties improve in tandem as w/c is lowered. Common Pitfalls: Lowering w/c without providing workability through admixtures/gradation; inadequate curing that negates potential gains; assuming zero creep/shrinkage regardless of aggregate and paste volume. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 15

Concrete Technology – Mixing water impurities that significantly alter setting time and strength According to good concreting practice (IS context), which impurity present in mixing water most significantly affects the setting behaviour and ultimate…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Water quality is a critical but sometimes overlooked variable in concrete technology. Certain dissolved salts can accelerate or retard cement hydration, change setting times, and reduce the long-term strength of concrete. Understanding which impurities are most harmful helps engineers evaluate water sources on site and avoid costly durability problems. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement or blended cements used for structural concrete. Ambient, non-extreme temperature curing conditions. Impurities considered are typical dissolved salts found in groundwater or recycled water. Concept / Approach: Different ions influence hydration differently. Chlorides (e.g., calcium chloride) act primarily as accelerators but carry corrosion risks for reinforcement. Sulphates may contribute to expansion when present with reactive aluminates. Carbonates and bicarbonates of sodium are particularly disruptive: they can cause very rapid setting (flash set) or strong retardation depending on concentration, and they often reduce compressive strength due to disturbed hydration and microstructure formation. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify ions with strongest adverse effect on setting and strength at typical site concentrations.Note that sodium carbonates/bicarbonates can drastically alter pH buffering and early hydration kinetics → erratic set and reduced strength.Compare with chlorides and sulphates: these are controlled by separate limits mainly for corrosion or sulphate attack, not primarily for setting disruption.Therefore, select the pair most directly harmful to setting and strength: sodium carbonates and bicarbonates. Verification / Alternative check: Practical field guidance often rejects water with appreciable carbonate/bicarbonate alkalinity because of abnormal setting and poor compressive strength results in cube tests. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sodium sulphates: more related to external sulphate attack scenarios; not the most acute setting disruptor in mixing water. Sodium or calcium chlorides: accelerators; main concern is steel corrosion, not rendering concrete unusable by setting disturbance. Calcium bicarbonates: common hardness salts; usually less disruptive at moderate levels. Common Pitfalls: Assuming any potable water is suitable; while often true, verify alkalinity and salt content. Also, do not rely on chlorides to “improve” early set because of long-term corrosion risk. Final Answer: Sodium carbonates and bicarbonates

Question 16

Aggregate grading curves – Visual signature of gap grading On a particle size distribution (grading) curve plotted as percentage passing versus sieve size (log scale), how is a gap-graded aggregate visually represented over the missing size range?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Grading curves are essential tools for proportioning aggregates in concrete and asphalt. They reveal whether an aggregate is well-graded, uniformly graded, or gap-graded. Recognizing the visual cues helps diagnose workability, segregation, and void content issues quickly. Given Data / Assumptions: Plot: percent passing on the vertical axis, sieve size (log scale) on the horizontal axis. Gap grading means a deliberate absence (or near absence) of particles in a particular size band. We are interpreting the shape of the curve, not numerical values. Concept / Approach: In a grading curve, a change in percent passing occurs only if some material exists within that size interval. If no particles lie in a band (true “gap”), percent passing remains unchanged as sieve size varies across that band. Graphically, this appears as a horizontal segment since the ordinate (percent passing) is constant. Step-by-Step Solution: Define gap grading: negligible content in a certain size range.Relate to the curve: across the gap, % passing does not change.A constant ordinate across changing abscissa yields a horizontal line segment.Therefore, the correct visual is a horizontal line through that interval. Verification / Alternative check: Check example blend curves in mix design texts: gap-graded blends commonly show “flat spots” (horizontal portions) where sizes are intentionally omitted. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Vertical line: would imply an abrupt change at a single sieve, not an interval gap. N.E. or N.W. inclined lines: indicate increasing or decreasing % passing, i.e., material present across sizes. “None of these”: invalid since the horizontal segment is the standard representation. Common Pitfalls: Confusing a flat spot due to measurement scatter with a true gap; verify with mass retained data and repeat tests. Final Answer: By a horizontal line (constant percent passing over that size interval)

Question 17

Cement storage quality – Moisture threshold beyond which cement becomes unusable During storage, cement may absorb atmospheric moisture. Beyond approximately what absorbed moisture content does cement generally become unfit (useless) for structural …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cement is hygroscopic and readily absorbs moisture, which can lead to partial hydration, lump formation, and loss of strength development. Knowing the moisture threshold at which cement is considered unusable helps prevent compromised concrete quality on site. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement stored in bags under typical warehouse conditions. Moisture content refers to absorbed water in the powder, not free water addition in mixing. We focus on practical field acceptance thresholds used in many standards and textbooks. Concept / Approach: As moisture increases, early partial hydration consumes reactive clinker phases, reduces fineness effectiveness, and forms weak agglomerates. This reduces normal consistency and strength gain. Many practical guides treat cement as unserviceable for structural concrete when absorbed moisture approaches about 3% or more, due to unreliable setting and substantial strength loss. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize moisture damages reactivity and fineness utilization.Threshold used in field acceptance ≈ 3% absorbed moisture for rejecting bags for structural work.Select 3% as the best answer. Verification / Alternative check: Cube strength tests with aged, moisture-contaminated cement typically show significant reductions relative to fresh cement even at 28 days, supporting the 3% rejection guidance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Lower thresholds (1–2%) are overly conservative for all site conditions; higher thresholds (4–5%) often correspond to visibly lumpy, partially hydrated cement with severe quality loss. Common Pitfalls: Trying to crush lumps and reuse; once hydration has commenced, the lost reactivity cannot be restored. Always rotate stock (first-in, first-out) and store on raised wooden platforms with moisture barriers. Final Answer: 3%

Question 18

Cement strength change with storage – identify the incorrect statement Regarding the effect of prolonged storage on cement strength and the behaviour of concrete made from such cement, which statement below is incorrect?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bagged cement deteriorates during storage because of slow moisture ingress and carbonation. This ageing reduces its potential strength compared to fresh cement. Understanding which statements reflect this reality is crucial for quality control and inventory management. Given Data / Assumptions: Cement stored in standard warehouses without climate control. Strength refers to potential strength realized in standard mortar/cube tests at 28 days. “Increases/decreases with time” refers to shelf life, not curing age. Concept / Approach: As cement ages, early hydration and carbonation of the powder reduce reactivity. Therefore, the potential strength achievable at a given water content and curing regime decreases. Typical guidance notes strength losses of tens of percent over months; after two years, the loss can approach about half for poorly stored material. Concrete made from aged cement still hydrates and gains strength with curing time, but it starts from a lower reactive baseline and rarely reaches the levels of fresh cement concrete. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate each claim against known behaviour.(a) “Strength increases with storage time” contradicts the known deterioration → incorrect.(b) Decrease with time → correct.(c) ~50% after 24 months is consistent with many textbooks as indicative guidance.(d) Concrete still gains strength with curing time even if starting reactivity is reduced → broadly correct. Verification / Alternative check: Acceptance testing of stored cement often requires higher cement content or rejection to compensate for reduced activity; this confirms that storage does not enhance cement strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They align with practical experience and test data, whereas option (a) conflicts with basic chemistry of ageing cement. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up “strength with curing time” (which increases) and “strength potential of stored cement” (which decreases). The former is a material behaviour during hydration; the latter is loss of reactivity due to ageing. Final Answer: With passage of time, the strength of cement increases

Question 19

Aggregate size nomenclature – coarse, fine, silt, and clay bands Which of the following statements about standard particle size bands is correct for construction materials classification?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Correctly classifying particle sizes is foundational for concrete mix design, soil mechanics, and pavement engineering. The boundary sieves distinguish fines from sands and gravels, while very fine fractions are further separated into silt and clay ranges based on behaviour and size. Given Data / Assumptions: Indian Standard/commonly used size boundaries in construction engineering. Emphasis on practical sieve sizes (4.75 mm and 0.075 mm) and geotechnical size bands. Ranges are approximate and context-dependent but widely adopted. Concept / Approach: Coarse aggregate is generally material retained on the 4.75 mm sieve; upper maximum nominal size may be 20, 40, or up to 75 mm depending on design. Fine aggregate is sand fraction passing 4.75 mm and retained above 0.075 mm (75 microns). In soil mechanics, silt comprises particles roughly from 0.06 mm down to 0.002 mm; clay is finer than 0.002 mm and exhibits plasticity due to plate-like mineralogy. Step-by-Step Solution: Check (a): matches coarse aggregate nomenclature (retained on 4.75 mm; max often up to 75 mm).Check (b): fine aggregate band between 4.75 mm and 0.075 mm is standard.Check (c) and (d): geotechnical bands for silt and clay are consistent with common classification systems.Therefore, all statements are correct. Verification / Alternative check: IS 383 for aggregates and soil classification charts in geotechnical references corroborate these boundary values. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of (a)–(d) is valid; hence the inclusive choice (e) is correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the 0.075 mm limit (fines) with 0.05 or 0.06 mm used in some systems; remember that 75 microns is the standard sieve in concrete aggregate classification. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 20

Preferred temperature for placing concrete (IS practice) For quality control in Indian site conditions, concreting is preferably carried out when the concrete temperature during placing is closest to which value?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Temperature significantly affects concrete workability, setting time, and early strength. Excessive heat accelerates setting and increases water demand; very low temperatures risk delayed set and early-age damage. In Indian practice, quality checks and many fresh-concrete tests reference a preferred temperature band around ambient tropical conditions. Given Data / Assumptions: General site concreting (not extreme hot- or cold-weather concreting with special measures). Objective is to place concrete near the reference conditions used for test correlations. Indian context referencing typical QA/QC practices. Concept / Approach: Workability tests (e.g., slump, compaction factor) and standard mixing/curing controls in India often cite 27 ± 2°C as the preferred reference temperature. Placing concrete close to this band helps ensure the behaviour observed in tests corresponds to the behaviour on site. Significant deviations call for hot- or cold-weather concreting provisions (e.g., chilled water, ice, insulation, or heating). Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the reference band commonly used: 27 ± 2°C.Relate this band to practical site placement for consistent properties.Select 27 ± 2°C as the preferred placing temperature under normal Indian conditions. Verification / Alternative check: Field specifications frequently state that measured fresh concrete temperature should be near 27°C; otherwise adopt hot/cold-weather measures to maintain consistency with laboratory expectations. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 0–10°C are cold-weather conditions requiring special measures; 20–23°C are acceptable in many climates, but the canonical Indian reference is 27 ± 2°C for tests and control. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring temperature corrections; mix water temperature control and shaded batching areas help maintain target temperature and slump retention. Final Answer: 27 ± 2°C

Concrete Technology Questions