Q: Sieve sizes used in grading — identify coarse vs. fine aggregate limits In standard Indian practice, IS sieves of sizes 10 mm and 4.75 mm are commonly employed in grading which category of aggregate?

Introduction / Context: Proper grading ensures workability, minimized segregation, and optimized paste demand. Understanding sieve thresholds helps distinguish fine and coarse fractions and select appropriate grading curves for each aggregate category. Given Data / Assumptions: IS sieve series and typical cutoffs. Boundary between fine and coarse aggregate commonly taken at 4.75 mm. 10 mm sieve is a standard size within coarse aggregate grading ranges. Concept / Approach: Fine aggregate (sand) is the fraction passing the 4.75 mm sieve. Coarse aggregate is retained on the 4.75 mm sieve and graded through larger sieves such as 10 mm, 12.5 mm, 20 mm, and 40 mm. Therefore, both 4.75 mm (as a boundary) and 10 mm (as a sizing sieve) are integral to grading coarse aggregates in practice. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize the 4.75 mm sieve as the dividing line; material retained is coarse.A 10 mm sieve is a typical coarse grading sieve for smaller nominal sizes.Hence, these sieves are associated primarily with coarse aggregate grading. Verification / Alternative check: IS grading tables for coarse aggregates specify percentage passing/retained for 10 mm and larger sieves; 4.75 mm is included as the lower boundary for coarse aggregate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fine aggregates are mainly graded with sieves below 4.75 mm (e.g., 2.36, 1.18, 600 µm, 300 µm, 150 µm). The sieves are not exclusive to both categories in the way implied; they chiefly define and grade the coarse fraction. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the boundary sieve (4.75 mm) with full fine aggregate grading ranges; ignoring nominal maximum size selection for mixes. Final Answer: Coarse aggregates

Q: Concrete aggregates — classification by weight, shape, and surface texture Select the comprehensive statement that correctly lists common classification schemes for concrete aggregates used in mix design and construction.

Introduction / Context: Aggregates occupy the bulk volume of concrete and strongly influence workability, strength, shrinkage, and durability. Engineers classify aggregates in several ways to anticipate performance and select suitable materials for a given application. Given Data / Assumptions: Multiple classification criteria are valid simultaneously. Terminology may vary slightly across references, but the categories are widely recognized. Focus is on practical construction-oriented classification. Concept / Approach: Common aggregate classifications include: (1) by relative density/bulk density (lightweight, normal weight, heavyweight) linked to mineralogy and source; (2) by particle shape (rounded, irregular/subrounded, angular, flaky/elongated) affecting workability and packing; and (3) by surface texture (glassy, smooth, granular, rough, crystalline, honeycombed, porous), which influences paste bond and water demand. These classifications help predict concrete behaviour and guide adjustments in mix proportions or admixture use. Step-by-Step Solution: Acknowledge that aggregates are grouped by multiple attributes.Confirm shape categories: rounded → best workability; angular/flaky → higher paste demand.Confirm texture categories: rough/porous → higher bond but more water demand; smooth/glassy → lower bond, better flow.Confirm weight/density grouping: lightweight (e.g., expanded clay), normal (natural rocks), heavyweight (barite, magnetite) for specialized concretes. Verification / Alternative check: Design guides and codes adopt these same schemes in aggregate acceptance criteria and in recommendations on grading and fines content. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking any single scheme omits other widely used and necessary classifications for mix design and performance prediction. Common Pitfalls: Using only nominal size to characterize aggregates; ignoring shape and texture impacts on water demand and cement content. Final Answer: All the above

Q: Ordinary concrete — which grade is NOT typically classed as ordinary? In the conventional Indian grading system where M-grades denote characteristic compressive strength (e.g., M10, M15, M20, M25, M40), which of the following is not usually…

Introduction / Context: “Ordinary concrete” in common site parlance refers to normal-strength mixes used for regular building elements (e.g., M10–M25). Higher grades require more stringent control of materials, water–cement ratio, and curing to achieve high strength and durability, and they are not typically labelled “ordinary.” Given Data / Assumptions: M-grades indicate characteristic compressive strength in kg/cm² or MPa (e.g., M400 ≈ 40 MPa). Ordinary building work often uses M10–M25 grades. High-grade concrete (≥M40) is used for special performance requirements. Concept / Approach: Lower M-grades (M100, M150, M200, M250 in kg/cm² notation) fall within conventional applications such as blinding layers, slabs, beams, and columns of standard buildings. M400 corresponds to a much higher strength class (≈40 MPa), commonly treated as high-strength/structural grade beyond the “ordinary” label in everyday usage and requiring enhanced quality control and possibly admixtures. Step-by-Step Solution: Map grades: M100–M250 → ordinary; M400 → higher-strength class.Identify the outlier relative to “ordinary”: M400.Hence, the grade not regarded as ordinary is M400. Verification / Alternative check: Typical schedules for RCC in regular buildings show M20/M25; high-rise or prestressed elements often specify ≥M40, reinforcing the distinction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: M100, M150, M200, M250: broadly found in ordinary concrete use cases. Common Pitfalls: Confusing legacy kg/cm² notation with MPa; assuming “ordinary” is a strict code term rather than widely used practical terminology. Final Answer: M 400

Q: Effect of sand grading — which properties vary significantly? Variation in the grading (particle size distribution) of fine aggregate (sand) most strongly affects which aspects of concrete performance and handling?

Introduction / Context: Fine aggregate grading controls paste demand, packing density, and bleeding/segregation tendencies. Consequently, it influences fresh properties and the hardened performance of concrete, especially when water–cement ratio is adjusted to maintain workability. Given Data / Assumptions: Only sand grading varies; other materials and proportions are otherwise comparable. Mix adjustments may be made to achieve target slump. Normal Portland cement concrete is considered. Concept / Approach: Well-graded sand reduces voids and paste demand, improving workability without excessive water, which supports higher strength and improved durability (lower permeability). Poorly graded or overly fine sands increase water demand for the same workability, raising w/c ratio, which reduces strength and durability. Extremely gap-graded sands increase segregation and finishing difficulties, complicating handling and placing. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate grading to paste demand: finer or poorly graded → more paste/water needed.Relate water demand to strength and durability via w/c ratio.Acknowledge the practical effects on slump, pumpability, finishing, and segregation. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical mix design charts show clear links between sand fineness modulus and water demand; durability indicators (e.g., rapid chloride permeability) correlate with paste content and w/c ratio affected by grading. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one or two properties overlooks the coupled impact of grading on both fresh and hardened characteristics. Common Pitfalls: Compensating poor grading with excess cement rather than optimized gradation; ignoring variability in sand source leading to day-to-day changes in slump. Final Answer: All the above

Q: Concrete workability and slump — identify the correct relationship Which of the following statements about segregation, consistency, and slump is correct regarding fresh concrete workability?

Introduction / Context: Workability is the umbrella term covering consistency, cohesion, mobility, and compactibility of fresh concrete. Field indicators such as the slump test provide a quick measure of consistency, which correlates positively (within limits) with workability for a given mix design. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard slump test conditions and typical structural concrete mixes. Segregation is undesirable; cohesive mixes are targeted. “Dry” mix implies low water content/high stiffness. Concept / Approach: Segregation is the separation of coarse aggregate from mortar/paste and is harmful, not a prerequisite for workability. Consistency (wetness or flow) is a component of workability; increasing slump (to a reasonable extent) generally indicates higher consistency and improved ease of placement. Conversely, very dry mixes have low slump, not maximum slump. Thus, all four statements (a–d) are incorrect, making “None of these” the correct choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate (a): segregation is a defect; workable concrete should be cohesive and non-segregating.Evaluate (b): consistency is a key aspect of workability; the statement is false.Evaluate (c): slump ↑ ⇒ consistency ↑ (up to target limits), hence workability typically increases, not decreases.Evaluate (d): dry mixes yield very low slump; statement is false. Verification / Alternative check: Site control charts routinely correlate target slump ranges with placement method (pump, tremie, vibration) precisely because consistency affects workability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a–d) each contradicts accepted definitions and field experience regarding fresh concrete behaviour. Common Pitfalls: Assuming more water always improves quality; while higher slump can aid placement, excessive water increases w/c ratio and harms strength/durability if not controlled with admixtures. Final Answer: None of these

Q: Minimising shrinkage in concrete — effective mix and material strategies Which combination of actions can help reduce drying and autogenous shrinkage in concrete mixes for improved crack control and durability?

Introduction / Context: Shrinkage in concrete arises from moisture loss (drying shrinkage) and internal self-desiccation (autogenous shrinkage), leading to cracking, curling, and durability issues. Proper mix design and material handling can significantly mitigate these risks without excessive reliance on post-crack remedies. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal ambient curing conditions. Good construction practices and curing are applied. Focus on mixture-level strategies. Concept / Approach: Lowering the water–cement (w/c) ratio reduces capillary porosity and total water available for drying, thereby reducing shrinkage potential and improving strength. Optimizing paste content (reducing excess cement and water) limits the volume of shrinkage-prone phase. Well-graded aggregates improve packing and reduce paste demand, further curbing shrinkage. Bringing coarse and fine aggregates to saturated surface-dry (SSD) condition reduces early water absorption from paste, stabilizing the effective w/c ratio and mitigating plastic shrinkage. Together, these actions synergistically reduce shrinkage. Step-by-Step Solution: Adopt a low but workable w/c ratio, supported by water-reducing admixtures if needed.Optimize paste content by maximizing aggregate volume through proper grading.Ensure aggregates are in SSD condition to avoid robbing mix water.Cure adequately to control early moisture loss and thermal gradients. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory tests show linear correlations between paste volume and drying shrinkage; field experience corroborates that optimized grading and SSD aggregates improve dimensional stability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing any single measure yields partial benefit; the combined approach is most effective. Common Pitfalls: Chasing workability solely by adding water; neglecting curing; using overly rich pastes that elevate shrinkage risk. Final Answer: All the above

Q: Aggregates – criterion for a flaky particle According to standard definitions, an aggregate particle is termed “flaky” if its least dimension (thickness) is less than what fraction of its mean size?

Introduction / Context: Shape characteristics of aggregates—particularly flakiness and elongation—affect workability, compaction, and the mechanical interlock in concrete and bituminous mixes. Excess flaky particles increase surface area, demand more paste/bitumen, and can reduce strength and durability. Given Data / Assumptions: Mean size is the average of the sieve size through which the particle passes and the sieve size on which it is retained. “Least dimension” means thickness of the particle. Standard test equipment (flakiness gauge) is assumed. Concept / Approach: Standards define a particle as flaky if thickness < 0.6 * mean size. The factor 0.6 corresponds to 3/5. Limits on the percentage by mass of flaky particles are specified to maintain desirable aggregate skeleton. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute threshold: thickness limit = 0.6 * mean size.Convert 0.6 to a rational fraction: 3/5.Select the matching option: 3/5 of the mean size. Verification / Alternative check: Flakiness index testing uses slot widths equal to 0.6 times the mean sieve size for each fraction; particles passing are counted as flaky. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2/3 (0.667), 3/4 (0.75), 5/8 (0.625) do not match the codal threshold of 0.6. “None of these” is incorrect because 3/5 is correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing flakiness (thickness) with elongation (length); both must be controlled but use different gauges and limits. Final Answer: 3/5 of the mean size

Q: Concrete Compaction – benefits achieved by proper compaction Which properties of hardened concrete are improved by adequate compaction during placement?

Introduction / Context: Compaction expels entrapped air from freshly placed concrete and helps the paste fully surround aggregates and reinforcement. Poor compaction leads to honeycombing, pathways for ingress, and loss of section, all of which degrade performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete placed with internal or external vibrators as appropriate. Proper mix design and slump for the element being cast. Vibration applied just enough to remove air without segregation. Concept / Approach: Reducing voids raises unit weight (density). With fewer voids, the load-bearing solid skeleton increases, hence compressive strength rises. Denser, well-bonded concrete is less permeable, improving durability by resisting chloride ingress, carbonation, and freeze–thaw cycles. Step-by-Step Solution: Adequate compaction → less entrapped air → higher density.Higher density + improved paste–aggregate bond → higher compressive strength.Lower permeability and better cover quality → improved durability. Verification / Alternative check: Cube strength comparisons between poorly compacted and well-compacted specimens show significant strength gains when air voids are minimized (each 1% air can reduce strength by roughly 5% in ordinary concretes). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing single properties (a–c) ignores the holistic improvement; all are positively affected. “None” conflicts with well-established effects of compaction. Common Pitfalls: Over-vibration causing segregation or loss of entrained air in air-entrained mixes; under-vibration leaving honeycombs. Match vibrator type and duration to section thickness and reinforcement congestion. Final Answer: All of the above

Q: Fineness Modulus (FM) blending – compute required proportion (choose the nearest) You are to combine a fine aggregate with FM = 2.6 and a coarse aggregate with FM = 6.8 to obtain a combined FM of 5.4. What percentage of the fine aggregate should be …

Introduction / Context: Fineness modulus (FM) is a single-number index indicating aggregate coarseness. By blending a fine and a coarse aggregate, a target FM can be achieved for better grading and workability. This is a linear blending problem frequently used in mix design. Given Data / Assumptions: Fine aggregate FM (F1) = 2.6. Coarse aggregate FM (F2) = 6.8. Target combined FM (Ft) = 5.4. Let p = proportion (by mass) of the fine aggregate in the blend. Concept / Approach: For two-aggregate blends, combined FM is approximately the weighted average: Ft = pF1 + (1 - p)F2. Solve for p and convert to percentage. Choose the nearest option provided, since plant control and sieve rounding yield small deviations. Step-by-Step Solution: Write relation: 5.4 = p2.6 + (1 - p)6.8Expand: 5.4 = 2.6p + 6.8 - 6.8p = 6.8 - 4.2pRearrange: 4.2p = 6.8 - 5.4 = 1.4Compute: p = 1.4 / 4.2 = 0.333… = 33.33%Select the closest among the options: 30% Verification / Alternative check: Check with 30% fine: FM = 0.302.6 + 0.706.8 = 0.78 + 4.76 = 5.54 (slightly high). With 40% fine: FM = 5.16 (slightly low). The exact 33.3% lies between; batching tolerances make 30% a reasonable nearest choice for this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 40%, 50%, 60%, 20% deviate more from the computed 33.3% than 30% does, based on the provided discrete options. Common Pitfalls: Assuming FM blending is non-linear; for practical purposes, linear blending works well when the two aggregates are from stable sources and the same sieve series is used. Final Answer: 30%

Question 1

Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) — basic IS characteristics and limits For Ordinary Portland Cement used in general construction, which of the following statements match typical Indian Standard requirements and accepted practice (sieving residue, soun…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) remains the most widely specified binder for concrete and mortar. Quality control depends on quickly verifiable properties: fineness (sieve residue), soundness, setting times, and compressive strength at specified ages. Understanding these baseline limits is essential for field compliance and mixture design. Given Data / Assumptions: OPC for general structural use. IS practice with 90-µm sieve check for fineness. Le Chatelier soundness and Vicat setting times. 7-day compressive strength check representative of older unit conventions (kg/cm²). Concept / Approach: Fineness affects early hydration rate and strength gain. Excess residue (coarse particles) slows hydration and can impair strength. Soundness limits (e.g., ≤10 mm by Le Chatelier) guard against long-term expansion from free lime or magnesia. An initial set ≥30 min ensures workable time for placement. 7-day compressive strength limits provide an intermediate performance benchmark and quality screen for each cement lot. Step-by-Step Solution: Check fineness: residue ≤10% on 90-µm sieve aligns with common OPC specs.Soundness: expansion typically limited to the order of 5–10 mm (upper bound near 10 mm).Initial set: not less than 30 minutes preserves handling time.Strength: legacy threshold of ≈175 kg/cm² at 7 days (≈17 MPa) is a widely quoted minimum in older specifications. Verification / Alternative check: While current IS grades specify strengths in MPa (e.g., 33, 43, 53), older unit conversions and acceptance ranges map reasonably to the values listed, especially for general awareness questions. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing any single statement ignores the integrated nature of OPC specifications that jointly control fresh and hardened properties. Common Pitfalls: Mistaking standard sieve designations; conflating initial set with final set; assuming 7-day strength guarantees 28-day grade without considering curing and mix design. Final Answer: All the above

Question 2

Concrete workability at constant water content — influence of aggregate shape For the same water content and grading, which aggregate shape generally gives the best workability (highest slump/flow) in concrete?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workability is the ease with which concrete can be mixed, placed, consolidated, and finished without segregation. Aggregate characteristics strongly influence workability at a given water content because they affect internal friction, paste demand, and packing density. Given Data / Assumptions: Water content and grading are held constant. Only particle shape/texture varies among options. No chemical admixtures are considered. Concept / Approach: Rounded aggregates have lower specific surface area and smoother textures than angular, flaky, or elongated particles. This reduces paste demand and internal interlocking, resulting in reduced friction during movement. Consequently, for the same water and cement content, rounded particles produce higher slump (better workability). Flaky/elongated or angular aggregates increase interlock, raise surface area, and therefore demand more paste or water for the same workability. Step-by-Step Solution: Hold water and grading constant to isolate the shape effect.Compare internal friction: rounded < irregular < angular/flaky.Infer slump/flow: rounded aggregate mixes show the highest workability. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical slump tests demonstrate higher slump for river gravels at equal water content compared to crushed stone mixes; finishing effort is also reduced due to smoother textures. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Irregular/angular: higher interlock and surface area, lower workability. Flaky: worst for workability; may cause segregation and poor finish. None: incorrect because rounded is clearly best under stated conditions. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring grading and fines content, which also affect workability; assuming better workability always means better strength (not necessarily true). Final Answer: Rounded aggregates (river gravel)

Question 3

Sieve sizes used in grading — identify coarse vs. fine aggregate limits In standard Indian practice, IS sieves of sizes 10 mm and 4.75 mm are commonly employed in grading which category of aggregate?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Proper grading ensures workability, minimized segregation, and optimized paste demand. Understanding sieve thresholds helps distinguish fine and coarse fractions and select appropriate grading curves for each aggregate category. Given Data / Assumptions: IS sieve series and typical cutoffs. Boundary between fine and coarse aggregate commonly taken at 4.75 mm. 10 mm sieve is a standard size within coarse aggregate grading ranges. Concept / Approach: Fine aggregate (sand) is the fraction passing the 4.75 mm sieve. Coarse aggregate is retained on the 4.75 mm sieve and graded through larger sieves such as 10 mm, 12.5 mm, 20 mm, and 40 mm. Therefore, both 4.75 mm (as a boundary) and 10 mm (as a sizing sieve) are integral to grading coarse aggregates in practice. Step-by-Step Solution: Recognize the 4.75 mm sieve as the dividing line; material retained is coarse.A 10 mm sieve is a typical coarse grading sieve for smaller nominal sizes.Hence, these sieves are associated primarily with coarse aggregate grading. Verification / Alternative check: IS grading tables for coarse aggregates specify percentage passing/retained for 10 mm and larger sieves; 4.75 mm is included as the lower boundary for coarse aggregate. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Fine aggregates are mainly graded with sieves below 4.75 mm (e.g., 2.36, 1.18, 600 µm, 300 µm, 150 µm). The sieves are not exclusive to both categories in the way implied; they chiefly define and grade the coarse fraction. Common Pitfalls: Confusing the boundary sieve (4.75 mm) with full fine aggregate grading ranges; ignoring nominal maximum size selection for mixes. Final Answer: Coarse aggregates

Question 4

Cement selection for mass concrete — best choice for a massive dam When constructing a massive gravity dam where heat generation and thermal cracking risk are critical, which type of cement should be selected?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Mass concrete elements, such as gravity dams, experience significant temperature rise from cement hydration. The resulting thermal gradients can cause cracking if the temperature rise is excessive or rapid. Selecting an appropriate cement type is central to thermal control and durability in such structures. Given Data / Assumptions: Very large section thicknesses and slow heat dissipation. Primary concern: limiting peak temperature and differential thermal strains. Conventional placement with temperature control measures (e.g., cooling pipes, lift thickness control) may be used. Concept / Approach: Low heat cement is specifically formulated (reduced C3A and moderate C3S) to lower the rate and amount of heat evolved during hydration. This mitigates thermal cracking risk. Rapid hardening cement is unsuitable due to high early heat. OPC generates more heat than low heat cement. Blast furnace slag cement can reduce heat relative to OPC and is often beneficial; however, when a single best choice is requested for a massive dam, the textbook answer is low heat cement, purpose-designed for mass concrete applications. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify performance need: minimize heat of hydration and thermal gradients.Select cement tailored for mass pours: low heat cement.Recognize that while slag cement helps, the canonical choice is low heat cement for dams. Verification / Alternative check: Historic dam projects and specifications commonly cite low heat cement or blended systems designed for low heat evolution as preferred binders for mass concrete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: OPC: higher heat of hydration. Rapid hardening: very high early heat; risk of thermal cracking. Blast furnace slag cement: helpful but not as targeted as low heat cement when a single best answer is sought. White cement: selected for colour, not thermal performance. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring placement temperature, lift thickness, and cooling strategies; assuming admixtures alone can offset high-heat cements. Final Answer: Low heat cement

Question 5

Concrete aggregates — classification by weight, shape, and surface texture Select the comprehensive statement that correctly lists common classification schemes for concrete aggregates used in mix design and construction.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregates occupy the bulk volume of concrete and strongly influence workability, strength, shrinkage, and durability. Engineers classify aggregates in several ways to anticipate performance and select suitable materials for a given application. Given Data / Assumptions: Multiple classification criteria are valid simultaneously. Terminology may vary slightly across references, but the categories are widely recognized. Focus is on practical construction-oriented classification. Concept / Approach: Common aggregate classifications include: (1) by relative density/bulk density (lightweight, normal weight, heavyweight) linked to mineralogy and source; (2) by particle shape (rounded, irregular/subrounded, angular, flaky/elongated) affecting workability and packing; and (3) by surface texture (glassy, smooth, granular, rough, crystalline, honeycombed, porous), which influences paste bond and water demand. These classifications help predict concrete behaviour and guide adjustments in mix proportions or admixture use. Step-by-Step Solution: Acknowledge that aggregates are grouped by multiple attributes.Confirm shape categories: rounded → best workability; angular/flaky → higher paste demand.Confirm texture categories: rough/porous → higher bond but more water demand; smooth/glassy → lower bond, better flow.Confirm weight/density grouping: lightweight (e.g., expanded clay), normal (natural rocks), heavyweight (barite, magnetite) for specialized concretes. Verification / Alternative check: Design guides and codes adopt these same schemes in aggregate acceptance criteria and in recommendations on grading and fines content. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking any single scheme omits other widely used and necessary classifications for mix design and performance prediction. Common Pitfalls: Using only nominal size to characterize aggregates; ignoring shape and texture impacts on water demand and cement content. Final Answer: All the above

Question 6

Ordinary concrete — which grade is NOT typically classed as ordinary? In the conventional Indian grading system where M-grades denote characteristic compressive strength (e.g., M10, M15, M20, M25, M40), which of the following is not usually…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: “Ordinary concrete” in common site parlance refers to normal-strength mixes used for regular building elements (e.g., M10–M25). Higher grades require more stringent control of materials, water–cement ratio, and curing to achieve high strength and durability, and they are not typically labelled “ordinary.” Given Data / Assumptions: M-grades indicate characteristic compressive strength in kg/cm² or MPa (e.g., M400 ≈ 40 MPa). Ordinary building work often uses M10–M25 grades. High-grade concrete (≥M40) is used for special performance requirements. Concept / Approach: Lower M-grades (M100, M150, M200, M250 in kg/cm² notation) fall within conventional applications such as blinding layers, slabs, beams, and columns of standard buildings. M400 corresponds to a much higher strength class (≈40 MPa), commonly treated as high-strength/structural grade beyond the “ordinary” label in everyday usage and requiring enhanced quality control and possibly admixtures. Step-by-Step Solution: Map grades: M100–M250 → ordinary; M400 → higher-strength class.Identify the outlier relative to “ordinary”: M400.Hence, the grade not regarded as ordinary is M400. Verification / Alternative check: Typical schedules for RCC in regular buildings show M20/M25; high-rise or prestressed elements often specify ≥M40, reinforcing the distinction. Why Other Options Are Wrong: M100, M150, M200, M250: broadly found in ordinary concrete use cases. Common Pitfalls: Confusing legacy kg/cm² notation with MPa; assuming “ordinary” is a strict code term rather than widely used practical terminology. Final Answer: M 400

Question 7

Effect of sand grading — which properties vary significantly? Variation in the grading (particle size distribution) of fine aggregate (sand) most strongly affects which aspects of concrete performance and handling?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fine aggregate grading controls paste demand, packing density, and bleeding/segregation tendencies. Consequently, it influences fresh properties and the hardened performance of concrete, especially when water–cement ratio is adjusted to maintain workability. Given Data / Assumptions: Only sand grading varies; other materials and proportions are otherwise comparable. Mix adjustments may be made to achieve target slump. Normal Portland cement concrete is considered. Concept / Approach: Well-graded sand reduces voids and paste demand, improving workability without excessive water, which supports higher strength and improved durability (lower permeability). Poorly graded or overly fine sands increase water demand for the same workability, raising w/c ratio, which reduces strength and durability. Extremely gap-graded sands increase segregation and finishing difficulties, complicating handling and placing. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate grading to paste demand: finer or poorly graded → more paste/water needed.Relate water demand to strength and durability via w/c ratio.Acknowledge the practical effects on slump, pumpability, finishing, and segregation. Verification / Alternative check: Empirical mix design charts show clear links between sand fineness modulus and water demand; durability indicators (e.g., rapid chloride permeability) correlate with paste content and w/c ratio affected by grading. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one or two properties overlooks the coupled impact of grading on both fresh and hardened characteristics. Common Pitfalls: Compensating poor grading with excess cement rather than optimized gradation; ignoring variability in sand source leading to day-to-day changes in slump. Final Answer: All the above

Question 8

Concrete workability and slump — identify the correct relationship Which of the following statements about segregation, consistency, and slump is correct regarding fresh concrete workability?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workability is the umbrella term covering consistency, cohesion, mobility, and compactibility of fresh concrete. Field indicators such as the slump test provide a quick measure of consistency, which correlates positively (within limits) with workability for a given mix design. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard slump test conditions and typical structural concrete mixes. Segregation is undesirable; cohesive mixes are targeted. “Dry” mix implies low water content/high stiffness. Concept / Approach: Segregation is the separation of coarse aggregate from mortar/paste and is harmful, not a prerequisite for workability. Consistency (wetness or flow) is a component of workability; increasing slump (to a reasonable extent) generally indicates higher consistency and improved ease of placement. Conversely, very dry mixes have low slump, not maximum slump. Thus, all four statements (a–d) are incorrect, making “None of these” the correct choice. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate (a): segregation is a defect; workable concrete should be cohesive and non-segregating.Evaluate (b): consistency is a key aspect of workability; the statement is false.Evaluate (c): slump ↑ ⇒ consistency ↑ (up to target limits), hence workability typically increases, not decreases.Evaluate (d): dry mixes yield very low slump; statement is false. Verification / Alternative check: Site control charts routinely correlate target slump ranges with placement method (pump, tremie, vibration) precisely because consistency affects workability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a–d) each contradicts accepted definitions and field experience regarding fresh concrete behaviour. Common Pitfalls: Assuming more water always improves quality; while higher slump can aid placement, excessive water increases w/c ratio and harms strength/durability if not controlled with admixtures. Final Answer: None of these

Question 9

Minimising shrinkage in concrete — effective mix and material strategies Which combination of actions can help reduce drying and autogenous shrinkage in concrete mixes for improved crack control and durability?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Shrinkage in concrete arises from moisture loss (drying shrinkage) and internal self-desiccation (autogenous shrinkage), leading to cracking, curling, and durability issues. Proper mix design and material handling can significantly mitigate these risks without excessive reliance on post-crack remedies. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal ambient curing conditions. Good construction practices and curing are applied. Focus on mixture-level strategies. Concept / Approach: Lowering the water–cement (w/c) ratio reduces capillary porosity and total water available for drying, thereby reducing shrinkage potential and improving strength. Optimizing paste content (reducing excess cement and water) limits the volume of shrinkage-prone phase. Well-graded aggregates improve packing and reduce paste demand, further curbing shrinkage. Bringing coarse and fine aggregates to saturated surface-dry (SSD) condition reduces early water absorption from paste, stabilizing the effective w/c ratio and mitigating plastic shrinkage. Together, these actions synergistically reduce shrinkage. Step-by-Step Solution: Adopt a low but workable w/c ratio, supported by water-reducing admixtures if needed.Optimize paste content by maximizing aggregate volume through proper grading.Ensure aggregates are in SSD condition to avoid robbing mix water.Cure adequately to control early moisture loss and thermal gradients. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory tests show linear correlations between paste volume and drying shrinkage; field experience corroborates that optimized grading and SSD aggregates improve dimensional stability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing any single measure yields partial benefit; the combined approach is most effective. Common Pitfalls: Chasing workability solely by adding water; neglecting curing; using overly rich pastes that elevate shrinkage risk. Final Answer: All the above

Question 10

Concrete Workability – identify the single correct statement Consider the following statements about fresh concrete and slump/workability. Select the one statement that is correct and most generally true for site practice.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workability describes how easily freshly mixed concrete can be placed, compacted, and finished without segregation or bleeding. The slump test is a rapid field indicator of workability. Understanding what specific slump values imply helps supervisors judge moisture control, sand proportioning, and suitability of mixes for different members. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional slump cone test for normal-weight concrete. No chemical admixtures unless stated; ordinary site concrete. “Dry mix” refers to very low water content and harsh consistency. Concept / Approach: In the slump test, a very dry, harsh mix does not subside when the cone is lifted, giving a slump of about zero. Higher slump generally reflects more fluidity, usually due to higher water content or water-reducing admixtures. However, diagnosing sand deficiency strictly from high slump is incorrect; lack of fines usually reduces cohesion and can even reduce measurable slump for the same water content. Step-by-Step Solution: Link “dry mix” to measurable effect: with inadequate water, concrete retains its shape → slump ≈ 0.Check other claims: “higher workability = sand deficiency” is not a reliable rule; grading affects cohesion more than pure workability.“Zero slump unsuitable for high strength” is false; high-strength concrete often uses low w/c ratios and may have low slump unless superplasticized.Therefore, the universally correct statement is that a dry mix yields zero slump. Verification / Alternative check: Site practice correlates zero slump with very stiff concrete used for road kerbs or roller-compacted placements; the measurement consistently reads near zero. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) Higher workability can come from admixtures or optimized grading, not only excess moisture. (b) Sand deficiency tends to decrease cohesiveness; it is not a diagnostic for “higher workability”. (d) High strength is compatible with low slump; superplasticizers decouple strength from slump. (e) Cannot be true because (b) and (d) are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Using slump alone to approve mixes; always consider segregation risk, placement method, and admixture effects. Control water content by mass, not by visual judgement. Final Answer: If the concrete mix is dry, the slump is zero

Question 11

Aggregates – criterion for a flaky particle According to standard definitions, an aggregate particle is termed “flaky” if its least dimension (thickness) is less than what fraction of its mean size?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Shape characteristics of aggregates—particularly flakiness and elongation—affect workability, compaction, and the mechanical interlock in concrete and bituminous mixes. Excess flaky particles increase surface area, demand more paste/bitumen, and can reduce strength and durability. Given Data / Assumptions: Mean size is the average of the sieve size through which the particle passes and the sieve size on which it is retained. “Least dimension” means thickness of the particle. Standard test equipment (flakiness gauge) is assumed. Concept / Approach: Standards define a particle as flaky if thickness < 0.6 * mean size. The factor 0.6 corresponds to 3/5. Limits on the percentage by mass of flaky particles are specified to maintain desirable aggregate skeleton. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute threshold: thickness limit = 0.6 * mean size.Convert 0.6 to a rational fraction: 3/5.Select the matching option: 3/5 of the mean size. Verification / Alternative check: Flakiness index testing uses slot widths equal to 0.6 times the mean sieve size for each fraction; particles passing are counted as flaky. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2/3 (0.667), 3/4 (0.75), 5/8 (0.625) do not match the codal threshold of 0.6. “None of these” is incorrect because 3/5 is correct. Common Pitfalls: Confusing flakiness (thickness) with elongation (length); both must be controlled but use different gauges and limits. Final Answer: 3/5 of the mean size

Question 12

Concrete Compaction – benefits achieved by proper compaction Which properties of hardened concrete are improved by adequate compaction during placement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Compaction expels entrapped air from freshly placed concrete and helps the paste fully surround aggregates and reinforcement. Poor compaction leads to honeycombing, pathways for ingress, and loss of section, all of which degrade performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete placed with internal or external vibrators as appropriate. Proper mix design and slump for the element being cast. Vibration applied just enough to remove air without segregation. Concept / Approach: Reducing voids raises unit weight (density). With fewer voids, the load-bearing solid skeleton increases, hence compressive strength rises. Denser, well-bonded concrete is less permeable, improving durability by resisting chloride ingress, carbonation, and freeze–thaw cycles. Step-by-Step Solution: Adequate compaction → less entrapped air → higher density.Higher density + improved paste–aggregate bond → higher compressive strength.Lower permeability and better cover quality → improved durability. Verification / Alternative check: Cube strength comparisons between poorly compacted and well-compacted specimens show significant strength gains when air voids are minimized (each 1% air can reduce strength by roughly 5% in ordinary concretes). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing single properties (a–c) ignores the holistic improvement; all are positively affected. “None” conflicts with well-established effects of compaction. Common Pitfalls: Over-vibration causing segregation or loss of entrained air in air-entrained mixes; under-vibration leaving honeycombs. Match vibrator type and duration to section thickness and reinforcement congestion. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 13

Fineness Modulus (FM) blending – compute required proportion (choose the nearest) You are to combine a fine aggregate with FM = 2.6 and a coarse aggregate with FM = 6.8 to obtain a combined FM of 5.4. What percentage of the fine aggregate should be …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Fineness modulus (FM) is a single-number index indicating aggregate coarseness. By blending a fine and a coarse aggregate, a target FM can be achieved for better grading and workability. This is a linear blending problem frequently used in mix design. Given Data / Assumptions: Fine aggregate FM (F1) = 2.6. Coarse aggregate FM (F2) = 6.8. Target combined FM (Ft) = 5.4. Let p = proportion (by mass) of the fine aggregate in the blend. Concept / Approach: For two-aggregate blends, combined FM is approximately the weighted average: Ft = pF1 + (1 - p)F2. Solve for p and convert to percentage. Choose the nearest option provided, since plant control and sieve rounding yield small deviations. Step-by-Step Solution: Write relation: 5.4 = p2.6 + (1 - p)6.8Expand: 5.4 = 2.6p + 6.8 - 6.8p = 6.8 - 4.2pRearrange: 4.2p = 6.8 - 5.4 = 1.4Compute: p = 1.4 / 4.2 = 0.333… = 33.33%Select the closest among the options: 30% Verification / Alternative check: Check with 30% fine: FM = 0.302.6 + 0.706.8 = 0.78 + 4.76 = 5.54 (slightly high). With 40% fine: FM = 5.16 (slightly low). The exact 33.3% lies between; batching tolerances make 30% a reasonable nearest choice for this question. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 40%, 50%, 60%, 20% deviate more from the computed 33.3% than 30% does, based on the provided discrete options. Common Pitfalls: Assuming FM blending is non-linear; for practical purposes, linear blending works well when the two aggregates are from stable sources and the same sieve series is used. Final Answer: 30%

Question 14

Slump Test Apparatus – identify the incorrect statement Regarding the standard slump cone used in the slump test for concrete, which statement below is incorrect?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The slump test assesses workability by measuring the subsidence of concrete after removing a standard mould. Accurate results depend on a correctly shaped and maintained mould and proper test procedure. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard slump cone (Abrams cone). End faces are nominally parallel and the axis is normal to them. Clean internal surface ensures friction does not bias results. Concept / Approach: The slump mould is a frustum of a right circular cone (not a hexagonal pyramid). The standard dimensions are typically 200 mm top diameter, 300 mm height, and 100 mm bottom diameter, with smooth internal surface. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the geometric shape required by the standard: frustum of a right circular cone.Compare each statement to the standard specification.Only the hexagonal pyramid statement conflicts with the requirement. Verification / Alternative check: Inspection of certified slump cones confirms circular cross-sections; hexagonal forms are not used in the standard test. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) describe correct geometry/tolerances. (c) is essential good practice for repeatable results. (e) cannot be correct because one incorrect statement exists. Common Pitfalls: Using dented or out-of-round cones or dirty interiors can give misleading slump values; always verify apparatus condition. Final Answer: The mould is in the form of a frustum of a hexagonal pyramid

Question 15

Mix Design Aids – what do C.R.R.I. charts relate to? C.R.R.I. (Central Road Research Institute) charts are commonly used to obtain a relationship between concrete strength and which primary mix parameter?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Empirical charts are used in preliminary mix design to select proportions that achieve target strengths without excessive trial mixes. The most influential parameter for strength in conventional concretes is the water–cement (w/c) ratio. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal-density aggregates and ordinary Portland cement. Standard curing and test age (e.g., 28 days). Charts compiled from calibrated laboratory data. Concept / Approach: Concrete strength decreases as w/c increases, due to higher capillary porosity. C.R.R.I. charts conveniently plot characteristic/compressive strength against w/c for given materials and conditions, enabling the designer to pick an initial w/c for the target grade. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the most direct predictor of strength → water–cement ratio.Recognize that workability and grading are adjusted separately to meet placement needs without sacrificing the selected w/c (use admixtures as needed). Verification / Alternative check: Classic relationships (e.g., Abram’s law) correlate strength inversely with w/c, which the charts operationalize for practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Workability: primarily controlled by water content and admixtures but not a direct strength index. Grading and fineness modulus affect paste demand and finishability, not strength as directly as w/c. “None” is incorrect because charts explicitly use w/c. Common Pitfalls: Changing water to improve slump after selecting w/c; instead, adjust with admixtures or re-balance aggregate grading to keep strength on target. Final Answer: Water–cement ratio

Question 16

Concrete Batching – outcomes of proper proportioning and measurement What benefits does proper batching (accurate proportioning and measurement of all constituents) ensure for concrete?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Batching is the controlled measurement of cement, aggregates, water, and admixtures prior to mixing. Whether by mass (preferred) or by well-calibrated volume methods, accurate batching underpins quality concrete production. Given Data / Assumptions: Consistent materials and moisture corrections applied to aggregates. Scales and dispensers are calibrated. Mix design targets are known. Concept / Approach: Economy results from avoiding over-cementing and minimizing rework. Durability improves when w/c is controlled and cover paste quality is consistent. Workability is achieved when water and grading are dosed to plan, avoiding last-minute, strength-reducing water additions. Strength depends on maintaining the designed w/c and paste volume. Step-by-Step Solution: Accurate cement and water → w/c on target → predictable strength and durability.Correct aggregate masses + moisture correction → constant yield and workability.Admixture dosing as per specification → performance (set, slump retention) without variability. Verification / Alternative check: Quality control data show reduced standard deviation of strength and slump when batching accuracy is maintained, directly translating to cost and performance benefits. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing any single benefit understates the holistic impact; all listed attributes improve with proper batching. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring aggregate moisture leads to unintended w/c changes; periodically calibrate scales and verify dispenser accuracy. Final Answer: All the above

Question 17

Bulking of Sand – compute percentage bulking from height readings In a cylinder test, the depth of moist sand is 15 cm. After full inundation with water, the depth reduces to 12 cm. What is the percentage bulking of the moist sand?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Bulking is the increase in apparent volume of sand due to a thin film of water around particles that causes them to repel and bridge. It is important for volumetric proportioning at site; failure to correct for bulking results in lean mixes and strength loss. Given Data / Assumptions: Apparent depth (height) of moist sand in cylinder, hm = 15 cm. Depth after inundation (true volume with no bulking), hs = 12 cm. Same mass of sand before and after inundation; readings are proportional to volume. Concept / Approach: Percentage bulking is computed with respect to the saturated (no bulking) condition as the base: Bulking % = [(Vm - Vs) / Vs] * 100 = [(hm - hs) / hs] * 100, since depth is proportional to volume in the same container. Step-by-Step Solution: Compute difference in depths: hm - hs = 15 - 12 = 3 cm.Divide by saturated depth: 3 / 12 = 0.25.Convert to percent: 0.25 * 100 = 25%.Therefore, bulking of the moist sand = 25%. Verification / Alternative check: Typical bulking curves show maxima around 20–35% at about 4–6% moisture content for fine sand, aligning well with the computed 25%. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 10%, 12%, 15%, 20% are lower than the correct calculation based on the given measurements. Common Pitfalls: Using moist volume directly for batching without bulking correction; always base volumetric batching on saturated-surface-dry or adjust volume by the measured bulking percentage. Final Answer: 25%

Question 18

Mix Water – typical water required per 50 kg bag of cement for a workable concrete Approximately how much water (by mass) is required per 50 kg bag of cement to produce a normal workable concrete mix (typical site value without admixtures)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The water content of concrete governs workability and, through the water–cement ratio, strongly influences strength and durability. On many sites, a rule-of-thumb water amount per cement bag is quoted for ordinary, hand-placed mixes when no admixtures are used. Given Data / Assumptions: Cement bag = 50 kg. “Normal workable” mix for general RCC elements without pumping. No chemical water-reducers; aggregates in SSD or corrections applied. Concept / Approach: Typical water–cement ratios for general-purpose concrete range from about 0.45 to 0.60 depending on strength grade and workability requirements. Taking a mid-range w/c of ~0.55 yields water per bag of approximately 0.55 * 50 kg = 27.5 kg, commonly rounded to 28 kg in practice. Step-by-Step Solution: Assume w/c suitable for normal placement ≈ 0.55.Compute water per bag: 0.55 * 50 = 27.5 kg.Round to the nearest kilogram in the given options → 28 kg. Verification / Alternative check: For the minimum water required for complete hydration only, about 0.23 * 50 ≈ 11.5 kg is needed, but additional water is essential for workability; hence the higher practical value around 28 kg. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7, 14, 21 kg correspond to very low w/c (0.14–0.42) and would be too stiff without plasticizers. 35 kg corresponds to w/c = 0.70, excessively high and detrimental to strength and durability. Common Pitfalls: Adding water at site to “restore” slump; this raises w/c and reduces strength. Instead, adjust with admixtures or re-balance aggregate moisture. Final Answer: 28 kg

Question 19

Effect of Pozzolana – choose the comprehensive effect on OPC When pozzolana is added to ordinary Portland cement (OPC) to form a blended cement, which of the following effects typically occur?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pozzolanas (such as fly ash, calcined clay, or silica fume in proportion) react with calcium hydroxide liberated during cement hydration to form additional calcium silicate hydrates. Blended cements alter the fresh and hardened properties of concrete in several predictable ways. Given Data / Assumptions: Moderate replacement levels appropriate to common blended cements. Comparable curing conditions. Aggregate and mix proportions reasonably controlled. Concept / Approach: Early-age strength may decrease because pozzolanic reactions are slower initially, though later strengths catch up or exceed OPC due to secondary C–S–H formation. Pozzolanas typically reduce permeability and the availability of free lime, improving resistance to sulphate attack. Finer pozzolans improve cohesiveness and reduce bleeding. Some blends can show a slight increase in drying shrinkage due to finer pore structure and higher paste volumes if not optimized. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess early strength: tends to be lower at 1–7 days compared to neat OPC → (a) true.Assess sulphate interaction: reduced free Ca(OH)2 and denser matrix → (b) true.Evaluate shrinkage: finer pore structure may increase drying shrinkage if curing is inadequate → (c) can increase.Fresh concrete effects: better cohesiveness and lower bleeding with fine pozzolanic particles → (d) true. Verification / Alternative check: Performance specifications and durability indexes for blended cements consistently show lower permeability and improved sulphate resistance at equal strength levels. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each of (a)–(d) reflects a recognized effect; therefore the comprehensive answer is “All of the above”. Common Pitfalls: Expecting identical early strengths to OPC without curing or admixture adjustments; ensure adequate curing to realize long-term gains and mitigate shrinkage. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 20

Concrete Mix Proportioning – Volumetric batching for a 1:3:6 mix per 50 kg bag of cement For a concrete mix specified by volume as 1 : 3 : 6 (cement : sand : coarse aggregates), if batching is done by volume using one 50 kg bag of cement as the ceme…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Volumetric batching is widely used on small to medium construction sites, where ingredients for nominal mixes are measured in boxes, pans, or by using one cement bag as a unit volume. For a 1:3:6 concrete (cement : sand : coarse aggregates), it is essential to convert the single cement bag into an equivalent volume so that the corresponding volumes of sand and aggregates can be set out quickly and consistently. Given Data / Assumptions: Nominal mix ratio by volume = 1 (cement) : 3 (sand) : 6 (coarse aggregates). One 50 kg cement bag is assumed to occupy ≈ 35 litres (0.035 m^3). Volumetric batching boxes or gauges are used. Concept / Approach: In volumetric batching, each part in the ratio corresponds to an equal volume unit. If “1 part cement” is taken as the volume of one 50 kg bag (≈ 35 litres), then the sand and aggregate volumes follow directly from the ratio. This method ensures quick field control, provided that moisture corrections for sand and bulking are also considered during actual batching and mixing. Step-by-Step Solution: Let 1 part cement = volume of one 50 kg bag ≈ 35 litres.Sand required = 3 parts = 3 * 35 = 105 litres.Coarse aggregates required = 6 parts = 6 * 35 = 210 litres.Therefore, per 50 kg bag → 105 litres sand and 210 litres aggregates. Verification / Alternative check: Using density approach: bulk density of cement ≈ 1440 kg/m^3 gives volume of 50 kg ≈ 50/1440 m^3 ≈ 0.0347 m^3 ≈ 34.7 litres, commonly rounded to 35 litres for site practice. Multiplying by the ratio yields the same volumes within normal field tolerances. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options with 70 litres or 140 litres do not align with the 1:3:6 proportionality when the cement volume is 35 litres. Using kilograms for sand (option B) mixes mass and volume measures, which is inconsistent with volumetric batching. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring bulking of sand (add volume corrections for moist sand), not accounting for water content changes, and confusing mass-based with volume-based batching. Always keep gauges clean and consistent. Final Answer: 105 litres of sand and 210 litres of aggregates

Concrete Technology Questions