Q: Concrete curing: The process of hardening concrete by maintaining adequate moisture at the surface after placement is called

Introduction / Context: Curing ensures the hydration of cement proceeds sufficiently to develop desired strength and durability. It is distinct from placing and compaction, and it continues well after initial set. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete has been placed and compacted. Environmental exposure may cause evaporation. Objective is to keep moisture and temperature favorable for hydration. Concept / Approach: “Curing” comprises methods such as water ponding, wet coverings, curing compounds, and membrane sealing to prevent moisture loss and control temperature. Adequate curing reduces plastic shrinkage, improves surface wear resistance, and increases long-term strength. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the aim: maintain moisture for hydration after set.Associate with the correct term → curing.Differentiate from placing (initial deposit), wetting (informal), and compacting (air removal). Verification / Alternative check: Strength gain curves show clear improvements with longer, proper curing relative to air-dried controls. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Placing/Compacting are separate construction stages; “wetting” is not the technical term. Common Pitfalls: Stopping curing too early; curing only visible surfaces while edges/corners dry out. Final Answer: Curing.

Q: Cement storage logistics: A warehouse has internal plan dimensions 15 m × 5.6 m, with a maximum stack (pile) height of 2.70 m. What is the maximum number of cement bags that can be stored in two piles?

Introduction / Context: Stacking cement requires respecting recommended pile heights and planning the footprint to utilize space safely. Estimating bag capacity from store dimensions is a routine site-planning task for procurement and logistics. Given Data / Assumptions: Internal plan size = 15 m × 5.6 m → area = 84 m^2. Maximum pile height = 2.70 m (about 15 bags high at ~0.18 m per bag layer). Two piles are to be formed, together utilizing most of the available floor area (ignoring narrow peripheral clearances for this estimate). Typical 50 kg bag plan size around 0.7 m × 0.5 m when stacked (≈ 0.35 m^2 per bag per layer). Concept / Approach: To estimate total bags: compute bags per layer from floor area and then multiply by number of layers. Packing is not perfect; allow a modest packing factor. The final number should align with practical stacking norms and safety. Step-by-Step Solution: Plan area A = 15 * 5.6 = 84 m^2.Area demand per bag per layer a ≈ 0.35 m^2; adopt a packing efficiency ~0.90 → effective area per bag ≈ 0.35 / 0.90 ≈ 0.389 m^2.Bags per layer ≈ 84 / 0.389 ≈ 216.Layers allowable by height ≈ 2.70 / 0.18 ≈ 15 layers.Total bags ≈ 216 * 15 ≈ 3240. Accounting for gangways/clearances and forming exactly two piles reduces capacity modestly → about 3000 bags. Verification / Alternative check: Volume method: room volume up to 2.7 m ≈ 84 * 2.7 = 226.8 m^3. Bag volume ≈ 50/1440 ≈ 0.035 m^3. Theoretical max ≈ 226.8 / 0.035 ≈ 6480 bags. After applying practical packing/clearance limits and two defined piles, a value near 3000 is reasonable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1500–2500 bags underestimate capacity for the given area and height.4000 bags overshoots once realistic aisles and two-pile arrangement are considered. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring safety clearances and overestimating capacity; exceeding recommended stack height (about 15 bags) which risks cement lumping and instability. Final Answer: 3000 bags.

Question 1

Concrete Strength Development – IS practice for “full” characteristic strength According to standard Indian practice, the characteristic (specified) compressive strength of concrete used for acceptance is conventionally taken at what age under norma…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete gains strength with time as cement hydrates. Codes define a standard test age for acceptance so results are comparable across sites and mixes. In Indian practice, quality control cubes are commonly tested at a specified age that represents the “full” characteristic strength for compliance and design assumptions. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement concrete cured in water at standard conditions. Acceptance testing follows standard cube testing protocols. No special rapid-hardening cement or accelerated curing assumed. Concept / Approach: While concrete gains appreciable strength in the first week, strength development continues beyond 7 and 14 days. The conventional benchmark age for characteristic compressive strength (used for compliance) is 28 days. This standardization allows consistent specification, mix design, and acceptance criteria. Earlier tests (7-day or 14-day) are often used only as indicators or for early decision-making, not for final acceptance unless otherwise specified. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify standard acceptance age → 28 days.Relate to practice: mix grades (for example, M25) refer to 28-day characteristic strength in MPa.Note: early-age tests guide curing and formwork removal decisions but do not replace the 28-day acceptance unless permitted by specification. Verification / Alternative check: Site QC logs and laboratory forms schedule cube tests at 7 and 28 days, with 28-day results used for contractual acceptance. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 7, 14, and 21 days reflect partial hydration; they are useful indicators but not the standard acceptance age for characteristic strength. Common Pitfalls: Assuming slow strength gain implies failure; many mixes gain strength beyond 28 days, but acceptance remains tied to the 28-day benchmark unless otherwise agreed. Final Answer: 28 days

Question 2

Joints in Concrete – Identify the incorrect statement about construction and expansion joints Which one of the following statements is NOT correct regarding the purpose and planning of joints in concrete structures?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete structures require intentional joints for constructability and performance. However, different joint types serve different functions. Confusing construction joints with contraction (shrinkage) or expansion joints can lead to poor detailing and unintended cracking. This item asks you to spot the incorrect statement. Given Data / Assumptions: Cast-in-place concrete work with practical placement lengths. Thermal movements expected in exposed components. Foundations are buried and experience minimal temperature fluctuation compared with superstructure elements. Concept / Approach: Construction joints are planned stoppages in concreting operations due to practical limits on placement volume or time; they are located at structurally suitable points and detailed for shear transfer and continuity. Contraction (control) joints are intentional planes of weakness or pre-formed grooves to control cracking due to drying shrinkage and minor thermal effects. Expansion joints separate adjacent structural parts to accommodate expansion and contraction caused by temperature variations; such joints are typically unnecessary in foundations because temperature swings are small below grade. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Correct—construction joint locations are pre-planned.Option B: Correct—expansion joints address thermal expansion.Option C: Incorrect—controlling shrinkage cracks is the role of contraction/control joints, not construction joints.Option D: Generally correct—expansion joints are seldom needed in foundations due to stable temperatures and restraint by soil. Verification / Alternative check: Design and construction manuals distinguish joint types and show typical details: keys, dowels, and shear connectors at construction joints; sealants and preformed fillers at expansion joints; saw cuts or tooled joints for contraction joints in slabs. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They correctly describe joint purposes and typical practice (A, B, D). Only C misattributes function to the wrong joint type. Common Pitfalls: Locating construction joints at high shear regions; forgetting curing and timely saw cuts for contraction joints; overusing expansion joints where restraint exists. Final Answer: Construction joints are provided to control shrinkage cracks.

Question 3

Construction Joints – Preferred locations within structural members Where should a construction joint ideally be provided in a reinforced concrete member to minimize adverse effects on structural behavior?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Construction joints are unavoidable stoppages in concrete placement. Their locations must be chosen to minimize negative impacts on strength and serviceability. Understanding the internal force distribution helps decide the best placement zone for a joint in beams, slabs, and walls. Given Data / Assumptions: Monolithic behavior is preferred; reinforcement provides continuity across the joint. Joints will be keyed, roughened, and properly cleaned before continuation of concreting. Load effects include bending and shear. Concept / Approach: Shear transfer across a joint is more sensitive to discontinuity than bending because joints can reduce aggregate interlock and interface shear capacity. Therefore, joints are usually placed at zones of minimum shear. In simply supported beams and one-way slabs, minimum shear occurs near midspan; consequently, joints are commonly located at or near the middle third. For walls and columns, joints are often placed away from high-shear regions and close to level transitions where forces are lower. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify internal forces: shear is maximum near supports and minimum near midspan.Select joint position to reduce interface shear demand → region of low shear.Detail the joint with roughening, keys, and continuity bars to restore capacity.Ensure curing and surface preparation before placing the next lift. Verification / Alternative check: Standard recommendations put beam/slab construction joints at the middle third (low shear zone) and column joints at about one-third height from the floor or just below a beam soffit, avoiding high shear transfer planes. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “Where bending moment is small” may lead to regions of high shear near supports. “At member supports” typically coincides with peak shear and is undesirable. “All of the above” cannot be correct because the best single criterion is low shear. Common Pitfalls: Placing joints near supports without shear keys; poor surface preparation; inadequate curing leading to weak interfaces. Final Answer: Where shear force is small

Question 4

Cement Hydration – Pattern of hardening over time Which statement best describes how the hardening (strength gain) of ordinary Portland cement concrete progresses with age under normal curing?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Strength development in concrete is a direct consequence of cement hydration, which is temperature and moisture dependent. Understanding the general trend of hardening helps in planning formwork removal, prestressing operations, and early loading decisions. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement concrete with continuous moist curing. Ambient temperatures within normal ranges. No special admixtures intended to drastically alter early-age kinetics. Concept / Approach: Hydration is fastest immediately after casting and during the first few days, leading to rapid early strength gain. Over time, as unhydrated cement becomes less accessible and products densify, the rate of strength gain decreases. Nevertheless, strength continues to increase beyond 28 days, albeit slowly, especially in mixes with supplementary cementitious materials. Step-by-Step Solution: Early age (1–7 days): fast hydration → rapid strength gain.Beyond 7–28 days: continued hydration → slower incremental gains.Long term: asymptotic approach; gains influenced by curing and SCMs.Therefore, option A reflects the recognized hardening pattern. Verification / Alternative check: Typical strength–time curves show steep initial slope flattening with age. Field practice reflects this with 7-day indicator tests and 28-day acceptance tests. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Uniform rate is unrealistic; a delayed rapid increase contradicts hydration kinetics; “none” and “stops after 7 days” are incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Equating slow gain at low temperatures with failure; removing formwork too early; neglecting curing which strongly affects early and later strength. Final Answer: Rapid rate during the first few days, then continues to increase at a decreased rate

Question 5

Concrete Production – What does “batching error” mean? In site concrete operations, a “batching error” refers to inaccuracy in the measured quantity of which ingredient(s)?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Batching is the process of measuring out each constituent of concrete in the correct proportion before mixing. Errors in batching directly affect strength, workability, durability, and economy. Recognizing that all ingredients must be measured accurately is essential for quality control. Given Data / Assumptions: Nominal or designed concrete mixes prepared on site or in RMC plants. Ingredients include cement, fine and coarse aggregates, water, and possibly admixtures. Measurement may be by mass (preferable) or volume (common on small sites). Concept / Approach: A batching error is any deviation from the target quantity of any constituent. Too much or too little water changes w/c ratio and strength; wrong cement content alters strength and heat of hydration; mismeasured aggregates change grading and yield. Admixture dosing errors influence setting time and slump. Hence, the correct understanding is that batching errors can relate to any and all ingredients. Step-by-Step Solution: Define batching → measuring each component to a specified quantity.Identify sources of error → all constituents are vulnerable to mismeasurement.Conclude that “All of the above” correctly interprets the term. Verification / Alternative check: QA/QC manuals stress calibrated scales, verified water meters, and proper admixture dispensers to prevent batching errors across all materials. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Limiting the definition to one ingredient ignores the systemic nature of batching control. Common Pitfalls: Using volume batching without bulking correction; uncalibrated buckets; adding “extra water” on site; misreading admixture units. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 6

Pozzolana in Cementitious Systems – Typical effects on concrete performance When a suitable pozzolana is added to cement (or used as part of a blended cement), which of the following effects are typically observed in concrete, assuming appropriate m…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pozzolanas (for example, fly ash, silica fume, calcined clay) react with calcium hydroxide liberated during cement hydration to form additional calcium silicate hydrates. The pozzolanic reaction modifies concrete microstructure, influencing thermal, durability, and fresh properties. This question checks your understanding of these typical effects. Given Data / Assumptions: Properly graded aggregates and adequate curing are provided. Pozzolana replacement is within recommended limits. Comparison is made against plain Portland cement concrete. Concept / Approach: Pozzolanas dilute clinker content and react secondarily, generally reducing early heat evolution and peak temperature rise (beneficial for mass concrete). The refined pore structure lowers permeability and bleeding by reducing large capillaries and blocking channels. Because pozzolanic reactions are slower, extended moist curing is beneficial to realize the full potential of strength and durability gains. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: True—refined microstructure reduces permeability over time.Option B: True—lower clinker heat output and slower reaction reduce heat of hydration.Option C: True—reduced bleeding due to finer particles and paste densification.Option D: True—longer curing enhances slower pozzolanic reactions and improves performance. Verification / Alternative check: Performance-based specifications for blended cements often call for longer curing periods and demonstrate improved durability indices (for example, RCPT, sorptivity) compared with plain OPC mixes at later ages. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Single selections omit complementary effects; “All” best captures the combined, documented benefits under proper practice. Common Pitfalls: Expecting identical early strength to OPC without adjusting curing; overdosing or using poor-quality pozzolana; ignoring temperature effects on set and finishability. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 7

Cement Paste and Concrete – Fundamental statements about hydration and performance Which of the following statements correctly describe what happens as water–cement paste hardens and how cement contributes to concrete behavior?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cement is the primary binder in conventional concrete. When mixed with water, a complex set of chemical reactions occurs, turning a plastic mixture into a hardened stone-like material. Understanding these fundamentals is necessary for proper mix design, placing, and curing practices that lead to durable structures. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement as the principal binder. Normal curing and proper water content for hydration. Aggregates are inert fillers contributing volume and skeleton, but not binding capacity. Concept / Approach: Hydration of cement produces compounds (for example, calcium silicate hydrates) that form the binding matrix. This matrix envelops and adheres to aggregate particles, creating a composite material. Proper paste quality, aggregate characteristics, and curing govern the resulting strength, durability, and watertightness. Poor curing or wrong proportions increase porosity and permeability, undermining performance. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Correct—hydration is the cause of setting and hardening; without water, hydration halts.Option B: Correct—the paste binds aggregate into a coherent mass; the interfacial transition zone quality is crucial.Option C: Correct—adequate binder content, low w/c ratio, and curing yield strong, durable, and relatively watertight concrete.Therefore, “All of the above” is the accurate selection. Verification / Alternative check: Laboratory tests (compressive strength, permeability) consistently correlate improved curing and optimized w/c ratio with superior performance metrics, confirming these statements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: “None” contradicts basic cement chemistry; any single statement would be incomplete by itself in representing the full picture. Common Pitfalls: Assuming cement content alone determines quality; ignoring the decisive role of w/c ratio and curing; poor consolidation leading to honeycombing and leakage. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 8

Workability and Quality – Effects of “too wet” concrete If concrete is made overly wet (excess water beyond design water–cement ratio), which of the following undesirable effects can occur?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Water is essential for hydration and workability, but too much water in a concrete mix degrades strength and durability. Field practices sometimes add water to increase slump quickly, but the side effects can be severe and long-lasting. Recognizing these effects encourages proper use of water reducers and better control of mix proportions. Given Data / Assumptions: Nominal or designed concrete mixes with conventional materials. Excess mixing water above the designed water–cement ratio. Normal placing and curing conditions. Concept / Approach: Excess water increases capillary porosity after evaporation, which lowers compressive strength and modulus. It also promotes segregation, where heavier aggregates settle and paste rises, and bleeding, which can create laitance—weak, powdery layers at the surface. Overall, the hardened concrete becomes less dense and more permeable, compromising durability and bond with reinforcement. Therefore, all listed effects are typical consequences of overly wet concrete. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: High w/c ratio → lower strength as per empirical strength–w/c relationships.Option B: More bleeding water reaching the surface → laitance deposition when fines accumulate.Option C: Segregation promoted by low viscosity and vibration, leading to non-uniformity.Option D: Increased voids and capillaries → reduced density and durability. Verification / Alternative check: Site QA data show reduced cube strengths and poor surface finish when extra water is added without mix design adjustments; admixtures are preferred to improve workability without raising w/c ratio. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual effect is real, but selecting only one would ignore the broader set of consequences; “All” captures the full picture. Common Pitfalls: Allowing retempering with water, ignoring moisture in aggregates, and not accounting for temperature’s effect on slump, leading to poor control on site. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 9

Cement composition effects: Which of the following statements about excess oxides in Portland cement are correct for field practice and durability?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cement chemistry directly governs setting, strength gain, and long-term soundness. Site engineers frequently diagnose failures by relating observed behavior to oxide composition. This question checks your recall of how excessive proportions of key oxides affect performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement considered under normal curing conditions. “Excess” means beyond the balanced clinker proportion needed for desired compounds. Soundness refers to the absence of late, disruptive expansion. Concept / Approach: Too much free lime causes expansive hydration and cracking. High silica slows reaction, delaying set and early strength. Excess alumina promotes very rapid reactions but lowers ultimate strength due to weaker hydration products. Free magnesium oxide hydrates slowly to magnesium hydroxide, causing delayed expansion and unsoundness. Each listed effect is a standard, well-known relationship in cement technology. Step-by-Step Solution: Map each oxide to its typical effect on hydration and microstructure.Confirm that all four statements are valid field-generalizations.Hence, the comprehensive correct choice is “All of the above”. Verification / Alternative check: Soundness tests (e.g., Le Chatelier, autoclave) specifically target excess free lime and MgO. Set time and strength trends corroborate the silica and alumina statements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single-statement choice omits other equally true effects and is incomplete. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “fast set” with “high early strength” irrespective of durability; overlooking that unsoundness may appear late in service. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 10

Pozzolana cement manufacture: For a natural pozzolanic material containing clay up to 80%, what percentage (by mass) is typically used in the finished pozzolana cement?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pozzolana cement is produced by intergrinding/ blending Portland clinker with pozzolanic material and gypsum. The percentage of the pozzolana component depends on its quality and reactivity. Knowing typical proportions helps with estimating properties and compliance. Given Data / Assumptions: Natural pozzolana containing clay up to about 80% (e.g., calcined clay/surkhi). Question asks for typical addition percentage used in manufacturing. Standard plant practice and syllabus-oriented values are assumed. Concept / Approach: Pozzolanic additions replace a portion of clinker. For materials like calcined clay, a commonly cited addition level in traditional questions is around 30% of the finished cement mass, balancing workability, heat of hydration reduction, and late strength development while meeting strength grades. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the material class: natural/calcined clay pozzolana.Recall customary blend ranges used in teaching examples and older specifications.Select 30% as the representative value. Verification / Alternative check: Plant practice varies with standards and SCM reactivity, but 30% has long appeared as the model percentage for such pozzolanas in exam contexts. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 40–70% would unduly reduce early strength for low-reactivity clays in typical mixes. Common Pitfalls: Assuming modern fly ash limits apply identically to all pozzolanas; ignoring that reactivity governs feasible replacement level. Final Answer: 30%.

Question 11

Concrete handling: The separation of coarse aggregate from the mortar matrix during conveying or placement is called

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Maintaining uniformity of fresh concrete is crucial for strength and durability. Certain defects occur during transport, placing, or compaction that change the designed proportions locally. This question targets the correct terminology for a common fresh-concrete problem. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete experiences separation of coarse particles from mortar or paste. Occurs due to over-vibration, long drops, or improper mix grading. We must select the proper term. Concept / Approach: “Segregation” is the tendency for constituents to separate—coarse aggregate rolls ahead or settles while mortar migrates, causing non-uniformity. “Bleeding” is upward water migration forming laitance; “creep” is long-term deformation under sustained load; “shrinkage” is volume reduction from moisture loss or hydration. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the symptom: coarse aggregate separating from mortar → segregation.Eliminate similar but distinct phenomena like bleeding or shrinkage.Choose the correct term. Verification / Alternative check: Field guides list causes (improper grading, excess water, high drop heights) and remedies (optimized grading, controlled slump, minimized free fall). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Bleeding: water rise, not aggregate separation.Creeping/Shrinkage: hardened concrete behaviors, not fresh placement separation. Common Pitfalls: Pouring from excessive height; over-vibration; using very high slump without viscosity modification. Final Answer: Segregation.

Question 12

Water–cement ratio and workability: Identify the INCORRECT statement regarding concrete strength and handling

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Workability, water–cement ratio (w/c), and compaction quality jointly control concrete strength and durability. Misconceptions about “minimum w/c for workability” often lead to adding unnecessary water, compromising performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard concrete constituents, conventional aggregates. Workability may be improved by admixtures and grading, not only by water. Mechanical vibration is available for compaction. Concept / Approach: (a) and (b) reflect the classic w/c–strength relationship: more water (for the same cement) reduces paste strength and increases porosity. (d) is true: better compaction reduces voids and raises strength. Statement (c) is incorrect as an absolute rule: low w/c mixes can be workable using plasticizers, optimized grading, and proper vibration; they do not inevitably cause honeycombing if placed correctly. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess (a): rich vs lean with excess water → rich mix stronger → correct.Assess (b): strength decreases with increasing w/c → correct.Assess (c): blanket claim that w/c < 0.45 is unworkable is false; admixtures and vibration enable placement → incorrect statement.Assess (d): mechanical vibration improves density → correct. Verification / Alternative check: Modern mixes frequently target w/c below 0.45 (even 0.30–0.40) with superplasticizers to achieve both workability and high strength. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Option (e) says none are incorrect, but (c) demonstrably is incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Adding water to “improve workability” instead of using admixtures; under-vibration leading to trapped air despite adequate slump. Final Answer: If the water–cement ratio is less than 0.45, the concrete is not workable and will produce honeycombing is the incorrect statement.

Question 13

Concrete curing: The process of hardening concrete by maintaining adequate moisture at the surface after placement is called

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Curing ensures the hydration of cement proceeds sufficiently to develop desired strength and durability. It is distinct from placing and compaction, and it continues well after initial set. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete has been placed and compacted. Environmental exposure may cause evaporation. Objective is to keep moisture and temperature favorable for hydration. Concept / Approach: “Curing” comprises methods such as water ponding, wet coverings, curing compounds, and membrane sealing to prevent moisture loss and control temperature. Adequate curing reduces plastic shrinkage, improves surface wear resistance, and increases long-term strength. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify the aim: maintain moisture for hydration after set.Associate with the correct term → curing.Differentiate from placing (initial deposit), wetting (informal), and compacting (air removal). Verification / Alternative check: Strength gain curves show clear improvements with longer, proper curing relative to air-dried controls. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Placing/Compacting are separate construction stages; “wetting” is not the technical term. Common Pitfalls: Stopping curing too early; curing only visible surfaces while edges/corners dry out. Final Answer: Curing.

Question 14

Cement storage logistics: A warehouse has internal plan dimensions 15 m × 5.6 m, with a maximum stack (pile) height of 2.70 m. What is the maximum number of cement bags that can be stored in two piles?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Stacking cement requires respecting recommended pile heights and planning the footprint to utilize space safely. Estimating bag capacity from store dimensions is a routine site-planning task for procurement and logistics. Given Data / Assumptions: Internal plan size = 15 m × 5.6 m → area = 84 m^2. Maximum pile height = 2.70 m (about 15 bags high at ~0.18 m per bag layer). Two piles are to be formed, together utilizing most of the available floor area (ignoring narrow peripheral clearances for this estimate). Typical 50 kg bag plan size around 0.7 m × 0.5 m when stacked (≈ 0.35 m^2 per bag per layer). Concept / Approach: To estimate total bags: compute bags per layer from floor area and then multiply by number of layers. Packing is not perfect; allow a modest packing factor. The final number should align with practical stacking norms and safety. Step-by-Step Solution: Plan area A = 15 * 5.6 = 84 m^2.Area demand per bag per layer a ≈ 0.35 m^2; adopt a packing efficiency ~0.90 → effective area per bag ≈ 0.35 / 0.90 ≈ 0.389 m^2.Bags per layer ≈ 84 / 0.389 ≈ 216.Layers allowable by height ≈ 2.70 / 0.18 ≈ 15 layers.Total bags ≈ 216 * 15 ≈ 3240. Accounting for gangways/clearances and forming exactly two piles reduces capacity modestly → about 3000 bags. Verification / Alternative check: Volume method: room volume up to 2.7 m ≈ 84 * 2.7 = 226.8 m^3. Bag volume ≈ 50/1440 ≈ 0.035 m^3. Theoretical max ≈ 226.8 / 0.035 ≈ 6480 bags. After applying practical packing/clearance limits and two defined piles, a value near 3000 is reasonable. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1500–2500 bags underestimate capacity for the given area and height.4000 bags overshoots once realistic aisles and two-pile arrangement are considered. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring safety clearances and overestimating capacity; exceeding recommended stack height (about 15 bags) which risks cement lumping and instability. Final Answer: 3000 bags.

Question 15

Cement properties – identify the INCORRECT definition

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Terminology precision is essential in material specifications. Several cement properties have similar-sounding names but very different meanings and tests. This question challenges recognition of the incorrect definition. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard properties: fineness, setting, soundness, heat of hydration. We must spot the incorrect statement. Concept / Approach: Fineness quantifies particle size (degree of grinding). Setting describes the stiffening process culminating in hardening. Heat of hydration is the thermal energy released during hydration reactions. “Soundness,” however, does not relate to acoustic transmission; it means volume stability—cement paste should not undergo excessive late expansion after setting. Step-by-Step Solution: Validate (a), (b), (d) → all correct standard definitions.Identify (c) as incorrect: soundness concerns freedom from delayed expansion (e.g., due to free lime or MgO), not acoustics.Therefore, select (c) as the incorrect definition. Verification / Alternative check: Soundness is assessed by Le Chatelier or autoclave expansion tests, explicitly targeting volumetric stability. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are correctly worded and reflect standard textbook meanings. Common Pitfalls: Confusing “soundness” with “sound insulation” of concrete elements; they are unrelated topics. Final Answer: Soundness is the property by virtue of which cement does not allow transmission of sound is incorrect.

Question 16

Lightweight aggregates: These are primarily obtained from which geological source for use in lightweight concrete?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Lightweight concrete relies on aggregates with low density. Natural lightweight aggregates commonly originate from specific geological processes that produce vesicular textures. Given Data / Assumptions: Natural aggregates considered (not manufactured like expanded clay or sintered fly ash). We are to identify the most typical natural source. Concept / Approach: Volcanic activity can produce rapidly cooled lavas with trapped gas bubbles, yielding vesicular rocks such as pumice and scoria. These materials have low unit weights and are widely used as lightweight aggregates. While these are igneous, the key feature is the volcanic vesicular origin, distinguishing them from dense intrusive igneous or non-igneous rocks. Step-by-Step Solution: Recall lightweight natural aggregates: pumice, scoria, volcanic cinders.Associate them with volcanic processes producing vesicular texture.Select “Volcanic source”. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications cite pumice/scoria as standard natural lightweight aggregates; many other rock types are too dense. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Sedimentary/metamorphic rocks are generally denser; “igneous in general” is too broad and includes dense forms like granite. Common Pitfalls: Confusing general igneous category with the specific vesicular volcanic subtypes that provide low density. Final Answer: Volcanic source (e.g., pumice, scoria).

Question 17

Nominal mix identification: The common nominal volumetric mix proportion (cement : sand : coarse aggregate) used for grade M200 (≈ 20 MPa) concrete is

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Older nomenclature sometimes denotes “M200” concrete (≈ 200 kg/cm2 characteristic strength), corresponding approximately to modern M20 (≈ 20 MPa). For quick site estimates, nominal mixes are used when design mixes are not specified. Given Data / Assumptions: M200 ≈ M20 concrete grade. We are choosing a standard nominal proportion by volume. Workability and aggregate grading are within typical limits. Concept / Approach: Traditional nominal mixes associate M20 with approximately 1 : 1.5 : 3 (cement : sand : coarse aggregate). M15 is commonly 1 : 2 : 4, and M10 is 1 : 3 : 6. Richer mixes like 1 : 1 : 2 are used for higher strength/repair works, not typical for M20. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate M200 (kg/cm2) to M20 (MPa).Recall nominal mix table: M20 → 1 : 1.5 : 3.Select the matching option. Verification / Alternative check: Handbooks list 1 : 1.5 : 3 for M20; nonetheless, many codes now recommend designed mixes rather than nominal for structural concrete. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 1 : 2 : 4 (M15), 1 : 3 : 6 (M10), 4 : 2 : 1 (reversed order), 1 : 1 : 2 (richer than needed). Common Pitfalls: Confusing old kg/cm2 grades with MPa grades; using nominal mixes where durability requirements demand designed mixes. Final Answer: 1 : 1.5 : 3.

Question 18

Characteristic/permissible strength: The permissible compressive strength associated with concrete grade M200 is

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Some older texts label concrete by kg/cm2. Recognizing equivalence aids in interpreting legacy drawings and questions. M200 corresponds to a characteristic compressive strength near 200 kg/cm2 (≈ 20 MPa). Given Data / Assumptions: Grade naming uses kg/cm2 rather than MPa. We are to pick the matching compressive strength value. Concept / Approach: The numeric part of the grade indicates the characteristic strength at 28 days for standard specimens. Thus M200 aligns with 200 kg/cm2. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify grade → M200.Match to numerical value of strength → 200 kg/cm2.Select option 200 kg/cm2. Verification / Alternative check: Conversion: 1 MPa ≈ 10.197 kg/cm2, so 20 MPa ≈ 204 kg/cm2, consistent with the M200 label. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 100, 150, 250, 300 kg/cm2 correspond to other grades; they do not match M200. Common Pitfalls: Mixing up “permissible”/“characteristic” in legacy terminology; ensure the numeric label matches the standard 28-day strength basis. Final Answer: 200 kg/cm2.

Question 19

Field tests for assessing quality of cement — identify the incorrect statements Consider the following common field checks for a bag of good quality Portland cement: (a) Thrusting a hand into the bag should feel warm. (b) The colour of the cement is…

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Simple field tests help quickly screen cement quality on site before batching concrete or mortar. While not a substitute for laboratory tests, these checks can flag obviously deteriorated cement affected by moisture, carbonation, or prolonged storage. This question asks you to identify which statements do not match the expected observations for sound, fresh cement. Given Data / Assumptions: Cement under consideration is ordinary Portland cement stored properly in sealed bags. Field checks are qualitative and indicative, not definitive compliance tests. We compare observations against standard site lore and practical guides. Concept / Approach: Fresh, healthy cement has a characteristic greenish-grey colour (not bluish), feels cool and smooth to the touch, is free from lumps, and when lightly sprinkled on water it should sink rather than float. Warmth in the bag indicates ongoing hydration from moisture ingress, which is undesirable. A rough feel suggests contamination, coarseness, or partial setting. Therefore, we must isolate the incorrect statements and exclude the correct one about sinking in water. Step-by-Step Solution: Evaluate (a): “feel warm” → incorrect; warmth suggests moisture-induced hydration.Evaluate (b): “bluish colour” → incorrect; correct typical colour is greenish-grey.Evaluate (c): “handful sinks immediately” → correct; good cement should not float.Evaluate (d): “feels rough between fingers” → incorrect; good cement generally feels smooth and floury.Hence the incorrect set is (a), (b), and (d). Verification / Alternative check: Standard handbooks list cool feel, greenish-grey colour, absence of lumps, and immediate sinking on water contact as quick checks. Any deviation (warmth, bluish tint, rough feel) warrants caution and further testing. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b), (e) isolate single items and ignore other incorrect ones. (d) “All” is false because statement (c) is actually correct. (b) “Only (a)” omits (b) and (d) which are also incorrect. Common Pitfalls: Confusing bluish cast with greenish-grey; lighting can mislead the eye. Judging solely by touch; always check for lumps and clodding too. Final Answer: Only (a), (b), and (d) are incorrect.

Question 20

Applications of Portland-pozzolana cement (PPC) — typical use cases Portland-pozzolana cement is widely used in durable and mass concrete works. For which of the following structural applications is PPC commonly specified with confidence?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Pozzolanic blending lowers heat of hydration, refines pore structure, and improves long-term durability. PPC is therefore a frequent choice in mass concrete and in structures exposed to aggressive environments, provided adequate curing and mix control are ensured. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional PPC conforming to relevant standards. Appropriate cover, low water/cement ratio, and good curing practices. Exposure may include sulphates/chlorides typical of substructure or hydraulic works. Concept / Approach: PPC produces reduced heat rise (good for dams and large blocks), enhanced sulphate resistance and chloride permeability reduction (good for abutments and foundations), and improved long-term strength development for R.C.C. PPC performs well in a wide range of structural elements where early-age high strength is not the sole priority. Step-by-Step Solution: Match property to application: low heat → dams/mass; durability → abutments/foundations; adequate strength → R.C.C.All listed applications benefit from PPC characteristics. Verification / Alternative check: Design guides and specifications routinely allow PPC for these elements with proper curing and mix design controls. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Choosing only one narrows a broadly valid set; PPC is acceptable for all listed works under good practice. Common Pitfalls: Expecting rapid early stripping strengths identical to rapid-hardening cement. Final Answer: All of the above.

Concrete Technology Questions