Question 1

Slump Test Procedure – number of roddings per layer In the standard slump test, each of the three layers placed into the cone is compacted with a 16 mm diameter, about 60 cm long steel tamping rod. How many uniform roddings are applied to each layer?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The slump test must follow a consistent procedure to yield comparable workability results. One crucial element is the number of tamping strokes (roddings) applied to compact each layer uniformly without overworking or segregating the mix. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard Abrams cone, three equal layers by volume. Rod diameter ≈ 16 mm; rod length ≈ 60 cm with rounded ends. Level, non-absorbent base plate and immediate measurement after lifting the cone vertically. Concept / Approach: Most standards specify 25 uniform roddings per layer to achieve repeatable compaction within the cone. Fewer strokes may leave large voids, while more strokes can over-compact or cause segregation, making results less representative of field placement conditions. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify standard requirement → 25 roddings per layer.Apply to all three layers, penetrating slightly into the previous layer except the first.Therefore, select option B. Verification / Alternative check: Training manuals and codes list “25 strokes per layer” as a key procedural parameter for the slump test. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 20 or 30 strokes deviate from the standard and can change measured slump; 40–50 strokes are excessive for this test method. Common Pitfalls: Uneven rodding pattern, not distributing strokes across the cross-section, or lifting the cone with a lateral motion—all of which reduce result reliability. Final Answer: 25 times

Question 2

Sand for Concrete – washing and chloride concerns Which of the following statements about sand sources and their suitability for concrete is correct under typical site practice?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregate cleanliness directly affects concrete durability and appearance. Clay and silt increase water demand and reduce bond; chlorides promote steel corrosion and surface efflorescence. Source selection and washing requirements should be understood before batching. Given Data / Assumptions: Pit sand may be dry or from flooded pits/quarries. Sea-shore sand and shingle can be contaminated with soluble salts, especially chlorides. Concrete permeability strongly influences corrosion risk. Concept / Approach: Dry pit sands often carry dust, silt, and clay that must be washed out. Flooded-pit sands are partially washed by nature and may need less treatment but still require checks for impurities. Marine sands contain chlorides; even after washing, residual salts can remain and lead to efflorescence and corrosion if concrete remains permeable. A dense, low w/c concrete with adequate cover mitigates but does not eliminate risks; many specifications restrict or prohibit unprocessed sea sand. Step-by-Step Solution: Option A: Correct—washing removes deleterious fines.Option B: Correct—flooded sources are partially cleaned but still must be verified.Option C: Correct—chlorides in sea sand promote efflorescence and damage finishes.Option D: Correct—chlorides facilitate reinforcement corrosion in permeable concrete or where cover is inadequate.Thus, option E “All of the above” is correct. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications typically limit acid-soluble chloride content in aggregates and fresh concrete and require silt content checks (for example, by decantation or turbidity tests). Why Other Options Are Wrong: Since A–D are valid, none of them is incorrect, and E best captures the full picture. Common Pitfalls: Assuming marine sand is safe after superficial rinsing; ignoring chloride limits; failing to verify silt/clay content for pit sands. Final Answer: All of the above

Question 3

Formwork Removal – slab (hall) of about 4 m × 5 m plan For a reinforced concrete hall slab spanning about 5 m in one direction (4 m × 5 m room), after how many days are the soffit props typically removed under normal conditions, as per conventional …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Safe removal of formwork and props depends on member type, span, loading, and concrete strength development. Codes and handbooks provide minimum periods for stripping and propping to avoid excessive deflection or damage when the concrete is still green. Given Data / Assumptions: RC slab over a hall of plan 4 m × 5 m; controlling span ≈ 5 m. Normal temperatures and adequate curing. No accelerating admixtures or special early-strength concrete assumed. Concept / Approach: Conventional guidance (widely taught for IS practice) suggests: vertical sides of beams/walls ≈ 1–2 days; props to slabs up to about 4.5 m span ≈ 7 days; props to slabs over about 4.5 m span ≈ 14 days; props to beams/arches often require longer. For a 5 m span slab, the appropriate category is “over 4.5 m,” so 14 days is selected. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify span category → over 4.5 m.Map to typical stripping period → 14 days for slab props.Select option D. Verification / Alternative check: Field practice retains props longer in cold weather or where early loading is expected. In accelerated curing or with high early strength mixes, periods may be reduced subject to strength checks. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 5–10 days are suitable for shorter spans; 21 days is conservative beyond common guidance for slabs of this span under normal conditions. Common Pitfalls: Removing props without verifying strength; ignoring temperature effects; placing construction loads prematurely on green slabs. Final Answer: 14 days

Question 4

Aggregate Testing – function of the Los Angeles abrasion machine The Los Angeles abrasion (commonly misspelled “Log Angles”) machine is used to determine which property of aggregates?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregates in pavements and concrete are subjected to rubbing, grinding, and impact during service. Laboratory tests simulate these actions to predict performance. The Los Angeles abrasion machine is a standard apparatus for assessing aggregate resistance to wear under combined abrasion and impact. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard charge of steel balls and prescribed number of drum revolutions. Specified gradation and mass of aggregate test sample. Result reported as percentage wear (loss) after the test. Concept / Approach: The test measures the reduction in mass due to breakdown of aggregate particles subjected to abrasion and impact inside the rotating drum. A lower percentage loss indicates higher abrasion resistance and better suitability for high-traffic pavements and high-wear concrete surfaces. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify apparatus → Los Angeles abrasion machine.Identify measured property → abrasion/wear resistance under combined action.Select option C as correct. Verification / Alternative check: Other tests include aggregate crushing value (ACV) for compressive crushing resistance, aggregate impact value (AIV) for impact toughness, and water absorption for porosity—distinct from LA abrasion. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Options A, B, and D refer to different standardized tests; “None” is incorrect because LA abrasion specifically addresses wear resistance. Common Pitfalls: Confusing abrasion with impact strength; selecting aggregates based on a single property instead of a balanced suite of tests. Final Answer: Abrasion resistance (wear)

Question 5

Cement Storage – compute number of bags from area and stack height A warehouse has an effective plan area of 54 m². If the maximum permitted stack height is 270 cm, approximately how many 50 kg cement bags can be stored (use typical bag plan area ≈ …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Safe and efficient cement storage requires limiting stack height and arranging stacks to maintain aisle access and minimize caking. Estimating capacity from plan area and permissible height is a common site-planning task. Given Data / Assumptions: Effective plan area = 54 m² (usable stacking area). Maximum stack height = 270 cm. Typical bag thickness ≈ 18 cm → about 15 layers (270/18). Typical plan area per bag ≈ 0.30 m² (for layout estimation). Concept / Approach: Number of bags per layer equals plan area divided by the plan area per bag. Total bags equal bags per layer multiplied by the number of layers permitted by the height restriction. The bag area value is a planning average; actual warehouse rules also impose limits on stack footprint and spacing from walls/aisles. Step-by-Step Solution: Layers = 270 cm / 18 cm per bag = 15 layers.Bags per layer = 54 m² / 0.30 m² per bag = 180 bags.Total bags = 180 * 15 = 2700 bags.The closest option is 2700 bags. Verification / Alternative check: Some handbooks express capacity by a rule of thumb that a stack 15 bags high with a 0.30 m² footprint per bag produces similar totals, confirming 2700 for this case. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 2000–2400 underestimate capacity; 3000 overestimates for the given area and height constraints. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring aisle space or safety clearances; assuming bag dimensions equal for all brands; exceeding recommended height in humid conditions which increases caking risk. Final Answer: 2700 bags

Question 6

Concrete Placement – maximum drop height to avoid segregation To minimize segregation during placing, what is the recommended maximum free fall (vertical drop) height for concrete in normal practice?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Segregation occurs when coarse aggregate separates from mortar during handling or placing. Excessive free fall increases particle velocity and separation, leading to honeycombing, weak zones, and variable cover. Limiting drop height is a simple and effective control measure on site. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional, non-flowing concrete without special anti-segregation admixtures. Placement into formwork for typical beams, slabs, and columns. Chutes, tremie pipes, or trunking used when higher drops are unavoidable. Concept / Approach: Many practical guides recommend limiting free fall to about 1.5 m for ordinary concretes. For taller forms, use inclined chutes or drop chutes to reduce velocity and maintain a vertical drop within the recommended height, thereby preserving uniformity and finish quality. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify typical limit → approximately 1.5 m (150 cm).Map to given options → select 150 cm.Note that for deep columns or tall walls, use tremie or trunk to keep fall within limit. Verification / Alternative check: Quality checklists for sites emphasize “free fall ≤ 1.5 m” unless special measures are adopted; this aligns with standard good practice. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 100–125 cm is overly restrictive for most ordinary placements; 200–250 cm exceed common recommendations and can promote segregation and paste splashing. Common Pitfalls: Pouring from great heights into congested reinforcement; not using trunking; vibrating excessively to “fix” segregation rather than preventing it. Final Answer: 150 cm

Question 7

Concrete quality essentials: For producing good-quality concrete on site, which of the following requirements must be satisfied?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete performance depends on the quality of its constituents and how well they are proportioned and mixed. This item checks practical field knowledge about materials selection and batching/ mixing practices that directly influence compressive strength, durability, and finish. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement concrete used for structural work. Field production with conventional mixers and compaction. No special admixtures unless stated; focus on fundamentals. Concept / Approach: Durable, strong concrete requires sound aggregates (free from soft, porous, and reactive particles), sufficient cement paste to coat aggregates and fill voids, clean water without sugars, oils, or organic impurities, and uniform mixing so that every batch has consistent proportions. Any weakness in these areas leads to segregation, honeycombing, loss of strength, or durability problems. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess aggregates → must be hard and durable to resist crushing and weathering.Check cement content → must meet mix design to achieve target strength and cover absorptive fines.Evaluate water quality → potable-quality water is a safe rule to avoid setting delays and strength loss.Ensure mixing → uniform distribution of paste and fines prevents weak pockets.Since all statements are true and jointly necessary, select “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Site quality control checklists always include aggregate quality tests, water acceptance criteria, cement receipt verification, and specified mixing time/speed to ensure uniformity. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking any single requirement ignores the interdependence of materials quality and mixing on concrete performance. Common Pitfalls: Using marginal aggregates without screening; adding water to “improve” workability instead of adjusting mix or using admixtures; under-mixing leading to segregation and variable strength. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 8

Cement storage in warehouses: Identify the INCORRECT practice among the following recommendations for safe stacking of cement bags.

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Correct warehouse stacking of cement prevents moisture ingress, caking, and collapse hazards. Standard recommendations address clearances, platforming, and stack dimensions. Given Data / Assumptions: Indoor covered storage with adequate ventilation. Bags are 50 kg typical paper or laminated bags. Conventional hand-stacked piles. Concept / Approach: Good practice includes: leaving clearance to walls for airflow and inspection, stacking on timber platforms to avoid capillary moisture from floors, and limiting stack size for safety. Within the stack, cross-stacking or header-stretcher patterns are used so adjacent layers do interlock and touch, improving stability. The directive that adjacent layers “do not touch” is wrong and unsafe. Step-by-Step Solution: Option (a): 30 cm wall clearance → correct.Option (b): Timber planks/platform to isolate from floor moisture → correct.Option (d): Height ≈ 2.7 m and manageable width ≈ 3 m → standard safe limits → correct.Option (c): Saying adjacent layers must not touch contradicts interlocking stack practice → incorrect → choose (c). Verification / Alternative check: Stacking guidelines recommend alternating bag directions between layers to interlock and prevent tipping; separation between layers is neither required nor desired. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They reflect accepted warehousing practices intended to protect cement from moisture and ensure stability. Common Pitfalls: Placing bags directly on floors; pushing stacks against walls; over-height stacks causing deformation and accidents. Final Answer: Arrange bags so that the bags in one layer do not touch the bags in the adjacent layer is the incorrect practice.

Question 9

Concrete mixer charging sequence and mixing time: Which procedure best reflects correct practice to avoid cement loss and ensure uniform mixing?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Proper charging and mixing sequence in drum mixers prevents cement paste balling, reduces material loss, and achieves a uniform mix consistency. Shortcuts create strength variability and surface defects. Given Data / Assumptions: Conventional tilting or non-tilting drum mixer on site. Batch water measured accurately. Target is homogeneous, well-coated aggregates with no paste loss. Concept / Approach: Good practice is to dampen the drum with a small portion of water (about 10%) to reduce dusting and sticking, charge aggregates and cement, then introduce the remaining water during mixing to achieve the specified water–cement ratio uniformly. Minimum mixing time of about 1 minute (often 1–2 minutes after all materials are in) is required, and loss of cement from the drum is unacceptable. Step-by-Step Solution: Pre-wet drum with ~10% water to minimize paste loss.Charge coarse/fine aggregates and cement; start rotation.Add remaining water steadily; continue mixing ≥ 60 seconds after all materials are in.Check for no cement spilling at the mouth; adjust drum angle/speed as needed. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer instructions and site QA checklists align with this sequence to ensure consistent slump and reduced variability across batches. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) and (c) lead to balling, dusting, and poor coating; (d) increases sticking and loss; (e) starves the mix of water during mixing, producing non-uniformity. Common Pitfalls: Under-mixing; dumping full water at once; re-tempering with extra water at discharge. Final Answer: Wet the drum with about 10% of the batch water, charge aggregates and cement, then add the remaining water and mix for at least 1 minute; ensure no cement is lost from the drum.

Question 10

Effect of aggregate characteristics: The strength and overall quality of concrete are significantly influenced by which aggregate properties?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Aggregates occupy 60–80% of concrete volume. Their characteristics strongly affect workability, water demand, paste requirement, strength, and durability. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal-weight concrete with natural or crushed aggregates. Standard water–cement ratio and compaction. Concept / Approach: Well-graded aggregates reduce voids and paste demand. Finer surface area increases water requirement but can improve packing if well graded. Angular, rough particles increase interlock and potential strength but reduce workability; rounded particles improve workability but may lower interlock. Surface texture affects bond between paste and aggregate and hence tensile/compressive behavior. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess grading → controls void content and paste demand.Evaluate surface area → impacts water and admixture demand.Consider shape → influences packing/workability and mechanical interlock.Check texture → governs bond strength at the ITZ (interfacial transition zone).All listed properties influence quality → choose “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Mix-design methods (e.g., ACI, BIS) explicitly incorporate grading, shape, and texture adjustments. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Any single property alone cannot fully define performance; they act together. Common Pitfalls: Assuming stronger aggregate always means stronger concrete; ignoring workability and compaction effects. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 11

Terminology in concrete materials: In a cement concrete mix, which component is referred to as the “inert” material that provides the bulk of the volume?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete is a composite of active binders (cement paste formed by cement and water) and relatively inert fillers (aggregates). Understanding which component is considered “inert” clarifies the roles each plays in performance and economy. Given Data / Assumptions: Ordinary Portland cement concrete without chemical reactions from aggregates (i.e., non-reactive aggregates). Aggregates are clean and stable. Concept / Approach: Aggregates primarily provide volume, dimensional stability, and restraint to shrinkage. They do not participate in the hydration reactions (except in problematic alkali–silica or carbonate reactions). Cement and water are the active components forming the binding paste (C-S-H and other hydrates); water is also a reactant and a medium for workability. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify binder system → cement + water = reactive paste.Recognize aggregates as bulk filler → inert under normal conditions.Hence select “Aggregates.” Verification / Alternative check: Specifications and textbooks define aggregates as inert granular materials embedded in the cement paste matrix. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Water and cement are chemically active; “air” is not a constituent deliberately added as inert material (except in air-entrained mixes where micro-air improves durability, not volume bulk). Common Pitfalls: Assuming aggregate quality is unimportant because it is “inert”; in fact, its properties profoundly affect concrete behavior. Final Answer: Aggregates.

Question 12

Construction joints – locations: Which statement about locating construction joints is MOST appropriate for structural performance and workmanship?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Construction joints are unavoidable because concrete cannot always be placed continuously. Their positions must be chosen to minimize structural penalties and ensure good bonding between pours. Given Data / Assumptions: Monolithic RC framing with columns, beams, and slabs. Cold joints avoided by proper surface preparation and bonding. Load paths and shear distributions are considered. Concept / Approach: In columns, stopping the pour slightly below the beam soffit allows the next pour to fully integrate the beam–column junction. In flexural members (beams/slabs), joints are preferably located away from supports where shear is highest; placing within the middle third (near a region of lower shear and sometimes lower moment depending on load case) reduces the adverse effect. The overarching rule is to select locations of least shear, ensuring adequate roughening, cleaning, and bonding grout before resuming concreting. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify critical shear regions → near supports.Avoid joints there; choose midspan regions where practical.For columns, avoid at beam–column interface; stop pour a few cm below beam soffit.Thus (a), (b), and (c) are all consistent → choose “All of the above.” Verification / Alternative check: Standard detailing manuals recommend such joint locations along with roughening and bonding slurry at restart. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Selecting only one ignores valid complementary guidance; “None” contradicts established practice. Common Pitfalls: Placing joints at supports; failing to roughen and clean the old concrete; not providing shear keys where needed. Final Answer: All of the above are appropriate recommendations.

Question 13

Horizontal construction joints in concrete walls: At which levels are horizontal joints commonly provided to suit construction sequence and structural behavior?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Concrete walls in buildings are frequently cast in lifts. Practical and structural considerations guide where horizontal construction joints are placed during staging. Given Data / Assumptions: Reinforced concrete walls with openings and intersecting floors/ beams. Proper joint preparation (roughening, cleaning, bonding slurry) before next lift. Concept / Approach: Horizontal joints align with architectural and structural lines that naturally interrupt the wall. These include floor levels (slab junctions), window sill levels (below openings), and soffit lines of beams or slabs. Choosing these makes formwork simpler, allows controlled shear transfer, and avoids random joints in highly stressed regions. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify typical horizontal planes → floors, sills, and soffits.Confirm that these planes suit staging and structural continuity.Therefore, all listed levels are acceptable in practice. Verification / Alternative check: Construction drawings commonly indicate pour lifts at sill and floor levels to coordinate rebar splices and embeds. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Picking a single level ignores other equally common and suitable joint planes. Common Pitfalls: Stopping pours at random elevations leading to rework; neglecting joint surface preparation prior to next lift. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 14

Effect of flaky particles in aggregates for concrete: What are the consequences of having an excess percentage of flaky particles?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Particle shape influences packing, surface area, and interlock. Flaky particles (with small thickness relative to other dimensions) harm both fresh and hardened concrete properties when present in excess. Given Data / Assumptions: Standard shape tests classify flaky or elongated particles. Concrete intended for structural use with vibration. Concept / Approach: Flaky particles tend to orient and bridge, creating voids and harsh mixes. They increase specific surface area, raising water and fines demand for a given slump. In hardened concrete, planes of weakness develop along thin particles, reducing strength and durability. Therefore, specifications usually limit flaky/elongated particles; a common rule of thumb is to keep them below about 15% by mass. Step-by-Step Solution: Relate shape → higher surface area and poor packing → less workable mix.More water/fines needed → increased paste content → potential shrinkage.Hardened performance suffers due to weak planes and higher porosity.Hence limits (≈ 15%) are adopted to control quality. Verification / Alternative check: Aggregate standards specify shape indices and maximum percentages for flaky and elongated particles. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each individual consequence is real; excluding any understates the impact of flaky particles. Common Pitfalls: Assuming that stronger paste can offset poor aggregate shape; ignoring the increased segregation risk in pumped concrete. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 15

Definition check: An aggregate is termed “cyclopean” when the nominal size of individual stones exceeds

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Cyclopean concrete is mass concrete in which very large stones (often field boulders) are embedded to reduce cement consumption and heat of hydration. Recognizing the size threshold helps classify the work and choose appropriate placement methods. Given Data / Assumptions: Terminology used in traditional building/construction texts. Nominal stone size defines the category. Concept / Approach: While maximum aggregate sizes in ordinary concrete are commonly 20–40 mm, cyclopean work uses much larger stones. A practical threshold often cited is stones larger than about 75 mm being treated as “cyclopean” rather than standard coarse aggregate, with many applications using stones 150 mm or more in mass foundations. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare options with ordinary aggregate limits.Select the earliest threshold that clearly exceeds standard coarse aggregate sizes → 75 mm.Note that in practice, stones may be much larger, but the classification begins once size exceeds typical maximum aggregate limits. Verification / Alternative check: Older specifications for cyclopean masonry/concrete reference hand-placed stones well above 75 mm; anything at or above this threshold departs from normal aggregate grading. Why Other Options Are Wrong: 4.75 mm, 30 mm, and 60 mm fall within fine or normal coarse aggregate ranges; 90 mm could also qualify but 75 mm is the commonly accepted threshold in many texts. Common Pitfalls: Confusing maximum aggregate size in standard mixes (20–40 mm) with boulder sizes in cyclopean work; neglecting the need for careful placement and mortar bedding around large stones. Final Answer: 75 mm.

Question 16

Concrete mix design — “method of voids” assumptions for estimating cement paste volume In the method of voids used for proportioning concrete, which of the following working assumptions are typically made to estimate the required quantity of cement …

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: The “method of voids” is a classic empirical approach in concrete mix design. It estimates the quantities of fine aggregate and cement paste needed to fill the voids in coarser constituents, with small allowances to ensure full packing and workability. Given Data / Assumptions: Concrete is proportioned so that each smaller fraction fills the voids of the larger fraction. Allowances (about 10–15%) are added to cover surface coating, workability, and placement losses. Target is a dense, workable mix with minimal entrapped air. Concept / Approach: Coarse aggregate skeleton contains voids. Fine aggregate is selected to fill these voids plus a small margin to compensate for imperfect packing. Remaining voids within the fine aggregate matrix are then filled by cement paste, again with an allowance to provide lubrication, reduce bleeding, and ensure cohesion during compaction and finishing. Step-by-Step Solution: Start with measured/assumed voids in coarse aggregate.Provide fine aggregate volume ≈ voids in coarse + about 10%.Determine voids within the fine aggregate mass.Provide cement paste volume ≈ those voids + about 15%.This hierarchy ensures dense packing and workable paste coating. Verification / Alternative check: Trial batches confirm or fine-tune allowances by checking slump, bleeding, segregation, and unit weight; adjustments keep the same logic of void filling with modest overages. Why Other Options Are Wrong: Each single statement (a–d) is correct but incomplete on its own; the comprehensive choice is the only fully correct answer. Common Pitfalls: Ignoring grading effects; poorly graded fines require larger paste volumes than estimated. Confusing “percent extra” figures; these are typical starting values and need verification by trials. Final Answer: All of the above.

Question 17

Curing flat concrete elements — suitable on-site methods For pavements, floors, roofs, and slabs, which of the following curing methods are commonly used in practice to prevent early moisture loss and ensure proper hydration?

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Curing maintains adequate moisture and temperature for cement hydration, particularly critical for broad, exposed elements like slabs and pavements. Different site conditions call for different curing techniques to control evaporation and thermal gradients. Given Data / Assumptions: Fresh concrete in slabs, floors, pavements, and roofs. Hot/dry or windy conditions may accelerate evaporation. Practical job-site methods are being considered. Concept / Approach: All listed methods (a–e) are recognized approaches: curing compounds form a membrane; ponding offers continuous water contact; wet coverings retain moisture; sprinkling periodically replenishes surface water; shading reduces solar heating and evaporation. In many specifications, combinations are used (e.g., initial shading followed by wet coverings or membrane application). Since the question lists methods individually and asks which are used, each one is valid. To fit a single correct option format, one representative correct method is selected and justified below. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify curing objective → maintain moisture + temperature.Recognize methods: membrane, ponding, wet coverings, sprinkling, shading → all are accepted.Select one valid method as the correct choice per the options format → shading is a widely used auxiliary method for slabs and roofs to reduce evaporation. Verification / Alternative check: Construction manuals describe each method as acceptable depending on logistics, water availability, and finish requirements. Why Other Options Are Wrong: They are not wrong in practice; this item is structured to select one acceptable method among several. In comprehensive guidance, all are acceptable and are often combined. Common Pitfalls: Stopping curing too early; minimum curing durations per cement type and ambient conditions must be observed. Final Answer: Providing shading of the concrete surface.

Question 18

Joints in concrete construction — identifying the surface between two successive placements The interface where one concrete pour meets the next pour placed later is called:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Joints are deliberately created or naturally formed interfaces in concrete to control cracking, accommodate movement, or sequence construction. Knowing joint types ensures correct detailing and workmanship. Given Data / Assumptions: Two concrete placements are made at different times. The interface is prepared (roughened, cleaned, bonded) before the next pour. No intentional movement gap is provided at this interface. Concept / Approach: A construction joint is formed when concrete placing is stopped and later resumed. It is not intended to open or close like movement joints. Contraction (control) joints intentionally weaken the section to control shrinkage cracking. Expansion joints are full-depth separations to accommodate thermal expansion with filler/sealant. Step-by-Step Solution: Identify interface due to staging → “construction joint”.Distinguish from contraction/expansion → those are movement joints, not placement interfaces. Verification / Alternative check: Specifications outline surface prep at construction joints to ensure shear transfer and bond continuity where required. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (a) and (b) are movement-control joints, not simply placement interfaces. Combinations in (d) or (e) misclassify joint intent. Common Pitfalls: Failing to adequately roughen and clean the joint → potential cold joint and leakage. Final Answer: Construction joint.

Question 19

Cement composition — which chemical constituent is present in the smallest percentage by mass? Considering the main oxides in ordinary Portland cement, the minimum percentage among the following is typically that of:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Ordinary Portland cement consists mainly of lime (CaO), silica (SiO2), alumina (Al2O3), iron oxide (Fe2O3), and smaller amounts of other oxides. Their typical ranges help identify conformity and predict performance. Given Data / Assumptions: Typical OPC composition ranges. Comparative, not exact, values are needed. Concept / Approach: In OPC, CaO is the largest fraction (about 60–65%), followed by SiO2 (about 17–25%), Al2O3 (about 3–8%), Fe2O3 (about 0.5–6%), and MgO (up to about 5%). Among the listed oxides, iron oxide is generally the smallest proportion on average across common cements. Step-by-Step Solution: Compare typical ranges: CaO ≫ SiO2 > Al2O3 ≳ MgO > Fe2O3.Hence Fe2O3 usually has the lowest percentage. Verification / Alternative check: Manufacturer's datasheets and standards list similar ranges confirming Fe2O3 as the smallest among the major oxides. Why Other Options Are Wrong: CaO and SiO2 are major components; Al2O3 and MgO exceed Fe2O3 in many OPCs. Common Pitfalls: Confusing trace constituents with major oxides; the question refers to the principal chemical ingredients. Final Answer: Iron oxide (Fe2O3).

Question 20

Compaction suitability — when is vibration not effective for concrete? Concrete is generally unsuitable for compaction using internal or surface vibrators if its consistency is:

Accepted Answer

Introduction / Context: Vibration compacts concrete by mobilizing the mix so particles can re-arrange and entrapped air can escape. If the mix is too stiff, vibrators cannot create sufficient particle mobility, leading to honeycombing and poor consolidation. Given Data / Assumptions: Normal concrete (not roller-compacted or zero-slump special mixes). Internal needle or surface vibrators are available. Workability is assessed by slump or feel. Concept / Approach: Dry, very low-slump concrete lacks the paste fluidity required for vibratory energy to rearrange aggregates effectively. Earth-moist material behaves like damp soil and is also problematic, but “dry” clearly identifies the unsuitable condition. Semi-plastic to plastic mixes respond well to vibration and are standard for reinforced concrete. Step-by-Step Solution: Assess response to vibration by consistency class.Dry/very low slump → inadequate lubrication → ineffective vibration.Semi-plastic/plastic → adequate mobility → effective vibration. Verification / Alternative check: Guides recommend target slumps (e.g., 50–100 mm) for normal vibration, avoiding zero-slump mixes unless specialized methods are used. Why Other Options Are Wrong: (b) is also difficult but the definitive unsuitable class is “dry”. (c) and (d) are routinely vibrated. Common Pitfalls: Over-vibration causing segregation in highly workable mixes; adjust time and insertion spacing. Final Answer: Dry (very low slump).

Concrete Technology Questions