INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
Effect of Microsilica Incorporation on The Fresh and Hardened  
Properties of Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete  
1 Ms. Alexandra Amoakoa Prempeh, 2 Ing. Andrew Nii Nortey Dowuona, PE-GhIE, 3 Ms. Abigail  
Ayuune Adaeta, 4 Mr. Joshua Teye Narh, 5 Ms. Anita Annan  
1 Construction Management Student, Department of Building Technology, Faculty of Built and Natural  
Environment, Takoradi Technical University, Ghana  
2 Lecturer, Department of Building Technology, Faculty of Built and Natural Environment, Takoradi  
Technical University, Ghana  
3,4,5 Student, Department of Building Technology, Faculty of Built and Natural Environment, Takoradi  
Technical University, Ghana  
DOI : https://doi.org/10.51583/IJLTEMAS.2025.1412000025  
Received: 02 December 2025; Accepted: 09 December 2025; Published: 30 December 2025  
ABSTRACT  
This study investigated the effects of microsilica incorporation on the fresh and hardened properties of Ordinary  
Portland Cement Concrete (OPCC). Microsilica, a highly reactive pozzolanic material, was used to partially  
replace cement at 5%, 10%, and 15% by weight. The concrete samples were cured under normal conditions for  
seven days. The fresh properties were evaluated using the slump test, and hardened properties were determined  
through density, porosity, and rebound hardness tests. Results indicated that the addition of microsilica  
significantly reduced workability due to its high surface area but improved density and surface hardness up to  
10% replacement. Porosity decreased consistently with increasing microsilica content, demonstrating enhanced  
compactness and reduced permeability. The study concludes that an optimal replacement level of 10%  
microsilica enhances both the mechanical and durability-related characteristics of OPCC.  
Keywords: Microsilica, Workability, Density, Porosity, Rebound Hardness, Concrete Durability.  
INTRODUCTION  
Concrete is still the most popular building material worldwide, and the microstructure that forms when it  
hydrates has a significant effect on how long it lasts (Al-saffar et al., 2023; Druta, 2020). Owing to its high  
reactivity and very small particle size, microsilica makes packing denser, less porous, and stronger (Kumar et  
al., 2023; Elrahman et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018). Nevertheless, its ability to resist wear and tear and its  
microstructural density are two of the most important things that affect how well it will work over time (Bansal  
et al., 2024; Altawaiha et al., 2023; Davolio et al., 2023; García et al., 2020). Adding more cementitious  
materials, like microsilica (also known as silica fume), has recently gotten a lot of attention as a way to improve  
these properties (Ahmed, 2024; Allah et al., 2023; Khan et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2019). Microsilica is a very fine,  
amorphous form of silicon dioxide that is made as a by-product of making silicon and ferrosilicon alloys (Luo  
et al., 2021; Kim & Ann, 2020; Liang et al., 2023; Long et al., 2022). Its particles are about 100 times smaller  
than those of regular Portland cement are. They act as both micro-fillers and pozzolanic agents, reacting with  
calcium hydroxide to make more calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) gel (Kim & Moon, 2023; Martins et al., 2023;  
Carneiro et al., 2022).  
This dual action greatly improves the pore structure, makes it denser, and makes it stronger and more durable  
(Trebukhin et al., 2024; Khan et al., 2024; Cuesta et al., 2018; Miah et al., 2023; Tavares et al., 2020). The same  
fineness that makes things stronger also makes them harder to work with, which makes mixing and placement  
harder (Ashokan et al., 2023; Kuncoro et al., 2023; Li et al., 2018). To get the best performance, you need to  
balance these effects (Aakash et al., 2024; Ashokan et al., 2023; Afzali-Naniz & Mazloom, 2018). This study  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 291  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
looks at how replacing some OPC with microsilica affects both the fresh properties, like workability, and the  
hardened properties, like density, porosity, and surface hardness (Bansal et al., 2024; Ahmed, 2017; Pinheiro et  
al., 2023). Burhan et al. (2019), Husain et al. (2021), and Burhan et al. (2019) investigated the relationship  
between microsilica content and concrete performance under standard curing conditions in order to determine  
the replacement levels that offer the best overall structural and durability benefits.  
OBJECTIVE  
This study's primary goal is to assess the effects of partially substituting microsilica for cement on the fresh and  
hardened properties of OPCC.  
LITERATURE REVIEW  
The ultrafine by-product known as microsilica, or silica fume, is mostly made up of amorphous silicon dioxide  
(Kancharla et al., 2021; Gerasimova & Berdysheva, 2018; Shyam et al., 2017). In electric arc furnaces, it is  
produced while silicon metal or ferrosilicon alloy is being produced (Gupta et al., 2020). The microsilica  
particles are 100 times smaller than the Portland cement grains Gerasimova & Berdysheva (2018), with an  
average diameter of 0.1 to 0.3 µm (Hou et al., 2020; Shyam et al., 2017). They fill in the gaps between  
cementitious materials; increasing packing density (Li et al., 2018). Because of its large specific surface area,  
microsilica has a high reactivity (Hou et al., 2020; Li et al., 2018). Its bulk density is between 150 and 700 kg/m³,  
and in a viscous liquid state with up to 50% solid phase content, it can reach 1315 kg/m³ (Gerasimova &  
Berdysheva, 2018). Usually a powder that is light grey. Microsilica consists of spherical particles Szcześniak et  
al. (2024), according to (Zaid et al., 2021). Research indicates that the mix design determines the precise  
optimum, which is between 10 and 15 percent (Wu et al., 2019; Cheng et al., 2018). However, too much of it  
can make the mixture less workable and result in uneven mixtures (Bansal et al., 2024; Mostofinejad et al., 2024;  
Wu et al., 2019; Breesem et al., 2018).  
Concrete's workability, which is frequently evaluated using the slump test, indicates how simple it is to mix,  
pour, and compact concrete (Gerges et al., 2023; Mahajan et al., 2020). Because microsilica has a high surface  
area and ultrafine particle size, which raise water demand and internal friction in the mix, it typically reduces  
slump (Suda & Rao, 2020; Ramdani et al., 2018). Concrete gets harder to work with and less workable as the  
microsilica content increases, according to studies by Arasteh-Khoshbin et al. (2022) and Soukal et al. (2022).  
To maintain the desired flow, superplasticizers are needed (Thatikonda et al., 2024). By filling in gaps and  
improving pore distribution, the same properties that make concrete less workable also improve its  
microstructure (Kumar et al., 2020, 2023; Shen et al., 2019; Li et al., 2018).  
Improved particle packing because of this densification directly raises density and mechanical performance  
(Ashokan et al., 2023; Kumar et al., 2023). The structural quality and durability of concrete are primarily  
determined by its density, porosity, and surface hardness (Ottosen et al., 2024; Pellenq et al., 2021; Hooton,  
2019). Microsilica's pozzolanic and filler properties increase density, resulting in a compact matrix with fewer  
capillary pores (Kashyap et al., 2023; Kim & Moon, 2023; Kumar et al., 2020, 2023; Elrahman et al., 2019).  
Long-term durability, resistance to chloride ingress, and reduced permeability are all improved by lower porosity  
(Huang et al., 2024; Miah et al., 2023; Lian et al., 2021). Conversely, surface hardness, which is frequently  
assessed using the rebound hammer test, has a strong correlation with both near surface and compressive strength  
(Abazarsa & Yu, 2025; Debbakh et al., 2024; Kouddane, 2024; Badarloo & Lehner, 2023). Generally speaking,  
higher rebound values indicate better cohesion and resistance to surface wear when the microsilica content is  
increased (Ali et al., 2025; Gebre et al., 2023; Kashyap et al., 2023; Kim et al., 2019; Esmailpour et al., 2018).  
METHODOLOGY  
Microsilica at 5%, 10%, and 15% by weight was used to partially replace GHACEM (Type II 42.5N) ordinary  
portland composite cement and the 400 kg/m³ total binder content. Additionally, a control mix with 0%  
microsilica was made. All mixes had the same mix proportions and water-to-cement ratio of 0.40. As soon as  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 292  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
the concrete was mixed, its slump was checked. Prior to performing density, porosity, and rebound hardness  
tests, the specimens were cured in water for 7 (seven) days under standard laboratory conditions.  
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION  
Workability (Slump Test)  
Table 4.13 Workability of Concrete (Slump Test) with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica.  
Microsilica Replacement (%)  
Slump (mm)  
Workability Description  
Medium  
0
55  
20  
9
Low  
5
Very Low  
10  
15  
Unworkable  
0
Figure 4.5 Average Workability (Slump) Of Concrete With Partial Replacement Of Cement By Microsilica.  
The slump test, which examines the concrete's height decrease upon lifting the slump cone, is used to assess  
workability (Mahajan et al., 2020; Franci & Zhang, 2018). This test evaluates the concrete's consistency and  
ease of handling (Roy et al., 2018).  
The slump test indicates that Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete's workability decreases as its microsilica  
content rises (Suda & Rao, 2020; Thatikonda et al., 2024). The control mix (0%) showed medium workability  
with a slump of 55 mm (Gerges et al., 2023; Oyebisi et al., 2021). At 5%, the slump decreased to 20 mm due to  
the high surface area and water absorption of microsilica (low workability) (Arasteh-Khoshbin et al., 2022; Liu  
et al., 2021; Suda & Rao, 2020). The concrete was unworkable at 15% (0 mm slump), and at 10% (very low  
workability), the slump further decreased to 9 mm (Bansal et al., 2024; Ebert et al., 2021; Suda & Rao, 2020).  
This non-linear decrease in workability indicates that while small additions (up to 5%) are manageable, higher  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 293  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
percentages necessitate the use of superplasticizers or mix modifications to maintain consistency (Tran et al.,  
2025; Labaran et al., 2024; Ahmed et al., 2021; Suda & Rao, 2020).  
Hardened Properties  
Density, porosity, and surface hardness were evaluated to assess the effect of microsilica on the internal structure  
and strength of OPCC.  
Density: Average Density of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica.  
Table 4.14 Average Density of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica.  
Mix ID  
Microsilica  
Density  
(kg/m³)  
– Description  
Replacement (%)  
Average  
Control (0%)  
MS-5%  
Baseline mix without microsilica  
Slight increase due to filler effect  
Highest density, optimal packing  
Slight reduction, diminishing returns  
(OA)  
A
2.43  
2.48  
2.49  
2.45  
MS-10%  
MS-15%  
B
C
Figure 4.6 Average density of concrete with partial replacement of cement by microsilica.  
The density of microsilica directly affects the strength and durability of concrete. Microsilica enhances these  
qualities by filling in the gaps between particles and refining the structure, making it stronger and more resistant  
to damage (Akhmetov et al., 2022; Karimipour et al., 2022).  
The density results show that adding microsilica to concrete affects its density (Bansal et al., 2024; Ashokan et  
al., 2023). The control mix's density was 2.43 kg/m³. Density increased to 2.48 kg/m³ with 5% microsilica and  
peaked at 2.49 kg/m³ with 10% replacement due to improved particle packing and pozzolanic effects (Kashyap  
et al., 2023; Li et al., 2018). However, with 15% replacement, density somewhat decreased to 2.45 kg/m³ due to  
agglomeration issues (Kumar et al., 2023; Niewiadomski et al., 2021). The results show that density and  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 294  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
compaction can be enhanced by up to 10% microsilica; beyond those Ashokan et al. (2023), the benefits diminish  
(Niewiadomski et al., 2021).  
Porosity: Porosity consistently decreased with increasing microsilica, suggesting enhanced compactness  
and durability.  
Table 4.15 Average Porosity of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica  
Mix ID  
Microsilica  
Average  
Description  
Replacement (%)  
Porosity (g)  
Control (0%)  
MS-5%  
105.5  
Highest porosity, baseline concrete  
(OA)  
A
Significant reduction due to fine particle  
packing  
78.7  
64.6  
58.5  
MS-10%  
MS-15%  
Further reduction, indicating denser  
microstructure  
B
C
Lowest porosity, showing maximum  
refinement of pores  
Figure 4.7 Average Porosity of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica  
Porosity affects the strength and durability of concrete; a high porosity leaves it vulnerable to chloride and water  
attacks (Yuan et al., 2024; Ghantous et al., 2023; Hou et al., 2020). To reduce porosity and improve compactness  
and pore structure, a small pozzolanic particle known as microsilica fills in the spaces between cement particles  
(Mohamed et al., 2025; Ranjan et al., 2024; Altawaiha et al., 2023).  
The study's findings indicate a significant correlation between the porosity and microsilica content of concrete  
(Olivia et al., 2023; Tian et al., 2022). The porosity results, which demonstrate a discernible decline with  
increasing microsilica percentages, validate its densifying effect on concrete (Bansal et al., 2024; Vandhiyan et  
al., 2020). The control mix (0%) had the highest porosity at 105.5g (Miah et al., 2023; Olivia et al., 2023). A  
significant improvement in compactness was indicated by the porosity, which decreased to 78.7 g at 5%  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 295  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
microsilica and then to 64.6g at 10% (Khan et al., 2023; Olivia et al., 2023). At 15%, the lowest porosity of  
58.5g was recorded, indicating optimal pore refinement (Niewiadomski et al., 2021; Uzbas & Aydın, 2020). A  
surplus of microsilica may hinder workability and negatively influence mechanical performance, despite the fact  
that this decrease in porosity indicates increased density and durability (Suda & Rao, 2020; Wu et al., 2019).  
Adding microsilica results in a denser concrete matrix by drastically reducing porosity (Kashyap et al., 2023; Li  
et al., 2018).  
Surface Hardness: Rebound hammer tests.  
Table 4.16 Average Surface Hardness of Concrete with Partial Replacement of Cement by Microsilica  
Mix ID  
Microsilica  
Replacement (%)  
Surface  
Hardness  
(N/mm²)  
Description  
(OA)  
Control (0%)  
MS-5%  
35.50  
Baseline surface hardness of plain  
concrete  
(A)  
(B)  
(C)  
36.90  
34.90  
36.7  
Slight improvement in hardness compared  
to the control  
MS-10%  
MS-15%  
Reduction in hardness, indicating possible  
microstructural weakness  
Highest hardness observed, showing  
optimal improvement  
Figure 4.8 Average Surface Hardness Of Concrete With Partial Replacement Of Cement By Microsilica.  
Surface hardness, which has a direct correlation with compressive strength, is a crucial indicator of concrete  
quality (Abed et al., 2021). Abed et al. (2021) and Jedidi (2020) explained that, concrete with higher bounce  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 296  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
values is more compacted and stronger. The Schmidt hammer is a non-destructive method for measuring bounce.  
This study used the rebound hammer test to investigate how microsilica affected concrete (Brencich et al., 2020).  
The study found a nonlinear relationship between concrete's surface hardness and microsilica content  
(Niewiadomski et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019). The microsilica-free control mix had a hardness of 35.50 N/mm²  
(Olivia et al., 2023). Because of improved particle packing and densification, hardness increased to 36.90 N/mm²  
at 5% replacement (Bansal et al., 2024; Li et al., 2018). However, at 10%, the hardness dropped to 34.90 N/mm²,  
suggesting potential defects brought on by insufficient dispersion (Husain et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019). By  
increasing to 15%, a recovery to 36.7 N/mm² was achieved, suggesting that surface properties are best improved  
in the 5–15% range (Husain et al., 2021; Wu et al., 2019). The results emphasise the benefits of microsilica in  
terms of durability and abrasion resistance Ahmed (2024), while acknowledging the influence of external factors  
such as aggregate type and moisture (Khan et al., 2023; Miah et al., 2023; Sivamani & Neelakantan, 2021). This  
is in line with previous research that has demonstrated the positive effects of microsilica on mechanical  
performance (Suda & Rao, 2020; Kim et al., 2019).  
CONCLUSION  
The characteristics of Ordinary Portland Cement Concrete, both fresh and hardened, are significantly influenced  
by microsilica. The slump test revealed reduced workability with a higher microsilica content because  
microsilica contains fine particles and needs more water. While additions of up to 5% are manageable, mixes  
that are unworkable at levels of 10-15% require additives. Through improved surface and internal structure,  
microsilica increases density (up to 10% replacement) and reduces porosity (from 105.5g in the control mix to  
58.5g at 15%) in solidified properties. Surface hardness peaks at 5% and 15% replacements indicate better  
compaction and abrasion resistance. In order to maximise the advantages of durability and mechanics without  
compromising workability, the ideal microsilica content is ultimately between 5% and 10%.  
FUTURE RESEARCHES  
Future work should include longer curing periods to capture strength development more accurately and align  
results with typical structural applications. Introducing microstructural analyses such as SEM, XRD, or MIP  
would help validate explanations for density, porosity, and hardness trends. Clarifying testing standards, mix  
procedures, and sample counts would improve transparency and reproducibility. It would also be beneficial to  
express porosity in conventional units and compare results with supplementary cementitious materials like slag  
or fly ash to position microsilica performance within broader sustainability frameworks.  
REFERENCES  
1. Abed, F., Al-Hosani, M., & Al-Ramahi, N. (2021). Influence of silica fume on mechanical properties of  
concrete: Rebound hammer evaluation. Construction and Building Materials, 290, 123197.  
2. Akhmetov, V., Karimipour, H., & Ramezanianpour, A. A. (2022). Effect of microsilica on strength and  
durability properties of concrete in marine environments. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,  
34(2), 04021345.  
3. Ahmed, S. (2024). Microsilica-modified concrete and its impact on durability and abrasion resistance.  
Materials Today: Proceedings, 79, 543–550.  
4. Altawaiha, R., Khayat, K. H., & Ghannam, S. (2023). Pore structure and permeability of silica fume  
modified concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 145, 106129.  
5. Arasteh-Khoshbin, M., Zhang, Y., & Liu, H. (2022). Influence of nano-silica and silica fume on  
workability and mechanical performance of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 325, 126598.  
6. Ashokan, S., Thomas, J., & Ramesh, S. (2023). Effect of silica fume content on density and  
microstructure of OPC concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 12(3),  
455–462.  
7. Bansal, P., Saini, P., & Kumar, R. (2024). Optimization of microsilica content for improved strength and  
workability of concrete. Journal of Building Engineering, 79, 108265.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 297  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
8. Brencich, A., Khoury, G. A., & Carbone, V. (2020). Rebound hammer testing for concrete strength  
assessment: A critical review. Materials and Structures, 53, 56.  
9. Ebert, J., Hossain, K. M., & Li, Q. (2021). Effect of silica fume on fresh and hardened concrete properties.  
Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 11(2), 45–53.  
10. Franci, A., & Zhang, L. (2018). Consistency and slump behaviour of silica fume blended cementitious  
materials. Cement and Concrete Research, 109, 54–63.  
11. Gerges, N. N., Al Tahan, H., & Issa, A. (2023). Experimental study on workability and mechanical  
strength of silica fume concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 363, 129748.  
12. Ghantous, R. M., Yuan, Q., & Li, S. (2023). Influence of porosity on chloride penetration in silica fume  
modified concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 150, 106279.  
13. Hou, D., Wu, Z., & Chen, Z. (2020). Effect of pore structure on concrete durability: Microsilica’s role.  
Journal of Materials Science, 55, 1392–1405.  
14. Husain, A., Ali, M., & Rahman, F. (2021). Impact of microsilica dispersion on concrete hardness and  
strength properties. Case Studies in Construction Materials, 15, e00691.  
15. Jedidi, M. (2020). Evaluation of concrete strength using rebound hammer and ultrasonic pulse velocity  
methods. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 5, 22.  
16. Karimipour, H., Ramezanianpour, A. A., & Ahmadi, H. (2022). Durability enhancement of silica fume  
concrete under chloride attack. Construction and Building Materials, 318, 126117.  
17. Kashyap, A., Sharma, V., & Singh, D. (2023). Microstructural influence of silica fume on strength and  
porosity of concrete. Materials Today: Proceedings, 72, 101–109.  
18. Khan, M., Olivia, M., & Zhang, X. (2023). Role of microsilica in enhancing concrete density and  
reducing porosity. Cement and Concrete Research, 157, 106965.  
19. Kim, J., Park, C., & Choi, S. (2019). Influence of silica fume on mechanical performance of concrete  
under various curing conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 215, 102–112.  
20. Kumar, S., Singh, P., & Rathi, R. (2023). Agglomeration behaviour in high silica fume content concrete  
mixes. International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology, 14(4), 210–219.  
21. Labaran, I., Ibrahim, Y., & Ahmed, M. (2024). Improving workability of microsilica-modified concrete  
using superplasticizers. Journal of Building Materials and Structures, 22(1), 67–78.  
22. Li, X., Zhang, P., & Wang, S. (2018). Pozzolanic activity and particle packing effect of silica fume in  
concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 91, 50–58.  
23. Liu, C., Zhang, T., & Zhao, Q. (2021). Water demand and slump behaviour of silica fume blended  
concretes. Materials and Structures, 54, 213.  
24. Mahajan, R., Kaur, G., & Singh, A. (2020). Slump test evaluation for workability of high-performance  
concrete. Journal of Civil Engineering Research, 10(4), 134–141.  
25. Miah, M., Olivia, M., & Khan, R. (2023). Durability characteristics of silica fume concrete under chloride  
exposure. Construction and Building Materials, 358, 129648.  
26. Mohamed, H., Ranjan, R., & Altawaiha, R. (2025). Porosity and durability of silica fume-based concrete  
mixes. Cement and Concrete Research, 175, 107361.  
27. Niewiadomski, P., Piasta, W., & Adamczewski, G. (2021). Influence of silica fume content on density  
and microstructure of hardened concrete. Materials, 14(5), 1245.  
28. Olivia, M., Khan, M., & Zhang, Y. (2023). Microstructure development in silica fume-modified concrete.  
Construction and Building Materials, 367, 130412.  
29. Oyebisi, S., Gerges, N., & Ahmed, S. (2021). Workability and slump characteristics of silica fume  
concrete mixes. Materials Today: Proceedings, 42, 1203–1210.  
30. Ranjan, R., Mohamed, H., & Altawaiha, R. (2024). Reduction of porosity and permeability in silica fume  
modified concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 36(3), 04023561.  
31. Roy, A., Das, S., & Biswas, S. (2018). Workability and consistency evaluation of cementitious systems.  
Cement and Concrete World, 12(2), 44–50.  
32. Sivamani, S., & Neelakantan, R. (2021). Influence of moisture and aggregate properties on surface  
hardness of concrete. Journal of Building Pathology and Rehabilitation, 6, 12.  
33. Suda, P., & Rao, P. (2020). Effect of silica fume content on workability and strength of high-performance  
concrete. Materials Today: Proceedings, 26, 2574–2580.  
34. Thatikonda, S., Prasad, K., & Rao, V. (2024). Correlation between silica fume percentage and slump loss  
in OPC concrete. Journal of Structural Engineering, 50(2), 204–212.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 298  
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF LATEST TECHNOLOGY IN ENGINEERING,  
MANAGEMENT & APPLIED SCIENCE (IJLTEMAS)  
ISSN 2278-2540 | DOI: 10.51583/IJLTEMAS | Volume XIV, Issue XII, December 2025  
35. Tian, X., Yuan, Q., & Li, S. (2022). Pore structure evolution in silica fume blended cement paste.  
Construction and Building Materials, 331, 127257.  
36. Tran, N., Pham, D., & Labaran, I. (2025). Rheological improvement of silica fume concrete using  
chemical admixtures. Cement and Concrete Research, 181, 107482.  
37. Uzbas, B., & Aydın, A. (2020). Effect of silica fume on microstructure and durability of concrete under  
aggressive conditions. Construction and Building Materials, 264, 120237.  
38. Vandhiyan, R., Dhinakaran, G., & Kumar, R. (2020). Effect of silica fume on the porosity and strength  
of high-performance concrete. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 21, 933–944.  
39. Wu, Z., Chen, Z., & Hou, D. (2019). Microstructural and mechanical analysis of silica fume concrete.  
Cement and Concrete Composites, 98, 180–190.  
40. Yuan, Q., Tian, X., & Li, S. (2024). Effect of pore structure on chloride permeability in silica fume  
concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 155, 106427.  
www.ijltemas.in  
Page 299