Issuu

Experimental Analysis of Self-Curing Concrete and its Comparison with Conventional Concrete

Shital Subhash Dandge1 , Dr. A. P. Wadekar2 , Dr. D. N. Kakade3

1PG Student, Masters of Technology in Structural Engineering – P.E.S College of Engineering, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, M.S.

2Principal & Professor - P.E.S College of Engineering, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar, M.S.

3Associate Professor and Head of Civil Engineering Department - P.E.S College of Engineering, Chhatrapati Sambhajinagar,M.S.

Abstract - The most often used building material is concrete, which needs enough curing to get desired strength and lifetime. Though efficient, traditional water-curing techniqueshaverestrictionsinremotelocations,tallbuildings, and areas with limited water supply. Under such circumstances, incorrect curing may cause decreased durabilityandperformance. Thisworkinvestigatesthe use of self-curing concrete, in which internal curing agents supply moisture during hydration, so lowering the demand for external curing. Performance of two self-curing agents Polyethylene Glycol 400 (PEG 400) and Superabsorbent Polymers (SAP) in M30-grade concrete was assessed. While SAPs gradually absorb and release water, PEG 400 aids to retain water for internal hydration. Six concrete mixes conventional water-cured (M1), non-cured (M2), PEG-based (M3, M4), SAP-based (M5), and PEG with water curing (M6) were made. Following ISand ASTMcriteria,these mixes were evaluated for workability, compressive strength, tensile strength,flexuralstrength,andwaterabsorptionat7,14,and 28 days. The results revealed that PEG 1.5% (M4) attained better workability and strengths equivalent to conventional curing. SAP (0.2%) greatly increased water retention and lowered shrinkage, so strengthening durability. Mix M6 showed advantages from combined internal and external curing and recorded the best strength. The uncured mix (M2) shown the lowest performance. This work validates that, particularlyinwater-limitedenvironments,self-curingagents are efficient substitutes for conventional approaches. Their applicationguaranteesconcreteperformanceandquality, so supporting sustainable building.

Keywords : Self-curing concrete, PEG 400, Superabsorbent polymers, Internal curing, Compressive strength, Durability, Sustainable construction

1. INTRODUCTION

Becauseofitsgreatstrength,durability,andmoldabilityinto many forms, concrete still forms the backbone of contemporaryinfrastructure.Itscompressivestrengthand adaptability make it extensively used in many structural applicationsincludingbuildings,bridges,pavements,dams, and precast elements. But a crucial phase controlling its performanceisthecuringprocess,whichguaranteesenough

hydrationofcementitiousmaterials,sopromotingstrength increaseandlifetimeovertime.

Conventional curing in traditional building techniques is keeping external moisture under control using ponding, sprinklingorcoveringwithwetmaterials.Althoughefficient, these techniques have major drawbacks including great water demand, labour intensity, inefficiencies in remote, underground, or high-rise buildings. Actually, poor or insufficient curing results in surface cracking, reduced strength,higherpermeability,andanotabledecreaseinthe lifetimeofconcretebuildings [1]

Researchers have looked at other methods to overcome these difficulties; self-curing concrete has shown great promise. By including internal curing agents such PolyethyleneGlycol (PEG)andSuperAbsorbent Polymers (SAP), which retain water inside the concrete mix and release it gradually over time, so enabling continuous hydration and eliminating the need for outside water application[2][3]. These agents create internal moisture reservoirs that guarantees continuous curing even in challengingsiteenvironments.

Because PEG 400, a water-soluble polymer, can hold and releasemoisturegradually,ithasbeenincreasinglyapplied in concrete as a self-curing agent. Research show PEG promotes strength development and helps to lower autogenous shrinkage[4]. Similarly, SAPs are hydrophilic polymersthatcanabsorbandretainwatermanytimestheir weight,soactingasinternalreservoirsofcuringwater[5] .

Inhigh-performanceconcrete,BentzandSnyder[2] showed thatlightweightaggregatespre-soakedwithwaterbehave effectively in internal curing by reducing shrinkage and improvinglong-termstrength.Ininternallycuredconcrete samples,CussonandHoogeveen[3]verifiedbetterhydration and less cracking. Especially in low water-cement ratio concretes, Jensen and Hansen[4] showed even more how SAPsenhancemicrostructureandpreventself-desiccation. MehtaandMonteiro[7] underlinedhowappropriatecuring helps to improve the resistance of concrete against environmentaldamage.

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Furthermore, Lura et al.[6] demonstrated that in highperformanceconcrete(HPC)wherelowwater-cementratios causequickself-desiccation,internalcuringisquitehelpful. Aïtcin[8] underlined that modern concrete techniques dependonself-curingmethods,particularlyincaseswhere sustainabilityandwatereconomytakefrontstage.

Thus,bymeansofcomparativeanalysisofmechanicaland durability criteria, this study explores the efficacy of selfcuring agents (PEG 400 and SAP) in M30–grade concrete. The objective is to find whether in terms of performance, resourceeconomy,andpracticalapplicabilitytheseagents can be dependable replacements for conventional curing techniques.

2. MATERIALS AND METHODOLOGY

Thematerialsusedinthisworkwerechosenwithparticular attentionontheircompatibilitywithself-curingtechniques andtheircapacitytoguaranteeoptimalhydration,strength development, and durability of concrete in the absence of conventional external curing methods.

2.1 Materials

2.1.1 Cement

All concrete mixes used ordinary Portland cement (OPC) Grade53conformingtoIS12269:2013.Highearlystrength developmentofgrade53cementmakesitespeciallyfitfor experimentalstudiesassessingtheeffectsofinternalcuring onearly-agemechanicalproperties.

2.1.2 Fine and Coarse Aggregates

PerfectAggregate:Thefineaggregatecamefromclean,river sand that fit IS 383:2016. It was sieved and cleaned to remove harmful elements and preserve appropriate gradation (Zone II). Thecoarseaggregateconsistedincrushedgraniteof20mm nominalsize.

2.1.3 Agents for Self-Curing: Two-Three

Twoself-curingagentswereusedtofindhowwelltheykept internalmoisture:

i) Polyethylene Glycol 400 (PEG 400)

Low molecular weight hydrophilic polymer PEG 400 can absorb and then progressively release water over time. It was added at cement weight-based dosages of 1.0% and 1.5%.

ii) SAPs, or superabsorbent polymers

Cross-linkedpolymers,SAPscanabsorbwateruptoseveral hundred times their own weight. Based on research

directionandtrialdata,theywereusedata0.2%byweight ofcementdosage.

2.1.4 Water

MixingtookcleanpotablewatercompliantwithIS456:2000. Maintaining a constant water-to cement (w/c) ratio of 0.40, all mixes guaranteed consistency and enabled comparativeanalysis.

2.2 Mix Design

Bymeansofsuitableratiosofcement,water,fineaggregate, coarseaggregate,andself-curingchemicals,themixdesign technique aims to produce concrete of the necessary strength and workability. Structural application and environmentalconditionsofexposuredefinetargetstrength. Thiswork makesuse of M30gradeconcrete, a commonly used grade in real-lifestructural projects requiring either modesttohighstrength.

2.2.1 Target Strength for Mix Design

According to IS 10262: 2019 and IS 456: 2000, the target meanstrength iscalculatedusingtheformula:

Where:

 = Characteristic compressive strength at 28 days=30MPa(forM30)

 S = Standard deviation = 5 MPa (as per IS 10262:2019forM30gradeconcrete)

So,theTargetMeanStrength=38.25MPa

2.2.2 Mix Proportions for M30 Grade Concrete

Targetinggoodworkabilityandstrength,experimentaltrial mixes and IS 10262:2019 helped derive the final mix proportionsforM30gradeconcretewithaw/cratioof0.40. The mix was developed for conventional water-cured concreteaswellasself-curedconcrete(withPEG400and SAPs).

Table 2.2.2.1 : NominalMixRatio(byweight)for1m³of concrete(Conventional) Material Quantity (kg/m³)

Cement(OPC53)

Water

400

160

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

FineAggregate 650

CoarseAggregate 1200

Water-CementRatio 0.40

2.2.3 Modified Mix Design with Self-Curing Agents

To evaluate the performance of self-curing concrete, two additives were introduced in different mixes, replacing a smallpercentageofwaterorcementbyweight:

Table 2.2.3.1 : MixwithPEG400(1.0%and1.5%by weightofcement)

Material PEG 1.0% PEG 1.5%

Cement(OPC53) 400kg/m³ 400kg/m³

Water 160kg/m³ 160kg/m³

PEG400 4.0kg/m³ 6.0kg/m³

FineAggregate 650kg/m³ 650kg/m³

CoarseAggregate 1200kg/m³ 1200kg/m³

Water-CementRatio 0.40 0.40

PEG400wasaddedasaliquidself-curingagentandmixed withwaterbeforeblendingwith drymaterials.

Table 2.2.3.2 : MixwithSuperabsorbentPolymers(SAP) –0.2%byweightofcement

Material SAP 0.2% Mix

Cement(OPC53) 400kg/m³

Water 160kg/m³

SAP(powder) 0.8kg/m³

FineAggregate 650kg/m³

CoarseAggregate 1200kg/m³

Water-CementRatio 0.40

SAPpowderwasdry-mixedwiththeaggregatesandcement beforetheadditionofwatertoensureuniformdispersion.

2.2.4 Why These Mix Proportions and Dosages Were Selected

 Broadly used in both domestic and commercial building,M30GradeSelectionstrikesacompromise

between workability and strength. It provides a reasonablebasisforassessingtheeffectsofdrugs meantforself-curing.

 ResearchandliteraturepointtoPEG 400at1.0% and1.5%dosagesaseffectiveindeliveringinternal moisture and reducing shrinkage without compromisingstrength.

 SAP absorbs water many times more than their weightat0.2%.Theythusprovideexcellentinternal cureevenatlowpercentages.Higherpercentages can result in micro voids able to compromise strength.

 This was selected to guarantee strength development while minimising water content, so optimisingtheneedandefficacyofinternalcuring, witha0.40w/cratio.

 Aggregate Ratios: The choice of coarse to fine aggregateratiowasdirectedbyamaximumpacking density, desired workability, and particle size distribution.

2.3 Methodology

2.3.1

Sample Preparation Materials Used

 Cement:OPC53GradeconfirmingtoIS12269

 Fine Aggregate:Cleanriversand(ZoneII)asperIS 383

 Coarse Aggregate:Crushedgranitestones(10mm and20mm,mixed)

 Water:Potablewater

 Self-Curing Agents:

o Polyethylene Glycol (PEG 400) at 1.0% and 1.5% byweightofcement

o Superabsorbent Polymer (SAP) at 0.2% byweightofcement

Table 2.3.1.1 :MixesConsidered(6Total)

Mix No. Description

M1 ConventionalConcrete–WaterCuring

M2 ConventionalConcrete–NoCuring

M3 PEG400–1.0%(Self-Curing)

M4 PEG400–1.5%(Self-Curing)

M5 SAP–0.2%(Self-Curing)

M6 PEG400–1.0%(WaterCuring)

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table 2.3.1.2 : SpecimenCastingandQuantities

Specime n Type Dimension s

(6 Mixes )

Cubes 150×150× 150mm Compressiv eStrength 9(3each @7,14,28 days) 54

Cylinder s 150mmØ× 300mm height SplitTensile Strength 3(1each @7,14,28 days) 18

Beams 100×100× 500mm Flexural Strength 2(1each @7,28 days) 12

Allconcretewasmixedinalaboratoryconcretemixer.Selfcuringagents(PEG400orSAP)wereaddedafterdrymixing cementandaggregates,andbeforeaddingwater.

1) 2.3.2 Curing Methods

1.ConventionalWaterCuring(M1,M6)

 Specimenswerecured in watertanksat27±2°C for7,14,and28days.

2. No Curing (M2)

 Specimensstoredinshadedlabconditionswithout anycuring.

 Helpsassesstheimpactofzeromoistureexposure.

3. Self-Curing (M3, M4, M5)

 Noexternalwaterapplied.

 Internalcuringvia:

o PEG400at1.0%and1.5%(M3,M4)

o SAPat0.2%(M5)

Theseagentsretaininternalmoisturetoaidhydrationover time.

2) 2.3.3 Testing Schedule

TheconcretepropertiesweretestedasperIndianandASTM standards.

Table 2.3.3.1 : ConcretetestsaccordingtoIndianand ASTMstandards.

Sr. No. Test

1 Slump (Workability)

2 Compressive Strength

3 Split Tensile

IS 1199:1959

7,14,28 IS516:1959

Cylinder 7,14,28 IS 5816:1999

3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION 3.1 Slump Test (Workability)

Table 3.1.1 : Slumptestresults

M1 Conventional –WaterCuring

M2 Conventional – No Curing

Mediumworkability

Slight increase, due to fastmoistureloss

M3 PEG 400 – 1.0% (Self-Curing) 100 Higher slump due to PEGlubricatingeffect

M4 PEG 400 – 1.5% (Self-Curing) 110 Highest workability amongallmixes

M5 SAP – 0.2% (SelfCuring) 90 Slightlyreduceddueto SAPswelling

M6 PEG 400 – 1.0% (WaterCuring) 95 Good workability, similartoM3

Fig 3.1.1 : Slumpconetestresults

 With100mmand95mmslump,respectivelyM3 (PEG1.0%)andM6(PEG1.0%+WaterCuring)also showedgoodworkability;M4(PEG1.5%)hadthe maximumworkabilityat110mmandshowedgreat flow and simplicity of installation resulting from PEG'slubricatingaction.

 M5 mix had a small slump (90 mm), since SAP absorbswaterandswells,somewhatthickeningthe mix.

 Typical formedium workabilityconcrete,M1and M2 conventional mixes showed lower slump values(80–82mm).

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN:

3) 3.2 Compressive Strength Test

Fig 3.2.1 : Compressivestrengthtesting

Table 3.2.1 : Compressivestrengthtestresults

As per expectations for M30–M40

Lowerstrengthduetono curing

Slightly lower than M1, butacceptable M4

Closely matches conventionalstrength

Fig 3.2.2 : Compressivestrengthtestresults



M1 (Conventional + Water Curing) and M6 (PEG 1.0% + Water Curing) respectively showed top marks with respective 28-day compressive strengthsof41.2MPaand41.8MPa.

 closelyfollowedwith40.8MPaM4(PEG1.5%)and said that increasing PEG dosage helped to effectivelyretainhydration.

 M3(PEG1.0%)andM5(SAP0.2%)showedrather lowerstrength(about39.5MPaand38.3MPa),still withinreasonablebounds.

 Frominsufficienthydrationeitherinsideoroutside cured,M2(NoCuring)showedtheloweststrength of34.0MPa.

4) 3.3 Split Tensile Strength Test

Fig 3.3.1 : Splittensilestrengthtesting

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Table 3.3.1 :SplitTensileStrengthtestresults

Fig 3.3.1 : SplitTensileStrength test results

 M6(PEG+WaterCuring)andM1(Conventional+ Water Curing) once more had the highest tensile strengths around 3.28 MPa and 3.25 MPa respectivelyat28days.

 Slightlybetter(3.20MPa)thanSAP(M5)PEG1.5% (M4)PEG1.0%(M3)

 Withatensilestrengthof2.81MPa,M2(NoCuring) underlinedhowmuchabsenceofcuringinfluences crackresistance.

5)

3.4 Flexural Strength Test

3.4.1

Table 3.4.1 : Flexuralstrengthtestresults

Fig 3.4.1 : FlexuralStrengthtestresults

 Flexural strength developed in line with compressivestrength.

 M6 and M1 showed respectively the best values withcorresponding28-dayreadingsof5.2MPaand 5.1MPa.

 ResultswithPEG-basedmixes(M3andM4)ranged somewhatlowerbutstillrathergood(4.9–5.0MPa).

 SAP mix (M5) performed rather well at 4.7 MPa, indicating sufficient hydration but less tensile resiliencethanPEG.

 Once more lagging behind at 4.3 MPa is M2 (no curing).

6) 3.5 Water Absorption Test

Table 3.5.1 : Waterabsorptiontestresults

Mix No. Water Absorption (%)

M1 4.5

M2 5.8

Remarks

Normalabsorption

Highduetopoorhydration

M3 4.2 PEGreducesearlydrying

M4 4.0

M5 3.9

Improvedinternalcuring

SAP stores and slowly releases water

M6 4.3 Water + PEG gives optimal absorption

Fig

:Flexuralstrengthtesting

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

Fig 3.5.1 : Waterabsorptiontestresults

 SAPmix(M5)showedgreatmoistureretentionbut thelowestabsorption rate(3.9%),whenpolymer swelling.

 PEG-based mixes also shown reduced water absorption: M4 at 4.0%, M3 at 4.2%, and M6 at 4.3%,soindicatingtheirinternalcuringefficiency.

 M1 (water cure) absorbed rather moderately at 4.5%.

 M2 (No Curing) suggested larger voids and poor matrixdensityresultingfromlackofhydrationwith amaximumabsorptionof5.8%.

4. CONCLUSION

 EspeciallyPEG400andSAP,self-curingcompounds helptosignificantlyimproveconcrete'sworkability, strength,anddurability.

 The SAP-based mix (0.2%) showed remarkable water retention qualities, so lowering water absorptionandincreasingdurabilitybyraisingthe concrete's resistance to environmental elements; PEG 400 at 1.0% and 1.5% by weight of cement shownnotablegainsincompressivestrength,split tensile strength, and flexural strength when comparedtoordinaryconcrete.

 Water curing and self-curing (PEG 400) showed almost exact performance in strength tests, so demonstratingthatthesesustainableandefficient alternatives for traditional water curing are feasible.

 Thelowestperformancecamefromnocuring(M2), thus stressing the need of enough curing in the concrete hydration process; PEG 400 improves workability, according the slump test; SAP somewhatreducesitbecauseofwaterabsorption.

 Self-curingmethodscansignificantlyreducewater usage in areas with limited resources and on big concretebuildingprojects.

 Thestudyconfirmsthat,ifonewantsgreatstrength anddurabilitywithminimalenvironmentalimpact, self-curing concrete can be a wise option for modernbuilding.

 The results confirm the necessity of curing in obtaining long-term durability and best concrete performance.

This extensive research reveals the possibilities of selfcuring chemicals in delivering premium concrete, so substitutingfortraditionalcuringmethodsandsupporting moreenvironmentallyfriendlybuildingapproaches.

5. REFERENCES

1. Mather,M.,&Warner,R.(2017).Thecriticalfunction of curing in concrete: A review of traditional techniques and alternatives. Cement and Concrete Research,93,53-65.

2. Bentz,D.P.,&Snyder,K.A.(2015).Internalcuringof high-performance concrete using lightweight aggregates: Mechanisms and performance. Cement andConcreteComposites,63,118-127.

3. Cusson, D., & Hoogeveen, T. (2016). The effect of internal curing on high-performance concrete: A comparativestudy withtraditional curing methods. MaterialsandStructures,49(8),3379-3387.

4. Jensen,O.M.,&Hansen,P.F.(2001).Superabsorbent polymers as internal curing agents in concrete. CementandConcreteResearch,31(6),967-972.

5. Raoufi,M.,&Weiss,J.(2015).Moisturetransferand hydrationininternallycuredconcreteusingsaturated lightweightaggregates.JournalofMaterialsScience, 50(12),4620-4632.

6. Lura, P., Jensen, O. M., & Weiss, J. (2006). Internal curing of high-performance concrete: A method to reduceautogenousshrinkage.CementandConcrete Research,36(7),1148-1153.

7. Mehta,P.K.,&Monteiro,P. J.M.(2017).Theroleof curing in concrete durability. Concrete Technology, 12(4),156-162.

8. Aïtcin, P. C. (2000). Curing and hydration of highperformanceconcrete:Advancesincuringmethods. CementandConcreteResearch,30(6),1043-1052.

9. Bentz,D.P.,Garboczi,E.J.,&Sant,G.(2014).Internal curingandthedevelopmentofearly-agecrackingin concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 26(7),0919-0927.

10. Kovler,K.,&Jensen,O.M.(2014).Self-curingsystems for concrete: A review of materials and methods. MaterialsandStructures,47(5),1045-1056.

11. Snoeck, D., & Schlangen, E. (2016). Self-curing characteristics of concrete with superabsorbent polymers.ConstructionandBuildingMaterials,102, 204-213.

12. Castel, A., & Foster, S. J. (2014). Internally cured concrete with lightweight aggregates: Effects on hydration and shrinkage. Cement and Concrete Research,56,1-11.

13. Hasholt, M., Jensen, O. M., & Kovler, K. (2017). Evaluation of superabsorbent polymers and pre-

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056

Volume: 13 Issue: 04 | Apr 2026 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072

wettedlightweightaggregatesasself-curingagentsin concrete.MaterialsandStructures,50(4),1231-1241.

14. Kopf, W. J.,&Spragg,R.(2018).The roleofinternal curinginimprovingtheperformanceofbridgedecks in extreme weather conditions. Journal of InfrastructureSystems,24(2),04018015.

15. Lura, P., & Weiss, J. (2015). Early-age cracking in constrained concrete elements with self-curing conditions.CementandConcreteComposites,56,110118.

16. Geiker,M.R.,&Bentz,D.P.(2013).Influenceofselfcuringonself-desiccationandhydrationinflyashand silica fume-based concretes. Cement and Concrete Research,52,65-75.

17. Zhutovsky, Y., & Kovler, K. (2014). Self-curing concrete in hot weather conditions: Lightweight aggregates and curing chemicals. Construction and BuildingMaterials,55,380-388.

18. Snoeck, D., Steuperaert, S., & Van Tittelboom, K. (2016). Self-healing concrete with superabsorbent polymers and fibers: A study on crack closure and long-termdurability.MaterialsandStructures,49(1), 111-124.

19. Raoufi,M.,Bentz,D.P.,&Weiss,J.(2017).Influenceof internal curing on drying shrinkage and hydration heatinthickconcretesections.CementandConcrete Research,92,118-128.

20. Kim,Y.,&Lee,H.(2015).Theapplicationofself-curing chemicals in fast-drying concrete: Effectiveness of SAPs and saturated lightweight aggregates. ConstructionandBuildingMaterials,75,157-165.