## 3 Results and Discussion
### Flexural Strength  
Flexural strength is one measure of the tensile strength of concrete. The resistance of a concrete beam against loading is measured to evaluate flexural strength. Three samples for each ratio (six ratios) and for each material (three materials) were developed and tested. These beams were subjected to three-point loading mechanism. Temperature variation was from room Temperature (27 \({}^{\circ}\)C) to 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C. Samples were also tested beyond that limit at 500 \({}^{\circ}\)C but they were unable to be tested for flexural strength because of spalling. Comparative flexural strength can be seen in Table 6 for comparative analysis.  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c c c} \hline \hline  & \multicolumn{2}{c}{**Material Replaced**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Silica Fume (S.P)**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**Days** & **Temp (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **0\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** & **25\%** \\ \hline
7 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.4 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 2.1 & 2.3 & 2.6 \\
14 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.7 & 1.9 & 2.1 & 2.4 & 2.7 & 2.9 \\
28 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 1.1 & 2.3 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 3.0 & 3.1 \\
28 & 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.3 & 2.5 & 2.9 & 3.0 & 3.4 & 3.6 \\
28 & 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.4 & 2.8 & 3.1 & 3.3 & 3.7 & 3.9 \\
28 & 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.5 & 2.9 & 3.4 & 3.8 & 4.0 & 4.1 \\
28 & 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.8 & 3.1 & 3.6 & 4.1 & 4.3 & 4.5 \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**Material Replaced**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS)**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**Days** & **Temp (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **0\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** & **25\%** \\ \hline
7 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.4 & 0.5 & 0.7 & 0.9 & 1.1 & 1.3 \\
14 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.7 & 1.0 & 1.4 & 1.7 & 1.9 & 2.3 \\ Strength (MPa) & 28 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 1.1 & 1.6 & 1.8 & 2.1 & 2.4 & 2.6 \\
28 & 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.3 & 1.7 & 1.9 & 2.4 & 2.7 & 2.9 \\
28 & 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.4 & 1.8 & 2.0 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 3.0 \\
28 & 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.5 & 1.9 & 2.2 & 2.8 & 3.1 & 3.2 \\
28 & 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.8 & 2.1 & 2.6 & 3.0 & 3.6 & 3.8 \\ \hline \multicolumn{9}{c}{**Material Replaced**} & \multicolumn{5}{c}{**Maple Powder (MP)**} \\ \cline{2-9}
**Days** & **Temp (\({}^{\circ}\)C)** & **0\%** & **5\%** & **10\%** & **15\%** & **20\%** & **25\%** \\ \hline
7 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.4 & 1.4 & 1.6 & 1.9 & 2.1 & 2.3 \\
14 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 0.7 & 1.9 & 2.4 & 2.5 & 2.8 & 2.9 \\
28 & 27 \({}^{\circ}\)C (R.T.) & 1.1 & 2.0 & 2.7 & 2.9 & 3.0 & 3.1 \\
28 & 100 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.3 & 2.4 & 3.0 & 3.1 & 3.2 & 3.4 \\
28 & 200 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.4 & 2.7 & 3.4 & 3.6 & 3.7 & 3.9 \\
28 & 300 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.5 & 3.0 & 3.6 & 3.9 & 4.1 & 4.3 \\
28 & 400 \({}^{\circ}\)C & 1.8 & 3.3 & 3.9 & 4.0 & 4.3 & 4.6 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 6: Test results for hardened self-compacted concrete (flexural strength, MPa).  
Figure 4: Comparative tensile strength trend with respect to cement replacement of previous studies ([PERSON] [7], [PERSON] [9] and [PERSON] [42]).  
Flexural strength in comparative analysis shows that trend in the previous research is an increasing one, which is similar to the current study (Figure 5).