 Open Access
 Total Downloads : 297
 Authors : Ashit Kumar, Dr. Anil Kumar Saxena
 Paper ID : IJERTV5IS100166
 Volume & Issue : Volume 05, Issue 10 (October 2016)
 DOI : http://dx.doi.org/10.17577/IJERTV5IS100166
 Published (First Online): 15102016
 ISSN (Online) : 22780181
 Publisher Name : IJERT
 License: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Combined use of Stone Dust as Partial Replacement of Sand and Glass Powder as Cement
Ashit Kumar
M.Tech Student, Department of Civil Engineering
Lakshmi Narain College of Technology Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Dr. Anil Kumar Saxena Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering Lakshmi Narain College of Technology Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh
Abstract In this research we analyze the strength of concrete made with using locally available fly ash based Cement by using two waste materials one is Glass Powder and Other is Stone dust. The Glass Powder is used as 20% replacement of the cement and Stone Dust as the partial replacement of Fine Aggregate from 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40%. The grade of the concrete here is M25 and M30 grade. Slump Test was carried out for the fresh concrete whereas Compressive Strength, Flexure Strength and Split Tensile Tests were carried for the Hardened concrete. All tests are done at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days with 0 to 40% replacement of sand at an interval of 10%. Again above tests are carried out with 20% replacement of cement by glass powder. It is observed that the glass powder improve the strength and stone dust can be used as sand. This is great saving in costly material.
Keywords Stone Dust, Glass Powder, Mix Design, Compressive Test, Flesure Test, Split Tensile, Test.

INTRODUCTION
The concrete is useful materials in the construction industry. It is not only used in building construction but also in other areas like roads, bridges, harbors, and many more. It is comparatively economical, easy to make offers continuity solidity and indeed it lays the role of developing and improving or modern life.It is a composite material which is made up of cement, sand, aggregate and water. The fresh concrete can be mould into any desire shape. The life of the concrete is very high so it can be used as versatile material. In the concrete the cement is used as the binder material which has the binding tendancy. Due to increase in activities for different regions and utilities scaring of the naturally available resurces is being forced due to its over exploitation. This is the threat to the environment. Also the use of conventional material becomes costly day by day. Hence conservation of the naturally available material is great challenge for the civil engineers. Which also reduced the cost of the material or by using the alternateve material which reduced partially or fully the conventional material. There is only way to search materials which can fully or partially replaced naturally available material in the construction field.
The various alternative materials are used as partial for fully replacement of conventional material e.g. fly ash, cocomut shell, crushed sand, recycled aggregate etc. Here we use the two waste material which is easily available.
The stone dust produced from stone crushing zones appers as a problem for effictive disposal. Also the land over which demolition wastes are disposed, deprives the further land use forever for other purposes. Which is used here as partily replacement as fine aggregate. Also the glass powder produced from the many industries is also a waste material which can be used as partial replacement as cement. Sand is a material used in concrete as fine aggregate.

MATERIALS SPECIFICATION
Cement
In the present work locally available Portland Pozzolana Cement (fly ash based) brand name Birla Gold confirming to IS: 1489 (Part 1) 1991 was used. Having specific gravity 3.12 and normal consistency 33%.
Fine Aggreagate
The fine aggregate in this research work are used from locally abailable from Banka District, Bihar and confirms to zone II of IS 383:1970. Having specific gravity 2.67 and fineness modulus 2.87.
Table 1. Sieve Analysis of Fine aggregate
Sieve Size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulat ive weight retained (gm) 
Cumulative Percentage weight retained 
% Passing 
4.75 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
2.36 mm 
55 
55 
5.5 
94.5 
1.18 mm 
228 
283 
28.3 
71.7 
600 Âµ 
348 
631 
63.1 
36.9 
300 Âµ 
285 
916 
91.6 
8.4 
150 Âµ 
75 
991 
99.1 
0.9 
Pan 
5 
996 
100 
0 
Total 1 Kg 
Fineness Modulus = 287.6/100 = 2.87 
Coarse Aggregate
Two aggregate of sizes 20 mm and 10 mm were used from local available from Pakur District, Jharkhand in this work. The specific gravity of coarse aggregate was 2.72 for both
Sieve size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulati ve weight retained 
Cumulative percentage weight retained 
% passing 
4.75 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
2.36 mm 
24 
24 
2.4 
97.6 
1.18 mm 
158 
182 
18.2 
81.8 
600 Âµ 
185 
367 
36.7 
63.3 
300 Âµ 
385 
752 
75.2 
24.8 
150 Âµ 
197 
949 
94.9 
5.1 
Pan 
46 
995 
100 
0 
Total = 1 kg 
Fineness modulus = 227.40/100 = 2.27 
Sieve size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulati ve weight retained 
Cumulative percentage weight retained 
% passing 
4.75 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
2.36 mm 
24 
24 
2.4 
97.6 
1.18 mm 
158 
182 
18.2 
81.8 
600 Âµ 
185 
367 
36.7 
63.3 
300 Âµ 
385 
752 
75.2 
24.8 
150 Âµ 
197 
949 
94.9 
5.1 
Pan 
46 
995 
100 
0 
Total = 1 kg 
Fineness modulus = 227.40/100 = 2.27 
the fractions. The sieve analysis of 10 mm and 20 mm coarse aggregate is given is table below. The 20 mm and 10 mm aggregate were mixed in the ratio of 60:40. The coarse aggregates are confirms to IS 383:1970 and having specific gravity 2.84 and fineness modulus 6.026.
Sieve size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulativ e weight retained (gm) 
Cumulative Perentage weight retained 
% passing 
40 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
20 mm 
484 
484 
9.68 
90.32 
10 mm 
4165 
4649 
92.98 
7.02 
4.75 mm 
345 
4994 
100 
– 
1.18 mm 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
600 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
300 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
150 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
Total = 5 Kg 
Fineness modulus = 602.66/100 = 6.026 
Sieve size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulativ e weight retained (gm) 
Cumulative Percentage weight retained 
% passing 
40 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
20 mm 
484 
484 
9.68 
90.32 
10 mm 
4165 
4649 
92.98 
7.02 
4.75 mm 
345 
4994 
100 
– 
1.18 mm 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
600 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
300 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
150 Âµ 
0 
4994 
100 
– 
Total = 5 Kg 
Fineness modulus = 602.66/100 = 6.026 
Table 2. Sieve analysis for coarse aggregate of 20 mm size.
Table 4. Sieve analysis for Stone Dust
Table 3. Sieve analysis for coarse aggregate of 10 mm size.
Sieve size 
Weight retained (gm) 
Cumulativ e weight retained (gm) 
Cumulative % weight retained 
% passing 
20 mm 
– 
– 
– 
100 
10 mm 
2856 
2856 
57.12 
42.88 
4.75 mm 
1394 
4250 
85 
15 
2.36 mm 
744 
4992 
100 
– 
1.18 mm 
0 
4992 
100 
– 
600 Âµ 
0 
4992 
100 
– 
300 Âµ 
0 
4992 
100 
– 
150 Âµ 
0 
100 
– 

Total = 5 Kg 
Fineness modulus = 642.12/100 = 6.42 
Stone Dust Glass powder
Waste glass powder in this study was used from locally available market. Glass waste is very hard material. The glass powder if ball pulverized and particles size are less than 150 m and sieved through 75 m.
Water
The clean portable water is used in this experimental work without any visible impurities.
In this experiment we select the two grades of concrete M25 and M30. The mix design was carried out as per IS: 102622009. The trials have been prepared and finally we find for M25 grade was design for this experiment having the mix proportion 1:1.40:3.05 and the water cement ratio is 0.45. M30 grade was design for this experiment having the mix proportion 1:1.32:2.85 and the water cement ratio are 0.43. All locally available materials are used during the preparation of the mix proportion.
Mixing and casting of samples
The mixing and casting were done with proper care and all materials were weighted properly and mixed in laboratory concrete mixer. The water is added after all materials are feed into in mixer in proper order. The cubes were filled and compacted by using table vibrating machine and the cylinder and beams were compacted using the tamping rod for around 25 times. The moulds were levelled properly. The specimens were kept for 24 hours and then it is removed from mould and kept in curing tank till the testing days. All specimens are tested at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days.
Compressive Strength Tests
The compressive strength tests were done by using the cubic specimen of sizes 150x150x150 mm. The moulds are confirming to the IS specification. For each test three specimens were taken and their average value is considered. The load should be applied gradually at the rate of 140 kg/cm2 per minute till the specimens fails. The load at the failure divided by area of specimen gives the compressive strength of concrete. The cubes were tested at 7, 14, 28, and 56 days of curing.
Flexure Strength Tests
The flexure strength also known as modulus of rupture, bends strength, or fracture strength. The value of modulus of rupture depends on the dimensions of the beam and manner of loading. The value of the flexural strength is about 10 to 20 percent of compressive strength depending on the type, size and volume of coarse aggregate used. In these tests the beams were casted having the size 150x150x700 mm. For this the moulds of the same sizes are taken which are confirming to the IS specification. During the casting it is compacted by using the tamping
td>
20
A'1 – 20 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'1 – 30 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'1 – 40 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
A'2 – 10 
M – 25 
Beam 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
A'2 – 20 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'2 – 30 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'2 – 40 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
A'3 – 10 
M – 25 
Cylinder 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
A'3 – 20 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'3 – 30 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'3 – 40 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'1 – 10 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
90 
100 
10 

B'1 – 20 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'1 – 30 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'1 – 40 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'2 – 10 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
B'2 – 20 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'2 – 30 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'2 – 40 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'3 – 10 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
B'3 – 20 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'3 – 30 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'3 – 40 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
A'1 – 20 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'1 – 30 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'1 – 40 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
A'2 – 10 
M – 25 
Beam 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
A'2 – 20 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'2 – 30 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'2 – 40 
M 25 
Beam 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
A'3 – 10 
M – 25 
Cylinder 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
A'3 – 20 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
A'3 – 30 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
A'3 – 40 
M 25 
Cylinder 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'1 – 10 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
B'1 – 20 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'1 – 30 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'1 – 40 
M – 30 
Cube 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'2 – 10 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
B'2 – 20 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'2 – 30 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'2 – 40 
M – 30 
Beam 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
B'3 – 10 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
B'3 – 20 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
80 
100 
20 
20 
B'3 – 30 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
70 
100 
30 
20 
B'3 – 40 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
80 
60 
100 
40 
20 
rod of around 25 times the diameter of the tamping rod is 16 mm. The flexure strength was tested at the age of 7, 14, 28 and 56 days curing.
Split Tensile Tests
We know that the concrete is weak in tension. The tensile strength is one of the important properties of the concrete. The tensile strength tests the cylinders were casted having the size 150 mm diameter and 300 mm lengths. This is the indirect method of the testing the tensile strength of the concrete. For this the moulds of the same sizes are taken which are confirming to the IS specification. It is also casted by using the 16 mm tamping rod of around 25 times. The split tensile tests were carried out at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days curing.
Design ation 
Grade 
Type 
Cement % 
Sand % 
CA % 
S.D. % 
G.P. % 
A1 – 0 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A1 – 10 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A1 – 20 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
A1 – 30 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A1 – 40 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A2 – 0 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A2 10 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A2 20 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
80 
100 
20 /td> 
Nil 
A2 30 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A2 40 
M – 25 
Beam 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A3 0 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A3 10 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A3 20 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
A3 30 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A3 40 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B1 0 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B1 10 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B1 20 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
B1 30 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
B1 40 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B2 0 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B2 10 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B2 20 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
B2 30 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
B2 40 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B3 0 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B3 10 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B3 20 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
B3 30 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
Design ation 
Grade 
Type 
Cement % 
Sand % 
CA % 
S.D. % 
G.P. % 
B3 40 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A'1 – 10 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
Design ation 
Grade 
Type 
Cement % 
Sand % 
CA % 
S.D. % 
G.P. % 
A1 – 0 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A1 – 10 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A1 – 20 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
A1 – 30 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A1 – 40 
M – 25 
Cube 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A2 – 0 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A2 10 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A2 20 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
A2 30 
M 25 
Beam 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A2 40 
M – 25 
Beam 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A3 0 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
A3 10 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
A3 20 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
A3 30 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
A3 40 
M 25 
Cylinder 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B1 0 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B1 10 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B1 20 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
B1 30 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
B1 40 
M – 30 
Cube 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B2 0 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B2 10 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B2 20 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
8 
100 
20 
Nil 
B2 30 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
B2 40 
M – 30 
Beam 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
B3 0 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
100 
100 
0 
Nil 
B3 10 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
90 
100 
10 
Nil 
B3 20 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
80 
100 
20 
Nil 
B3 30 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
70 
100 
30 
Nil 
Design ation 
Grade 
Type 
Cement % 
Sand % 
CA % 
S.D. % 
G.P. % 
B3 40 
M – 30 
Cylinder 
100 
60 
100 
40 
Nil 
A'1 – 10 
M – 25 
Cube 
80 
90 
100 
10 
20 
Table 5. Details of Specimen Designation
CA = Coarse Aggregate, S.D. = Stone Dust, G.P. = Glass Powder

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Compressive Strength: The result of the compressive strength with partial replacement of stone dust and without using glass powder for 7, 14, 28 and 56 days are shown in the Table 6 for M25 concrete and in the Table 7 for M30 concrete and their graphical representation in the Fig. 1 for M25 concrete and in the Fig. 2 for M30 Concrete. And by replacing 20% cement with glass powder along with stone dust is shown in the Table 12 for M25 concrete and in the Table 13 for M30 concrete and their graphical representation is shown in the Fig 7 and Fig 8.
Table 6. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (without Glass Powder)
Designation
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A1 – 0
21.15
24.39
32.56
33.40
0
A1 – 10
21.60
24.76
32.30
34.36
10
A1 – 20
21.96
25.01
34.80
36.30
20
A1 – 30
22.50
25.08
35.40
37.26
30
A1 – 40
23.18
25.70
37.02
38.01
40
Table 7. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (without Glass Powder)
Designation
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B1 0
23.06
27.50
37.50
39.20
0
B1 10
23.80
28.05
38.42
39.32
10
B1 20
24.16
28.70
39.30
41.26
20
B1 30
24.86
29.30
40.06
42.10
30
B1 40
25.10
29.82
42.10
43.31
40
Flexure Strength: The result of the flexure strength with partial replacement of stone dust and without using glass powder for 7, 14, 28 and 56 days are shown in the Table 8 for M25 concrete and in the Table 9 for M30 concrete and their graphical representation in the Fig. 3 for M25 concrete and in the Fig. 4 for M30 Concrete. And by replacing 20% cement with glass powder along with stone dust is shown in the Table 14 for M25 concrete and in the Table 15 for M30 concrete and their graphical representation is shown in the Fig 9 and Fig 10.
Table 8. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (without Glass Powder)
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A2 – 0
3.70
3.96
4.86
5.12
0
A2 10
3.98
4.20
5.37
5.62
10
A2 20
4.10
4.51
5.86
5.98
20
A2 30
4.28
4.96
5.96
6.37
30
A2 40
4.36
5.10
6.31
6.67
40
Table 9. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (without Glass Powder)
Table 10. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (without Glass Powder)
Designation
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A3 0
2.25
2.40
3.04
3.21
0
A3 10
2.40
2.49
2.96
3.12
10
A3 20
2.32
2.62
3.14
3.39
20
A3 30
2.50
2.96
3.55
3.72
30
A3 40
2.46
2.80
3.46
3.71
40
Table 11. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Designation
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B3 0
3.05
3.70
4.12
4.28
0
B3 10
3.21
3.61
4.31
4.48
10
B3 20
3.15
3.47
4.16
4.38
20
B3 30
3.42
3.68
4.44
4.63
30
B3 40
3.50
3.76
4.49
4.68
40
Compressive strength in N/mm2
7 ays 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B2 0
4.20
4.98
5.20
5.47
0
B2 10
4.36
4.90
6.31
6.80
10
B2 20
4.42
5.01
6.70
6.86
20
B2 30
4.83
5.10
6.86
7.12
30
B2 40
4.72
4.92
6.20
6.73
40
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B2 0
4.20
4.98
5.20
5.47
0
B2 10
4.36
4.90
6.31
6.80
10
B2 20
4.42
5.01
6.70
6.86
20
B2 30
4.83
5.10
6.86
7.12
30
B2 40
4.72
4.92
6.20
6.73
40
0 10 20 30 40
Split Tensile Strength: The result of the split tensile strength with partial replacement of stone dust and without using glass powder for 7, 14, 28 and 56 days are shown in the Table 10 for M25 concrete and in the Table 11 for M 30 concrete and their graphical representation in the Fig. 5 for M25 concrete and in the Fig. 6 for M30 Concrete. And by replacing 20% cement with glass powder along with stone dust is shown in the Table 16 for M25 concrete and in the Table 17 for M30 concrete and their graphical representation is shown in the Fig 11 and Fig 12.
% of Stone Dust
Figure 1. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
Figure 2. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
0
10
20
30
40
% of Stone Dust
0
10
20
30
40
% of Stone Dust
% of Stone Dust
% of Stone Dust
7 Days
10
7 Days
10
14 Days
14 Days
28 Days
28 Days
56 Days
56 Days
5
5
0
0
7 Days
10
7 Days
10
14 Days
14 Days
28 Days
28 Days
56 Days
56 Days
5
5
0
0
0
0
10
10
20
20
30
30
40
40
Flexure Strength Strength
Flexure Strength Strength
Split Tensile Strength Strength
Split Tensile Strength Strength
Figure 3. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Flexure Strength Strength
Flexure Strength Strength
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
Figure 6. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Table 12. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
Designation
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
% S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A'1 – 10
25.62
26.15
31.70
33.20
10
A'1 – 20
26.32
27.30
33.72
35.46
20
A'1 – 30
25.90
27.80
34.20
36.13
30
A'1 – 40
27.12
28.12
38.40
41.36
40
Table 13. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
Designation
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B'1 – 10
28.70
28.40
39.36
41.33
10
B'1 – 20
28.96
29.90
39.80
41.36
20
B'1 – 30
29.14
30.21
40.26
42.43
30
B'1 – 40
30.00
31.60
41.96
42.41
40
Designation
Compressive Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B'1 – 10
28.70
28.40
39.36
41.33
10
B'1 – 20
28.96
29.90
39.80
41.36
20
B'1 – 30
29.14
30.21
40.26
42.43
30
B'1 – 40
30.00
31.60
41.96
42.41
40
Figure 4. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Split Tensile Strength Strength
Split Tensile Strength Strength
10
5
Table 14. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A'2 – 10
4.48
5.10
6.40
6.76
10
A'2 – 20
4.70
5.60
6.76
7.06
20
A'2 – 30
4.96
5.21
6.96
7.14
30
A'2 – 40
5.10
536
7.01
7.36
40
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A'2 – 10
4.48
5.10
6.40
6.76
10
A'2 – 20
4.70
5.60
6.76
7.06
20
A'2 – 30
4.96
5.21
6.96
7.14
30
A'2 – 40
5.10
5.36
7.01
7.36
40
M25 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
0
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
Table 15. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of
M30 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B'2 – 10
4.20
5.40
6.36
6.87
10
B'2 – 20
4.36
5.32
6.72
7.06
20
B'2 – 30
4.80
5.62
7.01
7.34
30
B'2 – 40
4.98
5.36
7.42
7.87
40
Designation
Flexure Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B'2 – 10
4.20
5.40
6.36
6.87
10
B'2 – 20
4.36
5.32
6.72
7.06
20
B'2 – 30
4.80
5.62
7.01
7.34
30
B'2 – 40
4.98
5.36
7.42
7.87
40
Figure 5. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (Without Glass Powder)
Table 16. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of
M25 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
Designation
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
A'3 – 10
2.32
2.48
3.10
3.28
10
A'3 – 20
2.38
2.56
3.16
3.34
20
A'3 – 30
2.60
2.68
3.30
3.42
30
A'3 – 40
2.80
2.98
3.46
3.63
40
Table 17. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of
M30 Concrete (with Glass Powder 20% & Cement 80%)
Designation
Split Tensile Strength in N/mm2
%
S.D.
7 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
B'3 – 10
3.12
3.72
4.20
4.37
10
B'3 – 20
3.18
3.58
4.26
4.46
20
B'3 – 30
3.06
3.70
4.32
4.51
30
B'3 – 40
3.20
3.93
4.46
4.60
40
Compressive strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
Flexure strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
Flexure strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
7 Days
10
14 Days
28 Days 56 Days
7 Days
10
14 Days
28 Days 56 Days
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
% of Stone Dust
% of Stone Dust
5
5
Flexure Strength
Flexure Strength
Figure 9. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (With 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)
Flexure strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
Flexure strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
7 Days
10
14 Days
28 Days 56 Days
7 Days
10
14 Days
28 Days 56 Days
0
0
0
10
20
30
40
0
10
20
30
40
% of Stone Dust
% of Stone Dust
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
Figure 7. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (with 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)
Compressive strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
Compressive strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
14 Days
28 Days
56 Days
5
5
Flexure Strength
Flexure Strength
Figure 10. Flexure Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (With 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)
Split Tensile strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Split Tensile Strength
Split Tensile Strength
10
5
7 Days
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
7 Days
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
0
Compressive Strength
Compressive Strength
0
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
10
20
30
40
10
20
30
40
% of Stone Dust
% of Stone Dust
Figure 8. Compressive Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (with 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)
Figure 11. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M25 Concrete (With 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)
Split Tensile strength in N/mm2 20% G.P. & 80% Cement
7 Days 14 Days 28 Days 56 Days
Split Tensile Strength
Split Tensile Strength
10
5
0
0 10 20 30 40
% of Stone Dust
Figure 12. Split Tensile Strength of Different Mix of M30 Concrete (With 20% Glass Powder & 80% Cement)

CONCLUSION
From the about experiments following conclusions are observes:

The compressive strength by replacing 40% sand by stone dust the strength increases by 10, 5, 13 and 14% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete and 9, 8, 12 and 10% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M30 concrete. As compared to the conventional concrete. Thus stone dust increases the compressive strength of the concrete and reduce the cost of material and also its great use of waste materials.

The compressive strength of the concrete by replacing the 40% sand by stone dust and 20% cement by the glass powder the strength increases by 28, 15, 18 and 24% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete and 30, 15, 12 and 8% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M30 concrete. As compared to the conventional concrete. Thus glass powder can also be used up to 20% which is also great saving in costly cement and use of waste material.

The flexure strength of the concrete by replacing the 40% sand by stone dust increase 18, 28, 29 and 30% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete but in M30 concrete it increases 12 19 and 23% at 7, 28 and 56 days respectively and reduced by 1.2% at 14 days. As compared to the conventional concrete. Thus stone dusts also increase the flexure strength at the later ages of the concrete.

The flexure strength of the concrete by replacing 40% sand by stone dusts and 20% cement by the glass powder the strengths are increase by 37, 35, 44 and 43% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete and 19, 18, 42 and 44% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M30 concrete. As compared to the conventional concrete. Thus flexure strength is also increase by including the glass powder. It also reduces the consumption of the cement.

The split tensile strength of the concrete by replacing sand 40% by stone dust the strengths increases 9, 17, 14 and 16% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete and 15, 2, 9 and 10% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M30 concrete. Hence stone dust
increases the tensile strength of the concrete which is also saving in fine aggregate.

The split tensile strength of the concrete by replacing 40% sand by stone dust and 20% cement by glass powder the tensile strength is increase 24, 24, 14 and 13% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M25 concrete and 5, 6, 8 and 8% at 7, 14, 28 and 56 days respectively in M30 concrete. Hence by adding the glass powder with stone dust is also increase the tensile strength of the concrete. Hence saving in cost is two ways cost of sand and cement.


FURTHER SCOPE OF WORK

The study can by carry out by increasing the percentage of stone dust up to 100% and fully replacement of the fine aggregate.

The study can also be carry out by increasing the percentage of glass powder up to maximum level with or without stone dusts.

The engineering properties like water absorption, reduction in weight of concrete and density of the concrete can be study by using the stone dust and glass powder.

The effect temperature and humidity can also be study.

The study can also be carry out by using higher grade of concrete.


REFERENCES

Dr. G. Vijayakumar, Ms H. Vishliny, Dr. D. Govindarajulu studies on glass powder as partial replacement of cement in concrete production. IJETAE: International journal of emerging technology and advanced engineering. Volume 3, Issue 2, Feb 2013.

J.D. Chaitanya kumar, G.V.S. Abhilash, P.Khasim Khan, G.Mnikanta sai, V. Tarakh ram experimental studies on glass fiber concrete. AJER: American Journal of Engineering Research eISSN: 23200847 : p23200936 volume5, Issue5, pp100104.

Brajesh kumar Suman, Vikas Srivastava JMEST: Journal of Multidisciplinary Engineering Science and Technology ISSN: 31590040, vol. 2 Issue 4, April 2015

Er. Lalit Kumar , Er. Arvinder Singh A study on the strength of concrete using crushed stone dust as fine aggregate. IJRASET: International Journal for Research in Applied Sciencde & Engineering Technology. ISSN: 23219653 vol. 3 Issue I, Jnauary 2015.

A.K. Shau, Sunil Kumar and A.K. Sachan (2003) crushed stone waste as fine aggregate for concrete the Indian concrete Journal, pp 885848.

Prakash Rao, D.s. & Giridhar Kumar, V.(2004) Investigations on concrete with stone crusher dust as fine aggregate. The Indian Concrete Journal, M.E. Thesis submitted to Osmania University, Hyderabad, India.

IS: 3831970. Specification for coarse and Fine Aggregates from natural sources for concrete.

IS: 102622009: Guidelines for concrete mix design proportioning.

IS: 4562000. Specification for plain and reinforced concrete.

IS: 5161959. Method of test for strength of concrete Bureau of Indian standards. New Delhi, India.

IS: 14891991. Portland Pozzolana cement Specification Part 1: Fly Ash Based, Bureau of Indian Standard Institution, New Delhi.