Comparative Study on Strength and Economy of Conventional & High Performance Concrete using Crushed Sand and River Sand

Download Full-Text PDF Cite this Publication

Text Only Version

Comparative Study on Strength and Economy of Conventional & High Performance Concrete using Crushed Sand and River Sand

Akshay Kamble1

1 Research Scholar,

Bhivarabai Sawant College of Engineering and Research, Pune

  1. D. Patil2

    2 Assistant Professor,

    Bhivarabai Sawant College of Engineering and Research, Pune

    1. K. Kanase3

3 Head of Department,

Bhivarabai Sawant College of Engineering and Research, Pune

AbstractThe concrete which incorporates wastes and is environment-friendly is called as green concrete. Green concrete is a revolutionary concept in the history of construction industry. Concrete is an eco- friendly material and the overall impact on the environment per ton of concrete is limited. The paper focuses on the aspect of choosing a material for green concrete. It presents the feasibility of using fly ash, quarry dust, marble powder, plastic waste and recycled concrete and masonry as aggregates in concrete. The use of fly ash and stone quarry dust in concrete contributes to reduction in bad environmental repercussions. To avoid the pollution and reuse of waste material, the present study is carried out by completely replacing natural sand in concrete by stone quarry dust and undergoing strength and economical perspectives of concrete and especially in high performance concrete.

KeywordsGreen Concrete, Super Plast RMP-1,Stone quarry dust, Compression tests, Contingencies, Pozzocrete,High Performance Concrete.

I INTRODUCTION

Green concrete is a concept of using environment-friendly materials in concrete, to finally make the system more sustainable. Green concrete is cheap to produce, since waste products or recycled materials are used as a partial substitute for cement, charges for the disposal of waste are avoided, energy consumption while production is quite lower, and durability is much greater. This concrete is often confused with its color. Waste can be recycled to produce new products or can be used as admixtures to relieve the burden on precious natural resources and also causing minimal negative impacts on environment. Inorganic residual or tailing products like stone quarry dust, crushed concrete debris, marble waste can be used as green aggregates in concrete. Further, by replacing cement with fly ash, micro silica in larger amounts, to produce new green cements and binding materials can ultimately lead to the use of alternative raw materials and fuels producing cement with low energy

consumption. Considerable research has been carried out on the use of various industrial by-products and micro-fillers in concrete and their impact on concrete characteristics.

The main concern of using pozzolanic wastes was not only the cost effectiveness but also to improve the durability characteristics of concrete. It is a concept of thinking environment into broader perspective of the raw materials manufacture over construction, mixture design to structural design, and durability. Since normal construction practices are guided by short term economic considerations, sustainable approach in construction mainly focuses on best practices which emphasize on long term affordability, durability and effectiveness in every stage of the life cycle of the construction. It increases ease and quality of life, while having minimal negative environmental impacts and increasing the economic sustainability of the construction. Any infrastructure designed and constructed in a sustainable way, minimizes the use of natural resources throughout the life cycle of the construction process and green or eco- friendly concrete helps in achieving the said target.

The use of stone quarry dust in concrete helps in minimizing river sand consumption and provide benefits like improved strength and workability of concrete with useful disposal of by-products.

II OBJECTIVES OF PROJECT

  • To use stone quarry dust as complete replacement of fine aggregate in concrete.

  • To conduct experimental analysis for compressive strength of M20 and M25 concrete grades using 100% stone dust for natural sand as fine aggregate.

  • To compare the economic feasibility of conventional concrete and green concrete made with stone quarry dust.

  • To check suitability of crushed sand in higher grades of concrete with incorporation of pozzocrete.

  • To conduct durability tests on high performance concrete.

    1. REVIEW OF LITERATURE

      There is an increasing trend and incentives for greater use of manufactured and recycled aggregates in construction. In order to aim for sustainable construction, the incorporation of waste products in concrete like fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and silica fume as substitutes for Portland cement being industrial by-products is gaining huge success in the construction industry. To achieve cost effectiveness and improved properties of concrete, use of pozzolanic wastes gained huge importance. The material for green concrete can be selected based on parameters like resource efficiency, indoor air quality, energy efficiency, water conservation and affordability. Quarry rock dust a non- valuable waste material after processing of rocks can be incorporated in concrete to achieve better sulphate and acid resistance with low permeability. However, the water absorption of Quarry Rock Dust is slightly higher than conventional concrete. [1]

      The auspicious attributes of concrete like durability, availability, versatility, good compressive strength; it is one of the most commonly used building materials throughout the world. The demand for infrastructural facilities creates enormous pressure on concrete which makes it unavoidable to search for alternative construction materials. Substituting sand by stone dust will serve the waste management as well as can prove to be alternative material in concrete. The value of compressive strength is higher for30% replacement level for different grades of concrete whereas maximum tensile strength occurs at 20% replacement level and the corresponding tensile strength is around 12% higher than normal concrete. [2]

      Experimental studies were carried out to judge the potential of using quarry dust as complete replacement for natural sand. Cement concrete cubes of grades M20 and M25 were studied and tested for strength and workability with various proportions of fine aggregate. Mix ratio of 1:1.5:3 gave the optimum strength in the study. As the percentage of quarry dust increases gradually, the compressive strength increases with the condition that percentage of replacement must not exceed 50%. [3]

      The investigation was undergone with a view to verify the suitability, feasibility and potential use of crusher dust as a waste material from aggregate crushing plants, in terms of its compressive strength and workability. An attempt was made to replace the natural sand in control concrete mixes of M20 and M30 grades designed for 100 to 120mm slump at replacement levels of 30%, 40%, 50% and 60% using Portland pozzolanic cement. From the test results it was observed that that replacement of natural sand by stone quarry dust increased the compressive strength of concrete by 5-22%.

      Amongst all the mixes, maximum compressive strength was obtained for 40% replacement of sand by stone quarry dust. [4]

    2. METHODOLOGY

      • The project work focuses on the incorporation of stone quarry dust as complete replacement for sand in concrete.

      • It is clearly observed that there is reliable increase in the strength of plain concrete when natural sand is fully replaced byquarry dust.

      • The study gives attention towards physical and chemical properties of quarry dust which are satisfied in respect of requirements of codal provision. The complete replacement of sand with quarry dust gives the better results in terms of compressive strength studies.

      • Experimental work involved concrete cubes casting of different grades with incorporation of stone quarry dust and strength properties be studied in detail.

      • The obtained strength results were compared with river sand results for strength and economical aspect of concrete.

      • The economical aspect of concrete made with 100% river sand and 100& quarry dust was studied by undergoing case study.

      • Further cost feasibility analysis was done in comparison of conventional and green concrete made using stone quarry dust.

      • The study of suitability of crushed sand in high performance concrete was studied in terms of compressive strength.

    3. OBSERVATIONS AND CALCULATIONS

Preliminary tests were conducted on concrete materials as per IS standards and specifications for analyzing the physical and engineering properties, cubes were casted in standard metallic moulds and vibrated to obtain the required sample size of specimen. The moulds were cleaned initially and oiled on all sides before pouring concrete inside it. Thoroughly mixed concrete was poured into the moulds in three equal layers and compacted using vibrating table for 5 minutes. The excess concrete was removed out of the mould using trowel and top surface was finished to smooth surface. After 24 hours the samples were demoulded and put in curing tank for a period of 7, 14 and 28 days with set of 3 samples prepared for each stage of curing. The temperature of curing tank was maintained at 25 degree and finally the compressive strength values were tabulated.

Materials used:

  1. Birla Super OPC 53 Grade conforming to IS 12269(W=14, M=4, Y=12):

    Table 1: Test report of cement

    Test

    Result

    Unit

    Condition of sample

    Dry

    Loose Bulk Density

    1.51

    Kg/lit

    Specific Gravity

    2.91

    Water Absorption

    1.14

    %

    Flakiness Index

    12.3

    %

    References:

    1. IS 269-1989 for OPC 33 Grade

    2. IS 455-1989 for Portland Slag Cement

    3. IS 1489 (Part 1 & 2) -1991 for PPC (Fly ash based)

    4. IS 8112-1989 for OPC 43 Grade

  2. Fine & Coarse Aggregate:

Table 2: Fine aggregate (crushed sand) test report

Test

Result

Unit

Condition of sample

Moist

Moisture Content

1.01

%

Loose Bulk Density

1.75

Kg/lit

Specific Gravity

2.74

Water Absorption

3.39

%

Material finer than 75 microns

18.80

%

Sieve Sizes

Wt. Retained (g)

Wt. Retained

%

Cumulative Wt.

Retained %

Passing%

10 mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

4.75

mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

2.36

mm

134

13.44

13.44

86.56

1.18

mm

315

31.60

45.04

54.96

600

micron

165

16.55

61.59

38.41

300

micron

101

10.13

71.72

28.28

150

micron

60

6.02

77.74

22.26

75

micron

49

4.92

82.66

17.34

Pan

173

17.35

100.00

0.00

Total

997

Fineness Modulus=

2.695

Sieve Sizes

Wt. Retained (g)

Wt. Retained

%

Cumulative Wt.

Retained %

Passing%

10 mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

4.75

mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

2.36

mm

134

13.44

13.44

86.56

1.18

mm

315

31.60

45.04

54.96

600

micron

165

16.55

61.59

38.41

300

micron

101

10.13

71.72

28.28

150

micron

60

6.02

77.74

22.26

75

micron

49

4.92

82.66

17.34

Pan

173

17.35

100.00

0.00

Total

997

Fineness Modulus=

2.695

Table 3: Coarse aggregate test report

Table 4: Sieve analysis (F.A.)

Sieve Sizes

Wt. Retained (g)

Wt. Retained

%

Cumulati ve Wt. Retained

%

Passing%

40

mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

25

mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

20

mm

0

0.00

0.00

100.00

16

mm

430

21.51

21.51

78.49

12.5

mm

1270

63.53

85.04

14.96

10

mm

282

14.11

99.15

0.85

4.75

mm

15

0.75

99.90

0.10

Pan

2

0.10

100.00

0.00

Total

1999

Table 5: Sieve analysis (C.A.)

Name of test

Result

Unit

Specified limits

Standard Consistency

28.50

%

——-

Initial Setting time

140

Min.

Min. 30 minutes

Final Setting time

280

Min.

Max.600 Minutes

3days compressive strength

34.90

N/mm2

Min. 27 N/mm2

28days compressive strength

56.55

N/mm2

Min. 53 N/mm2

Fig. no. 1 C rushed sand on site

Fig. no. 2 Sieve analysis by sieve shaker VI EXPERIMENTAL WORK

Compression Test and Slump cone tests were conducted to judge the most reliable and realistic characteristics of hardened concrete. The compression test was carried out on Cubical specimen; the cube of size 150mm x 150mm x 150mm. The 20 mm coarse aggregate (Metal) was used to make concrete mixes. This test will be conducted for concrete cubes of 100%.Replacement of river sand by quarry dust (nowadays rivers and is least used in concreting work) for M20 and M25mixes.

  1. Final Concrete Mix Design for M20 Grade:

    Mix proportions: (all weights in kg)

    Table 6: Mix design M20

    For

    Cement

    Fly Ash

    Crushed sand

    20mm aggregate

    Water

    One ba

    50

    11

    150

    220

    33.55

    Per m3

    270

    60

    811

    1190

    181.50

    Water binder ratio:0.55

    Total cementitious material=330kg/m3

    Cement used=Vasavadatta OPC 53 Grade IS 12269 (W=01, M=01, Y=14)

    Slump achieved: 80 mm

    Target mean strength=fck N/mm2+(K x Standard Deviation) Assumed Standard Deviation= 4N/mm2 (As per IS 456-2000 Table 8, Clause 9.2.4.2)

    Target mean strength = 20.00+(1.65x 4)=26.6 N/mm2 Plastic density = 2513 kg/m3

    Average 7 days compressive strength = 14.22 N/mm2 Average 28 days compressive strength = 29.27 N/mm2

  2. Final Concrete Mix Design for M25 Grade:

Table 7: Mix design M25

Waterbinderratio:0.50

Total cementitious material=355 kg/m3

Cement used=Vasavadatta OPC 53 Grade IS 12269 (W=01, M=01, Y=14)

Slump achieved: 80 mm

Target mean strength=fck N/mm2+(K x Standard Deviation) Assumed Standard Deviation= 4N/mm2 (As per IS 456-2000 Table 8, Clause 9.2.4.2)

Target mean strength = 25.00+(1.65x 4)=31.6 N/mm2 Plastic density = 2524 kg/m3

Average 7 days compressive strength = 18.81 N/mm2 Average 28 days compressive strength = 33.75 N/mm2

Thus the target compressive strength can be achieved by complete replacement of river sand by stone quarry dust in concrete and enhanced workability be maintained by mixing suitable admixtures like fly ash and certain chemicals in concrete.

Fig. 3 :Pictures of project

Fig. 4: Casting of moulds

VII ECONOMICAL ASPECT OF CRUSH SAND VS RIVER SAND

For

Cement

Fly Ash

Crushed sand

20mm aggregate

Water

One bag

50

10

133

204

30.00

Per m3

295

60

788

1204

177.50

For

Cement

Fly Ash

Crushed sand

20mm aggregate

Water

One bag

50

10

133

204

30.00

Per m3

295

60

788

1204

177.50

Sand is one of the important ingredients in construction works. A huge amount of concrete is consumed in everyday construction works. About 35% volume of concrete comprises of sand as fine aggregate. Generally, cement and coarse aggregates are industrial products whose quality and standards can be easily controlled and maintained. The sand is usually extracted from river beds or river bank by digging. The natural sand deposits are getting exhausted by continuous digging causing damage to the environment in multiple ways. As the availability of suitable natural sand near the point of consumption is becoming exhausted, the concrete production faces a big challenge regarding timely supply. The construction industry needs to tackle the above problem by

searching for alternatives. This is also resulting in poor qualities of sand, particularly containing silt. The challenge can be solved by using stone dust in construction works. It is a better substitute for natural sand to cope up with the increasing demand of sand in construction industry. Hence, here we will study a brief comparison of these materials to help you make the correct viable choice.

The cost of crushed sand will depend on the distance between the site and quarry source. But ultimately the increased availability of crusher plants can reduce the cost and will make It cheaper than river sand. In order to study the economical aspect of crush sand as a viable alternative a case study was undertaken to investigate the cost saving aspect of M sand.

In order to study the economical aspect of crush sand as a viable alternative a case study was undertaken to investigate the cost saving aspect of M sand.

Fig. 5 Site: SuyashNisarg Project area: 3 acres

Fig.6 Pictures of concreting on site

Mix design

Referring the mix design proportions of IS 10262:2009 for M20 grade concrete:

Table 8: Cost of M20 grade per m3

Materi al

Weight (kg)

Volume= Mass/Dens ity

(In m3)

Volu me in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

Cement

50

0.035

1.24

260/

260/-

Crush sand

133

0.091

3.24

30/-

97.2/-

Aggreg ate (20mm)

204

0.131

4.65

25/-

116.25/

Labour charges (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

70/-

Total cost

3478/-

Final cost/m3=Total cost x 6.4 bags cement

3478/-

Materi al

Weight (kg)

Volume= Mass/Dens ity

(In m3)

Volu me in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

Cement

50

0.035

1.24

260/

260/-

Crush sand

133

0.091

3.24

30/-

97.2/-

Aggreg ate (20mm)

204

0.131

4.65

25/-

116.25/

Labour charges (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

70/-

Total cost

3478/-

Final cost/m3=Total cost x 6.4 bags cement

3478/-

Material

Weigh t (kg)

Volume

=Mass/ Density (In m3)

Volu me in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

Cement

320

0.224

7.91

260/- (1.24

Cft.)

1659/-

River sand

833

0.52

18.366

70/-

1285/-

Aggregate (20mm)

1120

0.72

25.43

25/-

635.7/-

Labour chares (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

70/- x

6.4 = 448/-

Total cost /m3

4028/-

Material

Weigh t (kg)

Volume

=Mass/ Density (In m3)

Volu me in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

Cement

320

0.224

7.91

260/- (1.24

Cft.)

1659/-

River sand

833

0.52

18.366

70/-

1285/-

Aggregate (20mm)

1120

0.72

25.43

25/-

635.7/-

Labour charges (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

70/- x

6.4 = 448/-

Total cost /m3

4028/-

Table 9: Cost of M20 grade per m3

Table 10: Cost of M25 grade per m3

  1. Density of crushed / stone quarry dust: 1450 Kg/m3

    Material

    Wei ght (kg/ m3)

    Volu me= Mas s/De nsity (In

    m3)

    Vol um e in (ft3

    )

    Rat e per ft3

    Cos t

    Cement

    320

    0.22

    4

    7.9

    1

    260

    /-

    165

    9/-

    River sand

    707

    0.44

    2

    15.

    61

    70/-

    109

    3/-

    Aggregate (20mm)

    1085

    0.70

    24.

    72

    25/-

    618

    /-

    Labour charges (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

    70/- x 6.4

    = 448/

    Total cost /m3

    3818

    /-

    Material

    Wei ght (kg/ m3)

    Volu me= Mas s/De nsity (In

    m3)

    Vol um e in (ft3

    )

    Rat e per ft3

    Cos t

    Cement

    320

    0.22

    4

    7.9

    1

    260

    /-

    165

    9/-

    River sand

    707

    0.44

    2

    15.

    61

    70/-

    109

    3/-

    Aggregate (20mm)

    1085

    0.70

    24.

    72

    25/-

    618

    /-

    Labour charges (including contingencies+ T&P+ Water charges)

    70/- x 6.4

    = 448/

    Total cost /m3

    3818

    /-

  2. Density of metal/coarse aggregate: 1550 Kg/m3

  3. Cement (1 Bag) : 260/-

  4. Crushed sand: 30/- per ft3

  5. River sand: 70/- per ft3

  6. Metal/Coarse aggregate: 25/- per ft3

  7. 6.4 Bags of cement considered for per m3 of concreting.

  8. Labour charges including contingencies, T& P and water charges, miscellaneous charges: 70/- per ft3.

After thorough analysis of all the factors and mix design criteria, the overall cost per cubic meter of concreting is estimated and mentioned in tabulated format.

Further this data generated was implemented in case study of Suyash Nisarg site near Hadapsar, Pune, Maharashtra for studying the economical feasibility of concrete using stone quarry dust. The commercial building of the project was selected for the said purpose.

The concreting work details for commercial building (4 floored) are tabulated as below:

Table 12: Cost of concreting details

Structural Member

Particu lars

Conc rete grade

Volume (m3)

Cost (Crush Sand)

1

Footing (substructu re)

Footing (P.C.C.)

M20

19.59

70641.54\-

Footing

M20

68.28

246217.68/-

Raft Footing (P.C.C.)

M20

28.34

102194.04/-

Table 1

: Cost of M25 grade p

er m3

Raft Foundat ion

M25

276.71

962397.38/-

Material

Weig ht (kg)

Volum e=Mass

/Densit y

(In m3)

Volume in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

2

Column

Plinth to Raft slab

M25

5.51

19163.78/-

3

First slab

Slab

M25

61.11

212540.58/-

Cement

50

0.035

1.24

260/-

260/-

Crush

sand

150

0.103

3.63

30/-

108.90/

3

Second Slab

Mezzan ine slab

M25

10.27

35719.06/-

Aggregat

e (20mm)

220

0.141

4.98

25/-

124.5/-

Slab

M25

81.63

283909.14/-

Column

M25

20.42

71020.76/-

Labour charges (including contingencies+

T&P+ Water charges)

70/-

4

Third Slab

Slab

M25

81.63

283909.14/-

Column

M25

16.41

57073.98/-

Total cost

563.40/

5

Fourth slab

Slab

M25

83.50

290413/-

Column

M25

16.41

57073.98/-

Final cost/m3=Total cost x 6.4 bags cement

3606/-

Total cost

26,92,274/-

Structural Member

Particu lars

Conc rete grade

Volume (m3)

Cost (Crush Sand)

1

Footing (substructu re)

Footing (P.C.C.)

M20

19.59

70641.54\-

Footing

M20

68.28

246217.68/-

Raft Footing (P.C.C.)

M20

28.34

102194.04/-

Table 1

: Cost of M25 grade p

er m3

Raft Foundat ion

M25

276.71

962397.38/-

Material

Weig ht (kg)

Volum e=Mass

/Densit y

(In m3)

Volume in (ft3)

Rate per ft3

Cost

2

Column

Plinth to Raft slab

M25

5.51

19163.78/-

3

First slab

Slab

M25

61.11

212540.58/-

Cement

50

0.035

1.24

260/-

260/-

Crush

sand

150

0.103

3.63

30/-

108.90/

3

Second Slab

Mezzan ine slab

M25

10.27

35719.06/-

Aggregat

e (20mm)

220

0.141

4.98

25/-

124.5/-

Slab

M25

81.63

283909.14/-

Column

M25

20.42

71020.76/-

Labour charges (including contingencies+

T&P+ Water charges)

70/-

4

Third Slab

Slab

M25

81.63

283909.14/-

Column

M25

16.41

57073.98/-

Total cost

563.40/

5

Fourth slab

Slab

M25

83.50

290413/-

Column

M25

16.41

57073.98/-

Final cost/m3=Total cost x 6.4 bags cement

3606/-

Total cost

26,92,274/-

1

The cost per cu.m.for M20 and M25 grades of concrete by considering 100% crushed sand and 100% river sand as fine aggregate is calculated by following the mix design procedures for calculating the quantity of materials and the current rates on site of the required materials are considered. Following data was considered for analysis:

1. IS 10262:2009

  1. Density of cement: 1428.57 Kg/m3

    S

    r. n o

    .

    Structural Member

    Particu lars

    Concre te grade

    Volume (m3)

    Cost (River Sand)

    1

    Footing (substructu re)

    Footing (P.C.C.)

    M20

    19.59

    78908.52/-

    Footing

    M20

    68.28

    275031.84/-

    Raft Footing (P.C.C.)

    M20

    28.34

    114153.52/-

    Raft Foundat ion

    M25

    276.71

    1056478.78/-

    2

    Column

    Plinth to Raft slab

    M25

    5.51

    21037.18/-

    3

    First slab

    Slab

    M25

    61.11

    233317.98/-

    3

    Second Slab

    Mezzan ine slab

    M25

    10.27

    39210.86/-

    Slab

    M25

    81.63

    311663.34/-

    Column

    M25

    20.42

    77963.56/-

    4

    Third Slab

    Slab

    M25

    81.63

    311663.34/-

    Column

    M25

    16.41

    62653.38/-

    S

    r. n o

    .

    Structural Member

    Particu lars

    Concre te grade

    Volume (m3)

    Cost (River Sand)

    1

    Footing (substructu re)

    Footing (P.C.C.)

    M20

    19.59

    78908.52/-

    Footing

    M20

    68.28

    275031.84/-

    Raft Footing (P.C.C.)

    M20

    28.34

    114153.52/-

    Raft Foundat ion

    M25

    276.71

    1056478.78/-

    2

    Column

    Plinth to Raft slab

    M25

    5.51

    21037.18/-

    3

    First slab

    Slab

    M25

    61.11

    233317.98/-

    3

    Second Slab

    Mezzan ine slab

    M25

    10.27

    39210.86/-

    Slab

    M25

    81.63

    311663.34/-

    Column

    M25

    20.42

    77963.56/-

    4

    Third Slab

    Slab

    M25

    81.63

    311663.34/-

    Column

    M25

    16.41

    62653.38/-

    Table 13: Cost of concreting details

    5

    Fourth Slab

    Slab

    M25

    83.50

    318803/-

    Column

    M25

    16.41

    62653.38/-

    Total cost

    2963539/-

    5

    Fourth Slab

    Slab

    M25

    83.50

    318803/-

    Column

    M25

    16.41

    62653.38/-

    Total cost

    2963539/-

    Table 13: Cost of concreting details

    % saving in cost by using crushed sand as a substitute for river sand = 9.153%

    VIII HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE USING POZZOCRETE& M SAND

    Pozzocrete Fly ash is an artificial pozzolan, specially designed to achieve optimum performance on most cement and concrete applications. The product confirms IS 3812, EN

    450 (S Category) and American standard ASTM 618.In production of pozzocrete 40TM, 60TM,80TM high quality PFA were selected and industrially processed in order to obtain maximum performance as cement replacement product.

    Design of pozzocretes grades has taken into account severe weather conditions, high cement replacement volume, adequate strength development, avoiding short term damage and plastic shrinkage.

    For OPC , cement replacement rates of pozzocrete are up to 35% in concrete and P10 (Pozzoplast) can replace 33% of binder content in mortar and 20% of sand replacement which significantly improves batch size by 1.5 times leading to economical mix designs.

    Nowadays conventional concrete is posing lot of problems in terms of durability, time of construction, retrofitting works and larger sections.

    So an effort to check the feasibility and suitability of crushed sand in high performance concrete was undertaken by conducting laboratory tests on compressive strength of cube samples 3 each for different stages of curing incorporating pozzocrete in combination with crush sand in concrete.

    DESIGN PHILOSOPHY OF HIGH PERFORMANCE CONCRETE

    • Performance requirement at fresh as well as solid

      state

    • Selection of materials.

    • PC based admixtures.

    • Numerous lab trials be performed with experienced personnel.

    • Standard specifications regarding cement content or

      w/c ratio is to be taken into consideration.

    • Requirement of high early strength.

Taking into consideration high early strength and durability requirements, following ingredients are must in concrete:

  1. OPC 53 with 3 days strength atleast 35 MPa.

  2. Classified processed fly ash confirming to IS- 3812 (Part I)

  3. PC based admixtures (third generation) with higher PC concentration.

  4. Good quality aggregates confirming to IS-383- 1970.

  5. Viscosity modifying agents if self compacting concrete is required.

  6. Ultra fine materials.

    • Design strength: 40 MPa (3 days)

      80 MPa (28 days)

    • Durability requirements: RCPT Value<1000 and water penetration value< 15 mm.

Following mix design procedure we arrive at following data:

Table 14: Mix design of HPC

Sr.no.

Materials

Quantity(Kg)

1.

OPC-53

360

2.

Pozzocrete 60 (FA)

100

3.

P100

40

4.

Crush sand

1007

5.

20 mm metal

604

6.

10 metal

403

7.

Water

135

8.

PC based admixture

4

Compressive strength achieved by high performance concrete:

3 days: 43.83 MPa

28 days: 84.61 MPa

Table 15: Compressive strength results of HPC using 100% crushed sand and pozzocrete

VIII RESULTS

Compressive strength in Mpa

Compressive strength in Mpa

M20 Mix design

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7 Days 28 Days

River

Sand(100%) 14 29.25

Stone

Dust(100%) 14.22 29.27

Graph indicating comparison of compressive strength (MPa) of M20 Grade concrete using 100% River sand and M sand.

Compressive strength in Mpa

Compressive strength in Mpa

M25 Mix design

35

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

7 Days 28 Days

Graph indicating comparison of compressive strength (Mpa) of M25 Grade concrete using 100% River sand and M sand.

After detailed analysis of case study regarding economical feasibility of concrete carried out on site, following results were obtained:

Concreting overall cost:

  1. On 100% usage of river sand as fine aggregate in concrete= INR 26, 92,274/-

    Sr.no.

    Particulars

    Compressive strength results in MPa

    3 days

    7 days

    28 days

    1.

    Sample cube 1

    44.49

    62.31

    83.91

    2.

    Sample cube 2

    44.44

    63.20

    85.42

    3.

    Sample cube 3

    42.58

    62.18

    84.49

    Mean strength

    43.83

    62.56

    84.61

    Sr.no.

    Particulars

    Compressive strength results in MPa

    3 days

    7 days

    28 days

    1.

    Sample cube 1

    44.49

    62.31

    83.91

    2.

    Sample cube 2

    44.44

    63.20

    85.42

    3.

    Sample cube 3

    42.58

    62.18

    84.49

    Mean strength

    43.83

    62.56

    84.61

  2. On 100% usage of river sand as fine aggregate in concrete

    = INR 29, 63,539/-

    Thus the saving of INR 2, 71,265 is achieved by incorporating stone quarry dust as complete replacement for river sand in concrete which comes about 10% of saving which can prove immensely helpful for commercial projects leading to huge saving in cost.

    High performance concrete with design strength of 80 MPa gave excellent results in terms of compressive strength.

    Crushed sand can be well suitably be used in higher grades of concrete with pozzolans or admixtures with enhanced workability and earlier strength.

    X CONCLUSIONS

    The result of this study has great significance for providing even more high strength as well as durable concrete by using stone dust. This paper presents the compressive strength of M20 and M25 grades of concrete after 7 and 28 days of curing and also the economical feasibility of concrete using crushed sand. On the basis of experimental results following conclusions can be drawn:

    • The compressive strength of M20 grade concrete using stone dust as complete replacement for river sand is 29.27 MPa which is near about same as

      29.25 MPa obtained by using river sand.

    • The compressive strength of M25 grade concrete using stone dust as complete replacement for river sand is 33.75 MPa which is higher than 31.80 MPa obtained by using river sand.

    • After lot of research work done in past regarding replacement of natural sand by stone dust in concrete it can be concluded that river sand can completely be replaced by crushed sand with incorporation of flyash and plasticizers for achieving workability and strength results.

    • Stone dust can prove economical in case of mega projects because of the rising cost of river sand and its unavailability.

    • Use of stone dust in higher grades of concrete can be well accomplished in terms of compressive strength

      River

      Sand(100%)

      Stone Dust(100%)

      17 31.8

      18.81 33.75

      achievements.

      • Further research will undergo durability tests like RCPT and water permeability on concrete made with crushed sand.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First and foremost, I would like to thank my Project guide, Prof. S.D. Patil for his guidance and support. I will forever remain grateful for the constant support and guidance extended by Prof.A.K. Kanse. They provided an invaluable help with ideas and discussions throughout my entire time working on this project. It was an honor and a privilege to work with them. They also provided help in technical writing and presentation style and I found this guidance to be extremely valuable. The authors would like to thank the publishers, researchers for making their resources available and teachers for their guidance. I would also thank the college authorities for providing the required infrastructure and support. Also, I would like to thank my parents for their continual encouragement and the positive support. I would also like to thank my friends for supporting me throughout the work period.

REFERENCES

  1. CHIRAG GARG & AAKASH JAIN, Department of Civil engineering, BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Andhra Pradesh, India GREEN CONCRETE: EFFICIENT & ECO-FRIENDLY CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS,ISSN(E):2321-8843;ISSN (P):2347-4599,Vol.2, Issue 2, Feb 2014,259-264.

  2. MD. NURUZZAMAN1, MD. SAIFUL ISLAM2, M. SALAUDDIN1, MD. SAIFUL ISLAM1 Department of Civil Engineering, Chittagong University of Engg. and Technology, Chittagong, Bangladesh, Strength aspect of concrete using stone dust as a partial replacement of sand International Journal of Advanced Structures and Geotechnical Engineering ,Vol.4,October 2015.

  3. Sumit L. Chauhan, RajuA.Bondre, Assistant Professor P. I. G. C. E. Nagpur, Partial Replacement of Sand by Quarry Dust in Concrete, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 5, Issue 7, July 2015 1 ISSN 2250-3153.

  4. Dr. A.D. Pofale1, Syed Raziuddin Quadri2, Professor in Civil Engineering, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, South Ambazari Road Nagpur 440010 ** M.Tech(Thesis): Student, Construction Technology and Management, Civil Engineering Department, Visvesvaraya National Institute of Technology, ,South Ambazari Road Nagpur 440010,Effective Utilization of Crusher Dust in Concrete Using Portland Pozzolana Cement, International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications, Volume 3, Issue 8, August 2013 1 ISSN 2250-3153.

  5. K. Karthika1, G. Snekha1, R Sinduja2, S Priyadharshini2,1Assistant Professor, 2Final year students Department of Civil Engineering, PSVPEC Chennai, Tamil Nadu, India, Experimental Analysis of Quarry Dust and Metallic Dust as a Partial Replacement of Fine Aggregate in Concrete, International Journal of Engineering Research and Technology, ISSN: 2278-0181,Vol.6,Issue 7,July 2017.

  6. Dr.P.B.Sakthivel, C.Ramya, M.Raja International, Innovative Method of Replacing River Sand by Quarry Dust Waste in Concrete for Sustainability Journal of Scientific & Engineering Research Volume 4, Issue 5, May-2013.

  7. Engr. MuritalaAshola ADIGUN, B.Eng; M.Sc Civil Engineering Department, Lagos State Polytechnic, Ikorodu, Lagos State, Nigeria, Cost Effectiveness of Replacing Sand with Crushed Granite Fine (CGF) In the Mixed Design of Concrete, IOSR Journal of Mechanical and Civil Engineering (IOSR-JMCE) e-ISSN: 2278-1684,p-ISSN: 2320- 334X, Volume 10, Issue 1 (Nov. – Dec. 2013), PP 01-06 www.iosrjournals.org

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *