3laboratory Investigation in Concrete Mix Design and Using by Replacing Stone

CHAPTER-1
INTRODUCTION
1.1 GENERAL
Concrete is a composite material composed of coarse granular Material (the aggregate or filler)
embedded in a hard matrix of material (the Cement or binder) that fills the space among the
aggregate particles and bind them together.
In modern age Concrete is widely used structure material due to its economy, efficiency,
durability, workability and rigidity of reinforced concrete.
Fine aggregate is an essential component of concrete. The most commonly used fine aggregate is
natural river or pit sand. Fine and coarse aggregate constitute about 75% of total volume. It is
therefore, important to obtain right type and good quality aggregate at site, because the aggregate
form the main matrix of concrete or mortar.
The global consumption of natural sand is very high, due to the extensive use of concrete or
mortar. In general, the demand of natural sand is quite high in developing countries to satisfy the
rapid infrastructure growth, in this situation developing country like India facing shortage in
good quality natural sand. Particularly in India, natural sand deposits are being depleted and
causing serious threat to environment as well as the society. Increasing extraction of natural sand
from river beds causing many problems, loosing water retaining sand strata, deepening of the
river courses and causing bank slides, loss of vegetation on the bank of rivers, exposing the
intake well of water supply schemes, disturbs the aquatic life as well as affecting agriculture due
to lowering the underground water table etc. are few examples.
To prevent these problems and fulfill the demand of natural sand there is a alternative solution.
Replace natural sand by artificial sand. To keep this fact in mind we study the behavior of
concrete in terms of compressive strength and workability while replace natural sand by crushing
dust. Crushing dust is a waste product that occurred from stone crushers. Generally this dust is
used to fill lower lying areas, filling work in construction. Sometimes it is using to casting the
paving blocks. If we used it in concrete then it is an alternative of fine granular material.
Crushing dust is cheaply available material that make project economical. In this work we study
the effect on concrete in context of workability and compressive strength while replacing sand
1 | “Laboratory investigation in concrete mix design and using by replacing stone (crusher) dust as sand”
with varying percentage of crushing dust as well as estimate a conventional concrete mix and
concrete mix with varying percentage of crushing dust.
In this project we cast 6 sets of cubes of each grade of concrete with varying percentage of
crushing dust (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100 % of crushing dust respectively). We find out the slump
values for every sample sets & applying compressive strength test after 28 days of casting of
cubes and analysis all data with conventionally mixed concrete.
1.2 COMPOSITION IN CONCRETE
Conventionally concrete is mixture of Cement, sand and aggregate. In this course granular
material embedded in a hard matrix of material with binder (Cement). Fine granular material
(sand) fills the space between coarse granular materials.
In addition the strength of concrete mainly depends on water/Cement ratio, aggregate gradation,
and aggregate size and shape, Cement quality, mixing time, mixing ratios, curing etc. Concrete
must be both strong and workable, a careful balance of the Cement to water ratio is required
when making concrete.
➢ Coarse granular material
✓ Coarse aggregates are those which size ≥ 4.75 mm size.
✓ Aggregate is one of the important constituents which has effect in strength development
in the theory that the gaps of coarse aggregate is filled by the fine aggregate and the gaps of fine
aggregate is filled by the binding materials.
✓ Generally 20 mm size aggregate are used as coarse aggregate in concrete
✓ Coarse aggregate should be durable, hard, angular in shape and free from present of
foreign particles like organic matters.
➢ Fine granular material
✓ Fine granular material are those which size ≤ 4.75 mm size
✓ Generally natural river sand is used as fine granular material
✓ Fine granular material fills the voids between coarse granular materials.
➢ Binding Material
✓ Cement is used as a binding material in concrete
✓ It is obtained by burning together, in a definite proportion, a mixture of naturally
occurring (alumina) and calcareous (lime) materials to a fusion at high temperature (about
1450oC).
✓ Types of Cement
▪ Ordinary Portland Cement
• 33 grade – IS 269-1989
• 43 grade – IS 8112-1989
• 53 grade – IS 12269-1987
▪ Pozzolana Portland Cement - IS 1489-1991
▪ Rapid Hardening Cement- IS 8041-1990
▪ Extra Rapid Hardening Cement- IS 12600-1989
▪ Low Heat Portland Cement - IS 455-1989
▪ Portland Slag Cement - IS 1489-1991
1.3 Significant of the Study:
Concrete is one of the most widely used construction materials in the world. Many modifications
and developments have been made to place industrial waste such as crushing dust on building
construction. Utilization of waste materials for construction shall not solely solve waste issues;
however conjointly provide a new source for construction functions. The use of crushing dust as
a substitute for fine aggregates in concrete mix is one option. Research and development to
convert crushing dust to useful application such as a construction material will provide more
alternatives for the engineer to select the most suitable concrete replacement material for
different environments. In this case, studies are needed to study the performance of concrete
using crushing dust as fine aggregate as replacement materials.
In addition the use of crushing dust as fine aggregates replacement materials in concrete is not
common in the Indian construction sector. This study will be able to enhance the understanding
on the suitability of crushing dust as fine aggregates replacement material.
1.4 Thesis Objectives: - The basic steps involved are summarized as follows:
 The use of crushing dust internationally has led to a large pool of data on the mechanical
and durability properties of concrete containing.
 In many countries crushing dust has been found suitable for large-scale waste product.
 crushing dust from crusher plant .
 In these literature read and then concludes that crushing dust used and how percentage
use in the concrete.
 crushing dust is a waste product so that material used in the concrete so that type of
concrete is called also green concrete.
 In this thesis different percentage of crushing dust (0, 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100%) use.
1.5 Organization of the Thesis
This thesis has been organized in five chapters as follows:
Chapter-1.Introduction- It presents various aspects of crushing dust use in the concrete.
Chapter-2.Literature Review- It introduces the review of literature. An effort has been made to
briefly describe the maximum possible literature on the use of waste product like crushing dust
and their contributions to the composite materials in terms of compressive strength.
Chapter-3.Material Used in this thesis
Chapter-4. Methodology the details of experiment programmed in terms of material properties,
test set-up for measuring different parameters and the testing procedure discussed in this chapter.
Chapter-5. In this chapter deals with various types of Experimental done.
Chapter-6. In this chapter we concluded the result
Chapter-7. Conclusion- Summarizes the main conclusions and recommendations for future scope
of study is presented.
References are listed at the end for the convenience of the readers.
CHAPTER-2
LITRATURE REVIEW
Jena, S. and Panda, K.C., (2019) were study that alternate materials to be used in concrete
without compromising its desired quality and durability. The mix design is targeted for M30
grade concrete with w/b ratio 0.43. The investigation comprises of 12 numbers of concrete
mixes. First two mixes were made by replacing 0 and 50% of natural fine aggregate (NFA) with
crusher dust (CD). Then at each replacement level of NFA, cement is replaced partially with
both fly ash (FA) and silpozz. The studied parameters include the workability, compressive, split
tensile and flexural strength of concrete samples after 7, 14, and 28 days of curing period.
Workability decreases with increase in CD and silpozz content and increases with FA. The
hardened concrete test results indicate that CD-based concrete increases the compressive, split
tensile and flexural strength. Use of FA and silpozz increases the strength and maximum strength
is achieved at 20% replacement of cement with silpozz.
Bansal, H. and Kumar, M., (2018) studied that the investigate the possibility of using crushed
stone dust as fine aggregate partially or fully with different grades of concrete composites. The
suitability of crushed stone dust waste as fine aggregate for concrete has been assessed by
comparing its basic properties with that of conventional concrete. Two basic mixes were chosen
for natural sand to achieve M30 grade concrete. The equivalent mixes were obtained by
replacing natural sand by stone dust partially and fully. The test result indicate that crushed stone
dust waste can be used effectively used to replace natural sand in concrete. In the experimental
study, of strength characteristics of concrete using crushed stone dust as fine aggregate it is
found that there is increase in compressive strength, flexural strength and tensile strength of
concrete. In the experimental study stone dust, the cubes were tested for 7days and 28 days
compressive strength 0%, 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% replacement of fine aggregate by stone dust
in M30 grade concrete. The 7 days and 28 days compressive strength is shown in tables
respectively. The 7 days and 28 days flexural strength beams obtained by replacing 0%, 10%,
20%, 30% and 40% fine aggregate with stone dust is shown in tables respectively. The result of
cylinders that were tested for 28 days is shown tables. It has been observed that the results
obtained in all compressive, flexural and spilt tensile strength are comparable with that of
concrete with stone dust.
Bansal, H. and Kumar, M., (2018) were concluded that River sand, which is one of the
constituents used in the production of conventional concrete, has become very expensive and
also becoming scarce due to depletion of river bed. In view of this, there is a need to identify
suitable alternative material from waste in place of river sand. Use of admixtures to add to
workability of concrete made with stone dust can be studied. Durability aspects of concrete made
with stone dust as fine aggregate can be investigated. People approach to the stone waste in
concrete will be more and more as it will strengthen the building at economical cost.
Environmental effects of wastes and disposal problems of waste can be reduced through this
research and make the environment green. It will reduce the wastage and solve dumping problem
of the industry. Effective utilization of quarry dust in concrete can save the waste of quarry
works; and also produces a ‘greener’ concrete. Concrete is the material mostly used in the
construction field for building and pavement construction. Natural sand is a very fine material
which can contribute for a concrete to solidify to give the necessary strength for a certain
structure. Natural sand fill up the pores or voids inside concrete which is also a contributing
factor for the strength of the concrete.
Das, B. and Gattu, M., (2018) were studied that the suitability of quarry dust as alternative
material for the river sand in concrete manufacturing is studied. M25 grade concrete was
prepared with 0%, 20%, 40%, 60%, 80% partial replacement of sand with quarry dust. The
physical properties of quarry dust namely specific gravity; water absorption; silt content; and
fineness modulus were measured using standard tests. This was followed by compression, split
tensile and bending tests on cubes, cylinders and RC beams respectively to study the strength of
concrete made of quarry rock dust. The results were compared with the conventional concrete
(0%). The results showed that with increasing proportion of quarry dust, the strength increased to
peak value (at 40%) followed by a subsequent drop in strength and a decreased workability.
Slump test studies on quarry rock dust concrete are 11%-13% lower than reference concrete. The
workability obtained with 80% and 100% replacement was very low. This might be due to the
higher water absorption capacity of quarry dust due to the presence of higher amounts of silt
content in quarry dust as compared to sand. With increase in quarry dust proportion of fine
aggregates, compressive strength and split tensile strength showed an increasing trend followed
by decreasing trend (after reaching peak strength). The present concrete mix gave the highest
value at 40% proportion. Also the compressive strength obtained with 60%, 80% and 100%
proportions was lower indicating such higher proportions of quarry dust are not recommendable
in concrete. The flexural load carried by RC beams with quarry dust proportion of 20%, 40% and
60% of fine aggregate was 10 to12 percent compared to the control RC beam. The better flexural
performance of beams with quarry rock dust may be due to the higher compressive strength and
tensile strength of concrete.
Reddy, p.m. and azaruddin, s., (2017) were concluded that the study Stone Dust is used as
partial replacement of cement by weight at varying percentages i.e.10%, 20%, 30% respectively.
Crushed fine aggregate is used as replacement of fine aggregate by weight at varying percentages
i.e. 25%, 50%, 75% & 100% respectively. The combined influence of Stone Dust and Crushed
fine aggregate on Compressive Strength, Split Tensile Strength and Flexural Strength of M20
grade of concrete is investigated. The test results of concrete prepared using different
combinations of Stone Dust and Crushed fine aggregate are compared with that of controlled
concrete. A considerable increase in compressive strength, split tensile strength and flexural
strength of concrete by using Stone Dust and Crushed fine aggregate is observed compared to
control concrete. The maximum strength characteristics of concrete are obtained at 20%
replacement of cement with Stone Dust and 50% replacement of fine aggregate with Crushed
fine aggregate. 8.1Compressive Strength
Pilegis, M., Gardner, D. and Lark, R., (2016) were studied that the manufactured sand differs
from natural sea and river dredged sand in its physical and mineralogical properties. These can
be both beneficial and detrimental to the fresh and hardened properties of concrete. This paper
presents the results of a laboratory study in which manufactured sand produced in an industry
sized crushing plant was characterised with respect to its physical and mineralogical properties.
The influence of these characteristics on concrete workability and strength, when manufactured
sand completely replaced natural sand in concrete, was investigated and modelled using artificial
neural networks (ANN). The results show that the manufactured sand concrete made in this
study generally requires a higher water/cement (w/c) ratio for workability equal to that of natural
sand concrete due to the higher angularity of the manufactured sand particles. Water reducing
admixtures can be used to compensate for this if the manufactured sand does not contain clay
particles. At the same w/c ratio, the compressive and flexural strength of manufactured sand
concrete exceeds that of natural sand concrete. ANN proved a valuable and reliable method of
predicting concrete strength and workability based on the properties of the fine aggregate (FA)
and the concrete mix composition.
Prasanna K. Acharya and Sanjaya K. Patro (2016), were concluded that Ferrochrome ash
(FCA) is a discarded waste of the ferroalloys industry. The viability of FCA as a supplementary
cementitious material for production of environmental friendly concrete is discussed in this
paper. FCA is modified with lime dust to enhance the performance of concrete. To evaluate the
functional behaviour of concrete made of FCA and lime, replacing equal mass of ordinary
Portland cement (OPC), an experimental programmed comprising a series of tests related to
mechanical properties and durability were addressed at the age of 28, 91 and 180 days. FCA was
substituted up to 40% in four different substitutions at an interval of 10%. Substitution of lime
was considered as 7%, after studying its effect on blended cement based concrete. Results were
established by microscopic studies like petrography examinations. Relations between various
properties were well compared having correlation coefficient nearer to 1. Utilization of FCA in
concrete making will be helpful in reducing production of OPC, minimizing greenhouse
emissions, lowering energy consumption, managing environmental burden and conserving
natural resources.
Gaurav Singh , Souvik Das a, Abdulaziz Abdullahi Ahmed a, Showmen Saha b, Somnath
Karmakar (2015), were concluded that “Growing environmental restrictions to the exploitation
of sand from river beds leads to search for alternatives particularly near the larger metropolitan
areas. This has brought in severe strains on the availability of sand forcing the construction
industry to look for alternative construction materials without compromising the strength criteria
of concrete. Granulated blast furnace slags are one of the promising sustainable solutions as they
are obtained as solid wastes generated by industry.Hence it reduces the solid waste disposal
problem and other environmental issues. Present experimental work explores the possibility of
using GBFS as replacement of natural sand in concrete. In this study an attempt is done to
understand the variation in compressive strength of concrete with GBFS content. Along with that
cost analysis is also done to suggest the most optimized percentage of GBFS to be used in
various conditions.”
Gaurav Singh et al. (2015), carried out the Growing environmental restrictions to the
exploitation of sand from river beds leads to search for alternatives particularly near the larger
metropolitan areas. This has brought in severe strains on the availability of sand forcing the
construction industry to look for alternative construction materials without compromising the
strength criteria of concrete. Granulated blast furnace slags are one of the promising sustainable
solutions as they are obtained as solid wastes generated by industry.Hence it reduces the solid
waste disposal problem and other environmental issues. Present experimental work explores the
possibility of using GBFS as replacement of natural sand in concrete. In this study an attempt is
done to understand the variation in compressive strength of concrete with GBFS content. Along
with that cost analysis is also done to suggest the most optimized percentage of GBFS to be used
in various conditions.
G. Fares (2015) was concluded that “Since the innovation of SCC, many test methods have been
developed to characterize its fresh properties; however, only a few of these tests have been
standardized by the ASTM. The slump flow test, standardized as ASTM C1611, is the simplest
and most widely used test for both laboratory and field testing of SCC. In ASTM C1611, two
filling procedures (A and B) pertaining to two different orientations of the slump cone are
permitted. Although the two slump flows have similar values regardless of the filling procedure,
the slump flow times (T50) measured using the two procedures are expected to be different. The
ASTM considers the determination of T50 as a non-mandatory test to be used as a relative
measure of flow rate, viscosity and stability. In the current work, a relationship between the T50
values of the two permitted filling procedures has been established. The theoretical background
for this relationship is presented and discussed. A conversion factor of approximately 1.9 was
found to shift from the timeframe used in procedure A to that in B. A case study showing the
impact of applying the same T50 timeframe regardless of the filling procedure on the rheological
properties of SCC is also presented.”
Antonios Kanellopoulos, Demetrios Nicolaidesb, Michael F. Petrou(2014) were concluded
that “According to a recent report by the European Commission, within the European Union, the
construction and demolition wastes come to at least 450 million tons per year. Roughly 75% of
the waste is disposed to landfill, despite its major recycling potential. The bulk constituents of
demolition debris are concrete (50–55%) and masonry (30–40%) with only small percentages of
other materials such as metals, glass and timber. In Cyprus, at present, recycling of waste
materials is practically inexistent and almost the entire demolition waste products are disposed in
landfill sites, with all possible economic, technical and environmental impacts. This research
paper presents the evaluation and the effective reuse of waste construction materials, such as
recycled lime powder (RLP) and recycled concrete aggregates (RCA), disposed to landfill sites
in Cyprus, due to the lack of a lucid recycling policy and knowledge. Results show that both
RLP and RCA have the potential to produce good quality and robust concrete mixtures both in
terms of mechanical and durability performance.”
Sallehan Ismail, ,Mahyuddin Ramli (2014) were concluded that “In recycling concrete, the
crushing process leaves weak mortar particles and surface cracks throughout the recycled
concrete aggregates (RCA). Thus, the process is detrimental, resulting in inferior aggregate
properties. This experimental study presents a method to improve the properties of coarse RCA
by modifying their surface structure through the combination of two different surface treatment
methods. In this study, coarse RCA are first treated by soaking in hydrochloric (HCl) acid at
0.5 mol (M) concentration. They are then impregnated with calcium metasilicate (CM) solution
to coat their surface with CM particles. The effects of both surface treatments on the properties
of RCA before and after treatment are determined. Moreover, the effect of the replacement of
natural coarse aggregates with 60% treated coarse RCA on the mechanical strength of concrete is
evaluated. The findings of this study show that the effect of the combination of these two surface
treatment methods is beneficial, as the combined methods not only modify RCA surface but also
enhance RCA properties. More specifically, after treatment, the particle density, water
absorption, and mechanical strength of RCA are significantly improved. Consequently, the
incorporation of treated RCA in concrete results in a mechanical strength that approximates
concrete prepared with natural aggregates and surpasses the strength of concrete prepared with
untreated RCA. In addition, the effect use of treated RCA tends to reduce the drying shrinkage of
concrete.”
Liqun Hu, Jingxian Hao and Linbing Wang(2014), were concluded that “The waste clay
bricks from debris of buildings were evaluated through lab tests as environmental friendly
materials for pavement sub-base in the research. Five sets of coarse aggregates which contained
0, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% crushed bricks, respectively, were blended with sand and treated
by 5% cement. The test results indicated that cement treated aggregate which contains crushed
clay brick aggregate had a lower maximum dry density (MDD) and a higher optimum moisture
content (OMC). Moreover, the unconfined compressive strength (UCS), resilience modulus,
splitting strength, and frost resistance performance of the specimens decreased with increase of
the amount of crushed clay brick aggregate. On the other hand, it can be observed that the use of
crushed clay brick in the mixture decreased the dry shrinkage strain of the specimens. Compared
with the asphalt pavement design specifications of China, the results imply that the substitution
rate of natural aggregate with crushed clay brick aggregate in the cement treated aggregate sub-
base material should be less than 50% (5% cement content in the mixture). Furthermore, it needs
to be noted that the cement treated aggregate which contains crushed clay bricks should be
cautiously used in the cold region due to its insufficient frost resistance performance.”
Nabajyoti Saikia, Jorge de Brito(2012) were concluded that “A substantial growth in the
consumption of plastic is observed all over the world in recent years, which has led to huge
quantities of plastic-related waste. Recycling of plastic waste to produce new materials like
concrete or mortar appears as one of the best solution for disposing of plastic waste, due to its
economic and ecological advantages. Several works have been performed or are under way to
evaluate the properties of cement-composites containing various types of plastic waste as
aggregate, filler or fibre. This paper presents a review on the recycling plastic waste as aggregate
in cement mortar and concrete productions.”
Jongsung Sim, Cheolwoo Park (2011), were concluded that “Construction and demolition
waste has been dramatically increased in the last decade, and social and environmental concerns
on the recycling have consequently been increased. Recent technology has greatly improved the
recycling process for waste concrete. This study investigates the fundamental characteristics of
concrete using recycled concrete aggregate (RCA) for its application to structural concrete
members. The specimens used 100% coarse RCA, various replacement levels of natural
aggregate with fine RCA, and several levels of fly ash addition. Compressive strength of mortar
and concrete which used RCA gradually decreased as the amount of the recycled materials
increased. Regardless of curing conditions and fly ash addition, the 28 days strength of the
recycled aggregate concrete was greater than the design strength, 40 MPa, with a complete
replacement of coarse aggregate and a replacement level of natural fine aggregate by fine RCA
up to 60%. The recycled aggregate concrete achieved sufficient resistance to the chloride ion
penetration. The measured carbonation depth did not indicate a clear relationship to the fine
RCA replacement ratio but the recycled aggregate concrete could also attain adequate
carbonation resistance. Based on the results from the experimental investigations, it is believed
that the recycled aggregate concrete can be successfully applied to structural concrete members.”
Khalifa S. Al-Jabri, , Abdullah H. Al-Saidy and Ramzi Taha (2011), were concluded that “An
experimental investigation was conducted to study the effect of using copper slag as a fine
aggregate on the properties of cement mortars and concrete. Various mortar and concrete
mixtures were prepared with different proportions of copper slag ranging from 0% (for the
control mixture) to 100% as fine aggregates replacement. Cement mortar mixtures were
evaluated for compressive strength, whereas concrete mixtures were evaluated for workability,
density, compressive strength, tensile strength, flexural strength and durability. The results
obtained for cement mortars revealed that all mixtures with different copper slag proportions
yielded comparable or higher compressive strength than that of the control mixture. Also, there
was more than 70% improvement in the compressive strength of mortars with 50% copper slag
substitution in comparison with the control mixture. The results obtained for concrete indicated
that there is a slight increase in density of nearly 5% as copper slag content increases, whereas
the workability increased significantly as copper slag percentage increased compared with the
control mixture. A substitution of up to 40–50% copper slag as a sand replacement yielded
comparable strength to that of the control mixture. However, addition of more copper slag
resulted in strength reduction due to the increase in the free water content in the mix. Also, the
results demonstrated that surface water absorption decreased as copper slag content increases up
to 50% replacement. Beyond that, the absorption rate increased rapidly and the percentage
volume of the permeable voids was comparable to the control mixture. Therefore, it is
recommended that up to 40–50% (by weight of sand) of copper slag can be used as a
replacement for fine aggregates in order to obtain a concrete with good strength and durability
requirements.”
S.A. Abukersh and C.A. Fairfield (2011) were concluded that “Sustainable development
involves reducing natural resource consumption by appropriate recycling. To reduce the amount
of waste going to landfill, red granite dust arising from the rock-crushing process was assessed
for suitability as a replacement for up to 30% by mass of the cement content of structural grade
concretes made with recycled coarse aggregates. While the impact on worldwide cement demand
will be minimal, the contribution to waste reduction may be valuable. Laboratory trials showed
that this red granite dust rendered it suitable in terms of workability, stiffness and strength
compared to normal aggregate and Portland cement concretes. The potential for thereby
overcoming the problem of low early strength in some pulverised fuel ash concretes was
demonstrated”.
Hameed and Sekar, 2009 studied effect of crushed stone dust as fine sand and found the
flexural strength increases than the concrete with natural sand but the values decreases as
percentage of crusher dust increases. It has been reported by Reddy and Reddy, 2007 from their
experimental study on use of rock flow and insulator ceramic scrap in concrete that the rock flow
when used as fine aggregate increases the modulus of rapture thus the flexural strength. From the
study of green concrete posses containing quarry dust and marble sludge powder it has been
reported that the split tensile strength of green concrete was 14.62% higher at 7days and 8.66
%higher at 28 days. But split tensile strength was found to be lesser by 10.41% at 3 days than
controlled concrete.
Hameed and Sekar, 2009 also reported the resistance of Green concrete containing crusher dust
against sulfate attack (Mg SO4 and Na2SO4 ) is higher than the conventional concrete. Also they
have reported acid resistance ( H2SO4 ) is higher than the conventional concrete. The durability
of quarry rock dust concrete under sulphate and acid action is higher than the conventional
concrete. Similarly water Absorption found to be more in the concrete containing crusher dust 2.
The overall workability value of quarry rock dust concrete in terms of slump as well as
compaction factor was less in comparison to conventional concrete(Ilangovana et al., 2008). As
reported by(Hameed and Sekar, 2009) the slump value increases (Workability increases), if
concrete is mixed with quarry dust as well as marble sludge due to presence of marble sludge
powder
Reddy and Reddy, 2007 reported an increasing compressive strength by use of rock flour as
fine aggregate instead of river sand. Ilangovana et al., 2008 reported strength of quarry rock dust
concrete was comparably 10-12 % more than that of similar mix of conventional concrete.
K.S. Al-Jabri, , R.A. Taha, A. Al-Hashmi and A.S. Al-Harthy, (2006) were concluded that
“This research was undertaken to study the effect of copper slag (CS) and cement by-pass dust
(CBPD) addition on concrete properties. In addition to the control mixture, two different trial
mixtures were prepared using different proportions of CS and CBPD. CBPD was primarily used
as an activator. One mixture consisted of 5% copper slag substitution for portland cement. The
other mixture consisted of 13.5% CS, 1.5% CBPD and 85% portland cement. Three water-to-
binder (w/b) ratios were studied: 0.5, 0.6 and 0.7. Concrete cubes, cylinders and prisms were
prepared and tested for strength after 7 and 28 days of curing. The modulus of elasticity of these
mixtures was also evaluated. Results showed that 5% copper slag substitution for portland
cement gave a similar strength performance as the control mixture, especially at low w/b ratios
(0.5 and 0.6). Higher copper slag (13.5%) replacement yielded lower strength values. Results
also demonstrated that the use of CS and CBPD as partial replacements of portland cement has
no significant effect on the modulus of elasticity of concrete, especially at small quantities
substitution.”
Raman et al., 2005 studied the effect of quarry dust and found that the partial replacement of
river sand with quarry dust without the inclusion of fly ash resulted in a reduction in the
compressive strength of concrete specimen. It has also been reported that the reduction in the
compressive strength of quarry dust concrete was compensated by the inclusion of fly as into the
concrete mix.
Rolf K. Eckhoff (2003), was concluded that “This chapter provides an overview of dust
explosions and its origin, propagation, prevention, and mitigation. The degree of subdivision of
the solid burning in air can be expressed either as a characteristic particle size or as the total
surface area per unit volume called the “specific surface area.” Materials that cause dust
explosions include natural organic materials, synthetic organic materials, coal and peat, and
metals. The heat of combustion of a material determines the amount of heat that can be liberated
in the explosion. The most common ignition sources are smoldering or burning dust, open
flames, hot surfaces, heat from mechanical impact, and electrical discharges and arcs. Dust
explosions have been a recognized threat to humans and property for a long time.
Thermodynamics is concerned with the amount of heat liberated during combustion, whereas
kinetics is the rate at which the heat is liberated. The tendency of self-heating in powder and dust
deposits depends on the properties of the material. The maximum explosion pressure in the
vented explosion is the result of two competing processes: (1) burning of the dust cloud, which
develops heat and increases pressure and (2) flow of unburned, burning, and burned dust cloud
through the vent, which relieves the pressure. Most industrialized countries have their own
official codes of practice to prevent and mitigate dust explosions in the industries.”
I.J Graham, R.L Goguel and D.A St John (2000), were concluded that “Combined chemical
and strontium isotopic analysis has shown that New Zealand cements carry geochemical
fingerprints from their raw materials, which can be used to identify them in concrete. This could
prove to have a more general application in tracing the origin of cement and identifying the
causes of failure in concrete structures. The fingerprinting of cement in concrete is complicated
by aggregate leaching, but this can be minimised by using slightly alkaline or neutral EDTA as
the solvent in preference to weak mineral acids such as HNO3. Although fingerprinting of most
New Zealand cements is possible, based on the relative concentrations of Ca, Sr, and Mn,
strontium isotopes can add crucial information in certain cases, particularly where limestones of
contrasting geological ages have been used as raw materials.”
Marmash, KS Elliott(2000), were concluded that “Waste concrete from prestressed precast
hollow cored floor units has been recycled for use as replacement aggregate in concrete (RCA).
Waste concrete blocks were crushed to −14 mm using cone, impact and jaw crushers. All
produced acceptable physical and mechanical properties, although the impact crusher was best
suited in most cases. The water absorption of the RCA was 3 to 4 times greater than natural
limestone and river gravel used for control purposes. The fine RCA was at the coarse end of the
British Standard limit. Concrete made using zero, 20% and 50% replacement of coarse and fine
RCA had increased workability at 20% replacement, but this reduced considerably at 50%
replacement. Compressive strength of concrete made with RCA was generally within ±5
N/mm2 of the control value of 62 N/mm2. RCA from the cone crusher produced the highest
strengths. The main conclusion is that concrete made with up to 50% replacement of both coarse
and fine RCA appears to be comparable with natural aggregate concrete in terms of workability
and compressive strength.”
Tahir Çelik, Khaled Marar (1996) were concluded that “Crusher dust is a fine material formed
during the process of combination of rock into crushed stone or crushed sand. This dust is
composed by particles which pass 75 μm BS sieves. Effects of dust content in aggregate on
properties of fresh and hardened concrete are not known very well. An experimental study was
undertaken to find out the effects of various proportions of dust content on properties of fresh
concrete and hardened concrete.”
CHAPTER-3
MATERIAL USED
3.1 GENERAL
All along India, we have been using natural sand. The volume of concrete manufactured in India
has not been much, when compared to some advanced countries. The infrastructure development
such as express highway projects, power projects and industrial developments have started now.
Availability of natural sand is getting depleted and also it is becoming costly. Concrete industry
now will have to go for crushed sand. The strength is the most important performance
requirement and measured at 28 days. The compressive strength ofconcrete is the most common
measure for judging the quality of concrete and depends on water/Cement ratio and composition.
When a construction material is shown to satisfy structural requirements for use in thebuilding
and construction industry – technical viability, the next thing is to show its economic,
commercial and social viability.
For the last about 4 to 5 years the old methods of manufacturing ordinary crushed sand have
been replaced by modern crushers specially designed for producing, cubical, comparatively
smooth textured, well graded sand, good enough to replace natural sand Common river sand is
expensive due to excessive cost of transportation from natural sources. Also large-scale depletion
of these sources creates environmental problems. As environmental transportation and other
constraints make the availability and use of river sand less attractive, a substitute or replacement
product for concrete industry needs to be found. River sand is most commonly used fine
aggregate in the production of concrete poses the problem of acute shortage in many areas.
Whose continued use has started posing serious problems with respect to its availability, cost and
environmental impact?
In this study we use crushing dust occurring from crushing plant and mix is prepared by hand.
3.2 MATERIAL USED
➢ CEMENT
▪ MANUFACTURED COMPANY – JAYPEE (PPC)
▪ MANUFACTURING DATE 05/FEB/2014
▪ Fineness 225mm2 /g
▪ Consistency 33%
➢ SAND
▪ ZONE 3
▪ FINENESS MODULUS 1.99
▪ Specific gravity 2.74
➢ COARSE AGGREGATE
▪ SIZE 10-20 MM & 5-10 MM
▪ Water absorption 2%
▪ SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.74
➢ CRUSHING DUST
Crushed stone is a by-product of crushing stone which has been considered as Unsalable and
of no significant value.
According to Environmental act (2004) there is need to manage the crushed stones dust to
promote the environmental objectives of reduction of impacts on natural habitats; reduction of
discharge to air, water and soil polluting material into environment; decreasing the amount of
waste and provision of the information that makes it possible to use the product with minimum
environmental effects
Prudent utilization of crushed stone dust therefore may reduce or eliminate dependency on river
sand for concrete production. This will have a positive effect of reduction of overloaded trucks
transporting sand from various source points and hence reduce damage on key roads.
ZONE 2
FINENESS MODULUS 2.57
➢ SUPERPLASTICIZER
▪ SIKAMENT 581 L10
CHAPTER-4
METHODOLOGY
4.1 TEST ON CEMENT
4.1.1 FINENESS TEST
PROCEDURE
1. Weigh approximately 10g of cement to the nearest 0.01g and place it on the sieve.
2. Agitate the sieve by swirling, planetary and linear movements, until no more fine
material passes through it.
3. Weigh the residue and express its mass as a percentage R1,of the quantity first placed on
the sieve to the nearest 0.1 per cent.
4. Gently brush all the fine material off the base of the sieve.
5. Repeat the whole procedure using a fresh 10g sample to obtain R2. Then calculate R as
the mean of R1 and R2 as a percentage, expressed to the nearest 0.1 per cent. When the
results differ by more than 1 percent absolute, carry out a third sieving and calculate the
mean of the three values.
REPORTING OF RESULTS: - Fineness of given material (Cement) is 225 mm2/g
4.1.2 CONSISTENCY
FIG 4.1: Vicat Apparatus
PROCEDURE
1. Weigh approximately 400g of cement and mix it with aweighed quantity of water. The
time of gauging should be between 3 to 5 minutes.
2. Fill the Vicat mould with paste and level it with a trowel.
3. Lower the plunger gently till it touches the cement surface. Release the plunger allowing
it to sink into the paste.
4. Note the reading on the gauge.
5. Repeat the above procedure taking fresh samples of cement And different quantities of
water until the reading on the Gauge is 5 to 7mm.
REPORTING OF RESULTS:- Consistency of given material (Cement) is 33%
4.1.3 INITIAL AND FINAL SETTING TIME
PROCEDURE
I. Prepare a cement paste by gauging the cement with 0.85times the water required to give
a paste of standard consistency.
II. Start a stop-watch, the moment water is added to the cement.
III. Fill the Vicat mould completely with the cement paste gauged as above, the mould
resting on a non-porous plate and smooth off the surface of the paste making it level with
the top of the mould. The cement block thus prepared in the mould is the test block.
INITIAL SETTING TIME
Place the test block under the rod bearing the needle. Lower the needle gently in order to
make contact with the surface of the cement paste and release quickly, allowing it to penetrate
the test block. Measured from the bottom of the mould, The time period elapsing between the
time, water is added to the cement and the time, the needle fails to pierce the test block by 5.0 ±
0.5mm measured from the bottom of the mould, is the initial setting time.
B) FINAL SETTING TIME
Replace the above needle by the one with an annular attachment. The cement should be
considered as finally set when, upon applying the needle gently to the surface of the test block,
the needle makes an impression therein, while the attachment fails to do so. The period elapsing
between the time, water is added to the cement and the time, the needle makes an impression on
the surface of the test block, while the attachment fails to do so, is the final setting time.
REPORTING OF RESULTS
❖ Initial Setting time of given material is 185 min
❖ Final Setting time of given material is 279 min
4.2 TESTS ON AGGREGATES
4.2.1 SIEVE ANALYSIS
FIG 4.2: Sieve Analysis

1. A set of IS Sieves of sizes - 80mm, 63mm, 50mm, 40mm,31.5mm, 25mm, 20mm, 16mm,
2.5mm, 10mm, 6.3mm,4.75mm, 3.35mm, 2.36mm, 1.18mm, 600µm, 300µm, 150µmand
75µm
2. Balance or scale with an accuracy to measure 0.1 percent of the weight of the test sample
3. SAMPLE:- The weight of sample available should not be less than 1500 g the weight
given below:-
Table No. 4.1: Sieve Analysis
Maximum size present in Minimum weight of sample
substantial proportion(mm) despatched for testing(gm)
4.75 15
2.36 12
1.18 42.5
0.6 261
0.3 737.5
0.15 395
Pan 34.5
The sample for sieving should be prepared from the larger sample either by quartering or by
means of a sample divider.
PROCEDURE
1. The test sample is dried to a constant weight at atemperature of 27o and weighed.
2. The sample is sieved by using a set of IS Sieves
3. On completion of sieving, the material on each sieve isweighed.
4. Cumulative weight passing through each sieve is calculated as a percentage of the total
sample weight.
5. Fineness modulus is obtained by adding cumulative percentage of aggregates retained on
each sieve and dividing the sum by 100
❖ Fineness Modulus of Sand is 1.99.
❖ It means sand is of Zone 3
4.2.3 WATER ABSORPTION
PROCEDURE
The sample should be thoroughly washed to remove finer particles and dust, drained and then
placed in the wire basket and immersed in distilled water at a temperature between 22 and 32oC.
After immersion, the entrapped air should be removed by lifting the basket and allowing it to
drop 25 times in 25seconds. The basket and sample should remain immersed for a period of 24 +
½ hrs. afterwards.
The basket and aggregates should then be removed from the water, allowed to drain for a few
minutes, after which the aggregates should be gently emptied from the basket on to one of the
dry clothes and gently surface-dried with the cloth, transferring it to a second dry cloth when the
first would remove no further moisture. The aggregates should be spread on the second cloth and
exposed to the atmosphere away from direct sunlight till it appears to be completely surface-dry.
The aggregates should be weighed (Weight 'A').
I. The aggregates should then be placed in an oven at a temperature of 100 to 110oC for
24hrs. It should then be removed from the oven, cooled and weighed (Weight 'B').
REPORTING OF RESULTS:- Water Absorption of Aggregate is 2%
4.2.4 AGGREGATE IMPACT VALUE
FIG 4.3: Impact Testing Machine
PREPARATION OF SAMPLE:- The test sample should conform to the following grading
• Passing through 12.5mm IS Sieve 100%
• Retention on 10mm IS Sieve 100%
1. The sample should be oven-dried for 4hrs. at a temperature of 100 to 110oC and cooled.
2. The measure should be about one-third full with the prepared aggregates and tamped with 25
strokes of the tamping rod.
3. A further similar quantity of aggregates should be added and a further tamping of 25 strokes
given. The measure should finally be filled to overflow, tamped 25 times and the surplus
aggregates struck off, using a tamping rod as a straightedge.
4. The net weight of the aggregates in the measure should be determined to the nearest gram
(Weight 'A').
PROCEDURE
1. The cup of the impact testing machine should be fixed firmly in position on the base of
the machine and the whole of the test sample placed in it and compacted by 25 strokes of
the tamping rod.
2. The hammer should be raised to 380mm above the upper surface of the aggregates in the
cup and allowed to fall freely onto the aggregates. The test sample should be subjected to
a total of 15 such blows, each being delivered at an interval of not less than one second.
1. The sample should be removed and sieved through a2.36mm IS Sieve.
2. The fraction passing through should be weighed (Weight 'B'). The fraction retained on
the sieve should also be weighed (Weight 'C') and if the total weight(B+C) is less than the
initial weight (A) by more than one gram, the result should be discarded and a fresh test
done.
3. The ratio of the weight of the fines formed to the total sample weight should be expressed
as a percentage.
4. Aggregate impact value = ——– x 100%
5. Two such tests should be carried out and the mean of the results should be reported.
4.3 TESTS ON FRESH CONCRETE
4.3.1 SLUMP CONE TEST
PROCEDURE
1. The internal surface of the mould is thoroughly cleaned and applied with alight coat of
oil.
2. The mould is placed on a smooth, horizontal, rigid and non-absorbent surface.
3. The mould is then filled in four layers with freshly mixed concrete, each approximately
to one-fourth of the height of the mould.
4. Each layer is tamped 25 times by the rounded end of the tamping rod(strokes are
distributed evenly over the cross section).
Fig 4.4 Slump cone test
5. After the top layer is rodded, the concrete is struck off the level with a trowel.
6. The mould is removed from the concrete immediately by raising it slowly in the vertical
direction.
7. The difference in level between the height of the mould and that of the highest point of
the subsided concrete is measured.
8. This difference in height in mm is the slump of the concrete.
4.4 Test on harden concrete
The main destructive tests on hardened concrete are as follows
4.4.1 Compression Test: Out of numerous tests applied to the concrete, this is the extreme
significant which offers an idea about all the features of concrete. By this particular test one can judge
that whether Concreting has been done correctly or not. Test for compressive strength is conducted
out either on cube or cylinder. A range of standard codes suggest concrete cylinder or concrete cubes
as the standard specimen for the test. For cube test two categories of specimens either cubes of 15 cm
X 15 cm X 15 cm or 10cm X 10 cm x 10 cm depending on the size of aggregate are used. For the
majority of the works cubical moulds of size 15 cm x 15cm x 15 cm are generally used.
These samples are tested by compression testing machine (CTM) after 7 days curing or 28 days
curing. Load should be applied progressively at the rate of 140 kg/cm2 per minute till the sample fails.
Load at the failure of specimen divided by area of specimen gives the compressive strength of
concrete.
4.4.2 Flexure test: A plain concrete specimen is investigated to failure due to bending. The
theoretical utmost tensile stress at the bottom side at failure is calculated. This is known
as the modulus of rupture. It is about 1.5 times the tensile stress decided by the splitting
test.
CHAPTER 5
EXPERIMENTAL WORKS
5.1 Material Testing
5.1.1 Cement Fineness Test:-
Table 5.1 Cement Fineness Test
Weight of Weight of Cement
Cement in (gms) retained on 90 mic. % of Fineness
Trial No (A) Sieve (B) (B/A) X100 Average
1 200 13 6.5
2 200 10.5 5.3 5.6
3 200 11.3 5.7
5.1.2 Consistency, Initial and Final Setting Time Test

Table 5.2 Consistency, Initial and Final Setting Time Test
Trail Wt. of plain cement Penetration

Water in cc % of water
No. in gm in mm
1 400 116 29 10
2 400 122 30.5 8
3 400 126 31.5 5
Standardbred Consistency 31.5 Limit: 5 to 7 mm
Initial setting Time 55 Minutes Minimum 30 Minutes
Final setting Time 165 Minutes Max. 600 Minutes
5.1.3 Cement Mortar Compressive Strength
Table 5.3 Cement Mortar Compressive Strength
SPC. AGE Testing Date AREA Max. Cmp. Strenth Average Remark
NO. (DAYS) (KN) (sq.mm) Load (N/mm2) Strenth
(N/mm2)
1 3 13/01/2016 2500 41 16.4
2 3 13/01/2016 2500 41 16.4
3 3 13/01/2016 2500 40 16 18.6 OPC
4 7 17/01/2016 2500 52 20.8
5 7 17/01/2016 2500 55 22
6 7 17/01/2016 2500 50 20
5.1.4 Determination of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption

Table 5.4 Determination of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption20 mm aggregate
S.N. Description 1 2 3 Avg.
1 Wt. of surface saturated dry 2592 2528 2685
aggregate in air (B) Kg.
2 Wt. of oven dry aggregate (A) Kg. 2545 2480 2635
3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water 856 864 840
(C) Kg.
4 Wt. of aggregate + 2509 2472 2561
Pycnometer/Basket+water (D) Kg.
5 Specific gravity A/(B - (D-C)) 2.71 2.70 2.73 2.71
6 Water absorption (%) 1.85 1.95 1.90 1.90
=(B-A)/A X100
Remark:
Table 5.5 Determination Of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption10 mm aggregate
1 Wt. of surface saturated dry 2602 2540 2685
aggregate in air (B) Kg.
3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water 856 860 852

(C) Kg.
4 Wt. of aggregate + 2590 2472 2561

6 Water absorption (%) 1.88 1.93 1.90 1.90

=(B-A)/A X100
Remark:

Table 5.6 Determination Of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption Natural sand
1 Wt. of surface saturated dry aggregate in air 510 501 496
(B) Kg.

3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water (C) Kg. 1492 1490 1490
4 Wt. of aggregate + 1809 1807 1796
6 Water absorption (%) =(B-A)/A X100 0.79 0.60 0.81 0.74

Remark:
Table 5.7 Determination of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption Crusher Dust
1 Wt. of surface saturated dry aggregate in air 510 501 496

(B) Kg.
3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water (C) Kg. 1492 1490 1490
4 Wt. of aggregate + Pycnometer/Basket+water 1809 1807 1796

(D) Kg.
6 Water absorption (%) =(B-A)/A X100 0.79 0.60 0.81 0.74
5.1.8 Sieve Analysis of Coarse Aggregates (As per IS: 383-1970 Table -2)
Table 5.8 Sieve analysis of coarse aggregates 20 mm aggregate 5000 gm sample
IS
Wt. CUMULATIVE
SEIVE CUMULATIVE CUMULATIVE SPECIFICATION
RETAINED RETAINED
SIZE % RETAINED % PASSING LIMITS
(gm) (gm)
(mm)
40 0 0 0 100 100
20 190 190 3.8 96.20 85-100
10 4040 4230 84.60 15.40 0-20
4.75 610 4840 96.80 3.20 0-5
5.1.9 SIEVE ANALYSIS OF COARSE AGGREGATES (As per IS: 383-1970 Table -2)
Table 5.9 Sieve analysis of coarse aggregates 10 mm aggregate5000 gm sample
IS
Wt. CUMULATIVE
RETAINED RETAINED
(gm) (gm)
(mm)
12.5 0 0 0 100 100
10 165 165 3.3 96.70 95-100
4.75 4110 4275 85.50 14.50 0-20
2.36 605 4880 97.60 2.4 0-5
5.1.10 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates (As per MORTH Table 1000 -2)
Table 5.10 Sieve Analysis of Fine Aggregates/ natural sand
IS
Wt. CUMULATIVE
RETAINED RETAINED
(gm) (gm)
(mm)
10 0 0 0 100 100
4.75 420 420 4.2 95.8 90-100
2.36 1050 1470 14.7 85.3 75-100
1.18 1190 2660 26.6 73.4 55-90
600 μ 220 5380 53.8 46.2 35-59
300 μ 5410 8130 81.3 18.7 8-30
150 μ 4260 9670 96.2 3.8 0-10
FINENESS MODULUS OF SAND = 2.77 %
5.1.11 Aggregate Impact Value (As per IS 2386 Part- IV)
Table 5.11 Aggregate Impact Value
SN DESCRIPTION TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 AVG.

Total wt. of the aggregate taken
1 384 378 380
W1 (gm)
Wt. of aggregate retained om 2.36
2 329 326 330
mm IS seive W2 (gm)
Wt. of aggregate passing on2.36 mm
3 55 52 50
IS seive W3= W1-W2 (gm)
Aggregate impact value (W3/W1) x
4 14.47 13.58 13.90 13.85
100 in %
5.1.12 Flakiness & Elongation Index

Table 5.12 Flakiness & Elongation Index
Weight of agg.in Weight of Non-

SIEVE Weight of Weight of agg.in each
each fraction Flaky agg. taken
SN SIZE agg.in each fraction not passing
passing thickness in each fraction
(mm) fraction (gm) the length gauge (gm)
gauge (gm) (gm)
1 25-20 5570 750 4820 210
2 20-16 3120 610 2510 170
3 16-12.5 1500 305 1195 140
4 12.5-10 1480 240 1240 129
5 10-6.3 830 120 710 100
W1=12500 W2=2025 W1= 10475 W2=749
(W1/W2)x100 = 16.20 % (W1/W2)x100 = 7.15 %
5.1.13 Slump Cone Tests
Grade of Concrete: M-20
Cement content: 360 Kg/cum.
Water/Cement : 0.42
Table 5.13 (a) Slump Cone Tests
Percentage of stone dust River sand Slump Value
0 100 60
10 90 55
20 80 55
30 70 50
40 60 48
50 50 45
60 40 45
70 30 40
80 20 40
90 10 38
100 0 35
Grade of Concrete : M-30

Cement content : 380 Kg/cum.
Water/Cement : 0.42
Table 5.13 (b) Slump Cone Tests
0 100 65
10 90 60
20 80 59
30 70 56
40 60 53
50 50 49
60 40 46
70 30 42
80 20 40
90 10 35
100 0 28
5.14 IS CODE METHOD OF Concrete Mix Design of M-20 Grade Concrete:- Design of
M30 concrete mix as per IS:10262-2009, Concrete mix proportioning-guidelines.
1. Target Mean Strength from the Specified Characteristic Strength
Target mean strength = specified characteristic strength + standard deviation × risk factor
fck = 20 + 1.65 X 4
fck = 26.6 N/mm2

Table 5.14: Quantities per cubic meter for trial mixes (M20)
STONE Fine Coarse

w/c STONE Cement Water
Mix DUST Aggregates Aggregates
Ratio DUST % (kg/m3) (l/m3)
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
M1 0.5 0 0 338 787 1082 197
M2 0.5 10 78.7 338 708.3 1082 197
M3 0.5 20 157.4 338 629.6 1082 197
M4 0.5 30 314.8 338 472.2 1082 197
M5 0.5 40 314.8 338 472.2 1082 197
M6 0.5 50 393.5 338 393.5 1082 197
M7 0.5 60 472.2 338 314.8 1082 197
M8 0.5 70 550.9 338 236.1 1082 197
M9 0.5 80 629.6 338 157.4 1082 197
M10 0.5 90 708.3 338 78.7 1082 197
M11 0.5 100 787 338 0 1082 197
5.15 IS CODE METHOD OF Concrete Mix Design of M-30 Grade Concrete:- Design of
M30 concrete mix as per IS:10262-2009, Concrete mix proportioning-guidelines.
1. Target Mean Strength from the Specified Characteristic Strength
Target mean strength = specified characteristic strength + standard deviation × risk factor
fck = 30 + 1.65 X 5
fck = 38.25 N/mm2
Table 5.15: Quantities per cubic meter for trial mixes (M30)
STONE Fine Coarse

w/c STONE Cement Water
Mix DUST Aggregates Aggregates
Ratio DUST % (kg/m3) (l/m3)
(kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
N1 0.43 0 0 394 635 1183 172
N2 0.43 10 63.5 394 571.5 1183 172
N3 0.43 20 127 394 508 1183 172
N4 0.43 30 254 394 381 1183 172
N5 0.43 40 254 394 381 1183 172
N6 0.43 50 317.5 394 317.5 1183 172
N7 0.43 60 381 394 254 1183 172
N8 0.43 70 444.5 394 190.5 1183 172
N9 0.43 80 508 394 127 1183 172
N10 0.43 90 571.5 394 63.5 1183 172
N11 0.43 100 635 394 0 1183 172
5.1.16 Compressive Strength test:- It is carried out on specimen cubes of Concrete blended
with 0% to 100% replacements to sand by stone dust b in Concrete at 7 and 28 days of curing
with compression testing machine (M-20 Grade).
Table 5.16 Stone Dust (0 %) Compressive Strength of M-20

Test Area Max. Load Average Max. Comp. Strength
S. No. Volume (Cum)
(mm2) (KN) Load (KN) (N/mm2)
7 DAYS COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH RESULTS
1 0.00338 22500 340
2 0.00338 22500 320 333.33 14.81
3 0.00338 22500 340
4 0.00338 22500 530
5 0.00338 22500 530 533.33 23.70
6 0.00338 22500 540

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 350
2 0.00338 22500 350 353.33 15.70
3 0.00338 22500 360
4 0.00338 22500 550
5 0.00338 22500 540 543.33 24.15
6 0.00338 22500 540
Comp.
Volume Test Area Max. Load Average Max.
S.No. Strength
(Cum) (mm2) (KN) Load (KN)
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 370
2 0.00338 22500 360 360 16.00
3 0.00338 22500 350
4 0.00338 22500 540
5 0.00338 22500 560 580.00 25.78
6 0.00338 22500 640

Comp.
S.No. Strength
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 340
2 0.00338 22500 415 373.33 16.59
3 0.00338 22500 365
4 0.00338 22500 590
5 0.00338 22500 590 593.33 26.37
6 0.00338 22500 600

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 380
2 0.00338 22500 450 423.33 18.81
3 0.00338 22500 440
4 0.00338 22500 600
5 0.00338 22500 610 610.00 27.11
6 0.00338 22500 620
Test Area Average Max. Comp. Strength

S.No. Volume (Cum) Max. Load (KN)
(mm2) Load (KN) (N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 380
2 0.00338 22500 420 406.67 18.07
3 0.00338 22500 420
4 0.00338 22500 630
5 0.00338 22500 640 636.67 28.30
6 0.00338 22500 640

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 380
2 0.00338 22500 400 396.67 17.63
3 0.00338 22500 410
4 0.00338 22500 620
5 0.00338 22500 600 610.00 27.11
6 0.00338 22500 610

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 380
2 0.00338 22500 370 370 16.44
3 0.00338 22500 360
4 0.00338 22500 580
5 0.00338 22500 580 576.67 25.63
6 0.00338 22500 570

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 370
2 0.00338 22500 360 363.33 16.15
3 0.00338 22500 360
4 0.00338 22500 560
5 0.00338 22500 560 556.67 24.74
6 0.00338 22500 550

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 360
2 0.00338 22500 330 343.33 15.26
3 0.00338 22500 340
4 0.00338 22500 550
5 0.00338 22500 540 540.00 24.00
6 0.00338 22500 530
S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 330
2 0.00338 22500 340 336.67 14.96
3 0.00338 22500 340
4 0.00338 22500 500
5 0.00338 22500 510 506.67 22.52
6 0.00338 22500 510

5.1.17 Compressive Strength test:- It is carried out on specimen cubes of Concrete blended
with 0% to 100% replacements to sand by stone dust b in Concrete at 7 and 28 days of curing
with compression testing machine (M-30 Grade).

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 500
2 0.00338 22500 510 510.00 22.67
3 0.00338 22500 520
4 0.00338 22500 740
5 0.00338 22500 750 746.67 33.19
6 0.00338 22500 750

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 520
2 0.00338 22500 520 516.67 22.96
3 0.00338 22500 510
4 0.00338 22500 780
5 0.00338 22500 780 776.67 34.52
6 0.00338 22500 770

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 530
2 0.00338 22500 540 536.67 23.85
3 0.00338 22500 540
4 0.00338 22500 780
5 0.00338 22500 790 786.67 34.96
6 0.00338 22500 790

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 540
2 0.00338 22500 540 543.33 24.15
3 0.00338 22500 550
4 0.00338 22500 800
5 0.00338 22500 800 803.33 35.70
6 0.00338 22500 810

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 550
2 0.00338 22500 560 553.33 24.59
3 0.00338 22500 550
4 0.00338 22500 820
5 0.00338 22500 830 826.67 36.74
6 0.00338 22500 830
Comp.
S.No. Strength
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 570
2 0.00338 22500 570 566.67 25.19
3 0.00338 22500 560
4 0.00338 22500 860
5 0.00338 22500 850 853.33 37.93
6 0.00338 22500 850

Comp.
S.No. Strength
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 560
2 0.00338 22500 540 546.67 24.30
3 0.00338 22500 540
4 0.00338 22500 830
5 0.00338 22500 830 830.00 36.89
6 0.00338 22500 830
Comp.
Test Area Max. Load Average Max.
S.No. Volume (Cum) Strength
(mm2) (KN) Load (KN)
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 540
2 0.00338 22500 530 533.33 23.70
3 0.00338 22500 530
4 0.00338 22500 800
5 0.00338 22500 800 803.33 35.70
6 0.00338 22500 810

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 520
2 0.00338 22500 520 520.00 23.11
3 0.00338 22500 520
4 0.00338 22500 780
5 0.00338 22500 760 766.67 34.07
6 0.00338 22500 760
Comp.
Test Area Max. Load Average Max.
S.No. Volume (Cum) Strength
(mm2) (KN) Load (KN)
(N/mm2)
1 0.00338 22500 500
2 0.00338 22500 510 503.33 22.37
3 0.00338 22500 500
4 0.00338 22500 750
5 0.00338 22500 740 743.33 33.04
6 0.00338 22500 740

S.No. Volume (Cum)
1 0.00338 22500 480
2 0.00338 22500 460 466.67 20.74
3 0.00338 22500 460
4 0.00338 22500 720
5 0.00338 22500 710 710.00 31.56
6 0.00338 22500 700
5.1.18 Flexural strength test:- It is carried out on specimen beams of Concrete blended with
0% to 100% replacements to sand by stone dust b in Concrete at 7 and 28 days of curing with
Flexural strength (M-20 Grade).
Table: 5.38 Results of Flexural strength (N/mm2) on M-20 ( 0% Stone Dust)

Size of Average
Span Flexural
Sr. Age of Specimen (mm) Maximum Flexural
Length strength
No. Specimen Load (KN) strength
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 8.7 1.5
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 9.2 1.6 1.59
3 150 22500 600 8.9 1.6
4 150 22500 600 20.1 3.6
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 20 3.6 3.53
6 150 22500 600 19.5 3.5
Size of
Average
Specimen Span Flexural
Age of Maximum Flexural
Sr. No. (mm) Length strength
Specimen Load (KN) strength
(mm) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 9.9 1.8
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 10.4 1.8 1.80
3 150 22500 600 10.1 1.8
4 150 22500 600 21.3 3.8
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 21.2 3.8 3.75
6 150 22500 600 20.7 3.7
Size of
Specimen Average
Span Flexural
Age of (mm) Maximum Flexural
Sr. No. Length strength
(mm) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 10.5 1.9
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 10.9 1.9 1.90
3 150 22500 600 10.6 1.9
4 150 22500 600 21.8 3.9
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 21.7 3.9 3.83
6 150 22500 600 21.2 3.8
Size of
Specimen Average
Span Flexural
Age of (mm) Maximum Flexural
(mm) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 10.6 1.9
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 11 2.0 1.91
3 150 22500 600 10.7 1.9
4 150 22500 600 21.9 3.9
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 21.8 3.9 3.85
6 150 22500 600 21.3 3.8
Size of Average
Specimen (mm) Span Flexural
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 12.9 2.3
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 13.3 2.4 2.32
3 150 22500 600 13 2.3
4 150 22500 600 24.2 4.3
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 24.1 4.3 4.26
6 150 22500 600 23.6 4.2
Size of Average
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 13.9 2.5
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 14.3 2.5 2.50
3 150 22500 600 14 2.5
4 150 22500 600 25.2 4.5
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 25.1 4.5 4.44
6 150 22500 600 24.6 4.4
Size of Average
Sr. Age of Maximum Flexural
Length strength
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 12.9 2.3
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 13.3 2.4 2.32
3 150 22500 600 13 2.3
4 150 22500 600 24.2 4.3
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 24.1 4.3 4.26
6 150 22500 600 23.6 4.2
Size of Average
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 12.3 2.2
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 12.7 2.3 2.22
3 150 22500 600 12.4 2.2
4 150 22500 600 23.6 4.2
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 23.5 4.2 4.15
6 150 22500 600 23 4.1
Size of Average
Length strength
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
150 22500 600 11.7 2.1
7 Days 150 22500 600 12.1 2.2 2.11
150 22500 600 11.8 2.1
150 22500 600 23 4.1
28 Days 150 22500 600 22.9 4.1 4.05
150 22500 600 22.4 4.0
Size of
Specimen Average
Span Flexural
Sr. Age of (mm) Maximum Flexural
Length strength
(mm) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
10.2 1.8
1 150 22500 600
10.6 1.9 1.84

2 7 Days 150 22500 600
10.3 1.8
3 150 22500 600
21.5 3.8
4 150 22500 600
21.4 3.8 3.78

5 28 Days 150 22500 600
20.9 3.7
6 150 22500 600
Table: 5.48 Results of Flexural strength (N/mm2) on M-20 ( 100% Stone
Dust)
Size of Average
Specimen Span Maximum Flexural
Age of Flexural
Sr. No. (mm) Length Load strength
Specimen strength
(mm) (KN) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
8.1 1.4
1 150 22500 600
8.5 1.5 1.47
2 7 Days 150 22500 600
8.2 1.5
3 150 22500 600
19.4 3.4
4 150 22500 600
19.3 3.4 3.41
5 28 Days 150 22500 600
18.8 3.3
6 150 22500 600
5.1.19 Flexural strength test:- It is carried out on specimen beams of Concrete blended with
0% to 100% replacements to sand by stone dust b in Concrete at 7 and 28 days of curing with
Flexural strength (M-30 Grade).

Size of Average
Span Flexural
Age of Specimen (mm) Maximum Flexural
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 12.9 2.3
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 12.5 2.2 2.27
3 150 22500 600 12.9 2.3
4 150 22500 600 24.4 4.3
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 23.9 4.2 4.31
6 150 22500 600 24.5 4.4
Size of Average
Span Maximum Flexural
Age of Specimen (mm) Flexural
Sr. No. Length Load strength
Specimen strength
b d (mm) (KN) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 13.2 2.3
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 12.8 2.3 2.32
3 150 22500 600 13.2 2.3
4 150 22500 600 24.7 4.4
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 24.2 4.3 4.37
6 150 22500 600 24.8 4.4
Size of Average
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 13.6 2.4
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 13.2 2.3 2.39
3 150 22500 600 13.6 2.4
4 150 22500 600 24.8 4.4
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 24.6 4.4 4.40
6 150 22500 600 24.9 4.4
Size of Average
Span Flexural
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 14.1 2.5
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 13.7 2.4 2.48
3 150 22500 600 14.1 2.5
4 150 22500 600 25.6 4.6
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 25.1 4.5 4.53
6 150 22500 600 25.7 4.6
Size of
Specimen Average
Span Maximum Flexural
Age of (mm) Flexural
Sr. No. Length Load strength
Specimen strength
(mm) (KN) (N/mm2)
b d (N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 15.2 2.7
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 14.8 2.6 2.68
3 150 22500 600 15.2 2.7
4 150 22500 600 26.7 4.7
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 26.2 4.7 4.72
6 150 22500 600 26.8 4.8
Size of Average
Span Flexural
B d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 16.4 2.9
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 16 2.8 2.89
3 150 22500 600 16.4 2.9
4 150 22500 600 27.9 5.0
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 27.4 4.9 4.94
6 150 22500 600 28 5.0
Size of Average
b D (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 15.1 2.7
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 14.7 2.6 2.66
3 150 22500 600 15.1 2.7
4 150 22500 600 26.6 4.7
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 26.1 4.6 4.71
6 150 22500 600 26.7 4.7
Size of Average
B d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 13.7 2.4
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 13.3 2.4 2.41
3 150 22500 600 13.7 2.4
4 150 22500 600 25.2 4.5
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 24.7 4.4 4.46
6 150 22500 600 25.3 4.5
Size of Average
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 12.2 2.2
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 11.8 2.1 2.15
3 150 22500 600 12.2 2.2
4 150 22500 600 23.7 4.2
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 23.2 4.1 4.19
6 150 22500 600 23.8 4.2
Size of Average
Span Flexural
b d (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 11.1 2.0
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 10.7 1.9 1.95
3 150 22500 600 11.1 2.0
4 150 22500 600 22.6 4.0
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 22.1 3.9 3.99
6 150 22500 600 22.7 4.0
Size of Specimen Average

(mm) Span Flexural
b D (mm) (N/mm2)
(N/mm2)
1 150 22500 600 10.5 1.9
2 7 Days 150 22500 600 10.1 1.8 1.84
3 150 22500 600 10.5 1.9
4 150 22500 600 22 3.9
5 28 Days 150 22500 600 21.5 3.8 3.89
6 150 22500 600 22.1 3.9
CHAPTER 6
RESSULTS
6.1 Workability (Slump Cone Test) (M-20)
Table 6.1 Slump Cone Tests M-20
0 100 60
10 90 55
20 80 55
30 70 50
40 60 48
50 50 45
60 40 45
70 30 40
80 20 40
90 10 38
100 0 35
Slump Value
70
60
50
Slump Value
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage of stone dust
Fig 6.1 Slump Cone Tests M-20
6.2 Workability (Slump Cone Test) (M-30)
Table 6.2 Slump Cone Tests M-30

0 100 65
10 90 60
20 80 59
30 70 56
40 60 53
50 50 49
60 40 46
70 30 42
80 20 40
90 10 35
100 0 28
Slump Value
70
60
50
Slump Value
40
30
20
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Percentage of stone dust
Fig. 6.2 Slump Cone Tests M-30
6.3 Compressive Strength: - Compressive strength of concrete is determined by compression
testing machine after 7 Day & 28 Day Respectively.
Table 6.3 Compressive strength for M-20 grade Sample
% of Stone Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Serial no.
Dust
7 days 28 days
1 0 14.81 23.7
2 10 15.7 24.15
3 20 16 25.78
4 30 16.59 26.37
5 40 18.81 27.11
6 50 18.07 28.3
7 60 17.63 27.11
8 70 16.44 25.63
9 80 16.15 24.74
10 90 15.26 24
11 100 14.96 22.52
Compressive Strength for M-20

30 28.3
27.11 27.11
25.78 26.37 25.63
24.15 24.74
24
25 23.7
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (N/MM2)
22.52
18.81
20 18.07 17.63
16 16.59 16.44 16.15
15.7 15.26 14.96
14.81
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF STONE DUST
Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 7 days Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 28 days
Fig. 6.3 Compressive strength for M-20 grade Sample
Table 6.4 Compressive strength for M-30 grade Sample
% of Stone Compressive Strength (N/mm2)

Serial no.
Dust
7 days 28 days
1 0 22.67 33.19
2 10 22.96 34.52
3 20 23.85 34.96
4 30 24.15 35.7
5 40 24.59 36.74
6 50 25.19 37.93
7 60 24.3 36.89
8 70 23.7 35.7
9 80 23.11 34.07
10 90 22.37 33.04
11 100 20.74 31.56
Compressive Strength for M-20

40 37.93
36.74 36.89
34.96 35.7 35.7
34.52 34.07
3533.19 33.04
31.56
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (N/MM2)
30
24.59 25.19
23.85 24.15 24.3 23.7
2522.67 22.96 23.11 22.37
20.74
20
15
10
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF STONE DUST
Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 7 days Compressive Strength (N/mm2) 28 days
Fig. 6.4 Compressive strength for M-30 grade Sample
6.4 Flexural strength: - Flexural strength of concrete is determined by compression testing
machine after 7 Day & 28 Day Respectively.
Table 6.5 Flexural strength for M-20 grade Sample
% of Stone Flexural strength (N/mm2)

Serial no.
Dust
7 days 28 days
1 0 1.59 3.53
2 10 1.8 3.75
3 20 1.9 3.83
4 30 1.91 3.85
5 40 2.32 4.26
6 50 2.5 4.44
7 60 2.32 4.26
8 70 2.22 4.15
9 80 2.11 4.05
10 90 1.84 3.78
11 100 1.47 3.41
Flexural strength for M-20

5
4.44
4.5 4.26 4.26
4.15
4.05
FLEXURAL STRENGTH (N/MM2)
3.83 3.85 3.78

4 3.75
3.53
3.41
3.5
3
2.5
2.5 2.32 2.32
2.22
2.11
1.9 1.91 1.84
2 1.8
1.59
1.47
1.5
0.5
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF STONE DUST
Flexural strength (N/mm2) 7 days Flexural strength (N/mm2) 28 days
Fig. 6.5 Flexural strength for M-20 grade Sample
Table 6.6 Flexural strength for M-30 grade Sample
% of Stone Flexural strength (N/mm2)

Serial no.
Dust 7 days 28 days
1 0 2.27 4.31
2 10 2.32 4.37
3 20 2.39 4.40
4 30 2.48 4.53
5 40 2.68 4.72
6 50 2.89 4.94
7 60 2.66 4.71
8 70 2.41 4.46
9 80 2.15 4.19
10 90 1.95 3.99
11 100 1.84 3.89
Flexural strength for M-30

6
5
FLEXURAL STRENGTH (N/MM2)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
% OF STONE DUST
Flexural strength (N/mm2) 7 days Flexural strength (N/mm2) 28 days
Fig. 6.6 Flexural strength for M-30 grade Sample
CHAPTER-7
CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE
7.1 CONCLUSION:-
1. Slump value of M-20 and M-30 grades of concrete made using stone dust decreases
slump value with increase in replacement of stone dust to river sand.
2. compressive strength of M-20 grades of concrete bye replacement of natural sand to
stone dust initially increase compressive strength (1.90% to19.41%) with increasing
the stone dust (10% to 50%) and then decreases (14.39% to -4.98%).
3. compressive strength of M-30 grades of concrete bye replacement of natural sand to
stone dust initially increase compressive strength (4.01% to 14.28%) with increasing
the stone dust (10% to 50%) and then decreases (11.15% to -4.91%).
4. Maximum compressive strength is also at 50 % replacement. The percentage of
increase compared with control concrete for M20 and M30 respectively.
5. flexural strength of M-20 grades of concrete bye replacement of natural sand to stone
dust initially increase flexural strength (6.23% to 25.78%) with increasing the stone
dust (10% to 50%) and then decreases (20.68% to -3.40%).
6. flexural strength of M-30 grades of concrete bye replacement of natural sand to stone
dust initially increase flexural strength (1.39% to 14.62%) with increasing the stone
dust (10% to 50%) and then decreases (9.28% to -9.78%).
7. Maximum flexural strength is also at 50 % replacement. The percentage of increase
compared with control concrete for M20 and M30 respectively.
7.2 FUTURE SCOPE:-
1. Stone dust has tremendous potential in developing countries like India.
2. The use of industrial wastes as well construction waste together in a mix and its
effects on the strength properties, fresh properties and durability properties proves to
be exciting research work in the future.
3. In addition to this, the presence of both kinds of industrial and construction wastes in
Concrete.
4. The use of both industrial waste like GGBS, etc and Stone dust has the potential to
eliminate the need for mining new aggregates.
REFERENCES
1. Jena, S. and Panda, K.C., 2019. Influence of Fly Ash and Silpozz on the Concrete
Containing Crusher Dust as Sand Replacement Material. In Recent Advances in
Structural Engineering, Volume 1 (pp. 803-815). Springer, Singapore.
2. Bansal, H. and Kumar, M., 2018. Experimental study on Use of Stone Dust as a Partial
Replacement of Fine Aggregates in concrete as a Rigid Pavement.
3. Bansal, H. and Kumar, M., 2018. Review on Use of Stone Dust as a Partial Replacement
of Fine Aggregates in concrete as a Rigid Pavement.
4. Das, B. and Gattu, M., 2018. Study on Performance of Quarry Dust as Fine Aggregate in
Concrete.
5. Reddy, p.m. and azaruddin, s., 2017. An experimental investigation on the strength
properties of concrete by partial replacement of cement with stone dust and fine
aggregate with crushed fine aggregate.
6. Pilegis, M., Gardner, D. and Lark, R., 2016. An investigation into the use of
manufactured sand as a 100% replacement for fine aggregate in concrete. Materials, 9(6),
p.440.
7. Prasanna K. Acharya and Sanjaya K. Patro (2016), Use of ferrochrome ash (FCA) and
lime dust in concrete preparation, Journal of Cleaner Production Volume 131, 10
September 2016, Pages 237–246.
8. Gaurav Singh, Souvik Das a, Abdulaziz Abdullahi Ahmed a, Showmen Saha b, Somnath
Karmakar (2015), Study of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as Fine Aggregates in
Concrete for Sustainable Infrastructure, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Volume 195, 3 July 2015, Pages 2272-2279.
9. Gaurav Singh et al. (2015), Study of Granulated Blast Furnace Slag as Fine Aggregates in
Concrete for Sustainable Infrastructure, Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences,
Volume 195, 3 July 2015, Pages 2272-2279.
10. G. Fares (2015), Effect of slump cone orientation on the slump flow time (T50) and
stability of sustainable self-compacting concrete containing limestone filler, Construction
and Building Materials, Volume 77, 15 February 2015, Pages 145–153.
11. Antonios Kanellopoulos, Demetrios Nicolaidesb, Michael F. Petrou(2014), Mechanical
and durability properties of concretes containing recycled lime powder and recycled
aggregates, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 53, 28 February 2014, Pages
253–259.
12. Sallehan Ismail, ,Mahyuddin Ramli (2014), Mechanical strength and drying shrinkage
properties of concrete containing treated coarse recycled concrete aggregates,
Construction and Building Materials, Volume 68, 15 October 2014, Pages 726–739.
13. Liqun Hu, Jingxian Hao and Linbing Wang(2014), Laboratory evaluation of cement
treated aggregate containing crushed clay brick, Journal of Traffic and Transportation
Engineering (English Edition), Volume 1, Issue 5, October 2014, Pages 371–382.
14. Nabajyoti Saikia, Jorge de Brito(2012), Use of plastic waste as aggregate in cement
mortar and concrete preparation: A review, Construction and Building Materials, Volume
34, September 2012, Pages 385–401.
15. Jongsung Sim, Cheolwoo Park (2011), Compressive strength and resistance to chloride
ion penetration and carbonation of recycled aggregate concrete with varying amount of
fly ash and fine recycled aggregate, Waste Management, Volume 31, Issue 11, November
2011, Pages 2352–2360.
16. Khalifa S. Al-Jabri, , Abdullah H. Al-Saidy and Ramzi Taha (2011), Effect of copper slag
as a fine aggregate on the properties of cement mortars and concrete, Construction and
Building Materials, Volume 25, Issue 2, February 2011, Pages 933–938, Composite
Materials and Adhesive Bonding Technology.
17. S.A. Abukersh and C.A. Fairfield (2011), Recycled aggregate concrete produced with red
granite dust as a partial cement replacement, Construction and Building Materials,
Volume 25, Issue 10, October 2011, Pages 4088–4094.
18. Hameed, M. S. and Sekar A. S. S., 2009, “Properties of green concrete containing quarry
rock dust and Marble sludge powder as fine aggregates”, ARPN journal of Engineering
and applied Science, Vol.4(4), pp 83-89.
19. Ilangovana, R. Mahendrana, N. and Nagamanib, K., 2008, “Strength and durability
properties of concrete containing quarry rock dust as fine aggregates”, ARPN Journal of
Engineering and Applied Science, Vol.3(5), pp 20-26.
20. K.S. Al-Jabri, , R.A. Taha, A. Al-Hashmi and A.S. Al-Harthy, (2006), Effect of copper
slag and cement by-pass dust addition on mechanical properties of concrete, Construction
and Building Materials, Volume 20, Issue 5, June 2006, Pages 322–331.
21. IS 15658:2006, Precast concrete blocks for paving page, “Bureau of Indian Standard”,
New Delhi.
22. IS: 15658:2006, Pre cast concrete block for paving, Bureau of Indian Standard”, New
Delhi.
23. Jayawardhane, U. De s and Dissanayake, D. M. S., 2006, “Use of quarry dust instead of
river sand for future construction in Sri Lanka”, The Geological Society of London, AEG
200E, paper no-38, pp 1-4.
24. IS 2185(part-1): 2005, Concrete masonry units-specification: Part 1 hollow and solid
concrete blocks, “Bureau of Indian Standard”, New Delhi.
25. Raman, S. N. M., Zain, F. M., Mahmud H. B. & Tan, K. S., 2005 “Influence of quarry
dust & fly ash on the concrete compressive strength development”. Proc. AEESEAP Int.
Conf. 2005. Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 7-8 Jun 2005.
26. I.J Graham, R.L Goguel and D.A St John (2000), Use of strontium isotopes to determine
the origin of cement in concretes: Case examples from New Zealand, Cement and
Concrete Research, Volume 30, Issue 7, July 2000, Pages 1105–1111.
27. Marmash,KS Elliott(2000), The properties of recycled precast concrete hollow core slabs
for use as replacement aggregate in concrete, Waste Management Series, Volume 1,
2000, Pages 769–781.
28. Rolf K. Eckhoff (2003),Dust Explosions—Origin, Propagation, Prevention, and
Mitigation: An Overview, Dust Explosions in the Process Industries (Third Edition)
2003, Pages 1–156.
29. Tahir Çelik, Khaled Marar (1996), Effects of crushed stone dust on some properties of
concrete, Cement and Concrete Research, Volume 26, Issue 7, July 1996, Pages 1121-
1130.
30. Ahmed A. E. K., 1989, “Properties of concrete incorporating natural and crushed sand
very fine sand”, ACE Material Journal, Vol. 86(4), pp 417-424.
PAPER PUBLISHED
Ashwini Umariya and M.C. Paliwal (2019), “A Review: Laboratory Investigation in Concrete
Mix Design and using by Replacing Stone (Crusher) Dust as Sand” IJSRD - International Journal
for Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 7, Issue 05, July 2019 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613
Ashwini Umariya and M.C. Paliwal (2019), “Laboratory Investigation in Concrete Mix Design
and using by Replacing Stone (Crusher) Dust as Sand” IJSRD - International Journal for
Scientific Research & Development| Vol. 7, Issue 05, July 2019 | ISSN (online): 2321-0613

3laboratory Investigation in Concrete Mix Design and Using by Replacing Stone

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

3laboratory Investigation in Concrete Mix Design and Using by Replacing Stone

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

CHAPTER-1

FIG 4.1: Vicat Apparatus

FIG 4.2: Sieve Analysis

Fig 4.4 Slump cone test

5.1.2 Consistency, Initial and Final Setting Time Test

Trail Wt. of plain cement Penetration

2 400 122 30.5 8

3 400 126 31.5 5

Standardbred Consistency 31.5 Limit: 5 to 7 mm

Initial setting Time 55 Minutes Minimum 30 Minutes

Final setting Time 165 Minutes Max. 600 Minutes

2 3 13/01/2016 2500 41 16.4

3 3 13/01/2016 2500 40 16 18.6 OPC

4 7 17/01/2016 2500 52 20.8

5.1.4 Determination of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption

2 Wt. of oven dry aggregate (A) Kg. 2584 2492 2635

3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water 856 860 852

4 Wt. of aggregate + 2590 2472 2561

5 Specific gravity A/(B - (D-C)) 2.69 2.69 2.70 2.69

6 Water absorption (%) 1.88 1.93 1.90 1.90

5.1.6 Determination of Specific Gravity & Water Absorption

2 Wt. of oven dry aggregate (A) Kg. 506 498 492

5 Specific gravity A/(B - (D-C)) 2.65 2.71 2.59 2.65

6 Water absorption (%) =(B-A)/A X100 0.79 0.60 0.81 0.74

1 Wt. of surface saturated dry aggregate in air 510 501 496

2 Wt. of oven dry aggregate (A) Kg. 506 498 492

3 Wt. of Pycnometer /Basket+water (C) Kg. 1492 1490 1490

4 Wt. of aggregate + Pycnometer/Basket+water 1809 1807 1796

5 Specific gravity A/(B - (D-C)) 2.65 2.71 2.59 2.65

6 Water absorption (%) =(B-A)/A X100 0.79 0.60 0.81 0.74

20 190 190 3.8 96.20 85-100

10 4040 4230 84.60 15.40 0-20

4.75 610 4840 96.80 3.20 0-5

12.5 0 0 0 100 100

10 165 165 3.3 96.70 95-100

4.75 4110 4275 85.50 14.50 0-20

2.36 605 4880 97.60 2.4 0-5

SN DESCRIPTION TEST 1 TEST 2 TEST 3 AVG.

5.1.12 Flakiness & Elongation Index

Weight of agg.in Weight of Non-

1 25-20 5570 750 4820 210

2 20-16 3120 610 2510 170

3 16-12.5 1500 305 1195 140

4 12.5-10 1480 240 1240 129

5 10-6.3 830 120 710 100

W1=12500 W2=2025 W1= 10475 W2=749

(W1/W2)x100 = 16.20 % (W1/W2)x100 = 7.15 %

Grade of Concrete : M-30

fck = 26.6 N/mm2

STONE Fine Coarse

M1 0.5 0 0 338 787 1082 197

M2 0.5 10 78.7 338 708.3 1082 197

M3 0.5 20 157.4 338 629.6 1082 197

M4 0.5 30 314.8 338 472.2 1082 197

M5 0.5 40 314.8 338 472.2 1082 197

M6 0.5 50 393.5 338 393.5 1082 197

M7 0.5 60 472.2 338 314.8 1082 197

M8 0.5 70 550.9 338 236.1 1082 197

M9 0.5 80 629.6 338 157.4 1082 197

M10 0.5 90 708.3 338 78.7 1082 197

M11 0.5 100 787 338 0 1082 197

STONE Fine Coarse