Anda di halaman 1dari 6

International Journal of Civil Engineering

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL and Technology


OF CIVIL (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308
ENGINEERING AND (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME
TECHNOLOGY (IJCIET)

ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print) IJCIET


ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online)
Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26
© IAEME: www.iaeme.com/Ijciet.asp
Journal Impact Factor (2015): 9.1215 (Calculated by GISI) ©IAEME
www.jifactor.com

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF CONCRETE USING


NATURAL AGGREGATES (GRAVEL) AND CRUSHED
ROCK AGGREGATES-A COMPARATIVE CASE STUDY

Zahid Ahmad Chat1, Umer Salam2 Shahid Bashir3


1
M-Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar
2
PhD scholar (Hydraulic Structures) NIT-Srinagar
3
M-Tech (Structural Engineering) NIT-Srinagar

ABSTRACT

Coarse Aggregates are the main component of concrete and occupy around 45% of the total
volume of concrete. Their Properties have a profound effect on the various properties of concrete
when wet as well as after hardening. There are many sources in Kashmirwhich have abundant supply
of natural aggregates (gravel) cheaply available than machine (jaw crushers) crushed rock
aggregates. In our work a comparison of the various properties of concrete made from
machinecrushed rock aggregates and natural aggregates (gravel)was done. Need was felt for this
study as the major private constructions (some Government constructions) that are carried out in
most of Srinagar, Bandipora and Ganderbal districts use natural aggregates procured from nearby
Nallas and rivers flowing through Ganderbal District of Jammu and Kashmir. In this study the
common practices adopted while making of concrete here in Kashmir were simulated.
The properties compared include workability, strength and permeability. In this paper the
compressive strength of the two types of concrete are compared. The compressive strength was
found after 28 days on 15cmx15cm cubes as per the guidelines of is 456 2000 and the workability
was measured by slump test. The strength was compared for a particular value of workability as in
many construction works water is added to concrete till a workable concrete is produced.The
workability of the wet concrete was found during mixing and water was added gradually to result in
required workability.Two grades of concrete were made M15and M20 from nominal mix ratios of
1:2:4 and 1:1.5:3 respectively.The cement used was 43 grade (locally available brand), sand (Zone-
IV), natural andcrushed rock aggregates were procured from east Kashmir (District Ganderbal).
Two sizes of coarse aggregates were used 20mm-10mm (60%) and 10mm-4.76mm (40%).It was
observed that for the same workability concrete made by using natural aggregate has higher strength

21
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME

as compared to concrete made by using crushed rock aggregates. Workability was kept same as in
ordinary constructions in Kashmir.

Keywords: Compressive strength of Concrete, Workability, Natural aggregates, Crushed


Aggregates, Aggregates from Kashmir.

INTRODUCTION

Concrete is one of the most Annual global production of concrete is about 5 billion cubic
yards. (Source: Cement Association of Canada) Twice as much concrete is used in construction
around the world than the total of all other building materials, including wood, steel, plastic and
aluminium. (Source: Cement Association of Canada)Concrete is a composite of cement sand,
aggregates. Aggregate is granular material such as sand, gravel, crushed stone, blast-furnace slag,
and lightweight aggregates that usually occupies approximately three-fourth of the volume of
concrete. Aggregate properties significantly affect the workability of plastic concrete and also the
durability, strength, thermal properties, and density of hardened concrete. The importance of using
the right type and quality of aggregates cannot be overemphasized. The fine and coarse aggregates
generally occupy 60% to 75% of the concrete volume (70% to 85% by mass) and strongly influence
the concrete’s freshly mixed and hardened properties, mixture proportions, and economy. Without
the study of the aggregate in depth and range, the study of the concrete is incomplete.
Cement is the only factory made standard component in concrete. Other ingredients, namely,
water and aggregates are natural materials and can vary to any extent in many of their properties.
The depth and range of studies that are required to be made in respect of aggregates to understand
their widely varying effects and influence on the properties of concrete cannot be underrated.
Aggregates are classified into fine and coarse aggregates. Fine aggregates generally consist of
natural sand or crushed stone with most particles smaller than 4.76 mm .Coarse aggregates, that are
used in general construction, consist of one or a combination of particles generally having size
between 4.76mm and 20mm. Coarse aggregates can be – natural (gravel), or machine crushed rock
aggregate. Natural gravel and sand are usually dug or dredged from a pit, river, lake, or seabed.
Crushed stone is produced by crushing quarry rock, boulders, cobbles, or large-size gravel. Close to
half of the coarse aggregates used in Portland cement concrete are gravels; most of the remainder are
crushed stones.

METHODOLOGY

The mixing of the ingredients wasdone manually on a dry platform. The cement used for
making concrete was 43 Grade. Zone IV sand was used. Two sizes of coarse aggregates were used
20mm-10mm (60% of total weight of coarse aggregates) and 10mm-4.76mm (40% of total weight of
coarse aggregates).Nominal mix ratios were employed in making the concrete. For M15 the ratio of
Cement: Sand: Aggregate was taken as 1:2:4 and in M20 the ratio taken was 1:1.5:3. Water was
added intermittently to produce the required workability in the concrete (Common Practice). Slump
test (Figure 1) was done simultaneously to find the workability. 15cm cubes were casted following
the procedure laid down in IS456-2000. The cubes were watered regularly. Compression strength
test was carried out after 28 days of casting on a compression testing machine (figure 2, figure 3).
The failure load was noted and the strength (stress at failure) was calculated by dividing the load by
area of a face of the cube.i.e,Stress= load at failure/area, where Area being = 15x15 cm2.

22
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME

Figure 1: Proceeding of Slump test

Figure 2: Cube specimen loaded in compression testing machine

Figure 3: Cube specimen after failure


RESULTS

Various results obtained from our study are summarised (tabulated) as follows:

23
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME

Table 1. M15 grade crushed rock aggregate concrete for workability of 75mm which required a
water cement ratio of 0.45
S No. 28 days Strength (Mpa)
01. 16.6
02. 16.2
03. 17.2
Average compressive strength = 16.67 Mpa

Table 2. M15 grade natural aggregate concrete for workability of 75 mm which required a water
cement ratio of 0.40
S No. 28 days Strength (Mpa)
01. 17.9
02. 18.4
03. 18.4
Average compressive strength = 18.23Mpa

Table 3. M20 grade concrete for crushed rock aggregate concrete workability of 75 mm which
required a water cement ratio of 0.5
S No. 28 days Strength (Mpa)
01. 21.5
02. 20.5
03. 21.8
Average compressive strength = 21.27Mpa

Table 4. M20 grade concrete for natural aggregate concrete workability of 75 mm which required a
water cement ratio of 0.45
S No. 28 days Strength (Mpa)
01. 22.8
02. 22.1
03. 23.2
Average compressive strength = 22.7Mpa

The average compressive strength of the two kinds of concrete are compared in figure 4 and figure 5

20

15

crushed rock
10 aggregate concrete
Round aggregate
5 concrete

0
.

Figure 4: This chart shows the comparative strength of concrete containing crushed rock aggregate
and concrete with natural aggregate concrete for M15 Grade

24
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME

25

20

15 Crushed rock
aggregate concrete
10
Round aggregate
concrete
5

0
.

Figure 5: This chart shows the comparative strength of concrete containing crushed rock aggregate
and concrete with natural aggregate concrete for M20 Grade

DISCUSSION

From those above results concrete made from natural aggregates has higher compressive
strength than the concrete made by using crushed rock aggregates (at same workability of 75 mm) by
9% in case of M15 grade and 6.7% in case of M20 grade . Thus it is evident that to produce the same
workable concrete using natural aggregates and crushed rock aggregates the resulting concrete from
the natural aggregates hasa higher compressive strength than concrete made from crushed rock
aggregates. The reason being that natural aggregates have lesser surface area than crushed rock
aggregates and thus lesser surface area would use up lesser amount of water to wet their surface for
making a workable concrete. Thus for producing a particular workability in concrete natural
aggregates require lesser amount of water as compared to crushed rock aggregate concrete. It is
established that lower water content in concrete will result in higher strength. Thus, since lower
water content was needed by natural aggregate concrete than crushed rock aggregate concrete, the
concrete made by using natural aggregate concrete shows higher strength than concrete made by
using crushed rock aggregate.

CONCLUSION

From the study it is clear that the concrete that natural aggregates (gravel) result in higher
strength than the concrete made from crushed rock aggregates for same workability. Also natural
aggregates require less water to produce a particular workability than crushed rock aggregates.

RECOMMENDATIONS

a) Natural aggregates available are better choice for making concrete than the machine crushed
rock aggregates.
b) This adoption practice is economically feasible choice
c) Use of these aggregates is eco-friendly as it reduces the use of machine crushed rock
aggregates which cause various environmental problems.
d) The use of these natural aggregates will also serve the periodic dredging of river beds, Nallas
etc.
e) Common practices (for increasing workability) adopted should be avoided in concrete
making and proper procedure should be used instead in general day to use.

25
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET), ISSN 0976 – 6308 (Print),
ISSN 0976 – 6316(Online), Volume 6, Issue 1, January (2015), pp. 21-26 © IAEME

REFERENCES

1. A.M.Neville“Concrete Technology” 1987.


2. A.M Neville“Properties of concrete”, 2012.
3. American Society for Testing and Materials (1988) Standard descriptive nomenclature of
constituentsof natural mineral aggregates, ASTM C294–98.
4. British Standards Institution (1992) Specification for aggregates from natural sources for
concrete, BS 882.
5. British Standards Institution (2002) Aggregates for concrete, BS EN 1260.
6. Fookes, P.G., Gordon, D.L. and Higginbottom, I.E. (1975) Glacial landforms, their deposits
and engineering characteristics, in the engineering behaviour of glacial materials.
Proceedings of a symposium of Midland Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering
Society, reprinted by Geoabstracts, Norwich, 1978.
7. Fookes, P.G. and Higginbottom, I.E. (1980) Some problems of construction aggregates in
desert areas, with particular reference to the Arabian Peninsula. I – Occurrence and special
characteristics. II – Investigation, production and quality control, Proc. of the Institution of
Civil Engineers, Part 1, 68, Feb. pp. 39–90.
8. IS:456-2000, “Plain And Reinforced Concrete - Code Of Practice” ( Fourth Revision ) .
9. IS: 383-1970, “Specification For Course And Fine Aggregates From Natural Sources For
Concrete” (Second Revision) – 9th reprint Sept-1993.
10. IS 7861 “Code Of Practice For Extreme Weather Concreting”.(Part-II)- Sixth reprint Oct-
2000.
11. M S Shetty, “Concrete technology theory and practice”, 2005.
12. M L Gambhir, “Concrete Technology”, 2013.
13. Pike, D.C. (ed.) (1990) Standards for Aggregates, Chichester: Ellis Horwood.
14. Smith, M.R. and Collis, L. (2001) Aggregates: Sand, Gravel and Crushed Rock Aggregates
for Construction Purposes, Engineering Geology Special Publications,
15. Primel, L. and Tourenq, C. (eds) (2000) Aggregates (English Translation), Rotterdam: A.A.
Balkema.17, London: Geological Society.
16. Smith, M.R. and Collis, L. (eds) (1993) Aggregates, sand, gravel and crushed rock aggregates
forconstruction purposes, 2nd edn. Geological Society Special Publication No. 9, London.
17. Smith, M.R. and Collis, L. (eds.) (2001) Aggregates, sand, gravel and crushed rock
aggregates for construction purposes, 3rd edn. Geological Society Special Publication No. 9,
London.
18. Pinal C. Khergamwala, Dr. Jagbir Singh and Dr. Rajesh Kumar, “Effect of Recycled Coarse
Aggregates on Characteristic Strength of Different Grades of Concrete” International Journal
of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 4, Issue 6, 2013, pp. 186 - 192, ISSN
Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
19. M. Venu & P. N. Rao, “Study of Rubber Aggregates in Concrete: An Experimental
Investigation” International Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 1,
Issue 1, 2013, pp. 15 - 26, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.
20. Madan Mohan Reddy. K, Sivaramulu Naidu. D, Sanjeeva Rayudu. E, “Studies on Recycled
Aggregate Concrete by Using Local Quarry Dust and Recycled Aggregates” International
Journal of Civil Engineering & Technology (IJCIET), Volume 3, Issue 2, 2012, pp. 322 -
326, ISSN Print: 0976 – 6308, ISSN Online: 0976 – 6316.

26