Seminar report

On

“STUDY ON CONCRETE WITH STONE CRUSHER DUST

AS FINE AGGREGATE”

SUBMITTEDTO

VIVESWARAIAH TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITYBELGAUM

FOR THE PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF M-TECH (STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING)

BYRAGHAVENDRA. TReg. No: -

1st Semester M-Tech Structures

Under The Guidance of:Dr. M. U. ASWATH

Department of Civil Engineering

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY(Affiliated To Visveswaraiah Technological University)

Bangalore-560004

BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

BANGALORE -560004

CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that Mr. RAGHAVENDRA. T bearing university USN has

submitted the report on “STUDY ON CONCRETE WITH STONE CRUSHER DUST AS

FINE AGGREGATE” in partial fulfillment of the 1st semester M-Tech course in structural

engineering as prescribed by the Visveswaraiah Technological University during the academic

year 2006-2007, under the guidance of Dr. M. U. ASWATH.

Prof. K.JAYRAM Dr. M. U. ASWATH H.O.D ProfessorDept. of Civil Engg. Dept. of Civil Engg.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

I express my deep sense of gratitude to Dr. M. U. ASWATH professor, Department of Civil Engineering, BIT, for his guidance and help through out this project work.

I will remain thankful to the head of department, PROF. K. JAYRAM and all the faculty members of Department of Civil Engineering, BIT for their support during the course of this work.

Finally I express gratitude to my parents, fellow students and friends.

RAGHAVENDRA. T M-TECH STRUCTURES BANGALORE INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION

2. EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME

2.1 Properties of Various Materials tested

2.1.1 Physical properties

2.2 Concrete Mixture Proportioning

3. VARIOUS TESTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Tests on Plain Concrete

3.2 Test on RC Beams

3.3 Deflections

3.4 Strains

3.5 Failure Loads

3.6 Crack Widths

3.7 Cost Analysis

4. CONCLUSIONS

5. REFERENCES

6. BIBLIOGRAPHY

ABSTRACT

Stone crusher dust, which is available abundantly from crusher units at a low cost in many areas,

provides a viable alternative for river sand in concrete.

Investigations done by Giridhar Kumar. V, Master of Engineering (SE) degree,

Osmania University, Hyderabad & Mrs. Molly John , Asst Professor & Students of

M. A. College of Engineering, Mahatma Gandhi University, Kerala, on the use of stone crusher

dust in concrete as an alternative to river sand are presented in this report.

The tests conducted pertain to concrete with river sand of strength 28.1 MPa. Tests on the

strengths of concrete, and on the flexural behaviour of RC beams under two-point loading were

conducted. Failure loads and cracking patterns of the beams with sand and with crusher dust as

fine aggregates were compared. The investigations indicate that stone crusher dust has a good

potential as fine aggregate in concrete construction.

Use of Stone crusher dust does not only reduces the cost of construction but also helps reduce the

impact on the environment by consuming the material generally considered as waste product

with few applications.

1 INTRODUCTION

The spiraling costs of river sand used as fine aggregate in concrete have increased the cost of

construction significantly in the past two decades. The increase in the cost of river sand is due to

dwindling natural resources coupled with the restrictions imposed by several state government

on sand quarrying, as well as the concern to prevent further environmental degradation and

conserve ground water. These problems have led to the search for alternative materials for fine

aggregates that are eco-friendly besides being inexpensive.

Stone crusher dust, available abundantly from crusher units at a low cost in many areas, provides

a viable alternative for conventional river sand. Crusher dust from quarries, being, by and large,

a waste product, will also reduce environmental impact, if consumed by construction industry in

large quantities.

Investigation on the strength characteristics of mortars and concrete with crusher dust as partial

and full replacement of the aggregate are reported by several researchers. The test results

indicate that stone crusher dust can be used in mortar and concrete without significant difference

in strength and workability compared to mortar and concrete with conventional river sand.

However, Sahu et al investigated the use of crusher dust only as a partial replacement of fine

aggregates, and not as complete replacement, while jaffar et al investigated the performance of

high strength concrete with silica stone dust as a partial replacement of cement. Further,

comprehensive tests on beam models are not reported so far.

2 EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAMME (By Giridhar Kumar. V)

The investigation done by Giridhar Kumar. V on the use of stone crusher dust in concrete as an

alternative to fine aggregate are presented in this report. Standard concrete cubes (150 mm),

cylinders (150x300 mm), prisms (100x100x500 mm) as well as beams (120x150x1350 mm)

were tested. The physical properties of stone dust and its influence on the strength of concrete in

the fresh and hardened state, along with a comparative study with the concrete prepared using

river sand are also included.

The strength in direct compression at 3 days, 7 days and 28 days, and that in split tension and

flexure were compared at 7 days and 28 days. Mixture proportions procedure in accordance with

IS 10262 : 19825 and SP 23 : 1982 using 20 mm coarse aggregate was adopted in the

investigations.

Tests were also conducted to evaluate the flexural behaviour of RC beams under two-point

loading. Load-deflection characteristics were investigated for concrete with river sand and stone

crusher dust as fine aggregates (three specimens each), and the failure and cracking patterns were

compared.

The investigations indicated that stone crusher dust has potential as fine aggregate in concrete

structures with a reduction in the cost of concrete by about 20 percent compared to conventional

concrete. Crusher dust not only reduces the cost of construction but also the impact on

environment by consuming the material generally considered as a waste product with few

applications.

2.1 Properties of Various Materials tested

Table1 Properties of fine aggregates

Bulk density, kg/m3 1157.00 660.00

Specific gravity 2.27 2.60

Fineness modulus 2.74 2.71

Free surface moisture 0.10 percent 0.60 percent

Water absorption 1.0 percent 0.90 percent

Table2 Properties of the coarse aggregate

Properties Value

Maximum normal size, mm

Bulk density kg/m3.mm

Loose state

Compacted state

Specific gravity

Fineness modulus

Voids, percent

Loose state

Compacted state

Free surface moisture, percent

Water absorption, percent

20

1450.0

1530.0

2.78

6.85

41

47

0.6

0.5

Property Fine aggregate

River sand Crusher dust

2.1.1 Physical properties

The physical properties of fine and coarse aggregates influence the strength of concrete in fresh

and hardened states. Tests on physical properties like bulk density, specific gravity, water

absorption, fineness modules, grading were conducted to develop suitable mixture proportioning

for the investigations. Sand supplied from river Godavari, and granite stone crusher dust

procured from a local granite quarry in Kesara, near Moula Ali, Hyderabad, was used.

The physical properties of the fine and coarse aggregates used are indicated in Tables1 and 2,

respectively. The crusher dust has about the same fineness modulus (2.71) as that of the

river sand (2.74), and water absorption was also similar (about 1 percent). But the fine

aggregates were falling in zone II (IS 383 : 1970) as per the particle size distribution. The

quality of crusher dust depends upon the type of stone and crusher. The properties should be

ascertained to proportion the mix for the concrete quality required.

Ordinary portland cement (OPC) Grade 53 cement (strength of standard mortar cubes = 55.6

MPa with 28 percent normal consistency) conforming to IS 12 269 : 1987 was used in the test

specimen.

Table3 Concrete mix proportions

Material

Mixture

A

(1 : 1.4 : 3.5 )

B

( 1 : 1.6 : 3.5 )

Cement. Kg/m3 360.0 360.0

River sand. Kg/m3 504.0 -

Coarse aggregate. Kg/m3 1 260.0 1 260.0

Water cement ratio 0.54 0.53

Slump mm 28 25

Compaction factor 0.92 0.87

Table4 Compressive Strength of 150 mm Cubes (average of 3 cubes)

Mix Fine

Aggregate

Compressive strength.N/mm2

3-days 7-days 28- days

Percentage increase

3-days 7-days 28-days

A Sand 15.0 18.9 28.1 - - -

B Crusher dust 18.8 23.0 32.8 25.3 21.7 16.8

Table5 Split tensile strength of 150 x 300 mm cylinders (average of 3 cylinders)

Mix Fine aggregate Tensile strength. N/mm2 Percentage increase

7 – days 28 – days 7 – days 28 – days

A Sand 2.27 2.72 - -

B Crusher dust 2.76 2.90 21.6 6.6

Table6 Flexural tensile strength of 100 x 100 x 500 prisms (average of 3 prisms)

2.2 Concrete Mixture Proportioning

Concrete designated as Mix A ( 1 : 1.40 : 3.5, w/c = 0.54) with river sand as fine aggregate, and

Mix B ( 1 : 1.6 : 3.5; w/c = 0.53) with stone crusher dust were used in the investigations, Table3.

the mix proportions were based on IS 10262 : 1982 and SP 23 : 1982 for M 20 grade concrete

with a target strength of 24 MPa. Curve E of SP 23 : 1982 was adopted in the mixture

proportioning. The values of workability of fresh concrete measured by slump were comparable

(28 mm for Mix A and 25 mm for Mix B). So also were the values of compacting factor (0.92

for Mix A and 0.87 for Mix B).

The ingredients of concrete were thoroughly mixed manually till uniform consistency was

achieved. The cubes and cylinders were compacted on a vibrating table, while the beams were

compacted by needle vibrator.

Mix Fine aggregate Tensile strength n/mm2 Percentage increase

7 – days 28 – days 7 – days 28 – days

A Sand 2.85 3.70 - -

B Crusher dust 3.72 4.45 30.5 20.3

3 VARIOUS TESTS AND DISCUSSIONS

3.1 Tests on Plain Concrete

Standard cubes, prisms and cylinders were tested for compressive and tensile strength properties.

The specimens were tested after 3,7 and 28 days of curing and the mean strength values of three

specimen were compared.

The results of the tests on 150 mm-cubes are indicated in Table 4. the 28-day compressive

strength was 28.1 MPa for Mix A (concrete with river sand) and 32.8 MPa for Mix B (concrete

with stone crusher dust); the strength of Mix B was about 17 percent higher than that of Mix A.

the 3 and7 days strengths have shown similar trends.

Table5 indicates the results of split tensile strength tests on 150 x 300 mm cylinders. Mix A

showed a 28-day mean value of 2.72 MPa, while Mix B developed a mean strength of 2.90 MPa,

an increase of about 7 percent.

The flexural strength test results on 100 x 100 x 500 mm prisms (modulus of rupture) are shown

in Table6. the flexural strength of Mix A was found to be 3.70 MPa, while that of Mix B was

4.45 MPa at 28-days, an increase of about 20 percent.

It can be seen that Mix B with stone crusher dust as fine aggregate developed consistently higher

strengths than that of Mix A with river sand. The sharp edges of the particles in stone dust

provide better bond with cement than the rounded particles of river sand thereby increasing the

strength.

3.2 Test on RC Beams

The beams were 120 mm wide and 150 mm deep, and 1350 mm long for an effective span of

1200 mm. The longitudinal reinforcement comprised 2 - 10 mm bars of Fe 415 grade at top and

bottom; two-legged stirrups of 6 mm mild steel bars were provided at 90 mm on centres. The

beams were designed to sustain a bending moment of 5,6 kNm at the limit state of collapse in

flexure (M20 grade concrete and Fe 415 grade steel), pertaining to a two-point load of 28.0 KN

spaced at 400 mm.

The beams were under-reinforced, and the effect of compression steel was not considered in the

design. The beams cast with sand as fine aggregate were designated SU 1, SU 2 and SU 3 (SU

series) while those with crusher dust as fine aggregate were designated CDU 1, CDU 2 and CDU

3 (CDU series). The concrete was compacted using a 25 mm needle vibrator; moulds were

removed after 24 hours, and the specimens cured for 28 days before testing. A steel frame with

inner dimensions of 600 mm x 180 mm x 220 mm with bolts at top and bottom to hold dial

guages was fixed to the beam to measure strains over a 200.0 mm guage length, Fig 2.. three

dial guages were fixed at the top and three at the bottom to record strains at the mid-span and

one-third span sections. The beam deflections were measured by means of three dial guages set

below the beam at mid-span and one-third span sections, Fig 3. the dial guages used had a least

count of 0.01 mm.

Table7 Beam deflections at 60.0 KN load

Sl

No

Beam Deflection, mm

1/3 span Mean value mid-span Mean value

1 Su 1 12.99 14.62

2 Su 2 9.72 11.30

3 Su 3 12.12 11.61 14.05 13.32

4 CDU 1 13.60 14.28

5 CDU 2 10.10 11.16

6 CDU 3 9.45 11.05 10.40 11.95

The beams were tested on a Universal testing machine (2000 KN-capacity) under two-point

loading at one-third points of the span as indicated in Fig 1 ©. Dial guage reading were recorded

for every incremental load of 2.5 KN distributed equally over two points. Deflections, strains

and cracks were monitored during the tests, and the results on flexural behaviour (deflections,

strains and moment curvature relations) were compared.

3.3 Deflections

The mean deflections of the beams at one-third span sections are indicated in Fig 4 (a), while

Fig (b) indicates the mean

Table8 Failure loads of the beams

Sl

No

Beams Failure load, kN Mean value,kN

1 SU 1 62.5

2 SU 2 66.5

3 SU 3 60.5 63.2

4 CDU 1 66.0

5 CDU 2 67.5

6 CDU 3 68.5 67.3

Values of the mid-span deflections of the beams. The behaviour of the beams with river sand

and with crusher dust does not differ significantly. Table 7 indicates the bean deflections at a

load of 60.0 kN. The mean deflection of the SU series (river sand) was 11.61 mm at one-third

span section, while that of CDU (stone dust) series was 11.05 mm; the difference being about 5

percent. The corresponding values at the mid-span section were 13.32 mm and 11.95 mm,

respectively; the difference being about 10 percent. The differences in the mean deflections of

the test beams were not significant; however, the beams with crusher dust as fine aggregate

developed smaller deflections than those with river sand. The deflections were not measured up

to the failure load to avoid damage to dial guages.

3.4 Strains

The beams with crusher dust developed smaller strains generally, the difference up to a load of

30.0 kN was about 20 percent. However, the strains in the beams with crusher dust increased

suddenly at load beyond 50.0 kN at one-third span sections, possibly due to crushing of the

concrete at the loaded section.

3.5 Failure Loads

Table8 indicates the loads at failure of the beams. The theoretical failure load of the SU series

for a concrete strength of 28.1 MPa works out to be 29.5 kN compared to the test mean value of

63.2 kN. The theoretical failure load for CDU series (crusher dust), with a concrete strength of

32.8 MPa, works out to be 30.5 kN compared to the test mean value of 67.3 kN, Table8. the

large difference between the computed and measured values of the failure load can be attributed

to higher strength of concrete in the beams due to the presence of compression steel and

confinement by the shear reinforcement provided.

It was seen that the beams cracked extensively at failure, and that concrete was crushed between

or under the loaded sections in both the series. Shear failure was not evident in the beams.

In any case, the mean value of failure load of the beams with crusher dust was only about 6

percent more than that of the beams with river sand, though the strength of concrete was about

17 percent higher.

3.6 Crack Widths

The crack widths were measured using a microscope after the failure of the beams. The beams

with crusher dust generally indicated fewer cracks of smaller width than the beams with river

sand. Table9 indicates the maximum crack widths and mean values of crack widths measured

after failure. The maximum width of every crack was measured and the mean value of the

cracks obtained for each beam.

The maximum and mean widths of cracks for the beams of SU series worked out to be 1.70 mm

and 0.33 mm, respectively. The corresponding values for the beams of CDU series were 1.38

mm and 0.21 mm. It can be noted that the beams with crusher dust developed cracks of smaller

widths as well as fewer in number of cracks.

3.7 Cost Analysis

Being a waste material, crusher dust costs much less than that of the scarce river sand. The

current unit costs of the materials at Hyderabad are indicated in Table10 along with the cost of

concrete mixes with river sand (Mix A), and with crusher dust (Mix B) as fine aggregates. The

quantities were computed from the data of Tables1,2 and 3. the cost per m3.

Table9 Maximum and average crack widths of the test beams

Sl No Beam

Crack width,mm

Maximum Mean

1 SU 1 1.50 0.17

2 SU 2 1.55 0.29

3 SU 3 2.05 0.52

4 CDU 1 2.10 0.24

5 CDU 2 1.55 0.25

6 CDY 3 0.50 0.15

Cost of Mix A works out to be Rs 3,036.66, while that of Mix B to be Rs 2,531.57, indicating a

saving of about 20 percent.

Besides the savings in costs, since crusher dust is a waste material from the stone quarries, its use

will lead to eco-friendly green concrete.

4 CONCLUSIONS

It can be seen that stone crusher dust as fine aggregate has in general no detrimental effect on the

strength and performance of concrete when designed correctly.

The concrete cubes with crusher dust developed about 17 percent higher strength in compression,

7 percent more split tensile strength and 20 percent more flexural strength (modulus of rupture)

than the concrete cubes/beams with river sand as fine aggregate. The differences in strengths are

possibly due to the sharp edges of stone dust providing stronger bond with cement compared to

the rounded shape of river sand.

Similarly, the RC beams with crusher dust sustained about 6 percent more load under two point

loading, and developed smaller deflections and smaller strains than the beams with river sand.

The cracks were also fewer, and the crack widths were smaller. The better performance of the

beams with stone dust may be due to the higher strength of concrete.

The test results pertain to concrete with river sand (as fine aggregate) of strength 28.1 MPa, and

for concrete with granite stone crusher dust of strength 32.8 MPa. The results for other strengths

may be different for other grades of concrete, and for crusher dust of other types of stones

(basalt, trap and lime stone).

Based on the test results presented by Giridhar Kumar. V, it can be concluded that crusher stone

dust can be adopted as fine aggregates in concrete structures.

Table10 Cost of M20 grade concrete mixes

MixFine

AggregateDescription

Quantity Rate per m3 Cost

RsM3 Rs

A River sand Cement

Sand

Coarse aggregate

0.266

0.436

0.868

6,600.00

1,250.00

848.00

Total

1755.60

545.00

736.06

3,036.66

B Crusher dust Cement

Crusher dust

Coarse aggregate

0.266

0.347

0.868

6,600.00

115.00

848.00

Total

1755.60

39.91

736.06

2,531.57

The dwindling sources of natural sand, and its high cost could encourage the adoption of crusher

dust as fine aggregate in concrete, a waste material from stone quarries, in present & future

constructions.

REFERENCES

GIRIDHAR KUMAR. V, Strength characteristics of concrete with crusher dust as fine

aggregate, Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Master of

Engineering (SE) degree, Osmania University, Hyderabad, 2003.

PRABIN PAUL. K, SOUMYA SAIRA JOY, AMITA ABRAHAM, SMITHA. K,

KURIACHAN SIMON & NAVEEN. J “An alternative to natural sand” Project report submitted

in partial fulfillment for the award of the B. Tech. degree in Civil Engineering, under the

guidance of Mrs. Molly John , Asst Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, M. A. College

of Engineering, Mahatma Gandhi University, KERALA, 2003.

Web page www.schubert-env.com

Progressive Review - website

CSA - website

BIBLIOGRAPHY

MISHRA, V. N Use of stone dust from crushers in cement-sand mortars. The Indian Concrete

journal, August 1984, Vol 58, Nos 58,No,pp.219-223.

BABU, K. K. RADHAKRISHNA,R. and NAMBIAR, E.K.K. Compressive strength and

Construction review, September 1997, vol 10,No 9,pp 25-29.

SAHU, A.K.,KUMAR, SUNIL and SACHAN, A.K.Crushed stone waste as fine aggregate for

concrete, The Indian concrete Journal, January 2003, Vol 77,N0 1, pp.845-847.

JAAFAR,M.S.,THANOON,W.A.,KADIR,M.R.A and TRIKHA,D.N. Strength and durability

characteristics of high strength autoclaved stone dust concrete, The Indian Concrete Journal,

December 2002, Vol 77,No1,pp.771-775.

Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design, IS 10262 : 1982, Bureau of Indian Standards,

New Delhi.

Handbook on concrete mixes, SP 23: 1982 Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Indian standard specifications for coarse and fine aggregate from natural source for concrete, IS

1983: 1970, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Specifications for 53 grade ordinary Portland cement, IS 12269 : 1987, Bureau of Indian

Standards, New Delhi.

Indian standard code of practice for plain and reinforced concrete, IS 456 : 2000, fourth revision,

Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.