Economic and Qualitative Feasibility of Partial Replacement of Natural Sand in M 30 Grade of Concrete by Green Components

International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395 -0056
Volume: 04 Issue: 06 | June -2017 www.irjet.net p-ISSN: 2395-0072
© 2017, IRJET | Impact Factor value: 5.181 | ISO 9001:2008 Certified Journal | Page 1797
Economic and Qualitative Feasibility of Partial Replacement of Natural
Sand in M 30 Grade of Concrete by Green Components.
H. R. GODBOLE1, V. S. LIMAYE2, A. G. SHEALKE3, S. R. KHOT4
1 P.G Student: Civil Engineering Department, RMDSSOE, Warje, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
2 Associate Professor: Civil Engineering Department, SCOE, Vadgaon/Ambegaon Pune, Maharashtra, India.
3,4 Assistant Professor: Civil Engineering Department, RMDSSOE, Warje, Pune, Maharashtra, India.
---------------------------------------------------------------------***---------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract - Granite and Marble stones are used in Civil
industries for various aspects. Lot of cutting wasteisproduced
during the processing of granite and marble. . This cutting
waste is generally used for filling the land. An experimental
research is carried out to explore the opportunity of using the
crushed granite fines and marble fines as a partial substitute
of sand in M 30 grade concrete. These cutting wastes with
different combinations are fed to crusher. The combinationof
CGF and CMF, MIX 10% (CGF 5% + CMF5%), MIX 20% (CGF
10% + CMF 10%), MIX 30% (CGF 15% + CMF 15%), MIX 40%
(CGF 20% + CMF 20%), MIX 50% (CGF 25% + CMF 25%) is
again implied considering the benefit observed. Based on the
economic analysis of the result, substitute for the sand with
combination of granite and marble fines is recommended. The
results for green concrete is finally compared withsame grade
concrete.
Key Words: Concrete Properties, C.G.F., C.M.F.,
Compressive Strength, Split Tensile Strength, Flexural
Strength.
1. INTRODUCTION
India is currently the second fastest developing economic
system inside the world. Infrastructure zone is a key motive
force for the Indian economy. Infrastructure sector consists
of energy, bridges, dams, roads and urban infrastructure
development. In India 11% Gross Domestic Product(GDP)is
contributed by construction development sector. India
desires to spend on infrastructure development with70% of
finances on power, roads and concrete infrastructure
segments in coming five years. The construction materials
such as cement, sand, steel and aggregate are used in
building, road, bridges, power house construction. Mainly
the construction cost depends on cement, sand, and steel.
The cost of cement and steel are always fluctuating,butsand
costs are increasing day by day. Large scale miningofsandis
higher than the natural replenishments and hence damages
the land, water and many habitats. The mining of sand has
reached to a peak because of its increasing demand in the
construction sector. Hence it is essential to replace by
substitute material that may be available in waste form. It
helps to reduce the cost of concrete. The cutting marble and
granite waste cost is less; hence checked for feasibility. For
the feasibility of concrete the test were carried out for
different mechanical properties such as compressive
strength, spilt tensile strength and flexural strength. Thetest
were compared with conventional concrete.
2. EXPERIMENTATION DETAILS
Concrete is one of the major ingredient used in construction
industry. Concrete is prepared using combinationofcement,
water, fine and coarse aggregates and, chemical andmineral
admixtures for betterment of properties. In present study
the following material were used in concrete.
A) Cement is the essential binding fabric in concrete. The
Coromandel King 53 grade of cement was used. The specific
gravity is 3.15 and fineness is 2%.
B) Fine Aggregates: In present study, fine aggregates were
confirming to zone III. Fineness modulusandspecificgravity
of the sand were found to be 2.33 and 2.56.
C) Coarse Aggregate: Broken basaltic stone as coarse
aggregate were used in concrete.Sizeofthecoarseaggregate
used in the investigation was 10 -20mm.Thespecificgravity
of the coarse aggregate was found to be 2.68.
D) Water is an important ingredient of the concrete as it
actually participates in the chemical reaction with cement.
Impurities in the water may affect setting time, strength,
shrinkage of concrete or promote corrosion of
reinforcement. Locally available drinking water was used in
the present work.
E) Crushed Granite Fines (CGF): Granite belongs to igneous
rock family. The density of the granite is between 2.65 to
2.75 g/cm3 and crushing strength will be greater than 200
MPA. Locally available cutting granite pieces are collected
and the crushed into the stone crusher. These crushed
granite fines are partially used in concrete as fine aggregate.
F) Crushed Marble Fines (CMF): Marble belongs to
metamorphic rock. The specific gravity of the marble is
between 2.6 to 2.8 g/cm3 and compressive strength will be
greater than 50 MPA. Locally available cuttinggranitepieces
are collected and the crushed into the stone crusher. These
crushed granite fines are partially used in concrete as fine
aggregate.
G) The Algisuperplast Super plasticizer was used during
mixing the concrete to improve the workability of concrete.
As per Indian standards, the dosage of super plasticizer
should not exceed 2% by weight of the cement. In current
study 1.5% dosage of super plasticizer was adopted.

The mix for M 30 grade of concrete was designed
using IS 456:2000. The ratio 1: 2.18: 3.48 gave 30 MPA
strength. For 2.18 ratio of fine aggregateamount839 Kg. of1
cum of concrete. Therefore 1 cum of concrete indicates
dependency on 839 Kg. of natural sand.
Compressive Strength: The compressive test on
concrete was carried out using Compression Testing
Machine (CTM). The specimen used were of size 150X150 X
150 mm cube. The test was performed at 7 and 28 days
respectively for different mix proportions.
Spilt Tensile Strength: The split tensilestrengthtest
was carried out on a Universal Testing Machine (UTM). The
specimen used was 150 mm diameter and 300 mm length
cylinder. The Test was performed at 7 and 28 days
respectively for different mix proportions.
Flexural Strength: Theflexural testsonconcrete was
carried out on a flexural testing machine.Thespecimenused
were of size 500 X 100 X 100 mm beam. The Test was
performed at 7 and 28 days respectively for different mix
proportions. Various mix proportion of concrete are shown
in table 1
Table -1: Mix Proportion
3. RESULTS
3.1 Compressive Strength: The impactofgranite,marble and
combination of crushed granite and marble fines as an
alternative of sand on compressive strength of M30 grade
concrete is presented in table 3.1. MIX 40% test results are
better than conventional concrete.
Table -2: Compressive Strength Test Results
3.2 Spilt Tensile Strength: Consideringvariousapplicationof
concrete; it is essential to test the spilt tensile strength of
concrete. The split tensile is an easy method of measuring
the tensile strength. The specimens of 150 mm diameter
cylinder have been tested at the age of 7 and 28 days are
showed in table 3.2. MIX 40% indicates bestresultsfor7 and
28 days of spilt tensile strength.
Table -3: Split Tensile Strength Test Results
Mix Designation 7 Days 28 Days
Natural Sand 100 % 2.58 4.67
MIX 10% 2.62 4.74
MIX 20% 2.83 4.74
MIX 30% 2.99 4.81
MIX 40% 3.18 4.98
MIX 50% 2.12 3.04
3.3 Flexural Strength: The variation of combination of
crushed granite and marble fines and the performance of
admixtures on flexural strength for all concrete mixes are
showed in table 3.3. MIX 40% indicates bestresultsfor7 and
28 days of flexural strength.
Table -4: Flexural Strength Test Results
4 ECONOMIC ANALYSIS OF REPLACEMENT
The designed concrete mix with proportion 1: 2.18: 3.48
were used in M 30 grade of concrete. The demand of sand is
more but availability of sand is less. Also the rate of sand is
increasing day by day. In current study the sand is partially
replaced with crushed granite and marble. In conventional
concrete as per design the ratio of sand 2.18 required. It
means the 1 cum concrete required 839 kgofsand.Forusing
combination of crushed granite and marble fines replacing
sand, the quantity of sand will reduced 40%. Cost
comparisonbetweenconventional concreteandcombination
of crushed granite and marble fines was carried out for
finding economic feasibility of different proportion.
Mix
Designation
Cement Sand C.G.F. C.M.F. Aggregate
N.S.100 % 100% 100% - - 100%
MIX 10% 100% 90% 5% 5% 100%
MIX 20% 100% 80% 10% 10% 100%
MIX 30% 100% 70% 15% 15% 100%
MIX 40% 100% 60% 20% 20% 100%
MIX 50% 100% 50% 25% 25% 100%
Natural Sand 100 % 3.40 3.87
MIX 10% 3.33 3.73
MIX 20% 3.41 3.77
MIX 30% 3.45 3.85
MIX 40% 3.57 3.97
MIX 50% 2.89 3.12
Natural Sand 100
%
24.37 32.15
MIX 10% 22.22 31.56
MIX 20% 22.44 32.37
MIX 30% 22.59 31.19
MIX 40% 23.04 33.56
MIX 50% 19.48 29.26

Table -5: Mix Design for Conventional Concrete
Quantity For 1 Cum Concrete for M30
Cement 385
Water 170
Chemical 5.8
River Sand 839
Aggregate 10 mm 803
Aggregate 20 mm 535
Table -6: Rate & Quantity for 1 cum Concrete for M30
Quantity Unit
Rate /
Unit
Total
Cost
Cement 385 Kg. 6.2 2387
Water 170 Lit. 0.1 17
Chemical 5.8 Lit. 60 348
River Sand 839 Kg. 2.5 2098
10 mm
Aggregate
803 Kg. 0.44 353
20 mm
Aggregate
535 Kg. 0.44 235
Total Cost 5438
Table -7: Mix Design for using Combination of CGF & CMF
in Concrete
Quantity For 1 Cum Concrete for M30
Cement 385
Water 170
Chemical 5.8
River Sand 503
CGF 20% 168
CMF 20% 168
Aggregate 10 mm 803
Aggregate 20 mm 535
Table -8: Rate & Quantity for 1 cum Concrete for M30
Quantity Unit
Rate /
Unit
Total
Cost
Cement 385 Kg. 6.2 2387
Water 170 Lit. 0.1 17
Chemical 5.8 Lit. 60 348
River Sand 503 Kg. 2.5 1258
20% C.G.F. 168 Kg. 0.3 50.4
20% C.M.F. 168 Kg. 0.3 50.4
10 mm
Aggregate
803 Kg. 0.44 353
20 mm
Aggregate
535 Kg. 0.44 235
Total Cost 4699
Table -9: Cost Difference While Replacing Sand With
Crushed Granite & Marble Fines
Natural Sand 100% 5438
20% C.G.F.+ 20% C.M.F.=
MIX 40% 4699 739 13%
According to test results, the combinationofcrushedgranite
and marble fines used in concrete for replacing the sand is
responsible for cost cutting of 13% in 1 cum. The local
market rates from the retailer were used for finding
percentage saving. However if more quantity of waste is
needed, it can be managed directly from mines.
5. CONCLUSIONS
1. The sand mining has reached to a peak because of its
increasing demand in the construction sector. Hence it is
essential to replace by substitute material, which may be
available in waste form.
2. MIX 40% (23.04 MPA, 33.56 MPA)indicates best resultfor
7 and 28 days compressive strength than the Natural Sand
(24.37 MPA, 32.15 MPA) and
3. For 7 and 28 days, MIX 40% (3.18 MPA, 4.98 MPA)
indicates best result of spilt tensile strength thantheNatural
Sand (2.58 MPA, 4.67 MPA).
4.). MIX 40% (3.57 MPA, 3.97 MPA) indicates best result for
7 and 28 days of flexural strength than the Natural Sand
(3.40 MPA, 3.87 MPA).
5. The cost of 1 cum concrete will reduced 13% for 40%
partial replacement of combination of crushed granite and
marble fines
6. Replacing sand by using combination of crushed granite
and marble fines. The sand quantity will get reduced 40%.
The combination of crushed granite and marble fines. (MIX
40%) may substitute the sand in M 30 grade of concrete
considering economic and qualitative aspects of concrete.

REFERENCES
[1] A. Arivumangai1,*, T. Felixkala2 1Research scholar,
Department of Civil Engineering, St .Peter’s University,
Chennai, India 2HOD, Department of Civil Engineering, Dr.
MGR Educational andResearchInstituteUniversity,Chennai,
India
[2] Ankit Nileshchandra Patel, Prof. Jayeshkumar Pitroda
Student of final year M.E. C E & M,
B.V.M. Engineering college, Vallabh Vidyanagar, Assistant
Professor& Research Scholar,Civil Engg Department, B.V.M.
Engineering College, Vallabh Vidyanagar-Gujarat-India.
[3] CHIRAG GARG & AAKASH JAIN Department of Civil
Engineering, BITS-Pilani, Hyderabad Campus, Andhra
Pradesh, India.
[4] Divakar. Y 1, Manjunath. S 2 and Dr. M.U. Aswath 3 PG
Student, B.I.T, Bangalore, 2Assistant Professor, RVCE,
Bangalore, 3Professor – B.I.T, Bangalore.
[5] Dina M. Sadek1, Mohamed M. El-Attar2 and Haitham A.
Ali31Associate Professor, Building Materials Research and
Quality Control Institute Housing and Building National
Research Center, Cairo, Egypt 2Associate Professor,
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt 3Master Student,
Department of Structural Engineering, Faculty of
Engineering, Cairo University, Egypt.
[6] Gulden Cagin Ulubeylia,*, Turhan Bilira, Recep Artirb
aDepartment of Civil Engineering, Bulent Ecevit University,
Zonguldak, 67100, TurkeybDepartmentofMetallurgical and
Materials Engineering, Marmara University,Istanbul,34722,
Turkey.
[7] Engr. Muritala Ashola ADIGUN, B.Eng; M.Sc Civil
Engineering Department, Lagos State Polytechnic, Ikorodu,
Lagos State, Nigeria..
[8] Rishi1, Dr. Vanita Aggarwal2 *(P.G Student: Civil
Engineering Department, Maharishi.
[9] Sarbjeet Singha,*, AnshumanTiwarib, Ravindra Nagarc,
VinayAgrawald* a Research Scholar, Department of Civil
Engineering, Malaviya National Institute of Technology,
Jaipur, Rajasthan, India bB.Tech., Dept. of Civil Engineering,
Malaviya National Institute of Technology,Jaipur,Rajasthan,
India c Professor, Civil Engineering Dept., Malaviya National
Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India d Assistant
Professor, Civil Engineering Department, Malaviya National
Institute of Technology, Jaipur, Rajasthan, India
[10] Shehdeh Ghannama, HusamNajmb,⁎, Rosa Vasconezca
Department of Civil Engineering, Zarqa University, Zarqa,
Jordan b Department of Civil and Environmental
Engineering, Rutgers University, NJ, USA c Department of
Civil Engineering, California Polytechnic and State
University, Pomona, CA, USA.
BIOGRAPHIES
Harshvardhan R. Godbole
P.G Student, Civil Engineering
Department, RMDSSOE
thor
PhotoProf. Mrs. V. S. Limaye
Associate Professor, Civil
Engineering Department, SCOE,
Vadgaon/Ambegaon ,Pune
Prof. Mr. A. G. Shealke
Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department,
RMDSSOE, Warje, Pune
Prof. Mrs. S. R. Khot
Assistant Professor, Civil
Engineering Department,
RMDSSOE, Warje, Pune

Economic and Qualitative Feasibility of Partial Replacement of Natural Sand in M 30 Grade of Concrete by Green Components

More Related Content

What's hot (20)

Similar to Economic and Qualitative Feasibility of Partial Replacement of Natural Sand in M 30 Grade of Concrete by Green Components (20)

More from IRJET Journal (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Economic and Qualitative Feasibility of Partial Replacement of Natural Sand in M 30 Grade of Concrete by Green Components