HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE · ace 30, auramix- BASF admixture, water & mineral admixture alccofine....

ACADEMIC PROJECT ? HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE

High Strength Concrete Page - 1 -

JSPM?s R.S.C.O.E Civil Engineering Department

Project Report

On

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE

In the partial fulfilment of the requirement for

Bachelor Degree in Civil Engineering.

Submitted by-

CHANCHAL PRAKASH TIKE( B80370027)

SAILEE DINESH POTPHODE( B80370055 )

PARVATHY AJAYKUMARK ( B80370069)

NIKITA NANDKUMAR JOSHI( B80370070 )

Guided by-

Prof. V.R.PHADKE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

J.S.P.M?s

RajarshiShahu College Of Engineering,

Tathawade,PUNE




SYNOPSIS

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE

Trials on mortar using different permutations & combinations of the mixture of raw materials to

check the strength of it. The materials used are universal sand A (courser), B (medium), C (fine)

grade ,also Barmac sand, cement (vasavadatta 53 cement &pozzolanicportland cement ), glenium

ace 30, auramix- BASF admixture, water & mineral admixture alccofine. Initially, varying

proportions of cement & sand were casted, the best results were utilised to cast the other

combinations of with/without/varying the contents of alccofine. 7cm x 7 cm x 7 cm & 5cm x

5cm x 5cm cubes used to find crushing strength at 3, 7, & 28 days. 3 specimens used for each

test. Maximum the density, higher the strength. Hence, found density using materials like mud,

universal sand, water. Later trials on using aggregates passing through 6mm sieve & retaining on

4.75mm sieve is used to cast the other lot of combinations.

JSPM?s R.S.C.O.E, Civil Engineering Department




LITERATURE REVIEW

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE High-strength concrete has a compressive strength greater than 40 MPa. High-strength

concrete is made by lowering the water-cement (W/C) ratio to 0.35 or lower. To

compensate for the reduced workability, super plasticizers are commonly added to high-

strength mixtures.

The idea to achieve high strength concrete of grade upto M120 was put up by

Mrs.JyotiBhusari of Sinhgadcollege . This was the point where we took

initiative.Mrs.JyotiBhusari used crystalline powder to achieve the goal.Crystalline

Powder Concrete (CPC) is a developing composite material that will allow the concrete

industry to optimize material use, generate economic benefits, and build structures that

are strong, durable, and sensitive to environment. The coarse aggregate becomes the

weakest link in concrete. In order to increase the compressive strength of concrete even

further, the only way is to remove the coarse aggregate. This philosophy has been

employed in Crystalline Powder Concrete (CPC). Crystalline powder is very

costly.Mineral admixtures like fly-ash, alccofine, metakaolin, marble dust, silica fumes

can also help in improving strength &impermeability.

m/s Gujarat Ambuja Cement had found that by alccofine powder, good results can be

obtained. Alccofine is a new generation, ultrafine, low calcium silicate product,

manufactured in India. It has distinct characteristics to enhance 'performance of concrete'

in fresh and hardened stages. It can be considered and used as practical substitute for

Silica Fume as per the results obtained. If the advantages of alccofineare observed in the

concrete mix design, the initial rate of strength development was found to be increased or

similar as that of Silica Fume. Alccofine powder is not only finer but also has got

hydraulic properties. Fly-ash is also has similar properties but not as good as Alccofine

powder.

First we had started with the mortar preparation by using standard sand and

cement. As all the particles are less than 5 mm it gives good flow-ability and no

honeycombing and very less voids are formed , in fact there is less need of giving

vibrations. When we use concrete all the problems mentioned above like honey combing

and voids formation get introduced. Hence instead of concrete, mortar is preferable. We

initiated the project by using 33%, 33%, 33% standard sand and varying cement content.

It was seen that the strength was not as good because of uniformity in sand hence we

opted for gap- grading of standard sand where one of the two parts had to have a drastic

change. i.e.45%,30%,25% or so.

Later, after introducing alccofine to cement mortar, first we had fixed the cement

content in cement mortar, varying the grading of standard sand. Then we kept the

standard sand grading constant and varied the cement content. The best results for the

particular standard sand grading with fixed cement and the particular cement content with


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superplasticizer




fixed standard sand grading were combined. We had to see whether this mortar would

give high strength and hence we had casted the cubes for 3 days,7 days and 28 days.

Thereafter, for economy instead of standard sand, Barmac sand of same grading

was used. The rock-on-rock crushing action is used for preparation of Barmac sand which

provides perfectly shaped and textured aggregates, ready for use in high strength concrete

mixtures. The full gradation of the product allows direct application, giving higher

strength concrete and a reduction in cement content.

We used aggregates passing through 6 mm I.S sieve and retaining on 4.75 mm I.S sieve.

The reason behind this is that larger the size of aggregates lesser the cement used because

surface area is less and also the least size of reinforcement bar is 6 mm which prevents

honey-combing.

The moulds size used were 5cmx5cmx5cm and 7cmx7cmx7cm. the reason being behind

it was that 15cmx15cmx15cm moulds would need more sand, cement, aggregates. Also

as the size of aggregates was very less the former moulds were used. The load required

for 7cmx7cmx7cm is generally 5 tons, whereas for 15cmx15cmx15cm moulds usually is

32tonns for M15 concrete. This means M60 concrete would require120 tonns which

affects the machine.

It is noticed that for concrete of strength less than M20 larger the size of

aggregate, lesser the surface area & hence, with lesser quantity of cement , strength upto

M20 can be obtained. That is larger the size , less the cement content.

However, for strength higher than M20 use of large size aggregate is not

advantageous. Therefore , for pre-stressed concrete which require strength more than

M30 instead of using 20mm aggregate , use of aggregate of size less than 12.5mm is

advantageous.

Research carried out indicates that for still higher strength lesser the aggregate,

better it is.

Research has been carried out in which coarse aggregate has been eliminated &

only fine aggregate (sand) has been used. So, it says, only use of cement sand mortar has

been made, & to increase strength mineral admixture like flyash, Alccofine, silica fumes

can be made. In the project that is undertaken, attempt is made to study of effect of

Alccofine powder on compressive strength of cement.





METHODOLOGY 1. Materials :Cement(53 grade OPC, PPC) , universal sand , barmac sand ,aggregates ,

admixture (aura mix , glenium ace 30 ) mineral admixture (alccofine powder ) and

potable water .

2. Equipments :Weighing balance , moulds (50X50X50mm , 70X70X70mm) , mortar

mixer , curing tanks ,burnt oil ,tamping rod , shovel , vibrating machine , cotton

threads

3. Procedure:

Take universal sand of grade A passing 2.36 mm IS sieve and retaining 1.18 mm IS

sieve (coarse ), B passing 1.18 mm IS sieve and retaining 600 microns IS sieve

(medium), C passing 300 microns IS sieve and retaining 150 microns IS sieve (fine)

each. Weigh & mix it nicely to prepare 3 bags containing sand of the weight shown.

Similarly take fresh 53 grade vasavadatta cement and mix cement & sand suitably to

prepare 9 batches, each batch just sufficient for 3 moulds.

Pour the dry mixture in the mortar mixer or vibrating machine after mixing it thoroughly

in the bag & mix it till it attains a homogeneous form.

Adopt w/c ratio around 0.2 or 0.25 for each batch,& use suitable super plasticizer-

Glenium ace 30,, aura mix for suitable workability and flowability

27 moulds are filled and tamped by tamping rod , to make finished surface cotton threads

and shovel are used and are given trial mix numbers .

The above moulds are cured for 3 days , 7 days , 28 days as required in curing tank .

After the required curing period, testing is done in compression machine

FUTURE SCOPE

Extensive experimentation is to be carried out w.r.t to the strengths.

Further experiments have to be carried out by increasing aggregate sizes

Time as a constraint.

Non availability of required moulds.

Non availability of required sand.

As all the requirements couldn?t be achieved, remaining work would be done by the

future batches.





INDEX

Chapter

No.

Description Page no.

1 Methodology & investigation for trial 1 1-5












13 Comparative Graphs of trial 9,10,11,12. 58-66





List of Tables

Table No. Nameof table

Chapter 1

1.1 Trial no.1

1.2 Explanation of graph 1.1

Chapter 2

2.1 Trial no.2


Chapter 3

3.1 Trial no.3


Chapter 4

4.1 Trial no.4


Chapter 5

5.1 Trial no.5


Chapter 6

6.1 Trial no.6


Chapter 7

7.1 Trial no.7


Chapter 8

8.1 Trial no.8


Chapter 9

9.1 Trial no.9


Chapter 10

10.1 Trial no.10


Chapter 11

11.1 Trial no.11


Chapter 12

12.1 Trial no.12






List of Figures

Figure No. Name of Figure

1.1 Grades of standard sand

2.1 Weighing machine

2.2 Dry mixes

3.1 Filling of mouds

3.2 Trial dry mixes

3.3 Ready moulds to keep for curing

3.4 Compression testing machine

3.5 Mixing procedure

3.6 Removed mould

4.1 Vibrator machine

4.2 Humidity chamber

4.3 Mortar mixer

5.1 Curing tank

5.2 Prepared moulds

5.3 moulds

6.1 Mortar mixer

6.2 Giving identification marls

6.3 Admixture

6.4 Moulds prepared for testing

7.1 Dry mortar mix

7.2 Wet mortar mix

7.3 Digital load indicator

8.1 Soft ordinary soil

8.2 Trays for weighing soil

8.3 Sieving of soil





8.4 Mixture of soil and standard sand

8.5 Moulds ready for density test

9.1 Coarse barmacsand

9.2 Mediumbarmacsand

9.3 Fine barmac sand

9.4 River aggregates

10.1 Sieve analysis

10.2 Crushed aggregate

10.3 Standard sand

11.1 Barmac sand moulds

11.2 Moulds after testing

12.1 Moulds of barmacsand

12.2 Moulds of barmacsand




List of Graphs

Sr.No. Title

Chapter 1

1.1 Trial Mix vs Stress

Chapter 2


Chapter 3


Chapter 4


Chapter 5


Chapter 6


Chapter 7


Chapter 8

8.1 Trial Mix vs Density

Chapter 9


Chapter 10


Chapter 11


Chapter 12


Chapter 13













INTRODUCTION

The idea to achieve high strength concrete of grade upto M120 was put up by

Mrs.JyotiBhusari of Sinhgad college.Mrs.JyotiBhusariused crystalline powder to achieve

the goal . The aim is to achieve high strength concrete of grade between M80 to M120 by

using standard sand and barmac sand as crystalline powder is very expensive. Alccofine

powder as recommended by Gujarat Ambuja Cement is used as mineral admixture.

The following questions are been answered in the respective chapters

• Chapter 1:

1. From where is alccofine powder obtained ?

2. Why have sample A and sample B failed ?

3. why has sample F and sample J failed ?

4. What is the effect of varying cement content and cement:sand ratio and keeping the

grading of sand equal ?

• Chapter 2:

1. Why is sample E carried for trial 2 ?

2. What is the effect of varying sand grading and keeping cement content constant ?

3. How is grading considered ?

4. What are the conclusions ?

• Chapter 3:

1. Why are sample 7 and sample 8 used ?

2. What is the purpose of using sample C ,sample D and sample E ?

• Chapter 4:

1. Is there any effect of adding alccofine in samples C , D and E?

• Chapter 5:

1. Is there any effect of adding alccofine in samples C7 , D7 and E7 ?

• Chapter 6:





1. Is there any effect of adding alccofine in samples C8 , D8 and E8?

• Chapter 7 :

1. What is the aim behind opting samples D7 ,D8 ,DA1 ,DA2 , DA3 ,CA3 and EA3 ?

2. Why is alccofine of higher percentage is eliminated (6%) ?

3. Why are the strengths of samples more like D7, D8 which have alccofine eliminated in

different gradings ?

4. Why are the strengths of samples more like DA1 ,DA2 , DA3 ,CA3 and EA3 which have

alccofine with same gradings more ?

• Chapter 8:

1. What is the procedure adopted to find density of aggregate ?

2. What is the need to find density of aggregates ?

3. What are the best results ?

• Chapter 9 and Chapter 10 :

1. Why is samples E8 ,F8 and H8 used for the trial ?

2. Why are aggregates of sizes 4.75mm to 6 mm used ?

3. How is the aggregate content considered ?

• Chapter 11 and Chapter 12 :

1. How are the sizes of barmac sand fixed ?

2. What are the results of barmacsand ?

3. Is the goal achieved ?if yes/no Give reason .

Chapter 13:

1. Which sand between universal &barmac sand would give higher strength?

2. Which proportion would give the same ?




ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Research or study of project is of great importance in one?s life because this is an overall

application of the knowledge of one?s mind. So, we are now satisfied with our step of completing

the researchonour project i.e.

? HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE ?

We are thankful to our respected Principal Prof. Dr.D.S.Bormane and we take this

opportunity to express a deep sense of gratitude to Prof. A.R.Deshmukh , Head of Department,

JSPM?s RajarshiShahu College Of Engineering, Tathawade, for his cordial support, valuable

information and guidance, which helped us in completing this task through various stages.

We take this opportunity to express our profound gratitude and deep regards to our guide

Prof. V.R.Phadke, for his exemplary guidance, monitoring and constant encouragement

throughout the course of this project work. The help and guidance given by him time to time

shall carry a long way in the journey of life on which we are about to embark.

We are obliged to teaching & non-teaching staff members of JSPM?s RajarshiShahu

College Of Engineering, Tathawade, Durocrete - Mr.VishwasKulkarni and Mr.UjwalKunte ,

CDC ? Mr Ravi Ranade, Mrs. Bhaktifor making casting and testing facility available for free,

HCC- Mr.Dharmadhikari, Gujarat ambuja cement - Mr. C.M. Dordi, HCC (Drydock) - Mr.

Ray, Prof. JyotiBhusari (Sinhagad college), Mr.PrakashKudache for making alcofine

available , Mr.Gopichand of BASF for supplying admixture Glenium ace 30 , admixture ,

Mr.Dongre of CSRL for making testing facility free of cost, Mr.Hemant Joshi for making

available crusher sand . We are grateful for their co-operation during the period of our project.

Lastly, we thank Almighty, our parents, brothers, sisters and friends for their constant

encouragement without which this project would not be possible.

THANK YOU!




CHAPTER 1.METHODOLOGY AND INVESTIGATION FOR TRIAL- 1

Initially, experiments are carried out to find out which cement:sand ratio will give higher

strength. For this purpose, we have used universal sand with all the three gradings with equal

proportions (33%, 33%, 33%). Cement mortar ratio is varied from 1:0.45 to 1:1.65 . For this

purpose we have used, moulds of 5 cm x 5 cm x 5 cm, and the procedure and calculations

adopted areas follows --

Volume of 1 mould of size 5cmx5cmx5cm = 125 cc.

Hence, volume of 3 moulds for each batch = 125 x 3 = 375 cc.

Weight of dry mortar in 3 moulds = density x volume

(Density ranges between 2.1 to 2.4gm/cc)

Weight of dry mortar in 3 moulds = 2.1 x 375 = 787.5 gms.

Similarly, for density of 2.2, 2.3, 2.4 weight is 825, 862.5, 900 gms, respectively.

Assume weight of dry mortar = 2400 gms

Distribution of 2400 gms of mixture of cement and sand will be in the range of --

1 part of cement to 0.45 parts of sand .(A)

1 part of cement to 0.6 parts of sand.(B)

1 part of cement to 0.75 parts of sand.(C)

1 part of cement to 0.90 parts of sand.(D)

1 part of cement to 1.05 parts of sand.(E)

1 part of cemen1 to 1.20 parts of sand t.(F)

1 part of cement to 1.35 parts of sand.(G)

1 part of cement to 1.50 parts of sand .(H)

1 part of cement to 1.65 parts of sand.(J)




By varying the cement content and keeping sand content fixed, following batches are made.

A - weight of cement is 1655 gms and weight of sand is745 gms.

(0.45/(1+0.45)) x 2400 = 745 i.e weight of sand.

240 - 745 = 1655 gmsi.e weight of cement.

Similarly,

B - weight of cement is 1500 gms and weight of sand is 900 gms

For C - weight of cement is 1370 gms and weight of sand is 1030 gms

For D - weight of cement is 1260 gms and weight of sand is 1140 gms

For E - weight of cement is 1170 gms and weight of sand is 1230 gms

For F - weight of cement is 1090 gms and weight of sand is 1310 gms

For G - weight of cement is 1020 gms and weight of sand is 1380 gms

For H - weight of cement is 960 gms and weight of sand is 1440 gms

For J - weight of cement is 900 gms and weight of sand is 1500 gms

Since, it is initial trial, it was cured for 3 days only. Further trials will be carried out on

the mixes for 7 & 28 days, will give higher strength.

Fig. 1.1: Grades of standard sand




TRIAL NO. 1

Date of casting ? 11/12/13 Date of testing ? 14/12/13

Curing for ? 3 days.

%C = % of coarse sand %F = % of fine sand

%M = % of medium sand %A = % of admixture

Mor-tar Mix

Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

Wt. of cube (gms)

Load at failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in (gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load

at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress

at failure (kg/cm²)

A1 -- -- -- -- -- --

1:0.45 A2 551.6 33% 33% 33% 25% -- -- -- -- -- --

A3 -- -- -- -- -- --

B1 -- -- -- -- -- --

1:0.6 B2 500 33% 33% 33% 25% -- -- -- -- -- --

B3 -- -- -- -- -- --

C1 289 29.1

1:0.75 C2 456.6 33% 33% 33% 25% 286.5 34.8 288.83 2.31 32.06 12.82

C3 291 32.3

D1 273.5 1.8

1:0.9 D2 420 33% 33% 33% 32% 277 2.3 276 2.2 1.9 0.75

D3 277.5 1.6

E1 276 156.8

1:1 E2 390 33% 33% 33% 34% 289 97.2 280.66 2.24 129.1 51.64

E3 277 133.3

F1 -- -- -- -- -- --

1:1.2 F2 363.3 33% 33% 33% 31% -- -- -- -- -- --

F3 -- -- -- -- -- --

G1 289 7

1:1.35 G2 340 33% 33% 33% 31% 290 6 289.33 2.31 6.6 2.6

G3 289 7

H1 288 92.7

1:1.50 H2 320 33% 33% 33% 29% 286 80 284 2.27 80.66 32.26

H3 278 69.3

J1 -- -- -- -- -- --

1:1.65 J2 300 33% 33% 33% 31% -- -- -- -- -- --

J3 -- -- -- -- -- --

Table 1.1varying the cement content and keeping sand content fixed




Graph 1.1varying the cement content and keeping sand content fixed

Table 1.2 Explanation of graph 1.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

A B C D E F G H J

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average

Trial Mix A B C D E F G H J

Mortar

Mix

1:0.45 1:0.60 1:0.75 1:0.9 1:1 1:1.2 1:1.35 1:1.50 1:1.65

C 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

M 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

F 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

W/C

used

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.32 0.34 0.31 0.31 0.29 0.31




CONCLUSIONS

a) While casting the cubes itself for trials A (1:0.45) & B (1:0.60) , it was noticed that the

cement content in these mixes is too high and the cubes couldn?t be prepared . Hence, it

is not advisable to have such high quantity of cement in the cubes.

b) The graph consists of C (1:0.75), D (1:0.9), & E (1:1), as an increasing or rising chart,

which shows that if used further, will give better results.

c) In case of confirmation for D(1:0.9), which showed lower results in the graph, it will be

repeated in trial 2 along with C(1:0.75) & E(1:1).

d) As H (1:1.50) has also shown better results,it will be used for further trials.

e) F (1:1.2) & J (1:1.65) is to be eliminated due to excessive cracks.

f) G (1:0.9) shows indifferent results as compared to others.




CHAPTER 2.METHODOLOGY AND INVESTIGATION FOR TRIAL ? 2

Now, varying sand grading and keeping cement content fixed, the following batches are made

consisting of 1230 gms sand and 1170gms of cement in a mixture of 2400gms of dry mortar --

1-contains coarse sand 33% , medium sand 33% and fine sand 33%









Fig. 2.1: Weighing machine




TRIAL NO.2



%C = % of coarse sand%M = % of medium sand

%F = % of fine sand%A = % of admixture

Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of A

Wt. of

cube (gms)


Avg. Wt. in (gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load at failure

( kN )

Avg. stress at failure

(kg/cm²)

1? 276.5 10.6

1?? 390 33% 33% 33% 39% 1% 288 10.6 284.16 2.27 10 4

1??? 288 8.8

2? 282 12.6

2?? 390 39% 30% 31% 37% 1% 280.5 15.1 281.5 2.2 14.23 5.7

2??? 282 15.0

3? -- --

3?? 390 39% 33% 28% 37% 1% -- -- 297.5 2.38 -- --

3??? 297.5 --

4? 284 79

4?? 390 39% 36% 25% 37% 1% 280 4.2 280.83 2.24 29.2 2.2

4??? 278.5 4.4

5? 286 33.7

5?? 390 45% 25% 30% 34% 1% 291 40.5 286.5 2.29 36.1 14.44

5??? 282.5 34.1

6? 281 15.3

6?? 390 45% 27% 28% 36% 1% 281.5 11.1 281.83 2.25 13.56 5.42

6??? 283 14.3

7? 280.5 38.4

7?? 390 45% 30% 25% 37% 1% 294 48.2 285.16 2.28 42.23 17.49

7??? 281 40.1

8? 285 44.6

8?? 390 50% 19% 31% 37% 1% 284.5 40.7 286.96 2.29 42.96 17.18

8??? 289 43.6

9? -- --

9?? 390 50% 22% 28% 38% 1% -- -- -- -- -- --

9??? -- --

Table 2.1varying sand grading and keeping cement content fixed




Graph 2.1varying sand grading and keeping cement content fixed

Table2.2 Explanation of graph 2.1

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average

Trial

Mix

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Mortar

Mix

1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1

C 33% 39% 39% 39% 45% 45% 45% 50% 50%

M 33% 30% 33% 36% 25% 27% 30% 19% 22%

F 33% 31% 28% 25% 30% 28% 25% 31% 28%

W/C

used

0.39 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.34 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.38




CONCLUSIONS

a) From the graph it is noted that, 7 (45%,30%, 25%) & 8 ( 50%, 19%, 31%) are giving best

and consistent results. Hence, will be used for further tests.

b) Effect of variation in grading of standard sand on compression strength, at the age of 3

days, is observed as the strength increases with increase in coarse sand and decrease in

medium and fine sand.

c) Mortar mix 3 (39%, 33%, 28%) and 9 (50%, 225, 28%), got washed out.

d) There should be large difference between percentage of coarse and medium sand , 33%,

33%,33% is not a suitable proportion.

e) Gap grading is necessary, hence the variations in grading of sand is required.

Fig. 2.2: Dry mixes (trial mixes 2,3 and4)





From trial 1, it is found that the results of C (1:0.75), D (1:0.9) and E (1:1) were best and from

trial 2 it was seen that 7 (45%,30%,25%) & 8 (50%, 19%, 31%) were best. But for confirmation,

we again tested cubes for batches C, D and E. Hence, 7 & 8 with C, D and E combinations and

results were found:

Keeping same cement content and using different grading:

C7 - contains coarse sand 45% , medium sand 30% and fine sand 25%

D7 - contains coarse sand 45% , medium sand 30% and fine sand 25%

E7 - contains coarse sand 45% , medium sand 30% and fine sand 25%

C8 - contains coarse sand 50% , medium sand 19% and fine sand 31%

D8 - contains coarse sand 50% , medium sand 19% and fine sand 31%

E8 - contains coarse sand 50% , medium sand 19% and fine sand 31%

Fig.3.1: Fillingofmoulds




Fig.3.2: Trial dry mixes( C , D and E)

Fig. 3.3: Ready moulds to keep for curing

Fig. 3.4: Compression Testing Machine(CTM)




TRIAL NO.3

Date of casting ? 20/12/13 Date of testing ? 27 /12/13



%F = % of fine sand%A = % of admixture

Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of A

Wt. of

cube (gms)


Avg. Wt. in (gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)


( kN )


(kg/cm²)

C201 290 156.4

C202 480 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 281 198.2 222.11 1.7 165.46 66.18

C203 286 141.8

D201 288 183.1

D202 442 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 284 167.1 284.33 2.27 165.66 66.25

D203 281 146.8

E201 291 120.2

E202 420 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 290 134.5 290 2.32 105.30 58.12

E203 289 181.2

C7201 296 123.7

C7202 480 45% 30% 25% 25% 1% 294 125 294.33 2.35 138.86 55.49

C7203 293 167.9

D7201 295 214.5

D7202 442 45% 30% 25% 25% 1% 296 201.2 297 2.37 213.13 89.25

D7203 300 223.7

E7201 290 134.2

E7202 420 45% 30% 25% 25% 1% 287 213.5 290.66 2.32 181.76 54.74

E7203 295 197.6

C8201 286 193

C8202 480 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 287 194 288.66 2.3 193.5 61.4

C8203 293 --

D8201 284 181.6

D8202 442 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 282 208.3 282.66 2.26 203.93 79.90

D8203 282 221.9

E8201 286 187.7

E8202 420 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 291 169 289.33 2.31 146.93 58.77

E203 291 84.1

Table 3.1 Trials on samples C ,D, E (for confirmation) and trials combining samples C , D, E and samples

7 & 8




Graph 3.1 Trials on samples C ,D, E (for confirmation) and trials combining samples C , D, E and

samples 7 & 8

Trial

Mix

C20 D20 E20 C720 D720 E720 C820 D820 E820

Mortar

Mix

1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1

C 33% 33% 33% 45% 45% 45% 50% 50% 50%

M 33% 33% 33% 30% 30% 30% 19% 19% 19%

F 33% 33% 33% 25% 25% 25% 31% 31% 31%

W/C

used

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25


0

20

40

60

80

100St

ress

(kg

/cm

²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




CONCLUSIONS

a) From the 7 days strength results, it is noticed that average strength for C, D & E is 66.18

kg/cm², 66.25 kg/cm², 58.12 kg/cm².

b) When the trials are carried out, by changing grading of sand, to 45%, 30%, 25% (7) , the

average strength of 3 cubes respectively are 55.49 kg/cm² ( C ), 89.25 kg/cm² ( D ), 54.74

kg/cm² ( E ).

c) When the grading of sand is 55%, 19%, 31% (8) is used, the results obtained are

61.14kg/cm² ( C ), 79.9 kg/cm² ( D ), 58.77 kg/cm² ( E ).

d) From this it can easily concluded that, when the percentage of sand, is 33%, 33%, 33% ,

it gives low results , and it gives high results for trial 7 & 8.

e) Hence, gap grading is necessary.

Fig. 3.5: Mixing procedure with shovels

Fig. 3.6: Removed mould from vibrator machine




CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY AND INVESTIGATION FOR TRIAL- 4

To find the effect of alccofine on the compressive strength , experiments have been carried out

on universal sand for 7 days. Gujarat Ambuja Cement had found that by using alccofine powder

in mortar voids will completely be filled and good results can be obtained. Hence, used alccofine

powder with trial 3 combinations.Alccofine powder using 3% , 4.5% and 6% by weight of

cement were used with trial 3 combinatins C, D and E.

Fig. 4.1: Vibrator machine




Fig. 4.2: Humidity chamber( moulds are placed here for 1 day before curing)

Fig. 4.3: Mortar Mixer




TRIAL NO.4

Date of casting ? 21/12/13 Date of testing ? 28 /12/13


%C = % of coarse sand %M = % of medium sand

%F = % of fine sand %Ad = % of admixture

%Al = % of alccofine

Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)


Avg. Wt. in (gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)


( kN )


(kg/cm²)

CA11 284 189

CA12 465.5 3% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 288 164.4 284.66 2.27 197.1 78.85

CA13 282 138

DA11 285 192

DA12 428.7 3% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 285 220 286.33 2.29 216 86.4

DA13 289 230

EA11 282 241

EA12 407.4 3% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 283 149 284.66 2.27 189 75.8

EA13 289 179

CA21 282 236.4

CA22 458.4 4.5% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 291 115.6 290 2.32 191.3 76.5

CA23 291 222

DA21 286 251

DA22 422.1 4.5% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 282 215 285.3 2.28 228.3 92.1

DA23 288 219

EA21 277 233

EA22 401.1 4.5% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 289 261 284.66 2.27 186.3 74.5

EA23 288 165

CA31 289 195

CA32 451.2 6% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 296 224 292.33 2.33 225.6 90.2

CA33 292 258

DA31 291 258.7

DA32 415.5 6% 33% 33% 33% 25% 1% 300 267.4 294.66 2.35 224.5 89.8

DA33 293 247.4

EA31 298 215

EA32 394.8 6% 33% 33% 33% 26% 1% 295 252 298.66 2.38 266.3 82.53

EA33 303 152

Table 4.1 Effect of alccofine on samples C, D and E




Graph 4.1Effect of alccofine on samples C, D and E


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

CA1 DA1 EA1 CA2 DA2 EA2 CA3 DA3 EA3

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average

Trial

Mix


Mortar

Mix

1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1

C 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

M 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

F 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

Alco 3% 3% 3% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 6% 6% 6%

W/C

used

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26




Graph 4.2 Effect on the varying percentage of alccofine

CONCLUSION

a) From the graph, it is observed that , as the percentage of Alccofine increases, the strength

increases.

b) Here onwards, experiments are carried out 3%, 4.5% & 6% Alccofine for trial 7 ( C7, D7,

E7)

c) Similarly, it is used for trial n8, i.e, C8, D8, E8.

d) Effect of Alccofine on compression strength is observed & a final conclusion is drawn

from trials 7 & 8.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

0% 3% 6%

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Alcofine content

Trial C

Trial D

Trial E

4.5%





Alccofine powder using 3% , 4.5% and 6% by weight of cement were used with trial 3

combinatins C7, D7and E7.

Fig.5.1: Curing Tank (maintained at 67 degree celcius)

Fig.5.2: Prepared moulds




TRIAL NO.5




%F = % of fine sand%Ad = % of admixture


Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load

at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress


CA71.1 813 389.7

CA71.2 1263.9 3% 45% 30% 25% 28% 1% 816 359 812.8 2.37 372.7 74.5

CA71.3 809.5 369.6

DA71.1 710.5 52.8

DA71.2 1152.3 3% 45% 30% 25% 27% 1% 780.5 297.5 769.8 2.24 222.8 44.5

DA71.3 818.5 318.1

EA71.1 820 359.5

EA71.2 1105.8 3% 45% 30% 25% 25% 1% 818.5 297.1 798.1 2.33 273.3 54.6

EA71.3 756 163.2

CA72.1 794 255.9

CA72.2 1244.3 4.5% 45% 30% 25% 27% 1% 771.5 339.3 787.3 2.3 267.3 53.4

CA72.3 796.5 206.9

DA72.1 807 336.5

DA72.2 1134.5 4.5% 45% 30% 25% 26% 1% 804.5 313.4 798 2.32 303.9 60.8

DA72.3 782.5 261.9

EA72.1 820.5 310

EA72.2 1088.7 4.5% 45% 30% 25% 27% 1% 808.5 245.7 814.3 2.3 271 54.2

EA72.3 814 257.3

CA73.1 815.5 257.2

CA73.2 1224.8 6% 45% 30% 25% 29% 1% 787.5 290.8 803.3 2.3 295.6 59.1

CA73.3 807 339

DA73.1 805.5 274.4

DA73.2 1116.7 6% 45% 30% 25% 27% 1% 807 220.9 809 2.3 238.7 47.7

DA73.3 814.5 220.9

EA73.1 819 312.9

EA73.2 1071.6 6% 45% 30% 25% 28% 1% 817 323.4 810.8 2.3 295.7 59.1

EA73.3 796.5 250.8

Table 5.1 Effect of alccofine on samples C7, D7 and E8




Graph 5.1 Effect of alccofine on samples C7, D7 and E8

Trial

Mix


Mortar

Mix

1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1

C 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45% 45%

M 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%

F 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 25%

Alco 3% 3% 3% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 6% 6% 6%

W/C

used

0.28 0.27 0.25 0.27 0.26 0.27 0.29 0.27 0.28


0

20

40

60

80

100

120


Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




CONCLUSION

a) When 0% Alccofine is used, i.e, without Alccofine, trial 7 & 8 were best.

b) Using Alccofine, 33%, 33%, 33% grading is best.

c) Alccofine is percentage by weight of cement. When the quantity of cement decreases, strength

decreases. Hence, 6% Alccofine gives low results.

d) Alccofinewith higher percentage by weight of cement i.e 6%, is not good. Hence, 3% & 4.5%

are used for future experiments.

e) If Alccofine is not used, best results are obtained if grading is chosen properly. However, this is

required to be verified by carrying more number of trials.

Fig. 5.3: Moulds





Alccofine powder using 3% , 4.5% and 6% by weight of cement were used with trial 3

combinatins C8, D8 and E8.

Fig 6.1:Mortar Mixer




Fig 6.2: Giving identification marks to moulds

TRIAL NO.6

Date of casting ? 27/12/13(18), 2/1/14(9) Date of testing ? 2/1/14(18), 9/1/14(9)





Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load

at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress


CA81.1 800.5 250.8

CA81.2 1263.9 3% 50% 19% 31% 26% 0.8% 786 260.4 787.6 2.3 242.7 48.54

CA81.3 776.5 216.9

DA81.1 813.5 225.2

DA81.2 1164 3% 50% 19% 31% 25% 08% 804.5 232.9 811.8 2.36 249.4 49.89

DA81.3 817.5 290.1

EA81.1 812.5 309.6

EA81.2 1105.8 3% 50% 19% 31% 28% 0.8% 811.5 322.7 815.3 2.37 273.1 54.63

EA81.3 822 187

CA82.1 797 233.6

CA82.2 1244.3 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 800.5 310.8 803.8 2.34 282.3 56.48

CA82.3 814 302.7

DA82.1 809 299.7

DA82.2 1146 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 802.5 318.9 804.8 2.35 291.8 58.48

DA82.3 803 256.8

EA82.1 818.0 286.4

EA82.2 1088.7 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 813 321.6 813.6 2.37 316.8 63.56

EA82.3 810 342.3

CA83.1 815 299.6

CA83.2 1224.8 6% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 812.5 355.9 810.3 2.36 315.9 63.1

CA83.3 803.5 292.2

DA83.1 814 345.6

DA83.2 1128 6% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 818.5 256.7 816.6 2.38 302.1 60.42

DA83.3 817.5 304.1

EA83.1 810 310.5

EA83.2 1071.6 6% 50% 19% 31% 25% 0.8% 808 263.6 805.6 2.35 257.4 55.07

EA83.3 799 252.1

Table 6.1 Effect of alcccofine on samples C8, D8 and E8




Graph 6.1Effect of alcccofine on samples C8, D8 and E8

Table 6.2 Explanation of graph 6 .1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80


Stre

ss(k

g/cm

²)

Trial mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average

Trial

Mix


Mortar

Mix

1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1 1:0.75 1:09 1:1

C 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

M 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

F 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Alco 3% 3% 3% 4.5% 4.5% 4.5% 6% 6% 6%

W/C

used

0.26 0.25 0.28 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25




CONCLUSIONS

a) As the percentage of Alccofine increases, there is increase in the compressive strength. But,

when 6% Alccofine is used, average strength decreases.

b) Hence, it can be concluded that, up to a certain point, strength increases with increase in

percentage of Alccofine and after that, it goes on decreasing.

Fig 6.3: Admixture

Fig 6.4: Moulds prepared for testing





From results of trials 3 and 4 , it is seen that strengths of trial mixes D7 ,D8 , DA1 , DA2

,CA3 and EA3 are above 80 MPa . Hence, for conformation above trial mixes are again

tested for their strengths .

Fig 7.1: Dry mortar mix

Fig 7.2: Wet mortar mix




TRIAL NO.7


Curing for ? 28 days




Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load

at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress


D74/2.1 289.5 201.7

D74/2.2 442 -- 45% 30% 25% 25% 0.8% 287.5 211 288.6 2.3 212.4 84.98

D74/2.3 289 224.7

D84/2.1 267 2288

D84/2.2 442 -- 50% 19% 31% 24% 08% 288 277.6 2775 2.2 277.1 110.8

D84/2.3 277.5 325.1

DA14/2.1 284 261.9

DA14/2.2 428.7 3% 33% 33% 33% 25% 0.8% 291 173.5 289.1 2.31 246.8 95.4

DA14/2.3 292.5 305.1

DA24/2.1 290.5 130.5

DA24/2.2 4221 4.5% 33% 33% 33% 26% 0.8% 295.5 261.6 288 2.3 221.1 88.45

DA24/2.3 278 271.3

DA34/2.1 288.5 134.6

DA34/2.2 415.5 6% 33% 33% 33% 25% 0.8% 291 192.3 289 2.31 199.4 79.76

DA34/2.3 287.5 271.3

CA34/2.1 300.5 277.8

CA34/2.2 451.2 6% 33% 33% 33% 25% 0.8% 298 200.4 296.1 2.37 246.3 98.48

CA34/2.3 290 260.7

EA34/2.1 302.5 222.7

EA34/2.2 394.8 6% 33% 33% 33% 26% 0.8% 297 229.2 298.5 2.38 224.8 89.93

EA34/2.3 296 222.6

Table 7.1 Trials on samples giving strength more than 80 MPa




Graph 7.1 Trials on samples giving strength more than 80 MPa

Trial

Mix

D74/2 D84/2 DA14/2 DA24/2 DA34/2 CA34/2 EA34/2

Mortar

Mix

1:0.9 1:0.9 1:0.9 1:0.9 1:0.9 1:0.75 1:1

C 45% 50% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

M 30% 19% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

F 25% 31% 33% 33% 33% 33% 33%

Alco -- -- 3% 4.5% 6% 6% 6%

W/C

used

0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.25 0.26


0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

D74/2 D84/2 DA14/2 DA24/2 DA34/2 CA34/2 EA34/2

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




CONCLUSIONS

a) It is observed that D8 (50%, 19%, 31%) gives best results which has mix proportion 1:09

which has 0% alccofine content.

b) Strength results obtained by using Alccofine are less than strength results obtained

without alccofine.

c) It is clearly seen that, 6% Alccofine is not beneficial.

Fig 7.3: Digital Load Indicator




CHAPTER 8.METHODOLOGY AND INVESTIGATION FOR DENSITY TEST

Generally, maximum density gives maximum strength because maximum voids get filled. Hence

we have carried out the density experiments. In this, instead of cement we used ordinary soil,

standard sand and aggregates of river sand with varying percentage by weight of sand i.e. 5%,

10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30%. Specimens used were D7, D8 from trial 3 and DA2 from trial 4,

as the results obtained were good.

Fig8.1: Soft ordinary soil

Fig 8.2: Trays for weighing soil




Fig 8.3: sieving of soil

Fig 8.4: Mixture of soil and standard sand

Fig 8.5: Mould ready for density test




Density test.

Trial Mix No.

Sand (gms)

Coarse Sand (gms)

Medium Sand (gms)

Fine Sand (gms)

W/C Used (ml)

% of aggregates

(gms)

Aggregates (gms)

Density

D7 442 179 119 100 190 5 22.1 3.32

195 10 44.2 3.34

200 15 66.3 3.36

110 20 88.4 3.44

140 25 110.5 3.42

150 30 132.6 3.45

D8 442 119 77 124 140 5 22.1 3.1

1335 10 44.2 3.15

125 15 66.3 3.2

125 20 88.4 3.26

120 25 110.5 3.35

115 30 132.6 3.36

DA2 422.11 133 133 133 150 5 21.1 3.30

145 10 42.2 3.46

136 15 63.3 3.50

128 20 84.4 3.58

112 25 105.5 3.61

110 30 126.6 3.65

Table 8.1Density results on the best acquired results




Graph 8.1 Density results on the best acquired results

2.8

2.9

3

3.1

3.2

3.3

3.4

3.5

3.6

3.7

5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%

De

nsi

ty

Trial Mix

D7

D8

DA2





Now, using crushed aggregates passing through 6 mm IS sieve and retaining on 4.75 mm IS

sieve. Found that trials 4, 5 and 6 with alccofine powder of 6% by weight of cement gave not so

good results and hence,alccofine powder of 0%, 3% and 4.5% by weight of cement were used

with batches E8 , F8 and H8. Standard sand was used for 7 days testing.

Calculation:

Coarse sand - 50%, medium sand - 19% and fine sand - 31%

Using 7cm x 7cm x 7cm, volume of 1 cube is 343cc.

Assume density =2.6gm/cc and hence ,weight = 343 x 2.6=900gms

1. Without alccofine -- `

A(0)-For proportion 1:1 i.e. E batch, sand=(1/(1+1)) x 900=450gms

Aggregates=30% of 450(sand)=135gms

Cement=450 ? 135=315gms.

B(0)-For proportion 1:1.25 i.e. F batch, sand = (1/(1+1.25)) x 900=500gms

Aggregates=30% of 500(sand) =120gms

Cement=400 ? 120=280gms

C(0)-For proportion 1:1.50 i.e. H batch, sand=540gms


Cement=360 ? 165=252gms.




2. Alccofine powder of 3% by weight of cement --

A(3)-For proportion 1:1 i.e. E batch, sand= (1/(1+1)) x 900=450gms


Alccofine powder=3% of 305=10gms

Cement=305gms.

B(3)-For proportion 1:1.25 i.e. F batch, sand= (1/(1+1.25)) x 900=500gms

Aggregates=30% of 500 (sand) =120gms

Alccofine powder=3% of 271.6=8.4gms

cement=271.6gms




Cement=244.5gms.

3. Alccofine powder of 4.5% by weight of cement --

A(4.5)-For proportion 1:1 i.e. E batch, sand=(1/(1+1)) x 900=450gms


Alccofine powder=4.5% of 301=14gms

Cement=301gms.

B(4.5)-For proportion 1:1.25 i.e. F batch, sand=(1/(1+1.25)) x 900=500gms


Alccofine powder=4.5% of 267.4=12.6gms

Cement=267.4gms

C(4.5)-For proportion 1:1.50 i.e. H batch, sand=540gms






Cement=240.66gms.

Fig 9.1: Coarsebarmac sand (passing 2.36 mm I.S. sieve and retaining on 1.18 mm I.S sieve)

Fig 9.2: Medium barmac sand (passing 2.36 mm I.S. sieve and retaining on 1.18 mm I.S sieve)




Fig 9.3: Fine barmac sand (passing 300 micron I.S. sieve and retaining on 150 micron I.S sieve)

Fig 9.4: River aggregates (passing 6 mm I.S. sieve and retaining on 4.75 mm I.S sieve)




TRIAL NO.9






Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load

at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress


E8A0.1 863 276.3

E8A0.2 945 -- 50% 19% 31% 28% 1% 876 245.3 871.6 2.54 265.2 53.04

E8A0.3 876 274

E8A3.1 881 225.8

E8A3.2 915 3% 50% 19% 31% 26% 1% 870 273.3 877.3 2.55 266.5 53.33

E8A3.3 881 300.6

E8A4.5.1 804 86.2

EA4.5.2 903 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 26% 1% 885 296.6 852 2.48 225.7 42.95

E8A4.5.3 867 264.5

F8B0.1 870 317.5

F8B0.2 840 -- 50% 19% 31% 32% 1% 847 202 858.3 2.5 249.1 49.83

F8B0.3 858 228

F8B3.1 865 318.5

F8B3.2 814 3% 50% 19% 31% 38% 1% 863 317.6 869.7 2.5 3076 61.53

F8B3.3 881 286.9

F8B4.5.1 875 344.2

F8B4.5.2 802 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 38% 1% 874 314.6 876 2.5 340.1 68.02

F8B4.5.3 879 361.5

H8C0.1 874 330.1

H8C0.2 756 -- 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 874 312.6 870 2.5 321.7 64.34

H8C0.3 862 322.5

H8C3.1 879 320.1

H8C3.2 733.5 3% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 868 290.8 874 2.5 305 61

H8C3.3 875 304.1

H8C4.5.1 885 282.9

H8C4.5.2 721.9 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 32% 1% 887 337.8 885 2.5 307.7 61.54

H8C4.5.3 883 302.4

Table 9.1 Trials using universal sand for 7 days test




Graph 9.1 Trials using universal sand for 7 days test

Trial

Mix

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H8C4.5

Mortar

Mix

1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5

C 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

M 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

F 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Alco -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5%

W/C

used

0.28 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.31 0.32


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H8C4.5

Str

ess

(kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




CHAPTER 10.METHODOLOGY AND INVESTIGATION FOR TRIAL - 10


sieve. Found that trials 4, 5 and 6 with alccofine powder of 6% by weight of cement gave not

so good results and hence,alccofine powder of 0%, 3% and 4.5% by weight of cement were

used with batches E8 , F8 and H8. Standard sand was used for 28 days testing.

Calculation:







Cement=450 ? 135=315gms.



Cement=400 ? 120=280gms



Cement=360 ? 165=252gms.








Cement=305gms.




cement=271.6gms




Cement=244.5gms.





Cement=301gms.







Cement=267.4gms

C(4.5)-For proportion 1:1.50 i.e. H batch, sand540gms



Cement=240.66gms.

Fig 10.1:Sieve Analysis




TRIAL NO.10





%Al = % of Alccofine% of aggregate = 30% by weight of sand

Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Ratio

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)


( kN )

Avg. stress

at failure

(kg/cm²

)

E8A0.1 880 420.9

E8A0.2 945 -- 50% 19% 31% 28% 1% 861 408.9 865 2.5 395.2 80.64

E8A0.3 854 356.2

E8A3.1 864 365.4

E8A3.2 915 3% 50% 19% 31% 27% 1% 866 385.4 864.6 2.5 378.8 77.28

E8A3.3 864 385.8

E8A4.5.1 881 311.4

EA4.5.2 903 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 26% 1% 880 354.2 883.6 2.5 337.2 69

E8A4.5.3 890 349.2

F8B0.1 872 357.7

F8B0.2 840 -- 50% 19% 31% 32% 1% 858 155.1 870.6 2.5 281.4 57.4

F8B0.3 882 331.4

F8B3.1 895 379.8

F8B3.2 814 3% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 866 331.4 879.6 2.5 369.2 74.09

F8B3.3 878 378.5

F8B4.5.1 882 387.6

F8B4.5.2 802 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 877 378.6 880 2.5 364.6 74.4

F8B4.5.3 881 327.8

H8C0.1 893 302.5

H8C0.2 756 -- 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 899 342.9 889.6 2.5 301.7 61.56

H8C0.3 877 259.7

H8C3.1 878 339.7

H8C3.2 733.5 3% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 892 403.8 889.6 2.5 373.4 76.17

H8C3.3 899 376.8

H8C4.5.1 892 401.4

H8C4.5.2 721.9 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 881 375.5 884 2.5 389.5 79.45

H8C4.5.3 879 391.6

Table 10.1 Trials using universal sand for 28 days test




Graph 10.1 Trials using universal sand for 28 days test


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average

Trial Mix E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C

0

H8C3 H8C4.5

Mortar

Mix

1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5

C 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

M 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

F 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Alco -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5%

W/C used 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.31 0.31




Fig 10.2: Crushed aggregates

Fig 10.3: Standard sand(C, M, F)








with batches E8 , F8 and H8. Barmac sand was used for 7 days testing.

Calculation:







Cement=450 ? 135=315gms.



Cement=400 ? 120=280gms



Cement=360 ? 165=252gms.








Cement=305gms.




cement=271.6gms




Cement=244.5gms.





Cement=301gms.




Cement=267.4gms







Cement=240.66gms.

Fig 11.1: Barmac sand moulds(7 days)

Fig 11.2: Moulds after testing




TRIAL NO.11






Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Rat-io

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress at failure (kg/cm²)

E8A0.1 914 328.1

E8A0.2 945 -- 50% 19% 31% 28% 1% 896 321.8 902 2.6 309 63.24

E8A0.3 896 280

E8A3.1 896 254.9

E8A3.2 915 3% 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 913 264.9 909 2.6 270.3 55.34

E8A3.3 918 291.1

E8A4.5.1 919 948.9

EA4.5.2 903 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 890 295.3 907 2.6 279 56.9

E8A4.5.3 912 292.6

F8B0.1 876 227.4

F8B0.2 840 -- 50% 19% 31% 32% 1% 902 222.7 894.6 2.6 236.8 48.3

F8B0.3 906 260.3

F8B3.1 897 251.8

F8B3.2 814 3% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 907 209 900 2.6 243.2 49.6

F8B3.3 896 269

F8B4.5.1 909 155.7

F8B4.5.2 802 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 818 247.3 895.2 2.6 201.5 41.1

F8B4.5.3 -- --

H8C0.1 960 258.8

H8C0.2 756 -- 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 906 260.9 924 2.6 256.5 52.3

H8C0.3 908 249.9

H8C3.1 875 256.5

H8C3.2 733.5 3% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 900 260.3 897 2.6 303.1 61.8

H8C3.3 916 292.7

H8C4.5.1 904 267.2

H8C4.5.2 721.9 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 921 271.4 914.6 2.6 268.7 54.8

H8C4.5.3 919 267.7

Table 11.1 Trials using Barmac sand for 7 days test




Graph 11.1 Trials using Barmac sand for 7 days test

Trial Mix E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.

5

H8C

0

H8C3 H8C4.

5

Mortar

mix

1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5

C 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

M 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

F 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Alco -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5%

W/C used 0.28 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.31 0.31


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 E84.5

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average








with batches E8 , F8 and H8. Barmac sand was used for 7 days testing.

Calculation:







Cement=450 ? 135=315gms.



Cement=400 ? 120=280gms



Cement=360 ? 165=252gms.








Cement=305gms.




cement=271.6gms




Cement=244.5gms.





Cement=301gms.







Cement=267.4gms




Cement=240.66gms.

Fig 12.1: Moulds of barmacsand(28 days)

Fig 12.2: Moulds of barmacsand(28 days)




TRIAL NO.12



%C = % of coarse sand %M = % of medium sand

%F = % of fine sand %Ad = % of admixture


Trial Mix No.

Cem- ent

(gms)

%Al %C

%M %F % W/C Rat-io

% of Ad

Wt. of

cube (gms)

Load at

failure ( kN )

Avg. Wt. in

(gms)

Avg. Density

In (gm/cc)

Avg. load at failure ( kN )

Avg. stress at failure (kg/cm²)

E8A0.1 883 271.2

E8A0.2 945 -- 50% 19% 31% 28% 1% 882 314.6 885 2.5 303.6 61.93

E8A0.3 890 325

E8A3.1 917 255.4

E8A3.2 915 3% 50% 19% 31% 26% 1% 900 339.6 904.6 2.6 298.3 60.87

E8A3.3 897 300.1

E8A4.5.1 905 247.7

EA4.5.2 903 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 25% 1% 891 329.7 901 2.6 301.8 68.35

E8A4.5.3 907 328

F8B0.1 876 326.5

F8B0.2 840 -- 50% 19% 31% 32% 1% 885 390.2 880.3 2.5 335.8 68.70

F8B0.3 880 290.7

F8B3.1 873 367.8

F8B3.2 814 3% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 872 310.6 877 2.5 318.4 64.95

F8B3.3 886 276.8

F8B4.5.1 878 271.3

F8B4.5.2 802 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 870 326.5 875.3 2.5 290.4 59.25

F8B4.5.3 878 273.6

H8C0.1 806 79.1

H8C0.2 756 -- 50% 19% 31% 30% 1% 857 286.8 844.3 2.4 234 85.92

H8C0.3 870 310.9

H8C3.1 825 125.3

H8C3.2 733.5 3% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 875 305.6 836.6 2.4 177.7 59.24

H8C3.3 810 102.9

H8C4.5.1 877 278.2

H8C4.5.2 721.9 4.5% 50% 19% 31% 31% 1% 856 234.5 846 2.4 197.7 40.32

H8C4.5.3 805 80.4

Table 12.1 Trials using Barmac sand for 28 days test




Graph 12.1 Trials using Barmac sand for 28 days test

Trial Mix E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.

5

H8C

0

H8C3 H8C4.5

Mortar

mix

1:1 1:1 1:1 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.25 1:1.5 1:1.5 1:1.5

C 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50% 50%

M 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19% 19%

F 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31% 31%

Alco -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5% -- 3% 4.5%

W/C

used

0.28 0.26 0.26 0.32 0.38 0.38 0.3 0.31 0.31

Table 12.2 Explanation in graph 12.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 E84.5

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

Trial Mix

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




CHAPTER 13.COMPARATIVE GRAPHS OF TRIALS 9, 10 , 11, 12

GRAPH 9 = Universal sand ( 7 days curing) with aggregates.

GRAPH 10 = Universal sand ( 28 days curing) with aggregates.

GRAPH 11 = Barmac sand ( 7 days curing) with aggregates.

GRAPH 12 = Barmac sand ( 28 days curing) with aggregates.

7 days universal sand with 7 days barmac sand with

Aggregate aggregates

Graph 13.1 Comparing first four samples of graphs 9.1 and 11.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0 E8A0 E8A3 E8A4.5 F8B0

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE






Graph 13.2 Comparing next five samples of graphs 9.1 and 11.1

Conclusions

(a) The graph 13.1 shows thatthe proportion of E8 is 1:1 and the grading of sand is 45%, 30%

and 25% and so the strengths for standard sand is lesser than barmac sand because the

sand content in batch E is less.

(b) The graph 13.2 shows that the proportion of F8 and H8 is 1:1.2 and 1:1.5 respectively ,

and the grading of sand is 45%, 30% and 25%.hence the sand content of F8 and H8 is

more as compared to E8.

(c) Therefore The strength of standard sand for F8 and H8 is more than barmac sand. Here we

conclude that if the sand content is less , concrete having barmac sand gives more strength

than concrete having standard sand.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H8C4.5 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5

Stre

ss(k

g/cm

²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE




28 days universal sand 28 daysbarmac sand with

With Aggregate aggregates

Graph 13.3 Comparing first four sapmles of graphs 10.1 and 12.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Stre

ss(k

g/cm

²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE






Graph 13.4 Comparing next five sapmles of graphs 10.1 and 12.1

Conclusions

(a) The graph 13.3 shows thatthe proportion of E8 is 1:1 and the grading of sand is 45%,

30% and 25% and so the strengths for standard sand is lesser than barmac sand because

the sand content in batch E is less.

(b) The graph 13.4 shows that the proportion of F8 and H8 is 1:1.2 and 1:1.5 respectively ,

and the grading of sand is 45%, 30% and 25%.hence the sand content of F8 and H8 is

more as compared to E8.

(c) Therefore the strength of standard sand for F8 and H8 is more than barmac sand. Here we

conclude that if the sand content is less , concrete having barmac sand gives more

strength than concrete having standard sand.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE




7 days universal sand with 28 days universal sand with


Graph 13.5Comapring first four samples of graphs 9.1 and 10.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE




Conclusions

(a) The graph 13.5 shows that the strengths obtained for standard sand proportion E i.e 1:1 for 7

days is between 50 MPa and 60 MPa and for 28 days it is even higher between 70 MPa to 80

MPa.

7 days universal sand with 28 days universal sand with


Graph 13.6Comapring next five samples of graphs 9.1 and 10.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H8C4.5 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5

Stre

ss(k

g/cm

²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE




Conclusions

(a)The graph13.6 shows that the strengths obtained for standard sand proportion F i.e 1:1.2 And

H i.e 1:1.5 for 7 days is between 60 MPa and 70 MPa and for 28 days it is even higher between

75MPa to 80 MPa.

7 days barmac sand with 28 days barmac sand with


Graph 13.7Comapring first four samples of graphs 11.1 and 12.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90


Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

AVERAGE




Conclusions

(a) The graph 13.7 shows that the strengths obtained forbarmac sand proportion E i.e 1:1 for 7

days is between 50 MPa and 60 MPa and for 28 days it is even higher between 70 MPa to 80

MPa.

7 days barmac sand with 28 days barmac sand with


Graph 13.8Comapring next five samples of graphs 11.1 and 12.1

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5 F8B3 F8B4.5 H8C0 H8C3 H84.5

Stre

ss (

kg/c

m²)

CUBE 1

CUBE 2

CUBE 3

Average




Conclusions

(a) The graph 13.8 shows that the strengths obtained for barmac sand proportion F i.e 1:1.2

And H i.e 1:1.5 for 7 days is between 50 MPa and 60 MPa and actually it should give

higher results for 28 days curing , but because of some reasons it did?nt give expected

higher results.

FINAL CONCLUSION

Standard sand is rightly proven to give good strength throughout all the trials. Barmac sand

which on an average gives comparatively lesser strength can still be used for concreting purpose

as this is economical compared to standard sand. What is important is to choose the proportions

rightly and a high strength economical concrete structure can be constructed.

ACHIEVEMENTS

a) Total number of cubes casted exactly 297 cubes in a period of five months i.e. Dec 2013

to April 2014.

b) 75 days of rigorous work on casting and testing the cubes and the rest days for planning ,

calculations and execution.

c) The initial aim was to carry out experiments using universal sand,but later usage of

barmac sand was also done which definitely increased the volume of research.

HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE · ace 30, auramix- BASF admixture, water & mineral admixture alccofine....

Documents

Transcript of HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE · ace 30, auramix- BASF admixture, water & mineral admixture alccofine....