CT Course Project Report

LITERATURE SURVEY
River sand is widely used as

construction material all over the world,
especially in production of concrete. Various
government & non govt. organizations and
research institutes are striving to identify
alternative materials to supplement river sand.
Manufactured sand is popularly known by
several names such as crushed sand, rock sand,
green sand etc. M-sand is produced by crushing
or rock-on-rock or rock-on-metal vertical shaft
impactor (VSI) in which the process that
produces alluvial deposits is closely stimulated.
If rock is crushed compression, lot of
inherent properties exhibited by natural sand
are lost.
[Type text]
If proper technique of manufacturing is not
adopted aggregates are bound to be flaky and
elongated. In case of manufactured sand all
the processes mentioned can be done at
manufacturing plant itself and controls are
much better in producing quality M sand.
M-sand also be used for making masonry
mortar and shall confirm to requirements of
IS:2116-1980.
Table 1. Comparison of impurities of rivers versus
M-sand
River sand M-sand

Marine products 2-4 % Nil
Oversized material 6-10% Nil
Clay and silt 5-20% Nil
[Type text]
M-SAND
100 % replacement to natural sand and
it is one of the byproduct of aggregates
No scarcity as the Government is
encouraging the business to garner un-
tapped revenue
Govt. has identified the place and
accorded the sanction for carrying out
quarrying and crushing activities without
compromising on any environmental issue
Sand washing machine to ensure 0%
silt content, benefitting best
economized concrete with possibility of
reduction in cement content
No fear, quality is main focus.
Transparency in pricing as
manufacturing facility is legal.
[Type text]
PROBLEM STATEMENT
Comparison between Strength of concrete
(M20) prepared by M-sand and river sand
RELEVENCE OF PROBLEM SATEMENT
With increase in population the demand of
housing, transportation and other amenities
increases. As modern engineering practices
become more demanding there is
correspondence of need of special types of
substituent's which possess such properties as
innovations resulting into economy. Here we
choose manufacturing sand (M-sand) as
substitute of river sand. Depletion of good
quality river sand has increased used of M-
sand.
[Type text]
MAIN OBJECTIVE
To test the compressive strength of
concrete prepared by M-sand and river
sand
Durability of concrete directly depends
on quality of sand. With a view to
implement sustainability concepts (like
locally available materials and industrial by-
products) the possible use of marine
crushed stone, fine aggregates, a by-
product from industries in different specific
required sizes, is considered as an
alternative material to river sand in
concrete.
[Type text]
METHODOLOGY
The materials used i.e. river sand, M-
sand, coarse aggregate should have specific
properties acceptably by IS 383 2016.
The properties such as specific gravity
etc is found in the laboratory
Cubes of 15cm x 15cm are casted 3 for
each type of sand
Compression strength for each is
determined at 7 days and 28 days
LABORATORY & FIELD WORK
Our project is mainly laboratory work
Field work is obtaining the m-sand from
different manufacturer
[Type text]
EXPECTED OUTCOME
We expect that concrete prepared by M-
sand will have higher compressive strength as
compared to river sand.
IS 383 AND ACCEPTABLE LIMIT
Sieve analysis: As per IS Code(fine aggregates)
Sieve analysis River sand v/s M-sand
IS sieve River sand % M-sand % % passing for single

aggregate aggregate aggregate of normal
size
4.75mm 99.25 99.75 92 to 100

2.36mm 93.50 78.25 75 to 100
1.18mm 48.00 52.00 55 to 90
600 micron 28.00 38.00 35 to 59
300 micron 4.00 21.00 8 to 30
150 micron 0.05 5.00 0 to 10
[Type text]
As per IS Code(Coarse aggregate)
IS sieve % passing for single size aggregate
40mm 100
20mm 25
10mm 6
4.75mm 3
Obtained results (coarse aggregate)

IS sieve Wt retained Wt Cumulative Passing
in gm retained % %
%
40mm 00 00 00 100
20mm 1145 22.9 22.9 77.1
10mm 3815 76.3 99.2 0.8
4.75mm 40 0.80 100 00
[Type text]
Performed in lab(River sand)
Sieve size Wt retained % wt Cumulative % passing
in gm retained % wt
4.75mm 80 8 8 42
2.36mm 87 8.7 16.7 83.3
1.18mm 28.1 28.1 44.8 52.2
600 30.8 30.8 75.6 24.4
micron
300 207.0 20.7 96.3 3.7
micron
150 8.00 0.8 97.1 2.9
micron
As per IS code, typically fine aggregate has
value of specific gravities(bulk) about 2.400 to
3.000 with 2.700 being fairly typical value and
water absorption maximum 5%. Specific gravity
of msand should be 2.3 to 2.67 and for coarse
aggregate should be 2.5 to 3.2. Our values
performed in lab are within acceptable limits.
[Type text]
For M-sand performed in lab:
Mass of oven dried sample W1 = 500g
Mass of empty pycnometer W2 = 626g
Mass of pycnometer + sand W3 = 757g
Mass of pycnometer + water W4 = 760g
Mass of pycnometer + water + sand W5 = 843.10g
Bulk specific gravity = W3-W2 / (W3-W2) - W5-

W9) = 2.78
Wet wt = 583 Dry wt = 2.78
%Water absorption = (Wet wt - Dry wt/ Dry
wt)*100=1.66%
For river sand performed in lab
Mass of oven dried sample W1 = 1000g
[Type text]
Mass of empty pycnometer W2 = 465g
Mass of pycnometer + sand W3 = 966g
Mass of pycnometer + water W4 = 1638g
Mass of pycnometer + water + sand W5 = 1326g
Bulk specific gravity = W3-W2 / (W3-W2) - (W5-

W4) = 2.65
Water absorption:-
Wet wt = 425 Dry wt = 417
Therefore the % water absorption= (Wet wt -
Dry wt/ Dry wt)*100=1.9%
For coarse aggregate performed in lab
Mass of dry aggregate in air = 2000 g
[Type text]
Mass of basket in water = 510 g
Mass of aggregate + basket(water) = 1294g
Mass of surface dried aggregate = 2006g
Specific gravity = 2000 / 2006 -1284 = 2.77
Water absorption=0.30%
RESULTS
RIVER SAND M-SAND(1) M-SAND(2)
SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.65 2.78 2.71
WATER ABSORPTION 1.9% 1.66% 1.59%
COMPRESSIVE 20.12 21.20 21.39

STRENGTH(N/mm)
[Type text]
COMMENTS/DISCUSSIONS
• M-sand is a well graded material which falls
within the grading limits specified by IS-383
for zone-II.
• Shape of M-sand particles resemble with
those of river sand particles.
• Compressive strength of concrete made
with M-sand is marginally higher(6%-9%)
when compared to that of river sand.
[Type text]
CONCLUSION
We conclude that M-sand concrete possess
higher compressive strength when compared
with river sand concrete. The results pertained
to that M-sand can be 100% replaced and
possess greater characteristic strength. The
present investigation shows that characteristics
of concrete made of M-sand as fine aggregate
are superior when compared to natural river
sand as fine aggregate
[Type text]
PRCTICAL DIFFICULTIES
1. The river sand procured had
impurities like soil, silt & clay.
2. Coarse aggregates had impurities like
twigs, leaves, etc
3. Proper mixing of concrete was a
major difficulty.
4. Proper vibration of concrete so that
bleeding and segregation doesn’t occur.
[Type text]

CT Course Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CT Course Project Report

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

CT Course Project Report

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LITERATURE SURVEY

River sand is widely used as

River sand M-sand

IS sieve River sand % M-sand % % passing for single

4.75mm 99.25 99.75 92 to 100

Obtained results (coarse aggregate)

Bulk specific gravity = W3-W2 / (W3-W2) - W5-

Mass of oven dried sample W1 = 1000g

Bulk specific gravity = W3-W2 / (W3-W2) - (W5-

For coarse aggregate performed in lab

Mass of dry aggregate in air = 2000 g

Mass of aggregate + basket(water) = 1294g

Mass of surface dried aggregate = 2006g

Specific gravity = 2000 / 2006 -1284 = 2.77

RIVER SAND M-SAND(1) M-SAND(2)

SPECIFIC GRAVITY 2.65 2.78 2.71

WATER ABSORPTION 1.9% 1.66% 1.59%

COMPRESSIVE 20.12 21.20 21.39

You might also like