OPTIMUM UTILIZATION OF INDUSTRIAL WASTE (FLYASH AND

QUARRY DUST) IN R.C. BEAMS (WITH M25 Mix)

By Nitta Gopi M.E., MIRC.,*; Prof.V Jagannadha Rao Ph.D** ;

K.Siddartha Kumar B.Tech., M.I.E.,MIRC.,F.I.V.,***

The paper presents laboratory investigations relating to use of Fly ash (F) and
Quarry dust (Q.D) replacing cement and sand (independent and combined) in cement
concrete, which is, used in R.C. beams with M25 mix. The behaviour of R.C. Beams
(with Fly ash and Quarry dust) was compared with standard R.C. Beams containing no
industrial wastes. An attempt has been made to compare working load, Ultimate load,
deflection, and crack width of R.C. Beams. It is concluded that 30% Fly ash in cement
and 90% industrial wastes (60% QD and 30% F) in sand shows better behaviour than
remaining all the mixes. The investigations indicate that use of Fly ash or Quarry dust
independently does not improve the behaviour significantly in R.C. Beams but the
combination of these industrial wastes improves the behaviour apart from cost reduction
and less harm to environment. No super plasticizers were used in this invstigation to
keep the cost minimum.

Key words: Fly ash, Q.D, Beams, bending, working load and deflection, Crack width.
With the increase in development activity there is a growing demand for Cement
which is associated with emission of CO2 during production, causing Green House effect.
So it is necessary to reduce the use of cement replacing it with fly ash in concrete mixes
M25 and M20 which are mostly used in construction. Similarly, cost of river sand is
increasing in the recent years and is a natural resource which is to be reducing in
utilization replacing with QD and F. The use of F and QD replacing in sand is in line
with Government restriction on extensive use of sand to prevent environmental
degradation. Above all, F and QD are very inexpensive industrial wastes which are to be
utilized in bulk quantities to prevent pollution of environment.
 Fly ash can react with lime produces during the hydration of cement and thus
develops more gel in concrete. Hence it increases compressive strength at later age
(generally after 7 days) and also fills the existing voids in concrete, leading to
impermeability. Another property of Fly ash is to increase the workability. By using
quarry dust as fine aggregate it produces higher strength at early age but reduces the
workability to a greater extent. So the Fly ash is used for replacing cement and
combination of quarry dust with fly ash is used to replace sand to certain extent. Hence
this work is planned to utilize optimum amount of Fly ash and quarry dust which are
causing environmental hazards.
Investigations on the Strength, Flexural response of concrete with Fly ash
replacing cement to some extent are reported by several researcher’s (1 – 4). Similarly
strength characteristics and flexural response of concrete with Quarry dust as partial and
full replacement of fine aggregate reported by several researchers.
Sivasundaram et.al1 remarked that most of the Indian fly ashes meet the
requirements of ASTM class fly ashes with similar chemical composition. Workability
of the fly ash based concrete are excellent.
Murty et al2 concluded that strength of high volume fly ash concrete beams is 73
to 94% of standard beams. Khadilkar et.al3 concluded that workability is more than
ordinary Portland concrete and water requirement is less by 7.5 % to 9.4%.
Bhanumathi et. al4 conducted experiments on HVFA and concluded that 25% fly
ash replacements show equal compressive strength and flexural strength exceeds 10 to
18%.
Experimental programme:-
The experimental programme consists of conducting tests on eight R.C
rectangular beams. In these 8 beams, 2 beams are M25 mix designed as per IS: 456 –
2000 and IS: 10262 – 1982 (durability criteria). Remaining 6 beams are of same mix
design but different proportions of industrial waste are used to replace cement and fine
aggregate. The details are given in Table 1. HYSD bars are used as main reinforcement
and M.S bars are used as shear reinforcement.
 The concrete was mixed in a mechanical mixer and the beams were cast in brick
moulds and vibrated with a 40 mm needle vibrator. The beams were cured (in as cast
position) in the brick moulds by ponding for 28 days. All the mixes satisfied the
workability requirements as per IS: 456 – 2000 (Light Rfd structures).

Table 1: Details of beams:

S.No. Beams Constituents
Designation
1 S1 100%C + 100%S + 100%CA
2 S2 100%C + 100%S + 100%CA
3 A (70% C 30%F) + 100%S + 100% CA
4 B (60% C 40%F) + 100%S + 100% CA
5 C (70% C 30%F) + (10%S 60%QD30%F) + 100% CA
6 D (60% C 40%F) + (30%S 40%QD30%F) + 100% CA
7 E 100% C + (40%S 30%QD30%F) + 100% CA
8 F 100% C + (25%S 50%QD25%F) + 100% CA

Cement is used OPC 43 grade cement conforming to IS: 8112 – 1989 commercially
branded as ‘RAMCO’.
Fly ash is obtained from NTPC, Paravada Village, Visakhapatnam.
Chemical composition of fly ash is
Component Chemical Percentage %
Symbol
Silica SiO2 63.0
Alumina Al2O3 31.50
Ferric Oxide Fe2O3 1.79
Manganese MnO 0.007
Oxide
Calcium Oxide CaO 0.48
Magnesium MgO 0.39
Oxide
Loss on Ignition LoI 0.71
Specific gravity of the fly ash is 2.84 and cement is 3.14.
Sand is clean, inert, free from organic matter, silt and clay with S.G is 2.37. The
sand is completely dried before use. Fineness modulus is 3.20. Quarry dust used in the
experiment is obtained from Gopalapatnam quarry in Visakhapatnam district. Specific
gravity is 2.69 and fineness modulus is 3.10.
Coarse aggregate consists of particles of max size 20 mm. It was graded 20 mm
to 10 mm and the specific gravity is 3.04. Fineness modulus is 7.34. The aggregate is of
uniform blue colour and angular.

Water used in this experiment is tap water.

12mm HYSD bars are used with fy of 479.2 N/mm2.

Mix proportions are 1:1.60:3.43 and water cement ratio is 0.50. Amount of
reinforcement is equal in all 8 beams and consists of 2 No.s-12mm HYSD bars with two
holding bars at top, 6mm dia M.S stirrups were used at 100 mm c/c to avoid shear failure.
All 8 beams are same Size of 150 X200X3000mm. Effective span is 2800 mm and
effective depth is 158mm (30 mm clear cover) designed for used in moderate
environment.

Casting and testing of test specimens:-

All the eight beams were cast on a single day. Prior to casting of beams the brick
moulds in the casting yard were coated with waste oil (sides and bottom) to prevent
contact with concrete and for easy removal of beams. Mortar briquettes (30X30X30mm
size) were placed in the moulds to maintain a clear cover of 30mm both at bottom and
sides.
 The materials were accurately weighed and water was measured with a measuring
cylinder. The reinforcement cage placed in the mould and concrete after mixing for 2
minutes was poured in the moulds in two layers and compacted. Compaction was done
using 40 mm needle vibrator placed in the concrete approximately 30 sec at regular
intervals of 50 cm. The same process was repeated for second layer also.
Flexure test were conducted in a loading frame with central concentrated load
applied on the beam as two point loading could not be applied because of height
limitation of the loading frame. The load was applied using hydraulic jack and ram and
the same was measured by a 3 tone-proving ring with a least count of 3.66 kg per
division. The deflection was measured at the center of the beam using dial gauge of least
count of 0.01 mm. The crack widths were measured by inserting feeler gauges of known
thickness in the cracks. The thickness of thinnest feeler gauge is 0.05 mm. The load was
gradually increased with load increment of 25 divisions (25X3.66 = 91.5 kg). The
equivalent central concentrated load calculated using the weight of ram, proving ring and
self-weight of beam. The deflections corresponding to every load increment up to
ultimate load were note down and crack widths were measured whenever they appeared.

Test results:

Experimental results showing the behaviour of the beams are in Table –2 for eight
beams. Ultimate load is taken as the load at which the pointer of the proving ring reverse
back. The values of deflection at working load are obtained from load-deflection graphs.
Working load is taken as least of u.1/1.5, load at allowable deflection, load at allowable
crack width.
Table –2 (Summarizes the results of all the eight beams)

Table-2 Test results.

Beam Behaviour characteristics

designation Ultimate Working Deflection Crack Deflection
load, KN load KN at working width at at ultimate
load, mm working load, mm
load, mm
S1 and S2 25.355 16.903 6.37 0.10 13.13
A 26.265 16.967 8.00 0.20 15.15
B 25.355 16.903 6.77 0.10 16.82
C 27.285 18.190 6.99 0.15 16.80
D 26.270 16.915 8.00 0.15 18.55
E 27.185 18.124 6.75 0.10 16.50
F 27.185 18.124 6.75 0.15 17.00

Discussion of results:-

Discussion of results includes variation of parameters namely ultimate load,

working load, deflection at working load, crack width at working load and deflection at
ultimate load.

The variables involved in this experiment are

I. Influence of fly –ash in cement
II. Influence of quarry dust with fly ash in sand.
III. Influence of fly ash in cement and quarry dust with fly ash in sand.

I). Influence of Fly ash in Cement:-

Beam A with 30% Fly ash in cement slightly increases the ultimate load, working
load and shows more deflection and crack width than standard beam. However, these
deflections and crack widths are with in the allowable limits as per code.
Beam B with 40% fly ash in cement shows equal ultimate load and working load,
slightly high deflection and shows crack width.
In 30% fly ash and 40% fly ash in cement shows more deflection than standard beam.
II). Influence of Q.D with Fly ash in sand:-
Beam E with 30% QD along with 30% fly ash in sand shows 7% increase in both
Ultimate load and Working load but shows equal crack width and slightly higher
deflection.
Beam F with 50% QD with 25% fly ash in sand shows 7% increases U.L and
W.L, shows higher crack width and slightly higher deflection.
Both beams E and F show more deflection at ultimate load showing more
ductility.

III). Influence of Fly ash in Cement and Fly ash and QD in sand;-
Beam C with 30% fly ash in cement and 90% I.W (60 QD 30F) in sand show
7.6% higher U.L and W.L, slightly higher deflection and C.W at W.L compared to
standard beam.

Beam D with 40% fly ash and 70% I.W (40 QD 30F) in sand shows 3.6% higher
U.L and almost equal W.L but slightly higher deflection and C.W compared to standard
beam.
Both beams C and D show more deflection at ultimate load showing more
ductility.

Conclusions:

1. The optimum utilization of fly ash in cement is 40%. It shows almost equal W.L,
U.L and C.W., but with slightly higher deflection.
2. The optimum utilization of I.W. in sand (50% QD 25% F). It shows higher W.L,
U.L but slightly higher deflection and C.W at working load.
3. The optimum utilization of industrial waste 30% fly ash in cement and 90%
industrial waste in sand shows better behavior, ie., higher working load, higher
ultimate load and slightly higher deflection and higher crack width but with in
allowable values as per IS: 456 - 2000.
4. The beams with I.W. are more ductile than standard beam.
 Finally if industrial waste utilization is criteria 30% fly ash in cement and 90%
I.W in sand are better combination. Industrial waste in cement alone or I.W in sand alone
does not show better results than compared to the combination of I.W cement and sand.
AUTHORS:
1. Assistant Executive Engineer, I&CAD Department, Govt. of A.P.
2. Professor (Rtd.,),Andhra University, Visakhapatnam
3. Consultant,Sphurthi Entrepreneurs & Technocrats.
REFERENCES:
1. Sivasundaram V and Malhotra V.M.”High performace High Volume Fly ash
Concrete”, ICJ , November,2004,Vol.78 PP 13-21.
2. Murthy D.S.R and Ramesh KV, “Flexural Response of R.C. Beams made of
High Volume Fly ash Concrete”, ICJ, May 2005, PP47-53.
3. Kadilkar. S.A. and Kulkarni V.R. “Engineered Fly ash based blended cement
for durable concrete: A Review” ICJ Aprill 2003 pp 1009-1020.
4.Bhanumathidas N and Kalidas N “fly ash the resource for construction industry”
the ICJ, Aprill 2003, PP -997 – 1004.
5. Gopi N “ Influence of Flyash and Quarrydust (Independent and Combined )
Replacing Cement and Sand on the behaviour of Concrete Cubes and
R.C.Beams (with M25 mix)”, M.E., thesis submitted to Andhra University,
Visakhapatnam – 2005.
6.Shetty M.S. “Concrete Technology”, Dhanpat Rai Publications, New Delhi
2002
7.“Indian Standard Plain and Reinforced concrete Code IS:456 -2000”, Bureau of
Indian standards, New Delhi.
8.“Indian standard Mix design for Plain and Reinforced Concrete” IS:10262 –
1982, ”, Bureau of Indian standards, New Delhi.
.