Ganaetal2021AGGREGATESTYPESONPROPERTIESOFCONCRETE

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/359861770
AGGREGATES TYPES ON PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
Article in International Journal of Natural Sciences · September 2021
CITATIONS READS
0 1,341
4 authors:
James A. Gana Daniel Ineye

Landmark University Landmark University
28 PUBLICATIONS 100 CITATIONS 1 PUBLICATION 0 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Solomon Braimoh Matthew Amodu

Landmark University Landmark University
14 PUBLICATIONS 4 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 23 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Matthew Amodu on 10 April 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Journal of Natural & Applied Science
Volume 2, Number 3, September 2021
http://www.cedtechjournals.org
ISSN: 2756-4606
AGGREGATES TYPES ON PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE
1
Gana. A.J., 2Ineye. D, 3Braimoh S.O. & 4Amodu. M.F
1,2,3
Civil Engineering Department
4
Agric and Biosystemengineering department
Landmark University Omu- Aran, Kwara state
Email:[email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] or [email protected],
[email protected]
ABSTRACT
This study revealed the substitute for conventional materials used in the
production of concrete. It involves the use of various aggregates like
laterite and quarry dust to replace conventional river sand fine aggregate.
The full replacement of granite as coarse aggregate in concrete with less
utilized local materials like bush gravel and limestone was employed.
Samples of concrete cubes were made using replacement cements of
laterite and quarry dust and samples of cubes made by using limestone
and gravel instead of granite. The quality of laterite and quarry dust as
replacement varied from 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%, 0% being the control;
while granite was fully replaced to ascertain qualities of concrete using a
whole new material. A total of 68 cubes of standard 150 mm x 150mm x
150mm were cast from the various batches and cured in a water tank at
ambient temperature. The samples were cured for specified periods of 3
days, 7 days, 14 days and 28days Workability test (slump test) was carried
out to determine optimum water content noted at 0.5 water/cement ratio
for strength. It was observed that the weight of the specimen decreased as
the percentage of replacement for both laterite and quarry dust increased.
Bulk density of concrete reduced as replacement percentage for sand
increased; for coarse aggregates gravel gave the highest value of
2479kg/m3. Compressive strength test and flexural test were carried out
for the samples (cubes and beams respectively), and it was observed that
compressive strength for all sample batches increased as curing age
increased. Furthermore, observations showed for both laterite and quarry
dust replacement that compressive strength increased as percentage
replacement increased up to 25%. Thereafter, it decreased. Limestone
gave a better strength overall than granite and gravel as full replacement of
coarse aggregate with a value of 14.47N/m 2.
Keywords:- Comparative Analysis Effects various Aggregates Properties
Concrete
Gana. A.J. et al.,| 1

Aggregates Types on Properties of Concrete
INTRODUCTION
In recent times, studies have been carried out to determine the usefulness
of laterite, excess quarry dust mined from aggregates and other relatively
abundant mineral materials in various countries of the world, and other
abundant man-made by products similar in physical properties to such
abundant element suchas construction waste like crushed sand-Crete
blocks and other materials of abundance in the country. Furthermore,
Nigeria is a country in the tropics where its climate ranges from semi-arid
in the north to humid in the south (Adewumi, 2019). Soils such as laterite
are abundant in Nigeria, and are being utilized heavily in Nigerian
construction industry(Yaragal et al.,2019). Laterite has its use in almost all
aspect of civil, Laterite was used extensively in the construction of
embankments for roads and earth dams as indicated by (Makasa, 2004).
Also, with the high level of waste generated, countries have put up policies
to reduce waste generated with recycling and reuse of these waste
materials. A lot of waste is generated in construction process or in the
remodeling or demolition of structures. In this sense, reuse of
construction waste is paramount for both the environment and also as an
aid to reduce cost of constituents used for concrete production.
The aim of this paper is to create awareness of the usefulness of abundant

materials and even materials termed 'wastes' and impact of aggregates on
the properties of concrete, the use of other un-popular coarse aggregate
and even the mix ratios of these mineral combinations and to compare
the values gotten from using various aggregates to a control, re-evaluate
from previous publications the optimum percentage of these
supplementary materials, re-analyze their effects on concrete and finally
compare these fine aggregate materials using other standard coarse
aggregates usually employed in Nigeria.
MATERIALS AND METHODS

The materials used in this in this study are water, fine aggregate and
quarry dust. The samples of concrete cubes were made by weighing the
materials with standard. Equipment in the laboratory, and the curing of
those cubes inside water tanks was carried out for all the cubes. A specific
number of Tests were carried out, with results were later analysed.
Gana. A.J. et al., | 2

Test on Fine aggregates

Sieve analysis and physical properties
The study, as one of the main objectives, was to determine the physical
and mechanical properties of all fine and coarse aggregates to be used in
course of experimentation. The results are shown below in the tables.
The table shows the sieve analysis of the fine aggregates used, which
included the conventional sand and laterite, and also the result as well for
the coarse materials. The results from the graph plotted revealed the fines
are well graded
Figure 4.1: sieve analysis for fine aggregate (sand)
Coarse#10Medium #40 Fine

#4 #200 SILT/CLAY
GRAVEL
100 SAND SAND SAND
90
80
70
% Passing
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
1.000analysis for
Figure 4.2: sieve 0.100 0.010
fine aggregate
Particle Diameter (mm) Figure 4.3: sieve analysis for quarry dust
(laterite)

The figure above showed the grading curve obtained for the fine
aggregates. The result of particle size of fine aggregates used include: sand
which ranged from 0.055 to 2mm with a specific gravity of 2.62
highlighted in the table- in appendix. Uniformity coefficient of sand was
found to be 3.06 and coefficient of curvature 1.02, and sand is can be said
to be well graded with particles passing the 4.75m sieve and retained on
75µ sieve. Quarry dust gave a fineness modulus of 2.92 with the sieve
analysis and other properties tabulated below.
Table 4.1: Specific gravity and water absorption

` Limestone Granite/CA FA Laterite Stone dust Gravel
Mass Of Bottle + 524.5 534 90 83.5 78 1097

sample +Water (M3)
Mass Of Bottle + 275 271.5 46.5 36.5 30.5 453.5
sample (M2)
Mass Of Bottle Full 421 427 73 ` 73 767.5
Of Water Only (M4)
Mass Of Bottle (M1) 103 105.5 19 19.5 20 35.5
Mass Of Water 249.5 262.5 43.5 47 47.5 643.5
Used (M3-M2)
Mass Of sample 172 166 27.5 17 10.5 418
Used (M2-M1)
Volume Of sample 68.5 59 10.5 12.5 5.5 88.5
(M4-M1)-(M3-M2)
Gs=(M2-M1)/(M4- 2.51 2.81 2.62 1.36 1.91 4.72
M1)-(M3-M2)
4.2 Test on coarse aggregate

Table 4.2: Sieve analysis
Sieve Diameter Mass of Mass of Sieve Coarse Soil Coarse Soil Coarse Soil
Number (mm) Sieve (g) & Coarse Soil Retained Retained Passing (%)
(g) (g) (%)
25.000 574 574 0.0 0.00 100.00
20.000 570 580.5 10.5 1.05 98.95
13.200 561.5 998.5 437.0 43.70 56.30
5.000 521.5 1074 552.5 55.25 1.05
2.000 525.5 525.5 0.0 0.00 0.00
1.180 494.0 494.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
0.600 477.0 477.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
0.425 454.0 454.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
0.300 449.0 449.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.212 420.0 420.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

0.150 402.0 402.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
0.075 367.0 367.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
0.063 381.5 381.5 0.0 0.00 0.00
Pan 389.0 389.0 0.0 0.00 0.00
1000.0 100.00
Figure 4.4: sieve analysis for coarse aggregate
The table 4.4 below, shows the values of the various test carried out on
the coarse aggregate. It also specifies its compliance to predetermined
requirement according to the standard, thereby making it suitable for use
in various construction works.
Aggregate Impact Value

The result of the aggregate impact value test for gravel and granite is 23.9
and 19.8 respectively. This means impact value fall within desirable
region. BS 822 [11] prescribed a maximum value of 45% for non-wearing
surfaces. This value is inversely related to the toughness of aggregate,
meaning a higher value connotes a lower toughness.
Aggregate Crushing Value

The test result for gravel and granite used are 38.8 and 29.8 respectively,
which lies within expected value of 45% for ordinary cement used. For
further emphasis there is indirect relationship between this value gotten
and compressive strength of concrete.
Table 4.3: test carried out on coarse aggregate

Test carried Obtained Test Results Obtained Test Results Standard Test Values
out ( GRANITE) ( GRAVEL)
Aggregate 19.8% 23.9 30% maximum
Impact Test
Aggregate 29.8% 38.8 45% maximum
Crushing Test
Los Angeles 33.8 34.8 60% maximum

Abrasion Test
Flakiness 24.8% 23.0 30% maximum

Index
Elongation 25.2% 34.9 30% maximum
Index
Density 1500.20kg/m^3 1650 kg/ )
Specific 2.81 2.98 3 Maximum

Gravity
Test on Limestone
Below are the sieve analysis and particle distribution for the limestone
used in preparation of the unconventional concrete in the table. The
values gotten are detailed in the table- found in the appendix.
Figure 4.5: sieve analysis for limestone

From the graph plotted, the values of D10, D30 and D60 on the fine
aggregate curve was traced to be 4.5, 6.15 and 6.9 respectively. The
Uniformity coefficient was found to be 1.52 and coefficient of curvature
was 1.22 from the above figure. From ASTMD-2487 soil classification, it
can be said that the Coarse aggregate is a well graded sample because
1≤Cc≤3. The table shows the various results of test carried out on
limestone.
Table 4.4: test carried out on coarse aggregate (limestone)

Test carried out Obtained Test Results Standard Test Values
Aggregate Impact Test 32.7% 30% maximum
Aggregate Crushing Test 44.2% 45% maximum

Los Angeles Abrasion Test 47.2% 60% maximum
Flakiness Index 21.6 30% maximum
Elongation Index 20.7 30% maximum

Density 1500.20kg/m^3
Specific Gravity 2.51 3 Maximum
The table also specifies its compliance to predetermined requirement

according to the standard, thereby making it suitable for use in various
construction works.
Test on Concrete
Test on fresh concrete (slump test)
The result of the slump test are presented in the table below using a W/C
value of 0.6 to make concrete more workable. The figure 4.5 showed the
gravel concrete produced the highest value of true slump due to its non-
uniform gradation, presence of impurities i.e. silt

Table 4.5: slump values for various replacement of sand

S. NO % of slump value slump Type of slump
replacement (mm) value(mm)
(quarry dust) (laterite)
1 0 10 10 True slump
100 aggregate slump value
80
60
40
20
0
1 2gravel 3
limestone
granite
Figure 4.6: slump value for 100% coarse aggregates utilized
slump values
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80%
slump (quarry dust) slump (laterite)
Figure 4.7: slump values for replacement of sand
Effect of Sand Replacement Inclusion on Weight

It was observed that the weight of the specimen decreased as the
percentage of replacement for both laterite and quarry dust increased. At
the 3 days curing phase, weight gradually decreased with higher

replacement values. At 0% replacement laterite value the weight was

7.86kg, at 25% the weight was found to be 7.5kg, at 50% the weight was
found to be 7.03kg indicating a 6.2% reduction in weight, and at 75% it
was 6.7kg; while for the quarry dust the 25% weight was found to be
7.5kg, 50% was 7.03 and 75% was 6.83kg
Bulk Density of Concrete

Table 4.6: bulk density of concrete using laterite as replacement for sand
S.NO WEIGHT OF CUBE VOLUME DENSITY AVERAGE
(kg) ( ) (kg/ ) DENSITY
((kg/ )
M30 REPLACEMENT
1 7.4 0.003375 2192.59
2 8.3 0.003375 2459.14 2330.82
3 7.9 0.003375 2340.74
25% REPLACEMENT LATERITE
1 7.3 0.003375 2162.96
2 6.9 0.003375 2044.44 2222.22
3 8.3 0.003375 2459.25
1 6.7 0.003375 1985.19
2 7.3 0.003375 2162.96 2083.95
3 7.1 0.003375 2103.7
1 6.2 0.003375 1837.04
2 7.0 0.003375 2074.07 1985.18
3 6.9 0.003375 2044.44

bulk density kg/ ^ Aggregates
) of %Types on Properties of Concrete
bulk density kg/ ^ ) of
replacement of laterite % replacement of quarry
2350
2330.82 dust
2300
2250 2400
2330.82
bulk density (kg/ ^ )

2222.22
2200 2300 2222.22
2150
2100 2200
2083.95
2050 2083.95
2100 2024.69
2000 1985.18
1950 2000
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80%
Figure 4.8: density of concrete using laterite as

replacement
Figure 4.9: density of concrete using quarry
dust as replacement for sand
Table 4.7: bulk density of concrete using quarry dust as replacement for
sand
S.NO WEIGHT OF CUBE VOLUME DENSITY(kg/ ) AVERAGE
(KG) ( ) DENSITY
(kg/ )
GRANITE
1 7.4 0.003375 2192.59
2 8.3 0.003375 2459.14 2330.82
3 7.9 0.003375 2340.74
25% REPLACEMENT QUARRY DUST
1 7.3 0.003375 2162.96
2 6.9 0.003375 2044.44 2222.22
3 8.3 0.003375 2459.25
1 6.7 0.003375 1985.19
2 7.3 0.003375 2162.96 2083.95
3 7.1 0.003375 2103.7
1 7.2 0.003375 2133.33
2 6.9 0.003375 2044.44 2024.69
3 6.4 0.003375 1896.3

bulk density
2500
2479 grav
2450
2400
2350
2330.82 granite
2300
2250
2200 limeston
2150
2100
2083.95
2050
COARSE AGGREGATE
Figure 4.10: density of concrete using quarry dust as replacement for sand
A downward slope was noted for the bulk density graph, for both laterite
and quarry dust indicating that the control (river sand) had a higher value
in comparison to replacement samples. For coarse aggregate replacement,
granite gave the highest value for bulk density owing to its particle size and
gradation.
Water Absorption
Table 4.8: Water absorption test results after 28 days (laterite)
Batch Block no Dry mass Wet mass Water Average
(kg) (kg) absorbed (%) water
absorbed (%)
1 8.370 8.4075 1.2
control 2 8655.5 8.762 1.1 1.15
1 7.662 7.967 3.98

25 % 2 7.200 7.503 4.2 4.09
1 5.5025 5.601 1.8
50 % 2 6.201 6.311 1.77 1.79
1 7.325 7.409 1.15
75 % 2 6989.5 7.072 1.19 1.17

Table 4.9: Water absorption test results after 28 days (quarry dust)
absorbed (%)
1 8.370 8.4075 1.2
control 2 8655.5 8.762 1.1 1.15
1 7.440 7.5315 1.2
25 % 2 7.695 7.790 1.23 1.22
1 7.464 7.539 1.0
50 % 2 7.112 7.187 1.05 1.03
1 6.801 6.866 0.95
75 % 2 7.001 7.067 0.94 0.95
Table 4.10: Water absorption test results after 28 days

absorbed (%)
1 8.370 8.4075 1.2
GRANITE 2 8655.5 8.762 1.1 1.15
1 9.952 10.048 0.96
GRAVEL 2 8.322 8.418 1.15 1.06
1 7.205 7.275 0.97
LIMESTONE 2 7.779 7.874 1.2 1.09
Compressive Strength
The grade of concrete, type of aggregate used, age of curing are variables
in this investigation. This test is done to determine the cube strength of
concrete mix prepared. The test is conducted on 3days, 7days, 14days
and 28days, with the details of the compressive strength of M15
gradesshown in the Table 4.8. The compressive strength values of
percentage replacement of sand 0%, 25%, 50% and 75% laterite and
quarry dust are listed in details.
Table 4.11: Compressive Strength using laterite as Replacement for sand

% Replacement mix 3 days 7days 14 days 28 days
Laterite ratio
compressive strength
(N/m )
0 1: 2: 4 5.14 8.45 11.70 13.01
25 1: 2: 4 5.23 8.29 11.45 12.94
50 1: 2: 4 4.74 7.71 10.67 11.86
75 1: 2: 4 4.41 7.16 9.92 11.02

Table 4.12: compressive strength using quarry dust as replacement for

sand
Laterite ratio
(N/m )
0 1: 2: 4 5.14 8.45 11.70 13.01
25 1: 2: 4 5.09 8.19 11.04 12.75
50 1: 2: 4 4.84 7.86 10.88 12.09
75 1: 2: 4 4.65 7.56 10.47 11.63
Table 4.13: compressive strength of concrete utilizing various coarse

aggregate
Coarse aggregate mix 3 days 7days 14 days 28 days
ratio
(N/m )
GRANITE 1: 2: 4 5.14 8.45 11.70 13.01
GRAVEL 1: 2: 4 4.57 7.38 10.04 11.19
LIMESTONE 1: 2: 4 5.69 9.36 13.02 14.47
CO MP RES S IV E S TRE N GT H OF %
RE P LACE ME NT OF S AN D ( LATE RI TE )
STRENGTH IN MPA
COMPRESSIVE
3 days 7days 14 days 28 days
15
10
5
0
0% 25% 50% 75%
Figure 4.11: compressive strength of concrete using laterite as partial

replacement of sand

CO MP RE S S IV E S T RE N GT H OF %
RE P LACE ME NT O F S AN D ( QU ARRY
DU S T )
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH IN
14
12
N/M ^
10
8
6
4
2
0
0% 25% 50% 75%
Figure 4.12: compressive strength Using quarry dust as partial

replacement of sand
16
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
14
12
10
IN N/M ^
0
GRANITE GRAVEL LIMESTONE
Figure 4.13: compressive strength of concrete cube samples using

different coarse aggregate and variation with curing age
The compressive strength of control sample surpassed all the

replacement samples produced using laterite for the various replacement.
It had a strength value of 6.84 N/m 2 while the most suitable
replacement using laterite produced 5.29 N/m 2, which is a 29.3%
difference.

In all samples produced using laterite replacement, the control exhibited

a more superior value and higher compressive strength, but observations
show the 25% to 50% is an acceptable replacement value, for use in
conventional construction work. The same could be said about the
samples produced using quarry dust, the control is produced a superior
strength for the experiments carried out. For the fine aggregate
replacement, 75% of quarry dust proved to be the minimum compressive
strength. There was an obvious increase in strength with increase in curing
days for all samples.
Flexural Strength
The table 4.11 shows the details of the flexural strength of the different
replacement for sand and types of coarse aggregate used for the concrete;
at 3, 7, 14 and 28days for concrete grade M15.
Table 4.14: flexural strength of concrete using laterite as replacement for
sand
Laterite ratio
Flexural strength (N/m )
0 1: 2: 4 1.79 2.29 2.7 2.85
25 1: 2: 4 1.82 2.27 2.67 2.84
50 1: 2: 4 1.72 2.19 2.58 2.72
75 1: 2: 4 1.66 2.11 2.49 2.62
Table 4.15: flexural strength of concrete using quarry dust as replacement

for sand
Laterite ratio
Flexural strength (N/m )
0 1: 2: 4 1.79 2.29 2.7 2.85
25 1: 2: 4 1.78 2.26 2.62 2.82
50 1: 2: 4 1.74 2.21 2.59 2.74
75 1: 2: 4 1.7 2.17 2.55 2.69

3 days 7days 3 days 7days
FLEXURL STRENGTH IN
14 days 28 days
FLEXURL STRENGTH IN
14 days 28 days
3 3
2.5
2 2.5
N/M ^
N/M ^
1.5 2
1
1.5
0.5
0 1
0% 25% 50% 75% 0.5
FLEXURAL STRENGTH TEST FOR LATERITE 0
REPLACEMENT
0% 25% 50% 75%
Figure 4.14: flexural strength using laterite as Figure 4.15: flexural strength using quarry dust as
sand replacement sand replacement
Table 4.16: flexural strength of concrete using various coarse aggregate

Coarse aggregate mix 3 days 7days 14 days 28 days
ratio
(N/m )
GRANITE 1: 2: 4 1.79 2.29 2.7 2.85
GRAVEL 1: 2: 4 1.69 2.14 2.5 2.64
LIMESTONE 1: 2: 4 1.88 2.41 2.85 3.00
flexural strength of coarse

aggregate
4
3
2
1
0
Granite Gravel Limestone
Figure 4.16: flexural strength of concrete cube samples using different

coarse aggregate and variation with curing age

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

Conclusion
Based on the systematic and detailed experimental study conducted on
the various combinations used to produce concrete, with the aim of
producing concrete of significant strength, M15 grade using locally
available material, while still being economical in its approach; the
following deductions can be drawn from the study:
1) The bulk density of concrete for all samples were around 2000kg/ 3,
and the value of density decreased as replacement percentage
increased.
2) Compressive strength of control, 25%, 50%, and 75% replacement of
sand by laterite was found to be 13.01, 12.94, 11.86 and 11.02
respectively. While for quarry dust at 0%, 25%, 50%, and 75%
replacement was noted to be 13.01, 12.75, 12.09, and 11.63 N/m 2.
For coarse aggregate granite, gravel and limestone gave compressive
strength of 13.01, 11.19 and 14.47 after 28 days curing.
3) As the percentage of replacement increased, the workability of
concrete increased especially for the Laterized concrete; the quarry
dust replacement gave an irregular value as indicated by the slump test.
4) Flexural and compressive strength increased for all samples as curing
age increased.
5) Limestone concrete gave the highest strength in comparison to other
coarse aggregate used in concrete production.
In conclusion replacing sand with laterite and quarry dust are acceptable
up to a replacement percentage of less than 50%, from whence a
significant reduction of strength is noted from the investigations carried
out, hence for construction work the suitable percentage of replacement
especially structural is about 50%.
RECOMMENDATION
Although this study gives an insight on the effects of partial replacement
of sand in concrete a lot of questions cannot be answered with the data at
hand.
 It should be noted that partial replacement and not full replacement of
sand as coarse aggregate should be welcomed and not feared in
construction but done only when similar strength properties have been
done on substitute like laterite and quarry dust.

 It is recommended that further investigations should be carried out on

the effects of grading of the coarse aggregates used.
 Also, this investigation should be further expanded by combining the
alternate coarse aggregate i.e. limestone and gravel with the various
replacement materials for sand and note its characteristics.
 The use of granite and sand on conventional concrete cannot be
overemphasized in its use in sophisticated construction like high rise
buildings.
 Mix ratio was constant in this study, it is advised for further
investigations that more mix ratios should be used to verify claims in
this investigation.
 Further, a handful of experiments geared towards determining other
structural properties of concrete should be added to further validate
the claims touted in this study.
REFERENCES
Nataraja, M.C., Karthik, S and Madhusudan, A.N. (2018).
‘Characterisation of Crushed fine Aggregate for use in Concrete
Based on Methylene Blue Test’, The Indian Concrete Journal, 92
(5), pp. 18-25
Negussie, T., (1990), Structural Use of Scoria Concrete. Afr J Sci Ser A,
8(1), pp 44-48.
NBM & CW. (June, 2019). Alternative sand: an inevitable resource to

river sand. Retrieved
fromhttps://www.nbmcw.com/equipments/crushing-mining-
equipments/40169-alternative-sand-an-inevitable-resource-to-
rAdepegba, D. (1975). A Comparative Study of Normal Concrete
With Concrete Which Contained Laterite Instead of Sand. 10, 135–
141.
Alawode, O. and Idowu, O., (2011). Effect of Water-Cement ratios on
the Compressive Strength and Workability of Concrete and Lateritic
Concrete Mixes. The Pacific Journal of Science and Technology,
12(2), pp 99-105.

Aleva, G.J.J. (1994). Laterites: Concepts, Geology, Morphology and

Chemistry, International Soil Reference and Information Centre
(ISRIC).
Akpokodje E. G. and Hudec P. 1992. Properties of Concretionary

Laterite Gravel Concrete.
Bachupally, T. (n.d.). Project Report on Effect of Size of Aggregate on

Self Compacting Concrete of M70 Grade . Bulletin of Engineering
Geology and the Environment. 46(1): 45-50
Ashraf, A., & Bin, Z. (2015). Palm Kernel Shell as Partially Replacement
of One Aggregate in Concrete.
Bank, W. (2014). Ministry of Mines and Steel Development.
Brand E.W. amd hongsnoi M. (1969). Effect of Method of Preparation

on Compaction and Strength Characteristocs of laterized soil .
speciality Session on Engineering Properties of lateritic Soil,VII
ICSMFE, Mexico city, mexico, vol. 1, pp 107-116.
Carlos, A., Masumi, I., Hiroaki, M., Maki, M., & Takahisa, O. (2010).
The Effects of Limestone Aggregate on Concrete Properties.
Construction and Building Materials, 24(12), 2363–2368.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.05.008
Donza, H., Cabrera, O., & Irassar, E. F. (2002). High-Strength concrete
with Different Fine Aggregate. 32, 1755–1761.
Duggal, S. K. (2003). Building Materials 2008. New Age International
Publishers, New Delhi.
Elemile O. (2019). cve 511 Note. Chapter Four: Solid Waste
Management. pp. 4-5
Haseeb, J. (2017, May 02). Effects of Aggreagate Properties on Concrete.
retrieved from https://www.aboutcivil.org/effects-of-different-
properties-of-aggregates-on-concrete.html
IS: 383. (2016). Specification for Coarse and Fine Aggregates from
Natural Sources for Concrete. Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi, India.

Khatib, J.M. (2005). Properties of concrete incorporating fine recycled

aggregate. Cement and Concrete Research, 35(4), pp.763–769
Kosmatka, Steven H., Kerkhoff, Beatrix, and Panarese, William C.
(2002). Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 15th Edition,
EB001.15, 372 pg.
Manasseh, J. (2010). Use of Crushed Granite Fine as Replacement to

River Sand in Concrete Production. Leonardo Electron. J. Pract.
Technol, 9(17), 85-96.
Makasa, B. (2004). “Utilisation and Improvement of Lateritic Gravels in
Road Bases.” Available at <http://www.itc.nl> (Accessed on
2006/01/24)
Mehta and Monteiro. (1993). Concrete Structure, Properties, and

Materials. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ
Muthusamy, K. and Kamaruzaman, N.W., (2012), Assessment of

Malaysian literite Aggregate in concrete. International Journal of
Civil and Environmental Engineering, 12(04), pp 83-86.iver-
sand.html.
Osadebe, N. N., & Nwakonobi, T. U. (n.d.). Structural Characteristics of
Laterized Concrete at Optimum Mix Proportion.
Osunade, J.A. (1985). Factors Affecting the Strength and Creep
Properties of Laterized Concrete. 20(2), 133–138.
Raman S.N., Safiuddin M., Zain M.F.M., Non-Destructive Evaluation of
Flowing Concretes Incorporating Quarry Waste, Asian Journal of
Civil Engineering (Building and Housing), 2007, 8(6), p. 597-614.
Sankh, A. C., Biradar, P. M., Naghathan, P. S. J., & Manjunath, B.

(2014). Recent Trends in Replacement of Natural Sand With
Different Alternatives. 2014, 59–66.
Salau, M. A. and Balogun, L. A., (1990), Shear Resistance of Reinforced
laterised Concrete Beams without shear Reinforcement. Building
and Environment, 25(1), pp 71- 76.
Science Learning Hub (2012). Available

at:https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1420-history-of-
limestone-uses-timeline[Accessed 1st of august 202]
Shuaibu, R. A., Mutuku, R. N., & Nyomboi, T. (2014). A review of the
properties of laterite concrete. 5(2), 130–143.
https://doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.2014050013
S.K. Singh., S. K. Kirthika and M. Surya.(2018). Agenda for use of

alternative sands in India. Indian Concrete Institute Journal. 19 (3).
(1-11).
Saravanan, M., Senthikumar, V. and Jayaraman, A., (2014), Compressive
and Tensile Strength of Concrete using Lateritic Soil and Limestone
Filler as fine Aggregate. International Journal of Research in
Engineering and Technology, 3(1), pp 79-84.
Udoeyo F. F., Iron U. H. and Odim O. O. 2006. Strength Performance
of Laterized Concrete. Construction and Building Materials. 20(10):
1057- 1062.
Ukpata, J. O., Ephraim, M. E., & Akeke, G. A. (2012). Compressive
Strength of Concrete using Lateritic Sand and Quarry Dust as Fine
Aggregate. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 7(1), 81-92.
Umoh, A. A. (2012). Recycling Demolition Waste Sand Crete Blocks as
Aggregate in Concrete. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, 7(9), 1111-1118.
Wagih, A. M., El-karmoty, H. Z., Ebid, M., Okba, S. H., Wagih, A. M.,
El-karmoty, H. Z.,…El-karmoty, H. Z. (2019). Recycled construction
and demolition concrete waste as aggregate for structural concrete
Recycled construction and demolition concrete waste as aggregate
for structural concrete. HBRC Journal, 9(3), 193–200.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2013.08.007
W. R., James, B. Y., & Adewumi, R. (2020). Lecture note. (Cve 510).
Yaragal, S. C., Gowda, S. N. B., & Rajasekaran, C. (2019).

Characterization and performance of processed lateritic fine
aggregates in cement mortars and concretes. Construction and
Building Materials, 200, 10–25.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.12.072
View publication stats

Ganaetal2021AGGREGATESTYPESONPROPERTIESOFCONCRETE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ganaetal2021AGGREGATESTYPESONPROPERTIESOFCONCRETE

Uploaded by

Document Information

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

Ganaetal2021AGGREGATESTYPESONPROPERTIESOFCONCRETE

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

AGGREGATES TYPES ON PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE

Article in International Journal of Natural Sciences · September 2021

James A. Gana Daniel Ineye

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Solomon Braimoh Matthew Amodu

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Gana. A.J. et al.,| 1

The aim of this paper is to create awareness of the usefulness of abundant

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Gana. A.J. et al., | 2

Test on Fine aggregates

Figure 4.1: sieve analysis for fine aggregate (sand)

Coarse#10Medium #40 Fine

Gana. A.J. et al., | 3

Table 4.1: Specific gravity and water absorption

Mass Of Bottle + 524.5 534 90 83.5 78 1097

4.2 Test on coarse aggregate

Gana. A.J. et al., | 4

0.212 420.0 420.0 0.0 0.00 0.00

Figure 4.4: sieve analysis for coarse aggregate

Aggregate Impact Value

Aggregate Crushing Value

Gana. A.J. et al., | 5

Los Angeles 33.8 34.8 60% maximum

Flakiness 24.8% 23.0 30% maximum

Specific 2.81 2.98 3 Maximum

Figure 4.5: sieve analysis for limestone

Gana. A.J. et al., | 6

Table 4.4: test carried out on coarse aggregate (limestone)

Aggregate Impact Test 32.7% 30% maximum

Aggregate Crushing Test 44.2% 45% maximum

Elongation Index 20.7 30% maximum

The table also specifies its compliance to predetermined requirement

Gana. A.J. et al., | 7

Table 4.5: slump values for various replacement of sand

100 aggregate slump value

slump (quarry dust) slump (laterite)

Figure 4.7: slump values for replacement of sand

Effect of Sand Replacement Inclusion on Weight

Gana. A.J. et al., | 8

replacement values. At 0% replacement laterite value the weight was

Bulk Density of Concrete

Gana. A.J. et al., | 9

bulk density (kg/ ^ )

Figure 4.8: density of concrete using laterite as

Gana. A.J. et al., | 10

1 7.662 7.967 3.98

Gana. A.J. et al., | 11

Table 4.10: Water absorption test results after 28 days

Table 4.11: Compressive Strength using laterite as Replacement for sand

Gana. A.J. et al., | 12

Table 4.12: compressive strength using quarry dust as replacement for

Table 4.13: compressive strength of concrete utilizing various coarse

LIMESTONE 1: 2: 4 5.69 9.36 13.02 14.47

3 days 7days 14 days 28 days

Figure 4.11: compressive strength of concrete using laterite as partial

Gana. A.J. et al., | 13

3 days 7days 14 days 28 days