Suitability of M-Sand as Fine

Aggregate in Concrete

A
Project by,

Raghukumar S

Niranjan R Patil
Guide- Asst. Prof Pradeep B Nithin
CONTENTS
Introduction.
Problem definiti0n.
Literature survey.
Objective of the study.
Materials and methodology.
Results.
Conclusion.
Scope for future study.
INTRODUCTION
Concrete is a composite
material composed of
cement, aggregates,
water mixed to obtain
desirable physical
property of finished
product.
Availability of raw
materials is less when
compare to demand.
PROBLEM DEFINATION
To meet the requirement of globalization.
Effect on ground water table.
Limited supply.
Uneconomical.
Vaastu.
Damage to pavement surface.
Need for alternative.
MSand comes into lime ligtht.
Cont....
What is M-Sand ????
M-Sand is crushed
aggregate produced
from hard granite stone,
limestone, etc which is
cubically shaped with
grounded edges, washed
and graded with
consistency to be used
as a substitute of river
sand.
M-Sand has been
produced by variety of
crushing equipment.
Why M-Sand ???
Economical.
Provides better bonding.
High strength.
No silt and clay content.
Mitigating honey comb, bleeding and voids
problem.
SUITABILITY OF
MANUFACTURED SAND (M-
SAND) AS FINE AGGREGATE IN
CONCRETE
LITERATURE SURVEY
Suitability of M-Sand as fine aggregate in mortar
and concrete. Prof. Venkatarama Reddy, B.V,. (2011).
Effect of replacement of Natural Sand by M-Sand on
the Properties of Cement Mortar. Priyanka. A.,
Jadhav., Dilip., K. Kulkarni.,(2013).
Experimental Investigation on the Effect of M-Sand
in High Performance Concrete. Adams joe.M., Maria
Rajesh. A. Brigthson.P., Prem Anand, M,.(2013).
Cont.......
A Review on Need of M-Sand in Concrete
Construction as a Replacement to River Sand. Chirag
Magnani.D., Vatsal Patel.N., (2014).
M-Sand, a Solution and an Alternative to River Sand
and in Concrete Manufacturing. Dr. Elavenil.S.,
Vijaya.B.,(2013).
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
To examine suitability of M-Sand as fine aggregate in
concrete.
Characterizing the properties of M-Sand and River sand.
Characterization of concrete using M-Sand and River
sand.
MATERIAL AND METHODOLOGY
Materials Cement.
Fine aggregate.
(River sand and M-Sand)

Coarse aggregate.
Methodology Tests on cement.
Tests on aggregates.
Tests on fresh concrete.
Tests on harden concrete.
MATERIALS USED?
Cement: Birla super ( 53
Grade).
Fine aggregate: river sand and
M-sand passing 4.75mmsieve.
Coarse aggregates: 20mm
downsize.
Chemical admixture:
Conplast SP 430 DIS.
Water: Portable water .
TESTS ON CEMENT

NORMAL CONSISTENCY TEST SOUNDNESS TEST

SETTING TIME TEST

SPECIFIC GRAVITY TEST
TESTS ON CEMENT
CODAL
SL. TESTS RESULT IS CODE RECOMENDITIONS
N0 S IS 12269:1987
1. Normal 28% IS: 4031 (part-4)
consistency test 1988 ---

2. Setting time test IS: 4031 (part-5)

1. Initial 213 min 1988 >30min

2. Final 249 min <600 min

3. Fineness test 6% IS: 4031 (part-2) <10 %
1999

4. Soundness test 8.33% IS: 4031 (part-3) <10%

1988

5. Specific gravity 3.105 IS: 4031 3-4

test
TESTS ON FINE AGGREGATES

SIEVE ANALYSIS SILT CONTENT

TEST

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORPTION TEST

TESTS ON FINE AGGREGATES
Tests on river sand.
1. Sieve analysis test
IS SIEVE Wt. % RETAINED CUMULATIV % FINER
RETAINED E%
RETAINED
4.75 mm 16 1.6 1.6 98.4
2.36 mm 68 6.8 8.4 90.0
1.18 mm 180 18.0 26.4 73.6
600 198 19.8 46.2 53.8
300 254 25.4 71.6 28.6
150 224 22.4 94.0 6.0
75 42 4.2 98.2 1.8
PAN 18 1.8 100.0 0.0
COMPARISION
IS SIEVE % FINER GRADING ZONE 2
DESIGNATION IS: 383
10 mm 100 100

4.75 mm 98.4 90-100

2.36 mm 90.0 75-100

1.18 mm 73.6 55-90

600 53.8 35-59

300 28.4 8-30

150 6 0-10

HENCE, FROM ABOVE TABLE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SAMPLE TAKEN

LIES IN ZONE 2 GRADING.
RESULTS
CODAL
SL. TESTS RESULT TEST IS CODES RECOMENDITIONS
NO S IS:383:1970
1. Sieve analysis Zone-2 IS:2386, PART 1 2.2 - 3.2
Fineness modulus 2.482
2. Specific gravity test 2.75 IS:2386, PART 3 2.6 2.67

3. Water obsorption 1% IS:2386, PART 3 1%

test
4. Silt content 1% IS:2386 5%
Tests on M-sand
1. Sieve analysis test
IS SIEVE WT % CUMMULAT % FINNER
RETAINED RETAINED IVE %
RETAINED
4.75 mm 01 0.2 0.2 99.8

2.36 mm 76 15.2 15.4 84.6

1.18 mm 132 26.4 41.8 58.2

600 10 2.0 43.8 56.2

300 82 16.4 60.2 39.8

150 64 12.8 73.O 27.0

90 60 12.0 85.0 15.0

75 38 7.6 92.6 7.4

PAN 37 7.4 100.0 0.0

 COMPARISON
IS SIEVE DESIGNATION % FINER GRADING ZONE 2
IS: 383
10 mm 100 100

4.75 mm 99.8 90-100

2.36 mm 84.6 75-100

1.18 mm 58.2 55-90

600 56.2 35-59

300 39.8 8-30

150 27 0-10

HENCE, FROM ABOVE TABLE WE CONCLUDE THAT THE SAMPLE TAKEN LIES
IN ZONE 2 GRADING.
RESULTS
CODAL
SL. NO TESTS RESULT TEST IS CODES RECOMENDITIO
S NS
IS:383:1970
1. Sieve analysis Zone-2 IS:2386, PART 1
Fineness modulus 2.62 2.2 - 3.2

2. Specific gravity test 2.62 IS:2386, PART 3 2.6 2.67

3. Water obsorption test 0.4% IS:2386, PART 3 1%

4. Silt content 5% IS:2386 5%

TESTS ON COARSE AGGREGATES
SHAPE TEST

FLAKINESS TEST ELONGATION TEST

SPECIFIC GRAVITY AND WATER ABSORBTION

SIEVE ANALYSIS ANGULARITY NUMBER TEST
TEST
RESULTS
CODAL
SL.N TESTS RESULT TEST IS CODE RECOMENDITIONS
O S IS 383:1970
1. Water absorption 0.3% IS: 2386 (part-3) < 0.6 %
test 1963
2. Specific gravity 2.857 IS: 2386 (part-3) 2.5-3
1963

3. Fineness modulus 7.2 IS:2386 (part-3) 5.5-8

1963

4. Crushing test 30.143% IS: 2386 (part-4) Not greater than 45%
5. Angularity number 7.31 IS: 2386 (part-1) 0 - 11
1963
6. Shape test
1. Flakiness 29.02% IS: 2386 (part-4) 15% - 30%
index 15.40% 1964
2. Elongation
index
CONCRETE MIX

CEMENT AGGREGATES WATER ADMIXTURE

CONCRETE MIXER CONCRETE

TRAIL BATCHING FOR RIVER SAND
Trail Cement Water F .agg C .agg W/C Slump
Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 ratio mm

1. 350 157.5 601.76 1225.49 0.45 0

2. 350 175 709.285 1160.76 0.50 77

3. 350 182 709.58 1141.77 0.52 85

4. 350 192.5 707.565 1207.88 0.55 120

TRAIL BATCHING FOR M-SAND
Trail % CEMENT WATER F.AGG C.AGG CHEMICAL W/C SLUMP

Of M-sand Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 Kg/m3 ADMIXTUE Ratio (mm)

Kg/m3 For cubes

Trail 1 100 350 191.58 729.41 1060.87 - 0.55 0

Trail 2 100 350 191.58 745.77 1157.34 3.325 0.55 0

Trail 3 100 350 191.58 749.94 1160.6 1.75 0.55 120

9
TESTS ON FRESH CONCRETE

SLUMP CONE TEST

SLUMP RESULTS
 TESTS ON HARDENED CONCRETE
USING RIVER SAND M-SAND

CUBES UNDER CURING

MOULDS KEPT FOR 24HRS

HYDRATION

CUBE COMPRESSIVE STREGTH TEST

USING CTM
TESTS ON HARDNED CONCRETE

CUBE COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH
TYPE OF SHAPE 7th day 28th day % increase in
SAND strength strength strength
(Mpa) (Mpa)

River sand Cube 22.25 33.79

20.45%
M -Sand Cube 19.25 40.7
Compressive strength of cube with M Sand at 28th day
has increased by 20.45% when compared with normal
concrete.
 SPLIT TENSILE
STRENGTH
TYPE OF SHAPE 7 day th 28th day % increase in
SAND strength strength strength
(Mpa) (Mpa)

River sand Cylinder 2.1 2.6

17.37%

M -Sand Cylinder 2.5 2.8

Split tensile strength of cylinder with M Sand at 28th
day has increased by 17.37% when compared with
normal concrete.
 FLEXURAL STRENGTH
SHAPE 28TH DAY 28TH DAY % increase in
FLEXURAL FLEXURAL strength
STRENGTH STRENGTH
OF RIVER- OF M-SAND
SAND (MPA)
(MPA)

Rectangular 1.04 1.23 18.27%

beam
Flexural strength of beam with M Sand at 28th day has increased by
18.27% when compared with normal concrete.
CONCLUSION
By the 100% replacement of fine aggregates with the
given sample of M Sand ,increases the strength.
M Sand is satisfying the requirements of fine aggregates
such as strength, gradation, shape, angularity etc.
M sand can be produce to fall in the desired zone
according to our requirements and this can definitely
ensure the quality of concrete.
The addition of superplasticizer to a concrete mix with M
Sand allows the mix to have a better workability.
SCOPE FOR FUTURE STUDY
Replacement for higher grades of concrete can be done.
Can be studied and tested for alternatives of coarse
aggregates.
Can be tested for different alternatives of Pozzolona.
Can be tested for special type of concrete.
Can be tested for Geopolymers.