Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 57

STUDY OF FLEXURAL AND TORSIONAL BEHAVIOUR OF BEAMS

MADE WITH BACTERIAL CONCRETE

by
Syed Saif Ali - RA1712002010039

M.Tech – CEM – CN2050- Project Phase - II


Date: 08-05-2019

UNDER THE GUIDENCE OF


Mr. P. Jagannathan
Educational Consultant
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING
SRM INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
May 2019
INTRODUCTION
• Concrete is a widely used material in the world. More
than ten billion tones of concrete are consumed
annually.
• Based on global usage it is placed at second position
after water.
• Concrete is a building material mainly composed of
water, FA and CA embedded in a harden matrix of
material called cement, which fills up the voids
among aggregates and adheres them strongly.
INTRODUCTION
• The most important component of a concrete is
cement.
• The manufacture of cement causes various
environmental and social consequences depending on
considerations which are both harmful and are
welcomed.
• Cement industries produce a huge amount of carbon
dioxide.
INTRODUCTION
• Various attempts have been made to reduce the
carbon dioxide emission relating to concrete from
both industrial and academicals sectors by
substitution of conventional clinkers with industrial
biproducts such as fly ash.
• The use of industrial wastes gaining importance as
additives, because they increase strength, decrease
density and most importantly decrease environmental
impacts.
INTRODUCTION
• The use of fly ash in portland cement concrete (PCC)
has many benefits and improves concrete
performance in both the fresh and hardened state.
• Fly ash use in concrete improves the workability of
plastic concrete, and the strength and durability of
hardened concrete.
• Fly ash use is also cost effective. When fly ash is
added to concrete, the amount of portland cement
may be reduced.
INTRODUCTION
• Bacterial concrete is also known as self-healing
concrete or Bio concrete.
• Bacterial concrete is specially made to increase the
lifespan of concrete structure by the self-healing
action of that concrete.
• Cracks which appeared on the surface layer of
concrete were healed due to calcite crystals produced
by bacteria.
• Bacterial concrete is eco-friendly and it does not
show any effect to living beings.
OBJECTIVE
• The objective of the experimental investigations is to
check the effect of use of bacterial concrete
reinforced elements as compare to cement concrete
elements.
• To study the influence of fly ash and bacteria.
• To study strength characteristics of bacterial concrete
by using identified bacteria.
• To study the behaviour of structural elements cast
with bacterial concrete in flexure and torsion.
• To compare the experimental results with Abaqus
software.
SCOPE
• Studies to produce M40 bacterial concrete by using
fly ash enriched with bacteria (CFB).
• To cast RC beams with bacterial concrete and study
its structural behaviour in flexure and torsion.
• Flexural and torsional behaviour of conventional
concrete beam is to be studied experimentally with
fly ash and without fly ash.
• Flexural and torsional behaviour of bacterial
concrete is to be studied experimentally with fly ash
and without fly ash.
METHODOLGY
LITERATURE STUDY

OBJECTIVE & SCOPE

MATERIAL COLLECTION

STUDYING THE PROPERTIES OF


MATERIALS

CASTING OF SPECIMENS

ANALYSIS AND RESULT

CONCLUSSION
LITERATURE SUMMERY
• P Jagannathan (December, 2017), From this research paper, the tests were
conducted by two different species of microorganism named “Bacillus Sphaericus
and Bacillus Pasteurii” when the cement is supplanted with 10% by fly ash
enhanced with bacillus sphaericus greater quality is gotten compare to control
concrete and concrete made with bacillus pasteurii. And while doing compression
test concrete mix made with Bacillus Sphaericus gives 10.8% greater quality, in
split tensile strength 29.37% greater quality and in flexure 5.1% greater quality is
obtained than conventional concrete. And concrete made with bacillus pasteurii
gives lower quality compared to bacillus sphaericus.
• P Jagannathan, (2018), From this research paper, To improve the durability of
reinforcement cement concrete, the porosity of the concrete should be least. In this
investigation impacts are made to culture microbes Bacillus sphericus and the fly
ash was enhanced with this microorganism and same is utilized to replace cement in
concrete. It is discovered when concrete is made utilizing microscopic organisms,
the water ingestion and fast chloride entrance esteems are not exactly concrete
made without blending microorganisms in fly ash concrete. By utilizing
microscopic organisms to improve fly ash it is conceivable to supplant higher level
of cement with fly ash and in a similar time might get less penetrable cement there
by the life of solid will be upgraded.
LITERATURE SUMMERY
• Abhishek Thakur (September-October 2016), From this paper it expresses that
at present, the planning of bacterial concrete is the most prominent research subject
for the analysts. Till now it has been discovered that the utilization of bacterial
concrete can upgrade the strength, mechanical and pervasion parts of cement. As
per the past inquires about till now, it has been discovered that the greatest
increment in the compressive quality is accomplished by the expansion of Bacillus
cereus that is upto half for the cell centralization of 106 cells/ml, and the most
extreme diminishing in water retention is if there should be an occurrence of S.
pasteurii that is 80-85% than the regular solid example after the 28 days relieving
timeframe.
• Wasim Khaliq, (January 2016), From this research article it is highlighted that
experimental study has been carried out in order to know the optimum self-healing
technique, concrete crack was watched for different microscopic organisms
consolidation methods, graphite nanoplates acts as a great bearer compound for
brief period healing, light weight aggregates acts as a great bearer compound for
extensive stretch healing, light weight aggregates joining improved compressive
quality of cement.
Basic Tests on Materials
• Specific gravity, fineness, consistency and setting time tests were carried
on cement as per IS 2720 Part 3 and IS 12269:2013 and the results
obtained are tabulated below

Table 1 Test on ordinary Portland cement 53 grade


S No Name of test Results

1 Specific gravity of cement 3.10

2 Normal Consistency 31%

3 Initial setting time 126 minutes

4 Final Setting Time 260 minutes


Basic Tests on Materials
• Tests were conducted on Coarse Aggregate as per IS 2386:1963.
Table 2 Test on coarse aggregate

S No Name Of Test Results

1 Impact Test 16.66%

2 Water Absorption Test 0.5

3 Specific Gravity Test 2.66


DESCRIPTION OF ABREVATION
• CC - Conventional concrete as per mix design
• CF25 – CF indicates fly ash concrete made with partial
replacement of cement with equal volume of fly ash and
number indicates the percentage of cement replaced in fly ash
concrete.
• CFB25 – CFB indicates bacterial concrete made with partial
replacement of cement with equal weight of fly ash enriched
with bacteria Bacillus subtilis and the number indicates the
percentage of cement replaced in the bacterial concrete.
Mix Design
• In this project concrete mix design M40 was designed
based on IS: 10262-1982, IS 456-2000.
• This code helps us a general applicable method for
selecting mix proportion for high strength concrete
and optimizing this mixture proportion on basis of
trail batches. Mix design are given below in table 3.
• In these table the mix ratio is 1:1.23:2.36 and w/c is
0.40 is adopted.
Mix Design
Table 3 Mix proportion for conventional concrete
Material Quantity
Cement 479 Kg
Fine aggregate 591.3 Kg
Coarse aggregate 1135.2 Kg
Water 191.6 Litres
Compressive strength test
Test results of compressive strength
Compressive strength
Table 4 Test results of Compressive strength

Duration Average compressive strength (N/mm²)

CC CF25 CF40 CF50 CCB CFB25 CFB40 CFB50


7 days
testing 24 22 19.4 17.8 28.8 26.7 24.4 22.07
14 days
testing 37.8 29 26 24 39.2 34.62 32.81 27.4
28 days
testing 43.9 37 31 27.6 47.8 45.39 42.5 40.2
GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATION
Compressive Strength test
60
compressive strength (N/mm²)

50 47.8
43.9 45.39
42.5
39.2 40.2
40 37.8 37
34.62
32.81
31
29 27.6 28.8
30 26 26.7 27.4
24 24 24.4
22 22.07
19.4
20 17.8

10

0
CC CF25 CF40 CF50 CCB CFB25 CFB40 CFB50
Sample with different proportions
7 days testing 14 days testing 28 days testing
Details of Flexural Beam
• Beams has been cast in Ten different proportions,
CC,CCB,CF25,CF40,CF50,CF60,CFB25CFB40,CFB50,
CFB60.
• The dimensions of beams are, (150 mm X 200 mm X 1200
mm X).
• The details of reinforcement are 2 no of 10 mm dia top
reinforcement, 2 no of 12 mm dia bottom reinforcement
and 8 no of 6 mm dia stirrups @150mm c/c.
• The mix ratio for M40 is 1:1.26:2.36, w/c ratio 0.40.
• For bacterial concrete, Bacillus subtilis has been used.
Cross section of Flexural beam
Casting of Flexural Beams
RCC Flexural Beam Testing Arrangements
After 28 days curing beams were tested for flexure and
ultimate loads are given in table 6.
Table 5 Flexure test results on RCC Beam

Mix Ultimate Mix Ultimate


Proportion Load (kN) Proportion Load (kN)
CC 152 CCB 164
CF25 148 CFB25 160
CF40 144 CFB40 148
CF50 136 CFB50 140
CF60 128 CFB60 132
Load vs Deflection on Experimental
results
LOAD VS DEFLECTION
160

140

120
LOAD (KN)

100

80

60

40

20

0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14
DEFLECTION (mm)
CFB60 CFB50 CFB40 CFB25 CCB CF60 CF50 CF40 CF25 CC
Table 6 Theoretical Analysis of RCC Flexure Beam

Mix proportion Theoretical Ultimate Load


Ultimate Load through
(kN) experimental
(kN)
CC 77.48 152

CF25 76.28 148

CFB25 78.98 160


Stiffness vs Load (P/Pu)
LOAD
(P/Pu) STIFFNESS VALUES (kN/m)
CFB25 CFB40 CFB50 CFB60 CF50 CCB CF40 CF25 CF60 CC
0.1 25 22.42 21.21 20.95 20 19.88 17.67 16.26 15.42 15.28
0.2 23.88 20.14 20.59 22.96 23 20.37 17.35 16.31 19.25 16.52
0.3 23.3 19.22 20.1 23.06 20.6 20.08 18.95 18.16 20.65 17.44
0.4 22.7 19.8 19.44 21.55 21.3 19.91 19.63 20.56 22.02 18.51
0.5 21.62 18.69 18.92 20.95 21.5 19.39 21.18 21.2 21.40 20.05
0.6 20.25 17.58 18.1 20.41 20.6 19.22 22.21 21.61 21.01 21.23
0.7 18.67 17.24 17.31 18.41 20.2 18.88 22.33 22.5 20.41 21.34
0.8 16.8 15.66 16.23 17.54 19.3 18.43 23.46 22.668 19.64 20.77
0.9 14.12 14.43 14.96 16.45 18.5 17.78 23.56 22.46 18.29 19.57
1 12.12 12.11 13.57 14.35 16.8 16.67 23.15 21.76 14.88 19.22
Stiffness vs Load (P/Pu)

STIFFNESS VS LOAD
30
STIFFNESS VALUES (KN/m)

25

20

15

10

0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
LOAD (P/Pu)
CFB25 CFB40 CFB50 CFB60 CF50 CCB CF40 CF25 CF60 CC
Details of Torsional Beam
• Torsional beams, has been cast with 4 different
proportions CC,CCB,CF25,CFB25.
• The dimensions of beams are, (150 mm X 200 mm X
1200 mm) with projecting arms on both ends with same
cross section of 400 mm were used to find torsional
strength.
• The details of reinforcement are 2 no of 10 mm dia top
reinforcement, 2 no of 12 mm dia bottom reinforcement
and 8 no of 6 mm dia stirrups @150mm c/c.
• The mix ratio for M40 is 1:1.26:2.36, w/c ratio 0.40.
• For bacterial concrete, Bacillus subtilis has been used.
Cross section of Torsion beam
Casting of torsional beams
Torsional beam testing arrangement
RCC Torsional Beam Testing Arrangements
Table 8 Torsional test results on RCC Beam
Mix Proportion Ultimate Load (kN)

CC 76

CF25 64

CCB 88

CFB25 80
Load vs Deflection on Experimental
results
LOAD VS DEFLECTON
100

90

80

70
LOAD (KN)

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
0 2 4 6 8 10

DEFLECTION (mm)
CCB CF25 CFB25 CC
Torque vs Twist
CC CCB CF25 CFB25
T* θ** T* θ** T* θ** T* θ**
0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000 0 0.000
0.3 0.003 0.3 0.003 0.3 0.003 0.3 0.002
0.6 0.006 0.6 0.008 0.6 0.008 0.6 0.004
0.9 0.010 0.9 0.011 0.9 0.011 0.9 0.007
1.2 0.013 1.2 0.013 1.2 0.014 1.2 0.009
1.5 0.016 1.5 0.014 1.5 0.017 1.5 0.011
1.8 0.018 1.8 0.017 1.8 0.020 1.8 0.013
2.1 0.020 2.1 0.019 2.1 0.022 2.1 0.016
2.4 0.023 2.4 0.020 2.4 0.025 2.4 0.018
2.7 0.025 2.7 0.022 2.7 0.028 2.7 0.021
3 0.026 3 0.025 3 0.032 3 0.023
3.3 0.028 3.3 0.027 3.3 0.036 3.3 0.026
3.6 0.030 3.6 0.029 3.6 0.039 3.6 0.028
3.9 0.032 3.9 0.032 3.9 0.043 3.9 0.030
4.2 0.036 4.2 0.034 4.2 0.048 4.2 0.033
4.5 0.041 4.5 0.037 4.5 0.052 4.5 0.036
4.8 0.044 4.8 0.040 4.8 0.055 4.8 0.038
5.1 0.049 5.1 0.043 - - 5.1 0.042
5.4 0.051 5.4 0.046 - - 5.4 0.045
5.7 0.055 5.7 0.049 - - 5.7 0.049
- - 6 0.051 - - 6 0.052
- - 6.3 0.054 - - - -
- - 6.6 0.057 - - - -
Torque vs Twist

7
Torque vs Twist

6
Torque in KN m

0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06

Twist in Radians
CCB CC CF25 CFB25
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
• On the basis of objective in project the finite element model of
reinforced concrete beam (CC) bacterial concrete (CCB), fly
ash beam (CF25), fly ash beam enriched with bacteria
(CFB25) were developed.
• A sketch of concrete and steel section are created separately
with ABAQUS, which can be extruded in any direction.
• . A solid model of a concrete beam with an area 150 mm × 200
mm, Length 1200 mm was developed.
• Steel rebars of length 1160 mm with stirrups 110 mm X 160
mm was created.
FINITE ELEMENT MODELLING
• The reinforcement for concrete beam was arranged with size
10 & 12 mm rebars and placing the stirrups with spacing 150
mm from centre to the both sides with effective cover 20 mm
to translate instance on both x, y and z directions.
• During analysis the load is given as per experimental
investigation, and load is given in Newtons.
• Analytical results of load and displacement of CC, CCB,
CF25, CFB25 are tabulated below and load vs displacement
curve in graphical representation has been clearly mentioned
below.
Deformation of CC Beam
Stress in Steel Bar in Bacterial Concrete
Beam (CCB)
Deflection of CF25 Beam
Deformation of CFB25 Beam
Table 10 Load and Displacement values for CC

Load (N) Displacement (mm)


0 0
17732 0.005
35465 0.010
53197 0.015
70930 0.020
88662 0.025
106394 0.031
124127 0.036
141859 0.041
159592 0.046
177324 0.051
Table 11 Load and Displacement values for CCB

Load (N) Displacement (mm)


0 0
19134 0.044
38268 0.087
57401 0.131
76535 0.174
95669 0.218
114803 0.262
133937 0.305
153070 0.349
172204 0.392
191338 0.436
Table 12 Load and Displacement values for CF25

Load (N) Displacement (mm)


0 0
17266 0.051
34532 0.102
51799 0.153
69065 0.204
86331 0.256
103597 0.307
120863 0.358
138130 0.409
155396 0.460
172662 0.511
Table 13 Load and Displacement values for CFB25

Load (N) Displacement (mm)


0 0
18666 0.043
37332 0.087
55999 0.130
74665 0.173
93331 0.217
111997 0.260
130663 0.304
149330 0.347
167996 0.390
186662 0.434
Load vs Displacement Curve of All Beams
Load vs Displacement of all beams

250000

200000
Load (N)

150000

100000

50000

0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6
Displacement (mm)

CC CCB CF25 CFB25


CONCLUSSION

• The compressive strength of CFB25 is 8.2 %


higher than CC.
• In direct compression by using fly enriched
with bacteria cement can be replaced up to
40%.
• The bacterial concrete made with Bacillus
subtilis has obtained higher strength than
normal fly ash concrete of respective
percentage of replacement.
CONCLUSSION

• The structural members made with CFB25 performed


better than other proportions in flexural and torsional
beams.
• Hence based on strength, durability and performance as a
structural element CFB25 is suitable concrete to replace
control concrete.
• The ultimate loads by experimental investigation is higher
than the theoretical values in all three considered
proportions.
• Experimental ultimate load of CC is 1.96 times of
theoretical ultimate load, CF25 is 1.94 times and CFB25
is 2.05 times.
CONCLUSSION

• By using fly ash reduction in emission of


green house gas to atmosphere can be
achieved.
• By using bacterial concrete natural
resources like water, lime stone, clay can
be minimised in beneficial way.
REFERENCE
1. P Jagannathan, (2018), “Studies on the mechanical properties of bacterial concrete
with two bacterial species,” ELSEVIER Materials Today:Proceedings 5 ( 2018)
8875-8879. [Scopus/ Impact Factor - 0.94/ SNIP - 0.837].
2. P Jagannathan, (2018), “Influence of Bacteria Bacillus sphaericus on water
Absorption and Rapid Chloride Permeability Properties in Concrete ,” Issue 08
(Special issue), pp. 1113-1117. [Scopus/ Impact Factor - 0.19/ SNIP - 0.135].
3. Manoj Prabahar (2017) “An experimental study of self healing of cracks In
concrete using sodium silicate capsule,” Vol. 10 | No. 2 |577 - 583 | April - June |
2017 ISSN: 0974-1496 | e-ISSN: 0976-0083 | CODEN: RJCABP.
4. V Sai Kumar, (2018), “experimental investigation on Flexural behaviour of fly ash
Concrete by replacing sand with m-sand,” Volume 9, Issue 6, June 2018, pp. 348–
354. Article ID: IJCIET_09_06_040.
5. M.V. Seshagiri Rao, (2013) “ Bioengineered Concrete – A Sustainable Self –
Healing Construction Material” Vol, 2(6), 45-51, June (2013)
REFERENCE
6. R. Sri Bhavana, (2017), “Experimental Study on Bacterial Concrete with Partial
Replacement of Cement by Fly Ash,” Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp. 201–209.
Article ID: IJCIET_08_04_026.
7. C Neeladharan, (2018), “ Application of Bacillus Subtilis Bacteria for Improving
Properties and Healing of Cracks in Concrete” Volume 5, 10.20247/IJARTET,
(2018).
8. N. Ganesh Babu, (2016), “An Experimental Study on Strength And Fracture
Properties of Self-Healing Concrete,” Volume 7, Issue 3, May–June 2016, pp. 398–
406 Article ID: IJCIET_07_03_041.
9. R. Gowrishankar, (2017), “Experimental Study on Flexural Behaviour of Bacterial
Concrete with Internal Curing,” Volume IV, Issue VS, May 2017 | ISSN 2321–
2705.
10. Ch. Koteswara Rao, (2017), “Comparative Study on Analysis of Plain and RC
Beam Using Abaqus,” Volume 8, Issue 4, April 2017, pp. 1531–1538 Article ID:
IJCIET_08_04_172.
REFERENCE
11. Wasim Khaliq, (2016), “ Crack healing in concrete using various bio influenced
self-healing techniques” Volume 102, part 1, 15 January 2016, pages 349-357.
12. Ali A. Hameed, (2018), “Torsional Strength of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete
Beams,” Volume 9, Issue 6,
13. Nikea Ulrich (2018), “Experimental studies addressing the longevity of Bacillus
Subtilis spores – The first data from a 500 – year experiment”
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0208425.
14. Soundharya, S, “Study on the Effect of Calcite-Precipitating Bacteria on Self-
Healing Mechanism of Concrete (Review Paper)”. International Journal of
Engineering Research & Management Technology, 1(4), 2014, pp. 202-208.
15. DeBelie, N, “Crack repair in concrete using Biodepositon”, International
conference on concrete repair, rehabilitation and retrofitting, 2008, pp. 24-26
REFERENCE
16. Reddy, B. S., Safiuddin, M. “Mechanical Properties of Bacterial Concrete using Fly
Ash as Partial Replacement”. International Journal for Scientific Research &
Development,4(9), 2016, pp. 19-22. June 2018, pp. 1388–1396, Article ID:
IJCIET_09_06_155.
17. Kiran, T. G. S, “Fly Ash as a Partial Replacement of Cement inConcrete and
Durability Study of Fly Ash in Acidic (H2so4) Environment”. International Journal
of Engineering Research and Development, 10(12), 2014, pp. 01-13.
18. Patil, S. L, (2012) “Fly Ash Concrete: A Technical Analysis ForCompressive
Strength”. International Journal of Advanced Engineering Research and Studies,
2(1), 2012, pp. 128-129.IS 10262:2009, “concrete mix proportioning - guidelines”
19. IS 456: 2000, “plain and reinforced concrete - code of practice”
20. IS 4031 (Part 4) – 1988, “determination of consistency of standard cement paste –
code for practice”
REFERENCE
21. IS 12269 : 2013, “ ordinary portland cement, 53 grade — specification”
22. IS 383 – 1970, “ Specifications for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources
for concrete- guidelines”
23. IS SP16-1980 “ design aids for reinforced concrete – code for practice”
24. Concrete technology theory and practice by MS.SHETTY.
25. IS 10262-(2009) Concrete mix proportioning- guide lines- code for practice, BIS,
New Delhi; 2000.

Похожие интересы