the use of limestone aggregate in concrete

Transcription

THE USE OF LIMESTONE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE
MUSFA BIN MOHAMAD
UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA
THE USE OF LIMESTONE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE.
MUSFA BIN MOHAMAD
A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the award of the degree of
Master of Engineering (Civil Structure)
Faculty of Civil Engineering
Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
APRIL, 2005
Alfatihah to the passed of my beloved mother and father.
To my beloved Tuan Guru, my wife and my daughters.
ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many people, researchers,
academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding
and thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my main
thesis supervisor, Professor Ir. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Warid bin Hussin, for
encouragement, guidance, critics and friendship. I am also very thankful to Dr.
Othman Cik Puan, Dr. Aziz Chik, En.Ros Ismail, En. Suhaimi Abdul Rahman and
Technicians from Highway laboratory UTM Skudai for their guidance, advices
and motivation in doing all the relevant tests. Without their continued support and
interest, this project report would not have been the same as presented here.
I am also indebted to University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for finding
my Master study. Librarians at UTM also deserve special thanks for their
assistance in supplying the relevant literatures.
I am also very thankful to my head of department Majlis Daerah
Raub(MDR) Tuan Haji Abdul Rashid Mohamed in preparing this project report,
for his advices and also continued support was very much appreciated.
My sincere appreciation also extends to my friends En. Arifin bin Siran
(Laboratory Assistance Sekolah Menengah Sulaiman Bentong), Ir. Kamaruddin
Hassan ( JKR Bridge Section, Kuala Lumpur), Ir. Abdul Kadir Bin Ahyat
(Consultant), Ir. Che Husni Ahmad (Consultant), Ir. Azli Shah Bin Ali Bashah
iii
(Engineer of Dewan Bandar Raya Kuala Lumpur) and my colleagues who have
provided assistance at various occasions. Thanking to all of you in advanced. I am
also very thankful to En. Adnan (Supervisor of Poh Mix. Sdn. Bhd), En. Ramli
Abu Bakar (Senior Technician MDR), En. Khairul Effendi Tuaman(Technician
MDR) and others who have provided assistance in preparing and making the
cubes tests. Very much thankful is also extends to Engineer Mohd Zaid Bin Abdul
Samad (From Petronas) who have provided continued support and assistance in
preparing the project report.
Lastly, I am also deserve special thanks to my beloved wife for her
commitment, encouragement while preparing the works and continued support at
various occasions.
iv
ABSTRACT.
Concrete structure is made up of cement, aggregate and water. In building
construction the aggregates commonly used are limestone and granite. Three
quarters of concrete is made up from aggregate, thus the selection of aggregate
should be in the prime condition. To produce a good, strength and high quality
concrete the materials used should be in accordance to standard specification.
JKR standard specification for building works mentioned that the use of limestone
is limited to super structure only whereas for substructure granite aggregate
should be used. Due to this problem statement this study is carried out to
investigate whether chemical attack in limestone aggregate is the source of
problem for sub structure (concrete structure below ground level). This study
involved in testing of limestone and granite aggregates. The scope of study
includes the investigation on the strength, bonding and chemical attack in the
concrete. The main objective of the research is to study the properties of lime
stone related to strength and its performances. The method of study to be carried
out is through the appropriate test. The types of testing required are sieve analysis,
flaky and elongation index test, cube test and aggregate crushing value test. All
the tests have been carried out and the results had been recorded in appropriate
table and graph. Discussion on the analysis of the results is explained to provide
more information about the effect of chemical and the behavior of concrete
properties. Lastly the conclusion had been done and one recommendation had
been introduced for future work.
v
ABSTRAK.
Struktur konkrit terdiri daripada simen, batu baur dan air.
Di dalam
pembinaan bangunan, batu baur yang biasa di gunakan ialah terdiri daripada batu
kapur dan granit. Tiga suku daripada kandungan konkrit ada lah terdiri daripada
batu baur, oleh yang demikian pemilihan batu baur amat lah penting sekali. Untuk
menghasilkan konkrit yang baik, kuat dan berkualiti tinggi, maka penggunaan
bahan-bahan hendaklah memenuhi spesifikasi piawai. Di dalam spesifikasi Piawai
JKR menyatakan bahawa penggunaan batu kapur di hadkan hanya untuk struktur
dari tanah keatas sahaja, manakala bagi struktur di bawah tanah hendaklah
menggunakan granit. Berdasarkan kepada petikan ini, maka satu kajian untuk
menyiasat samaada serangan dari tindak balas kimia merupakan masalah bagi
binaan struktur di bawah aras tanah. Kajian ini melibatkan ujian terhadap batu
baur jenis batu kapur dan granit. Bidang kajian termasoklah penyiasatan
berhubung dengan kekuatan, ikatan dan tindak balas kimia di dalam konkrit.
Objektif utama kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji ciri-ciri batu baur yang berkaitan
dengan kekuatan dan keupayaannya. Kaedah kajian ini adalah melalui beberapa
ujian yang sesuai. Jenis-jenis ujian tersebut ialah analisis ayakan, indek leper dan
indek pemanjangan, ujian kiub dan nilai hancur batu baur. Semua ujian ini telah
dijalankan dan keputusannya telah direkodkan dalam bentuk jadual dan geraf.
Perbincangan mengenai analisis daripada keputusan ujian akan memberikan
maklumat berhubung dengan kesan tindak balas kimia terhadap perilaku dan sifat
konkerit. Akhir sekali di sertakan satu kesimpulan dan juga satu cadangan untuk
kajian di masa depan.
vi
TABLE CONTENT
CHAPTER
1
2
TITLE
PAGE
Title Page
i
Declaration
ii
Dedication
iii
Acknowledgement
iv-v
Abstract
vi
Abstrak
vii
Table of Content
viii-xi
List of Tables
xii-xiv
List of Figures
xv-xix
List of Symbols
xx
List of Appendices
xi
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction
1-3
1.2
Back ground of the research
3-5
1.3
Significance of the research
5
1.4
Objective of the Study
5-7
1.5
Scope of the research
8-12
LIETERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction
13
2.2
General Information of Aggregate
13-14
2.3
Particles Shape and Texture
14-16
2.4
Bond of aggregate
16
vii
2.5
Theory of rocks
16-17
2.5.1 The Nature of rock
17-18
2.5.2
Igneous rock
18-19
2.5.3
Sedimentation rock
20-22
2.5.3.1 Carbonate rocks
22
2.5.3.2 Limestone(Biochemical)
22-23
3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
24
3.2
Experimental framework
24-27
3.3
Experimental Detail
27-29
3.3.1 JKR Standard For Aggregate
29
3.3.1.1 General Aggregate
29
3.3.1.2 Fine aggregate
30
3.3.1.3 Coarse aggregate
31
3.3.2 Aggregate grading
31-32
3.3.2.1 Sampling and testing of aggregate
32
3.3.2.2 Storage of aggregate
33
3.4
Water
33
3.5
Types of test Recommended
33-34
3.5.1 Sieve Analysis Test
34-35
3.5.1.1 Sample of aggregate to be tested
35-36
3.5.1.2 Elongation and Flakiness Index Test 37-39
3.5.2 Concrete Cube Test
3.5.2.1 Preparation of concrete cube grade
3.5.3 Aggregate crushing value test
3.5.3.1 Preparation of limestone aggregate
for ACV test
39-40
40-46
46-47
47-53
viii
4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1
Introduction
54
4.2
The Results of sieve analysis
54-57
4.2.1 Analysis of the Sieve Analysis Results
58
4.2.2 Analysis of Elongation and
4.3
Flakiness Index Test
58-59
Results of Concrete Cube Test
59-62
4.3.1 Analysis from the results
63
4.3.1.1 Analysis in respect to strength
4.4
4.5
63-67
The results of ACV test
67-68
4.4.1 Test 1 on the 5 January 2005
68
68-69
69-70
70-71
71-72
72-73
Analyzing the results of ACV test
73-74
4.5.1
Analysis of limestone aggregate for 7
days in solutions Mg SO4 + Na NO3 and
7 days in water.
4.5.2
74-76
Analysis of granite aggregate for
28 days in solutions Mg SO4 + Na NO3
and 28 days in water.
5
76-77
DISCUSSION
5.1
Introduction
78
5.2
Discussion on the texture of aggregate
78-79
5.2.1 The source of limestone aggregate
79
5.2.2
80
5.3
Discussion on the Sieve Analysis
Discussion on Flaky and Elongation Properties
80-81
ix
5.3.1 What can be discussed on the Flaky and
Elongation Properties?
5.4
5.5
6
80-81
Discussion about Concrete Cube Strength
81-82
5.4.1 Cube Strength 7 days period
82-84
5.4.2 Cube Strength 14 days period
84
5.4.3 Cube Strength 21 days
84-85
5.4.4 Cube Strength 28 days
85-87
Discussion on ACV Test results
87
5.5.1
88-92
Discussion on ACV test for 7 days
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
6.1
Introduction
93
6.2
Conclusion
94
6.3
Recommendation
94-95
REFERENCES
96-98
APPENDICES A – C2
99-103
x
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE NO.
1.1
TITLE
Classification of natural aggregates according to rock
type (BS812: Part 1 : 1975)
1.2
PAGE
2
Coarse Aggregate (Nominal Size 20 mm) Standard specification Section 2 to 6 M.S. 7.5)
9
1.3
Testing of aggregate
9
1.4
Minimum Strength Specification of Concrete Cube
( 150x150x150).
2.1
Particle Shape Classification of BS 812: Part 1: 1975
with examples.
2.2
10
15
Compressive Strength of American Rocks Commonly
Used as Concrete Aggregates.
17
2.3
Minerals crystallization from magma.
18
2.4
Minerals present in the four main groups of
Igneous rock.
19
xi
2.5
Chemistry of selected carbonate rocks sediment.
23
3.1
Date of Cube test.
27
3.2
Fine Aggregate (Natural sand)
32
3.3
Coarse Aggregate (Nominal size 20 mm).
32
3.4
Position of Sieve size
36
3.5
Standard Format for Calculation of Elongation
And Flakiness Index Test.
38
3.6
The mix proportion of Concrete Cube Grade 25.
40
3.7
Date of Casting and Testing of Concrete Cube.
44
3.8
Quantity of aggregate/ Mg SO4 + Na NO3 and water
Content.
48
3.9
Date of Immersion and Taken out of an Aggregate.
49
4.1
Results of Sieve Analysis of Limestone Aggregate.
55
4.2
Results of the Elongation and Flakiness Index of
Limestone aggregate.
57
4.3
Comparison of Aggregate Passing to JKR specification.
58
4.4
The Results of Cubes Test.
60
xii
4.5
The Results of Cube Strength Compare to JKR
Specification.
4.6
64
Comparison of Compressive Strength of Rock to
Concrete Cube.
66
4.7
Data Record of ACV Test 1 (14-10 sieve).
68
4.8
Data Record of ACV Test 2 (14-10 sieve).
69
4.9
Data Record of ACV Test 3 (20-14 sieve)
70
4.10
Data Record of ACV Test 4 (20-14).
71
4.11
Data Record of ACV Test 5 (14-10)
72
4.12
Data Record of ACV Test 6 (20-14)
73
5.1
The Results of Acv test for Limestone and Granite.
87
5.2
Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone
(28 days).
91
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES.
FIGURE NO
1.1
TITLE
PAGE
Sample of limestone aggregate (Source from Kg.
Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang).
2
1.2
Sample of Aggregate.
8
1.3
Sample of concrete cube with 150x150x150 in size.
11
1.4
Sample of Chemical (Magnesium Sulphate + Natrium
Nitrate)
12
2.1
How sedimentation rock is formed.
20
2.2
Limestone Rock (Sample 1)
21
2.3
Limestone Rock (Sample 2)
21
3.1
Preparation of Chemical solution
25
3.2
Immersion of cubes in to chemical solution.
26
3.3(a)
Front view of Gunong Panas, Ulu Gali, Raub.
28
xiv
3.3(b)
Side View of Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub.
28
3.4
The Sieve Analysis Apparatus.
30
3.5
Sample of Limestone and granite aggregate in UTM
Highway Laboratory.
3.6
31
Source of Limestone from Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali,
Raub, Pahang.
34
3.7
Sample of limestone aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.
35
3.8
Apparatus in Sieve Analysis Test.
36
3.9
Apparatus for Elongation and Flakiness Index Test
(Steel Plate With Standard Hole)
37
3.10
Procedure for Elongation and Flakiness index test
39
3.11
Preparation of Concrete Cubes.
41
3.12
Procedure in Preparation of Cube.
41
3.13
Step to prepare 150x150x150 Concrete Cube
42
3.14
Measuring The Slump of Fresh Concrete
43
3.15
Preparing the concrete cubes
43
3.16
Weighting the Cube Sample
44
xv
3.17
Testing of Cube
45
3.18
Recording Compressive Strength From Dial Gauge
45
3.19
Failure Pattern of Cube.
46
3.20
End of The Test
46
3.21
Weighting of Limestone Aggregate for ACV Test
50
3.22
Placing Aggregate in to the Mould
51
3.23
Aggregate under Testing (400kN/10 minutes)
51
3.24
Aggregate Under Rate of Crushing
52
3.25
Sample of Aggregate after Crushing
52
3.26
Crushed Sample of Aggregate Retain on 2.36 Sieve
53
4.1
Graph of Sieve Analysis Test for Limestone Aggregate
56
4.2
Relationship Between Elongation/Flakiness Index and
JKR Standard.
4.3
4.4
57
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Chemical
Solution for 7 days.
61
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 7 days.
61
xvi
4.5
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Chemical
Solution for 28 days.
62
4.6
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 28 days.
62
4.7
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR
Standard for 7 days (Average Strength)
4.8
Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR
Standard for 28 days (Average Strength).
4.9
74
Results of Limestone Aggregate Crushing Value Test
for 28 days in Chemical Solution and Water.
4.12
67
Results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7 days
in Chemical Solution and Water.
4.11
65
Relationship Between Concrete Cube Compressive
Strength To Original Rock.
4.10
64
75
Results of Aggregate Crushing Value of Granite for
28 days.
76
5.1
Types of Aggregate Texture
81
5.2(a)
Failure Pattern in Water
83
5.2(b)
Failure Pattern in Chemical Solution
84
5.3(a)
Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete
84
in Chemical Solution.
xvii
5.3(b)
Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete
in Water.
5.4(a)
Results of Limestone ACV Test for 28 days in
Chemical Solution and Water.
5.4(b)
90
Results of ACV Test for Granite and Limestone
Aggregate in Chemical Solution (28 days)
5.4(d)
89
Results of Granite ACV Test for 28 days in Chemical
Solution and Water.
5.4(c)
84
91
Results of Granite and Limestone Aggregate on
ACV Test for 28 days in Water.
92
xviii
LIST OF SYMBOLS
B.S
-
British Standard
>
-
More than
<
-
Less than
G25
-
Grade 25
Mg SO4
-
Magnesium Sulphate
Na NO3
-
Natrium Nitrate
Ca O
-
Calcium Oxide
Mg O
-
Magnesium Oxide
CO2
-
Carbon Dioxide
S1,S2,ect
-
Sample in Chemical Solution
S.O
-
Superintendent Officer
ACV
-
Aggregate Crushing Value
JKR
-
Jabatan Kerja Raya
Fe O
-
Ferrous Oxide
Mn O2
-
Manganese Dioxide
Ca(OH)
-
Calcium Hydroxide
Mpa
-
Mega Pascal
Psi
-
Ib/square in.
Ca CO3
-
Calcium Carbonate (Limestone)
xix
LIST OF APPENDICES
APPENDIX
TITLE
PAGE
A1
JKR Specification page 35
99
A2
JKR Specification page 36
100
B
JKR Standard Limit for Laboratory Testing
101
C1
Cube Test Results 7 days in Water
102
C2
Cube Test Results 7 days in Chemical Solution
103
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.1
Introduction.
Since concrete is the most important part in structural construction, the
aggregate content should be in a form of good strength for structural purposes.
Concrete is made up of aggregate, cement and water. Through this combination of
materials, three – quarter of the mix is governed by aggregate. The aggregate
itself is categorized as fine and course aggregate.
In this study, the scope of research will be focused on the use of coarse
aggregate using lime stone material. Before further discussion, it shall be better to
have knowledge and clear understanding about the lime stone material and its
properties and performances.
Lime stone is one of the aggregate to be used in concrete, other than that
are granite, basalt, Quardz, Gneis, Gabbro, Sand stone, Felsit ect. The
classification of the aggregates according to BS 812 :Part 1 :1975 as stated from
table 1.1 in this chapter.
2
Figure 1.1 : Sample of Limestone Aggregate (Source from Kg. Ulu Gali,
Raub, Pahang)
Table 1.1: Classification of natural aggregates according to rock type ( BS
812 : Part 1 :1975 )
Basalt Group
Flint Group
Gabbro group
Andesite
Chert
Basic diorite
Basalt
Flint
Basic Gneiss
Basic porphyrites
Gabbro
Diabase
Hornblende-rock
Dolerites of all kinds
Norite
including theralite and
Peridotite
teschenite.
Picrite
Epidiorite
Serpentinite
Lamprophyre
Quartz-dolerite
Spilite
Granite Group
Gritstone Group
Hornfels group
( including fragmental
Gneiss
volcanic rocks)
Contact-altered rocks
3
Granite
of all kinds except
Granodiorite
Arkose
Granulite
Greywacke
Pegmatite
Grit
Quartz-diorite
Sandstone
Syenite
Tuff
Limestone Group
Porphyry Group
marble.
Quartzite Group
Dolomite
Aplite
Limestone
Dacite
Ganister
Marble
Felsite
Quartzitic sandstones
Granophyre
Re-crystallized
Keratophyre
quartzite.
Schist Group
Microgranite
Phyllite
Porphyry
Schist
Quartz-porphyrite
Slate
Rhyolite
All severely sheared
Trachyte
rocks.
Page 110: Properties of Concrete – A.M. Neville
1.2
Back ground of the research
Limestone and granite are two types of aggregates commonly used in
industrial construction. For JKR project, the used of limestone aggregate is
limited to super structure only whereas for substructure there is no recommended
to use limestone below ground level. Due to this statement the study is to be
carried out to find what source of the problems in related to concrete below
ground level. One of the problems in the ground level is about chemical attack, so
4
that a few numbers of laboratory test should be carried out to get the results for
analysis purposes.
In conjunction to this matter, the problem arises is based on the JKR
specification mention under Section D (Concrete Work) item 3.0 for aggregate
contents.
From Item 3.3 Coarse Aggregates:
Standard Specifications For Building works page 35 standard specification
for building works written as below:-
“The coarse aggregate shall be crushed hard stone except that for work
below ground level, only crushed granite will be used. The aggregate shall not
contain clay lumps exceeding 1% by weight. A representative dry sample shall
not show an increase in weight exceeding 8% after immersion in water when
tested according to the method in M.S. 7.5. It shall be well shaped and not flaky
with the flakiness index not exceeding 35%. The maximum nominal size of coarse
aggregate shall be 19mm.”
Through the statement above, it is understood that the use of limestone
aggregate was not recommended in building works below ground level. Since
concrete work is the importance structure, understanding about the material
properties shall be significantly in the advanced condition. A few tests to get the
strength should be carried out in the laboratory and the results can be analyzed.
The results obtained can be compared to the standard specification for building’s
work. So, through this study I would like to further the use of limestone in a
certain area as alternative to granite aggregate.
The main reason to study this topic is to get better knowledge and to bare
in mind whether “ Chemical Attack below ground level “ source of the
problem in using limestone concrete structure. In the preparation of this thesis,
many factors should be considered and there must be some references towards the
study for getting clear information and understanding about the chemical attack in
5
concrete structure. At the end of this study, a conclusion can be made according to
the results obtained through the laboratory tests.
1.3
Significance of the research.
In construction industries, the use of aggregates is the most importance
material in composition of concrete. Places having granite aggregate should have
no problem in construction projects, but for places without granite the problems
will be arises and cost incurred become higher. Due to this reason this study
should be carried out in the approaching method to overcome the problem as well
as beneficial to local people.
The advantages of this study are:-
i)
To provide some information about the used of limestone aggregate.
ii) Beneficial and economic value to local people.
iii) New finding during the test and methods required to overcome the problems.
iv) Have chances to explore the used of local material in construction industries.
1.4
Objective of the study.
In our country, stone can be selected from a certain area which is in the
form of various types of materials such as granite, limestone, basalt, quardz,
gneiss, gabbro, sand stone and others as stated in table 1.0 from the previous
paragraph.
Area of easily granite formed shall have no problems for concrete
structure, but for an area of without granite and limestone easily selected this
might be incurred cost to import granite aggregate from other places. As a result,
6
this also will reduce the beneficial economic value for that particular place due to
granite demand.
The main issue of this study is to identify weather the chemical reaction
can affect the concrete structure from limestone aggregate below ground level. In
the ground, there are various types of chemical reactions such as sulfate, chloride,
nitrate, sodium, atrium and others soluble exist in that particular places. For this
purpose, every places will have different soluble in the ground and its depend on
the types of soil or rock for that particular area.
At the end of this study some information regarding limestone aggregate
will be obtained from the test results. Due to the results required, the beneficial
values of the study can be shared together and its will bring objectives as the
followings:-
i)
To study the limestone properties related to strength and its
performances.
In this objective, the strength of the limestone should be obtained in many
ways. One of the methods is cube test. However the method pertaining to this
matter will be discussed on the next topic under chapter 2 under methodology
section.
Through this objective, all the information should be collected and might
be one of the proven sign to get a solution to the problem. If there is exist, it
means that the limestone aggregate is no longer to be a selected and approved
material in concrete structure. For this purpose, the specification of JKR should
the one to refer and compared with the results of the tests.
ii)
To compare the results with granite concrete and costing required.
As according to JKR specification in building works, the use of granite is
the recommended aggregate in construction of JKR projects. For this particular
situation, the comparison between limestone and granite is the options to get some
information to public use and acknowledgement purposes.
7
Since granite concrete is no matter stronger and its characteristic strength
is more than limestone concrete, so that the results of the cube tests is
significantly functioning to this study. Because of the local interest to economic
value, the cost incurred for both types of aggregate will be established to public
information.
iii)
To provide the information on demands of local material and its
benefits.
Once the result of the tests is recorded, there are specifics analysis can be
ascertained and very important factors to encourage people on the demands of
each materials. For this particular objective, the demand on limestone is
predictably on advanced because the study is focusing to the local materials on the
beneficial aspects especially on the economic aim.
However, in promoting the local material demands there must be a specific
reason and advantages to welcome people without prejudice. Through this study,
it will provide some guide lines and references for really problems arise towards
the specific solution otherwise there are no neglected inspiration exists. Once it’s
come through there are clear information to people involved in construction
industries.
iv)
As an alternative materials without prejudice.
If the concrete made of limestone aggregate can produce a strength and
durability, therefore its performance is good for concrete structure. The important
thing in construction technology is the material used is followed the specification
and the test results should according to specification. Any materials set the
specification, meaning that the material can be used for construction purposes. In
the case of limestone, it also a type of aggregate involved in obtaining a good
concrete provided the required test should followed the specification in the
contract document.
8
1.5
Scope of the research.
The construction industries are becoming more challenging than ever
before. To be competitive, the field of engineering related to the industries has to
be established. One of the areas that can be established is the used of material in
the construction purposes. A specific scope of study on the limestone aggregate is
presented in this paper as to improve the knowledge in the field of construction
technology.
1.5.1
Bond of aggregate :
The bond between aggregate and cement paste is essential to produce the
flexural strength of concrete, but the nature of this bond is not fully understood.
For this reason, an analysis needs to be conducted by performing specific tests in
the laboratory. The flakiness index and elongation tests on the limestone
aggregate are required that to prove the specification in JKR contract document is
met. Bonding between aggregate and cement paste depends on the surface of the
aggregate. Since the rough surface requires more bonding than the smooth
surface, the texture of aggregate to be tested should comply to the requirement of
standard specification.
Figure 1.2: Sample of aggregates (left is limestone, right is granite).
9
The aggregate used in the tests must comply to the standard grading which
is
through sieve analysis test with 4 kilogram of limestone aggregate sample.
The test shall follow a proper procedure and the results are compared to the
standard as tabulated in Table 1.2 below:-
Table 1.2: Coarse Aggregate (Nominal Size 20 mm) – Standard specification
Section 2 to 6 M.S. 7.5
British Standard
20 mm
10 mm
5 mm
100
25-55
0-10
Sieve
Percent passing
( %)
The flakiness and elongation tests shall comply to the standard specification
listed in Table 1.3 below:-
Table 1.3: Testing of aggregate ( Refer Appendix B).
Properties
Types of
Test
aggregate
Methods
Grading
Coarse
M.S 7.5
As mention in Table 2.1
Elongation
Coarse
M.S 30
Not exceeding 30%
Index
Coarse
M.S 30
Not exceeding 35%
Flakiness Index
Coarse
M.S 30
Not exceeding 40%
Aggregate
Crushing Value
Limits
10
1.5.2
Strength of Aggregate
To get strong and good concrete, the crushing value and cube tests are
recommended. Crushing strength of concrete and crushing value of aggregate
shall be determined according to a specific strength mentioned in the specification
for both limestone and granite. For the granite aggregate, the sample was initially
immersed in the water and chemical solution (MgSO4 + NaNO3) for 28 days. The
procedure is to discover the effect that water and chemical solution have on the
strength of concrete. The crushing value test shall meet the standard in table 1.3
above. The cube strength test shall meet the specification in Table 1.4 below:-
Table 1.4: Minimum Strength Specification of Concrete Cube (150x150x150).
Equivalent
Minimum crushing
Maximum
Minimum cement
nominal
Strength at 7 days
aggregate
content per cubic
mix
and 28 days after
size
meter of finished
mixing.
concrete
At 7 days At 28 days
N/mm2
1:1:2 (G30)
1:11/2 :
17.0
N/mm2
mm
Kg
30
19
380
25.5
19
361
21.00
19
321
3(G25)
1:2:4
(G20)
14.0
11
Figure 1.3: Sample of concrete cube with 150 x 150 x150 in size.
1.5.3
Shulphate Reaction Below Ground Level
The chemical attack on the concrete below ground level is proven by
immersing the cube samples of concrete grade 25 in solution of Magnesium
sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate. The Magnesium Sulphate and natrium Nitrate are
shown in figure 1.4 below. Twelve samples of cube were immersed in solution of
Magnesium sulphate plus natrium nitrate and another twelve samples of cube
were immersed in water. The samples are to be immersed in the solution and
water, separately for 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. To get more accurate
information on the effect of chemical reaction on the granite and limestone
aggregate, test a period of 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days was justified.
12
Figure 1.4: Sample of chemical (Magnesium Sulphate + Natrium Nitrate)
Figure 1.4 above show the chemicals to be used in the research. The
chemicals are to be used in two different ways as the followings:-
i)
Half of the chemical to be used for the immersion of the concrete cube in the
solution.
ii) Another half of chemical to be used for the immersion of the granite and
limestone aggregate in the solution.
CHAPTER 2.
LIETERATURE REVIEW
2.1
Introduction.
Back to the problem about the specification in JKR project, there must be
a reason why the limestone not to be recommended in concrete below ground
level (Concrete Substructure). In obtaining to the matter a rise, there shall be some
review about the aggregate in concrete structure and what is the weakness of
limestone aggregate. This type of question is an objective of this study. Before we
go further discussion, a few questions about the limestone aggregate are to be in
mind as follows:-
(a)
What are the weaknesses and the results contribute to limestone concrete?
(b)
Is the chemical attack exists due to the use of limestone aggregate?
(c)
Corrosion will result crack in the concrete. Is the limestone the source of
problem?
(d)
Can limestone concrete last long?
2.2
General Information of Aggregate.
Firstly to answer that such question above, we have to get some general
information regarding the use of aggregate in construction industrial technology in
Malaysia.
14
Since three-quarters of volume of concrete is governed by aggregate, it is not
surprising that its quality is of considerable importance. Not only may the
aggregate affects the strength of the concrete, aggregate with undesirable material
would not get a good and strong concrete but also its can produce low durability
and performance of the concrete.
Aggregate was originally a composition of a concrete mix with the
proportion to the cement content and also as an inert material dispersed
throughout the cement paste largely for economic purposes. It is possible to take
into account that aggregate is a building material connected into a cohesive whole
by means of the cement paste, as a comparison similar to masonry work in
building construction. In fact, the aggregate can absorb heat, water, chemicals and
also its physical properties will influence the performance of concrete.
Aggregate cheaper compare to cement, there fore it is possible an
economic value to put into consideration. But economy not the only reason why to
select aggregate , it is also have engineering advantages on concrete, so that it can
bring higher volume stability , produce better durability than the hydrated cement
paste alone.
2.3 Particle shape and texture.
Aggregate, whether crushed or naturally reduced in size, it can be divided
into many groups of rocks having common characteristics. According to BS 812:
Part 1: 1975 the rocks are classified as given in Table 1.0 in the early page.
The aggregate to be used in the concrete shall have good shape and surface
texture. In the case of crushed rocks, the particle shape depends not only on the
nature of the parent material but on the type of crusher and its reduction ratio, for
example the ratio of the size fed into crusher and the size of finished product.
15
According to standard BS 812: Part 1: 1975 is given from Table 1.2 in this
chapter. For reference to the classification used in United States is as follows:Well-rounded - No original faces left
Rounded
- Faces almost gone
Sub rounded
- Considerable wear, faces reduce in area
Sub angular
- Some wear but faces untouched
Angular
- Little evidence of wear (* Page 113 Properties of concrete)
Table 2.1: Particle Shape Classification of BS 812: Part 1: 1975 with examples
Classification
Rounded
Description
Examples
Fully water-worn or completely shaped by
River or seashore
attrition
gravel, desert,
seashore and
wind- blown sand
Irregular
Naturally irregular, or partly shaped by
Other gravels,
attrition and having rounded edges
land or dug flint
Laminated rock
Flaky
Material of which the thickness is small
relative to the other two dimensions.
Crushed rocks of
all types , talus,
Angular
Possessing well-defined edges formed at
crushed slag
the intersection of roughly planar faces
Elongated
Material, usually angular, in which the
length is considerably larger than the
-
other two dimensions
Flaky and
Material having the length considerably
Elongated
larger than the width, and the width
considerably larger than the thickness
(Note: The above table Refer to page 114 Properties of Concrete -A.M. Neville )
16
As far as the aggregate concerned, the mass of flaky particles compare to a
mass of sample isalled flakiness index where as for elongation index is similarly
defined. For this case, particularly refer to JKR specification mention at the early
page which means that the percentage of the flakiness and elongation should not
more than 35% (Refer Appendix B).
2.4 Bond of the aggregate
Bond between aggregate and cement paste is an important factor to
produce a strength of concrete , therefore due to this reason a fully understood
about the material properties is very significant.
2.5 Theory of Rocks.
Everything should start with theory, so that it will bring more significant
in studying towards analyzing purposes. Without the theory, an analysis meaning
less to good results and better Due to this statement, a proper knowledge about the
nature of rocks should be required in this research. The more the nature and the
characteristics of the rocks required the more the analysis to be performed.
In general, the Table 2.2 below shows the compressive strength of the
original rocks for comparison to concrete cube strength.
17
Table 2.2: Compressive Strength of American Rocks Commonly Used as
Concrete Aggregate.
Compressive Strength
Type of
Number
rock
of
After deletion of extremes ‡
Average#
samples* MPa
Psi
Maximum
MPa
Psi
Minimum
MPa
Psi
Granite
278
181
26200
257
37300
114
16600
Felsite
12
324
47000
526
76300
120
17400
Trap
59
283
411000
377
54700
201
29200
Limestone
241
159
23000
241
34900
93
13500
Sandstone
79
131
19000
240
34800
44
6400
Marble
34
117
16900
244
35400
51
7400
Quartzite
26
252
36500
423
61300
124
18000
Gneiss
36
147
21300
235
34100
94
13600
Schist
31
170
24600
297
43100
91
13200
* For most sample, the compressive strength is an average of 3 to 15 specimens.
# Average of all sample.
‡ 10 per cent of all samples tested with highest or lowest values have been
deleted as not typical of the material
Refer: A.M.Naville 1995 Page 121.
2.5.1
The Nature of Rocks
Rocks are aggregate which is made of one or more minerals. Rocks are
classified into three main types as follow:-
a) Igneous rocks are formed from magma, which form below the
surface, it ascends towards the surface, and crystallizes as solid rock on the
surface of the earth.
b) Sedimentary rocks are formed by the accumulation and compaction of
18
fragments from pre-existing rocks originated from the erosion of organic materials
such as dead plants, animals and other dissolved material. Sedimentation rocks are
also formed by the process of settlement and saturation of those particular
organics or minerals.
c)
Metamorphic rocks are formed from pre-existing rocks, which undergo
the increase in temperature or pressure or both. The original parent of the rocks
change it’s appearance, texture and mineral composition due to the process
stimulated.
.
2.5.2
Igneous Rocks.
In the formation of igneous rocks from magma, it is possible to describe
three main types of classification in consideration of that particular rock as in the
appropriate tables shown below:-
Table 2.3: Minerals crystallization from magma.
Mineral
Ultra basic
Basic
Intermediate
Acid
Quartz
------------------------------------------------------
Orthoclase
------------------------------------------------------
Plagioclase
Ca-rich ------------------------------------------------- Na-rich
Muscovite
--------------------------------------------------------
Biotite
--------------------------------------------------------
Hornblende
-------------------------------------------------------
Augite
---------------------------
Olivine
Early(high temperature)
lately (low temperature)
19
Table 2.4: Minerals present in the four main groups of igneous rock.
Rock
Amount of
composition
SiO2(%)
Acid
65
Minerals
Quartz,orthoclase,Naplagioclase,muscovite,
Biotite,(+/-hornblende)
Intermediate
55-65
Plagioclase,biotite,hornblende,quartz,
orthoclase (+/- augite)
Basic
45-55
Ca-plagioclase,augite(+/-olivine,+/hornblende)
Ultra basic
45
Ca-plagioclase,olivine(+/-augite)
Magma consists of two distinctive layers, the bottom layer is the ultra
basic igneous rocks which comprise divine, olivine, calcium-rich plagioclase and
augite to form an ultra basic igneous rocks. This layer exists at high temperature.
The second upper layer is the acids rock which comprises quartz, orthoclase,
sodium-rich, plagioclase and micas. This second upper layer exists at a lower
temperature. The layers are shown in table 2.4 above.
2.5.3
Sedimentation Rocks
There are four major groups of sedimentary rocks:-
a)
Terrigenous sedimentary rocks that are formed by fragments
derived from the breakdown of pre-existing rocks.
b)
Chemical sedimentary rocks that are formed through the
precipitation of salts dissolved in water.
c)
Organic sedimentation rocks, which are formed from oil, coal and
the skeletal remains of plants and animals.
20
d)
Lime stones and dolomites, which are sedimentation, rocks consist
of more than 50% carbonate including chemical, clastic and biological
material. In this study, the rock which contains more carbonate is called
carbonate rocks and limestone falls under this type of rocks. Therefore the
fact of limestone is significant in this chapter to be further elaborated..
Figure 2.1: How sedimentation rock is formed
For millions of years, little pieces of the earth have been eroded by wind
and water. These little bits of the earth are washed downs by streams and
eventually settle to the bottom of the rivers, lakes, and oceans. Layer after layer of
the eroded earth is deposited on top of each other. These layers are pressed down
more and more through time, until the bottom layers slowly turn into rock.
(http://sln.fi.edu)
21
Figure 2.2: Limestone Rock (Sample 1)
Limestone rocks are sedimentary rocks that are made of mineral calcite
which comes from the beds of evaporated seas, lakes and sea animal shells. This
rock is used in concrete and is an excellent building stone for humid regions.
(http://sln.fi.edu).
Figure 2.3: Limestone Rock (Sample 2)
Limestone is the most abundant of the non-clastic sedimentary rocks. The
main source of limestone is the limy ooze formed in the ocean. The calcium
carbonate can be precipitated from the ocean water or it can be formed from the
sea creatures that secrete lime such as algae and coral. Chalk is another form of
limestone that is made up of very small single-celled organisms. Chalk is usually
white or gray. Limestone can easily be dissolved by acids. If some vinegar is
dropped onto a limestone, it will fizz. Put a limestone rock into a plastic jar and
22
cover it with vinegar. Cover the jar and watch the bubbling of the calcium
carbonate and also the disintegration of the rock over a few days,
(http://volcano.und.nodak.edu).
2.5.3.1 Carbonate Rocks.
Limestone aggregate is one of carbonate rocks. Like other rocks, carbonate
rocks are classified on the basis of their minerals and textures. The mineral
compositions are limited and the textures of carbonate rocks are assumed of added
importance. Some carbonate rocks are crystalline, and the others are clastic. Most
rocks contain both crystalline and clastic elements.
Limestone is composed predominantly of calcite, namely Magnesium
calcite, aragonite and dolostones, dolostones consists primarily of dolomite,
aragonite and dolostones are the two main types of carbonate rocks. Magnesium
calcite and aragonite are particularly subject to diagenetic change and therefore
calcite and dolomite are the most common phases in older carbonate rocks.
Chemically, CaO, MgO and CO2 are lead carbonate rocks and the content of
oxygen and carbon are significant in the analysis.
2.5.3.2 Limestone (Biochemical)
Limestone is formed in various colour such as white, grey, cream or
yellow. It’s texture is highly variable from very fine-grained, and porcellaneous,
to coarsely crystalline and of sugary appearance. Its structure bedding is usually
form the formation fossil layers.
Usually limestone light is white or grey but can also be black if many
impurities are present. It’s grain is typically fine, but it
ranges from the
microscopic to the size of a coral reef, which technically corresponds to one grain.
23
However, the formation of calcite or another carbonate can therefore be identified
by dropping dilute hydrochloric acid onto its surface.The calcite rock releases
carbon dioxide, and fizzes vigorously which indicates the presence of fossils.
Theoretically, carbonate rocks consists of chemical sediments as shown
below:-
Table 2.5: Chemistry of selected carbonate rocks sediment.
Si O2
K2O
Ti O2
P 2 O5
Al2 O3
H 2 O+
Fe2O3
H 2 O-
Fe O
C O2
Mn O2
Ca CO3
Ca O
Na 2 O
Mg O
LOl
*Refer to Carbonate rock.
Calcium carbonate normally comprises 50% of calcite, and the balanced are
clay, sand, dolomite, carbon and iron oxides.
In general, limestone is such as weathered rocks are crinoidal limestone,
chalk, shelly limestone and fossiliferous fresh water limestone. Weathering often
develops a thin white coating on pure limestone. Commonly the appearance of the
limestone pebbles are grey and it is compact at the rock center and porous at the
surface. Since limestone is formed in several ways and contains numerous
impurities, many variations are found. This is includes shaly or argillaceous
limestone, sandy or arenaceous limestone, lime conglomerate, bituminous
limestone and glauconitic limestone.
CHAPTER 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1
Introduction
Since the scope and the objectives of the study has been obtained, there are
a procedures should be followed to perform a specific function in this chapter. All
the tests and the results shall be shown from appropriate table and graph that can
be prepared simultaneously. At this stage, the main function is to show the various
steps and methodology that lead to the results of testing materials selected.
Once the characteristic of the materials selected has been tested through
appropriate tests, the applicable standard of specification should be referred and
the analyzed of the results should be done for better information as well as good
conclusions. One of the objectives in this research is towards a better knowledge
and good information to public that can make this study very significant. As a
results this would brings the advantages to local people in promoting local
material demands.
3.2
Experimental framework.
In this research the methods to be carried out is through laboratory tests.
The types of testing to be carried out are as follows:-
25
3.2.1
Sieve Analysis Test.
3.2.2
Flaky and Elongation Index Tests.
3.2.3
Cube Test
3.2.4
Aggregate Crushing Value Test.
The sample of limestone aggregate was taken from quarry Poh Chan Sdn.
Bhd located at Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang. This sample was
taken about one meter cube. The aggregate was divided into two volumes. One
volume to make the concrete cubes in 24 numbers at ready mix kiln ( Poh Mix
Sdn. Bhd.). These cubes were divided into two groups of specimen as the
followings:-
( a ) 12 numbers of specimens fror immersions in chemical solution ( Magnesium
Sulphate
plus
Natrium
Nitrate)
sample
designated
as
:
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S9,S10,S11 and S12.
( b ) 12 numbers of specimens for immersions in water,
1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12.
Figure 3.1 Preparation of Chemical Solution.
designated as :
26
Figure 3.2 Immersion of cubes in to tank (chemical solution).
Figure 3.1 and 3.2 above shows the preparation of cube to be immersed
into the chemical solution for 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days.
Another one volume of limestone aggregate was divided into two portions
as the followings:( i) 20 kilograms for immersion in chemical solution ( Magnesium Sulphate plus
Natrium Nitrate)
( ii ) 20 kilograms for immersion in water.
The aggregates were taken out from curing tank after 7 days and 28 days for
sieve analysis test, flaky/elongation test and aggregate crushing value test. The
tests were carried out in UTM Skudai Highway Laboratory in January 2005.
27
Whereas for concrete cubes, the samples were taken out after 7 days, 14
days, 21 days and 28 days for cube tests at Poh Chan Sdn. Bhd. Plant. The date of
testing as shown in Table 3.1 below:Table 3.1 Date of Cube Test.
3.3
No. of days
Date of
testing
7
9.12.2004
14
16.12.2004
21
23.12.2004
28
30.12.2004
Experimental Details.
Since the study of aggregate is more important, it is not really truth accept
by the method of testing should be carried out to that particular material. For this
purpose, before material has to be tested, one consideration should be noticed
where the raw material is located and where the materials to be used in particular
project. In this research, the raw material to be tested is from Gunong Panas, Kg.
Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang. This raw material is commonly used as limestone
aggregate in Raub district and very popular to the local people as the main source
of local material demands. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 below shows where the location and
the site of the raw material was been taken for the specimen.
28
Figure 3.3(a): Front view of Gunong Panas, Ulu Gali, Raub.
Figure 3.3(b) Side View Of Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub.
29
3.3.1 JKR Standard Specification for Aggregate
The most important thing in this chapter is to describe an appropriate
methods how to initiate and solving procedure in respect to the back ground
situation and problem arise. Since the research is subjected to the effect of
limestone aggregate in concrete structure below ground level, it is more
significant the material should accordance to the standard JKR specification.
Therefore, the following paragraphs are the procedures and the standard
specification for building work prepared by JKR.
3.3.1.1 General Aggregate
The aggregate to be used in the concrete should comply to standard
specification mentioned below:The aggregate shall in general comply with M.S 7.5. All aggregate shall be
hard, strong, durable, clean and free from adherent coating and shall not contain
harmful materials in sufficient quantity to affect adversely the strength or
durability of the concrete or to attack the reinforcement. Aggregate shall be store
in such a manner as to prevent contamination by undesirable substance. The
different type of aggregates shall be stored in separate bins and not be allow to
intermingle. (Refer to Appendix A1).
30
Figure 3.4: The sieve analysis apparatus.
Figure 3.4: Method of testing the aggregate in the UTM Highway laboratory
on January 2005.
3.3.1.2 Fine Aggregate
The fine aggregates shall be naturally occurring fresh water sand. The
aggregates shall not contain silt or other fine materials exceeding 3% by volume
when tested according the Standard Method given in M.S 7.5. Neither shall it
contain organic material in sufficient quantity to show a darker colour then the
standard depth of colour No. 3 when tested according to the method in M.S 7.5.
The use of crushed stone sand shall not be permitted.(Refer to appendix A1).
31
3.3.1.3 Coarse Aggregate
The course aggregate shall be crushed hard stone except that for work
below ground level, only crushed granite will be used. The aggregates shall not
contain clay lumps exceeding 1% by weight. A representative dry sample shall
not show an increase in weight exceeding 8% after immersion in water when
tested according to the method in MS. 7.5. It shall be well shaped and not flaky
with the flakiness index not exceeding 35. The maximum nominal size of coarse
aggregate shall be 19mm. (Refer to Appendix A1).
Figure 3.5: Sample of Limestone and granite aggregate in UTM Highway
Laboratory.
3.3.2
Aggregate Grading
The analysis for the grading of aggregate shall be as described in MS. 7.5
and shall be within the limits specified as Table 3.2 and 3.3 below:-
32
Table 3.2: Fine Aggregate (Natural sand)
B.S. Sieve
5mm
% Passing
95-100
2.36mm
70-95
1.18mm 0.60mm
45-85
25-60
0.30mm 0.15mm
5-30
0-10
Table 3.3: Coarse Aggregate (Nominal size 20mm).
B.S. Sieve
20mm
10mm
5mm
% Passing
100
25-55
0-10
The grading between the limits specified above shall be to the approval of
the S.O., and when tested as provided herein after shall approximate closely to the
grading of the approved samples. If it should be found necessary, the fine
aggregate shall be washed and/or screened to comply with and the requirements
of the S.O. (Refer Appendix A2 under clause 3.4)
3.3.2.1
Sampling and Testing of Aggregates
The method of sampling and the amount of aggregate to be provided for
the tests shall be in accordance with section 2 to 6 of MS. 7.5. Samples of the fine
and coarse aggregate approved by the S.O. shall be kept on site and shall be used
to compare the general quality of the aggregates delivered during the course of the
work. The tests to be performed on the aggregates shall be as specified herein
before. The S.O. may require further tests to be carried out on samples of the
aggregate delivered to site at intervals. The tests shall be carried out by the S.O. or
his representative. Should a sample fail to comply with any of the tests the S.O.,
may, at his discretion, either reject the batch from which the sample was taken,
order it to be washed and or screened or permit it to be used with variation in the
proportions of the concrete mixes specified. Any batch of aggregate rejected by
the S.O. shall be removed from the works site forthwith.
33
3.3.2.2 Storage of Aggregates
Separate storage facilities with adequate provision for drainage shall be
provided for each different size of aggregate used.
Aggregate shall be handled and stored so as to minimize segregation and
contamination.
3.4
Water
Water shall comply with the requirements of M.S. 28. It shall be clean and
free from materials deleterious to concrete in the plastic and hardened state and
shall be from a source approved by the S.O. If in doubt, the S.O. may instruct the
contractor to carry out chemical test at any approved laboratory at the expense of
the contractor. The contractor shall make adequate arrangement to supply and
store sufficient water at the work site for use in mixing and curing of concrete. All
costs for installing and maintaining the supply shall be borne by the contractor.
3.5 Types of Test Recommended
The test to be carried out in the laboratory at University Technology
Malaysia, Skudai, Johor are represents as follows:-
(i)
Sieve Analysis Test
( ii )
Elongation
( iii ) Flakiness Index
( iv )
Concrete Cube Test
(v)
Aggregate Crushing Value
34
In conjunction to the tests, it is important to notice that every steps of the
procedure in making the appropriate tests should be identified and followed to get
an accurate result.
Every procedure in the tests should be strictly followed for getting a good
results and this can be explained each of the tests in the following paragraphs.
3.5.1
Sieve Analysis Test
Before the aggregate to be tested for sieve analysis, the sample of
aggregate has to be taken from the source of the materials. In this case, the sample
of aggregate is taken from the quarry Po Chan situated at Gunong Panas,Kg. Ulu
Gali, Raub, Pahang as shown in the Figure 3.6 below:-
Figure 3.6: Site view of Gunong Panas, Kg.Ulu Gali,Raub, Pahang
35
The sample of aggregate was taken from Gunong Panas area as shown
from figure 3.6 above. The test was carried out at UTM Highway laboratory on
January 2005.
The procedure to carry out Sieve analysis test:-
3.5.1.1 Sample of Aggregate to be tested.
Take the sample of limestone aggregate of 4 kilogram as shown in Figure
3.7 below:-
Figure 3.7: Sample of limestone aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.
The sample of limestone then placed into the apparatus for sieve analysis
test as shown in Figure 3.8 below:-
36
Figure 3.8: Apparatus in Analysis Test.
The aggregate analysis should according to JKR specification and passing
through the sieve as Table 3.4 below:-
Table 3.4: Position of Sieve size
Layer of sieve
Sieve Size.( mm )
Top
37.5
Third
20.0
Second
10.0
First
5.0
The limestone aggregate shall be sieved until an appropriate time that the
aggregate pass through each sieve size and weight the balance on each sieve for
calculation and record purposes. The results of this test will be written under next
chapter which is on the Results and Analysis section.
37
3.5.1.2 Elongation and Flakiness Index Test.
Elongation is the test which is aggregate particles can pass through the
plate consist of longitudinal hole whereas flakiness index is the aggregate
particles can pass through the standard hole from the steel plate apparatus as
shown from Figure 3.9 below:-
Figure 3.9: Apparatus for Elongation and Flakiness
Index Test (Steel plate With Standard Hole)
The procedure for elongation and flakiness index test are the followings:-
Once the sieve analysis test completed, the aggregate will be taken into
elongation test. The aggregate sample which is retained on sieve of 14mm, 10 mm
and 6.3 mm in size is to be tested by passing through the slot from the hole of the
steel plate apparatus as shown from the Figure 3.9 above.
By this method, the amount of aggregate passing through the slot will be
taken and take the weight of the aggregate, compare to the total weight of
aggregate retained. Method of testing elongation and flakiness index is by taken
the weight of aggregate passing through the slot of steel plate. The results should
be recorded using the format in table 3.5 below:-
38
Table 3.5: Standard Format for Calculation of Elongation and Flakiness Test.
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Aggregate
Sieve size
Weight retained
Passing
Passing
(mm)
on sieve
Elongation Slot
Flakiness Slot
( gm )
(gm )
( gm )
14
A1
B1
C1
10
A2
B2
C2
6.3
A3
B3
C3
5.0
A4
B4
C4
Total Weight
(A1+A2+A3+A4)
(B1+B2+B3+B4)
(C1+C2+C3+C4)
=A
=B
=C
After Sieve Analysis Test completed.
Weight and record all the samples retained on the sieve as in
the table 3.5 above.
Take the Value of A, B and C
39
Calculate the percentage passing on the slot.
Use formula, Elongation = B/A X 100%
Flakiness = C/A X 100%
as shown in table 3.5 above
Compare and analyzed the results to JKR Specification
End
Figure 3.10: Procedure for Elongation and Flakiness Index Test.
3.5.2
Concrete Cube Tests.
For concrete cube strength, the tests was done at the kiln which is situated
at factory of Pohmix Sdn. Bhd., Lipis Road, Raub, Pahang. Before concrete cube
to be tested, the mixed was to be prepared and immersion into the ordinary water
and chemical soluble Of Magnesium Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate for a period of
7, 14, 21 and 28 days.
The process of immersion the cube into chemical solution was very
important because the actual strength can be compared simultaneously for an
analysis purposes. For the purpose of the test, there were twenty four (24)
numbers of cubes to be prepared and placed into the water and chemical solution.
The sample of chemical Magnesium Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate was shown
40
from the Figure 1.4 under Chapter 1 at the previous paragraph. For a practical
knowledge and information purposes, the sample of Magnesium Sulphate and
Natrium Nitrate was in the form of small particles and looks like the salt which is
in white colour.
3.5.2.1 Preparation of Concrete Cube 150x150x150 Grade 25
Before concrete cube to be ready, the limestone aggregate was taken from
Quarry at Gunong Panas to the Pohmix Sdn. Bhd. Kiln. The concrete cube was
prepared for the numbers of twenty four(24) using machine mixed (Computer
Operated).
The mixed of concrete used was for grade 25 which is according to the JKR
specification as per listed below:-
Table 3.6 The mix proportion of Concrete cube Grade 25.
Water Cement Ratio = 0.5
Proportion of Concrete Cube by Volume
Proportion by weight per 1m3
concrete
Cement
=1
361 kg.
Fine Aggregate
=1½
525 kg
Coarse Aggregate
=3
1225 kg.
The preparation of the concrete cube was carried out by the supervisor of
Pohmix Sdn Bhd. and his assistant as shown from the Figure 3.10 below:-
41
Figure 3.11 Preparation of Concrete Cube.
The procedure for the preparation of concrete cube should be followed
according to the general procedure as mentioned in Figure 3.13 below:-
During the placing of concrete into the mould, there are a standard
procedure for the compaction of the concrete. The concrete to be poured into the
mould shall be in separate time with three layers compaction and each layers need
35 strokes by steel 25x25 square pattern. The methods of compaction the concrete
in the mould as shown through the Figure 3.12 below:-
150
Layer 3(35 stroke)
Layer 2(35 stroke)
150
Layer 1(35 stroke)
Concrete in Mould
Steel Rammer
Compacted in Three Layers.
25 x 25 square.
Figure 3.12: Procedure in Preparation of cube.
42
Prepare the concrete mix( Gred 25 )
Test Slump
Figure 3.14
Once the mix ready,
Prepare
takeConcrete
out the sample
Cube. and take the
Slump as shown from Figure
Picture3.15
3.9 below.
Marked The Cube: In Solution
S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S9,S10,S11,S12
Figure 3.13: Step to prepare 150x150x150 Concrete Cube.
43
Figure 3.14 Measuring the Slump of Fresh Concrete.
Figure 3.15 Preparing the Concrete Cubes.
44
Table 3.7 Date of Casting and Testing of Concrete Cube
Date of casting:
Date of testing
02 December
Sample No. in
Sample No. in
the soluble.
the normal
water(JBA)
2004/
No. of days
7
09 December
S1, S2 & S3
1, 2 & 3
S4, S5 & S6
4, 5, & 6
S7, S8 & S9
7, 8 & 9
S10,S11 & S12
10,11 & 12
2004
14
16 December
2004
21
23 December
2004
28
30 December
2004
The procedures carried out the cubes test are the following:1. Take out the sample from the tank and weighted the cube as shown in Figure
3.16 below:-
Figure 3.16: Weighting the cube sample
45
2. Put the cube under the plunger and test under compression as shown in Figure
3.17 below:-
Figure 3.17: Testing of Cube.
3. Read the compressive strength through dial gauge as shown in Figure 3.18
below:-
Figure 3.18: Record Compressive Strength from dial gauge.
46
4. Take out the cube sample from Testing machine and see the failure pattern as
figure 3.19 below:-
.
Figure 3.19 Failure Pattern Of Cube.
5.
End of the test.
Figure 3.20: End of the test.
3.5.3
Aggregate Crushing Value Test.
Since concrete is formed mostly by the aggregate, therefore the crushing
strength of the material should be determined for acknowledgement.
47
Before the limestone aggregate to be tested for crushing value, the sample
firstly has to be immersed in normal water and solution of Magnesium sulphate
plus Natrium nitrate for comparison purposes.
3.5.3.1 Preparation of Limestone aggregate for crushing value test.
The sample of limestone selected, however for the purpose of the study the
materials need to immerse in the water and soluble Magnesium sulphate plus
Natrium Nitrate. In reality the concrete below ground level is subjected to reaction
of sulphate, chloride, Nitrate and others chemical agent.
At the beginning of this case study, the selected limestone aggregate was
taken from the source( Quarry Poh Chan, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub) and on Fifth
December 2004 was been immersed in the water and in the soluble of Magnesium
sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate. The amount of the aggregate and the volume of
soluble required as per table 3.8 below:-
48
Table 3.8: Quantity of Aggregate /Mg SO4 + Na NO3 and Water Content.
Amount of
Volume of
Volume of
Duration of
Limestone
water required
soluble
aggregate in
/Granite
( liter )
Magnesium
the water/in the
Aggregate
sulphate +
chemical
selected
Natrium
solution.
( Kg )
Nitrate.
( Days )
(Liter/Kg)
5 (Limestone)
10
20
7
5 (Limestone)
10
20
28
5 (Limestone)
10
-
7
5 (Limestone)
10
-
28
5( Granite )
10
-
28
5 ( Granite )
10
20
28
On the selection of limestone and granite aggregate for the immersion into
the water with the soluble of Magnesium sulphate plus Nitium Nitrate, the process
was began on the Fifth December 2004 and the testing will be carried out at UTM
laboratory, Skudai, Johor Bahru. Aggregates are allowable to be tested on the
laboratory, the dates for taken out from immersion tank should be calculated and
the dates required are according to table 3.9 below:-
49
Table 3.9 Date of Immersion and Taken out of an Aggregate.
Date of Immersion into
Numbers of Immersion
Date of Aggregate to be
Normal water(JBA)
Period ( Days )
taken out.
and Solution Mg SO4 +
( Limestone/Granite)
Na NO3
( solution/non solution)
/ No of sample
Limestone aggregate
Fifth December 2004
7
12 December 2004
( A1 )
( A2 )
( Non soluble )
7
12 December 2004
( With soluble )
( A3 )
28
2 January 2005
( Non soluble )
( A4 )
28
2 January 2005
( With soluble )
Granite aggregate
( A5 )
28
2 January 2005
( Non soluble )
( A6 )
28
2 January 2005
( With soluble )
In this chapter the methods of the test involved to the limitation time of 28
days only and the results will be obtained after the test has been done in the
laboratory UTM Skudai. For this purpose the detailed explanation will be
appeared in next chapter under the results and analyzed topic.
50
For the purpose of this chapter, the procedure required in the ACV tests will
be showed through Figure 3.21 until 3.26 below:-
Weighting of aggregate(4 Kg.)
Figure 3.21 below:-
Figuge 3.21 Weighting of Limestone Aggregate for ACV test.
51
Put the aggregate in to the mould until full.
(Figure 3.22)
Figure 3.22: Placing Aggregate in to the mould.
Put the mould under Plunger and testing.
(Figure 3.23)
Figure 3.23: Aggregate under testing (400kN/10 minutes)
52
Set time for 10 minutes until load reach 400
kN reading from Dial gauge.
(Figure 3.24)
Figure 3.24: Aggregate under rate of crushing 40kn/minutes.
After 10 minutes with 400 kN reading on
dial gauge, take out the sample, weighted.
(Figure 3.25) Take value as ‘ A’.
Figure 3.25: Sample of aggregate after crushing.
53
Sieve the sample on 2.36 mm sieve size, take
the retain sample and weight.
(Figure 3.26) Take value as ‘B’.
Figure 3.26: Crushed sample of aggregate retain on 2.36mm sieve.
Calculate ACV = B/A X 100
END
Figure 3.26 above shows end result of the ACV test. The amount of aggregate
crushed divided to total weight of aggregate sample (Figure 3.25) time by 100% is
called Aggregate Crushing Value. Detail results will be shown under next chapter.
CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND ANALYSIS
4.1
Introduction.
In this chapter, the most important thing is the analysis of the results due
to the back ground problems. However, for this particular topic the record of the
test should be the first priority to be considered in predicting any theory towards
the actual condition on site before conclusion can be made.
4.2
The results of Sieve Analysis.
The specimen of the aggregate has been sieved in the laboratory of UTM
Skudai in January 2005. Before further discussion it is possible to look into the
analysis in which the fact and figure can be traced. For that reason the results of
the tests should be properly arranged for better understanding of the problem.
Here are the results of the test to be discussed and analyzed as in the table
4.1 below:-
55
Table 4.1 Results of Sieve Analysis of Limestone Aggregate.
Sieve Size
Weight
Weight
Percent
Percent
( mm )
retain on
passing
retain
Passing
Sieve
( gm )
(%)
(%)
( gm)
37.5
-
-
-
-
28.0
-
-
-
-
20.0
15.1
3966.3
0.37
99.63
14.0
1480.6
2485.7
37.2
62.43
10.0
1451.3
1034.4
36.45
25.98
6.3
990.6
43.8
24.88
1.10
5.0
43.8
0.0
1.10
0.0
Total
3981.4 gm
100.00%
56
Graph % Passing VS Sieve Size
120
% Passing
100
80
Max passing
Min passing
Actual passing
60
40
20
0
5
6.3
10
14
20
28
Sieve Size
Figure 4.1: Graph of Sieve analysis test for Limestone aggregate
Since the sieve analysis resulted to size of aggregate comparing to the JKR
standard specification (Section D – concrete work clause 3.40, the elongation and
flakiness index directly can be measured and the results of the test are listed in the
Table 4.2 below:
57
Table 4.2: Results of the Elongation and Flakiness index of Limestone
aggregate.
Sieve Size (mm)
Weight retain
Passing Slot
Passing Slot
( gm )
Elongation
Flakiness ( gm )
( gm )
37.5
-
-
28.0
-
-
20.0
15.1
-
-
14.0
1480.6
271.5
205.1
10.0
1451.3
313.0
378.2
6.3
990.6
143.0
200.7
5.0
43.8
-
-
TOTAL
3981.4
727.50
784.00
The Calculations for Elongation and Flakiness Index are as follow:
Elongation = 727.5/3981.4 X 100
= 18.27% < 30% (JKR) , Pass.
Flakiness Index = 784.00/3981.4 X 100 = 19.7% < 35% (JKR), Pass
Graph Relationship Between Elongation/Flakiness Index and JKR Standard
35
35
30
30
Elongation Index
25
Elongation (JKR
Standard)
20
18
% Limits
19.7
Flakiness Index
15
Flekiness Index (JKR
Standard)
10
5
0
Elongation/Flakiness Index
1 and JKR Standard
Figure 4.2: Relationship between Elongation/Flakiness Index and JKR Standard
58
4.2.1
Analysis of Sieve analysis results.
Before further discussion on the results, comparison to the JKR
specification should firstly be considered.
With reference to the Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 for the last paragraph, it
shows that the percent passing of limestone aggregate (red line) is in the region of
the standard JKR specification. Through this testing it shows that the limestone
aggregate complies to the JKR standard specification. For reference purposes,
below is a comparison table showing the values recorded through the test.
Table 4.3 Comparison of Aggregate Passing to JKR specification.
Sieve Size (mm)
% Passing of aggregate
% Passing of
from JKR specification.
Limestone aggregate
sample.
20
100
99.63
10
25 – 55
25.98
5
0 – 10
0
From the Table 4.3 it shows that the percent of limestone aggregate
passing through the standard sieve size are 99.63%, 25.98% and 0% which is in
the range of the JKR specification.
4.2.2
Analysis of Elongation and Flakiness Index Test Results.
From the result of the tests showed that the values of elongation and
flakiness index are below the limit of JKR standard specification. With that values
of index, it will reflects to positive answer and make this study very significant.
59
The advantages of this study are very important to predict and discussed further
about the use of limestone since the texture and the shape of the aggregate on the
acceptance condition. Due to this study, some justification is applicable to be an
acknowledgement to public especially for local people.
From the analysis, some assumption can be predictable since the aggregate
was very useful to the local benefit. The factors make the aggregate acceptable are
as follows:-
( i ) The main factor to produce a good crushed aggregate is the operation of the
quarry which is very important role in every aspect of quality control as well as
machinery and skill operators.
( ii ) The condition of rock at that place whether the chemical existence mixed
more than the required limit compare to rock origin.
( iii )
Psychology effect due to the alternative aggregate such as granite.
( iv )
The knowledge about the aggregate properties should be very useful
especially to the designers and Engineers which is responsible in preparing the
specification.
( v ) Cost incurred is the most important part on the demands of the material
without prejudice.
4.3
The Results of Concrete Cubes Strength.
Strength is the most important factor to be considered in concrete structural
purposes. This is because of the technical and engineering theory about the
structure in respect to strength and durability. Durability and strength are two
different things in concrete structure, however the higher the strength the better
the concrete but it does not guaranteed for long lasting as well as high
60
performance as required. The results of the cube test for limestone concrete are
shown in Table 4.4.
Table 4.4 The Results of Cubes Test.
Date of
Date of
Cube Strength in
Cube Strength in
casting/
Testing /
solution :
normal water curing
No. of
No of
Mg SO4+Na
(N/mm2)
days
Sample
NO3(N/mm2)
02.12.2004
09.12.2004
7
02.12.2004
14
02.12.2004
21
02.12.2004
28
Average
Average
S1
26.6
23.50
S2
25.7
S3
26.2
23.20
S4
29.7
26.6
S5
29.3
S6
29.5
27.7
S7
34.2
29.7
S8
31.5
S9
34.6
30.4
S10
31.1
33.5
S11
35.3
S12
32.8
26.16
22.60
23.10
16.12.2004
29.5
26.2
26.8
23.12.2004
33.4
31.5
30.5
30.12.2004
33.06
33.5
33.3
33.40
61
Limestone cube strength compared to JKR
Standard 7 days in solution.
30
26.6 25.7 26.2
25
Compressive 20
15
Strength
(N/mm2)
10
17
SPECIMEN S1
SPECIMEN S2
SPECIMEN S3
5
JKR STANDARD
0
1 JKR
Specimen and
Standard
Figure 4.3: Limestone concrete cube strength in chemical solution for 7 days.
Limestone cube strength compared to JKR
standard 7 days in water.
25
20
23.5 22.6 23.2
17
Compressive 15
Strength
(N/mm2) 10
SPECIMEN 1
SPECIMEN 2
SPECIMEN 3
5
JKR STANDARD
0
1 Standard
Specimen and JKR
Figure 4.4: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 7 days.
62
Cube strength of limestone concrete compared to
JKR standard 28 days in solution.
40
35
30
Compressive 25
Strength 20
(N/mm2) 15
10
5
0
35.3
31.1
32.8
25.5
SPECIMEN S10
SPECIMEN S11
SPECIMEN S12
JKR STANDARD
1 Standard
Specimen and JKR
Figure 4.5: Limestone concrete cube strength in chemical solution for 28 days.
Cube strength of limestone concrete compared to
JKR standard 28 days in water.
35
30
33.5 33.6 33.3
25.5
25
Compressive
20
Strength
15
(N/mm2)
10
SPECIMEN 10
SPECIMEN 11
SPECIMEN 12
JKR STANDARD
5
0
1 Standard
Specimen and JKR
Figure 4.6: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in water for 28 days.
63
4.3.1
Analysis from the Results.
The tests which has been done separately as mentioned in the above table
4.4 was taken at the factory of Poh Mix Sdn. Bhd.,Lipis Road,Raub, Pahang.
From the results obtained, we can analyzed and discuss about the concrete
strength as well as quality of the concrete.
4.3.1.1 Analysis in respect to strength.
To analyze and discuss about the strength of the concrete, it is better in the
formed of questionnaire to get clear understanding and better information. To
begin that lets start with first question regarding the strength of the concrete.
( 1 ) Why is so important the cube strength of the concrete during the
construction?
The answer of this question will reflects to this study and related to the back
ground problem from the JKR specification. There are various reasons and also
many factors contribute to the strength of the concrete structure. Through this case
study, the element concerned in concrete is the use of limestone aggregate in
concrete structure. Through this study, a few advantages can be found especially
related to quality of the concrete. In respect to the first question above, it is
possible to relate this with JKR specification from table 1.4 (Chapter 1) and also
table 2.2 (Chapter 2) compressive strength of American rocks in the first and
second chapter under previous paragraph.
To have a clear picture and better explanation about the results and analyzed
purposes the table 4.5 below is very appropriate to the answer.
64
Table 4.5 The Result of Cube Strength Compare to JKR Specification.
No of
Characteristic
Average Strength
Average Strength
days
Strength from JKR
from sample
from sample
specification
specimen in normal
specimen in
( N/mm2 )
water.
soluble Mg SO4 +
( N/mm2 )
Na NO3
( N/mm2 )
7
17.0
23.10
26.16
28
25.5
33.40
33.06
Average
Cube
Strength
7 days.
Average
Cube
Strength
for 7for
days.
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
30
26.16
25
20
23.1
STRENGTH IN WATER
17
STRENGTH IN
SOLUTION
15
JKR STANDARD
10
5
0
1
Specimen and JKR
Standard
Figure 4.7: Limestone Concrete Cubes Strength Compared to JKR Standard for 7
days (Average Strength)
65
Average Strength of Concrete Cube in 28 days.
Compressive Strength (N/mm2)
40
35
30
33.06
33.4
25.5
25
SPECIMEN IN
SOLUTION
SPECIMEN IN WATER
20
15
JKR STANDARD
10
5
0
1
Specimen and JKR
Standard
Figure 4.8: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR Standard for 28
days (Average Strength)
( 2 ) What can we say on the above figure?
Figure 4.8 conformances to specification.
Everything done on the construction area, the first priority to be in the mind
of Engineers as well as supervisors is to make sure that the work is follows the
specification bound in the contract. This statement is the answer to the first
question. For the second question, the answer will be discussed below:-
( a ) Strength of Concrete Cube in Normal Water.
The values in Table 4.5 are summarized below:Cube Strength of Specimen for 7 days = 23.10 > 17.0 (JKR Spec), Satisfied
Cube Strength of Specimen for 28 days = 33.40 > 25.5 (JKR Spec), Satisfied.
Since the concrete cubes comply to the specification for 7 days and 28 days
duration, one case study was conducted by researchers as mentioned in the
66
Table 2.2 under Chapter 2 last paragraph. This is the study about the compressive
strength of the American rock which is commonly used for crushed aggregate in
concrete structure. For comparison purposes, this is a significant answer and one
of the criteria to be considered in selecting the aggregate for concrete structure.
To elaborate the compressive strength of the rock, it is relevant to compare
the result and the cube strengths for record purposes. The comparison is tabulated
below:-
Table 4.6: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Rock to Concrete Cube.
of Limestone Rock
of Granite Rock.
of Concrete Cube
( N/mm2 )
( N/mm2 )
Specimen
( N/mm2 )
159.00
181.00
33.06
67
Compressive strength in concrete cube as compared to the
compressive strength in original rock
33.06
159
Limestone
Rock
Granite
Rock
181
Limestone
concrete cube
1
2
3
Figure 4.9: Relationship between Concrete cube Compressive Strength to Original
Rock.
4.4
The Results of Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) Test.
In the Aggregate Crushing Value(ACV) Test, the limestone and granite
aggregate, which were tested from 5 January to 6 January 2005 at Highway
Laboratory UTM Skudai, Johor Bahru.
The results of test were properly recorded in the following tables:-
4.4.1
Test 1 on the 5 January 2005:
Sample of Limestone Immersion in Soluble Mg SO4 + Na NO3 for 7 days.
Total weight of Sample Aggregate in Sieve Analysis test = 4000 gram.
Total Weight of sample Aggregate retain on 14- 10 sieve = 2931.9 gram
68
Table 4.7 Data Record of ACV Test 1(14-10 sieve)
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight retain before
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
Passing/retain after
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
15.1
14.0
1480.6
10.0
1451.3
6.3
990.6
5.0
43.8
2.36
-
807.3
3981.4
2779.00
Total =
Total Weight of Aggregate after ACV test
Retain
1,971.70
= 2779.00 gram.
Total weight of aggregate Passing in 2.36 sieve = 807.30 gram.
Therefore, ACV = 807.30/2779 X 100%
= 29.00%
Standard JKR Specification for ACV Test
= Not Exceeding 40%
(Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer appendix B
Therefore, ACV = 29% < 40%, consider satisfied.
4.4.2 Test 2 carried out on the 5 January 2005:
Sample of Limestone Immersion in Soluble Mg SO4 + Na NO3 for 28 days.
Total Weight of Sample Aggregate retain14- 10 sieve = 2955.84 gram
69
Table 4.8: Data Record of ACV Test2 (14-10 sieve).
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
13.97
14.0
1557.30
10.0
1398.54
6.3
978.57
5.0
45.90
2.36
-
898.10
3,994.28
Retain
1,976.80
2,874.90
= 2874.90 gram.
Total weight of aggregate passing in 2.36 sieve = 898.10 gram.
Therefore, ACV = 898.10/2874.90 X 100%
= 31.24%
= Not Exceeding 40%
(Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B
Therefore, ACV = 31.24% < 40%, consider satisfied.
4.4.3 Test 3 on the 6 January 2005 :
Sample of Limestone in water for 7 days.
Total Weight of sample Aggregate ratain20- 14 sieve = 2,806.90 gram
70
Table 4.9 Data Record of ACV Test3 (20-14 sieve)
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
568.00
14.0
2238.90
10.0
909.72
6.3
213.87
5.0
60.21
3.35
-
-
823.90
3,990.70
Retain
1,942.00
2,765.90
= 2,765.90 gram.
Therefore, ACV = 823.90/2765.90 X 100%
= 29.80%
= Not Exceeding 40%
Therefore, ACV = 29.80% < 40%, consider satisfied.
4.4.4
Test 4 on the 6 January 2005:
Results Limestone in water (28 day)
Total weight of sample Aggregate retain 20- 14 sieve = 2,840.50 gram
71
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
508.20
14.0
2332.30
10.0
298.00
6.3
807.08
5.0
13.02
3.35
-
-
716.50
3,958.60
Retain
1,890.70
2,607.20
= 2607.20 gram.
Total weight of aggregate passing in 3.35 sieve = 716.50gram.
Therefore, ACV = 716.50/2607.20 X 100%
= 27.48%
= Not Exceeding 40%
Therefore, ACV = 27.48% < 40%,(satisfied).
4.4.5
Test 5 on the 6 January 2005 :
Results of Granite in chemical solution Mg SO4 + Na NO3 (28 day).
Total weight of Sample Aggregate in Sieve Analysis test 4000 gram.
Total weight of sample Aggregate retain 14-10 sieve = 3010.30 gram
72
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
passing/Retain after
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
40.20
14.0
1600.40
10.0
1409.90
6.3
890.85
5.0
56.35
2.36
-
-
588.50
3,997.70
Retain
2,410.40
2,998.90
= 2,998.90 gram.
Therefore, ACV = 588.50/2998.90 X 100%
= 19.62%
= Not Exceeding 40%
( Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B
Therefore, ACV = 19.62%< 40%, (satisfied).
4.4.6
Test 6 on the Six January 2005:
Results of Granite in water ( 28 day).
Total Weight of sample Aggregate retain 20-14 sieve = 3005.10 gram
73
Table 4.12 Data of ACV Test 6 (20-14 sieve)
Sieve size ( mm )
Weight
ACV test ( gram )
passing/Retain after
ACV test ( gram )
Passing
37.5
-
28.0
-
20.0
1224.70
14.0
1780.40
10.0
500.90
6.3
450.73
5.0
36.47
3.35
-
-
550.80
3,993.20
Retain
2,438.40
2,989.20
= 2,989.20 gram.
Therefore, ACV = 550.80/2989.20 X 100%
= 18.43%
= Not Exceeding 40%
( Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B
Therefore, ACV = 18.43%< 40%, (satisfied).
4.5 Analyzing the results of the Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) Test.
All 6 test results tabulated in test 1, test 2, test 3, test 4, test 5 and test 6 are as
per the digits obtained accurate and the numbers elaborate the strength of the
aggregate required.
Figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 below are the above test results in bar chart
format. Figure 4.10 showing the results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7
days of limestone aggregate in chemical solution and water.
74
Crushing
values ofvalues
limestone
aggregate compared
to
Crushing
of limestone
aggregate
JKR Standard for 7 days.
compared to JKR Standard for 7 days.
40
40
35
29 29.8
30
25
Percentage
20
Crushing(%)
15
10
5
0
1
Specimen and JKR
Specification
Limestone in Solution
Limestone in water
JKR Standard
Figure 4.10: Results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7 days in Chemical
Solution and Water.
4.5.1
Analysis of limestone aggregate for 7 days in solutions Mg SO4 + Na
NO3 and 7 days in water.
According to Figure 4.10 above, the results of the ACV test can be
elaborated by means of comparison to the specification of JKR standard. The
analysis towards the strength of the aggregate as compared to the value in
specification stated in JKR specification can be best explained with the following
questions below:( i ) What is significance of the test results shown from the chart above?
From the bar chart in Figure 4.10 the two specimens, which were immersed
in chemical solution and water separately, were considered acceptable because the
percentage of aggregate crushing value is below JKR standard specification. In
75
this respect, the limestone aggregate does not have a strength problem as the
material to be used in building construction since the allowable crushing in JKR
specification is higher than the actual tests (40%> 29.8%).
( ii ) How significant the ACV test compared to the cube test?
Since the compressive strength of the cube tests for the limestone concrete is
above the specified strength in JKR specification and is considered acceptable, it
is imperative to discover the actual strength of the limestone aggregate through
aggregate crushing value test with respect to the material properties. More
information will lead to more established.
4.5.2
Analysis of limestone aggregate for 28 days in solutions Mg SO4 +
Na NO3 and 28 days in water.
Crushing values of limestone
aggregate compared to JKR Standard
for 28 days.
40
40
31.24
35
27.48
30
Percentage 25
Crushing 20
15
(% )
10
5
0
Specimen and1 JKR
Specification
LIMESTONE IN
SOLUTION
LIMESTONE IN
WATER
JKR
SPECIFICATION
Figure 4.11: Results of Limestone Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 28 day in
Chemical Solution and Water.
76
From the bar chart above, the results of the aggregate crushing value test can
be summarized as the following:( i ) The results of 28 days are satisfactory since the ACV is below the JKR
standard( 31.24% < 40% ).
( ii ) It is not much different between the limestone in chemical solution and in
water for the aggregate crushing value.
Limestone in Soluble = 31.24%
Limestone in Water
= 27.48%
Difference
= 3.76%
4.5.3
Analysis of Granite aggregate for 28 days in solution Mg SO4 +
Na NO3 and 28 days in water.
Crushing values of Granite aggregate
for 28 days in Solution and Water.
40
40
35
30
19.6218.43
Percentage 25
20
Crushing(% ) 15
10
5
0
Specimen and1 JKR
Specification
Granite in Solution
Granite in Water
JKR Specification
Figure 4.12: Results of Aggregate Crushing Value of Granite for 28 day.
To appreciate the results from Figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, an analysis
between the limestone and granite for aggregate crushing value is very significant
77
in this research. The most important part of this study is on the influence that the
method of immersion into chemical solution and water has towards the strength of
both limestone and granite, respectively.
Since both limestone and granite aggregates have performed minimum
values of ACV compared to JKR standard specification, both of the aggregates
can be used for concrete structure in building works. Further discussion of this
study will focus on next chapter which is under discussion part.
CHAPTER 5
DISCUSSION
5.1 Introduction.
Before further discussion in this chapter, I would like to focus the issue of
this study with respect to the strength of the aggregate according to the JKR
specification for building works only.
Our main issue in this chapter is related to the material properties and part of
the study’s scope is to ascertain weather the strength of the aggregate can be
affected by chemical attack such as magnesium sulphate and natrium nitrate
below ground level. However, the end results of this study will possibly show a
few signs on the behavior of concrete structure due to chemical attack.
5.2 Discussion on the texture of the aggregate.
Since concrete structure is to be designed according to BS 812, and three
quarters of the component is aggregate, so that the texture and shape of the
material are the first important things to be considered to require a good bonding
prior to the compressive strength of the concrete structure.
For this particular reason, the selected aggregate to be tested during
construction period must have a standard testing in which “sieve analysis” is the
79
most popular methods of testing in the field of construction industries. In this
testing, the aggregate should pass sieve analysis according to M.S 7.5 section 2 to
6 which is mentioned in JKR specification page 36 under clause 3.4 aggregate
grading and 3.5 sampling and testing of aggregate.( Refer Appendix A ). Under
this testing the aggregate was sieved through sieve sizes of 20mm, 14mm, 10mm
and 5mm. The results of the testing were recorded and graph plotted as shown in
figure 4.1 under Chapter 4.
The results were mentioned in previous paragraph 4.2.1. What can be
discussed in this chapter are the objectives of this research. The characteristic of
the material to be used is the most important thing for supervisors to be bear in
mind during construction period. Engineers shall have more knowledge on the
behavior of the concrete as well as aggregate, and regular check should be done
on site. During the experiment, there were many factors found in this study prior
to the performance of the concrete. The factors involved are as follows:-
5.2.1 The source of the Limestone aggregate.
To initiate the aggregate, the source of the raw material should be identified
first before recognizes and testing the aggregate in the laboratory. This is very
important because different places have different quality and mechanical
properties. How do these factors contribute to the strength of the concrete?
To answer and discuss this question, it is another scope to be provided and a
relevant answer can be found. However, at the current time, the irregularities and
surface texture will definitely be one of the criteria during initial stage of selecting
the raw material. By visual method, we can recognize weather the raw material is
a good quality for construction purposes.
80
5.2.2 Discussion on the Sieve Analysis.
Sieve analysis is the only type of test to be considered firstly to make sure
the aggregate is well graded according to M.S. 7.5 section 2 to section 6. The
specific function of this test is to get a better bonding between aggregate and
cement paste. What say about sieve analysis results? Let’s refer to the graph
obtained from the test as mentioned in Figure 4.1under Chapter 4.
From the graph in Figure 4.1, we can describe the results of the test as the
following:-
( a ) The graph shows the relationship between aggregate and sieve size, drawn as
percentage passing versus sieve size on Y-axis and X-axis respectively.
( b ) The maximum and minimum percentage are plotted as black line whereas
actual passing is plotted as red line. From the graph, the red line falls within the
region of maximum and minimum line, implicating that the aggregate is well
graded and considered as passing the sieve analysis test. Well graded aggregate is
the stringent specification to be strictly followed because of the concrete depends
on its sizes.
Once the sieve analysis has passed, it is very important to test the aggregate
in term of its flaky and elongation properties which contributes also to the
strength of the concrete.
5.3 Discussion on Flaky and Elongation Properties.
5.3.1 What can be discussed on the Flaky and Elongation Properties?
Since strength is related to the bonding between aggregate and cement paste,
surface contact and texture of the aggregate are the main factors to the
composition in concrete structure. To elaborate further, the flaky and elongation
properties should be firstly acknowledged.
81
The best way to recognize are through the textures as shown in figure 5.1
below:-
( i ) Flaky shape
( ii ) Elongation shape
( iii ) Angular shape
(Recommended shape)
Figure 5.1: Types of Aggregate Texture.
To have a good strength on the texture of the aggregate, flaky and elongation
does not allowed in concrete structure. The allowable percentage for M.S. 30 is
40% and this is according to specification as stated in JKR contract document
(Refer to appendix B).
Through Figure 5.1 and the description above, obviously the function of the
flaky and elongation test should be clearly understood. From the test results of this
study, it is clearly recognized that limestone aggregate from Gunong Panas Kg.
Ulu Gali, Raub can be used in construction because the flaky and elongation index
are 19.7% and 18% respectively, and this is below 40% which is considered
acceptable.
So through this study, flaky and elongation are textures not the major problem
about concrete structure below ground level.
5.4 Discussion on the Concrete Cube Strength.
From paragraph 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, it was obtained that all the tests done had
passed and they were not the major problems of concrete structure in this study.
Why should a cube test be done for this research?
The answer to that question is the main topic of our discussion in this chapter.
82
Cube strength is a part of concrete construction for obtaining the grade of concrete
according to the specification. Normally 6 cubes are prepared for testing purposes.
For this particular study, 24 cubes have been prepared and also have been tested
to the required strength of 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. During the
preparation of the cubes slump test was done and recorded 70 mm maximum
slump was allowed.
5.4.1 Cube Strength 7 days period.
According to the results of the tests different strengths was recorded for cubes
in the chemical solution and in water. From Figure 4.3 and 4.4, the cube strengths
of the three specimens were above the standard of JKR, which is considered
acceptable.
5.4.1.1 What’s new finding on the results?
The results obtained had been analyzed and can be explained according to the
criteria and scope of study. Observations through the test are as follows:-
(I)
The compressive strength of the cube in Magnesium Sulphate plus
Natrium Nitrate was more than the compressive strength in normal water.
( ii )
The concrete cube prepared for grade 25 and standard compressive
strength should reach 17 N/mm2 for the 7 day period.
( iii )
From the observations, it shows that the cube in solution ( Mg SO4 +
Na NO3 ) reacts with cement paste very fast creating hardening when compared to
cube in water. The strength value increased in such a short time, i.e. average value
is 26 N/mm2 compared to 22 N/mm2 in water, which is 4 N/mm2 increase,
83
considered very much difference. This also is the answered to the above question
on new finding.
( iv ) From this observations, a few factors could have contributed to the
strength as follows:-
(a)
Due to the amount of chemical content, this soluble reacted with the
cement paste, filled and occupied the voids prior to becoming more dense and
harden the concrete composition faster.
(b)
During the tests, the weight of each concrete cube was recorded and it
showed that different cubes weight differently weight( Refer Appendix C ). The
cube in chemical solution was recorded heavier than in water.
(c)
Another finding through the test was the colour of the cube,
formed in white for chemical solution whereas grey in water.
(d)
The last observation in the test was about the crack failure. Different
pattern exists between the cubes failure pattern of crushed for the cubes are shown
through Figures 5.2(a) and (b) below:-
Figure 5.2 ( a ) – Failure Pattern in Water.
84
Figure 5.2 ( b ) – Failure Pattern in Chemical Solution.
( v ) To continue the discussion on this matter, lets have a look at the cube strength
at 14 days and 21 days for data purposes.
5.4.2 Cube Strength 14 days period.
According to the results from table 4.4, it is obvious that the strength
increases as time increases. This is possibly due to the same criteria as mentioned
for the strength 7 days period.
5.4.3 Cube Strength 21 days.
Since concrete cube increases in compressive strength as time goes by the
significance of this has served little purpose. This is because the chemical has
reacted in the composition of the concrete and has recorded a significant value for
immersion into chemical solution. For this case study, there was not enough time
to get genuine results since the duration is only for 28 days. However the results
obtained through this study can predict a possibility of concrete behavior when
mixed with chemical. For this particular discussion, I would like to focus on the
85
factor of time. In the next study it would be better to put the cube for one year into
the ground and do the tests for a more practical and genuine result. At the same
time relate the results in the chemical solution and water in the laboratory for the
same period. Now let’s analyze the results of the 28 days period the cube in
chemical solution and in water.
5.4.4 Cube Strength 28 days.
With reference to Table 4.4, it can be noticed that the strength differs
slightly. As strength goes higher for 7 days, 14 days and 21 days in chemical
solution, the results suddenly change for that of 28 days. The strength shows
lower than that in water, about 0.34 N/mm2, and this should be the criteria to be
taken into consideration to make this study significant and beneficial for
construction industries.
This shows that chemicals are the elements to be seriously considered to
produce good, durable and quality concrete structure. Once there is a sudden
reduced strength in the cube at 28 days, it must be studied and adjustments made
to overcome this problem. This is an interesting topic to be discussed because the
objective of this study is to explore the use of limestone aggregate in construction
industries without prejudice. To make this statement reality there must be a
specific answer and good results about the strength of concrete product. A longer
study should be carried out in future for better information about the chemical
attack in concrete structures.
86
Compressive Strength(N/mm2)
Cube Strength Versus Duration
40
35
33.4
30
33.06
29.5
26.16
25
20
Cube Strength
15
15
10
5
0
0
10
23
37
4 14
5 21
628
Duration
Figure 5.3(a): Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete in Chemical
Solution.
Cube Strength Versus Duration
40
Compressive
Strength(N/mm2)
35
30.5
30
33.4
26.8
25
23.1
20
Cube Strength
15
12
10
5
0
0
01
32
37
4 14
5 21 628
Duration
Figure 5.3(b): Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete in Water.
Figure 5.3(a) and (b) are the results of cubes strength for 7 days, 14 days, 21
days and 28 days summarized in graph. Figure 5.3(a), showing a sudden drop of
strength on limestone concrete cube immersion in chemical solution for 28 days.
The reduced of strength has a significant on the problem of limestone below
ground level as mentioned in JKR specification. Where as figure 5.3(b) showing
the results of limestone concrete cube immersion in water, proven that the
strength increased as time increased. From the tests carried out, many information
87
was obtained related to the strength and comparison was made to suit the
objective of the study.
In the analysis of this study, the strength of the concrete and the strength of
the aggregate are two things with different answers. Concrete strength is the result
of combination strength between cement paste, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate
plus water, where as aggregate strength is the value of it’s original strength. This
can be discussed in the next paragraph which is under Aggregate Crushing Value
test.
5.5 Discussion on the Aggregate Crushing Value Test Results.
Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) is a test that will show the strength of the
original aggregate in term of percentage for crushed aggregate weight compared to
the whole specimen weight. Before moving on, let’s have a look at Table 5. 2 below
to explain the strength of the aggregate in the ACV test.
Table 5.1 The results of ACV test for Limestone and Granite
Test 1
Test 2
Test 3
Test 4
Test 5
Test 6
ACV
Limest
Limest-
Limest
Limest
Granite
Granite
stan
-one
one
-one
-one
In
In
-dard
In
In
In
In
Chemi
Water
spec.
Chemi
Chemi
Water
Water
-cal
-cal
-cal
( 7 days )
( 28 days)
solu-
solu-
tion
tion
( 7 days )
29 %
(28 days)
solution
of
JKR.
(28 days)
(28 days )
31.24%
29.8%
27.48%
19.62%
18.43%
40%
88
5.5.1 Discussion on ACV test for 7 days.
The results for 7 days period are as mentioned in table 5.1 above through
test 1 and test 3. All the value is below 40% which is considered acceptable. The
finding of this test is almost the same about percentage 29% and 29.8%
respectively. This result giving a difference answer compared to test 2 and test 4,
however test 5 and test 6 shows a significant value.
What can be explained on the chemical attack of this test?
The main issue is the chemical attack in the concrete whether limestone in the
solution of magnesium sulphate plus natrium nitrate is the source of the problem.
According to the results from Table 5.1 above, it is proved that concrete
effect on chemical reaction more in solution compare to water. However for the
case of 7 days test, value in chemical solution is less than value in water, further
study should be carried out in the future to get a significant answer and methods
to overcome the problems.
Through the end result of the test it is proved that limestone crushes more
than granite. The value of the test can be summarized in figure 5.4 (a) and (b), (c)
and (d) below:-
89
Percentage Crushing(%)
Limestone 28 days ACV test
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
31.28
27.48
Specimen in Solution
Specimen in Water
JKR Specification
Specimen and1 JKR
Specification
Figure 5.4(a): Results of Limestone ACV Test for 28 days in Chemical Solution
and Water.
Since the value of ACV test are below JKR specification (40%), however the
issue of chemical attack to concrete is slightly have a significant. From figure
5.4(a) above shows that limestone aggregate crushed more in chemical solution
compare in water.
Figure 5.4(b) Results of Granite ACV test for 28 days in Chemical Solution and
Water.
90
Percentage Crushing(%)
ACV test for Granite in 28 days.
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
40
Specimen in
Solution
19.62 18.48
Specimen in Water
JKR Specification
Specimen and1 JKR
Specfication
Figure 5.4(b) Results of Granite ACV test for 28 days in Chemical Solution
and Water.
Figure 5.4(b) above, shows that granite aggregate less affected to chemical
attack compared to limestone aggregate. The results are shown through the values
obtained in figure 5.4(a) and 5.4(b) above. The summary of the results can be
tabulated in Table 5.2 below:-
91
Table 5.2: Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone (28 days).
Aggregate
28 days in Chemical
28 days in Water.
Solution
(%)
(%)
Granite
19.62
18.48
Limestone
31.28
27.48
Results of Granite, Limestone
compared to JKR Specification
(28 days)
40
Percentage 30
Crushing 20
(% )
10
40
31.24
19.62
0
Specimen and1 JKR
Specification
LIMESTONE
GRANITE
JKR SPEC.
Figure 5.4(c) Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone aggregates in
Chemical Solution (28 days).
From the results obtained in figure 5.6(c) above, it shows that percentage of
the limestone crushes more higher than the granite. The limestone percentage is
31.24% compare to granite 19.62%, the differences is 11.62% proved that the
effect of chemical reaction is more on the limestone. Where as in the water the
92
results is less than 30% as shown in figure 5.4(d) below, this value is within the
JKR specification and can be used to super structure for building works.
Results of Granite, Limestone
compared to JKR Specification
(28 days)
40
40
Percentage 30
Crushing 20
(% )
10
27.48
18.48
0
Specimen and1 JKR
Specification
LIMESTONE
GRANITE
JKR SPEC.
Figure 5.4(d) Results of Granite and Limestone Aggregate on ACV test for 28
days in Water.
CHAPTER 6.
CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.
6.1
Introduction.
All the tests had been carried out and the results were obtained, finally the
conclusion should be made. The results of cube tests has obtained during the
research and served the study objective relating to strength and performances of
limestone concrete. From ACV test shows that the limestone crushed higher
compared to granite, significantly suit the second objective of this study.
All the tests involved in the study are sieve analysis, flaky/elongation
index, cube strength and aggregate crushing value test has been carried out in
Highway Laboratory of UTM Skudai on January 2005 and the results was shown
in chapter 4. The methodology of this study was mentioned and described in
chapter 3.
The final objective of this study is about the use of limestone aggregate as
an alternative material without prejudice. Since the results of cube strength in
water and in chemical for 28 days was accordance to JKR specification, definitely
limestone concrete was proved can be used for super structure in construction
industries, to meet the last objective. However for substructure, further study
about the chemical attack should be carried out and this will be mentioned under
recommendation.
94
6.2
Conclusion.
Conclusion can be summarized as the followings:-
a)
Limestone properties and its performances was been shown through results of
laboratory tests which include sieve analysis, elongation/flakiness index, cube
strength and aggregate crushing value. This statement has served the purpose of
study on the information for limestone properties.
b) Comparison of results of crushing value to granite related to aggregate
strength was made, granite having lower crushing value as compared to
limestone( 19.62%< 31.28%), these also has suit the second objective of this
study.
c)
Information about limestone aggregate was known through appropriate tables
and graph, beneficial in the use local material and can provide on the demands of
the materials to serve the third objective of this study.
d) Since limestone aggregate meet the JKR specification in all the tests carried
out, it can be an alternative material in concrete superstructure construction.
However concrete below ground level (substructure), JKR has a significant reason
during the preparation of specification. This is the interesting topic to focus and
further study on how to overcome this problem should be carried out in the future.
6.3
Recommendation.
During the research I realized that the time factor is very important to
overcome the problems. In this study case about chemical reaction, I would
recommend that in the future the cube test and ACV test should be carried out for
a longer period up to a maximum of one year duration. I also would like to
95
recommend the cubes to be prepared should be buried in the ground for one year
period before testing and shall compare to normal condition.
96
REFERENCE:
1.
Ketua Pengarah Kerja Raya Malaysia, JKR 344A Standard Specifications for
Building Works, Incorporating Amendments until DGPW Circular
No.7/1989.
2.
A.M. Neville.(1995) Properties of Concrete. Fourth and final edition.
England. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.
3.
Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur. Jabatan Kerja Raya.
Contract Document.
Poject: Membina Dan Menyiapkan Masjid Baru Di Mukim Sega,
Raub, Pahang Darul Makmur.
Contract No: S/PHG/R/DK/283/97.
Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya, Raub. 1997.
4. A.C. McLean C.D.Gribble. (1985).Geology for Civil Engeers. Second edition.
London. George Allen & Unwin
5.
Raymond E. Davis, Kenneth D. Gailey, Kenneth W. Whitten. (1984)
Principles of Chemistry. (Holt-Saunders International Edition)
by CBS Collage Publishing.
6.
G E Barnes.( 1995, 2000) Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice. Second
Edition.
Graham Barnes.
7
T.J. Mac Ginley and B.S. Choo. (1978) - Reinforced Concrete. Design
Theory and Examples. Second Edition.
1978 T.J. MacGinley; 1990 T.J. MacGinley and B.S. Choo.
.
8. A. Anagnostopoulos, F.Schlosser N.Kalteziotis, R.Frank. (1993)
Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils soft rocks. Volume 1
A.A. Balkema/ Rotterdam/ Brookfield.
97
9.
Vernon R.Schaefer, Lee W.Abramson, Joe C.Drumheller, James D.
Hussin and Kevan D. Sharp. (Development 1987-1997) .
“Ground
Improvement,
Ground
Reinforcement,
Ground
Treatment,
Geotechnical Special Publication No. 69.
Reston, Verginia : American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)
10. A.Wahab Khair. (1989). Rock Mechanics Natural resources : Proceeding of
the 30th U.S. Symposium.
A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield.
11. Philippe A.Charlez. (1991). Rock Mechanics. Volume 1
Theoretical Foundamental.
Editions technip .
Houston Texas, Gulf Publishing Company.
12.
Internet: Limestone 1 – http://www.Johnsoncoun
topsoil.com/rock/page/limestone.htm
13. Internet: Limestone 2- http://www.clarelibrary.
ie/eolas/claremuseum/riches_of_clarel.earth/packed_limestone_large.htm
14. Internet: Limestone 4 – http://www.tursrock.com/hanchiseled.htm
15. P.R. Sheorey . (1997) -Empirical Rock failure Criteria.
ISBN 9054106700 hardbound edition.
ISBN 9054106719 Student paper edition
A.A.Balkema. Rotterdam.
16. Redacteurs, V.Maury & D. Fourmaintraux. (1989)
Rock at great depth – Volume 2.
A.A.Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield.
98
17 T.N.W.Akroyd. (1957). Laboratory Testing in Soil Engineering.
Chelsea, London,S.W.3. Soil Mechanic Ltd.
18. Fu, H.c. Erko M.A and Seckin, M.
“Review Of effects of loading rate on concrete in compression”
Journal of structural engineering. Dec. 1991, Vol. 117, No. 12
Pp 3645 – 3649.
19. Ezeldin, A.S and Aitcin, P-C.
“Effects of coarse aggregate on the behaviour of normal and high-strength
concrete”- Cement, concrete and aggregate. – Winter 1991, Vol. 13, No. 2
pp 121 – 124.
20. Durwing, T.A. and Hicks, M.C.
“ Using microsilica to increase concrete resistance to aggressive chemical”
Concrete international, Mar 1991, Vol. 13 No. 3 pp 42 – 48.
21. Collins, R.J.
“Alkali aggregate reactivity in dense concrete containing synthetic or porous
natural aggregate”- Cement and concrete research, Mar 1989, Vol. 19
pp 278 - 228.
22. Goldmen, A. and Benlur, A.
“Bond effects in high-strength silica-fume concrete”. – ACI materials
Journal, Sept. – okt. 1989, Vol. 86, No. 5 pp 440 – 447.
99
APPENDIX A1
100
APPENDIX A2
101
APPENDIX B
102
APPENDIX C1
103
APPENDIX C2

the use of limestone aggregate in concrete

Transcription

Similar documents

2. Chupaderos / Technical facts

HOME DEVELOPMENT MUTUAL FUND Corporate - Pag

Pentra-Sil 244+ - GLENSIL INDONESIA

pentra-sil® (ih) - Quest Building Products

Glory Hole Spillway Repair - Knowles Industrial Services

Pentra-Sil - Lesa Pentra Floor

Oct. - Limestone Community High School

case study bellaire tower

Pentra-Sil (NL)

Concrete