COMPARISON STUDY ON NATURAL RIVER SAND AND CRUSHED

STONE SANDS EVALUATION FOR PUMPABILITY & DURABILITY

OF CONCRETE
Anil Kulkarni*, Rajeeb Kumar*, Vikram Kumar*

* UltraTech Cement Ltd.(Unit: UltraTech Concrete)

Introduction:
Natural Sand is being used as fine aggregate in concrete making and is preferred as fine aggregate. It is
mostly mined from the river beds and indiscriminate mining of sand has caused damages to the
environment. We also see that dependency on this source has led to high material costs also. Now there
is scarcity of natural sand. Due to this shortage of good quality natural sand and heavily dependency on
this for concrete manufacturing, there has been seen usage of poor quality natural sands for construction
.Thus it becomes almost obligatory to find alternatives to natural sand and evaluate these alternatives for
use in concrete production.
Out of the many available alternatives, crushed stone sand has emerged as the most easily available
material. This material is available at all the crushing units as a by-product during production of 20mm
and 10mm size aggregates.
Another form of crushed stone sand is manufactured sand (M sand), which is better in terms of quality
and fulfils the requirements of suitable material for use in concrete. M sand is manufactured by any of
the methods- by crushing of coarse aggregates (20mm & 10mm) in separate sand plants or using 3 stage
VSI crushers. Then this material is further processed either by washing with water or dry sieving, if
required to improve the grading and reduce fine powder content.
This comparison study gives an insight into the various characteristics of fine aggregates playing role in
making good pumpable concrete along with other important hardened concrete properties.

Objective and Scope of the study:

To evaluate and compare in detail various properties of 3 different kinds of fine aggregates for use in
pumpable concrete. To study the effect of various parameters of these fine aggregates on concrete
properties (in green and hardened state).
Following fine aggregates samples were taken from available sources in Delhi NCR region:
Natural River Sand
Manufactured Sand ( M sand )
Crushed Stone Sand
This study covers testing of all physical and chemical parameters of fine aggregates and their effects on
concrete properties workability, pumpability , setting time & compressive strength and also durability
tests on concrete with M. sand.

Methodology of the study:

M25 grade and M40 grade concretes were selected for evaluation purpose. These mixes were prepared as
per the specifications of IS 456:2000. Following tests were covered in this study:

Characteristics comparison of fine aggregates:

 Physical properties
Particle size distribution
Chemical composition

Characteristics comparison of concrete with all 3 types of fine aggregates:

Workability ( slump)
Initial and Final Setting time of concrete
Compressive strength

Durability tests of concrete with M sand:

Shrinkage test
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (RCPT)
Water permeability

Fine aggregates comparison:

Following observations are made from the properties of the aggregates:

1. The shape of coarse particles (4.75-2.36 mm size) in natural sand and M sand is rounded whereas
in crushed stone sand it elongated and flaky.
2. Grading curve of natural Sand and M sand falls within the IS 383 Zone II limits, whereas that of
crushed stone sand is outside the limit.
3. Particles finer than 75micron are more than 15% in crushed stone sand.
4. Water absorption of M sand is higher, 1.6% in comparison to 1.15% of natural sand.
5. Passing through 150 micron sieve, particles are 7.8% in natural sand, 18 % in M sand, and 23%
in crushed stone sand. As per IS 383:1970 limit is 0-20% for crushed stone sand.
6. Clay content is 0.45% in natural sand whereas it is 0.2% in M sand.

Concrete properties comparison with various kinds of fine aggregates:

Mix designs of M25 and M40 grades of concrete were carried out based on durability requirements of IS
456:2000 and various tests for concrete properties were conducted.

1. Concrete mix proportions and Workability of concrete:

Slump test of concretes trials was done as per IS 1199:1959 using slump cone apparatus. Slump
retention was observed for a period of 3 hrs. Initial and final setting time was tested as per IS
8142:1976 by penetration resistance.

2. Compressive Strength:
Compressive strength at 3, 7 & 28days age was checked for all the mixes and compared.

3. Tests for durability for M sand mixes:

Water Permeability test as per DIN 1048, Rapid Chloride Permeability test (RCPT) as per
ASTM 1202 and Drying Shrinkage test as per IS1199:1959 were done for mixes with M sand,
results are tabulated below:
 M25 Grade M40 Grade
Test description
Test result Protocol Limit Test result Protocol Limit
Drying Shrinkage % 0.043 0.06* 0.048 0.05*
Water Permeability -
depth of penetration in mm. 14 25** 11 25**
Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
(RCPT)-Charge passed in Columbs 885 100-1000 835 100-1000
(Chloride Permeability) ( very low ) (very low)*** ( very low) (very low)***

Protocol Limits:
*As per MoRTH specifications section 1716.5 maximum depth of water penetration is 25 mm.
**Classification Criteria for RCPT as per ASTM C 1202:
***Drying Shrinkage estimation curve from Advanced Concrete Technology by Joan Newman

Discussion of the test results:

1. Better slump retention properties observed with Natural sand and M sand, but with crushed stone
sand slump retention was poor. To get initial slump, admixture dose with crushed stone sand was
higher by approx 35% than M sand , even with higher admixture quantity slump observed at 3 hr
was less than that with natural sand and M sand.
2. Mix rheology was observed to be smooth and cohesive with natural sand M sand, but mix
prepared with crushed stone sand was harsh and sticky, due to presence of flaky particles and
higher fine particles in it. Concrete Mix prepared with crushed stone sand was difficult to work
with and pumpability of the mix was not good.
3. Final setting time of concrete was almost same for all the mixes, although higher admixture
dosage was used in crushed stone sand mixes.
4. Observed marginally higher compressive strength at 3, 7 & 28days with M sand compared to
natural sand and an increase of more than 10% compared to that with crushed stone sand. Reason
for higher strength with M sand can be the lesser clay content in it compared to natural sand.

Conclusions and Recommendations:

1. Workability of concrete for both grades of concrete is better with natural sand and M sand but
with crushed stone sand workability is poor, mix looks harsh and difficult to work with.
2. Pumping ability of mixes with Natural sand and M sand is good; whereas it is difficult to pump
crushed stone sand mixes.
3. Admixture dosages are same in case of Natural sand and M sand , but in case of crushed stone
sand it increased by 35% to achieve same workability of concrete.
4. Compressive strength at age of 3, 7 and 28 days is highest in case of M sand. Concrete with
crushed stone sand shows lower compressive strength of the concrete.
5. Rapid Chloride Permeability Test ( RCPT)values for concrete with M sand are less than 1000
columbs , which indicate a very low Chloride permeability and good quality dense concrete.
6. Drying Shrinkage of M25 and M40 grades concrete samples with M sand are 0.043% & 0.048%
respectively, which indicate shrinkage are within values estimated from Drying Shrinkage
estimation curve.
7. Water permeability test with M sand are 14 mm and 11 mm depth of penetration for M25 and
M40 grade respectively which indicate very good dense structure of concrete.
8. All above test parameters of concrete mix with M sand are satisfactory , so it can be accepted as
a better ingredient as fine aggregate in place of natural sand.