smt. s.r.patel engineering college, dhabhi, unjha…civil.srpec.org.in/files/project/2013/12.pdf ·...
Post on 09-Sep-2018
214 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
SMT. S.R.PATEL ENGINEERING COLLEGE,
DHABHI, UNJHA.
PRESENTATION
ON
“ARTIFICIAL SAND USE IN PLASTER MORTAR”
Guide:
Prof. Amar Salariya
Presented By: •Savaliya Hiren - 100783106010
•Patel Rahul - 100783106002
•Shukla Naveen - 090780106063
•Rajput Narendra -090780106056
INTRODUCTION
1) To provide alternative material for natural sand
2) Use of crushed sand 3) Use of admixtures, fibers 4) Advantages over natural sand
NECESSITY
❖ Technical Aspect
•Natural Sand - weathered particles of rock
• Less fine particles
•Available sand is course and contains silt and clay
•Fine particles below 600 micron must be present up to 30 -
50%
• Quality of natural sand varies from place to place
• Crushed sand is available according to size and grade
Environmental Impact
• In traditional construction techniques, river sand is used
• Due to dragging from river bed, water head is reduced
• Lower ground water level
• Extinction of river sand
1. Recent Tradition (Market Survey)
Collection and study of recent market trends in cement plaster
mortar
2. Mixing Proportion
Preparation of various mix proportion
3. Testing of mixing proportion
Behavior of mix proportions under various parameters viz.
bonding, strength etc.
METHODOLOGY
4. Testing of mixing proportion along with admixtures and fibers
Effect of admixtures and fibers on various mix proportion
5. Result comparison
Comparative analysis of different mix proportion
6. Comparison of river sand and crushed sand plaster mortar
Comparison considering factors such as environmental effect,
cost analysis etc
PARAMETERS
• Strength
• Durability & Economy
• Fineness
• Bonding
• Workability
• Waterproofing
• Shrinkage and cracking prevention
•Crushed Sand
- Graded sand
(1) 2.36 mm passing & 150 micron retaining
(2) 2.36 mm passing & 300 micron retaining
- Non graded crushed sand
• Fly Ash
- Reduces cement consumption
- Increases finish-ability & workability
- Eco friendly
• Cement
- OPC (43 Grade)
• Micro Silica
- Increases bonding
- Reduction in cracks
- Prevents water seepage
- Better surface finishing
• Poly fibers (Grade-2)
- Prevents cracks
- Increases tensile strength & bonding
• Admixture - Naphthalene
- Produces concrete with high levels of workability without segregation
- Provides improved finish-ability and surface finishes
- Provides water reduction
(1) Sample 1
• Proportion - 1:6
• Fly Ash was not used
• W/C Ratio - 0.70
• River Sand - 2.36mm Passing & 150 micron Retained
✓ Observation
- No cracks were developed.
- Smooth finishing easily achieved.
- Less economical.
Mixtures
(2) Sample 2
• Proportion - 1:6
• 15% Fly Ash
• W/C Ratio - 0.70
• Crushed Sand - 2.36mm Passing & 150 micron Retained
✓ Observation
- Initially good finish was observed.
- Cracks were developed after drying.
(3) Sample 3
• Proportion - 1:6
•Fly Ash was not used
•W/C Ratio - 0.70
•Crushed sand - 2.36mm Passing & 150 micron Retained
✓ Observation
- No cracks were developed.
- Smooth finishing was not achieved.
- Less economical.
(4) Sample 4
•Proportion - 1:6
•15% Fly Ash
•Micro silica - 2% of cementitious material
•W/C Ratio - 0.90
•Crushed Sand - 2.36mm Passing & 300 micron Retained
•Fibers - 0.35% of cementitious material
✓ Observations:
- Poor bonding with surface
- Poor finishing
- Less economy
- More water was required
- More wastage of mortar
(5) Sample 5
•Proportion - 1:6
•15% Fly Ash
•Micro silica - 2% of cementitious material
•Naphthalene - 0.5% of cementitious material
•Fibers - 0.4% of cementitious material
•W/C Ratio - 0.70
•Crushed Sand - 2.36mm Passing & 300micron Retained
✓Observations:
- Good bonding
- Less surface finishing
- No cracks were developed
- Not economical
(6) Sample 6
•Crushed sand - Non Graded sand
•Proportion - 1:6
•10% Fly Ash
•Naphthalene - 0.5%
•W/C Ratio - 0.70
✓ Observations:
- Good bonding with surface
- Perfect finishing
- Better economy
- Less wastage of mortar
COMPARISON OF QUANTITY OF MATERIAL
MATERIAL SAMPLE 1 SAMPLE 2 SAMPLE 3 SAMPLE 4 SAMPLE 5 SAMPLE 6
FLY ASH 15% --- 25% 15% 15% 10%
CRUSHED SAND GRADED GRADED GRADED GRADED GRADED NON
GRADED
FIBERS --- --- 0.6% 0.4% 0.35% ---
ADMIXTURE
(NAPHTHALENE) --- --- --- --- 0.5% 0.5%
MICRO SILICA --- --- --- 2% 2% ---
COMPARISION OF RESULT OF
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF SAMPLE
SAMPELS
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
(N/mm2)
7 Days 21 Days
SAMPLE - 1 7 10.5
SAMPLE – 2 6 11
SAMPLE - 3 8.5 12
SAMPLE – 4 8 11
SAMPLE – 5 7.5 12
SAMPLE – 6 12 24
Factors Plastering using River
Sand
Plastering using
Crushed Sand
Time Less time consuming Need more time
Finishing Easily achieved Quite tough to get good
finishing
Availability
of sand Not easily available Easily available
Texture of sand Non-uniform particles Uniform particles are
available
Watering Less watering is needed
before plastering
Wall should be cured
fully before plastering
COMPARISON OF RESULTS
CRITERIA SAMPLES
1 2 3 4 5 6
BONDING Good Average Good Poor Good Good
FINISHING Average Good Poor Poor Less Good
COST Less Less More More More Less
WATER
REQUIREMENT Average Average Average More More Average
WASTAGE OF
MORTAR Less Nominal Less More More Less
DEVELOPMENT
OF CRACKS Average Yes No No No No
RATE ANALYSIS
Sr.no. Material Rate in Rs.
Plaster
using
Crushed
sand
Plaster
using
Natural
sand
1 Cement 260/bag 1900.314 /- 2111.46 /-
2 Crushed sand 2500/ brass 1435 /- --
3 Natural sand 4500/ brass -- 2583 /-
4 Fly ash 90 paisa/kg 36.54 /- --
5 Naphthalene 30/kg 73.69 /- --
TOTAL Rs. 3445.54 /- 4694.46 /-
Rate of the material for their perspective unit and for the quantity required for
100 sq. m of plaster.
OUT COME OF THE PROJECT
1. ECOFRIENDLY
(a) USE OF WASTE MATERIAL
(b) LESS POLLUTION
2. EASY AVAILABILITY
3. ECONOMICAL
Among all mixtures Sample - 6 containing non graded
crushed sand, fly ash, cement and admixture naphthalene gave
required results, viz. better surface finish, perfect bonding with the
wall, less or no wastage, and most important economic compared to
conventional plaster. Compressive strength test of a cube has been
conducted to check the compatibility of mix. Standard mix having
natural sand carries compressive strength of 10 to 12 N/mm2.
Whereas this mixture yields 12 N/mm2 of compressive strength for 7
days and 24 N/mm2 for 21 day strength. It concludes that the mixture
is far more versatile than conventional mixture.
CONCLUSION
REFERENCE
ACI Committee 544. 1982. State-of-the-Report on Fibre Reinforced Concrete, (ACI 544.1R-82), Concrete International:
Design and Construction. 4(5): 9-30, American Concrete Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
ACI Committee 544. 1989. Measurement of Properties of Fibre Reinforced Concrete, (ACI 544.2R-889). American Concrete
Institute, Detroit, Michigan, USA.
Ganesh Babu. K and Pavan Kumar. D. 2004. Behavior of Glass Fibre Reinforced Cement Composites. ICFRC International
Conference on Fibre Composites, High Performance Concretes and Smart Materials. 8-10 Jan., Chennai.
Griffiths R. 2000. An assessment of the properties and degradation behaviour of glass-fibre-reinforced polyester polymer
concrete. Composites Science and Technology. pp. 2747-2753.
Naaman A.E. 1985. Fibre Reinforcement for Concretes, Concrete International: Design and Construction. 7(3): 21-25.
Parviz Soroushian. 1991. Fiber - Type Effects on the Performance of Steel Fiber Reinforced Concrete. ACI Materials Journal.
March-April 1991. pp. 129-134.
Srinivasa Rao and Seshadri Sekhar T. 2005. Strength and Durability Properties of Glass Fibre Reinforced Concrete.
Proceedings of the International Conference on Recent Advances in Concrete and Construction Technology. December 7-9,
SRMIST, Chennai, India. pp. 43-50.
Singh S.P, Mohammadi Y and Kaushik S.K. 2005. Flexural Fatigue Analysis of Steel Fibrous Concrete Containing Mixed
Fibres. ACI Mater. J. 102(6): 438-444.
GAMBHIR, M.L (Fourth Edition). ―Concrete Technology.
SHETTY, M.S (2012 edition). ―Concrete Technology
STROMBERG CONSTRUCTION, USA. ―Guide Book to GFRC.
Owens Corning, (August 2007). "A Market Assessment and Impact Analysis of the Owens ning Acquisition of Saint-
Gobain's Reinforcement and Composites Business".
Frederick T. Wallenberger; Paul A. Bingham (October 2009). Fiberglass and Glass Technology: Energy-Friendly
Compositions and Applications. Springer. pp. 211
Lubin, George (Ed.) (1975). Handbook of Fiberglass and Advanced Plastic Composites. Huntingdon NY: Robert E. Krieger.
Hillermeier KH, Melliand Textilberichte (1/1969), Dortmund-Mengede, "Glass fiber—its properties related to the filament
fiber diameter". pp. 26–28.
Is 456-2000
top related