After Review Anuj Thesis

UTILIZATION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE POWDERS AS
GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS IN CONCRETE
ANUJ
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
NEW DELHI, INDIA
OCTOBER, 2013
UTILIZATION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE POWDERS AS
GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS IN CONCRETE
by
ANUJ
Submitted
in fulfilment of the requirements of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy
to the

INDIAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY DELHI
NEW DELHI, INDIA
OCTOBER, 2013
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the thesis entitled “ Utilization of Marble and Granite Powders as
Green Building Materials in Concrete” being submitted by Anuj (Entry No. 2006CEZ8128) to
the Indian Institute of Technology Delhi for the award of degree of Doctor of Philosophy is a
bona fide record of research work carried out by him under my supervision. The thesis work,
in my opinion, has reached the requisite standard of fulfilling the requirement of the degree of
Doctor of Philosophy.
The results contained in this thesis have not been submitted, in part or full, to any other
university of institute for the award of any other degree or diploma.
(Dr. Supratic Gupta)

Assistant Professor,
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi, India
i
ii
ACKLOWLEDGEMENTS
The author expresses his deepest sense of gratitude to his supervisor Dr. Supratic Gupta
for providing him the opportunity and guidance throughout this research project. His devotion
and support helped in all the time of research and writing of this thesis. He shall ever remain
grateful to him for all the inspiration.
The author would like to thank the members of Student Research Committee of Civil
Engineering Department, IIT Delhi: Prof. K. G. Sharma, Dr. G. S. Benipal, and Prof. S. V.
Veeravalli, for their encouragement, insightful comments, and correct guidance to provide the
direction for completion of this thesis.
Sincere thanks goes to Dr. Shashank Bishnoi and Prof. A.K. Neema for their valuable
support and critical suggestion.
The author thankfully acknowledges the time devoted and assistance rendered by his
fellow Ph. D. student, Mr Khuito Murumi. He had relentlessly worked and shared his valuable
time in providing inputs and suggestions for the thesis and bringing it to present shape. The
author would also like to thank B.Tech. students namely Mr. Jyoti Shanker Pandey and
Mr Anshu Bansal and M. Tech. students namely S. Ramakrishnan and Mr. Vimete Pusa who
worked with him during their study at IIT Delhi and significantly contributed to the knowledge
required for the study.
The author thank his entire lab staff especially Mr Goutam Barai, Mr Pradeep Negi,
Mr Avinesh Kumar, Mr Navneet Kumar and others who were always enthusiastic and worked
for the number of trials and provided the support throughout the research.
iii
He acknowledges his company M/s UltraTech Cement Limited for permitting him for
this opportunity and to pursue this research. Specifically thanks to his colleague Mr. Rajeeb
Kumar for his encouragement and support. Hearty thanks for all well-wishers who have
directly or indirectly encouraged for the completion of this work.
Thanks are due to the financial support received from BMTPC through Ministry of
Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Govt. of India, under Project No. RP01971titled,
“Study on environmental impacts of disposal of marble slurry/ marble dust and investigations
on its use in concrete”, jointly under Prof. A. K. Neema and Dr. Supratic Gupta.
Last but not the least; the author would like to thank his family: his wife Dr. Alka and
kids Ms Bhaavya and Master Somaay; his parents Dr. Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Mrs
Asha Maheshwari; brothers and their families for their constant encouragement, understanding
and moral support.
(ANUJ)
2006 CEZ8128
Department of Civil Engineering,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi
New Delhi, India
iv
DEDICATION
The author dedicates this research work and thesis to his ever-loving
parents Dr. Ramesh Chand Maheshwari and Mrs. Asha Maheshwari
v
vi
ABSTRACT
India is now in a stage where construction of roads, bridges, ports, factories, residential and
commercial buildings, etc. is taking place at very rapid pace and will continue in coming decades as most
of the cities will start building their metro construction. Concrete industry is one industry that is very
important for any developing country where large amount of material is consumed. The materials are
being utilized in a fast pace. Any other new material that can be used in concrete would decrease the pace
of consumption of the materials making the construction little more sustainable.
On the other hand, marble and granite are in great demand as finishing material. A large amount
of extraction waste is being created. A large amount of powder slurry is also being generated due to sawing
and polishing processes. This powder slurry is very consistent particle size distribution and has particle
size of the order on cement and fly ash.
To study the environmental effect due to the wastage created by marble and granite industries,
the author visited Kishangarh, Makrana and Rajsmand in Rajasthan for marble and Khamam in Andhra
Pradesh for granite. It was observed that the environmental problems in Khamam were more severe as it
was more unorganised compared to the situation in Rajasthan. In both the cases, the amount of waste
generation is too large and the situation is waiting for an environmental chaos. Rizzo et. al. [94] had
reported that these fine materials could percolate into the soil and create soil and water-related pollution
with grave consequences.
The author presented and estimation of the marble and granite reserve as reported by Indian
Bureau of Mines [1-2], and estimated the production of the marble slurry based on production of marble
slabs. Based on the cement consumption reported by Cement Manufacturers’ Association [9], author
showed that it is possible to consume the slurry produced. Carrying out cost benefit, there would be direct
financial benefit. Other indirect benefits that the country should recognize are the environmental benefits
vii
of such utilization and decrease of consumption of fine and coarse aggregates and thereby provide tax
benefits.
Various researchers have attempted utilization of marble and granite powders. Some talked of
cement replacement whereas most talked sand replacement. A few work has been done on utilization of
granite powder. Initial research work consistently reported lower strength on utilization of these materials.
These problems were solved by proper estimation of water in in the mix in this thesis.
This thesis presents a scientific study about the utilization of this marble and granite in normal
and self-compacting concrete. Determination of SSD condition, its specific gravity, and moisture content
are important. The methodology presented in this thesis can consistently achieve the design strength.
The most important contribution of this thesis is
a) It established a procedure of utilization of these fine materials such that it can consistently
achieve strength of concrete similar to the composition without them.
b) It establishes the importance of water correction and its methodology for fine material with
high water absorption capacity.
c) Marble and granite powders, being fine of the order of cement and fly ash, can significantly
contribute to the fines and create a cohesive mix.
d) Marble and granite powders can be consumed to the order of 200 kg/ m3 for high strength
and to the order of 360 kg/ m3 for normal concrete, contributing to 8% to 15% of the volume
of concrete respectively.
e) Plasticizer demand depends on the particle size where marble and granite powders need to
be considers in addition to the cementitious material while calculating the plasticizer dosage.
f) It emphasises the direct cost benefit and indirect benefits of marble and granite utilization.
The indirect benefits are the environmental benefits and decrease in consumption of fine and
coarse aggregates.
viii
Contents
Certificate i
Acknowledgements iii
Dedication v
Abstract vii
Contents ix
List of Figures xiii
List if Tables xxiii
Symbols and Notations xxix
Chapter 1: INTRODUCTION 1
1.0 General 1
1.1 Objective and scope of the work 3
1.2 Contents if the thesis 4
Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

2.0 General 7
2.1 Effectiveness of fly ash (K-value) 7
2.2 Normal concrete and self-compacting concrete 11
2.3 Initial experiment with marble and granite powders 14
2.4 Utilization of marble and granite wastes in other literature 15
2.5 Conclusion 18
Chapter 3: EQUIPMENT, SETUP AND EXPERIMENTS 19

3.0 General 19
3.1 Storage of material 19
3.2 Material property determination 19
3.3 Mixers 20
3.4 Workability 21
ix
3.5 Curing 29
3.6 Mechanical properties at hardened stage 30
Chapter 4: MATERIAL PROPERTIES 31

4.0 General 31
4.1 Water 32
4.2 Fine and coarse aggregates 32
4.3 Chemical admixtures 33
4.4 Cement 36
4.5 Fly ash 37
4.6 Micro silica 41
4.7 Marble and granite stones 42
4.8 Marble and granite powders 44
4.9 Shape, particle size and discussion 46
4.10 Specific gravity, water absorption and preparation of material for marble and
granite powders 50
4.11 Conclusion 50
Chapter 5: AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION 51

5.0 General 51
5.1 Availability and production of marble and granite 52
5.2 Production system and waste generation 57
5.2.1 Mining and transportation 57
5.2.2 Processing of marble and granite 57
5.3 Waste handling 63

5.4 Environmental impact 63
5.5 Slurry generation and potential consumption in concrete 65
5.6 Cost benefit of utilization of marble and granite powders 67
5.7 Conclusion 69
x
Chapter 6: IMPORTANCE OF MOISTURE CORECTION IN
FINE POWDER MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE 71
6.0 General 71
6.1 Water absorption at SSD condition and specific gravity 73
6.2 Formulation for SSD condition specific gravity, moisture content and water
Correction 75
6.3 SSD condition, specific gravity, moisture content 77
6.3.1 Cone method as per ASTM C128 – 07a 77
6.3.2 Blotting paper method 78
6.4 A sequence of events to understand the importance of water correction 81

6.5 Mix design and results 83
6.6 Conclusion 88
Chapter 7: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES 7.1OF CONCRETE

WITH
MARBLE AND GRANITE POWDERS 89
7.0 Introduction 89
7.1 Role of w/c ratio 90
7.2 Strength relationships 92
7.3 Utilization of marble and granite powders in concrete in literature 94
7.4 Mix design and results for normal concrete 108
Chapter 8: WORKABILITY, RHEOLOGY AND OTHER

IMPORTANT ISSUES 145
8.0 General 145
8.1 Effect of particle shape and size on workability 147
8.2 Utilization of marble and granite powders 150
8.3 Experimental details and plan for SCC 154
8.4 Rheological properties and discussions 156
8.5 Admixture dosage 165
8.6 Role of fines 169
8.7 Relationship between T500,Vft and viscosity 170
xi
8.8 Relationship between T500,Vft and viscosity, and admixture dosage with flow 172
8.9 Reconfirmation experiments 181
8.10 Particle size distribution of different mixes 182
8.11 Picture story of utilization of marble and granite powders 189
8.12 Conclusion 189
Chapter 9: CONCLUSION 191

REFERENCES 197
Biodata 209
xii
List of Figures
Fig. 2.1 Comparison of k-values predicted 10
Fig. 2.2 Mix proportion of SCC (top) vs. conventional concrete (bottom) 11
Fig. 2.3 Trends in usage of s/a over the past 20 years 11
Fig. 2.4 Effect of admixture dosing on workability 11
Fig. 3.1 Laboratory scale concrete mixers
Fig. 3.1 (a) Tilting drum type mixer 21
Fig. 3.1 (b) Pan type mixer 21
Fig. 3.2 Different types of tests for workability
Fig. 3.2 (a) Slump test - concrete 21
Fig. 3.2 (b) Mini slump cone - Mortar 21
Fig. 3.2 (c) Flow table 21
Fig. 3.3 Schematic diagram of equipment for SCC
Fig. 3.3 (a) Flow Table showing T500 23
Fig. 3.3 (b) V Funnel 23
Fig. 3.3 (c) L Box 23
Fig. 3.3 (d) U Tube 23
Fig. 3.4 Tests for SCC 24
Fig.3.5 Static segregation column test apparatus for SCC 25
Fig. 3.6 Different types of rheometers 25
Fig. 3.7 BT2 rheometer 26
Fig. 3.8 Typical readings of BT2 rheometer 26
Fig.3.9 Temperature and precipitation variations in New Delhi (typical) 29
Fig 3.10 Open curing tank 30
xiii
Fig. 3.11 Compression testing machines
Fig. 3.11 (a) Load-controlled 30
Fig. 3.11 (b) Servo-controlled 30
Fig. 4.1 Percentage passing and limits for aggregates 34
Fig. 4.2 Images showing shapes of different materials
Fig. 4.2 (a) 20 mm aggregate 47
Fig. 4.2 (b) 10 mm aggregate 47
Fig. 4.2 (c) sand 47
Fig. 4.2 (d) Microsilica in un-grounded form 47
Fig. 4.2 (e) Microsilica in grounded form 47
Fig. 4.2 (f) Cement 48
Fig. 4.2 (g) Fly ash 48
Fig. 4.2 (h) Granite powder 48
Fig. 4.2 (i) Marble powder 48
Fig. 4.3 Particle size distribution of fine materials used 49
Fig. 5.1 Marble distribution and production in India 55
Fig. 5.2 Granite distribution and production in India 56
Fig. 5.3 Schematic diagram of slab cutting from solid block 58
Fig. 5.4 Production process of marble slabs and waste generation
Fig. 5.4 (a) Blocks extraction site 59
Fig. 5.4 (b) Blocks transport to processing unit 59
Fig. 5.4 (c) Plate and rotary cutting saw 59
Fig. 5.4 (d) Finished product 60
Fig. 5.4 (e) Settling tank 60
xiv
Fig. 5.4 (f) Dumping ground 60
Fig. 5.4 (g) Slurry disposal site 60
Fig. 5.4(h) Pre-production waste 60
Fig. 5.4 (i) Post-production waste 60
Fig. 5.4 (j) Disposal of marble slurry in designated marble slurry ponds 61
Fig. 5.5 Production process of granite slabs and waste generation
Fig. 5.5 (a) Blocks extraction site 61
Fig. 5.5 (b) Blocks at processing unit 61
Fig. 5.5 (c) Rotary cutting saw 62
Fig. 5.5 (d) Polishing 62
Fig. 5.5 (e) Finished product 62
Fig. 5.5 (f) Settling tank 62
Fig. 5.5 (g) Road side dumped waste blocks 62
Fig. 5.5 (h) Road side dumped slurry 62
Fig. 6.1 Different moisture content conditions of particles
Fig. 6.1 (a) Moisture on surface 73
Fig. 6.1 (b) SSD condition 73
Fig. 6.1 (c) Air dry 73
Fig. 6.2 Cone method as per ASTM C128 – 07a 78
Fig. 6.3 Moisture content vs. specific gravity 79
Fig. 6.4 Compressive strength vs. w/b ratio for marble powder concrete 87
Fig. 6.5 Compressive strength vs. w/b ratio for granite powder concrete 87
Fig. 7.1 Comparison of Khuito strength results against Popovics/ Kaplan’s
results 92
Fig. 7.2 Strength relationships as per EN and IS codes 94
xv
Fig. 7.3 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b 97
Fig. 7.6 Compressive strength variation with w/b
Fig. 7.6 (a) 7 days compressive strength vs. w/b 115
Fig. 7.6 (b) 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b 116
Fig. 7.6 (c) Compressive strength vs. w/b for all mixes 116
Fig. 7.7 Flexural strength vs. w/b
Fig. 7.7 (a) 7 days flexural strength vs. w/b 117
Fig. 7.7 (b) 28 days flexural strength vs. w/b 117
Fig. 7.7 (c) Flexural strength vs. w/b for all mixes 118
Fig. 7.8 Split tensile strength vs. w/b
Fig. 7.8 (a) 7 days split tensile strength vs. w/b 118
Fig. 7.8 (b) 7 days split tensile strength vs. w/b 119
Fig. 7.8 (c) Split tensile strength vs. w/b for all mixes 119
Fig. 7.9 Flexural strength vs. split tensile strength
Fig. 7.9 (a) 7 days flexural strength vs. split tensile strength 120
Fig. 7.9 (b) 28 days flexural strength vs. split tensile strength 120
Fig. 7.9 (c) Flexural strength vs. split tensile strength for all mixes 121
Fig. 7.10 Flexural strength vs. compressive strength
Fig. 7.10 (a) 7 days flexural strength vs. compressive strength 121
Fig. 7.10 (b) 28 days flexural strength vs. compressive strength 122
Fig. 7.10 (c) Flexural strength vs. Compressive strength for all mixes 122
Fig. 7.11 Split tensile strength vs. compressive strength
Fig. 7.11 (a) 7 days split tensile strength vs. compressive strength 123
xvi
Fig. 7.11 (b) 28 days split tensile strength vs. compressive strength 123
Fig. 7.11 (c) Split tensile strength vs. compressive strength for all mixes 124
Fig. 7.12 Compressive strength vs. w/b
xvii
xviii
Fig. 8.1 Admixture dosage demand
Fig. 8.1(a) Weight basis 149
Fig. 8.1(b) Percentage basis 149
Fig. 8.2 Possible utilization of Marble/Granite Powder in Concrete 151
Fig. 8.3 Utilization of Cement, Fly Ash and Marble/Granite Powder in Concrete
Fig. 8.3 (a) 0% FA 153
Fig. 8.3 (b) 20% FA 153
Fig. 8.3 (c) 30% FA 153
Fig. 8.3 (d) 40% FA 154
Fig. 8.4 Utilization of Cement, Fly Ash and Marble/Granite Powder in
Concrete by Alyamac 154
Fig. 8.5 SCC classifications and applications 158
Fig. 8.6 Admixture dosage vs. Vft for SCC mixes
Fig. 8.6 (a) Granite powder concrete 166
Fig. 8.6 (b) Marble powder concrete 166
Fig. 8.6 (c) Higher fly ash concrete 166
Fig. 8.6 (d) Higher sand concrete 166
Fig 8.7 Admixture dosage vs. Vft boundary for SCC mixes 167
Fig 8.8 T500 vs. Vft for SCC mixes 173
Fig 8.9 Viscosity vs. Vft for SCC mixes 173
Fig. 8.10 Variation of T500 with flow
xix
Fig. 8.11 Variation of Vft with flow
Fig. 8.12 Relationship between intercept of Vft vs. flow graph and w/b 178
Fig. 8.13 Relationship between positive slope of Vft vs. flow graph and w/b 178
Fig 8.14 Viscosity vs. flow for SCC mixes
Fig 8.15 Admixture dosage vs. flow for SCC mixes
Fig. 8.16 Particle size distribution for SCC group 1 and group 6 183
Fig. 8.17 Particle size distribution for normal concrete 183
Fig. 8.18 SCC with marble and granite powders
Fig. 8.18 (a) Oven-dried marble powder 184
Fig. 8.18 (b) Oven-dried granite powder 184
xx
Fig. 8.18 (c) Marble in paste form 185
Fig. 8.18 (d) Granite in paste form 185
Fig. 8.18 (e) SCC at flow of 640 mm 186
Fig. 8.18 (f) SCC at flow of 690 mm 186
Fig. 8.18 (g) SCC inside mixer 187
Fig. 8.18 (h) L-box test with 3 rebars 187
Fig. 8.18 (i) V-funnel test 188
Fig. 8.18 (j) BT2 rheometer test 188
xxi
xxii
List of Tables
Table 2.1 k-values for fly ash in EU member states 9
Table 3.1 Experiments and standards related to material property
determination 20
Table 3.2 Classification used in specification of SCC 24
Table 3.3 Standards and specimen size for mechanical properties of concrete 29
Table 4.1 Test results of water used in experiment 32
Table 4.2 Sieve analysis results of coarse and fine aggregates used 34
Table 4.3 Physical properties of fine aggregate used 35
Table 4.4 Physical properties of coarse aggregate used 35
Table 4.5 Main compounds of Portland cement used 38
Table 4.6 Physical and chemical properties of cement (OPC 53) used 38
Table 4.7 Physical requirements for fly ash as per IS 3812: 2013 40
Table 4.8 Chemical requirements for fly ash as per IS 3812: 2013 40
Table 4.9 Physical and chemical properties of fly ash used 41
Table 4.10 Physical and chemical properties of micro silica used 41
Table 4.11 Chemical properties of marble 43
Table 4.12 Physical properties of marble 43
Table 4.13 Physical properties of granite 44
Table 4.14 Classification of granite 44
Table 4.15 Chemical properties of marble powder used 45
Table 4.16 Chemical properties of granite powder used 45
Table 4:17 Particle size under diameter of fine materials 48
Table 4.18 Particle size distribution as percentage passing 49
xxiii
Table 5.1 Marble Deposit in India 53
Table 5.2 Granite Deposit in India 53
Table 5.3 State wise production of marble and granite in India 54
Table 5.4 Year-wise production of marble and granite in India 54
Table 5.5 Marble/granite wasted due to sawing 58
Table 5.6 Reserves, production and potential slurry consumption 67
Table 5.7 Cost benefit due to plasticizer, fly ash and marble/granite powders 68
Table 6.1 Typical example of moisture correction in sand 77
Table 6.2 Specific gravity calculation 79
Table 6.3 Water content at SSD and specific gravity by blotting paper
method 80
Table 6.4 Sample calculation for correction of mix design for marble powder 83
Table 6.5 Mix design for higher granite powder
Table 6.5 (a) Uncorrected w/b ratio 84
Table 6.5 (b) Corrected w/b ratio and strength results 84
Table 6.6 Mix design for higher marble powder
Table 6.6 (a) Uncorrected w/b ratio 85
Table 6.6 (b) Corrected w/b ratio and strength results 86
Table 7.1 (a) Strength properties as per EN 1992-1-1 93
Table 7.1 (b) Strength properties as per IS456 93
Table 7.2 (a) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Vaidevi C et. al. 97
Table 7.2 (b) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Shelke et. al. 97
Table 7.2 (c) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Corinaldesi et. al 98
Table 7.2 (d) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Awol 98
Table 7.2 (e) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Demirel et.al. 98
xxiv
Table 7.2 (f) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hameed et. al. 99
Table 7.2 (g) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hameed
et. al. SCC mixes 99
Table 7.2 (h) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hunger et. al. 99
Table 7.3 (a) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Almeida et. al. 102
Table 7.3 (b) Mix design data and 28 days compressive strength for Belaidi et. al. 102
Table 7.3 (c) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Alyamac et. al. 103
Table 7.3 (d) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Alyamac et. al. 104
Table 7.3 (e) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Guneyisi et. al. 104
Table 7.3 (f) Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Topcu et. al. 104
Table 7.4 (a) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Williams and Felix. 105
Table 7.4 (b) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Divakar. 105
Table 7.4 (c) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Elmoaty. 106
Table 7.4 (d) Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive
strength for Pandey 106
Table 7.4 (e) Mix design with granite powder and 28days compressive
strength for Bansal 107
Table 7.5 Mix design with lower granite powder usage
Table 7.5 (a) Mix design details in kg/m3 110
Table 7.5 (b) Strength data 110
xxv
Table 7.6 Mix design with lower marble powder usage
Table 7.6 (a) Mix design details in kg/m3 111
Table 7.7 Mix design with higher granite powder usage
Table 7.7 (a) Mix design details in kg/ m3 112
Table 7.8 Mix design with higher marble powder usage
Table 7.9 Mix design for control mixes
Table 7.10 Mix design for SCC mixes
Table 7.10 (b) Strength data for SCC mixes 126
Table 8.1 Admixture dosage demand
Table 8.1 (b) Casting details 148
Table 8.2 Different possible combinations of Powder content in concrete 151
Table 8.3 Possible marble/granite powder utilization in concrete 151
Table 8.4 Classes for SCC according to EFNARC
Table 8.4 (a) Slump flow classes 158
Table 8.4 (b) Viscosity classes 158
Table 8.4 (c) Passing ability classes (L-box) 158
Table 8.5 Rheological properties of granite powder concrete 159
xxvi
Table 8.6 Rheological properties of marble powder concrete 160
Table 8.7 Rheological properties of higher fly ash concrete 161
Table 8.8 Rheological properties of higher sand concrete 162
Table 8.9 Limiting values of Vft and T500 (in s) 162
Table 8.10 EFNARC limits for four groups of SCC 163
Table 8.11 Slope and intercept values of Vft vs. flow graphs 164
Table: 8.12 Details of reconfirmation casting with marble powder 182
Table: 8.13 Details of reconfirmation casting with granite powder 182
xxvii
xxviii
Symbols and Notations
AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
ASTM Int’l American Society for Testing and Materials International
BS British Standards
d10 10% of the particles in the tested sample are smaller than
EN European Standards
flow The average diameter of SCC on flow table during slump test (in mm)
f% Percentage replacement of cement by fly ash
IS Indian Standards
k-value Efficiency factor of fly ash at 28 days
MPa Mega-Pascal
NC Normal Concrete, that is, non-SCC
NS Naphthalene Sulfonate
OPC Ordinary Portland Cement
PCE Polycarboxylic Ether
s/a Weight of Sand to total Aggregate ratio
SCC Self-compacting concrete
SEM Scanning Electron Microscope
S.G. Specific Gravity
SSD Saturated Surface Dry
T500 Time for SCC to reach an average diameter of 500 mm on flow table (in s)
V Viscosity of SCC (reading from BT2 rheometer)
xxix
VMA Viscosity Modifying Agent
Vft V-funnel time (in sec)
w/b water to binder ratio, where binder is the sum of all cementitious materials
Yield stress Yield stress of SCC (reading from BT2 rheometer)
xxx
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
1.0 General
India is now at a stage where construction of roads, bridges, ports, factories, residential
complexes and commercial buildings will take place at a very rapid pace in the coming decade.
The concrete industry is one industry that is very important for any developing country where
a large amount of material is being consumed. Other than cement and steel, concrete requires
the utilization of fine and coarse aggregates. Production of cement and steel also requires a lot
of natural materials like fuel, iron ore, limestone, gypsum, etc. Today, besides fuel, concrete is
the most widely used material in the construction industry. The consumption of these non-
renewable resources is of deep concern. Use of fuel also depends on the consumption of cement
and steel in this industry. Though the usage of steel is a separate story, consumption of cement
without compromising the quality is in our hand.
The usage of sand and coarse aggregates is creating serious environmental concern. As
a result, most states restrict the mining of these materials. It is important to find ways to
minimize the depletion of these non-renewable resources without compromising on the pace of
development and cannot decelerate the pace of development in a fast developing country like
India. Any material that can be utilized to decrease utilization of natural resources will help in
decreasing the pace of consumption of the material and the construction process would be more
sustainable. Any decrease in the consumption of cement will also decrease the energy consumed
in manufacturing it.
The cement and concrete industries have seen a large amount of change. With the
introduction of plasticizers, there has been proper utilization of water. As a consequence, as the
amount of water and cement required for the concrete mix is reduced, it is now possible to make
1
Utilization of Marble and Granite Powders as Green Building Materials in Concrete
concrete of higher strength without compromising on the workability. Subsequently,
supplementary cementitious materials like fly ash, ground granulated blast-furnace slag
(GGBS), metakaolin, etc. were introduced to the concrete. The use of such material in making
concrete changed the concrete industry as it not only decreased the consumption of cement
without compromising its strength, but also enhanced the workability and durability of the
concrete. The particle size distribution of these materials is in a similar order as that of cement.
Introduction of micro-silica has helped us achieve a very high strength of concrete as it is much
finer than cement and enhances the mortar-coarse aggregate bond. Yet, our natural resources
are being depleted rapidly. Research is needed to find more alternate materials that can be used
to decrease the pace of consumption of these materials. In this respect, this thesis highlights the
possibility of the utilization of marble and granite powders in significant quantities in concrete
without compromising its quality. This would decrease the utilization of materials and help the
concrete to become a more sustainable green building material.
Marble and granite powders are the by-products of the processing industry of
dimensional stones. The particle sizes of these materials are similar to that of cement and fly
ash. Although some work has already been done in this field, these materials in construction
have not gained popularity. It is important to create an awareness by providing information
about the availability, material properties and method of utilization. This thesis presents the
results of field surveys and scientific experimental studies that can create confidence in the user
in the utilization of these materials in achieving end products of consistent quality.
This thesis highlights the benefits of the utilization of marble and granite powders in
normal, self-compacting concrete and high strength concrete. The usage of these powders
makes the concrete highly workable and can be consumed of the order of 360 kg/m3.
In addition to the technical details and theories, this thesis also presents the quantum of
granite and marble waste produced state-wise in India. The author had visited sites in Rajasthan
2
Chapter 1: Introduction
and Andhra Pradesh to understand the process of production of slurry as well as the extent of
environmental damages caused during the whole process.
1.1 Objective and scope of the work
The general objective of this thesis is to explore the potential of utilization of marble
and granite powder as green building materials in concrete. Quarry waste utilization is left
outside the scope of this project. The main objectives of this thesis are as follows:
1. To study the material properties and characterization of material used in the study
2. To confirm the availability of the material and highlight the environmental hazards
created.
3. To understand the method of water correction and the method of utilization of these
powder materials in concrete.
4. To study the strength development trends in normal concrete and self-compacting
concrete.
5. To study the powder content, plasticizer demand and other rheological properties in
normal concrete and self-compacting concrete.
In doing this work, site visits were carried out at two places, namely Kishangarh and
Makrana in Rajasthan, and Khammam district in Andhra Pradesh, for first hand visual
inspection of the production process, waste management and environmental hazards created by
these wastes.
This research started in 2006. Experimental research is a long journey that one can never
dream to fulfil alone. While doing this research, B. Tech students namely Mr. Jyoti Shanker
Pandey [2] and Mr. Anshu Bansal [3] worked in parallel in marble and granite powder
utilization, where the results showed lower than expected strength consistently. Problems of
strength prediction of fly ash utilization, led to the master’s thesis of Mr. Vimete Pusa [1].
3
1.2 Contents of the thesis
The main aim of this thesis is to understand the potential to utilize marble and granite
slurry waste in concrete, technically show that these materials could be used without
compromising the strength of material and exhibit their utilization benefits. The objective and
scope of the work has been presented in this chapter.
Chapter 2 presents the literature review of the thesis. Fly ash has been extensively used
in parallel with marble and granite powder. The strength prediction of fly ash in concrete as
presented by Pusa [1] is first presented as these results are extensively compared in this thesis.
Next, a brief definition of normal and self-compacting concrete is presented to understand the
scope of the work. This is followed by the work of Pandey [2] and Bansal [3] which showed
consistently lower strength contrary to expectations. Finally, the work done by others in the
utilization of marble and granite powders and others are presented.
Chapter 3 presents the experimental setup and equipment used in this research. This
chapter also presents a literature review of other equipment that were used by others in a similar
work. The setup pertaining to storage of material followed by the experiments for determination
of basic material properties is presented. The determination of particle size distribution and
particle shape of cement, marble and granite powders, micro-silica and fly ash were outsourced
to outside labs in Delhi. Physical and chemical properties of water, cement and fly ash were
also outsourced. The properties of cement were taken from the manufacturer of the cement.
Finally, mixer used, the setup for curing and equipment used for mechanical properties are
presented.
Chapter 4 presents the material properties of water, fine and coarse aggregate, chemical
admixtures, cement, fly ash and micro-silica, the materials used in the study. This is followed
by details of marble and granite stone as these are relevant to the discussion. Next a detailed
comparison of particle size of micro-silica, cement, fly ash, marble powder, granite powder,
sand, 10 mm and 20 mm aggregates are compared. Wherever relevant, confirmation with Indian
4
Chapter 1: Introduction
standards is also presented. Then the shape of cement, fly ash, marble powder and granite
powder are presented. Following that, the physical and chemical properties of marble and
granite powder are presented. Finally, the specific gravity and water absorption of marble and
granite powder are presented. Details related to these are presented in length in Chapter 6.
Chapter 5 presents amounts of reserves and production of marble and granite powders.
The author had visited Kishangarh, Makrana and Rajsmand in Rajasthan and Khammam in
Andhra Pradesh to understand the extraction and processing of marble and granite respectively.
Based on these visits, the process of extraction and quantification of slurry generated are
presented. An estimate of possible slurry consumption with appropriate assumptions is
presented. Possible environmental impacts are also explained.
Chapter 6 presents the importance of water correction in the fine powder material used
in concrete. This chapter emphasises that the determination of Saturated Surface Dry (SSD)
condition is extremely difficult for these fine powder materials. If one assumes marble and
granite powders are inert under normal condition, the gain or loss of strength and the
workability factor point out that marble and granite powders should have a significant water
absorption capacity. This matter is decided intuitively and is left as a scope to future research.
This chapter shows that after appropriate assumptions, the strength follows expected trends.
Mix design details and strengths are presented independently in the next chapter.
Chapter 7 presents the mechanical properties of normal and self-compacting concrete.
First, a critical analysis of past literature is presented. The mechanical properties of normal
concrete with compressive, flexural and tensile strength comparison at different ages are
presented. This chapter successfully presents application of marble and granite powder up to
360 kg/m3. It shows that after proper water correction all mechanical properties show similar
trend.
Chapter 8 presents impact of marble and granite powders on the workability, rheology
and deals with other important issues. Here, effect of particle shapes and sizes on workability
5
were evaluated and it was demonstrated through the mortar tests that while finalising the
admixture dosages quantities of marble and granite powders too to be considered. Various
scenarios of usage of marble and granite powders based on theoretical analysis are highlighted.
In this chapter, four groups of concrete mixes for SCC are compared where a major component
of powder come from different materials, namely granite and marble powders, fly ash and sand.
The objective of this chapter is to show that SCC can be successfully designed using marble or
granite powder. These materials were used up to 360 kg/m3 and the content was decreased for
higher strength as there was a significant amount of paste from cement itself in the latter case.
The rheological properties of SCC, namely flow, T500, V funnel and viscosity (rheometer) were
primarily measured. To verify the compatibility with EFNARC specifications [26], a few
experiments were done with L-Box also. Various interrelationships between the rheological
parameters were drawn to show interesting relationships.
Chapter 9 presents concluding remarks. The industry has always demanded these
powders to be supplied in dry form. This is almost practically impossible. It has been shown
that the powder can be utilized either in an absolute dry form or in an absolute wet form to gain
homogeneity. It was hence concluded that these powder is better utilized in absolute wet form
and can be consumed in concrete in large quantities.
6
CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.0 General
This research began in 2006. Marble and granite powders were new materials then and
so was the knowledge of plasticizer and SCC. Instruments were old and new equipment like
flow table, V-funnel, L-box, and U-tube were therefore procured. Rheometer purchasing was
an important to study rheological properties of SCC. Finally, a BT2 rheometer was purchased.
Various issues cropped up. The efficiency of fly ash was an important factor. Experimental
study is tedious work and requires a lot of time and labour.
In this thesis, fly ash has been extensively used in addition to marble and granite
powders. The strength of fly ash based concrete as predicted by Pusa [1] was first presented as
these results were extensively compared in this thesis. Next, a brief definition of normal and
self-compacting concrete was presented to understand the scope of the work. This was followed
by the work of Pandey [2] and Bansal [3] which showed a consistently lower strength as
compared to expectation. Finally, the work done by other researchers in utilization of marble
and granite powders is presented. The understanding of all these works forms the basis of this thesis.
2.1 Effectiveness of fly ash (k-value)
Fly ash is a pozzolanic material that reacts with calcium hydroxide released during the
reaction between cement and water to provide cementing or binding properties. The particles
have round shapes and contribute to the workability and decrease plasticizer demand. In fact,
fly ash usage is one of the most important factors in the development of self-compacting
concrete. However, it is difficult to predict the extent of contribution of fly ash to the strength
of concrete. For conducting any comparative study, certain parameters need to set. In this
7
research, mixes with similar 28 days strength are compared. In most of the initial experiments
[2, 3] and during the initial stages of experiments conducted by the author, the 28 days strengths
were lower than expected.
Washa and Withey [4] studied the effect on the strength and durability of fly ash based
concrete. In their study, it is reported that the quantity of fly ash used should be higher than the
quantity of Portland cement replaced in order to achieve a comparable 28 days strength as
compared to concrete made without fly ash (pure OPC). The concept of the efficiency factor of
fly ash (k-value) was first presented by Smith [5] in 1967 based on the strength criterion. He
suggested an efficiency factor of 0.25 for fly ash based concrete for mix proportioning at the
initial stage
In the case of fly ash from pulverised anthracite or bituminous coal, the CEB-FIP Model
Code 1990 [6] prescribes k-value of 0.4 for strength considerations, when the amount of fly ash
remains less than 15% of the cement content. EN 206-1:2000 [7] prescribes k-value of 0.2 for
CEM I 32.5 and 0.4 for CEM I 42.5 and higher for concrete made of CEM I conforming to EN
197-1. When fly ash is used with CEM I (OPC), the k-value vary between 0.2 and 0.6 while the
range is between 0.2 and 0.5 for cement types other than CEM I. The k-value of fly ash adopted
in the European Union member states was compared by Vollpracht and Brameschuber [8]. The
extract is shown in Table 2.1.
Babu and Rao [9, 10] studied the strength development behaviour of fly ash concrete at
7 days, 28 days and 90 days for cement replacement percentages by fly ash ranging from 0%
up to 75%. At 28 days, the efficiency factor varied from 1.15 to 0.33 for 15 to 75% replacement
range. This was the first paper that presented the gradual change of the efficiency factor with
the fly ash percentage. The behaviour of ASTM Class F and ASTM Class C fly ashes has been
reported to be quite similar.
8
Chapter 2: Literature Review
Table 2.1 k-values for fly ash in the EU member states [10]
EU Member k-value Application
State
Austria 0.4 CEM I, CEM II/A, CEM II/BCEM I, CEM II/A, CEM II/B;
strength class 42.5 and 52.5;
f/c = 0,33 for CEM I, lower values for CEM II;
min c according to EN 206-1
Belgium 0.2 CEM I, CEM III/A with f/c = 0.25
Denmark 0.5 Strength class 42.5 and 52.5 for CEM I, CEM II/A-L and LL; strength
class 42.5 and 52.5 for CEM I, CEM II/A-L and LL;
f/c = 0,67 for CEM I, 0,33 for CEM II;
min c as per EN 206-1
Finland 0.4 All cement types, but additions included in cement are taken into
account as type II additions to concrete
France 0.4 to 0.6 CEM I; strength class 42.5 and 52.5;
depending on f/c and min c as per EN 206-1
activity
index
Germany 0.4 (0.7 for CEM I, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM II/A-D, CEM II/A-P, CEM
underwater II/A-V, CEM II/A-T, CEM II/B-T, CEM II/A-LL, CEM II/A-M, some
concrete and CEM II/B-M, CEM III/A and CEM III/B with = 70% GGBS;
bore piles) f/c = 0,33 (special rules for cements with P, V, or D);
min c between 0 and 50 kg/m3 lower depending on exposure class.
Italy 0.2 CEM I, CEM II/A, CEM III/A, CEM IV/A, CEM V/A;
f/c and min c as per EN 206-1
Luxembourg 0.2 or 0.4 CEM I, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM II/A-LL, CEM III/A;
depending on f/c and min c as per EN 206-1
cement types
and strength
class
Netherlands 0.2 (0.4 for CEM I, CEM II; f/c and min c as per EN 206-1
CEM I 42,5)
Slovakia 0.2 CEM I, CEM II/A-S, CEM II/B-S, CEM III/A;
f/c and min c as per EN 206-1
Sweden 0.2 to 0.4 CEM I, CEM II; f/clinker = 0,33; min c as per EN 206-1
Pusa [1] carried out research to understand the effectiveness of the fly ash by assuming
a particular w/c and made mixes with three different k-values. The k-value that provided similar
strength with the control mix (0% fly ash) at 7 days or 28 days was considered as the correct k-
value as shown in Fig. 2.1. He later conducted confirmatory tests. The k-values at 28 days are
referred to in this research. Pusa [1] did not use micro-silica in his experiments. Here, w/c is
represented as:
𝑤 𝑤
= (2.1)
𝑏 𝑐 +𝑘 𝑓+𝑘1 𝑠
𝑘 = 𝑘(𝐹) (2.2)
𝐹 = 𝑓/(𝑐 + 𝑓) (2.3)
9
where,
w = water content (kg/m3),

b = effective binder content (kg/m3),
c = cement content (kg/m3),
k = efficiency factor of fly ash,
f = fly ash content (kg/m3),
k1 = efficiency factor of micro silica (assumed between 1.0 to 1.2),
s = micro silica content (kg/m3),
F = Fly ash as a percentage of total cementitious material.
The k-values predicted by Pusa [1] were however significantly lower than those presented by
1.40
Babu & Rao
1.20
Pusa (f% ≤ 21.61%)
1.00 Pusa (f% ≥ 21.61%)

k-value, 28 d
0.80
0.60
0.40
0.20
0.00
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
f%
Fig. 2.1 Comparison of k-values predicted [1, 9, 10]
Babu and Rao [9, 10], as shown in Fig. 2.2. It was realized that the effectiveness could be
different depending on the source, the source of material utilized to create fly ash and the
temperature of the furnace. Khuito [11] and Meera [12] have further carried out experiments to
validate Pusa’s [1] formulation over wide range of w/c and fly ash percentage.
10
2.2 Normal concrete and self-compacting concrete
Concrete as defined by IS 456 [13] has different workability limits for various
applications ranging between 25 mm and 150 mm slump. Now-a-days, Ready Mix Concrete
(RMC) or batching plant mixes prefer slump between 100-150 mm for pumpability. An external
vibrator is usually required for the compaction of normal concrete.
On the other hand, Self-Compacting Concrete (SCC) has a much higher workability.
Self-compacting concrete which is also known as self-consolidating concrete was developed in
Japan in 1988 [14]. It does not require any external vibration for its compaction. A lot of
Fig. 2.2 Mix proportion of SCC (top) vs. conventional concrete (bottom) [14]
Fig. 2.3 Trends in usage of s/a over the past 20 years [15]
PCE - Slump
1000 PCE - Flow
NS - Slump
Flow/Slump (mm)
800 NS - Flow
600
400
200
0
0 1 2 3
PCE Dosing / (NS-0.6) Dosing in % of Powder
Fig. 2.4 Effect of admixture dosing on workability [16]

11
research has been done on SCC [17 – 21]. Self-compacting concrete is a highly flowable
concrete that compacts itself into the formwork under its own weight without any need for
vibration. This high deformability is achieved by reducing the coarse aggregate content and
increasing the powder content (Fig. 2.3), and high range water reducing admixtures (Fig. 2.5).
Fig. 2.4 shows the statistical scatter of s/a used in making self-compacting concrete made in
last 20 years. It is clearly seen that for SCC s/a is normally in range of 40% - 50%. Fig. 2.5
shows the effect of admixture dosage on slump/ flow for two types of super-plasticizers namely
naphthalene sulfonates (NS) and poly carboxylic ether (PCE) based. Fig. 2.5 shows the effect
of increasing plasticizer dosage on slump/ slump flow. The slump/ slump flow increases with
the increasing dosage of admixture and at saturation dosage, there is no increase in slump/
slump flow even on the increased dosage. A similar trend is observed for both NS and PCE
types of admixtures Fly ash has been extensively used for this purpose. It not only decreases
the cost of concrete, but also creates the possibility of trapping the environmentally harmful
waste products in a good way. Fly ash also increases the long-term strength and durability of
concrete.
For self-compact ability along with high deformability of mortar in SCC, resistance of
aggregate to the segregation in mortar is important. The viscosity of mortar or paste, the
proportion of sand in mortar and the difference in density of mortar and coarse aggregate are
some of the important factors controlling the segregation resistance of concrete [22, 23]. When
sand-rich mix is used, the viscosity of the paste or the mortar can be enhanced by the viscosity
modifying admixture (VMA) [24, 25]. Viscosity can also be enhanced by increasing the fine
powder like cement, fly ash or micro-silica. SCC with a high powder content and without VMA
is termed powder type concrete. According to the European guidelines for SCC [26], powder is
defined as material of particle size smaller than 0.125 mm. Powder consists of cement and fine
fillers, such as fly ash, limestone powder, chalk, GGBS, etc.
12
Saak et al. [20] with their segregation control theory showed that the difference in the
density of cement paste and aggregate, the viscosity of cement paste and the yield stress of
cement paste are among the controlling factors of segregation stability of concrete. For a better
segregation resistance of concrete, the difference in the density of cement paste and aggregate must be
minimal. Generally aggregates (specific gravity, S.G. ~ 2.5) are heavier than mortar (S.G. ~ 2.2).
On the other hand, materials that are very fine enhance the viscosity too. According to
the author, the following are important:
a) SCC must have sufficient viscosity such that aggregates do not segregate. On the other
hand, it should not be so viscous (cohesive or sticky) that it becomes difficult to work
with.
b) Increase in cement (S.G.) ~ 3.14) content increases viscosity, but we want to limit
cement content for various well known reasons. The viscosity comes from its
fineness. Viscosity is also enhanced by its high specific gravity.
c) Micro-silica, (S.G. ~ 2.2) being much finer then cement, is expected to contribute to
the viscosity more strongly.
d) Hence, concrete with high strength requiring higher quantity of cement, and micro-
silica are very cohesive.
e) The spherical shape of the fly ash (S.G. ~ 2.2), decreases viscosity while its fineness
increases the viscosity.
f) Marble (S.G. ~ 2.54) and granite (S.G. ~ 2.37) powders are slightly coarser
compared to fly ash and have irregular shapes, as will be seen later. Hence, their
effect on rheology including viscosity is expected to be similar to fly ash.
The EFNARC specifications [26] are the most comprehensive standards for self-
compacting concrete developed after years of research. These specifications are used to
highlight the benefits of using marble and granite powders in SCC. Clearly, normal concrete
13
mix proportions and SCC mix proportions are different, with higher fines in the SCC mixes.
Even for normal mixes, it was found that providing higher amount of fines in the form of extra
fly ash or marble / granite powder is beneficial.
2.3 Initial experiment with marble and granite powders
Pandey [2] experimented with the use of marble powder in self-compacting concrete at
the IIT Delhi. First, dry marble powder was used, while accounting for water correction by
adding water. This showed inconsistent results. Hence it was concluded that marble powder
should be used in a wet conditions only, with water content slightly higher than the SSD
condition. The values of water absorption and specific gravity for the marble powder were
reported to be 5.5% and 2.54 respectively. This was quite close to the present results. When fly
ash was replaced with marble powder volumetrically, the viscosity was reported to have
increased with the increase of replacement at constant flow. This was attributed to the increased
specific gravity of the marble powder. Even though water correction was done, the strength
development was not as expected like Pusa’s[1].
Bansal [3] used granite powder in normal and SCC mixes at IIT Delhi. The flow, T500
and V-funnel time were noted. Segregation was not noticed with the segregation apparatus
proposed by Ramakrishnan [27]. In this experiment, a specific gravity of 2.13 and water
absorption of 11.84% for granite powder were used. In the SCC series, up to 104 kg/m3 of
granite powder were used. It was noticed that with the increase in granite powder as replacement
for sand, the plasticizer demand increased, implying that the fineness of granite powder being
of the order of cement and fly ash, affect the workability. The strength here too shows lower
strength compared to expected results of Pusa [1].
14
2.4 Utilization of marble and granite wastes in other literature
Many researchers tried replacing of cement with marble powder. The strength always
decreased in such experiments. Omar et al. [28] reported that the strength of marble slurry along
with lime provided extra strength. Ambarish et al. [29] presented some cases of granite fines in
hollow blocks. Felix Kala et al. [30, 31] utilized granite powder in making concrete. Sand was
replaced with granite powder 0 - 100% (0 - 806 kg/m3), the strength variation was almost negligible.
Divakar et al. [32] utilized granite powder to make concrete of M 20 grade and found the increase
in strength of 22% with 35% replacement of fines. Elmoaty [33] presented the utilization of granite
powder as a replacement for cement up to 15% (60 kg). The 28 days compressive strength decreased
from about 45 MPa to about 39 MPa. Vijayalakshmi et al. [34] substituted fine aggregate in concrete
with granite powder up to 25% or 160 kg/m3 with w/c of 0.40 with only water (186 kg/m3) and
cement (465 kg/m3). Utilization of plasticizer was not mentioned and there was a slump loss (120
mm to 0 mm) with the increase in percentage utilization of granite powder. The 28 days strength of
40 MPa marginally dropped to 35 MPa.
Vaidevi [35] utilized marble powder up to 20% replacement of cement with water content
of 191.6 kg/m3and cement of 407.65 kg/m3. With w/c of 0.47, 28 days strength of 39.2 MPa was
reported. With the replacement of cement with marble powder up to 20% (81.53 kg/m3), the
strength decreased to about 30 MPa. Like in the case of granite powder, here too cement
replacement resulted in an increase of w/c resulting in decrease in strength. Shelke et al. [36]
presented a similar result. Up to 16% replacement of cement is reported to be replaced with marble
powder resulted in a decrease in the compressive strength from 45 MPa to 32 MPa and 23.4 MPa
to 19.25 MPa. Corinaldesi et al. [37] reported the utilization of marble powder in the mortar up to
135 kg/m3 as a replacement for sand and cement. The water content was changed to maintain the
same workability. The compressive strength decreased by 10% when marble powder was replaced
with sand, and by 20% when it replaced with cement. The marble powder showed a filler effect and
15
did not affect hydration. Awol [38] reported the utilization of marble powder with w/c of 0.56 and
0.34. The cement replacement resulted in a decrease in strength. The sand replacement provided a
marginal increase in strength. The marble powder utilized was up to 180 kg/m3approximately.
Hameed et al. [39] used marble sludge powder and quarry rock dust and reported a moisture
absorption of 23.35% and 24.25% respectively. Sand was replaced with 50% quarry rock dust and
50% with marble sludge powder. The control mix had water content of 234 kg/m3; cement of 425
kg/m3; sand of 770 kg/m3; and coarse aggregate of 868 kg/m3. It was found that the control mix had
a flow of 420 mm as compared to the replaced mix having flow of 657 mm. The V-funnel time
changed from 23 s to 14 s. The modified mix qualified as a self-compacting concrete.
Hamza et al. [40] utilized marble and granite waste of different sizes in manufacturing
concrete bricks with a full replacement of conventional coarse and fine aggregates of marble waste
scraps and slurry powder of content up to 40%. In their experiment, the marble slurry had a d50 (d50
denotes that 50% of the particles in the tested sample are smaller than this diameter) of 5 m, d90 of
25 m while granite slurry had a d50 of 8m; d90 of 35 m. The specific gravities of marble and
granite were reported to be 2.768 and 2.837 respectively, and the water absorption was 23.25% and
27.25% respectively. The specific gravity seemed to be of the order of the parent rock, whereas
water absorption looked very high. It is not clear if this water absorption represented the total water
content of the system or the SSD condition water content. The quantity of water used in the mix
was not mentioned. Fine aggregates were replaced with slurry. The 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% of
marble sludge had a cement content of 235 kg/m3, 232 kg/m3, 220 kg/m3, and 210 kg/m3
respectively and a compressive strength of 39.6 MPa, 39.4 MPa, 28.3 MPa and 22 MPa
respectively. For the granite sludge, the strengths were 43.5 MPa, 37 MPa and 24 MPa respectively.
Al-Joulani [41] reported the use of slurry from the stone cutting industry with calcium
carbonate as the main constituent, which implied marble slurry. He mentioned that the disposal of
such slurry on land causes reduction in water infiltration, soil fertility and plant growth. He reported
16
a specific gravity of 2.46 and mentioned various applications like PVC pipes, concrete bricks, floor
tiles, texture paint, pottery, ceramics, decorative and ornament products in addition to concrete. He
reported 28 days compressive strength of 26 MPa and 31 MPa with no mention of mix design or
quantity of slurry used.
Almeida et al. [42,43] studied stone slurry with particle sizes of d10 as 1.5 m, d50 as 4 m
and d90 as 44 mwhich were quite similar to the material used by the author) and replaced 100%
sand with slurry. The mix designs were not mentioned. The compressive strengths decreased from
85 MPa to 50 MPa for w/c 0.36 and 0.50 respectively. Though the trend is understandable from the
w/c values, an 85 MPa strength at w/c of 0.36 or a 50 MPa at w/c of 0.50 looks extremely high.
Belaidi et al. [44] examined the effect of the substitution of cement with natural pozzolana
and marble powder on the rheological and mechanical properties of self-compacting mortars and
self-compacting concrete. For concrete, the water was kept at 190 kg/m3; sand at 886 kg/m3; 10 mm
aggregate at 277 kg/m3; 20 mm aggregate at 553 kg/m3. The powder content was kept as a constant
at 475 kg/m3and varied OPC, pozzolana and marble powder with typical mixes (475, 0, 0) kg/m3,
(356, 119, 0) kg/m3, (285, 48, 142) kg/m3. With an efficiency factor proposed by Pusa [1], w/c
becomes 0.40, 0.43, and 0.57. The 28 days compressive strength of (37, 25, 19 MPa) was logical
but slightly on the lower side. The flow values of the three mixes were 760, 270, and 802 mm, and
the respective V-funnel time were 6.08, Nil and 5.92s. This clearly showed that marble powder
enhanced the flow properties of self-compacting concrete in a positive way.
Topcu et al. [45] utilized marble dust in SCC. He utilized up to 300 kg/m3of marble. The
constituents were: water – 190 and 197 kg/m3; cement– 495 and 295 kg/m3; fly ash – 55 and 25
kg/m3; and marble powder – 0 and 300 kg/m3. Hunger et al. [46] utilized natural stone waste
powders in SCC- both granite and marble slurries. Mixes compared had water (165, 191) kg/m3;
cement (300, 200) kg/m3; limestone (184.3, 0) kg/m3; marble powder (0, 394.1) kg/m3. Mix 'B' had
much better self-compacting properties, however, 28 days strength were 57.8 MPa and 33.3 MPa.
17
Hameed et al. [47] used marble powder in M 20, M 30 and M 40 for SCC with consumption of
141, 124, and 117 kg/m3. The strength differences with and without marble powder were
insignificant. Omar et al. [28] replaced sand with limestone and marble powder. This is the only
paper that mentioned reactivity of marble powder, and mentioned that the combination of lime stone
and marble powder provided maximum benefits. The increase in 28 days strength varied from 35
MPa to 40 MPa and 40 MPa to 45 MPa,in the utilization of limestone or marble powder.
Hebhoub et al. [48] utilized marble waste as coarse aggregates in concrete. Binici et al. [49]
studied the durability of concrete made with granite and marble as coarse aggregates.
Nagabhushana and Bai [50] used crushed rock powder to replace fine aggregates in mortar and
concrete. The particle size distribution was not mentioned. Fine aggregates were replaced with
crushed rock powder up to 40%. The reported increase in strength wasss up to 11% for concrete
grade of M 20; 12% for M 30 and 3% for M 40. Misra et al. [51] reported utilization of marble
slurry in pavements.
2.5 Conclusion
The efficiency factor (k-value) for fly ash as proposed by Pusa [1] was used for computation
of the w/b ratio. In self-compacting concrete, EFNARC specifications [26] were used. It was
expected that marble and granite powder will contribute to the paste content.
A number of researchers tried using marble and granite powders in various ways. Some
used them as a replacement for cement and reported a drop in strength. Some considered it as a
replacement for fine aggregate without change in strength, while a few reported a gain in strength.
It is not clear in which state the granite and marble powders were used, that is, as dry powder or wet
slurry. As compared to granite powder, several studies had been reported using marble powder in a
variety of ways starting with replacement of cement, natural pozzolana, fine aggregates, in self-
compacting concrete, cement bricks etc.
18
CHAPTER 3
EQUIPMENT, SETUP AND EXPERIMENTS
3.0 General
The equipment used plays an important role in any experimental research. The results
depend on the equipment available. This chapter presents a study of all the equipment, setup
and experiments that were used in a similar research, with a clear legend about the availability
of the equipment or setup for this research. Relevant standards are referred to for these
equipment and test protocols.
3.1 Storage of material.
Cement reacts with moisture in air. Even though fly ash and micro silica are non-
reactive, they are hygroscopic in nature. Water correction is generally not done for them. Hence,
all these cementitious materials are carefully stored in plastic drums with air tight caps ensuring
there is no exposure to the moisture. Marble and granite powders were procured in the form
of cakes. Gradually with time they dry to become powder. In these experiments, since these
powders were pre-wetted with water to get a homogeneous soft paste, water correction was
done to take care of extra water present in the marble and granite pastes. Storage of these
materials was not done as carefully as for cement, fly ash and micro silica. Fine and coarse
aggregates were stored in bins open to the sky outside the laboratory room. The bins were then
covered with plastic sheets to prevent contamination from leaves.
3.2 Material property determination
Material property determination is an important part of any experimental study.
Characterization of materials used in the experiments is essential. Table 3.1 presents a list of
19
Table 3.1 Experiments and standards related to material property determination [52-63]
S.No. Equipment Name IS Code International Code Remarks
1 Sieve Sets IS 2720 (Pt 4) ASTM D422 For gradation of aggregates
2 Pycnometer IS 2386 (Pt 3) ASTM C128 for Sp. Gr. of aggregates
3 SSD Cone and beaker AASHTO T 84 for SSD condition of fine aggregates
4 Specific Gravity Bucket IS 2386 (Pt 3) ASTM C127 for Sp. Gr. of aggregates
5 Length Gauge IS 2386 (Pt 1) BS812 Elongation Index of aggregates
6 Thickness Gauge IS 2386 (Pt 1) BS812 Flakiness Index of aggregates
7 Impact Value IS 2386 (Pt 4) IS 9377 BS812 Toughness of aggregates
8 Crushing Value IS 2386 (Pt 4) BS812 Strength of aggregates

ASTM C131,
9 Los Angeles Abrasion IS 2386 (Pt 4) Abrasion resistance of aggregates
ASTM C535
standards, and guidelines that formed the basis of these experiments. In this research, sieve
analysis, specific gravity, silt content, elongation index, and flakiness index tests were carried
out for aggregates, while specific gravity and water absorption tests were carried out for marble
and granite powders. ZEISS EVO Series Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM)-Model EVO
50 at IIT Delhi was used for examining the particle shape of cement, fly ash, marble and granite
powders and micro-silica. The determination of particle size distribution of cement, marble
powder, granite powder, micro-silica and fly ash were outsourced to outside labs in Delhi.
Physical and chemical properties of water, cement and fly ash were also outsourced. The
properties of cement were taken from the cement manufacturer. Matters related to specific
gravity and water absorption of marble and granite in SSD condition are dealt with in detail in
Chapter 6.
3.3 Mixers
Mixing is one of the prime tasks in making concrete. Various types of mixers exist as
shown in Fig. 3.1 namely tilting drum type, pan type, ribbon type or twin shaft type mixers. In
this research, a tilting type drum mixer as shown in Fig 3.1 (a) was used. It is well known that
20
Chapter 3: Equipment, Setup and Experiments
a rotating drum mixer is not the most efficient mixer. A few experiments on SCC mixes were
done in a pan type mixer Fig. 3.1 (b). The rheological properties of concrete and plasticizer
consumption were different implying that the rheological properties of concrete depend highly
on the type of mixer used.
3.4 Workability
Workability represents the ease with which the concrete can be placed after mixing.
Alternatively, workability is also defined as the energy required for full compaction. Such
definitions are meaningful for concrete with relatively dry consistency, and tests like the
compaction factor test and vebe test were popular. Nowadays, with the development of
plasticizers and the introduction of mineral admixtures like fly ash, GGBS etc., pumpable
a) Tilting drum type mixer b) Pan type mixer
Fig. 3.1 Laboratory scale concrete mixers
a) Slump test - concrete b) mini slump cone - mortar b) Flow table
Fig. 3.2 Different types of tests for workability
21
concrete is a norm. Other than the roller compacted concrete, dry lean concrete or pavement
quality concrete, where a very low slump up to 20-30 mm is required, most of the present day
mechanised concrete requires a slump of the order of 100-150 mm. This slump is measured
using a simple apparatus like a slump cone as shown in Fig 3.2 (a) (IS 7320 and ASTM C143)
[64, 65]. This apparatus has no scientific basis but its user friendly simplicity has made it
universally acceptable. Relative change in slump is often used as quality control mechanism for the
concrete. Often concrete in the range of 180 - 200 mm slump is expected to bleed and segregate.
This is, however, not true where the powder content is high as in the high strength concrete range.
Self-compacting concrete is the next readily acceptable and highly workable concrete
where the material can flow between the heavily congested reinforcement without material
segregation. The mix design of SCC is very different from that of concrete in a pumpable range. This
matter will be discussed in later chapters. Here, the workability is measured using different type of
equipment. In this range we often use the term ‘rheological properties’ in place of ‘workability’.
The flow table as shown in Fig. 3.2(b) has become extremely popular. Flow refers to
the maximum average diameter the concrete spreads on its own. T500 is the time required for
the flow to reach a diameter of 500 mm. The EFNARC specifications [26] mention various
other experiments like V- funnel, J-ring, L box, U box, Fill box, GTM screen stability test and
orimet tests as shown in Fig. 3.3-3.4, to study the flowing ability, the passing ability and the
segregation resistance of self-compacting concrete.
The EFNARC specifications are a result of the joint effort, of five organizations: BIBM
– The European Precast Concrete Organisation, CEMBUREAU – The European Cement
Association, ERMCO – The European Ready-mix Concrete Organisation, EFCA – The
European Federation of Concrete Admixture Associations and EFNARC – The European
22
Flow Table
515
Flow (550-850mm) 75
500 dia (T500)
450
200 dia (mould) Pulled out

150
65
(a) Flow Table showing T500 (b) V Funnel
200 100
Sliding Door
2 or 3 x 12 f smooth bars
Gaps between bars 59 or 41 mm 450
600 Reinfor cing bar
Door Pulled out

H1
140
150
H2
700 280
(c) L Box (d) U Tube
Fig. 3.3 Schematic diagram of equipment for SCC
Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems. These European
guidelines [26] for self-compacting concrete define the acceptance criteria with slump flow
classes of SF1, SF2 and SF3, viscosity classes of VS1/VF1, VS2/ VF2 using T500 and the V funnel
time and passing ability classes of PA1 and PA2 using the L-box and segregation resistance classes
of SR1 and SR2 using the sieve segregation test. These details are presented in Table 3.2.
Fig. 3.5 presents a segregation resistance apparatus that was presented by
Ramakrishnan [25] and used by Pandey [2] and Bansal [3].This apparatus finds the percentage
decrease in density in the top in comparison to the bottom of a 400 mm column. In this test, a
thin plate is required to be inserted in the top and bottom to be able to measure the weights.
23
Table 3.2 Classification used in specification of SCC [26]
Fig. 3.4 Tests for SCC
24
ASTM C 1610 (2010)
Fig. 3.5 Static segregation column test apparatus for SCC [25, 66]
Fig. 3.6 Different types of rheometers [67, 68]
25
Fig. 3.7 BT2 rheometer
BT2 - Flow curve
12 02_02_2008 12_44_46
BT-2 HB equation Linear (BT-2 ) Poly. (HB equation)
1000
900
800
700
y = 8548.4x + 41.64
Torque [Nmm]
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
0.000 0.010 0.020 0.030 0.040 0.050 0.060 0.070 0.080 0.090
Speed [m/s]
Fig. 3.8 Typical readings of BT2 rheometer
26
It was realized that it was impossible to insert the plate in the bottom section. The static
segregation column mould adopted in ASTM C1610 (2010) [66] was similar to this apparatus
with circular cross-section. This test was not used by the author in the SCC experiments as all
the mixes adopted had good enough viscosity and had no issues of segregation.
A rheometer is a device that is used to understand the rheology of the liquid material.
Often a paste type material with a high viscosity is studied in food and pharmaceutical sectors.
There are various concepts available. Various researchers have tried different types of
rheometers of various different sizes to study the rheology of cement paste and SCC. Fig. 3.6
shows various rheometers used till date. Rheometers that control the applied shear stress or
shear strain are called rotational or shear rheometers are more popular.
Tattersall’s two point rheometer is one of the earliest concrete rheometer developed by
Tattersall. This type of rheometer has offset H-shaped blades that move in a planetary motion
in the concrete. This device is intended for studying lower workability mixes with slump less
than 50 mm. This instrument also works better for self-compacting concrete and high
performance mixes with high plastic viscosity.
The IBB rheometer is based on rotating an impeller in fresh concrete contained within
a cylindrical vessel. The apparatus is fully automated and uses a data acquisition system to drive
an impeller rotating in fresh concrete. This apparatus can be used to test concrete with slumps
ranging from 20 mm to 300 mm. It has been successfully used for self-compacting concrete,
high-performance concrete, pumped concrete, dry and wet-process shotcrete, fiber reinforced
concrete, and normal concrete.
The ICAR Rheometer consists of a cylindrical container with a series of vertical rods
around the perimeter to prevent the slipping of concrete. A four blade vane is held by a chuck
on the driver. The torque is recorded and flow parameters are calculated by a software. A 32
mm maximum size of aggregates can be used. Concrete should have a slump more than 50 mm.
27
The BTRHEOM rheometer is a parallel plate rheometer consisting of two horizontal
plates one under the concrete and another above it. The motor rotates the upper plate. The torque
generated by the motion is measured through the upper plate.
The ConTec BML viscometer is a coaxial cylindrical rheometer. The outer cylinder
rotates at a variable speed and the torque is measured by the inner cylinder. The instrument can
be used by different measurement systems depending on the maximum grain size. Generally
for concrete the maximum aggregate size 20 mm, C200 system is used. During the test, the
concrete is exposed to 1min shear at different speeds. The torque and speed readings are noted
and recorded in the computer using a Freshwin software.
The BT2 rheometer is a simple apparatus relatively lower in cost, as shown in Fig. 3.7.
This is a new type of rheometer, especially made for concretes. This is quite compact with an
automatic rheometer and can be used in the field as well as in a lab. The rheometer has two
probes at two different radial distances. The concrete sample is poured into the cylindrical
container up to a height of 10 cm. The rheometer is rotated manually. Just one rotation is
required to take the reading. The rheometer automatically takes the readings of the torque on
two probes corresponding to different angular velocities in rad/sec. These readings are stored
in the rheometer and can be transferred to a palm top provided with it. Rheological parameters
are automatically provided by the software base on the Bingham model of concrete. It may be
noted that the probes measure the moment resisted by the probes. This is expected to be
proportional to the shear stress. Fig. 3.8 shows typical readings. In this case, the body is rotated
by hand. The speed cannot be maintained at a constant speed. Hence the rheometer provides
large scatter of data showing moment vs. speed of rotation. The trend line plotted provides the
shear stress as the intercept, while the slope refers to the viscosity of the fluid. Like the slump
test, this test too is simple, the equipment can be carried from one site to another and results
give a good understanding of the rheology of the concrete. While experiments were carried out,
28
we noticed that shear stress often showed negative results especially when the mix was highly
cohesive with a higher viscosity.
3.5 Curing
IS 516: 1959 (Reaffirmed 1999) [69] mentions curing to be done for 28 days at a
temperature of 27° ± 2°C submerged in clean fresh water or in saturated lime solution. The New
Delhi ambient temperature variation and precipitation are shown in Fig. 3. 9. In winter, nights
are long and cold, where as in summer, the days are long with temperatures above 40ºC.
Experimental castings work for this research was discontinued during extreme cold or hot
periods. The specimens were stored wet in open water tanks as shown in Fig. 3.10.
45 300
40 Min Max
250
35
Precipitation (mm)
Temperature ( C)
30 200
25
150
20
15 100
10
50
5
0 0
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month Month
Fig 3.9 Temperature and precipitation variations in New Delhi (typical) [70]
Table 3.3 Standards and specimen size for mechanical properties of concrete [69, 71-73]
S.No. Test Name Specimen Size (mm) Codes Remarks

1 Uniaxial Compression
20 mm nominal maximum
a) Cube 100 IS 516
size of aggregate
b) Cube 150 IS 516
Cylindrical dia at least 3 times
c) Cylinder 150 dia 300 ht IS 516
the nominal maximum size of
d) Cylinder 150 dia 300 ht ASTM C31
coarse aggregate
e) Cylinder 100 dia 200 ht ASTM C31
2 Flexure
upto 19 mm nominal size
a) Beam 100 x 100 x 500 IS 516
of aggregate
b) Beam 150 x 150 x 700 IS 516, ASTM C31
3 Split Tensile
a) Cylinder 150 dia 300 ht IS 5816, ASTM C192 not less then 150 mm
b) Cube 150 IS 5816 not less then 150 mm
c) Cylinder 100 dia 200 ht
ASTM C192 Same as ASTM C31 as above
d) Cube 100
29
3.6 Mechanical properties at hardened stage
IS 516: 1959 (reaffirmed 1999) mentions the experimental details. In this experimental
research, cube compressive, flexural and split tensile strength tests were conducted. These tests
were mostly carried out with the load controlled compression testing machine (CTM) of 100
ton capacity (Fig. 3.10). The flexural strength test was conducted using a displacement
controlled equipment as shown in Fig. 3.11. Table 3.3 provides the provisions of the standards
for these tests. In this research, a 100 mm cube for compression, a 100 mm cylinder for split
and a 100 mm x 100 mm x 500 mm beam for flexure were adopted
Fig 3.10 Open curing tank
(a) Load-controlled (b) Servo-controlled
Fig. 3.11 Compression testing machines
30
CHAPTER 4
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
4.0 General
Concrete is often referred to as a man-made stone. The basic constituents of concrete
are cement, aggregates (both coarse and fine) and water. Later researchers explored the
possibility of utilizing supplementary cementitious material like natural pozzolana, fly ash,
ground granulated blast furnace slag, micro-silica etc. During the mid-twentieth century, the
possibility of using chemical admixtures to enhance the properties of concrete was explored.
With the evolution of society, construction activities were consuming the non-renewable
resources at a fast pace. For quite some time, researchers were exploring gainful utilization of
alternative waste material in concrete from other industries. Fly ash and Ground Granulated
Blast furnace Slag (GGBS) are a few of the well accepted industrial wastes that are being used
in concrete.
Marble and granite powders are produced as a post-processing waste from the marble
and granite industries and pose a severe threat to the environment. Use of marble and granite
powders in concrete, is the central theme of this thesis. These materials are produced by the
sawing and polishing process of such stones. The extent of the production and damages that
these materials cause are presented in Chapter 5. In order to understand and utilize these
materials properly, it is important to understand their physical and chemical properties.
In this chapter, properties of materials used in the experiments – water, aggregates and
admixtures are first presented. Next, the properties of the fine materials – cement, fly ash, micro
silica, marble powder and granite powder are presented. Particle size, physical and chemical
properties, and other relevant information are also presented.
31
4.1 Water
Potable water from the municipal supply at IIT Delhi was used in the casting of the
concrete mixes. The same water was used for curing of concrete samples. Table 4.1 lists the
test results of water used in this work as per IS standards [13, 74]. This water conforms to all
the provisions required for water to be used for construction purposes. Acidity test was done to
neutralize 100 ml sample of water, using phenolphthalein as an indicator as given in clause 8.1
of IS 3025 (Part 22). It should not require more than 5 ml of 0.02 normal NaOH. Alkalinity test
was done to neutralize 100 ml sample of water, using a mixed indicator as given in 8 of IS 3025
(Part 23). It should not require more than 25 ml of 0.02 normal H2SO4. The solid content and
pH limits are also mentioned as shown in Table 4.1.
Table 4.1 Test results of water used in experiment [13,74]
Sl. IS 456 : 2000 limits

Tests Results
No. Value Clause
1 Alkalinity test 21.9 25 ml of 0.02 N H2SO4 max. clause 5.4 (b)
2 Acidity test 0.3 5 ml of 0.02 N NaOH max. clause 5.4 (a)
Permissible limits for solids
3 Organic matter 110 200 mg/l max.
4 Inorganic solids 282 3000 mg/l max.
5 Sulphates, SO3 40 400 mg/l max.
clause 5.4, table 1
for PCC 2000 mg/l max.
6 Chlorides, Cl 106
for RCC 500 mg/l max.
7 Suspended matter Nil 2000 mg/l max.
8 pH 7.4 6 min. clause 5.4.2
4.2 Fine and coarse aggregates
Fine and coarse aggregate are very important constituents of concrete. These are non-
renewable material. IS 383: 1970 [75] provides the definition and allowable limits for utilization
of these materials. There are strict guidelines and classifications for these materials for
utilization in concrete. As per Indian Standards IS 383 [75], fine aggregate or sand is classified
into four zones depending on its fineness. While gradation of sand falling in Zone 1 is coarse,
32
Chapter 4: Material Properties
the gradation of sand that falls in Zone 4 is very fine. The construction industry prefers use of
sand conforming to Zone 2 and Zone 3. For coarse aggregates, the limits of particle size
distribution of 10 mm aggregate and 20 mm aggregate are mentioned as single sized aggregate.
It also provides the allowable limit if the aggregates are available as combination of 10 mm and
20 mm aggregate, known as graded aggregate. The all-in aggregate gradation has to be checked
for limits. The coarse aggregates were tested according to the specifications of Indian standards
IS 2386 [52-54]. The IS 383 also mentions other tests that are necessary for utilization of these
materials for construction purposes.
Table 4.2 shows the sieve analysis results and the particle size distributions are plotted
for both coarse aggregates and fine aggregates used in this study in Fig. 4.1. Each of these
graphs is shown along with its respective recommended acceptance limits. It is clear that the
sand used in this study conforms to Zone 2. Table 4.3 shows the physical properties of sand
while Table 4.4 shows the physical properties of coarse aggregate used in this study.
4.3 Chemical admixtures
Over the years, there has been a gradual development in water reducing admixtures.
Initially, lingo sulphonate was used as water reducer with its inherent problems of retardation
depending on the sugar content in the plasticizer. The water reduction capacity was 5 - 7%.
Then next generation admixtures came with a beta napthelene sulphonate base and a melamine
sulphonate base, where the water reduction capacity was up to 15 – 20%. The latest generation
superplasticizers are Poly Carboxylic Ether (PCE) based upon the water reduction capacity in
range of 25 - 30%. In this research Glenium B233 (renamed Master Glenium SKY 8233) from
M/s BASF India Ltd. was used for all types of concrete castings. This admixture used in this
study is a PCE based admixture, light brown in colour with a pH ≥ 6 and a specific gravity of
1.08 ± 0.01 at 25°C. This admixture conforms to Type F of ASTM C494 [76] and IS9103 [77].
33
120
20 mm max
100 Actual 20 mm
20 mm Min
10 mm Max
80 Actual 10 mm
Percentage Passing
10 mm Min
Zone 2 Max
Actual Sand
60 Zone 2 Min
40
20
0
0.05 0.5 5 50
Sieve Size (mm)
Fig. 4.1 Percentage passing and limits for aggregates
Table 4.2 Sieve analysis results of coarse and fine aggregates used
Sieve Size Retained Weight (20 Retention Cumulative Requirements of IS

Passing (%)
(mm) mm Aggregates), g (%) Retention (%) 383 - 1970
20 130 2.6 2.6 97.4 85 - 100
12.5 3970 79.4 82.0 18.0 -
10 610 12.2 94.2 5.8 0 - 20
4.75 290 5.8 100.0 0.0 0-5
Pan 0 0.0 - 0.0 -
TOTAL 5000
Sieve Size Retained Weight (10 Retention Cumulative Requirements of IS

Passing (%)
(mm) mm Aggregates), g (%) Retention (%) 383 - 1970
12.5 40 0.8 0.8 99.2 100
10 460 9.2 10.0 90.0 85 - 100
4.75 3940 78.8 88.8 11.2 0 - 20
2.36 510 10.2 99.0 1.0 0-5
Pan 50 1.0 100.0 0.0 -
TOTAL 5000
Requirements of IS
Sieve Size Retained Weight Retention Cumulative
Passing (%) 383 - 1970
(mm) (Natural Sand), g (%) Retention (%)
(Grading Zone II)
10 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100
4.75 150 7.5 7.5 92.5 90 - 100
2.36 250 12.5 20.0 80.0 75 - 100
1.18 390 19.5 39.5 60.5 55 - 90
0.600 230 11.5 51.0 49.0 35 - 59
0.300 610 30.5 81.5 18.5 8 - 30
0.150 190 9.5 91.0 9.0 0 - 10
Pan 180 9.0 100.0 0.0 -
TOTAL 2000
34
Table 4.3 Physical properties of fine aggregate used
Sl. No. Particulars of Test Test Results

1 Bulk density, g/cc 1.74
2 Specific gravity 2.62
3 Water absorption, % by weight 1
4 Silt content, % by volume 6
5 Deleterious materials, % by mass -
a Material finer than 75 micron 2.45
b Coal and lignite 0.15
c Clay lumps 0.21
d Total deleterious material 2.81
6 Soundness (after 5 cycles), % loss in weight -
a With sodium sulphate 1.5
b With magnesium sulphate 2.2
Table 4.4 Physical properties of coarse aggregate used
Sl. No. Particulars of Test Test Results Test Results Requirements as per
(10 mm) (20 mm) IS 383 - 1970
1 Bulk density, g/cc 1.59 1.58 -
2 Specific gravity 2.93 2.93 -
3 Water absorption, % by weight 0.63 0.31 -
4 Flakiness index, % 12.6 12.70 -
5 Elongation index, % 15.1 15.00 -
6 Aggregate crushing value, % 17.2 12.20 30 (Max)- Wearing
7 Aggregate impact value, % 13.5 12.00 surface
8 Aggregate abrasion value 30 (Max)- Wearing
19.5 19.70
(Los Angeles), % 50 (Max)- Non-wearing
9 Deleterious material, %
a Material finer than 75 micron 0.22 0.20 3.0
b Coal and lignite Nil Nil 1.0
c Clay lumps Nil Nil 1.0
d Total deleterious material 0.22 0.2 5.0
10 Soundness (after 5 cycles), %
a With sodium sulphate 0.60 0.82 12 (Max)
b With magnesium sulphate 0.80 0.97 18 (Max)
11 Alkali aggregate reactivity
a Dissolved silica
55.10 42.30 -
(millimoles/litre)
b Reduction in alkalinity
105.70 121.70 -
(millimoles/litre)
12 Nature of aggregate Innocous Innocous Innocous
35
4.4 Cement
Cementing material has been in use since ancient times. The Greeks and Romans used
calcined limestone, and with time learned to add lime and water, sand and aggregates. This was
perhaps the first concrete that was used in construction. Joseph Aspdin, a bricklayer from Leeds,
UK in 1824[78] burnt limestone and clay in his kitchen stove and discovered Portland cement.
The name Portland cement is given originally due to its resemblance to Portland stone – a
variety of lime stone quarried in Dorset.
Cement is a hydraulic binder i.e. it reacts in the presence of water and forms a strength
giving binding material - calcium silicate hydrate along with the calcium hydroxide, besides
generation of heat. ASTM C150 [79] defines Portland cement as a “hydraulic cement produced
by pulverizing clinkers consisting essentially of hydraulic calcium silicates, and a small amount
of one or more forms of calcium sulphate as an inter-ground addition. Clinkers are 5 to 25 mm
diameter nodules of a sintered material that is produced when a raw mixture of predetermined
composition is heated to high temperatures.”
The basic raw material in the manufacture of Portland cement consists mainly of lime,
silica, alumina and iron oxide. The manufacturing process of cement consists of grinding all
the raw material, mixing the raw material in fixed proportions and burning them in a large rotary
kiln at temperatures of 1450°C. At this high temperature, the material sinters and fuses in the
shape of balls, which is normally referred to as clinker. These clinkers are then cooled and
grounded to a very fine powder with the damage some gypsum added during the grinding stage,
resulting in a product called Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC).
The mixing and grinding of raw material, i.e. homogenization of raw material, may be
done either in wet or in dry condition, hence the process is designated as “wet process” and
“dry process”. Naturally, the wet process is more energy intensive process as a lot of energy
36
(5.8 GJ/ tonne) [80] is required for the drying up of water, whereas in the dry process the energy
required is further reduced (3.2 GJ/ tonne) [80].
The raw material used for making cement comprises of CaO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3 etc.
The compounds of raw materials interact with each other in the kiln at a high temperature and
form four basic complex compounds as listed in Table 4.5. These complex compounds are also
known as Bogue’s compounds; who first established the relationship between the composition
of these compounds with the basic oxides present in the raw material like CaO, SiO2, Al2O3,
Fe2O3, and SO3.
The cement used in this research is OPC 53 grade conforming to IS 12269 [81] with
physical and chemical properties as listed in Table 4.6. The fineness of cement used in the
experiment is 310 m2/kg. The standard consistency is 27% and 28d compressive strength is 60.3
MPa. The particle size distribution for the cement will be discussed later. The d10 for cement
used is 1.81 µm; the d50 is 9.47 µm and d90 is 23 µm. Fig 4.3 (f) shows the SEM photograph of
cement.
4.5 Fly ash
The usage of pozzolana in making cementing mortar dates back to the Roman era. They
used calcined limestone and added lime and water in addition to sand and gravel. Lime mortar
does not harden under water so the Romans ground together volcanic ash or calcined clay with
lime.
Coal is used as a fuel in the thermal power plants for producing electricity. Indian coal
has typically 35% - 40% ash content. About 80% of the ash escape out of the boiler along with
the flue gases which is passed through a series of electrostatic precipitators before being
discharged into the chimney. The remaining 20% of the ash, called bottom ash, is collected
from the bottom of the boiler.
37
Table 4.5 Main compounds of Portland cement used
Name of Compound Oxide composition Abbreviation % in Cement used

Tricalcium silicate 3CaO.SiO2 C3S 47.96
Dicalcium silicate 2CaO.SiO2 C2S 23.11
Tricalcium aluminate 3Ca0.Al2O3 C3A 6.67
Tetracalcium aluminoferrite 4CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3 C4AF 13.18
Table 4.6 Physical and chemical properties of cement (OPC 53) used
38
Fly ash is collected from the flue gasses, which is then passed through electrostatic
precipitators and is captured in a series of hoppers. The coarser ash is collected in immediate
hoppers while the finer ash particles fly to the distant hoppers. The fineness and properties of
fly ash from different thermal power plants may differ. This fly ash is utilized by the cement
industry for production of PPC cement and concrete industry for utilization as pozzolanic
material.
There are two classes of Fly ash viz. Class F fly ash and Class C fly ash as per ASTM
C618 [82]. Class F fly ash is siliceous in nature, whereas Class C fly ash is calcareous in nature.
The nature of fly ash depends primarily on the type of coal used during the burning process.
Normally anthracite coal yields Class F fly ash whereas bituminous and sub-bituminous coal
result in the Class C fly ash.
Fly ash consists primarily of Silica (SiO2), Alumina (Al2O3) and Iron (Fe2O3), besides
some minor compounds. Class F fly ash in itself is an inert material and as such does not react.
But in the presence of free lime, which is liberated during the hydration of cement, and water it
reacts and forms a similar cementing material as that of C-S-H (Calcium Silicate Hydrate) gel,
which provides additional strength and improves the pore size structure. The equations for the
reaction are as follows:
C + H → C-S-H (gel) + Ca(OH)2 + Heat (4.1)
Fly Ash + Ca(OH)2 + H → C-S-H (gel) (4.2)
The above mentioned reaction is known as secondary hydration reaction and is
responsible for the post-28 days strength in concrete. Fly ash can be used as a part replacement
for cement, i.e. as a cementitious material, if it qualifies to the requirement of the IS 3812 Part
1, 2013 [83]. Fly ash can also be used as an admixture in cement mortar and concrete as per IS
3812 Part 2, 2013 [84].
39
Table 4.7 Physical requirements for fly ash as per IS 3812: 2013 [83, 84]
Requirements as per IS 3812:2013

Sl.No. Characteristics
Part 1 Part 2
Fineness - Sp. Surface by Blaines permeability
i) 2 320 200
method, Min (m /kg)
Particles retained on 45 µ IS sieve(wet sieving), Max
ii) 34% 50%
(Optional , but most practiced)
iii) Lime reactivity - Average compressive strength , Min 4.5 Mpa
Not less than 80%
Compressive strength at 28 days of standrad Mix as of the strength of
iv) -
per IS: 1727-1967 Sec 10 , Min corresponding plain
cement mortar
Soundness by autoclave test - Expansion of specimen ,
v) 0.80% 0.80%
Max
Table 4.8 Chemical requirements for fly ash as per IS 3812: 2013 [83, 84]
Requirements as per IS 3812:2013 Method of Test, Ref No.

S.No. Characteristics Siliceous Fly Ash Calcareous Fly Ash Annex IS No.
SiO 2 + Al2O 3 + Fe2 O 3 , % by mass, Min

i) 70 50 - IS 1727
ii) SiO 2 , % by mass, Min 35 25 - IS 1727
iii) Reactive Silica, % by mass, Min 20 20 B -
iv) MgO, % by mass 5 5 - IS 1727
v) Total sulphur as SO 3 , % by mass 3 3 - IS 1727
Available alkalies as equivalent Na2O, %
vi) by mass, Max 1.5 1.5 C -
vii) Total chlorides, % by mass, Max 0.05 0.05 - IS 4032
viii) Loss on ignition, % by mass, Max 5 / 7 # 5 / 7 # - IS 1727
Note # : 5 / 7 are as per Part 1 and Part 2 of the Code respectively
In this experiment, Class F fly ash from Badarpur thermal power station, near New
Delhi, was used. The Blaine’s fineness of the fly ash used was 370 m2/kg and the loss on ignition
as 2.62%. The specific gravity of the fly ash used was 2.2. This fly ash was qualified as
pozzolana as it satisfied the requirements of IS 3812: 2013, Part 1. Table 4.9 lists the properties
of fly ash used in this study. Fig. 4.3 (g) shows the SEM photograph of fly used.
40
Table 4.9 Physical and chemical properties of fly ash used
Sl. No. Particulars Unit Value

A Chemical Parameter
1 Silica, SiO 2 42.89
2 Alumina, Al2 O 3 34.70
3 Iron Oxide, Fe2 O 3 11.76
4 Calcium Oxide, CaO 1.01
5 Magnesium Oxide, MgO 0.43
% by mass
6 Potassium Oxide, K 2 O 2.07
7 Titanium Oxide, TiO 2 4.20
8 Copper Oxide, CuO 0.12
9 Zinc Oxide, ZnO 0.07
10 Strontium Oxide, SrO 0.07
B Physical Parameter
1 Loss on Ignition % by mass 2.62
2 Moisture Content % by mass 0.16
2
3 Specific Surface (Blaine's Fineness) m /kg 370
4 Specific Gravity - 2.20
Table 4.10 Physical and chemical properties of micro silica used
Sl. No. Particulars Unit Value
A Chemical Parameter
1 Silica, SiO 2 % by mass 87.52
B Physical Parameter
1 Loss on Ignition % by mass 0.08
2 Moisture Content % by mass 2.30
2
3 Specific Surface m /kg 19500
4 Pozzolanic Activity Index (7 days) % by mass 136.00
5 Retention on 45 micron sieve % by mass 0.80
4.6 Micro silica
Micro silica or silica fume is a by-product of the silicon industry. ACI 234 [85] defines
silica fume as a by-product resulting from the reduction of high-purity quartz with coal or coke
41
and wood chips in an electric arc furnace during the production of silicon metal or ferrosilicon
alloys. The bulk density of micro-silica thus produced varies from 130 to 430 kg/m3. Hence it
is condensed and densified to a bulk density of 480 to 720 kg/m3 to optimize the transportation
costs. Micro silica comprises of very fine particles having more than 85% SiO2. The fineness
of micro silica is measured by the nitrogen adsorption method and it is of the order of 13000 -
30000 m2/kg with an average particle size of < 1µm [85]. The specific gravity of micro silica
used in the experiment was 2.2. The physical and chemical properties of the micro silica used
in this study are presented in Table 4.10.
It is well known that the use of micro silica in concrete is beneficial in terms of providing
the particle packing in the concrete mix. It exhibits a secondary reaction similar to that of fly
ash. Here, since the particles are very small, the initial chemical reactions take place much
quicker. They enhance the bond between mortars and aggregates and are considered important
in the production of high strength concrete.
Micro-silica is procured in condensed densified form and SEM images are shown in Fig. 4.2(d).
Fig. 4.2 (e) shows the silica fume SEM pictures after grinding using steel ball mill. Comparing with
cement, fly ash, marble and granite powders, it is clear that unground silica fume shown with 200X and
ground silica fume shown in 2000X is still courser then all these 4 powder materials. Does micro-silica
really break down to such small size during mixing is a matter of great concern and left as a topic of
future research and hence it is kept out of scope of this research.
4.7 Marble and granite stones
Marble and granite are decorative stones found abundantly in India. Table 4.11 and 4.12 show the
chemical and physical properties of marble rock. It mainly consists of oxides of calcium and magnesium
with small proportions of silica and iron. Marble is typically a metamorphosed form of limestone. It is a
crystalline rock composed predominantly of calcite, dolomite or serpentine. From these tables, one can see
that the specific gravity of marble varies between 2.47 to 2.84 [86]. The water absorption of marble is
42
Table 4.11 Chemical properties of marble [86]
Table 4.12 Physical properties of marble [86]
generally very low in the range of 0.04% to 0.08% but for a few varieties it is reported as high as 2.47%
to 2.55% [86].
Table 4.13 lists the physical properties of granite stone. The specific gravity of the rock varies
between 2.57 and 2.71. The water absorption of granite rock is comparatively higher than that of marble.
The water absorption values are typically 0.1% with a few values as low as 0.04% and as high as 0.73%.
Marble in India is broadly classified into two categories - white marble and coloured
marble as per IS 1130 : 1969 [88].White marble is further classified into plain white, Abu
Panther, white veined marble, while coloured marble is classified into black, green marble,
pink, grey and brown marble. Granite is classified based on the compressive strength and
abrasion value of the rock as shown in Table 4.14. It is classified as grades A, B, C and D.
43
Table 4.13 Physical properties of granite [87]
Table 4.14 Classification of granite [87]
4.8 Marble and granite powders
Marble and granite powders are created by a sawing and polishing process to create
plates of decorative stones from blocks. These materials are generally available in slurry or
44
cake forms and create a lot of environmental problems. The chemical properties of marble and
granite powders used in this study are presented in Table: 4.15 and 4.16 respectively. Marble
powder consists primarily of CaO and MgO with LOI as 42.34% suggesting that the basic
constituents could be CaCO3 and MgCO3, whereas low LOI of granite powder indicates that
granite powder consists primarily of SiO2, Fe2O3 and Al2O3.
Table 4.15 Chemical properties of marble powder used

Table 4.15 Chemical properties of marble powder utilized
MARBLE POWDER
MARBLE POWDER
Chemical composition on dry basis Result
Chemical
Iron Oxide (as Fecomposition on dry basis
2O 3), % by mass Result
3.04
Iron Oxide (as Fe O
Calcium Oxide (as2 CaO),
3), % by mass
% by mass 3.04
41.83
Calcium
MagnesiumOxide (as (as
Oxide CaO), % by
MgO), % mass
by mass 41.83
12.07
Magnesium
Copper Oxide Oxide (as MgO),
(as CuO), %mass
% by by mass 12.07
0.15
Copper
ManganeseOxide (as (as
Oxide CuO), % by
MnO), % mass
by mass 0.15
0.55
Manganese Oxide%(asbyMnO),
Loss on ignition, mass % by mass 0.55
42.34
Loss on ignition, % by mass
Physical Test 42.34
Result
Moisture content,Physical
% by mass Test Result
7.91
Moisture content, % by mass 7.91
Table 4.16 Chemical properties of granite powder used
Table 4.16 Chemical properties of granite powder utilized
GRANITE POWDER
Chemical composition on dry basis Result
Silica (as SiO 2), % by mass 42.73
Alumina (as Al2O3), % by mass 14.43
Iron Oxide (as Fe2O3), % by mass 26.05
Calcium Oxide (as CaO), % by mass 6.59
Magnesium Oxide (as MgO), % by mass 1.94
Potassium Oxide (as K2O), % by mass 2.07
Sodium Oxide (as Na2O), % by mass 2.37
Titanium Oxide (as TiO 2), % by mass 1.46
Copper Oxide (as CuO), % by mass 0.15
Manganese Oxide (as MnO), % by mass 0.37
Strontium Oxide (as SrO), % by mass 0.07
Silver Oxide (as Ag2O), % by mass 0.11
Loss on ignition, % by mass 1.57
Physical Test Result
Moisture content, % by mass 13.67
45
4.9 Shape, particle size and discussion
Fig. 4.2 shows the pictures of various particles of 20 mm aggregate, 10 mm aggregate,
sand, marble and granite powders, cement, fly ash, and micro silica used in this research. Table
4.17 shows the d10, d50 and d90 of these materials. Table. 4.18 shows the particle size distribution
in the form of percentage passing and Fig. 4.3 shows the graphical representation. It can be
clearly seen that fly ash and micro silica are spherical in shape, while others are angular. Figure
4.3 also shows comparison between two mixes – normal concrete and SCC, assuming that the
water component passes through all the sieves.
Though literature reports that fly ash is finer than cement, Table 4.17 show that they are
of similar order. Fly ash has higher d10 and d90, but has lower d50. Marble and granite powders
are slightly coarser than cement. While d10s are quite similar, marble and granite powders have
d10 of 10.81 and 12.82 mm respectively as compared to the values of 7.21 and 9.46 mm for fly
ash and cement respectively. The d90 are also accordingly higher.
If one examines the graphical representation of all these materials in a single graph,
cement, fly ash, marble and granite powders look clubbed together. There is a big gap between
this group with micro silica on one side and aggregates (fine and coarse) on other side. To get
a better understanding, the percentage of the two mixes, normal and SCC, are plotted in the
same graph. It can be seen that SCC concrete has a much higher d50 as compared to normal
concrete, showing a higher powder content in the mixes. Discussion on similar lines will be
presented in details in later chapters.
46
a) 20 mm aggregate b) 10 mm aggregate
c) sand
20 mm 2 mm
Mag=200X Mag=2 KX
d) Microsilica in un-grounded form e) Microsilica in grounded form
Fig. 4.2: Images showing shapes of different materials
Fig. 4.2 Particle size distribution of fine materials
47
2 mm 1 mm
Mag=5 KX Mag=10 KX
f) Cement g) Fly ash
1 mm 3 mm
Mag=5 KX Mag=5 KX
h) Granite powder i) Marble powder
Fig. 4.2: Images showing shapes of different materials
Table 4.17 Particle size under diameter of fine materials
Particle size under diameter (in µm)

Sl. No. Material
d10 d50 d90
th
1 Micro silica Breaks to about 1/ 100 size of cement
2 Fly ash 1.89 7.21 25.1
3 Cement 1.81 9.47 23
4 Marble powder 1.05 10.81 38.83
5 Granite powder 1.73 12.82 56.75
6 Sand 150 600 4500
48
Table 4.18 Particle size distribution as percentage passing
Sieve Micro Sieve

Cement Fly Ash Marble Granite
Size (µm) Silica Size (µm) Sand 10 mm 20 mm
300 100 100 100 100 100 40000 100 100 100
150 100 100 99.7 99.5 99 20000 100 100 97.4
75 100 100 98.2 98.5 93 12500 100 99.2 18
60.25 100 100 97.6 96.88 90.85 10000 100 90 5.8
30.2 100 92.24 92.36 83.81 76.84 4750 92.5 11.2 0
20 100 85 85.5 70.77 64.3 2360 80 1 0
12.5 100 62.13 72.5 54.2 48.8 1180 60.5 0 0
10 100 53.5 64.25 47.6 42.51 600 49 0 0
4.75 100 25 31.3 30 24.3 300 18.5 0 0
2.36 99.8 13 12.61 18 13.36 150 9 0 0
1.18 99.5 5.1 6.81 10.6 6.64
0.6 99 2.5 2.33 3.3 1.6
0.3 98 1.25 0.005 0.01 0
0.15 93 0.6 0 0 0
0.075 34 0 0 0 0
0.0375 14 0 0 0 0
0.01875 6 0 0 0 0
0.00938 2 0 0 0 0
0.00469 0 0 0 0 0
100
Micro Silica
90 Cement
Fly ash
80 Marble
Granite
70 Sand
10 mm
60 20 mm
Passing (%)
G1-M SCC
50 2C1 Normal Concrete
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000
Size (µm)
Fig. 4.3: Particle size distribution of fine materials used
49
4.10 Specific gravity, water absorption and preparation of material for

marble and granite powders
The determination of specific gravity, and water absorption was one of the most critical
matters of this research. This will be discussed in detail in the next chapter. These materials, as
discussed in details in the next chapter, can be used either in an absolute dry form or in an
absolute paste form (Fig.8.18 (a) – (d)) to achieve homogeneity.
4.11 Conclusion
This chapter presents the material property of the various materials used in the
experiments. It can be seen that marble and granite powders have particle size and distribution
of the order of cement and fly ash. Micro silica is much finer than other powder materials.
50
CHAPTER 5
AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION
5.0 General
The objective of the thesis has already been explained. It is to find an alternate building
material in marble and granite powder to be used in concrete. The feasibility of any material to
be used as a constituent of concrete depends on three important factors which will be discussed
in this chapter.
i) Technical viability so that one can predict the behaviour of concrete consisting
of marble powder or granite powder in a consistent way,
ii) commercial viability and
iii) sufficient availability of these material with consistent material properties.
Marble and granite are hard crystalline rocks widely available in India. They are utilized
in residential and commercial buildings for decorative or functional use [86-87, 89-92]. These
stones are primarily used as floor finishes, wall claddings and countertops. They are extracted
in blocks, transported to processing units, sawed to required thickness and polished to create
finished products. Waste material is created in all the stages starting from the extraction, sawing
and polishing of these decorative stones. The marble and granite powder waste thus created in
the sawing and polishing process is in huge quantities.
Site visits were conducted to Kishangarh, Makrana and Rajsmand in Rajasthan and
Khammam in Andhra Pradesh to understand the extraction and processing of marble and granite
respectively. The quantum of waste generated and waste handling practices followed at these
locations were assessed. In this chapter, the process of extraction and processing of these stones
are explained, and the waste utilization and environmental impact are presented with
photographic evidences from site visits and references from literature.
51
5.1 Availability and production of marble and granite
The total resources of various grades of marble and granite are shown in Table 5.1.
Rajasthan has a share of approximately 64% of the total marble reserve and 20% of the total
granite reserve in India. Jammu & Kashmir accounts for approximately 21% of marble reserves,
whereas Gujarat accounts for approximately 6.5% reserves of marble. Out of the 32 districts of
Rajasthan, marble exits in 20 districts in some form or another. It has the distinction of having
the best quality of marble reserves. The prominent regions of marble reserves in Rajasthan are
Udaipur – Rajsamand – Chittorgarh, Makrana – Kishangarh, Banswara – Dungarpur, Andhi
(Jaipur) – Jhiri (Alwar) and Jaisalmer. Karnataka, Jharkhand and Gujarat have significant
reserves of granite. Marble production is far higher than that of granite, and Rajasthan is the
single largest producer of marble stone, while Andhra Pradesh, Rajasthan and Karnataka play
an important role in granite production.
Rajasthan accounts for over 95% production of marble followed by Gujarat and Madhya
Pradesh, having a share of 2.6% and 2% respectively. In the case of granite, Andhra Pradesh
contributes around 47%, followed by Rajasthan, Karnataka and Tamil Nadu having a share of
approximately 20%, 16.5% and 12.6% respectively. The rest of the granite production is shared
by Uttar Pradesh, Gujarat and Madhya Pradesh.
The Centre for Development of Stones (CDOS) [91, 92] is an autonomous organisation
promoted by the Government of Rajasthan and Rajasthan State Industrial Development and
Investment Corporation Ltd. It is a Centre for Excellence with State-Of-The-Art-work facilities
with broad objectives to develop, promote and support the dimensional stone sector and related
industries in India. The year-wise production of marble and granite in India according to the
CDOS estimate is shown in Table 5.4. These figures are quite high as compared to the estimates
provided by the Indian Bureau of Mines [89, 90].
52
Chapter 5: Availability and Utilization
Table 5.1 Marble Deposit in India [91]
Total Marble Reserve as on

Sl. No. States in India 6
1.4.2010 (10 t)
1 Andhra Pradesh 0.003 0.0%
2 Chhattisgarh 83.0 4.3%
3 Gujarat 123.6 6.4%
4 Jammu & Kashmir 404.7 21.0%
5 Haryana 22.3 1.2%
6 Maharashtra 58.0 3.0%
7 Rajasthan 1231.4 63.8%
8 Sikkim 2.4 0.1%
9 Uttarakhand 6.0 0.3%
TOTAL 1931.5 127133.3
Table 5.2 Granite Deposit in India [92]

Total Granite Reserve as on
Sl. No. States in India 6
1.4.2010 (10 t)
1 Andhra Pradesh 6616.2 5.2%
2 Assam 1605.9 1.3%
3 Bihar 2413.4 1.9%
4 Chhattisgarh 137.7 0.1%
5 Gujarat 23380.4 18.4%
6 Haryana 93.5 0.1%
7 Jharkhand 24407.2 19.2%
8 Karnataka 25679.2 20.2%
9 Kerala 7.7 0.0%
10 Madhya Pradesh 5483.7 4.3%
11 Maharashtra 3186.8 2.5%
12 Meghalaya 787.8 0.6%
13 Odisha 5068.4 4.0%
14 Rajasthan 25274.3 19.9%
15 Tamil Nadu 1538.4 1.2%
16 Uttar Pradesh 1360.8 1.1%
17 West Bengal 91.9 0.1%
TOTAL 127133.3
53
Table 5.3: State wise production of marble and granite in India [89, 90]
Total Marble production as Total Granite Reserve as on

Sl. No. States in India 3 3
in 2009-10 (10 t) 1.4.2010 (10 t)
1 Andhra Pradesh 0.160 0.0% 1784.2 46.7%
2 Gujarat 284.1 2.6% 55.1 1.4%
3 Jammu & Kashmir 0.8 0.0% 0.069 0.0%
4 Karnataka - - 628.5 16.4%
5 Kerala - - 1.1 0.0%
6 Madhya Pradesh 217.5 2.0% 44.4 1.2%
7 Rajasthan 10470.8 95.4% 760.6 19.9%
8 Tamil Nadu - - 480.8 12.6%
9 Uttar Pradesh - - 66.0 1.7%
TOTAL 10973.3 3820.7
Table 5.4 Year-wise production of marble and granite in India [91, 92]
54
Fig. 5.1 Marble distribution and production in India [89]
55
Fig. 5.2 Granite distribution and production in India [90]
56
5.2 Production system and waste generation
5.2.1 Mining and transportation
Marble is a metamorphic rock and is primarily used as a decorative rock and rarely used
as an aggregate while granite is an igneous (plutonic) rock and is used for both decorative
purposes and as aggregates. Marble and granite are extracted from open cast mines. In the case
of marble extraction, about 50% is waste and the remaining 50% is marble block. On the other
hand around 85% of the granite material is left as mining waste as we find more undeveloped
or cracked rocks. This was noticed during the visit to mining areas as shown in Fig. 5.3 (a) and
Fig. 5.3 (b). Marble and granite blocks are extracted from quarries. These blocks have an
approximate size of 3 m × 1.8 m × 1.8 m. Mining of marble and granite is very different from
the conventional mining of stones for aggregates, where boulders of small sizes are extracted.
In mining of these dimensional stones, large intact blocks of 15 – 20 tonnes are extracted
without any minor cracks or damages. Holes are drilled along pre-determined lines and wedges
are driven in these holes by hammering to create a fracture along the line of drilled holes. The
blocks thus separated are handled with the help of chain-pulley block or cranes and transported
for the further processing.
5.2.2 Processing of marble and granite
Marble and granite blocks which are transported (Fig 5.3(b)) from the mines are
unloaded at processing units by the help of gantry cranes (Fig. 5.3(b) and Fig. 5.4(b)).
Processing of marble or granite is done in two stages In the first stage, blocks are cut to the
required thickness with the help of either circular blades, which may be a single circular blade
or multiple circular blades, arrangement of a set of straight saw blades or simply a wire saw
(Fig. 5.3(c) and Fig 5.4(c)). The sawing process is accompanied by flushing a lot of water,
which serves the dual purpose of cooling the cutting tool and transporting the waste from the
57
system in the form of slurry. The significance of the cutting tool is important as the material
equal to the thickness of the cutting tool is wasted as fine powdered slurry while cutting the
blocks of the required thickness. Robleda et al. [93] explained the sawing process for
ornamental stones. Table 5.5 shows the calculation for cutting the slab of thickness of 20 mm
using cutting tool of thickness 10 mm, 8 mm and 4 mm as the cutting of block of dimension
1500 mm result in wastage of 34%, 30% and 18% respectively. From Fig. 5.3 (c), this can be
visualized. Amount of material as slurry is proportional to the thickness of the cutting tool. The
gaps in between are the decorative stones or plates.
It may clearly be seen that approximately 30% of the material is wasted out in reducing
the block to the slabs to required thickness. This wastage increases with the cutting thickness
of the cutting tool and also with decreasing thickness of the finished slabs. During the
processing stage, the blocks are sawed to the thickness of about 20 to 30 mm in the case of
marble, and to a thickness of 20 mm in the case of granite. Marble or granite tiles are sawn to
the thickness of 10 or 12 mm, which are then polished to perfection, thereby creating more
slurry. Granite slabs are normally polished (Fig 5.4(d)). The polished slabs are stacked in the
yard for sale ((Fig. 5.3(d) and Fig 5.4(e)).
Table5.5 Marble/granite wasted due to sawing [93]
(A) Cutting thickness of saw (mm) 10 8 4
No. of slabs (= 1500/ (thickness of slab

(B) 50 53 62
+ thickness of cutting tool))
(C) Total slab thickness (mm); (B * 20) 1000 1060 1240
(D) Wastage (mm); (1500 – C) 500 440 260
(E) Wastage; (D * 100/ 1500) 34% 30% 18%
Fig 5.3 Schematic diagram of slab cutting from solid block

58
(a) Blocks extraction site
(b) Blocks transport to processing unit
(c) Plate and rotary cutting saw
59
(d) Finished product (e) Settling tank
(f) Dumping ground (g) Slurry disposal site
(h) Pre-production waste (i) Post-production waste
60
(j) Disposal of marble slurry in designated marble slurry ponds
(a) Blocks extraction site (b) Blocks at processing unit
61
(c) Rotary cutting saw (d) Polishing
(e) Finished product (f) Settling tank
(g) Road side dumped waste blocks (h) Road side dumped slurry
62
5.3 Waste handling
The processing units at Kishangarh in Rajasthan and Khammam in Andhra Pradesh
were found to have a slurry collection system (Fig 5.3(e) and Fig. 5.4(f)) The slurry thus
generated from the cutting process was collected and transported to the designated settling tanks
through a system of open drains. The slurry was passed through the different chambers and
allowed to settle down, and the excess water was again re-used as process water. This slurry
was periodically pumped into the tankers for disposal. At Kishangarh, there was a designated
area for the disposal of slurry where all the processing units dumped the slurry. An area of about
3 to 3.5 acre was allocated for the dumping of marble slurry at about 2 km from the industrial
area. Fig 5.3 (g), Fig 5.3 (h) shows the waste disposal at Kishangarh.
However in the case of Khammam, the disposal of waste blocks and slurry was done in
an unorganised manner and dumped on the roadside, giving rise to various causes of concern
such as environmental pollution, poor aesthetic view and endangering traffic movement both
vehicular and pedestrian as well. Fig 5.3 (i), Fig 5.3 (j) and 5.4 (g) Fig 5.4 (h) shows the waste
disposal at Khammam.
5.4 Environmental impact
In gang saws, the processing of marble and granite blocks results in the production of
slurry which is approximately 30% of the production. A gang saw processing 1000 metric
tonnes per day of marble or granite stone produces approximately 300 metric tonnes per day of
the slurry. These fine waste materials are a threat to the environment as they are disposed in a
haphazard and unscientific manner.
63
Some of the impacts on the environment are briefly described below:
Air pollution
In block extractions from the mines, a large amount of waste is generated comprising
unusable materials of different sizes from cracked blocks to tiny stones and dust. In the
processing unit, a large amount of slurry is created and disposed in designated sites away from
the city. As the powder dries, it rises with the wind and pollutes the air. Some stone blocks are
indeed sent out of the State to various parts of India and abroad. Hence, the slurry amount is
about 30% of plates produced in proportion to the values mentioned in Table 5.3.This slurry is
deposited in open either in a designated area or haphazardly at any open fields. On drying, in
presence of winds these fine particles are suspended in the air and makes the environment hazy.
Water pollution
Rizzo et al. [94] studied the grain size distribution of the marble slurry and showed that
the slurry can threaten the quality of groundwater because of its high chemical oxygen demand;
furthermore discharge of marble slurry can modify the mechanism of groundwater recharge,
because of their grain size distribution as the d50 of polishing slurry varies between 45 µm and
7 µm that is very fine silt class while in the cutting slurry samples d50 is between 90 µm and
110 µm that is fine silt class. Further, laboratory tests show that, even under very aggressive
conditions, the solid pollutants persist in the waste and slowly release the products of their
degradation into the water. The slurry therefore should be subjected to an inactivation treatment
before disposal or, alternatively, recycled as secondary raw material for a suitable process. The
same impact is in the case of granite slurry. The particle size distribution for marble and granite
were similar to those reported above and therefore similar conclusions can be drawn.
The author has met the local authorities who claim no adverse effect of disposal of
marble and granite slurries on the soil, which is surely in contrast to the findings of this paper.
64
Impact on aesthetic view
Waste dumping in and around the whole area including running and abandoned mines,
by the road side and deposition of dry slurry powder over almost every structure and over the
vegetation in the surrounding areas are a very bad sight. Hills have been excavated and slurry
dumped over them is not very aesthetic. All the roads in Khamam district, Andhra Pradesh are
filled with debris or slurry as can be seen in the pictures (Fig. 5.4 (g) and (h)).
Scarcity of the dump sites
Additional land is needed for dumping and handling of large amount of waste generated
in the form of very fine powder/slurry. This engages large chunks of land for unproductive
purposes.
5.5 Slurry generation and potential consumption in concrete
Reserves and production of marble and granite have been sourced from Indian Minerals
Year Book 2011 (Part II) for Marble and Granite. Data is based on the data provided by the
State Governments, and data for Daman & Diu, Gujarat, Haryana, Manipur, Meghalaya,
Nagaland, Odisha and West Bengal have not been included due to non-receipt of data for three
years consecutively from the governments of these states.
In order to take this study forward, it is pertinent to have an estimation of the amount of
generation of slurry. There is no direct data available for slurry generation. Based on the
available data of reserves and production of marble and granite [89-92], and published data of
cement consumption in India [95], the potential of slurry generation has been estimated with
certain assumptions. The basis for these assumptions has already been done till now. The
assumptions are taken for calculation are as follows:
65
a) The specific gravity for marble and granite stones have been assumed to be 2.75 for
conversion purposes[88]
b) Marble or granite slurry produced is assumed to be 30% [93] of production ignoring
imports or exports
c) Cement consumption has been estimated as per the data published in Cement Statistics
for May 2012 by Cement Manufacturers’ Association [95].
d) An average of 350 kg/m3 of cement is assumed to be used in concrete for the estimation.
e) An average of 300 kg/m3 of utilization of slurry is assumed to be used in concrete
manufacture.
f) Assuming only 35% of the concrete produced shall consume the marble/ granite slurry
in manufacturing of concrete.
Table 5.6 depicts detailed calculations for the estimate of the marble and granite slurry
vis-a-vis the potential of slurry consumption in concrete. It may be seen that 100% of marble
and granite slurry produced can be used in concrete based on the assumptions made above.
There is huge skew in the availability and potential for the consumption of the slurry like in
Rajasthan only 9% of the slurry can be used locally as almost 95% of the marble production
takes place in Rajasthan itself. There may be certain skew in the data as there is a possibility of
transportation of the marble or granite slabs to other states, where the processing might be done
in the other states. All such possibilities are not considered in the estimation.
66
Table 5.6 Reserves, production and potential slurry consumption
Production
Reserves as on 1.4.2010 Potential
(2009-10) Cement
6
(x 10 Tonnes) Total Slurry slurry
Sl 3
(10 Tonnes) Consumption
States Produced consumption in
No. 3
(May 2012), 3
(10 Tonnes) 3 concrete (10
(10 Tonnes)
Tonnes)
Granite Marble Granite Marble
1 Andhra Pradesh 6616.2 0.0 1784.2 0.160 535.3 1034.9 310.5

2 Assam 1605.9 - - - - 121.8 36.5
3 Bihar 2413.4 - - - - 669.2 200.8
4 Chhatisgarh 137.7 83.0 - - - 418.2 125.5
5 Gujarat 23380.4 123.6 55.1 284.1 101.8 1460.2 438.1
6 Jammu & Kashmir - 404.7 0.8 0.2 39.7 -

0.069
7 Haryana 93.5 22.3 - - - 708.8 212.6
8 Jharkhand 24407.2 - - - - 269.8 80.9
9 Karnataka 25679.2 - 628.5 - 188.5 1095.8 328.7
10 Kerala 7.7 - 1.1 - 0.3 668.5 200.5
11 Madhya Pradesh 5483.7 - 44.4 217.5 78.6 942.4 282.7
12 Maharashtra 3186.8 58.0 - - - 1933.2 580.0
13 Meghalaya 787.8 - - - - 38.6 11.6
14 Odisha 5068.4 - - - - 616.3 184.9
15 Rajasthan 25274.3 1231.4 760.6 10470.8 3369.4 1066.0 319.8
16 Tamil Nadu 1538.4 - 480.8 - 144.2 1637.2 491.2
17 Uttar Pradesh 1360.8 - 66.0 - 19.8 1617.2 485.2
18 West Bengal 91.9 - - - - 683.0 204.9
19 Sikkim - 2.4 - - - 0 -
20 Uttarakhand - 6.0 - - - 175.955 -
TOTAL 127133.3 1931.5 3820.7 10973.3 4438.2 15196.8 4494.3
5.6 Cost benefit of utilization of marble and granite powders
Table 5.7 presents the cost benefits of utilization of marble and granite powders in
concrete. This table presents a typical mix with effective w/b = 0.45 which is expected to have
a 28 days strength of 40 MPa that could qualify as M 30 grade concrete considering margin
strength of 10 MPa. The first optimization arises from the utilization of more efficient
67
Table 5.7 Cost benefit due to plasticizer, fly ash and marble/granite powders
Type of admixture: Naphthalene-based PCE-based

Cost of
Specific Control Fly Ash Control Fly Ash Marble and Granite Concrete with Fly Ash
Particulars Materials per
Gravity Concrete Concrete Concrete Concrete
kg (INR) MP MP GP GP
Water (kg/m3) 1 0.00 180 180 150 160 160 160 160 160
Cement (kg/m3), OPC 43 3.15 5.80 400 312 333 277 277 277 277 277
3
Fly ash (kg/m ) 2.2 0.70 0 134 0 119 119 119 119 119
Fly ash (%) - 0% 30% 0% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%
k value of fly ash - 0.00 0.66 0.00 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66 0.66
w/B ratio - 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45
Sand (kg/m3) 2.62 1.00 827 747 851 840 476 352 482 306
3
C.Agg., 10 mm (kg/m ) 2.93 0.80 427 420 480 415 470 470 455 475
3
C.Agg., 20 mm (kg/m ) 2.93 0.80 620 620 690 633 708 708 695 725
Marble powder (kg/m3) 2.54 0.15 0 0 0 0 240 360 0 0
Granite powder (kg/m3) 2.37 0.15 0 0 0 0 0 0 240 360
Admixture dosage (% of
- 1.2 1.2 0.6 0.65 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
sum of cement and fly ash)
Naphthalene-based 50 4.8 5.35
PCE-based 150 2.51 3.12 3.42 3.96 3.42 3.93
Expected Slump (mm) - 125 125 125 125 125 125 125 125
Volume of concrete (m3) - 980 980 980 980 980 980 980 980
Cost per m3 of concrete - 4225 3749 4095 3836 3657 3632 3605 3546
Savings in case of
naphthalene-based - 0% 11% 3% 9% 13% 14% 15% 16%
superplasticiser (%)
Savings in case of PCE-
- 0% 6% 11% 11% 12% 13%
based superplasticiser (%)
plasticizer. A napthalene based plasticizer typically costs less compared to a polycarboxylic
ether (PCE) based plasticizer. The quantity of PCE based plasticizer required is also less. Yet,
its capacity to reduce the water content is more than it compensates for the cost of the
plasticizer.
However using PCE based super-plasticizer water content is lowered, hence for same
strength, cement content is reduced thereby reducing the powder content or the paste content.
This creates a problem of segregation in concrete. Introduction of fly ash solves this problem.
Fly ash also contributes to the strength of concrete at later ages.
68
It will be shown in Chapter 8 that the plasticizer quantity depends on the quantity of
fine material, particularly the total surface area. Hence, in this calculation, the plasticizer dosage
is calculated based on the fixed percentage of all fines that include 10% of the sand.
The pure OPC based mix with napthalene based super-plasticizer is taken as a base mix
for comparison. Next, 30% fly ash substitution has demonstrated to have savings of 11%. With
PCE based super-plasticizer, pure OPC based concrete is compared with 30% fly ash
substitution with and without incorporation of MP/ GP. As compared to the original mix
without fly ash and naphthalene based plasticizer, we can get 13% to 16% savings in cost,
whereas we get only 11% to 13% savings in cost when compared to PCE based plasticizer.
Even if we compare the mix with fly ash and PCE admixture, we can get a savings of 4% to
7%. This savings in cost is not insignificant. A consumption of 360 kg/m3 would reduce
material consumption of sand or coarse aggregate to the order of 400 kg/m3 which would make
the construction more sustainable. Even if there is no significant cost benefit advantage, the
government should encourage its use as it is a step towards adopting a green technology. It
would also solve environmental problem created by these powder materials.
5.7 Conclusion
Marble and granite are important decorative stones that are widely available in various
parts of India. Rajasthan plays a leading role in production of marble, while Andhra Pradesh
followed by Rajasthan and Karnataka plays an important role in the production of granite. The
material is supplied both in India and abroad.
The production process of these stones leaves a large quantity of wastes during the
extraction and processing stage. Site visits to Kishangarh in Rajasthan and Khammam in
Andhra Pradesh showed that the marble industry is more organized as it is larger than granite
69
industry. Moreover, the waste produced per unit weight of production is higher in the case of
granite.
In this chapter, the utilization of the powder/slurry in the processing stage in concrete is
highlighted. An estimate is presented on the possible scenario where 30% of the concrete
industry utilizes the waste. The cement production data [95] is utilized in this estimation of
concrete volume. It is seen that in such optimistic situation, each state will be able to consume
the slurry material in a beneficial way to make the construction a more sustainable process, thus
decreasing the utilization of other natural resources in the process.
70
CHAPTER 6
IMPORTANCE OF MOISTURE CORRECTION IN FINE

POWDER MATERIALS FOR CONCRETE
6.0 General
Concrete is one of the most important construction materials and has undergone various
changes in recent times. Plasticisers played an important role in the change in concrete allowing
for reduction of water demand in concrete. Incorporation of fly ash and ground granulated blast
furnace slag (GGBS) changed the way concrete is looked upon. These materials are referred as
supplementary cementitious material and are very fine particles that reacts and provide extra
strength and enhance the durability of the concrete. They also enhance the workability of fresh
concrete. However, the demand from the construction industry for more and more materials is
creating a great strain on all natural resources being consumed in the construction. It is
important to explore use of other abundantly available material or waste materials as it would
decrease the consumption of the materials being used at present.
India and several other countries produce marble and granite. In Chapter 5, it was
presented that India has a reserve of over 1931.5 million tonne and 127133.3 million tonnes of
marble and granite respectively and produced 10.97 million tonnes and 3.82 million tonne
during 2010 in the country. Production of these decorative stones creates a large amount of pre-
processing wastes in the form of boulders. A large amount of slurry material (approx. 30% of
the slabs produced) with consistent distribution of particle size is produced in the post
processing stage of the cutting and polishing.
In this research, the possibility of the utilisation of marble and granite powders in the
concrete mix is investigated. It is important to develop a method such that the material can be
used and the desired results (like workability and 28 days compressive strength) are achieved
71
in a predictable way. Various researchers investigated possibility of utilisation of these slurry
materials. Most of the researchers reported a loss of strength, while a few even reported a gain
of strength. Marble and granite powders are inert materials and do not alter the strength. They
are created by a sawing and polishing process. Hence we get material of very fine size
consistently. Often it has been seen that the particle size distribution is quiet similar independent
of the place of production. It has been noticed that the material density drop compared to the
parent rock material and has both high water absorption and adsorption capacity
These materials are generally available in a slurry or cake form. Many researchers tried
the utilisation of these materials as discussed in Chapter 2, but reported inconsistent results.
Pandey [2] studied the use of marble powder in SCC while Bansal [3] attempted the utilisation
of granite powder in normal and SCC mixes.
The initial experimental program that started back in 2006 consistently gave lower than
expected results. The reasons were twofold:
a) The strength prediction of the concrete based on fly ash was not well understood
then. Pusa [1] worked on the development of efficiency factor of fly ash. This has
been presented in details in Chapter 2.
b) There was confusion about how the SSD condition of these powders should be
recognized such that the specific gravity and moisture content at SSD condition
could be determined.
This chapter highlights the problems and the importance of determination of the SSD
condition for these powder materials. In reality, it was not possible to determine the SSD
condition and it was decided so intuitively as explained in this chapter. Once the moisture
content of the SSD condition and the specific gravity was decided, all initial results were
recalculated taking care of the excess (positive or negative) water content that would have been
72
available or would have been absorbed. The modified results matched expected trends as
predicted by Pusa [1].
Mechanical properties, namely compressive, flexural and split tensile strengths were
also noted. These results are separately presented and discussed in Chapter 7. In this chapter,
only compressive strength values are presented for explaining the influence of moisture
correction. These results are expected to be important in reinforcing the confidence necessary
in the acceptance of this material by the construction industry and codes. Other details of paste
content, plasticizer demand, and rheology as relevant are presented in Chapter 8.
6.1 Water absorption at SSD condition and specific gravity
Though it might look trivial, it is important to know what SSD condition means. SSD
or saturated surface dry condition is the condition where all permeable pores on the surface of
the particles of the material are saturated with water and has no surface moisture. If it is dry, it
absorbs the water and decreases the water available in the mix, causing loss of workability. This
would also show an increase in the strength as the strength obviously depends on the water-
cement ratio. Fig. 6.1 shows the three different states – water with moisture on the surface,
SSD condition and air dry condition. The other conditions are partially dry or oven dry
condition.
Water ononSurface
(a) Moisture surface SSD condition Air(c)Dry
(b) SSD Air-dry
Fig. 6.1 Different moisture content conditions of particles
The specific gravity depends primarily on the state of saturation of the material. Specific
gravity is usually determined by immersing the material in water. In the case of cement or fly
ash, it is done in a dry state using kerosene. The volume is determined by:
73
a) A decrease in weight for coarse aggregate in a net type of bucket after immersing it
in water.
b) An increase in height of water in a flask to calculate the volume as in the case of
cement.
c) By estimating the missing volume of water when sand is put inside a water-filled
beaker called a pycnometer or in a 500 ml flask. In this case, the air has to be
removed or else the results will be incorrect.
Let us consider the following conditions after assuming the entrapped air is removed
properly:
a) If the material is taken in a dry form, the weight of the material initially will be
lower. When this material is immersed in water, the material will absorb water and
show a higher specific gravity, e.g., if the specific gravity is 2.65, 1%, 2% or 5%
deficiency, it will provide a specific gravity higher by 1.7%, 3.5% and 9.5%
respectively. Usually material that has specific gravity of about 1-2%, the error thus
provided be negligible, but if the aggregate has a higher water absorption, the error
would be substantial.
b) If the material is in a wet form, the weight would add to the initial weight. But when
it is immersed in water, the surface moisture will merge with the external water and
show a higher weight loss and a lower specific gravity. An extra moisture of 1% and
4% will decrease specific gravity by 1.61% and 5.97 % respectively.
Usually all the codes require the material be put in water for 24 hours to achieve the
saturated condition. The Indian Standard code IS 2386 (Part III): 1963 [95] specifies the sand
to be “free-running condition” using warm air to calculate specific gravity. ASTM C128 – 07a
[58] specifies the use of a cone to find the SSD condition and describes two types of density –
oven-dry density and SSD density. The ASTM cone method is also empirical. Possibly it works
74
well for sand. For a coarse aggregate, both ASTM and IS codes require us to dry the coarse
aggregates with a cloth and a visual impression to detect SSD condition.
In the case of a coarse aggregate, wet or dry, excessive or deficient moisture in the order
of 1% and will not create a problem. But in the case of sand, if the SSD condition is not done
right, it may have an extra water of even 5%. Following either the cone method or the air drying
method would surely reduce the error to a negligible limit. This brings us to some interesting
questions:
Would this method work for marble and granite powders? Marble and granite stones
have very low water absorption capacity. But since these powders are created by a sawing
process, cracks are induced in them. Marble and granite powders have particle size of the order
of cement and fly ash. If sand can retain 5-10% surface moisture, how much would marble and
granite powders retain as they come in a cake form? In the cone method, would the sample of
marble powder or granite powder fall on its own weight on reaching the SSD condition? These
are the questions that would be addressed in first part of this chapter.
6.2 Formulation for SSD condition, specific gravity, moisture content and
water correction
Here the definitions and formulations related to specific gravity, moisture content, etc
are presented. For example, if the sample of 200 g in SSD condition dries to 150 g when oven
dried, is it 25% with 200 g in the denominator or 33% with 150 g as a denominator? This
percentage looks big because the difference is big. But if a smaller difference for 200 g to 192 g
is chosen, the percentages would be 4% and 4.17% respectively and the difference would not
matter. Hence, it is important to define this matter in a clear manner. The following definitions
were adopted by the author in this research.
In both the ASTM and IS codes, the mix design is mentioned in the SSD condition. So
any percentage calculation should be based on this weight in the SSD condition value as a
75
reference and not otherwise. In this research, it is strictly assumed that all the calculations are
done relative to the specific gravity and moisture absorption at the SSD condition.
Specific gravity of material at SSD condition = 𝜌
Mass of material at SSD condition = M1
Mass of material at oven condition = M2
Moisture absorption at SSD condition = 𝜇1 (as percentage or fraction)
𝑀1 − 𝑀2
𝜇1 = (6.1)
𝑀1
This means that if one unit of SSD material is taken, the oven dry material would be (1-µ1).
Now the sand or marble/granite powder is dried till oven dry.to determine the moisture
content of the material to be used in casting.
Weight of the sample before drying = m0
Weight of the sample after drying = m1

𝑚
Equivalent weight of SSD sample = 𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑑 = 1− 𝜇1 (6.2)
1
Extra water = m0 − mssd

𝑚0 − 𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑑
Moisture content = 𝜇 = (6.3)
𝑚𝑠𝑠𝑑
If, material required in mix design at SSD condition = M
Extra material required = 𝑀 ∗ 𝜇 (6.4)
Water to be reduced = 𝑀 ∗ 𝜇 (6.5)
Table 6.1 provides a typical example of moisture correction in sand. It is to be noted
that the coarse aggregate is always taken in the SSD condition in this study.
76
Table 6.1 Typical example of moisture correction in sand
Specific gravities SSD moisture content of sand (Eq. 6.1) = 1.0%
Volume of concrete
1 3.14 2.2 2.62 2.93 2.93
Calculation for moisture correction in sand Water to
Weight of the materials (kg/cum)
be
(litre)
CA : 10 mm
CA : 20 mm
SSD Water for Extra sand removed
Cement, c
Fly ash, c
Water, w
Oven dry
Sand, s Field (in g) equivalent removal needed (in kg/cum)
(in g)
(in g) (%) (kg/cum)
m0 m1 Eq. 6.2 Eq. 6.3 Eq. 6.4 Eq. 6.5

160 277 479 332 454 681 980 200 195.40 197.37 1.33% 4.42 4.42
160 347 509 315 420 630 980 200 193.00 194.95 2.59% 8.16 8.16
6.3 SSD condition, specific gravity, moisture content
Marble and granite powders are usually available in the form of a cake. When stored for
a longer time, the cake dries and becomes powder. The d10, d50 and d90 of marble powder are
1.05, 10.81, and 38.83 µm respectively. For granite powder, the values are 1.73, 12.82, and
56.75 µm respectively.
The marble and powder materials were soaked in water for 24 hours. The wet samples
were dried under the infrared lamp slowly. Lumps usually form as these materials are quite
fine. If there are lumps, the specific gravity calculations will not be correct as the SSD state
cannot be recognised correctly. Hence, the powders in paste form were dried slowly with
continuous mixing such that no lump was formed. To recognise the SSD condition two methods
were used – the cone method and the blotting paper method.
6.3.1 Cone method as per ASTM C128 – 07a [58]
The cone is a frustum with a 40 ± 3 mm inside diameter at the top, a 90 ± 3 mm inside
diameter at the bottom, and a 75 ± 3 mm in height. The metal tamper has a mass of 340 ± 15 g
and a ﬂat circular tamping face of 25 ± 3 mm in diameter (Fig. 6.2). The cone was filled with
the sample and any over flowing material was removed. The material was then tamped with 25
light drops. The cone was then lifted. The sample was dried gradually and the experiment was
repeated till the material just failed to maintain the cone shape. This method of ASTM C128 is
referred to for the determination of the SSD condition for sand.
77
6.3.2 Blotting paper method
In this method an absorbent plotting paper is taken and a sample of very fine powder
with moisture is taken. The sample is put on the blotting paper. The excess moisture shall be
absorbed by the blotting paper thereby leaving a mark of wetness on the paper. At point at
which the moisture mark is not observed on the blotting paper shall correspond to the SSD
condition. Though no reference was found, Dr. Gupta, the Ph.D. supervisor of the author
remembers learning this during his studies in Japan.
Fig 6.2 Cone method as per ASTM C128 – 07a [58]
In the ASTM cone method, the cone retained its shape till the end. The ground near the
base was lightly tapped to see the effect. The mould retained its shape till the material was
almost dry. Hence, it was realized that the SSD cone method could not identify the SSD
condition of the marble or granite powder.
78
Table 6.2 Specific gravity calculation
Calculated
Test Moisture Assumed true Sample Sample Oven dry SSD Extra Actual Specific
Material specific
method content moist. content weight (g) vol. (l) wt. (g) weight (g) weight (g) vol. (l) gravity
gravity
2.29 12.8% 6% 200 87.3 174.4 185.5 14.5 72.9 2.55
Blotting 2.28 12.8% 6% 200 87.7 174.4 185.5 14.5 73.3 2.53
paper 2.23 15.2% 6% 200 89.7 169.6 180.4 19.6 70.1 2.57
Marble method 2.19 15.2% 6% 200 91.3 169.6 180.4 19.6 71.7 2.51
2.36 10.5% 6% 200 84.7 179 190.4 9.6 75.2 2.53
Assumed 2.54 6.0% 6% 200 78.7 188 200.0 0.0 78.7 2.54
Cone 2.75 0.5% 6% 200 72.7 199 211.7 -11.7 84.4 2.51
Average specific gravity 2.54
2.07 18.1% 9% 200 96.6 163.8 180.0 20.0 76.6 2.35
Blotting 2.07 18.1% 9% 200 96.6 163.8 180.0 20.0 76.6 2.35
paper 2.1 17.9% 9% 200 95.2 164.2 180.4 19.6 75.7 2.38
Granite method 2.11 17.9% 9% 200 94.8 164.2 180.4 19.6 75.2 2.40
2.26 13.0% 9% 200 88.5 174 191.2 8.8 79.7 2.40
Assumed 2.38 9.0% 9% 200 84.0 182 200.0 0.0 84.0 2.38
Cone 2.65 0.5% 9% 200 75.5 199 218.7 -18.7 94.2 2.32
Average specific gravity 2.37
Fig. 6.3 Moisture content vs. specific gravity
As the sample was dried gradually, a small amount was taken out and the specific
gravity and moisture content were measured (shown in Table 6.2 and Fig. 6.3). Test results
exhibited by both the materials can be seen as linear graphs, implying that it is a combination
of water and solid in the right proportion.
79
Table 6.3 Water content at SSD and specific gravity by blotting paper method
Tasks Kerosene Water Kerosene Water

Granite Marble Granite Marble Granite Marble Granite Marble
1 w1= flask 239 208 209 239 209.2 209.2 211.6 211.6
w2=flask + 500 ml
2 633.6 603 709 739 604.4 604.4 710.2 710.2
Liquid
3 500ml Liquid (2-1) 394.6 395 500 500 395.2 395.2 498.6 498.6
Specific Gravity of
4 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00 0.79 0.79 1.00 1.00
Liquid (3 * 2.0)/1000.0
5 w3 = F+ Powder 439 408 410 439 409.2 409.2 411.6 411.6
6 M (5-1) 200 200 201 200 200 200 200 200
7 F+Powder + liquid 757.4 734 813 851.4 729 733.4 815.6 819.2
8 Liquid (7-5) 318.4 326 403 412.4 319.8 324.2 404 407.6
9 Vol of Liquid (8/4) 403.4 412.7 403.0 412.4 404.6 410.2 405.1 408.7
Vol of Powder (500.0 -
10 96.6 87.3 97.0 87.6 95.4 89.8 94.9 91.3
9)
11 Density of M (6/10) 2.07 2.29 2.07 2.28 2.10 2.23 2.11 2.19
200 200 200 200 200 200 200 200
163.8 174.4 163.8 174.4 164.2 169.6 164.2 169.6
SSD moisture content
18.1% 12.8% 18.1% 12.8% 17.9% 15.2% 17.9% 15.2%
Oven dried
assumed correct ssd 9% 6% 9% 6% 9% 6% 9% 6%
ssd wt 180.0 185.5 180.0 185.5 180.4 180.4 180.4 180.4
extra water 20.00 14.47 20.00 14.47 19.56 19.57 19.56 19.57
vol 96.55 87.34 96.52 87.60 95.39 89.83 94.87 91.26
sp gr 2.35 2.55 2.35 2.54 2.38 2.57 2.40 2.52
Finalized average SG 2.37 2.54
Based on the cone method of the SSD condition, assuming the SSD condition to have
0% moisture absorption provided erroneous results. As will be shown in later sections, when
an absolute dry material is used, there is a strength gain and can be explained in two possible
ways:
a) The marble and granite powders are reactive and provide for extra strength.
b) These powders are non-reactive and absorb water decreasing the effective water-
binder ratio resulting in the increase in strength.
Blotting paper method: In search for an answer, the experiment was repeated various
times by multiple researchers. Deciding the point at which the water mark stops seeping into
the blotting paper was difficult. The values ranged between 18% to 12% for both marble and
granite powders. Experiments were done using these values of water absorption and it was
80
found that the concrete strength achieved was significantly lower while the workability of the
mix was very good. This showed that it is not feasible to decide the SSD condition in a
consistent manner even using the blotting paper method.
The specific gravity determination was carried out using both water and kerosene. The
Table 6.3 shows the results of these independent experiments. These results match with the
results of Table 6.2. Therefore, the specific gravity depends on the assumed moisture content
at the SSD condition.
To sum up, both the cone and the blotting paper methods failed to recognize the SSD
condition in a consistent manner. It would be beneficial if a simple method can be devised to
determine the SSD condition of both these very fine powder materials (marble and granite
powders). This logic might be applicable in the utilization of pond ash or any other powder
material.
6.4 A sequence of events to understand the importance of water correction
Research on the utilization of marble and granite powders started about the year 2006
by many researchers in various places and the story was always similar:
The concrete looked good with good workability, but the strength is lower.
The researches were started with the utilization of these powders in small quantities in
both normal and SCC mixes of the order of 40 to 120 kg/m3. There were times when the
experimental programs would often be abandoned half way as the strength development of
concrete incorporating marble or granite powders were much below the expected strength.
Next, a higher dosage of 240 and 360 kg/m3 was tried. The material properties were
reinvestigated. Since coarse aggregate is taken in the SSD condition during the casting, no water
correction was done for its moisture. During the casting, moisture corrections were rigorously
81
done for sand, marble and granite powders. An interesting trend was noticed in the strength loss
and plasticizer demand:
a) When a higher value of SSD water content was assumed, a strength loss was noted.
b) The strength loss was related to the amount of marble and granite powders.
c) The plasticizer demand was lower when a higher value of SSD water content was
assumed.
This clearly meant that there was excess water in the system. The SSD water content
values were gradually decreased without changing the specific gravity as it should have been
done. As the value was kept decreasing, at one point, the strength started becoming consistent
with the expected data of Pusa [1] assuming these powder materials were non-reacting. In this
confirmation experiment, it also became clear that the amount of marble/granite powder has to
be taken into consideration while estimating the plasticizer demand. This is explained in detail
in later sections.
Finally, all experimental results were readjusted taking care of the finalized value of the
SSD water content and specific gravity by back calculations. In all the experiments, what was
true was the actual proportions of the material casted. Though now all the data related to water
correction is kept in records, this was not the trend in the initial experiment stages. Hence, the
recalculation of mix design were possible in only those experimental results where the water
correction data of sand and marble/granite powder was found. Therefore only a small
percentage of the initial experiments were used and reported here in this thesis. It was thrilling
to see the data points shifting from irrelevant trends to correct trends.
The initial set of experiments were done assuming the SSD moisture content of 12% for
marble powder, later by 10% and 6%. In the case of granite powder, the values were 19.7%,
15% and 9%. In the case of 6% for marble powder and 9% for granite powder, the compressive
strength results showed a good trend. Later, all the previous mixes casted were recalculated.
The final w/b ratio (after taking the fly ash efficiency factor) vs. the strength graph showed a
logical trend.
82
6.5 Mix design and results
The details of the mix design and the results of normal concrete made of marble and
granite powders, as well as the control concrete for normal concrete and self-compacting
concrete, are presented in Chapter 7. In this chapter, only some results are used to interpret the
importance of moisture correction.
Table 6.4 Sample calculation for correction of mix design for marble powder
Moisture Comp. Str., Admix. Slump

Mix No. w/B
absorption (%) (MPa), 28 d Dosage (%) (mm)
M29 0.34 Dry (0%) 59 0.90% 220
M30 0.39 6% 52 0.75% 150
M19 0.43 9.80% 46 0.50% 130
M28 0.45 12% 43 0.35% 110
Table 6.5 shows the typical mixes for different moisture corrections. The marble powder
experiments were started with SSD water absorption values at 12%. The strength results were
lower. The water absorption value was lowered to 9.8% and subsequently to 6%. The strength
levels were increased with lowering the water absorption values. To confirm the trend, mix no.
M19 was repeated after considering the additional water absorption values. Mix M19 (done
with water absorption value of 9.8%) was repeated as M28, M29 and M30 with water
absorption values. In M29, the marble powder was taken oven dry. Water correction was not
done. The mix was very harsh, sticky even after adding a plasticizer dosage of 0.9%. The
concrete mix still looked unworkable. At the 0.9% dosage, the slump was recorded as 220 mm,
even though it looked very harsh and rubber-like. In the other three mix designs, the material
was taken wet and the plasticizer demand decreased with an increase in water available and
increase in effective w/b ratio. These four mixes can be seen with a nice strength trend (Fig. 6.3). This
reflected the extra water available due to the mistake in the assumption of SSD water content, resulting
in the increase in w/b ratio and decrease in strength
83
Table 6.5 Mix design for higher granite powder

(a) Uncorrected w/b ratio
Specific Gravities
w/b 1 3.14 2.2 2.37 2.62 2.93 2.93
Mix No. f% k value
Initial Granite CA CA
Water Cement Fly Ash Sand
powder 10 mm 20 mm
2G1 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 240 500 489 729
2G2 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 360 305 509 764
2G3 0% 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 240 660 385 580
2G4 0% 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 360 570 360 540
2G5 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 240 560 380 602
2G6 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 360 475 370 545
2G7 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 240 490 470 710
2G8 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 360 300 490 738
2G9 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 360 300 490 738
2G10 20% 0.63 0.40 160 344 86 240 518 420 640
2G11 20% 0.63 0.40 160 344 86 360 395 410 625
2G12 30% 0.41 0.49 160 277 119 240 455 455 695
2G13 30% 0.41 0.49 160 277 119 360 265 475 725
2G14 30% 0.41 0.39 160 347 149 240 442 420 640
2G15 30% 0.41 0.39 160 347 149 360 295 420 640
2G16 40% 0.28 0.51 160 265 177 240 415 450 678
2G17 40% 0.28 0.51 160 265 177 360 215 475 715
2G18 40% 0.28 0.51 160 265 177 360 300 440 655
2G19 30% 0.41 0.49 160 277 119 360 322 455 680
2G20 30% 0.41 0.39 160 347 149 360 325 410 617
2G21 30% 0.41 0.31 160 433 186 360 340 350 530
(b) Corrected w/b ratio and strength results

Specific gravities 1 3.14 2.2 2.37 2.62 2.93 2.93 Compressive
3
Weight of material (kg/m ) Strength (MPa)
Correct
Mix No. f% k value Granite CA CA
w/b Water Cement Fly Ash Sand 7d 28 d
Powder 10 mm 20 mm
2G1 0% 1.00 0.59 187 318 0 211 497 486 725 20.7 27.0
2G2 0% 1.00 0.63 200 317 0 315 302 504 757 18.1 22.1
2G3 0% 1.00 0.47 187 398 0 211 656 383 576 29.6 39.5
2G4 0% 1.00 0.50 200 397 0 315 565 357 535 27.9 35.8
2G5 0% 1.00 0.38 187 497 0 211 557 378 599 41.7 55.5
2G6 0% 1.00 0.40 200 495 0 315 471 367 540 40.2 51.6
2G7 20% 0.64 0.59 187 274 68 211 487 467 706 20.7 31.4
2G7 20% 0.63 0.56 176 274 68 211 487 467 706 20.7 31.4
2G8 20% 0.64 0.63 200 273 68 315 297 486 732 17.3 30.4
2G9 20% 0.63 0.58 184 276 69 337 301 491 739 16.3 27.8
2G10 20% 0.64 0.44 176 345 86 225 519 421 641 27.6 41.3
2G11 20% 0.64 0.46 184 345 86 337 396 411 626 28.8 50.0
2G12 30% 0.41 0.54 176 278 119 224 456 456 696 18.1 40.8
2G13 30% 0.41 0.56 184 278 119 337 265 476 726 19.8 35.0
2G14 30% 0.41 0.43 176 347 149 224 443 421 641 32.7 52.9
2G15 30% 0.41 0.45 184 347 149 337 296 421 641 24.5 45.4
2G16 40% 0.28 0.56 176 266 177 224 416 451 679 22.3 42.6
2G17 40% 0.28 0.58 184 266 177 337 215 476 716 17.3 34.8
2G18 40% 0.28 0.58 184 265 177 337 300 441 656 26.3 38.2
2G19 30% 0.41 0.49 163 282 121 366 327 462 691 27.1 42.5
2G20 30% 0.41 0.39 163 352 151 366 330 417 627 35.4 58.6
2G21 30% 0.41 0.31 163 440 189 366 346 356 539 47.9 77.9
84
Table 6.6 Mix design for higher marble powder

(a) Uncorrected w/b ratio
Specific gravities 1 3.14 2.2 2.23 2.62 2.93 2.93
3
Weight of material (kg/m )
Mix k- Initial
f% Marble CA 10 CA 20
No. value w/b Water Cement Fly ash Sand
powder mm mm
2M1 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 240 735 398 570
2M2 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 360 622 380 555
2M3 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 240 500 489 729
2M4 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 360 305 509 764
2M5 0% 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 240 670 385 580
2M6 0% 1.00 0.40 160 400 0 360 580 358 550
2M7 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 240 620 370 560
2M8 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 240 565 385 605
2M9 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 360 525 350 525
2M10 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 360 480 370 555
2M11 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 240 490 475 715
2M12 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 360 300 495 750
2M13 20% 0.63 0.40 160 344 86 240 530 420 640
2M14 20% 0.63 0.40 160 344 86 360 400 415 632
2M15 30% 0.40 0.49 160 277 119 240 440 470 708
2M16 30% 0.40 0.49 160 277 119 360 250 492 740
2M17 30% 0.40 0.49 160 277 119 360 300 472 715
2M18 30% 0.40 0.39 160 347 149 240 440 425 650
2M19 30% 0.40 0.39 160 347 149 360 298 425 650
2M20 40% 0.30 0.50 160 265 177 240 400 463 695
2M21 40% 0.30 0.50 160 265 177 360 210 480 732
2M22 40% 0.30 0.40 160 331 221 240 353 430 660
2M23 40% 0.30 0.40 160 331 221 360 238 420 640
2M24 30% 0.40 0.49 160 277 119 240 440 470 708
2M25 30% 0.40 0.49 160 277 119 360 300 472 715
2M26 40% 0.30 0.50 160 265 177 240 400 463 695
2M27 40% 0.30 0.50 160 265 177 360 210 480 732
2M28 30% 0.40 0.39 160 347 149 360 298 425 650
2M29 30% 0.40 0.39 160 347 149 360 298 425 650
2M30 30% 0.40 0.39 160 347 149 360 298 425 650
85
(b) Corrected w/b ratio and strength results

Specific gravities 1 3.14 2.2 2.54 2.62 2.93 2.93 Compressive
3
Weight of material (kg/m ) strength (MPa)
k- Correct
Mix No. f% Marble CA 10 CA 20
value w/b Water Cement Fly ash Sand 7d 28 d
powder mm mm
2M1 0% 1.00 0.57 183 320 0 217 734 397 569 20.9 28.1
2M2 0% 1.00 0.61 194 320 0 325 621 380 554 22.9 33.6
2M3 0% 1.00 0.57 184 321 0 218 502 491 731 26.6 35.4
2M4 0% 1.00 0.61 195 322 0 327 306 511 768 26.6 34.6
2M5 0% 1.00 0.46 183 400 0 217 669 385 579 32.6 43.0
2M6 0% 1.00 0.49 194 399 0 325 579 358 549 30.0 42.0
2M7 0% 1.00 0.35 176 502 0 225 622 371 562 54.1 63.0
2M8 0% 1.00 0.35 176 502 0 225 567 386 607 48.0 61.0
2M9 0% 1.00 0.37 184 503 0 339 528 352 528 43.0 58.0
2M10 0% 1.00 0.37 184 503 0 339 483 372 559 44.4 57.0
2M11 20% 0.63 0.55 176 276 69 226 492 477 718 26.0 37.0
2M12 20% 0.63 0.57 184 277 69 339 302 498 755 24.9 33.0
2M13 20% 0.63 0.44 176 345 86 225 532 421 642 26.5 39.5
2M14 20% 0.63 0.46 184 346 87 339 402 417 636 25.8 42.0
2M15 30% 0.40 0.52 171 279 120 232 443 474 713 25.8 44.8
2M16 30% 0.40 0.54 177 280 120 349 253 498 749 25.3 40.2
2M17 30% 0.40 0.54 176 279 120 348 302 476 721 24.3 41.7
2M18 30% 0.40 0.42 171 349 150 232 443 428 655 29.4 44.9
2M19 30% 0.40 0.43 177 350 150 349 301 430 657 31.0 46.0
2M20 40% 0.30 0.54 171 267 178 232 403 466 700 28.4 37.2
2M21 40% 0.30 0.55 177 268 179 349 212 485 740 29.7 39.2
2M22 40% 0.30 0.43 171 334 223 232 355 433 665 36.9 50.0
2M23 40% 0.30 0.44 176 335 223 349 241 425 647 34.8 47.0
2M24 30% 0.40 0.52 171 279 120 232 443 474 713 25.0 34.0
2M25 30% 0.40 0.49 163 282 121 366 305 480 727 28.9 39.0
2M26 40% 0.30 0.51 162 269 179 243 405 469 704 33.3 43.0
2M27 40% 0.30 0.51 163 271 180 367 214 490 747 27.4 38.0
2M28 30% 0.40 0.45 184 349 149 339 300 428 654 35.0 43.0
2M29 30% 0.40 0.34 142 359 154 397 309 440 673 47.4 59.2
2M30 30% 0.40 0.39 163 354 152 367 304 434 663 43.4 52.0
86
100
w/B= 0.39 Marble Uncorrected
Marble Corrected
Special Series Corrected
80
Compressive strength (MPa), 28 d
Trendline [Pusa, 2011]
60 Dry (M29)
9.8% (M19)
6% (M30)
40
12% (M28)
20
Marked are four cases with same mix (w/B = 0.39 and SSD moisture content = 6%)
for marble powders with different water corrections, resulting in different w/B ratios
and strengths.
0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
w/b ratio
Fig. 6.4 Compressive strength vs. w/b ratio for marble powder concrete
100
Granite Uncorrected
Granite Corrected
Trendline [Pusa, 2011]
80
60
40
20
0
0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70
w/B ratio
Fig. 6.5Compressive strength vs. w/b ratio for granite powder concrete
87
In the case of granite, the initial results showed an 18% moisture content. After
observing the marble powder story, the values adopted were 16.7% and 15%. Later it was
concluded that the moisture content was to be 9% at SSD condition for the granite powder. The
strength decrease was noted. Table 6.6 (a) presents the mix design parameters before correction
of w/b ratio, while Table 6.6 (b) presents the corrected w/b with strength results for marble
powder. Corresponding presentations for granite powder mixes are shown in Table 6.7 (a) and
(b). Fig. 6.4 shows the relationship between compressive strength and w/b ratio for both the
corrected and uncorrected w/b ratios of marble powder mixes. For granite powder mixes, the
same are shown in Fig. 6.5. The results matched well with that of Pusa’s [1] results.
6.6 Conclusion
In this chapter, the importance of proper estimation of the SSD moisture content and
water correction was highlighted. Water correction and proper value of moisture content of the
material in the SSD condition is very important to get a consistent estimation of expected
strength. The plasticizer demand to get expected workability can be used as a quality control
mechanism for the mixes.
Initial experiments reported a lower strength. Though a large number of casting were
done, the actual water correction data was found only for a few. These mix designs were
corrected and presented. A final set of mixes using higher quantity of marble and granite
powders were casted. The following conclusions can be drawn:
a) It is difficult to determine the SSD condition of granite and marble powders.

b) The specific gravity and moisture content of marble and granite powder had a
linear interrelation (Fig. 6.2).
c) The moisture content of the SSD condition and the specific gravity of these
materials were decided based on the workability and strength development
parameters.
d) On correcting these mixes, the w/b ratio vs. the compressive strength results
matched well with Pusa’s [1] results.
e) In the final stage, experiments conducted with the appropriate water correction
provided a compressive strength predictably.
88
CHAPTER 7
MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF CONCRETE WITH

MARBLE AND GRANITE POWDERS
7.0 General
In Chapter 2, it was shown that various researchers had attempted to utilize marble and
granite powders in concrete. The results were limited and not predictable. For these material to
be established as regular construction materials, it was important that scientific evaluation be
carried out by conducting tests, and achieving desired performance (here 28 days compressive
strength) consistently. Chapter 6 presented the importance of water correction. It was pointed
out that the materials used had high water absorption capacities. In fact it was difficult to
determine the SSD condition for these types of materials. The SSD condition was decided by
indirect methods, assuming marble and granite powders non-reactive such that they gave a
consistent 28 days strength and predictable workability.
In this research, numerous casting were done in the category of normal and self-
compacting concretes. In this chapter, the mechanical properties of all these concretes are
discussed in a unified way. The matter relating to their workability and rheology are presented
in the next Chapter.
Experimental researches utilizing marble and granite powders started in 2006. Pandey
[2] and Bansal [3] carried out some initial experiments. Author’s independent initial
experiments in continuation to their work consistently showed lower than expected strengths.
In subsequent set of trials, a higher dosage of marble and granite powders were used. The degree
in decrease of strength implied that water correction played an important role. The mix designs
were corrected taking care of the water correction and results followed well established trends.
This matter has been discussed in details in Chapter 6.
89
Strength development and its dependence on w/c is a key area. The relationship between
compressive strength and split tensile or flexural strengths are also of interest. The prime goal
of this research is to establish marble and granite as feasible construction materials in concrete,
and the objective here is to present facts about their strength as was found in this research
experiments compared with past trends.
For prediction of strength in concrete, the water-cement ratio or w/c was a well-
established parameter. But with the introduction of fly ash (leaving aside GGBS and other
supplementary cementitious materials), the matter became complicated. A detailed literature
review of the estimation of strength on the utilization of fly ash is presented in Chapter 2.
7.1 Role of w/c Ratio
The Popovics [96] provides a very good starting point for understanding the w/c
relationship with strength. Free water is defined as the water quantity that is present in the
matrix immediately after consolidation. Water evaporated earlier or lost in other process e.g.
absorption by aggregate, bleeding or excess water due to moist aggregate is to be taken into
consideration while calculating free water. However, water lost from the paste after the
consolidation remains part of the effective water cement ratio. The author experienced this
when a dry aggregate was used. The aggregate or marble powder absorbed the water from the
mix at the mixing stage, thereby decreasing the effective water content and water cementitious
ratio, and increasing the strength as water absorption happened in the mixing stage before the
consolidation [96].
The water cement ratio decides the porosity. Popovics [96] explained that as the w/c
ratio increases, not only does the amount of pores increase, it also decreases the number of
bonds and create points of stress concentration. Porosity was studied by Locher [97], Winslow
and Diamond [98], Sandstedt [99] and Bhattacharjee [100,101] etc. Though it is important to
90
Chapter 7: Mechanical properties of concrete with marble and granite powder
understand this mechanism, it is difficult to measure porosity at site and the w/c ratio remains
the main factor that is being used to predict the strength of concrete.
Abram [102] showed the relationship between the concrete strength with w/c ratio. Graf
[103] however, points that Zielenszki [104,105] was the first to study the effect of w/c ratio on
the strength of mortar. Though Abram’s law is formulated for Portland cement concrete, it is
also applicable to other cases also. Though various other factors affect the strength of concrete,
w/c ratio remains the main contributing factor.
Kaplan [106] carried out an experiment showing the w/c relationship on 3, 7, 28 and 91
days strength. This experimental data are further plotted in various forms later. Abram had
proposed a relationship between the compressive strength vs. w/c ratio (eq. 7.1).
𝐴
𝑓 = 𝐵𝑤/𝑐 + 𝐶 (7.1)
where, f is compressive strength of concrete, w/c is water-cement ratio and A, B,C are
empirical coefficients that are independent of the strength and water-cement ratio; however,
they depend on the units, materials, type of strength, test method used, age of testing , and other
conditions.
Schiller [107] recommended a logarithmic function; Power function and polynomial
functions were also proposed; and Zietsman (Fulton [108]) proposed the sinusoidal function.
Popovics [96] explained that all these formulas were developed empirically and no preference
should be given to any one of these formulas.
Based on the experimental experience, it was noted that if concrete is casted again using
the same mix design, there is no guarantee that the strength of concrete will always achieve
similar values. Various factors like the change in the moisture content of fine aggregates,
bleeding, evaporation, etc. can affect the strength, and the achieved strength can vary ± 3-5 MPa
from the predicted strength as can be seen in the vertical dispersion of the data of Fig 7.18 (c).
Hence, the exact curve of strength vs. w/c is not very important.
91
Pusa[1] investigated the possibility of using fly ash and extended the of w/c concept by
using an efficiency factor k that is to be multiplied with fly ash content and added to the cement
content in the denominator and named it water effective cementitious ratio. Here, k-value is
considered only for 28 days compressive strength and the efficiency factor depends on fly ash
percentage. This was developed based on the formulation arrived at by Babu [9].
The detailed review of this matter can be found in Chapter 3. Khuito [11] and Meera
[12] extended the scope applicability of this formulation. The relationship between compressive
strength and w/c developed based on k factor matched well with Kaplan’s experiment and as
discussed by Popovics [96] shown in Fig. 7.1. This w/c relationship is used in this chapter for
comparison of experimental data using marble and granite powders.
Fig. 7.1 Comparison of Khuito [11] strength against Popovics [96]/ Kaplan’s [106] results
7.2 Strength relationships
Popovics [96] has provided a comprehensive compilation for flexural strength vs.
compressive strength and the data reported are quite diverse. In this thesis only IS and EN
standards will be used for comparison.
IS-456 (2000) [13] mentions a relationship between flexural strength and characteristic
compressive strength as shown in Eq. 7.2. The EN 1992-1-1[109] provides a complicated
92
formulation for relationship between compressive strength and flexural, split tensile strength,
as seen from the data compiled in Table 7.1 and Fig. 7.2. It can be seen from Fig. 7.2 that the
flexural strength represented by the IS code is similar up to 40 MPa and after that shows a
slightly lower flexural strength as compared to the EN 1992-1-1[109].
𝑓𝑐𝑟 = 0.7√𝑓𝑐𝑘 (7.2)
Table 7.1(a) Strength properties as per EN 1992-1-1 [109]
cylinder Cylinder Cube Tensile Strength (Mpa)

Mix Cube fck Flexural
fck Target Target str
Designation (Mpa) Axial split Str (Mpa)
(Mpa) Str (Mpa) (Mpa)
C12/16 12 20 16 26 1.6 1.7 2.4
C16/20 16 24 20 30 1.9 2.1 2.9
C20/25 20 28 25 35 2.2 2.5 3.3
C25/30 25 33 30 40 2.6 2.8 3.8
C30/37 30 38 37 47 2.9 3.2 4.3
C35/45 35 43 45 55 3.2 3.6 4.8
C40/50 40 48 50 60 3.5 3.9 5.3
C45/55 45 53 55 65 3.8 4.2 5.7
C50/60 50 58 60 70 4.1 4.5 6.1
C55/67 55 63 67 77 4.2 4.7 6.3
C60/75 60 68 75 85 4.4 4.8 6.5
C70/85 70 78 85 95 4.6 5.1 6.9
C80/95 80 88 95 105 4.8 5.4 7.3
C90/105 90 98 105 115 5 5.6 7.6
Table 7.1(b) Strength properties as per IS456 [13]
Standard
Mix Cube fck Target Flexure
Deviation
Designation (Mpa) Str (Mpa) Str (Mpa)
(Mpa)
M20 4 20 26.6 3.1
M25 4 25 31.6 3.5
M30 5 30 38.3 3.8
M35 5 35 43.3 4.1
M40 5 40 48.3 4.4
M45 5 45 53.3 4.7
M50 5 50 58.3 4.9
M55 5 55 63.3 5.2
M60 5 60 68.3 5.4
M65 5 65 73.3 5.6
M70 5 70 78.3 5.9
M75 5 75 83.3 6.1
M80 5 80 88.3 6.3
M85 5 85 93.3 6.5
93
Fig 7.2 Strength relationships as per IS code [13] and EN 1992-1-1[109]
7.3 Utilization of marble and granite powder in concrete in literature
In this section, an attempt is made to rationalize the experimental data found in literature
based on the author’s understanding. In this analysis, it is assumed that both marble and granite
powders are inert material. For utilization of fly ash, the efficiency factor developed by Pusa
[1] is being adopted. Chapter 6 highlighted the importance of the proper determination of
moisture absorption and specific gravities of materials, without which there would be drastic
impacts on the strengths of concrete. Hence, when dry powder material is being used and the
strength is gained, it is assumed that the water was absorbed, resulting in a decrease in the w/c
ratio and increase in its strength. On the other hand, when wet material is used and the strength
is decreased, in most cases the decrease in strength was attributed to an increase in the water
content, leading to an increase in the w/c ratio and decrease in its strength.
Various researchers have investigated the use of marble powder in concrete, including
self-compacting concrete. A few researchers tried to replace the cement with marble powder,
while most of the researchers used it as a replacement for sand. These interpretations can be
considered as the contribution of the author as it reinforces the theories developed in this thesis.
94
Here, data found in literature are presented and interpreted as per the author’s concepts.
i. Vaidevi [35] utilised marble powder up to 20% replacement of cement as presented in
Fig. 7.3. Assuming some appropriate values of specific gravity, the mix mentioned for
concrete seems to be appropriate for 1 m3. For mortar, the value seems to be a multiple
of 1000/1.26, and appropriately recalculated. The mixes thus adopted are shown in
Table 7.2(a). In the concrete mixes, the strength vs. w/c matched with predicted
relationship. The mortar showed higher strength, but is parallel to the predicted strength.
Hence, the strength decrease in each group can be attributed to the increase in the w/c
due to a decrease in cement.
ii. Shelke et al. [36] reported that up to 16% replacement of cement with marble powder
decreased the compressive strength from 45 MPa to 35.7 MPa, presented in Fig. 7.3.
For micro silica, an efficiency factor of 1.1 was assumed. The strength trend matched
well with our predicted trend, as represented in Table 7.2(b).
iii. Corinaldesi et al. [37] reported the use of marble powder up to 135 kg/m3 as a
replacement to sand and cement. In both cases, the w/c was calculated and the strength
followed logical trends. The strength showed a slightly higher trend compared to our
results. The mix design and strength trend are shown in Table 7.2 c and Fig. 7.3
respectively.
iv. Awol [38] experimented on the w/c ratio of 0.56 and 0.34 using marble powder, shown
in Table 7.2 d. Cement replacement resulted in a decrease in strength in both groups
while sand replacement provided almost a similar strengths in both the groups. The
marble powder utilised was up to about 185 kg/m3. The strength trend looked similar to
our trend with a slight lower shift as shown in Fig. 7.3.
v. Demirel [110] used waste marble dust as a replacement for below 0.25 mm of fine
aggregate. The segregation of fine sand up to 0.25 mm, and between 0.25 to 4 mm as
95
reported required extra efforts. The d60 of powder material was 0.08 µm and that of d90
20 µm approximately, which was much finer than that of replaced sand. The w/c ratio
was constant. However, the strength gain was reported on utilization of marble powder.
It may be noted that marble powder was dried and sieved prior to its utilization. Since
it was dry, it was expected to absorb water and decrease the w/c ratio. Decreasing the
water content by 10% of the marble weight provided a logical trend. However, the
overall strength showed a higher trend as compared to our strength trend. The mix
design and strength trend are shown in Table 7.2(e) and Fig. 7.3 respectively.
vi. Hameed et al. [39] used marble sludge powder and quarry rock dust as a replacement
for sand. In this paper, 2 mixes of concrete and 6 mixes of mortar were presented. The
mixes represent w/c = 0.55 for concrete, while it represent 0.4-0.42 for the mortar as
shown in Table 7.2(f). The results match our expected trend as represented by Fig. 7.3.
In a second paper on SCC [47], 3 control mixes and 3 mixes of marble powder are
considered here as shown in Table 7.2(g) and Fig 7.3. Here quarry rock dust was used.
The w/c relationship of control mixes is very strange. When marble powder was used,
the strength increased marginally in all these mixes, even though extra water was
required in these mixes. This can only be explained by the fact that marble powder was
used in a dry form. Calculations show that when water equivalent to 30% of the marble
powder was added to the water content, logical results were seen as compared to its
control counterpart.
vii. Hamza et al. [40] utilised marble and granite waste of different sizes in manufacturing
concrete bricks, with full replacement of conventional coarse, and fine aggregates with
marble waste scraps and slurry powder of content up to 40%. The marble slurry had d50
of 5 µm and d90 of 25 µm. A typical fine aggregate had an oven dry specific gravity of
2.73; an SSD specific gravity of 2.63 and water absorption of 1.73%. The specific
gravity of marble was 2.77, with the water absorption of 23.25%. The specific gravity
seemed to be of the order of the parent rock, whereas the water absorption looked very
96
high. It is not clear if this water absorption represented the total water content of the
system, or the water
Expexted Trend Vaidevi-M

80
Vaidevi-C Shelke et. al.
Corinaldesi et. al. Awol
70 Demirel Hameed
Hameed SCC Hunger
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
w/b
Fig. 7.3: 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b
Table 7.2(a): Mix design for Vaidevi C et. al. [35]
Mix w/(c+kf) Coarse Comp. str. 28

Author Water Cement Marble Sand
no. corrected aggregate d (MPa)
1 0.47 191.6 407.7 0 538.09 1194.4 39.2

2 0.50 191.6 387.3 20.38 538.09 1194.4 34.4
Vaidevi - C 3 0.53 191.6 366.9 40.77 538.09 1194.4 38.17
4 0.57 191.6 346.5 61.15 538.09 1194.4 30.33
5 0.61 191.6 326.1 81.53 538.09 1194.4 30.02
1 0.57 273 476.2 0 1429 0 49.2
Vaidevi-M 2 0.61 273 452.4 24 1429 0 44.1
suggested 3 0.65 273 428.6 48 1429 0 49.4
correction 4 0.69 273 404.8 71 1429 0 40.8
5 0.74 273 381.0 95 1429 0 32.4
Table 7.2(b): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Shelke et. al. [36]
Mix Marble Micro Comp. str.

Author w/(c+1.1 MS) Water Cement Marble Sand
no. % Silica 28 d (MPa)
1 0.4300 0% 172 400 0 0 464 45

2 0.3952 0% 172 400 0 32 464 49
Shelke et. al. 3 0.4296 8% 172 368 32 29.4 464 46.9
4 0.4491 12% 172 352 48 28.2 464 40.8
5 0.4705 16% 172 336 64 26.9 464 35.7
97
Table 7.2(c): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Corinaldesi et. al. [37]
Comp.
Mix
Author w/c Water Cement Marble Sand str. 28 d
no.
(MPa)
1 0.61 275 450 0 1350 39
2 0.68 276 405 45 1350 32
Corinaldesi 3 0.59 266 450 135 1215 35
et. al. 4 0.48 220 450 0 1350 54
5 0.49 200 405 45 1350 48
6 0.53 240 450 135 1215 52
Table 7.2(d): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Awol [38]
Comp. str.
Author w/c Water Cement Marble Sand C. Agg 28 d
(MPa)
0.56 200 360 0 925 980 28.9
0.58 200 342 18 925 980 28.5
0.62 200 324 36 925 980 24.5
0.65 200 306 54 925 980 24.2
0.69 200 288 72 925 980 19.7
0.32 170 530 0 850 920 48.0
0.34 170 504 27 850 920 48.7
0.36 170 477 53 850 920 43.5
0.38 170 451 80 850 920 41.5
0.40 170 424 106 850 920 40.2
Awol
0.56 200 360 0 925 980 28.9
0.56 200 360 46 879 980 29.6
0.56 200 360 93 833 980 29.6
0.56 200 360 139 786 980 30.2
0.56 200 360 185 740 980 30.4
0.32 170 530 0 850 920 48.0
0.32 170 530 43 808 920 50.3
0.32 170 530 85 765 920 51.2
0.32 170 530 128 723 920 49.6
0.32 170 530 170 680 920 49.3
Table 7.2(e): Mix design and 28 d compressive strength for Demirel et. al. [110]
(w+ 0.1M)/ Coarse Comp. str.

Author Mix no. Water Cement Marble Sand
(c+kf) aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0.51 255 500 0 836 725 48.68
2 0.50 255 500 39 797 725 50.25
Demirel
3 0.49 255 500 78 758 725 50.69
4 0.48 255 500 156 680 725 53.39
98
Table 7.2(f): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hameed et. al. [39]
Mix (w-0.2*M)/ Crushed Coarse Comp. str.

Author Water Cement Marble Sand
no. (c+kf) rock dust aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0.55 234 425 0 770 0 868 36.85

Hameed-C
2 0.53 234 425.0 368 368 0 868 40.35
1 0.40 200 500 0 1500 0 0 52.5
2 0.35 205 500 1500 0 0 0 53.2
3 0.38 210 500 1125 0 375 375 55.75
Hameed-M
4 0.39 210 500 750 0 750 750 58.85
5 0.42 215 500 375 0 1125 1125 50.54
6 0.42 210 500 0 0 1500 1500 48.73
Table 7.2(g): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hameed et. al. SCC mixes [47]
Mix MP w/(c+kf) Crushed Coarse Comp. str.

Author Water Cement Marble
no. % corrected rock dust aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0 0.40 152 383.2 0.0 799 850 23.56

2 0 0.50 188 383.2 141.0 799 850 26.85
3 5 0.36 186 511.0 0.0 704 828 37.25
Hameed-SCC
4 5 0.43 218 511.0 124.0 704 828 38.5
5 10 0.35 216 618.0 0.0 670 786 46.25
6 10 0.40 247 618.0 117.0 670 786 49.6
Table 7.2(h): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Hunger et. al. [46]
Mix (w-6%*(M+LS)- Unwashed Limestone Coarse Comp. str.

Author Water Cement Fly ash Marble Sand
no. 3%(UGS+S))/ (c+kf) granite sand powder Aggregate 28 d (MPa)
Hunger 1 0.3533 165 300 184.3 907.1 0.0 184.3 0 795.5 57.82
SCC 2 0.7129 191 200 0 0 394.1 0.0 825.6 727.5 33.32
content at the saturated surface-dry (SSD) condition. The amount of water in the mix was
not mentioned and slurry replaced the fine aggregates. There was an increase in the strength
of 10% granite sludge. Since the water content was not mentioned, the data are not
presented in graphical or tabular form.
viii. Hunger et al. [46] utilised unwashed granite sand, marble powder, lime stone powder and
sand combinations and all these materials required water correction of 6%, 11%,3% and
3% respectively to match our trend as shown in Table 7.2(h) and Fig. 7.3.
ix. Al-Joulani [41] described the use of calcium carbonate as the main constituent
in various applications. In concrete bricks, stone slurry was used to replace fine
99
aggregate up to 50%. In floor tiles, it was up to 20%. In pottery, ceramics and
ornamental products, it was used to 30%. Mix designs are not mentioned in this paper,
the data are not presented in graphical or tabular form.
x. Almeida et al. [42, 43] studied the use of slurry from industry that uses limestone and
marble. This material has particle sizes of d10 as 1.5 µm, d50 as 4 µm and d90 as 44 µm
in concrete. The strength trend matches with our expected trend. However the results
are on a higher side. A water correction of 5% of stone dust provides better results. The
mix design and strength trend are shown in Table 7.3a and Fig. 7.2 respectively.
xi. Belaidi et al. [44] examined the effect of substituting cement with natural pozzolana and
marble powder on the rheological and mechanical properties of self-compacting mortars
and self-compacting concrete. The powder content was kept constant at 475 kg/m3 and
varied OPC, pozzolana and marble powder. The results showed that marble powder
enhanced the flow properties of SCC. The strength trend showed parallel but lower
trend. The mixing of marble powder did not alter the trend. The mix design and strength
trend are shown in Table 7.3(b) and Fig. 7.4 respectively.
xii. Research conducted by Alyamac et al. [111] is one of the most extensive studies till
date. However, he has not used additional fly ash or any pozzolana. There are 9 mixes
that did not use any marble powder. The first 5 mixes is referred to as control mix and
the results match our trend. Data on the next four mixes are not mentioned in Fig. 9 of
his paper, but results show a higher trend. 3 different types of marble powder have been
used: namely cherry, gold and white. All three showed similar strength trends and
significantly higher strength compared to the control concrete. Assuming that the
marble powder was used in the dry form, a water absorption of 10%, moved most of the
points closer to our trend line. However, this was not true for all the points. It is possible
that this work did not concentrate on the water correction or the value would have
changed depending on the casting dates. Marble powder from 100-200 kg /m3 with a
100
few of a higher range were used. The strength trend is as shown in Fig. 7.4 and Table
7.3(c) and 7.3(d).
xiii. Guneyisi et al. [112] worked on self-compacting mortars using a combination of
cement, GGBS and marble powder. Since the utilization of GGBS is outside the scope
of this project, only five mixes without GGBS are presented in Table 7.3(e) and Fig 7.4.
The strength was much higher as compared to estimated strength trend. Even the control
concrete showed a 78.5 MPa with w/c of 0.4. Since marble powder is used as
replacement of cement, as the cement quantity decreased, the strength too decreased in
the expected manner.
xiv. Topcu et al. [45] studied the utilisation of marble dust in SCC by utilising up to 300
kg/m3 of marble as shown in Table 7.3(f). The strength seems to match with our strength
trend. This confirms that marble powder does not contribute to the strength, but
contributes to the workability of the SCC mix. The strength trend is as shown in Fig.
7.4
xv. Williams et al. [30] and Fellix [31] utilised granite powder replacing sand in making
high performance concrete (0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%). The w/c remained
constant. The strength initially increased marginally and gradually decreased with the
increase of granite powder. This can be explained by including 5% excess water in
granite powder, and the strength trend matched with our expected trend. Split tensile
strength and modulus of elasticity followed a similar trend. Water penetration and
drying shrinkage were almost not effected. The strength trend and mix design data are
as shown by Fig. 7.5 and Table 7.4(a) respectively.
101
100
Expexted Trend
90 Almayac Control
80 Almayac -M
Guneyisi
70
Topcu
60 Almeida
Belaidi
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
w/b
Fig. 7.4: 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b

Table 7.3(a): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Almeida et. al. [42,43]
Mix w/c - M. Coarse Comp. str. 28

Author Water Cement Sand
no. 5% M Dust aggregate d (MPa)
FA 1 FA 2
1 0.32 128.4 401.2 0.0 253.0 473 1071 85.1
2 0.30 121.4 404.6 38.0 219.0 477 1081 91.1
3 0.28 117.8 406.3 77.0 182.0 479 1085 79.4
Almeida 4 0.31 128.4 401.2 114.0 144.0 473 1071 79.5
5 0.34 142.1 394.7 152.0 103.0 465 1054 77.5
6 0.37 155.4 388.4 256.0 0.0 458 1037 60.8
7 0.39 171.3 380.8 489.0 0.0 225 1017 58.2
8 0.36 174.5 379.3 726.0 0.0 0 1013 50.3
Table 7.3(b): Mix design data and 28 days compressive strength for Belaidi et. al. [44]
Comp. str.
Mix w/b (from Fly Coarse
Author f% k w/c Water Cement Marble Sand 28 d
no. reference) ash aggregate
(MPa)
1 0% 1.00 0.4 0.40 190 475 0 0 886 830 37

2 5% 0.99 0.4 0.40 190 451 24 0 886 830 32
3 10% 0.93 0.4 0.40 190 427 48 0 886 830 30
4 15% 0.81 0.4 0.41 190 404 71 0 886 830 27
5 20% 0.65 0.4 0.43 190 380 95 0 886 830 27
6 25% 0.50 0.4 0.46 190 356 119 0 886 830 25
Belaidi
7 5% 0.99 0.4 0.42 190 427 24 24 886 830 32
8 6% 0.99 0.4 0.45 190 403 24 48 886 830 28
9 6% 0.99 0.4 0.47 190 380 24 71 886 830 27
10 11% 0.91 0.4 0.45 190 380 48 48 886 830 24
11 13% 0.87 0.4 0.51 190 332 48 95 886 830 25.5
12 14% 0.82 0.4 0.59 190 285 48 142 886 830 19
102
Table 7.3(c): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength
for Alyamac et. al. [111]

w/c (from Coarse Comp. str.
reference) aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0.55 165 300 100 1095 722 35.6
2 0.55 165 300 100 1095 722 39.1
3 0.55 165 300 100 1095 722 29.3
4 0.6 180 300 100 1071 706 33.3
5 0.6 180 300 100 1071 706 37.8
6 0.63 189 300 100 1055 696 36.4
7 0.67 201 300 100 1039 685 34.2
8 0.7 210 300 100 1023 675 31.6
9 0.58 174 300 200 1020 672 40
10 0.58 174 300 200 1020 672 38.2
11 0.6 180 300 200 1012 667 40.9
12 0.63 189 300 200 996 657 38.7
13 0.63 189 300 200 996 657 37.8
14 0.67 201 300 200 980 646 37.3
15 0.7 210 300 200 964 636 34.7
16 0.57 171 300 250 999 658 35.6
17 0.6 180 300 250 983 64 37.8
18 0.63 189 300 250 967 637 34.7
19 0.63 189 300 250 967 637 37.3
20 0.63 189 300 250 967 637 37.3
21 0.67 201 300 250 951 627 35.6
22 0.67 201 300 250 951 627 35.6
23 0.67 201 300 250 951 627 35.1
24 0.7 210 300 250 935 616 33.8
Alyamac
25 0.7 210 300 250 935 616 32
MP
26 0.7 210 300 500 787 519 25.3
Cherry
27 0.6 210 350 50 1027 677 38.7
28 0.6 210 350 150 968 638 40.9
29 0.6 210 350 200 938 619 36.4
30 0.51 204 400 50 1013 667 50.2
31 0.45 180 400 100 1020 672 53.8
32 0.48 192 400 100 1004 662 50.7
33 0.53 212 400 100 972 641 46.2
34 0.55 220 400 100 956 630 39.6
35 0.45 180 400 150 990 653 57.3
36 0.5 200 400 150 958 632 40
37 0.5 200 400 150 958 632 54.2
38 0.5 200 400 150 958 632 52
39 0.53 212 400 150 942 621 51.1
40 0.55 220 400 150 926 611 48.9
41 0.58 232 400 150 910 600 42.7
42 0.53 212 400 400 795 524 30.7
43 0.44 198 450 50 992 654 52.4
44 0.44 198 450 100 962 634 55.1
45 0.36 180 500 50 998 658 67.1
46 0.38 190 500 50 982 647 65.3
47 0.4 200 500 50 966 637 62.2
48 0.42 210 500 50 950 626 60
49 0.44 220 500 50 934 616 49.8
50 0.42 210 500 300 802 529 44.4
103
Table 7.3(d): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength for Alyamac et. al. [111]
w/c (from Coarse Comp. str.
reference) aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0.67 201 300 100 1039 685 34
2 0.63 189 300 200 996 657 38.5
3 0.7 210 300 250 935 616 33.5
Alyamac
4 0.48 192 400 100 1004 662 50.4
MP White
5 0.45 180 400 150 990 653 57
6 0.55 220 400 150 926 611 48.3
7 0.38 190 500 50 982 647 64.5
1 0.67 201 300 100 1039 685 33.7
2 0.63 189 300 200 996 657 38.4
3 0.7 210 300 250 935 616 33
Alyamac
4 0.48 192 400 100 1004 662 50.3
MP Gold
5 0.45 180 400 150 990 653 56.9
6 0.55 220 400 150 926 611 47.9
7 0.38 190 500 50 982 647 63.9
1 0.65 195 300 0 1106 729 30.2
2 0.6 210 350 0 1057 697 33.3
3 0.53 212 400 0 1031 680 37.3
4 0.47 211.5 450 0 1005 663 43.1
Alyamac
5 0.42 210 500 0 979 646 48.9
Control
6 0.45 180 400 0 1079 711 55.6
7 0.48 192 400 0 1063 701 52
8 0.5 200 400 0 1047 690 49.3
9 0.42 210 500 0 979 646 57.8
Table 7.3(e): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Guneyisi et. al. [112]
Mix Crushed Comp. str. 28

Author w/ (c+kf) Binder Sp Water Cement Marble Sand
no. Sand d (MPa)
1 0.40 550 6.89 220 550 0 423.0 1071 78.5

2 0.42 550 7.04 220 522.5 27.5 422.0 1070 77.4
Guneyesi 3 0.44 550 7.13 220 495 55 422.0 1069 70.6
4 0.47 550 7.26 220 467.5 82.5 422.0 1068 62.8
5 0.50 550 7.34 220 440 110 421.0 1067 61.5
Table 7.3(f): Mix design and 28 days compressive strength for Topcu et. al.[45]
Mix Comp. str. 28

Author w/(c+kf) Water Cement Fly ash Marble
no. d (MPa)
1 0.35 190 495 55 0 46.4
2 0.39 191 450 50 50 45.6
3 0.43 192 405 45 100 45.6
Topcu et. al. 4 0.49 194 360 40 150 40.0
5 0.57 195 315 35 200 38.4
6 0.66 196 270 30 250 24.0
7 0.80 197 225 25 300 24.0
104
80
Expected trend
70 Williams
Divakar

60 Elmoaty
Pandey
50
Bansal
40
30
20
10
0
0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
w/b
Fig. 7.5 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b
Table 7.4(a): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength
for Williams [30] and Felix.[31]
Mix (w+5%G)/ Fly Silica Coarse Comp. str.

Author Water Cement Slag Granite Sand
no. (c+kf) ash fume aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0.50 244 437 61 46 61 0 806 1833 36
2 0.53 244 437 61 46 61 202 604 1833 38
Williams
3 0.55 244 437 61 46 61 403 403 1833 35
and Felix
4 0.57 244 437 61 46 61 604 202 1833 34.5
5 0.59 244 437 61 46 61 806 0 1833 33
Table 7.4(b): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength for Divakar.[32]
Mix Granite (w-10%G)/ Coarse Comp. str.

Author Water Cement Granite Sand
no. % (c+kf) aggregate 28 d (MPa)
1 0% 0.60 0.6 1 0.0 1.5 3 37
2 5% 0.59 0.6 1 0.08 1.43 3 31.5
3 15% 0.58 0.6 1 0.23 1.28 3 40.17
Divakar
4 25% 0.56 0.6 1 0.38 1.13 3 39.17
5 35% 0.55 0.6 1 0.53 0.98 3 45.17
6 50% 0.53 0.6 1 0.75 0.75 3 38.5
105
Table 7.4(c): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength for Elmoaty [33]
Mix Coarse Comp. str.

Author w/(c+kf) Water Cement Granite Sand
no. aggregate 28 d (Mpa)
1 0.45 180 400 0 881 881 45
2 0.47 180 380 20 878 878 47
3 0.49 180 370 30 876 876 43
4 0.50 180 360 40 874 874 40
Elmoaty 5 0.53 180 340 60 871 871 39
6 0.45 180 400 20 869 869 45
7 0.45 180 400 30 864 864 47
8 0.45 180 400 40 858 858 49
9 0.45 180 400 60 846 846 46
Table 7.4(d): Mix design with marble powder and 28days compressive strength for Pandey [2]
(W+10%M) / 10mm 20 mm Comp. Str.

Mix no. f% k Water Cement Fly ash Marble Sand
(C+kF) Agg Agg 28 d (Mpa)
1 45% 0.26 0.47 180 314.4 257.2 0 749.6 300 450 53.8
2 42% 0.28 0.48 180 314.4 231.5 34.5 749.6 300 450 46.4
3 40% 0.31 0.50 180 314.4 205.8 69 749.6 300 450 38.2
4 36% 0.33 0.51 180 314.4 180.1 103.5 749.6 300 450 33.4
5 33% 0.37 0.52 180 314.4 154.3 138 749.6 300 450 29.8
6 40% 0.30 0.57 180 300 200 0 829 300 450 25.3
7 39% 0.31 0.57 180 300 190 11.9 829 300 450 24
8 38% 0.32 0.58 180 300 180 23.7 829 300 450 25
9 36% 0.34 0.58 180 300 170 35.6 829 300 450 23.5
10 35% 0.35 0.59 180 300 160 47.5 829 300 450 24.2
11 45% 0.26 0.47 170 330 270 0 668 340 510 30
12 40% 0.31 0.50 170 330 216 64 668 340 510 27
13 45% 0.26 0.47 170 330 270 0 624 352 528 28.5
14 40% 0.31 0.49 170 330 216 64 624 352 528 25
15 45% 0.26 0.47 170 330 270 0 570 372 558 29
16 40% 0.31 0.49 170 330 216 64 570 372 558 26
17 45% 0.26 0.42 170 330 270 0 668 340 510 44.9
18 45% 0.26 0.43 170 330 270 33.4 635 340 510 44
19 45% 0.26 0.44 170 330 270 66.8 571 340 510 44.3
20 45% 0.26 0.45 170 330 270 100.2 485 340 510 40
21 45% 0.26 0.46 170 330 270 133.6 388 340 510 36.2
22 30% 0.41 0.34 170 420 180 0 750 300 450 48.6
23 30% 0.41 0.36 170 420 180 75 675 300 450 43.6
24 30% 0.41 0.37 170 420 180 150 600 300 450 42.7
106
Table 7.4(e): Mix design with granite powder and 28days compressive strength for Bansal [3]
Mix (w+10%G)/ Fly 28 d comp.

Author f% K Water Cement Granite Sand 10 mm 20 mm
no. (c+kf) ash str. (MPa)
Bansal 1 39% 0.31 0.50 190 315 200 0 840 380 375 30.2
2 39% 0.31 0.51 190 315 200 34.6 798 380 375 27.1
3 39% 0.31 0.52 190 315 200 69.1 756 380 375 28.7
4 39% 0.31 0.53 190 315 200 103.6 714 380 375 27.9
5 33% 0.37 0.46 190 350 175 0.0 840 380 375 28.7
6 33% 0.37 0.47 190 350 175 34.6 798 380 375 29.6
Set 1 7 33% 0.37 0.47 190 350 175 69.1 756 380 375 28.8
8 33% 0.37 0.48 190 350 175 103.6 714 380 375 27.7
9 27% 0.60 0.39 190 395 145 0.0 840 380 375 38.2
10 27% 0.60 0.40 190 395 145 34.6 798 380 375 37.9
11 27% 0.60 0.41 190 395 145 69.1 756 380 375 35.1
12 27% 0.60 0.42 190 395 145 103.6 714 380 375 34.1
Mix Fly 28 d comp.
Author F% K w/(c+kf) Water Cement Granite Sand 10 mm 20 mm
no. ash str. (MPa)
1 0.0% 1 0.50 170 340 0 0 710 460 690 24
Bansal 2 0.0% 1 0.52 170 340 0 59.3 639 460 690 26
3 0.0% 1 0.53 170 340 0 118.6 568 460 690 26.8
4 0.0% 1 0.40 170 425 0 0 640 460 690 36.9
5 0.0% 1 0.41 170 425 0 53.45 576 460 690 33
6 0.0% 1 0.43 170 425 0 106.9 512 460 690 34.8
7 0.0% 1 0.50 170 340 0 0 795 425 635 27
Set 2
8 0.0% 1 0.52 170 340 0 66.4 715 425 635 29.5
9 0.0% 1 0.54 170 340 0 132.8 636 425 635 28.6
10 0.0% 1 0.40 170 425 0 0 750 425 635 34.5
11 0.0% 1 0.41 170 425 0 62.6 675 425 635 35
12 0.0% 1 0.43 170 425 0 125.3 600 425 635 33.8
xvi. Divakar et al. [32] utilised granite powder to make M 20 grade concrete where w/c = 0.6,
achieving a 37 MPa strength. This is slightly higher compared to our expected trend. The
sand was replaced by granite powder up to 50% replacement. Only the mix proportion is
mentioned as shown in Table 7.4(b). The overall strength trend increased [Fig. 7.5]. Divakar
mentioned that the granite powder had 13% water absorption while it had water content of
0-2% while mixing. This implied that 11% water might have been absorbed during the
mixing, resulting in the increasing strength trend as seen in Fig. 7.6. The strength showed a
slightly higher trend compared to our expected results.
xvii. Elmoaty [33] used granite powder. In the first set, the cement was replaced with granite
powder resulting in a decrease in w/c ratio. In this set, the strength decreased gradually
following our expected strength trend. In the second set, granite powder was added and
even as the amount of sand was decreased,this group almost showed equal strength shown
107
in Fig. 7.5 and Table 7.4(c) respectively. The granite powder used was small, and hence did
not affect the first group.
xviii. Pandey [2] and Bansal[3] conducted the first set of experiments using marble powder and
granite powder respectively. At that stage, Pusa’s [1] work was not known, nor was the
water correction issue clear. Though these experiment provided a good insight into
workability issues, the strength showed inconsistent values. When these data were plotted
assuming 10% water correction of weight of marble powder, the data looked logical. But
the strength remained mostly lower than our expected trend.
In conclusion to the work done in the past, it can be realized that a lot of work has indeed
been done on utilization of marble and granite slurry in concrete. Due to the similarity in particle
size with cement, people have attempted both as replacements for cement or sand. The replacement
of cement scenario invariable lost strength showing the marble/granite powder as non-reactive.
None of the researchers provided stress on the need for doing water correction due to high
absorption capacity of these powders.
7.3 Mix design and results for normal concrete
Table 7.5 to 7.9 present the corrected data for mixes with lower and higher consumptions
of marble and granite powder. Compressive strength, flexural strength and tensile strength data are
presented. Since the experiments were carried out for an extended period of time, the first set with
a lower content of marble and granite powder has 7day, 28 days, 56 day and 90 days data for
compressive strength, 28 days and 56 days for flexural and 28 days, 56 days and 90 days data for
split tensile strength. In the later experiments, with a higher content of marble and granite powder,
7 days, 28 days and 90 days data are presented for compressive, flexure and spilt tensile strengths.
While plotting the data, the data for marble from Table 7.6 and 7.8, and for granite of Table 7.5 and
7.7 are merged.
108
Fig. 7.6, 7.7 and 7.8 present the compressive, flexural and split tensile strengths vs. w/b for
normal concrete respectively. In 7.6(b) and (c), the 28 days expected strength trend line is compared
and it is close to the experimental results. Fig. 7.6, have data ranging from w/b ratio 0.3 to 0.66 for
normal concrete showing good resemblance with the expected curve of the trend line. Fig. 7.12 also
shows similar results for SCC. The data looks linear as it is in smaller range. In the overall
comparison in Fig. 7.18 (b) all the cases of control, marble and granite shows similar results.
Fig. 7.9 presents the relationship between flexural and split tensile strengths, where it is
compared with the data presented by EN-1992-1-1 [109]. Fig. 7.9 (c) shows the combined results
of 7d, 28d & 90 days for relation between flexural strength and split tensile strength. The
relationship is quite linear and the flexural strength is slightly higher (~ 1-1.5 MPa) compared to
the results predicted by BS EN 1992-1-1: 2004
Fig. 7.10 and 7.11 present the flexural and split tensile strengths vs. compressive strength
respectively and compared with data of EN-1992-1-1. It was noticed that the flexural strength was
higher than the trend presented by EN-1991-1-1, whereas the split tensile strength was similar but
on a slightly lower side.
This means that compressive strength depends on w/b whereas flexural strength and the
split tensile strength depends primarily on compressive strength. It also shows that the flexural
strength developed is slightly higher than the one compared to the EN standard. However the trends
are parallel.
Fig. 7.12-17 shows similar results for SCC mixes and Fig. 7.18-23 presents the combined
data of normal and SCC mixes. The conclusions are similar. The dispersion is lower (higher R2
value) for SCC mixes possibly because SCC mixes have lower possibility of segregation.
It can be concluded that if water correction is done properly, mixes with marble and granite
powder follow usual expected trends.
109
Table 7.5 Mix design with lower granite powder usage
(a) Mix design details in kg/m3

Mix w/b Granite Coarse Agg.
f% k value Water Cement Fly Ash Sand
No. corrected Powder 10 mm 20 mm
1G1 0% 1.00 0.50 161 322 0 0 759 456 684
1G2 0% 1.00 0.53 169 321 0 52 690 454 680
1G3 0% 1.00 0.55 176 319 0 104 622 451 677
1G4 30% 0.41 0.54 175 276 118 103 586 424 636
1G5 40% 0.28 0.51 161 267 178 0 696 416 623
1G6 40% 0.28 0.53 168 265 176 52 631 412 618
1G7 30% 0.41 0.35 174 425 182 105 504 377 565
1G8 40% 0.28 0.41 161 327 218 0 653 391 588
1G9 40% 0.28 0.44 168 324 216 52 591 389 584
1G10 40% 0.28 0.46 175 322 215 103 523 387 581
(b) Strength data

Mix w/b Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
No. corrected 7 d 28 d 56 d 90 d 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d 90 d
1G1 0.50 20.8 30.2 39.8 43.8 4.7 4.8 2.7 3.5 3.2
1G2 0.53 18.8 36.3 40.0 38.3 4.7 4.6 2.6 3.2 3.7
1G3 0.55 22.1 36.8 36.7 39.2 5.1 4.2 2.5 3.0 3.4
1G4 0.54 17.7 34.3 37.1 42.2 4.8 5.7 2.3 3.0 3.2
1G5 0.51 28.3 44.1 49.2 54.2 5.1 4.9 2.7 3.3 3.7
1G6 0.53 24.2 43.6 56.7 56.3 4.9 4.9 2.7 3.3 3.4
1G7 0.35 53.3 59.7 62.0 64.8 5.0 7.2 4.1 4.0 4.4
1G8 0.41 31.8 46.7 53.2 64.9 6.5 7.5 3.0 3.6 4.7
1G9 0.44 32.1 46.8 60.2 60.5 6.1 7.4 3.8 3.1 4.5
1G10 0.46 32.0 52.8 56.2 57.2 6.4 7.4 3.8 3.9 4.0
110
Table 7.6 Mix design with lower marble powder usage

(a) Mix design details in kg/m3
Mix w/b Marble Coarse Agg.
f% k value Water Cement Fly Ash Sand
No. corrected Powder 10 mm 20 mm
1M1 30% 0.41 0.33 165 425 182 115 499 381 572
1M2 40% 0.28 0.33 161 405 270 0 601 361 543
1M3 40% 0.28 0.34 163 405 270 58 533 361 541
1M4 40% 0.28 0.34 165 404 269 115 464 361 541
1M5 0% 1.00 0.55 169 307 0 0 764 475 653
1M6 35% 0.34 0.54 170 264 141 0 630 475 653
1M7 28% 0.44 0.55 170 265 103 39 629 474 652
1M8 25% 0.50 0.55 170 265 88 0 693 475 653
1M9 35% 0.34 0.54 170 264 142 39 584 475 653
1M10 8% 0.96 0.56 171 281 25 116 618 475 653
1M11 30% 0.42 0.43 175 348 147 113 448 436 654
1M12 0% 1.00 0.67 188 281 0 118 525 507 696
1M13 35% 0.34 0.55 173 264 142 114 492 474 652
1M14 35% 0.34 0.55 171 264 142 76 538 474 652
(b) Strength data

Mix w/b Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
No. corrected 7 d 28 d 56 d 90 d 28 d 56 d 28 d 56 d 90 d
1M1 0.33 44.8 62.7 74.0 75.7 6.6 6.9 4.4 4.5 4.9
1M2 0.33 45.3 68.8 66.0 76.0 6.7 7.1 4.6 4.9 5.0
1M3 0.34 49.8 65.8 77.1 85.8 6.2 6.8 4.9 5.2 5.3
1M4 0.34 46.2 61.1 69.3 76.3 6.4 6.6 4.1 4.2 4.3
1M5 0.55 18.0 29.5 29.7 34.1 4.4 4.8 2.4 2.6 2.9
1M6 0.54 19.3 29.5 37.5 38.3 4.0 5.0 2.4 2.7 2.9
1M7 0.55 20.2 30.8 35.0 43.7 4.2 6.0 3.1 3.0 3.3
1M8 0.55 22.5 36.3 39.0 47.3 5.2 5.4 3.1 3.7 3.7
1M9 0.54 19.8 32.2 39.3 42.1 5.0 5.9 2.7 2.8 3.5
1M10 0.56 18.5 30.0 34.3 34.2 4.3 5.0 2.3 2.8 2.8
1M11 0.43 32.3 49.7 52.5 58.0 5.2 5.5 3.7 4.0 4.1
1M12 0.67 20.0 29.0 35.0 43.0 4.8 5.3 2.8 3.0 3.3
1M13 0.55 25.7 32.8 37.4 43.9 5.8 5.6 3.1 3.7 4.0
1M14 0.55 25.3 35.0 44.7 43.3 5.0 5.6 3.0 3.3 3.3
111
Table 7.7 Mix design with higher granite powder usage
(a) Mix design details in kg/ m3
Specific Gravities
w/b 1 3.14 2.2 2.37 2.62 2.93 2.93
Mix No. f% k value
corrected Granite
Water Cement Fly Ash Sand 10 mm 20 mm
powder
2G1 0% 1.00 0.59 187 318 0 211 497 486 725
2G2 0% 1.00 0.63 200 317 0 315 302 504 757
2G3 0% 1.00 0.47 187 398 0 211 656 383 576
2G4 0% 1.00 0.50 200 397 0 315 565 357 535
2G5 0% 1.00 0.38 187 497 0 211 557 378 599
2G6 0% 1.00 0.40 200 495 0 315 471 367 540
2G7 20% 0.64 0.59 187 274 68 211 487 467 706
2G8 20% 0.64 0.63 200 273 68 315 297 486 732
2G9 20% 0.63 0.58 184 276 69 337 301 491 739
2G10 20% 0.64 0.44 176 345 86 225 519 421 641
2G11 20% 0.64 0.46 184 345 86 337 396 411 626
2G12 30% 0.41 0.54 176 278 119 224 456 456 696
2G13 30% 0.41 0.56 184 278 119 337 265 476 726
2G14 30% 0.41 0.43 176 347 149 224 443 421 641
2G15 30% 0.41 0.45 184 347 149 337 296 421 641
2G16 40% 0.28 0.56 176 266 177 224 416 451 679
2G17 40% 0.28 0.58 184 266 177 337 215 476 716
2G18 40% 0.28 0.58 184 265 177 337 300 441 656
2G19 30% 0.41 0.49 163 282 121 366 327 462 691
2G20 30% 0.41 0.39 163 352 151 366 330 417 627
2G21 30% 0.41 0.31 163 440 189 366 346 356 539
(b) Strength data
Mix. w/b Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
No. corrected 7d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d
2G1 0.59 20.7 27.0 35.0 2.8 4.7 5.2 1.7 2.5 2.3
2G2 0.63 18.1 22.1 33.0 3.1 4.8 5.3 1.6 2.3 2.4
2G3 0.47 29.6 39.5 47.0 4.4 5.4 6.7 2.8 3.1 3.6
2G4 0.50 27.9 35.8 47.5 4.0 5.4 6.7 2.6 2.9 3.8
2G5 0.38 41.7 55.5 63.5 5.8 7.7 8.0 2.7 3.5 4.1
2G6 0.40 40.2 51.6 58.2 6.0 7.7 7.9 2.5 3.1 3.9
2G7 0.59 20.7 31.4 42.5 2.6 5.5 5.9 1.7 2.7 3.1
2G8 0.63 17.3 30.4 38.4 2.8 5.8 6.2 1.4 2.7 3.0
2G9 0.58 16.3 27.8 41.0 2.7 5.6 6.0 1.7 2.4 2.9
2G10 0.44 27.6 41.3 53.1 4.8 6.2 6.6 2.1 3.0 3.3
2G11 0.46 28.8 50.0 56.0 4.2 6.0 6.3 2.5 3.5 4.0
2G12 0.54 18.1 40.8 47.0 3.7 6.5 7.6 2.0 3.0 3.8
2G13 0.56 19.8 35.0 42.0 3.1 5.9 6.9 2.0 3.0 3.5
2G14 0.43 32.7 52.9 59.9 5.3 6.8 8.1 2.4 3.1 4.0
2G15 0.45 24.5 45.4 57.2 3.6 5.1 6.6 2.6 3.4 3.5
2G16 0.56 22.3 42.6 49.3 4.5 5.9 6.1 1.8 2.9 3.2
2G17 0.58 17.3 34.8 42.5 3.5 5.8 5.8 1.6 3.2 3.4
2G18 0.58 26.3 38.2 51.0 4.1 5.0 5.7 1.7 3.0 3.8
2G19 0.49 27.1 42.5 46.0 4.0 5.1 5.5 2.3 3.4 3.8
2G20 0.39 35.4 58.6 64.0 5.0 6.5 6.9 2.7 4.1 4.6
2G21 0.31 47.9 77.9 80.0 6.7 8.2 8.5 3.8 5.8 6.5
112
Table 7.8 Mix design with higher marble powder usage
Specific Gravities
w/b 1 3.14 2.2 2.54 2.62 2.93 2.93
Mix No. f% k value
corrected Marble
powder
2M1 0% 1.00 0.55 176 321 0 225 738 399 572
2M2 0% 1.00 0.57 184 322 0 339 626 382 558
2M3 0% 1.00 0.55 177 323 0 226 504 493 735
2M4 0% 1.00 0.57 185 324 0 341 309 515 773
2M5 0% 1.00 0.44 176 402 0 226 673 386 582
2M6 0% 1.00 0.46 184 402 0 339 583 360 553
2M7 0% 1.00 0.35 176 502 0 225 622 371 562
2M8 0% 1.00 0.35 176 502 0 225 567 386 607
2M9 0% 1.00 0.37 184 503 0 339 528 352 528
2M10 0% 1.00 0.37 184 503 0 339 483 372 559
2M11 20% 0.63 0.55 176 276 69 226 492 477 718
2M12 20% 0.64 0.57 184 277 69 339 302 498 755
2M13 20% 0.64 0.44 176 345 86 225 532 421 642
2M14 20% 0.63 0.46 184 346 87 339 402 417 636
2M15 30% 0.41 0.52 171 279 120 232 443 474 713
2M16 30% 0.41 0.54 177 280 120 349 253 498 749
2M17 30% 0.41 0.54 176 279 120 348 302 476 721
2M18 30% 0.41 0.42 171 349 150 232 443 428 655
2M19 30% 0.41 0.43 177 350 150 349 301 430 657
2M20 40% 0.28 0.54 171 267 178 232 403 466 700
2M21 40% 0.28 0.56 177 268 179 349 212 485 740
2M22 40% 0.28 0.43 171 334 223 232 355 433 665
2M23 40% 0.28 0.44 176 335 223 349 241 425 647
2M24 30% 0.41 0.49 162 280 120 243 446 476 718
2M25 30% 0.41 0.49 163 282 121 366 305 480 727
2M26 40% 0.28 0.51 162 269 179 243 405 469 704
2M27 40% 0.28 0.51 163 271 180 367 408 408 612
2M28 30% 0.41 0.45 184 349 149 339 300 428 654
2M29 30% 0.41 0.34 142 359 154 397 309 440 673
2M30 30% 0.41 0.39 163 354 152 367 304 434 663
113
(b) Strength data
Mix. w/b Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
No. corrected 7 d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d
2M1 0.55 20.9 28.1 31.2 3.7 4.8 5.3 1.9 2.3 2.6
2M2 0.57 22.9 33.7 44.3 3.7 5.1 5.7 2.1 3.0 3.0
2M3 0.55 26.6 35.4 45.2 4.1 5.7 7.1 2.3 2.9 3.0
2M4 0.57 26.6 34.6 40.8 3.8 5.5 6.4 2.2 3.0 3.1
2M5 0.44 32.6 43.0 47.4 4.5 5.8 6.5 2.7 3.0 3.7
2M6 0.46 30.0 42.0 46.9 5.1 6.6 7.5 2.7 3.0 3.8
2M7 0.35 54.1 63.0 72.4 7.1 7.7 9.0 3.6 4.2 4.4
2M8 0.35 48.0 61.0 66.5 6.2 7.2 7.8 3.5 4.1 4.7
2M9 0.37 43.0 58.0 59.3 5.2 7.9 7.9 3.0 3.7 4.3
2M10 0.37 44.4 57.0 66.5 6.1 7.3 7.5 3.2 4.1 4.3
2M11 0.55 26.0 37.0 49.0 4.3 5.8 7.3 2.0 3.2 4.4
2M12 0.57 24.9 33.0 49.3 4.1 5.5 7.4 2.4 3.1 3.5
2M13 0.44 26.5 39.5 46.2 5.5 6.9 7.3 2.2 2.7 4.0
2M14 0.46 25.8 42.0 48.7 4.6 6.3 7.5 2.2 3.3 4.4
2M15 0.52 25.8 44.8 50.0 4.9 6.9 8.2 2.4 3.0 4.0
2M16 0.54 25.3 40.2 47.0 4.0 6.1 7.3 2.0 2.8 3.6
2M17 0.54 24.3 41.7 42.8 3.9 5.9 7.1 2.6 3.2 3.5
2M18 0.42 29.4 44.9 61.1 4.3 6.2 7.7 2.4 3.9 4.1
2M19 0.43 31.0 46.0 53.4 4.0 6.3 7.1 2.5 3.5 4.0
2M20 0.54 28.4 37.2 48.0 4.4 5.9 8.3 2.3 2.9 3.7
2M21 0.56 29.7 39.2 49.0 4.2 6.2 8.2 2.4 3.5 3.7
2M22 0.43 36.9 50.0 61.6 5.1 7.2 8.1 2.7 4.1 4.8
2M23 0.44 34.8 47.0 60.1 5.3 7.1 7.9 3.1 3.9 4.2
2M24 0.49 25.0 34.0 43.0 4.3 6.1 7.0 2.3 2.9 3.5
2M25 0.49 28.9 39.0 45.0 4.2 6.5 7.2 2.4 3.2 3.4
2M26 0.51 33.3 43.0 52.0 3.8 6.6 7.6 2.6 3.5 3.9
2M27 0.51 27.4 38.0 45.0 3.7 6.6 7.5 2.5 3.4 3.6
2M28 0.45 35.0 43.0 54.0 4.6 6.6 7.4 2.9 3.5 4.1
2M29 0.34 47.4 59.1 74.0 5.7 7.5 8.2 3.0 3.8 4.0
2M30 0.39 43.5 52.0 65.0 5.3 6.3 7.1 3.3 4.1 4.8
114
Table 7.9 Mix design for control mixes
Specific Gravities
w/b
Mix No. f% k value 1 3.14 2.2 2.62 2.93 2.93
corrected
2C1 0% 1.00 0.50 160 320 0 900 447 650
2C2 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 770 425 650
2C3 0% 1.00 0.32 160 500 0 700 450 702
2C4 20% 0.63 0.50 160 275 69 880 430 640
2C5 20% 0.63 0.40 160 344 86 810 420 640
2C6 20% 0.63 0.32 160 430 108 740 410 620
2C7 30% 0.41 0.39 160 346 149 763 410 620
2C8 40% 0.28 0.51 160 265 177 800 410 615
2C9 40% 0.28 0.41 160 331 221 700 405 610
2C10 30% 0.41 0.49 160 277 119 840 415 630
(b) Strength data

w/b Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
Mix. No.
corrected 7d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d 7d 28 d 90 d
2C1 0.50 31.2 43.6 51.3 5.5 6.0 7.0 2.2 3.2 3.4
2C2 0.32 55.4 68.9 74.0 7.2 8.7 10.3 3.9 4.2 5.5
2C3 0.32 57.7 64.4 71.0 7.1 8.1 9.2 3.6 4.1 5.2
2C4 0.50 32.3 46.7 51.0 4.9 6.2 7.1 2.2 3.2 3.9
2C5 0.40 44.1 61.3 65.5 6.8 8.1 9.5 3.5 4.2 5.2
2C6 0.32 53.2 62.0 66.0 6.7 8.0 8.8 3.8 3.8 4.8
2C7 0.39 40.5 62.6 67.0 6.6 7.4 9.5 3.2 4.0 4.8
2C8 0.51 38.1 47.6 51.0 4.8 7.0 8.2 2.5 3.4 4.1
2C9 0.41 39.2 58.8 63.0 6.0 7.7 9.0 3.1 4.1 4.7
2C10 0.49 28.7 38.3 48.0 4.4 5.5 6.3 2.3 2.9 3.3
(a) 7 days compressive strength vs. w/b
115
(b) 28 days compressive strength vs. w/b
(c) Compressive strength vs. w/b for all mixes
Fig. 7.6 Compressive strength variation with w/b
116
(a) 7 days flexural strength vs. w/b
(b) 28 days flexural strength vs. w/b
117
(c) Flexural strength vs. w/b for all mixes
(a) 7 days split tensile strength vs. w/b
118
(b) 28 days split tensile strength vs. w/b
(c) Split tensile strength vs. w/b for all mixes
119
(a) 7 days flexural strength vs. split tensile strength
(b) 28 days flexural strength vs. split tensile strength
120
(c) Flexural strength vs. split tensile strength for all mixes
(a) 7 days flexural strength vs. compressive strength
121
(b) 28 days flexural strength vs. compressive strength
(c) Flexural strength vs. Compressive strength for all mixes

122
(a) 7 days split tensile strength vs. compressive strength
(b) 28 days split tensile strength vs. compressive strength
123
(c) Split tensile strength vs. compressive strength for all mixes
124
Table 7.10 Mix design for SCC mixes
(a) Mix design details in in kg/ m3
Coarse Aggregate
Micro Granite Marble
Mix No. f% k value w/b Water Cement Fly Ash Sand
Silica Powder Powder 10 mm 20 mm
G1-G 17% 0.74 0.52 177 293 61 0 353 0 766 454 252
G2-G 18% 0.72 0.43 176 353 76 0 302 0 757 453 252
G3-G 16% 0.79 0.38 176 403 76 0 262 0 760 453 252
G4-G 15% 0.81 0.34 176 452 80 0 226 0 755 452 251
G5-G 20% 0.65 0.32 176 452 110 30 164 0 754 452 251
G6-G 20% 0.65 0.29 161 452 110 30 164 0 793 452 251
G7-G 23% 0.54 0.27 162 475 141 40 232 0 515 849 0
G1-M 17% 0.74 0.52 178 296 61 0 0 357 774 459 255
G2-M 18% 0.72 0.43 178 356 76 0 0 305 763 457 254
G3-M 16% 79% 0.38 178 406 76 0 0 264 766 457 254
G4-M 15% 0.81 0.34 177 455 81 0 0 228 760 455 253
G5-M 20% 0.65 0.32 177 454 111 30 0 164 757 454 252
G6-M 20% 0.65 0.29 161 454 111 30 0 164 797 454 252
G7-M 23% 0.54 0.27 162 476 142 41 0 233 517 863 0
G1-F 58% 0.20 0.47 175 290 405 0 0 0 759 450 250
G2-F 51% 0.21 0.41 175 350 370 0 0 0 751 450 250
G3-F 45% 0.24 0.37 175 400 332 0 0 0 755 450 250
G4-F 40% 0.28 0.33 175 450 300 0 0 0 751 450 250
G5-F 38% 0.31 0.31 175 450 270 30 0 0 751 450 250
G6-F 38% 0.31 0.28 160 450 270 30 0 0 790 450 250
G7-F 44% 0.25 0.27 160 470 367 40 0 0 510 852 0
G1-S 41% 0.27 0.51 175 290 205 0 0 0 997 450 250
G2-S 35% 0.35 0.42 175 350 185 0 0 0 970 450 250
G3-S 29% 0.42 0.37 175 400 165 0 0 0 952 450 250
G4-S 25% 0.50 0.33 175 450 150 0 0 0 930 450 250
G5-S 23% 0.53 0.32 175 450 135 30 0 0 910 450 250
G6-S 23% 0.53 0.29 160 450 135 30 0 0 950 450 250
G7-S 28% 0.44 0.27 160 470 184 40 0 0 730 849 0
125
(b) Strength data for SCC mixes
Compressive Strength (MPa) Flexural Strength (MPa) Split Tensile Strength (MPa)
Mix No. w/b
7d 28 d 7d 28 d 7d 28 d
G1-G 0.52 27.6 36.0 3.8 4.9 1.8 2.8

G2-G 0.43 32.7 45.0 4.1 5.4 2.4 2.9
G3-G 0.38 37.6 50.0 4.7 6.0 2.6 3.2
G4-G 0.34 38.6 59.0 5.2 7.1 3.1 3.5
G5-G 0.32 41.5 61.9 5.6 7.9 3.1 4.3
G6-G 0.29 49.3 69.7 6.3 8.9 3.5 4.7
G7-G 0.27 53.4 74.8 6.8 9.1 3.6 4.7
G1-M 0.52 24.0 31.5 3.9 4.6 1.7 2.6

G2-M 0.43 27.0 41.2 4.2 5.1 2.1 3.4
G3-M 0.38 33.65 52 4.5 5.8 2.3 3.5
G4-M 0.34 40.0 57.0 5.2 6.8 2.7 3.6
G5-M 0.32 43.6 59.0 5.4 7.2 3.2 3.9
G6-M 0.29 49.2 65.0 6.4 8.2 3.7 4.7
G7-M 0.27 58.0 68.9 6.7 8.8 3.8 4.9
G1-F 0.47 35.0 50.0 4.9 6.0 2.4 3.6

G2-F 0.41 40.0 57.0 5.7 6.9 3.0 4.0
G3-F 0.37 46.0 62.1 5.9 7.8 3.3 4.3
G4-F 0.33 50.0 69.7 6.0 8.2 3.7 4.5
G5-F 0.31 52.0 72.0 6.4 8.6 3.8 4.8
G6-F 0.28 55.0 77.3 6.6 9.0 3.9 4.9
G7-F 0.27 56.0 71.5 7.1 9.0 4.0 4.9
G1-S 0.51 30.0 42.0 4.1 5.5 2.1 3.1

G2-S 0.42 35.9 54.0 4.9 6.2 2.6 3.5
G3-S 0.37 36.3 60.9 5.3 7.0 2.7 3.9
G4-S 0.33 40.3 63.2 5.6 7.4 2.9 4.0
G5-S 0.32 43.0 68.6 5.7 7.5 3.0 4.1
G6-S 0.29 46.9 70.0 6.4 8.2 3.3 4.5
G7-S 0.27 61.0 75.0 6.9 8.9 4.1 4.9
126
127
128
(b) 28 days flexural strength v s. w/b
129
130
(c) Split tensile strength vs. w/b for all mixes

Fig. 7.14 Split tensile strength
131
132
133
(c) Flexural strength vs. compressive strength for all mixes
134
135
Normal concrete and SCC
136
137
(b) 28 days flexural strength vs. w/b
138
139
(c) Split tensile strength vs. w/b
Fig.7.20 Split tensile strength vs. w/b
140
141
142
(c) Flexural strength vs. compressive strength for all mixes
143
144
CHAPTER 8
WORKABILITY, RHEOLOGY AND OTHER IMPORTANT ISSUES
8.0 General
This thesis aims to explore the possibility using marble and granite powders in concrete.
All technical details are examined and presented. For any material to be utilized, it should have
a steady availability with consistent material property. Since these powders are created by the
sawing process of the stones, the particle size distribution and shape are independent of the
origin. Chapter 5 presents the production and distribution of these powder materials across
India. The material properties of marble and granite powders were explained in Chapter 4 along
with other materials used in concrete. Here particle size and shape are presented.
In Chapter 6, it was highlighted that the determination of water absorption capacity of
marble and granite powders is very important. Since its particle size is small, it is difficult to
find out the correct moisture content in the SSD condition. Hence, an indirect method was
proposed.
These materials come in cake forms. They may be converted to powder form with time
due to hotter ambient conditions in Delhi. It was shown that it is very difficult to use them in
cake forms. Either they should be in a dry powder state or in paste form. In the first method,
additional water had to be added as the results would have shown a higher strength as water
cement ratio would decrease, as water would have been absorbed by the dry material as has
been explained in previous two chapters. In the second method, correct estimation of the excess
moisture (moisture above SSD) is necessary. Casting in paste form is preferred and reasons
were explained.
Finally in Chapter 7, all strength characteristics of both normal and SCC concretes were
presented. It was shown that after taking care of relevant water corrections, the experimental
145
results showed a proper trend. The trend had lower dispersion in the case of SCC compared to
that of normal concrete.
In this chapter, we will first recall that particle size and shape of these powder materials
when compared to other materials. It will be shown that plasticizer demand depends on all
fine particles in the order of fineness of micro silica, cement, fly ash, marble/ granite powders.
Finally, the rheological aspects of self-compacting concrete (SCC) will be discussed here.
Reduction of cement consumption is important from the cost and environmental
(sustainability) points of view. Maintaining a good amount of powder content is important to
provide a good paste content to the concrete. This paste content can come from fly ash or even
from marble and granite powders. Fly ash contributes to the strength, unlike marble and granite
powders. Hence, comparing marble and granite powders with fly ash from strength point of
view is not logical. Qualitative discussion will be presented on the role of the fineness and shape
of the fine particles on the workability of concrete. The use of a higher quantity of finer material
will make the mix cohesive.
Finally, the experimental results of the rheological properties of the SCC mixes will be
presented and discussed. The flow, T500, Vft and viscosity properties were studied. A BT2
rheometer was used to determine the viscosity and yield stress.
Comparisons were made with European guidelines by EFNARC [26]. A final
confirmation was done with the two mixes, where the possibility of a strength gain and the L-
box measurements were checked as required by EFNARC. It was realized that the L-box test
could never be an issue for most of the mixes. Similarly, in this chapter, the segregation
resistance was not checked as segregation was never an issue with such high volume fines mix.
146
Chapter 8: Workability, Rheology and Other Important Issues
8.1 Effect of particle shape and size on workability
Fig. 4.3 shows the particle size distribution of all the particulate material used in this
experiment. Table 4.17 presents the d10, d50 and d90 for the fine particles including sand.
Micro silica: This is the finest material and theoretically it is 100 times finer than
cement. It is spherical in shape at this fineness, making the mix extremely cohesive.
Cement and Fly ash: Cement and fly ash have almost similar particle size distribution.
Though fly ash could be finer, nevertheless, this is the status of fly ash usually available in
northern India. The particles of cement are angular in shape while the particles of fly ash is
spherical in shape. Hence it is expected that cement will make the mix more cohesive as
compared to fly ash.
Marble and Granite Powders: These particles are larger in size and angular in shape.
Compared to fly ash, though bigger size would decrease the cohesivity, its angular shape would
increase its cohesivity. Overall, it is expected to provide a similar behaviour as fly ash would,
as well as a similar plasticizer demand.
To understand the effect of cement, fly ash and marble powder, a set of mortar mixes
were considered as shown in Table 8.1. In all these mixes, a coarse aggregate was not
considered, and 900 kg/m3 of sand was used. The total volume was 0.7 m3 so that the mix design
looked logical, where the remaining 30% represented the coarse aggregate. Since this was
mortar, a mini slump cone (half the size of conventional slump cone) was used. The tamping
was done 12 times in 3 layers.
147
Table 8.1 Admixture dosage demand
Specific gravities
1 3.14 2.2 2.54 2.62 SSD moisture content
Mix Fly ash k- w/B Total Volume
Weight of the materials (kg/0.7 m
3
) of marble powder and
No. % (F) value ratio powder (litre)
Marble remarks
Water Cement Fly ash Sand
powder
1 21% 0.60 0.31 160 450 118 0 900 568 700
2 35% 0.34 0.39 160 350 187 0 900 537 700
3 46% 0.26 0.47 160 280 236 0 900 516 700 6%
4 26% 0.47 0.49 160 280 100 157 900 537 700
5 0% 1.00 0.57 160 280 0 273 900 553 700
6 26% 0.47 0.49 160 280 100 157 900 537 700 12% (intentionally
7 0% 1.00 0.57 160 280 0 273 900 553 700 used instead of 6%)
6 (a) 26% 0.47 0.52 170 280 100 147 900 527 706 Moisture corrected in
7 (a) 0% 1.00 0.63 177 280 0 256 900 536 711 mix nos. 6 & 7
6 (b) 26% 0.47 0.52 169 278 99 146 892 522 700
For 700 litre volume
7 (b) 0% 1.00 0.63 175 276 0 252 886 527 700
(b) Casting details
Mix proportioning for concrete of volume = 10 litre

Admixture for 100 % water
mm slump %
Mix in Weight of the materials (kg)
water
No. marble
in sand Marble
3 powder
% kg/0.7m Water Cement Fly ash Sand
powder
1 0.57% 3.24 3.3% 23.5% 1.39 4.50 1.18 0.00 9.21
2 0.50% 2.69 3.3% 23.5% 1.39 3.50 1.87 0.00 9.21
3 0.40% 2.06 3.3% 23.5% 1.39 2.80 2.36 0.00 9.21
4 0.43% 2.31 3.3% 23.5% 1.03 2.80 1.00 1.93 9.21
5 0.40% 2.21 3.3% 23.5% 0.76 2.80 0.00 3.35 9.21
6 0.38% 2.04 3.3% 23.5% 1.15 2.80 1.00 1.81 9.21
7 0.31% 1.71 3.3% 23.5% 0.98 2.80 0.00 3.14 9.21
6 (a) 0.38% 2.00 3.3% 23.5% 1.15 2.80 1.00 1.81 9.21
7 (a) 0.31% 1.66 3.3% 23.5% 0.98 2.80 0.00 3.14 9.21
6 (b) 0.38% 1.99 3.3% 23.5% 1.14 2.78 0.99 1.79 9.14
7 (b) 0.31% 1.64 3.3% 23.5% 0.96 2.76 0.00 3.09 9.08
In Mix 1, 450 kg of cement content as allowed in IS 456 [13] and 118 kg (21%) of fly
ash were considered. In the Mix 2 and 3, the cement was gradually reduced and fly ash was
increased maintaining a volume of 0.7 m3. In Mix 4 and 5, the fly ash was gradually replaced
with marble powder. In Mix 6 and 7, an error was intentionally introduced by assuming the
SSD moisture content to be 12% in the place of 6%. These are shown in Table 8.1 (a) while
148
(a) Weight basis
(b) Percentage basis

Fig. 8.1 Admixture dosage demand
Table 8.1 (b) shows the actual weight of material used after taking care of extra water in the
sand and marble powder in comparison to the SSD condition. Table 8.1 (b) shows the admixture
required for 100 mm slump approximately. Fig. 8.1 (a) and (b) show the variation of the
admixture demand in these mixes. Between Mix 1 to Mix 3, as the cement was volumetrically
replaced by fly ash, the admixture demand decreased sharply. This was because cement is
angular in shape while fly ash is spherical, while the particle size distribution is similar. When
marble powder replaced fly ash, the admixture demand increased slightly but remained in the
same order. This was possible because the effect of the coarser size of marble powder was
nullified by its angular shape in comparison to fly ash. Mix 6 and 7 had lower admixture demand
as effectively the mix had higher water content as shown in Mix 6a/7a or Mix 6b/7b. These
mixes were expected to have lower strength.
149
Hence, it can be concluded that the quantity of cement, fly ash and marble (or granite)
powder need to be considered while estimating the admixture demand. The cement would
possibly require a slightly higher admixture, while fly ash and marble powder (and granite
powder) would demand an admixture in a similar order.
In this research, the plasticizer dosage was calculated as a percentage of the total fine
material of cement, fly ash, marble and granite powder. When micro-silica was used the
plasticizer demand increased drastically.
8.2 Utilization of marble and granite powder

It has been explained in Chapter 7 that the water binder ratio of w/(c+kf) can be used to
design the concrete mix. It is well known that fly ash contributes to its strength. The contribution
to strength decreases as the fly ash percentage (f%) increases.
The primary aim was to decrease the cost, by decreasing the amount of cement used and
yet get good workability. The IS code allows a combination of 195 kg/m3 of cement and 105
kg/m3 of fly ash under moderate exposure conditions. In this scenario the total cementitious
content was barely 300 kg/m3. At this powder content, it was difficult to cast concrete as it had
insufficient powder material and can only be done by using fine sand. Alternatively, an
additional 100-200 kg of fly ash or marble/ granite powder could be used to incorporate
additional fines as shown in Table 8.2. Except for the first mix, all the other mixes were of
almost equal strength as they had equal w/c ratio. The increase in strength in the first mix due
to the use of large quantity of fly ash was marginal as the efficiency of flyash reduced
drastically. The first two mixes were allowed for moderate exposure conditions and the
effective cementitious content remained 300 kg/m3. The next three mixes were not possible in
past and further research needed to be carried out to verify why these mixes could also be
150
Table 8.2: Different possible combinations of Powder content in concrete

F% K w/B C28 Water Cem Fly Ash MP Powder Comments
61% 0.19 0.55 30.0 140 195 305 0 500 Allowed
35% 0.35 0.60 26.6 140 195 105 200 500 Allowed
25% 0.51 0.60 26.8 140 199 66 235 500 Not Allowed
20% 0.65 0.60 26.7 140 200 50 250 500 Not Allowed
15% 0.89 0.60 26.7 140 201 35 264 500 Not Allowed
Table 8.3: Possible marble/granite powder utilization in concrete
F% k w/b C28 water Cem FA CEM + FA

0% 1.00 0.27 79.1 140 519 0 519
0% 1.00 0.30 68.6 150 500 0 500
0% 1.00 0.35 55.7 155 443 0 443
0% 1.00 0.40 46.5 160 400 0 400
0% 1.00 0.45 39.7 160 356 0 356
0% 1.00 0.50 34.4 165 330 0 330
0% 1.00 0.55 30.3 165 300 0 300
15% 0.89 0.27 79.1 140 448 79 527
15% 0.89 0.30 68.6 150 432 76 509
15% 0.89 0.35 55.7 155 383 68 451
15% 0.89 0.40 46.5 160 346 61 407
15% 0.89 0.45 39.7 160 307 54 362
15% 0.89 0.50 34.4 165 285 50 336
15% 0.89 0.55 30.3 165 259 46 305
30% 0.41 0.27 79.1 140 440 189 629
30% 0.41 0.30 68.6 150 425 182 607
30% 0.41 0.35 55.7 155 376 161 537
30% 0.41 0.40 46.5 160 340 146 485
30% 0.41 0.45 39.7 160 302 129 431
30% 0.41 0.50 34.4 165 280 120 400
30% 0.41 0.55 30.3 165 255 109 364
700
600
35% FA
Powder Content (kg/m3)
500
Marble Powder
400 Use for
300 CEM (FA 0%)

CEM (FA 15%)
200 CEM + FA (15%FA)
CEM (FA 30%)
100 CEM + FA (FA 30%)
MP+CEM+FA
0
0.0 20.0 40.0 60.0 80.0 100.0
Compressive Strength (MPa)
Fig. 8.2: Possible utilization of Marble/Granite Powder in Concrete
151
allowed as these mixes would have equal strength. The plasticizer demand per cubic
meter will approximately remain same as powder content is same.
As the strength of concrete increases, the powder content automatically increases and
the water content tend to decrease. The plasticizer demand also increases. At this stage, adding
marble/granite powder looked like a burden as it did not provide strength, but pushed the
plasticizer demand up. There was no necessity of extra paste content at this stage.
In other words, in the areas where marble or granite powder is readily available, it might
be beneficial to use these materials, while economizing on fly ash. The use of marble and granite
powders would be more effective upto around M50 grade of concrete. If we look at concrete
industry, M20-M40 grades of concrete are most widely used grades. M50-60 grade of concrete
is used in the construction of bridges. If we look into non-structural concrete and bricks, the
possibility would become really interesting.
Table 8.3 and Fig. 8.2 explains the mater in more details. This is to note that Table 8.3
and Fig 8.2 do not show actual casting results, but predictions. The water content has been
assumed based on experiments reported in Chapter 7. Cases of 0%, 15% and 30% fly ash were
considered. In case of fly ash below 15%, the efficiency was higher but did not get much of an
increase in the powder content. However, we did get a direct benefit in the decrease in cement
content. After this, the decrease in the cement content was marginal. It is the shaded portion
that can be easily filled by any of the existing powder materials of fly ash, marble or granite
powder. Fly ash now is not free anymore, and the possibility of using marble and granite
powders is promising. Here it can also be confirmed that the scope of utilization is more in the
lower strength range.
In a similar way, Fig. 8.3 presents the powder content for 0%, 20%, 30% and 40% fly
ash cases for normal concrete (Table 7.5-7.9). It clearly shows that savings of cement beyond
152
30% Fly ash is minimal. The possibility of usage of marble and granite powders is similarly
understood. Fig. 8.4 shows a similar utilization by Alymac [111] for data in Table 7.3c-d.
1200 Cem + FA + MP/GP

0% FA
cem
Linear (Cem + FA + MP/GP)
1000
Linear (cem)
800 y = 6.4337x + 123.66

R² = 0.8399
600
400
200
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0
a) 0% FA
900
800
700
Powder Content (MPa)
600
Cem + FA +
500
MP/GP
cem
400
Cem + FA
300
CEM (0%FA)
200
Linear (Cem + FA
+ MP/GP)
100 Linear (cem)
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
b) 20% FA
30% FA
1200
1000
Powder Content (MPa)
800
Cem + FA +
600 MP/GP
cem
Cem + FA
400
CEM (0%FA)
200 Linear (Cem +

FA + MP/GP)
Linear (cem)
0
0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0 90.0
c) 30% FA
153

0.0 10.0 20.0 30.0 40.0 50.0 60.0 70.0 80.0
0
+ MP/GP)
100 Linear (Cem + FA
200 CEM (0%FA)
300 Cem + FA
)aPM( tnetnoC redwoP
400
cem
500 MP/GP
Cem + FA +
600
700
800
900
1000
d) 40% FA
900
800
700
600
500
400
CEM
300
CEM +mp
200 CEM (Our 0%FA )
100 Linear (CEM)
Linear (CEM +mp)
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Fig. 8.4 Utilization of Cement, Fly Ash and Marble/Granite Powder in Concrete by Alyamac[111]
8.3 Experimental details and plan for SCC mixes
Self-compacting mixes were designed incorporating marble and granite powders
ensuring a maximum usage of the same especially as powder material for different w/b ratios
varying from 0.52 to 0.27, as listed in Table 7.10. Four sets of mix designs were prepared from
prior experience. In the first two sets, self-compacting mixes with granite and marble powders
designated as G1-G to G7-G and G1-M to G7-M respectively, were used. These powder
materials were expected to contribute to the fines as they have a similar particle size distribution
154
compared to cement and fly ash, and provide a good cohesive mix. In the third set, the marble
powder or granite powder was substituted entirely by fly ash. This was done to see their effect
on the rheology as they have similar particle size. It was expected that the efficiency factor
would depend on the fly ash percentage as predicted by Pusa [1]. The strength would depend
on the equivalent w/b calculated using this k-value as explained in a previous chapter. Over all,
the k-value should decrease with an increase in the fly ash content and it can be assumed that
the extra fly ash acted as fines. These mixes were designated as G1-F to G7-F. In the last set of
mixes, the quantity of the powder material was equally distributed between fly ash and sand.
These mixes were designated as G1-S to G7-S. Only a 50% replacement was done with sand,
as sand is much coarser compared to fly ash, marble or granite powders.
A tilting type drum mixer was used for mixing the concrete. To gain better efficiency,
G7 groups were mixed in a powerful pan mixer at an RMC plant. The rheological values and
plasticizer demand were significantly different and could not be compared. Hence, it was
realized that the rheological value would depend on the efficiency of the mixer, but the trends
would remain same. As it was not possible to repeat all the mixes at the RMC plant, hence the
study is conducted with concrete mixed in tilting drum type laboratory mixer.
For concrete in a fresh state, the admixture dosage, flow, T500, Vft (V-funnel time) and
rheometer readings were recorded. Visual observation related to bleeding, segregation,
cohesiveness and harshness and other issues were noted. As all the mixes were having sufficient
powder content, the mixes were cohesive and bleeding is not perceptible, hence only eye
observation is done only for the cases where the flow was very high. Here the admixture dosage
was determined to achieve the flow value in the range of 550 mm to 850 mm, or above as
applicable. Efforts were to get logical T500 and Vft as specified by EFNARC. The fresh concrete
properties of the entire set of mixes are listed in Table 8.3 through 8.6.
155
To understand the possible correlation between the different types of the fine materials
available, an attempt was made to determine the total surface area of the material available
based on the specific surface area (m2/kg) of the materials used in the research The specific
surface area of cement used was 310 m2/kg; fly ash 370 m2/kg, and marble and granite powders
300 m2/kg and 262 m2/kg respectively. The specific surface area for aggregates used was
calculated as 0.42 m2/kg and 0.21 m2/kg for 10 mm and 20 mm aggregates respectively, based
on the grading of the aggregates used. This had the reference of the specific surface values
presented by Day [113].
The particle size of micro silica is about 100 times finer than that of cement and the
surface area is of the order of 15000-30000 m2/kg [78]. It is supplied in condensed form which
is 100 times coarser than cement. It is expected that these particles will break down during
mixing process. However, neither increase in plasticizer demand show that these particles have
broken down. Hence, a lower value of 500/3000 m2/kg was taken.
8.4 Rheological properties and discussion
Self-compacting concrete is a concrete that is so proportioned that it flows around the
reinforcement without leaving voids or segregation such that there is no requirement for
mechanical compaction. This type of concrete was developed for use in structures with
congested reinforcement.
When a concrete having high workability is made, there is a tendency towards
segregation in the mix. Okamura [14] suggested increasing the fines by using materials like fly
ash and decreasing the coarse aggregate, as shown in Fig. 2.3. These fines increase the paste
content. They also increase the cohesivity or viscosity of the mixes. The viscosity of the mix
depends on the particle size of the mixes. Finer particles increase the cohesivity.
156
It should be noted that fly ash has spherical particles that enhance the workability of the
concrete. Fly ash becomes less effective as we increase its percentage usage. The purpose of
this chapter is to try to use marble or granite powder such that there is a sufficient amount of
fines in the fix. Therefore, we had four groups of SCC in the experiment: granite powder mixes,
marble powder mixes, higher fly ash mixes and higher sand mixes. As per the EFNARC [26],
a self-compacting concrete is qualified only when all the three parameters namely flowing
ability, passing ability and segregation resistance are qualified. Unlike normal concrete, there
is no single test that can measure the consistency of the self-compacting concrete. The rheology
of self-compacting concrete was studied and explained in literature by researchers such as
Wallevik [114], Bui et al. [115], and Zerbino et al. [116]. The experimental results of
rheological parameters of the present research are found to be in accordance with the findings
of Zerbino et al [116].
Topcu [45] had used smaller percentage of fly ash. He had started with 495 kg/m3 of
cement and gradually replaced in equal proportions, both cement and fly ash with marble dust,
keeping the fines the same at 550kg/m3. The plasticizer dosage (PCE based plasticizer) based
on total fines ranged between 2.5% to 1.25%. The flow, Vft and T500 remained within the logical
range, even though the plasticizer demand decreased significantly. The mixes fell under SF2
and VF2 ranges as per EFNARC specifications.
Belaidi[44] had conducted similar experiments, keeping the total of cement, fly ash and
marble powder constant at 475 kg/m3. The plasticizer dosage, fine and coarse aggregate, was
kept constant. Two series of experiments were done. In the first series, the cement was replaced
with 5-25% natural pozzolana, which was angular and had a rough surface. Here naturally, the
flow decreased drastically. However, when cement was replaced by marble powder 5-30%, the
flow remained constant though in a slightly higher range (760mm for control to average 800
157
mm). The particle size distribution of cement, Pozzolana and marble powder were not provided.
However, SEM pic with about 70,000x magnification was provided, and visually, the d50 would
be about 0.1 m of the order of micro silica. Marble powder all over the world is expected to
be similar as it is produced in a similar cutting process, and can be expected to have a particle
size coarser than fly ash. Hence the results were as expected. Almayac[111] did most extensive
experimental tests, where he used only cement and marble powder as fines, with cement varying
from 300-500 kg/m3, and MP + cement varying from 400 to 550.
Fig. 8.5 SCC classifications and applications [26]
Table 8.4 Classes for SCC according to EFNARC [26]

(a) Slump flow classes
Class Slump flow (mm)
SF1 550 to 650
SF2 660 to 750
SF3 760 to 850
(b) Viscosity classes
Class T500 (s) Vft (s)
VS1/VF1 ≤2 ≤8
VS2/VF2 >2 9 to 25
(c) Passing ability classes (L-box)
Class Passing ability
PA1 ≥ 0.80 with 2 rebars
PA2 ≥ 0.80 with 3 rebars
158
Table 8.5 Rheological properties of granite powder concrete
BT2 Rheometer
Actual
Reading % Admixture of
SCC Flow Weight of
w/b T500 (s) VFT (s) Relative cementitious all Fines
Mix No. (mm) Yield Admixture
Viscosity material (c+f+ms+ 3
Stress 3 (kg/m )
(10 ) (c+f+ms) mp+gp)
560 2.37 7.04 452 1.96 1.20% 0.60% 4.20
640 2.28 6.67 382 1.31 1.40% 0.70% 4.90
G1-G 0.52
680 1.80 4.92 177 0.94 1.45% 0.73% 5.08
750 1.58 2.92 223 0.43 1.60% 0.80% 5.60
600 3.45 10.10 330 5.22 1.10% 0.64% 4.68
625 3.04 9.10 455 4.56 1.20% 0.70% 5.10
G2-G 0.43
710 2.48 6.50 285 3.05 1.40% 0.82% 5.95
740 2.10 4.40 462 2.28 1.55% 0.91% 6.59
610 5.42 15.10 298 6.94 0.95% 0.61% 4.51
680 4.00 12.22 128 6.41 1.25% 0.81 5.94
G3-G 0.38
820 2.86 10.33 90 4.01 1.40% 0.90% 6.65
870 2.23 8.00 35 3.82 1.50% 0.97% 7.13
660 4.59 13.93 228 5.89 1.00% 0.70% 5.30
770 3.33 10.27 50 4.81 1.25% 0.88% 6.63
G4-G 0.34
860 2.67 8.93 23 2.26 1.40% 0.98% 7.42
870 1.60 7.26 271 2.09 1.50% 1.05% 7.95
600 9.58 37.05 107 18.05 1.10% 0.86% 6.49
670 7.84 31.14 -152 15.42 1.15% 0.90% 6.79
G5-G 0.32
760 3.99 15.50 -29 8.42 1.35% 1.06% 7.97
815 2.65 11.94 35 3.32 1.65% 1.29% 9.74
620 11.62 40.62 42 23.92 1.45% 1.14% 8.56
750 6.33 25.30 -39 11.97 1.50% 1.18% 8.85
G6-G 0.29
770 4.23 15.65 350 9.50 1.65% 1.29% 9.74
820 3.89 12.77 42 4.83 1.90% 1.49% 11.21
660 7.70 27.08 18 15.57 1.10% 0.81% 7.15
G7-G 0.27 790 4.04 11.83 -10 4.26 1.30% 0.96% 8.45
830 3.81 8.65 -20 3.57 1.50% 1.11% 9.75
Note: The mix proportions are shown in Table 7.10 (a) and corresponding strength results are shown in Table
7.10 (b)
159
Table 8.6 Rheological properties of marble powder concrete
BT2 Rheometer % Admixture of Actual

SCC Flow Relative cementitious all Fines Weight of
w/b T500 (s) VFT (s) Yield
Mix No. (mm) Viscosity material (c+f+ms+ Admixture
Stress 3 3
(10 ) (c+f+ms) mp+gp) (kg/m )
650 1.66 7.26 228 2.58 1.10% 0.55% 3.85
G1-M 0.52 750 1.59 5.83 124 2.16 1.25% 0.63% 4.38
790 1.21 3.85 271 1.98 1.35% 0.68% 4.73
570 3.16 9.94 388 3.65 0.80% 0.47% 3.40
G2-M 0.43 710 2.33 8.21 146 3.39 0.90% 0.53% 3.83
810 2.06 8.00 211 2.41 1.05% 0.62% 4.46
690 3.66 11.33 154 7.33 0.90% 0.58% 4.28
720 2.98 10.39 133 4.33 0.95% 0.61% 4.51
G3-M 0.38 740 2.50 9.60 125 4.29 1.00% 0.65% 4.75
790 2.18 8.66 118 4.10 1.05% 0.68% 4.99
830 2.05 8.00 227 3.97 1.25% 0.81% 5.94
640 5.07 18.62 62 11.28 0.70% 0.49% 3.71
700 4.30 17.63 129 6.92 0.80% 0.56% 4.24
G4-M 0.34
720 3.79 12.10 85 6.30 0.85% 0.65% 4.51
750 3.22 10.73 52 6.11 0.90% 0.63% 4.77
660 6.60 22.42 82 13.80 0.95% 0.74% 5.61
725 5.69 16.50 -48 9.51 1.08% 0.84 6.34
G5-M 0.32
750 4.66 13.45 -40 7.50 0.80% 0.63% 6.50
770 4.16 12.18 -38 6.47 1.18% 0.92% 6.93
630 13.45 55.00 -230 38.21 1.15% 0.90% 6.79
730 6.15 30.00 -215 30.00 1.10% 0.86% 7.00
G6-M 0.29
760 5.89 25.91 -209 22.07 1.35% 1.06% 7.97
810 4.10 17.26 -28 9.60 1.55% 1.21% 9.15
790 7.10 38.08 -400 29.34 1.80% 1.33% 11.70
G7-M 0.27 800 5.96 23.67 -365 17.17 1.90% 1.40% 12.35
840 3.88 18.00 -27 6.56 2.10% 1.55% 13.65
160
Table 8.7 Rheological properties of higher fly ash concrete

Stress 3 3
(10 ) (c+f+ms) mp+gp) (kg/m )
670 3.73 11.50 98 5.31 0.60% 0.60% 4.17
G1-F 0.47 750 3.17 7.71 81 3.21 0.675% 0.68% 4.69
815 2.65 6.20 27 3.19 0.775% 0.78% 5.39
600 5.28 13.70 32 5.00 0.45% 0.45% 3.18
640 4.50 13.41 45 3.35 0.55% 0.54% 3.89
G2-F 0.41 730 2.93 9.05 79 1.96 0.63% 0.63% 4.50
780 2.60 8.50 153 2.20 0.80% 0.80% 5.76
820 2.28 6.49 231 2.81 0.85% 0.85% 6.12
605 4.00 19.11 215 8.10 0.53% 0.53% 3.88
650 3.89 18.85 150 5.00 0.60% 0.60% 4.39
G3-F 0.37 700 3.38 9.39 94 3.37 0.70% 0.70% 5.12
770 2.60 7.50 70 2.80 0.85% 0.85% 6.22
785 2.72 7.37 38 2.21 1.00% 1.00% 7.32
550 4.31 25.88 204 9.03 0.50% 0.50% 3.75
630 4.01 23.70 165 4.14 0.58% 0.58% 4.35
G4-F 0.33
760 3.61 13.70 163 4.20 0.63% 0.63% 4.69
800 3.31 11.25 159 5.29 0.73% 0.73% 5.48
655 9.00 30.00 -187 16.10 0.80% 0.80% 6.00
690 6.72 25.82 -130 14.00 0.85% 0.85% 6.38
G5-F 0.31
780 3.67 17.60 -26 8.63 0.95% 0.95% 7.13
800 2.39 10.93 82 3.30 1.10% 1.10% 8.25
700 8.72 38.69 -300 27.66 1.05% 1.05% 7.88
750 7.50 28.49 -290 22.00 1.15% 1.15% 8.63
G6-F 0.28
780 6.42 21.10 -288 17.12 1.35% 1.35% 10.13
870 4.32 18.05 -184 14.12 1.50% 1.50% 11.25
710 12.12 75.00 -300 45.00 1.50% 1.50% 13.16
G7-F 0.27 800 7.12 52.00 -400 25.00 1.75% 1.75% 15.35
840 4.73 32.10 -511 11.00 1.95% 1.95% 17.10
161
Table 8.8 Rheological properties of higher sand concrete

Stress 3 3
(10 ) (c+f+ms) mp+gp) (kg/m )
630 2.77 8.12 242 2.65 0.70% 0.70% 3.47
G1-S 0.51 645 2.56 7.72 206 2.57 0.80% 0.80% 3.96
710 2.32 6.63 171 2.17 0.90% 0.90% 4.46
640 2.63 9.70 270 3.90 0.60% 0.60% 3.21
G2-S 0.42 720 2.30 8.25 181 3.88 0.85% 0.85% 4.55
770 2.00 6.18 176 2.32 1.10% 1.10% 5.89
670 4.01 11.00 250 5.42 0.70% 0.70% 3.96
690 3.17 10.70 169 4.79 0.80% 0.80% 4.52
G3-S 0.37
740 2.80 8.40 192 3.20 0.90% 0.90% 5.09
780 2.50 7.18 84 4.00 1.00% 1.00% 5.65
610 8.30 24.19 240 8.27 0.75% 0.75% 4.50
650 5.27 21.50 180 7.00 0.80% 0.80% 4.80
G4-S 0.33
745 4.01 14.70 121 5.89 0.88% 0.88% 5.25
790 3.00 11.30 376 7.10 0.98% 0.98% 5.85
650 6.27 23.88 180 11.46 0.75% 0.80% 4.62
670 5.89 22.78 174 10.50 0.80% 0.75% 4.92
G5-S 0.32
745 4.60 13.34 167 8.16 0.90% 0.90% 5.54
790 2.66 9.01 147 4.99 1.10% 1.10% 6.77
670 12.00 42.00 -600 40.57 1.25% 1.25% 7.69
725 9.10 26.50 -451 31.57 1.30% 1.30% 8.00
G6-S 0.29
760 8.33 22.00 -230 20.95 1.50% 1.50% 9.23
790 5.31 18.82 -210 19.91 1.80% 1.80% 11.07
660 8.90 34.34 -380 21.61 1.35% 1.35% 9.37
G7-S 0.27 730 7.50 28.44 -320 17.10 2.10% 2.10% 14.57
770 5.98 25.00 -75 7.67 2.50% 2.50% 17.35
Table 8.9 Limiting values of Vft and T500 (in s)
Granite Marble Higher Fly ash Higher Sand

Vft T500 Vft T500 Vft T500 Vft T500
Limit 1 5.4 2.0 5.9 2.0 4.3 2.0 5.9 2.0
Limit 2 9.0 2.9 9.0 2.7 9.0 2.9 9.0 2.8
Limit 3 25.0 6.9 25.0 6.1 25.0 6.0 25.0 7.2
162
Table 8.10 EFNARC limits for four groups of SCC
Granite Group
Mix VS1 and VF1 VS2 and VF1 VS2 and VF2
Name Flow T500 Vft Adm Flow T500 Vft Adm Flow T500 Vft Adm
G1-G 680 1.8 4.92 5.08 560 2.37 7.04 4.2 Not Applicable
G2-G 740 2.1 4.4 6.59 625 3.04 9.1 5.1 600 3.45 10.1 4.68
G3-G Not Applicable 870 2.23 8 7.13 610 5.42 15.1 4.51
G4-G Not Applicable 860 2.67 8.93 7.42 660 4.59 13.23 5.3
G5-G Not Applicable Not Applicable 715 5.92 23.32 7.38
G6-G Not Applicable Not Applicable 750 6.33 25.3 8.85
G7-G Not Applicable Not Applicable 700 6 21 7.9
Marble Group
G1-M 750 1.59 5.83 4.38 650 1.66 7.26 3.85 Not Applicable
G2-M Not Applicable 710 2.33 8.21 3.83 570 3.16 9.94 3.4
G3-M Not Applicable 790 2.18 8.66 4.99 690 3.66 11.33 4.28
G4-M Not Applicable Not Applicable 640 5.07 18.62 3.71
G6-M Not Applicable Not Applicable 770 6.1 25 8.1
Higher Fly Ash Group

G1-F Not Applicable 750 3.17 7.71 4.69 670 3.73 11.5 4.17
G2-F Not Applicable 730 2.93 9.05 4.5 600 5.28 13.7 3.18
G3-F Not Applicable 700 3.38 9.39 5.12 605 4 19.11 3.88
G4-F Not Applicable Not Applicable 630 4.01 23.7 4.35
G7-F Not Applicable Not Applicable 840 4.73 32* 17
Higher Sand Group

G1-S 750** 2.2 5.8 5 630 2.77 8.12 3.47 Not Applicable
G2-S Not Applicable 720 2.3 8.25 4.55 640 2.63 9.7 3.21
G3-S Not Applicable 740 2.8 8.4 5.09 670 4.01 11 3.96
G4-S Not Applicable 810** 2.8 9 6.3 610 8.3 24.19 4.5
G5-S Not Applicable 790 2.66 9.01 6.77 650 6.27 23.88 4.62
G6-S Not Applicable Not Applicable 760 8.33 22 9.23
G7-S Not Applicable Not Applicable 770 5.98 25 17.35
* Does not satisfy. Shown for comparison.

** Data approximated from trend.
163
Table 8.11 Slope and intercept values of Vft vs. flow graphs
VFT vs. Flow Graph Characteristics

SCC Mix
w/b
No. Intercept 2 Positive
Slope ("m") R Value
("c") Slope ("-m")
G1-G 0.52 -0.022 20.10 0.89 0.022

G2-G 0.43 -0.030 32.98 0.98 0.030
G3-G 0.38 -0.034 40.00 0.95 0.034
G4-G 0.34 -0.068 60.00 0.95 0.068
G5-G 0.32 -0.095 100.00 0.97 0.095
G6-G 0.29 -0.143 129.84 0.95 0.143
G7-G 0.27 -0.110 99.91 1.00 0.110
G1-M 0.52 -0.013 17.00 0.94 0.013

G2-M 0.43 -0.015 19.71 0.80 0.015
G3-M 0.38 -0.023 27.24 0.97 0.023
G4-M 0.34 -0.075 67.54 0.79 0.075
G5-M 0.32 -0.095 85.24 1.00 0.095
G6-M 0.29 -0.212 187.33 1.00 0.212
G7-M 0.27 -0.471 409.19 0.94 0.471
G1-F 0.47 -0.030 30.00 0.97 0.030

G2-F 0.41 -0.033 34.70 0.97 0.033
G3-F 0.37 -0.045 55.00 0.87 0.045
G4-F 0.33 -0.081 82.00 0.97 0.081
G5-F 0.31 -0.119 108.28 0.96 0.119
G6-F 0.28 -0.231 150.00 0.83 0.231
G7-F 0.27 -0.317 301.67 0.97 0.317
G1-S 0.51 -0.017 18.42 1.00 0.017

G2-S 0.42 -0.020 26.68 0.95 0.020
G3-S 0.37 -0.037 35.80 0.99 0.037
G4-S 0.33 -0.072 67.97 1.00 0.072
G5-S 0.32 -0.111 96.35 0.99 0.111
G6-S 0.29 -0.194 170.22 0.95 0.194
G7-S 0.27 -0.085 90.34 1.00 0.085
164
The EFNARC [26] guidelines for SCC provide consistence classification of self-
compacting concrete in terms of flow, viscosity, passing ability and segregation resistance of
the mix. It mentions three flow classes namely SF1 (550 mm – 650 mm), SF2 (660 mm – 750
mm) and SF3 (760 mm – 850 mm) ,depending on the type of structure and congestion of
reinforcement. Viscosity of the mix can be assessed by either T500 or the Vft. The mix should
have optimum balance of flow and viscosity.
In order to understand the rheological behaviour of the concrete, admixture was added
in increasing quantum in each of the mixes to reflect at least three to four points of different
flow values. For each flow value in each of the mixes, T500, and Vft were measured. Critical
yield stress and coefficient of viscosity values obtained by using BT2 rheometer were recorded
and the results are reproduced in Table 8.5 for the granite powder mixes, Table 8.6 for marble
powder mixes, Table 8.7 for higher fly ash mixes and Table 8.8 for higher sand mixes.
8.5 Admixture dosage
The effect of different dosages of admixtures on the rheology of concrete was studied
by varying the dosage of admixture in the same mix. The admixture dosage depends on the
sequence of mixing, time of addition into the mix and efficiency of mixing. The performance
of the mix varies according to whether the whole dosage is put in steps or in one go. Suppose
the total admixture quantity required is 4 kg/m3, the flow properties will vary if the whole
quantity of 4 kg is added wholly into the mix, or if it is added in two or three steps totalling the
quantity to 4 kg/ m3. In this study the method of putting the admixture dose in one shot for the
desired workability was followed. Further, the mix series 7 in each group showed very different
results compared to other sets as this set was done at the RMC plant where a pan type mixer
was used.
165
20 20
G1-G G2-G G1-M G2-M
18 G3-G G4-G 18 G3-M G4-M
G5-G G6-G G5-M G6-M
16 16
G7-G Granite Boundary G7-M Marble Boundary
Admixture Dosage (kg/m3)

14 14
12 12
10 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
VFT (s) VFT (s)
(a) Granite powder concrete (b) Marble powder concrete
20 20
G1-S
18 18 G2-S
G3-S
16 16 G4-S
G5-S
G6-S
14 14
G7-S
12 12 Higher Sand Boundary
10 10
8 8
G1-F
6 G2-F 6
G3-F
4 G4-F 4
G5-F
G6-F
2 2
G7-F
Higher Fly Ash Boundary
0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 0 10 20 30 40 50
VFT (s) VFT (s)
(c) Higher fly ash concrete (d) Higher sand concrete
Note: Boundary is for G1 to G6. G7 does not follow trend
Fig 8.6 Admixture dosage vs. Vft for SCC mixes
166
Fig 8.6 shows the variation of admixture dosages with Vft for each group of the material.
It was observed that there was a definitive trend in the amount of admixture quantity and the
different mix designs adopted. A clear funnel like distribution pattern was observed which
increased from a lower Vft to a higher Vft. Also, mixes with a low w/b ratio happened to be on
the wider side of the funnel. Fig 8.7 shows the compilation of all groups of graphs showing
variation of admixture dosages and Vft.
Note: Boundary is for G1 to G6. G7 does not follow trend
14
Granite
12 Marble
Higher Fly Ash
10 Higher Sand
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
VFT (s)
Fig 8.7 Admixture dosage vs. Vft boundary for SCC mixes
167
8.6 Role of fines
For lower strength requirement, low cement contents are required to achieve the strength
parameters. Without the use of fly ash or other powder materials, the powder content for such
grades remains as low as 300-350 kg/m3 for structural grade concrete. An appropriate amount
of fine sand is required to get good paste in the concrete mix. This scenario changed, as fly ash
was introduced. Fly ash also provides strength at later ages. It can be used as a partial
replacement for cement. There is a decrease in the amount of cement and significant increase
in powder content can be achieved. The cohesivity generally increases. The increase in the
powder content increases the water demand. We need a better plasticizer or increase the dosage
of the plasticizer.
On the other hand, when we go for a high strength concrete, we have almost 450 kg/m3
of cement, as that is the upper limit of cement allowed under IS 456 : 2000 [13] in a general
condition. Research has shown that when this is supplemented with fly ash or slag along with
micro silica, strengths between 80-90 MPa can be achieved satisfying all practical requirements.
If we have 450 kg/m3 cement and say 40 kg/m3 of micro silica, the powder content is already
490 kg/m3. Although cement and fly ash can be considered proportional to weight as the particle
size and surface area are of similar order, micro silica is a complicated case. According to the
PCA manual [78], while cement and fly ash have a surface area of 370-420 m2/kg, micro silica
has a surface area of about 15000 to 30000 m2/kg. The surface area as measured in this
experiment was of the order of 300 m2/kg and 370 m2/kg for cement and fly ash respectively.
However, micro silica is supplied in agglomerated form. This needs to be broken down during
the mixing state. If indeed micro silica breaks down to such fineness, it will increase the
cohesivity of the concrete mix to a large extent.
168
The marble and granite powders have a surface area of 300 m2/kg and 262 m2/kg
respectively. Unlike fly ash particles which have spherical shape, marble and granite powders
are in angular shape. This provides less cohesivity and lower plasticizer demand compared to
fly ash. This can provide a good, dependent alternate material for the fines content requirement
without much enhanced cohesivity.
In this research, it was shown that T500, and Viscosity (measured by BT2 rheometer)
had almost linear relationship with Vft as shown in Fig. 8.8 and 8.9. The marble and granite
have a higher R2 value showing higher scattering in data. The scatter in data in fly ash case was
higher. Although data of the four groups show slight differences, within the limits of
experimental data, all four trends are similar. Hence, in this discussion, T500 and Vft will be
considered as they are easy to measure. These are also mentioned under the EFNARC
specifications [26].
Fig. 8.10 and Fig. 8.11 show the limits of T500 and Vft in various applications
respectively. In this research we are not capable enough to understand the correctness or limits
of this data. Though most of the mixes look good, Table 8.10 shows some interesting facts. The
mixes adopted in this chapter have the primary goal of proving that marble and granite powder
can indeed be used effectively in self-compacting concrete. We cannot claim that this limited
data can show all possibilities, but still the data seem very interesting. Table 8.5 − 8.8 show the
data of rheological properties. Here we have data of T500, Vft for varying plasticizer content.
These data are very interesting and will be discussed in detail later. These data highly depend
on the sequence of putting the material and the time they are mixed. The details are not yet fully
understood. A repeat experiment was carried out, where materials were mixed for a longer
amount of time, resulting in an increase in demand for more plasticizer.
169
This data was rearranged in Table 8.9. The flow in most cases was achieved by
increasing plasticizer dosage, and the mixes never segregated. But mixes often were very
cohesive and difficult to work with even though they had good flow. The cohesivity was easily
visible in the high T500 and Vft. This was specifically true for high strength mixes. This
cohesivity increased with the mixing of micro silica.
On the other hand, there were three limits based of T500 and Vft. The critical limit for
T500 was 2 s, whereas Vft had limits of 9 s and 25 s. Based on the linearity rule, the three limits
were determined for four groups for T500 and Vft. It can be seen that only fly ash had a lower
limit of 1, whereas granite and sand had a higher limit of 3.
Within experimental limitation, granite group has two groups under limit 1, whereas
sand and marble have one group each under limit 1. Group 7 was mixed in a different mixer.
The fly ash group had a high cohesivity with a high value of Vft, even when the flow achieved
was 840 mm under a high plasticizer dosage. The strength achieved was independent of the
rheological properties as there was no segregation.
8.7 Relationship betweenT500, Vft and viscosity
The consistence parameters like flow, T500, Vft, viscosity for different mixes were
analysed. The flow was found to be dependent on combination of factors like admixture dosage,
proportioning of mix (water content and W/P ratio), raw material characteristics etc. The
relationship between T500, Vft and viscosity were found to be linear, i.e. if we know about one
of the parameters, then other parameters can be found out.
Fig 8.8 shows the variation of T500 with Vft for all the four groups of concrete at different
admixture dosages. A linear trend in all the cases was observed i.e. the T500 increased linearly
170
with the admixture dosage. However it was dependent on the mix design too. Mix G7 with
micro silica and a low w/b ratio invariably increased the Vft as the viscosity also increased to a
very high range. Such mixes exhibited the thixotropic behaviour, i.e. on appearance they looked
very cohesive, but hard to work with. However, while performing the flow test, they exhibited
good flow values. The linear relationship of the two parameters is calculated for each of the four
groups as under:
For granite group:
T500 = 0.2492 Vft + 0.6657 (8.1)
For marble group:
T500 = 0.2141Vft + 0.7274 (8.2)
For higher fly ash group:
T500 = 0.1951 Vft + 1.1558 (8.3)
For higher sand group:
T500 = 0.2695 Vft + 0.421 (8.4)
Fig 8.9 shows the variation between viscosity and Vft. In this case too, the variation is
found to be linear. The Vft increased with increasing viscosity. Here, the behaviours of marble
powder mixes and higher sand mixes were quite similar, while that of granite powder and higher
fly ash mixes were found to be similar. The variation of viscosity and Vft may be shown as:
For granite group:
Viscosity = 0.5783 Vft - 1.5631 (8.5)
For marble group:
Viscosity = 0.8224 Vft - 3.329 (8.6)
171
For higher fly ash group:
Viscosity = 0.6919 Vft - 3.4172 (8.7)
For higher sand group:
Viscosity = 0.8542 Vft - 4.1036 (8.8)
8.8 Relationship of T500, Vft, viscosity, and admixture dosage with flow
For each mix, the plasticizer dosage was increased gradually to get a different flow.
The flow, T500, Vft, and BT2 rheometer readings were taken. These results of T500, Vft, viscosity
and admixture dosage are plotted against flow in Fig. 8.10, 8.11, 8.14 and 8.15 respectively.
The four groups are plotted independently. Each group had seven mixes. Six of the seven mixes
were done in a tilting type rotating drum mixer, while the 7th group was mixed in powerful pan
mixer. Properties of each mix are drawn as independent lines.
Fig. 8.10, 8.11 and 8.14 show similar trend. Groups with higher w/b (G1, G2) show
flatter graphs, while groups with lower w/b (G6, G7) show steeper slopes. The T500 vs. Vft and
viscosity vs. Vft graphs show EFNARC limits. The results are also shown in Table 8.10. The
marble and granite powder mixes with higher w/b qualify VS1/VF1. Possible G1-S also qualify
with more plasticizer. The fly ash mixes show higher viscosity. As a result, even G7-F of fly
ash group did not even qualify for VS2/VF2 even with high dosage, whereas G7-G, G7-M and
G7-S qualified for VS2/VF2.
In this experiment, the admixture was added gradually. It was noted that if the higher
dosage is directly put into the water, the results are slightly different. It is impossible to do such
a high number of mixes.
172
20
Granite: T500 = 0.2492VFT + 0.6657
(R2= 0.96)
18 Marble: T500 = 0.2141 VFT + 0.7274
(R2= 0.92)
Higher Fly Ash: T500 = 0.1951 VFT + 1.1558
16 (R2= 0.78)
Higher Sand: T500 = 0.2695 VFT + 0.421
(R2= 0.92)
14
Sand
12
Marble
T500 (s)
Granite
10
8 Fly ash
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V Funnel Time, Vft (s)
Fig 8.8 T500 vs. Vft for SCC mixes
45
Granite: V = 0.5783VFT
2
-1.5631
(R = 0.9625)
40 Marble: V = 0.8224 VFT - 3.329
2
(R = 0.9285)
Marble
Higher Fly Ash: V = 0.6919 VFT - 3.4172
35 2
(R = 0.7612)
Higher Sand: V = 0.2695
2
VFT + 0.421
(R = 0.7181)
Sand
30
Viscosity, V (103)
25 Fly ash
Granite
20
15
10
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
V Funnel Time, Vft (s)
Fig 8.9 Viscosity vs. Vft for SCC mixes
173
14
G1-G
G2-G
12
G3-G
G4-G
10 G5-G
G6-G
T500 (s)
8 G7-G
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(a) Granite concrete
14
G1-M
G2-M
12 G3-M
G4-M
10 G5-M
G6-M
T500 (s)
G7-M
8
6
VS2/
VF2
4
VS2/
VF1
2
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(b) Marble concrete
174
14
G1-F
G2-F
12 G3-F
G4-F
10 G5-F
T500 (s) G6-F
G7-F
8
6
VS2/
VF2
4
VS2/
VF1
2
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(c) Higher fly ash concrete
14
G1-S
G2-S
12 G3-S
G4-S
G5-S
10 G6-S
G7-G
T500 (s)
6
VS2/
VF2
4
VS2/
VF1
2
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(d) Higher sand concrete
175
60
G1-G
G2-G
50 G3-G
G4-G
G5-G
40
G6-G
Vft (s)
G7-G
30
20
VS2/
VS2/ VF2
VF1
10
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(a) Granite concrete
60
G1-M
G2-M
50 G3-M
G4-M
G5-M
40 G6-M
G7-M
Vft (s)
30
20 VS2/
VS2/ VF2
VF1
10
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(b) Marble concrete
176
60
G1-F
G2-F
50 G3-F
G4-F
G5-F
40
G6-F
Vft (s)
G7-F
30
20 VS2/
VS2/ VF2
VF1
10
VS1/
VF1 SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
c) Higher fly ash concrete
60
G1-S
G2-S
50 G3-S
G4-S
40 G5-S
Vft (s)
G6-S
G7-S
30
20
VS2/
VS2/ VF2
VF1
10
VS1/
VF1
SF1 SF2 SF3
0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm)
(d) Higher sand concrete
177
200
Granite
180
Marble
160 Higher Fly Ash
Higher Sand
140
120
Intercept, c
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
w/b
Fig. 8.12 Relationship between intercept of Vft vs. flow graph and w/b
0.25
Granite
Marble
0.20 Higher Fly Ash
Higher Sand
Positive Slope, "-m"
0.15
0.10
0.05
0.00
0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55
w/b
Fig. 8.13 Relationship between positive slope of Vft vs. flow graph and w/b
Fig 8.14(b) Simulation of experimental

178 vs. power equation for Slope and intercept
30 60
G1-G G2-G G1-M G2-M
G3-G G4-G G3-M G4-M
G5-G G6-G G5-M G6-M
25 G7-G 50 G7-M
20 40
Viscosity
Viscosity
15 30
10 20
5 10
0 0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm) Flow (mm)
50 45
G1-F G2-F G1-S G2-S
45 G3-F G4-F G3-S G4-S
40
G5-F G6-F
G5-S G6-S
40 G7-F
35 G7-S
35
30
Viscosity
Viscosity
30
25
25
20
20
15
15
10
10
5 5
0 0
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm) Flow (mm)
Fig 8.14 Viscosity vs. flow for SCC mixes
179
12 10
G1-G G2-G G1-M G2-M
G3-G G4-G G3-M G4-M
G5-G G6-G 9 G5-M G6-M
10 G7-G G7-M
8
8
7

6 6
5
4
4
2
3
0 2
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm) Flow (mm)
18 18
G1-S G2-S
G3-S G4-S
G5-S G6-S
16 16 G7-S
14 14
12 G1-F G2-F G3-F 12

G4-F G5-F G6-F

10 G7-F 10
8 8
6 6
4 4
2 2
500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900 500 550 600 650 700 750 800 850 900
Flow (mm) Flow (mm)
Fig 8.15 Admixture dosage vs. flow for SCC mixes
180
It was noted that the T500, Vft and viscosity were linearly interrelated. Hence is good
enough if we study only one property. It can be seen that as w/b was decreased to get higher
strength, the graphs became steeper. The trendlines were taken and the slope and intercepts
were noted as shown in Table 8.11. These slopes and intercepts were plotted to show interesting
behaviour as shown in Fig. 8.12 and 8.13.
Vft = m x flow + c (8.9)
From the above, it may be inderred that if we know the target w/b,target flow and Vft,
plasticizer dosage may be estimated. This may not be easy as the sample data is too small and
would depend on other mix proportions. The results would also depend on the type of mixer
used for mixing the concrete. However, one may take these trends and make a meaningful
interpretation.
8.9 Reconfirmation experiments
Table 8.12 shows the results of a reconfirmation mix with marble powder with w/b
ratio of 0.37. In the second mix, the granite powder was replaced with fly ash. The results are
similar. Both these mixes qualified as SCC under the VS2/VF1 category of the EFNARC [26].
Table 8.13 shows the results of a repeat casting for granite powder with a w/b ratio of
0.27. In the next mix, the granite powder was replaced with fly ash. It was noticed that although
the granite mix qualified as SCC under the VS2/VF2 category of the EFNARC, the next mix
with fly ash did not qualify, showing that granite powder created less viscosity when compared
to fly ash. The strength development was as expected.
181
Table: 8.12 Details of reconfirmation casting with marble powder
Sp. Gr. 1 3.14 2.2 2.2 2.54 2.62 2.93 -

3
Mix design in kg/m
Name
Water Cement Fly ash M Silica Marble Sand 10 mm Admix
R1-M 175 400 71 10 167 871 665 5.07
R2-F 175 400 215 10 0 871 665 5.63
Name Flow (mm) T500 (s) Vft (s) Viscosity Yield Stress H2/H1 L-Box (s)
R1-M 760 2.99 7.15 4200 30 Flat 7.52
R2-F 800 2.96 6.97 3500 150 Flat 8.65

Name f% k w/b
15 h 19 h 1d 14 d 28 d
R1-M 15% 0.81 0.37 11 16.5 19.75 50.00 55
R2-F 35% 0.34 0.36 8.25 15.25 19.75 53.00 58.3
Table: 8.13 Details of reconfirmation casting with granite powder
Sp. Gr. 1 3.14 2.2 2.2 2.54 2.62 2.93 -

3
Name Mix design in kg/m
Water Cement Fly ash M Silica Granite Sand 10 mm Admix
R3-G 160 470 140 40 230 871 665 5.63
R4-F 160 470 367 40 0 871 665 5.07
Name Flow (mm) T500 (s) Vft (s) Viscosity Yield Stress
R3-G 640 3.12 13.83 7000 150
R4-F 720 12.22 45 40000 550

Name f% k w/b Expected Actual
7d 28 d 7d 28 d
R3-G 23.0% 0.54 0.273 54 72 52 70.89
R4-F 43.8% 0.25 0.266 56 74 54 77.63
8.10 Particle size distribution of different mixes
In chapter 7 and 8, marble and granite powders played an important role in providing
fines. It is now important to check the overall particle size distribution of the mixes in
comparison to the material I gradients. The particle size distributions of all the particles of the
mixes were presented in Chapter 4. Water and air are considered as materials that passes
through all mixes. In this research 2% air was assumed. Fig. 8.16 and Fig. 8.17 show the particle
size distribution in different cases. Hence, the particle size distribution of all the mixes would
strat in a straight line of the total of water and air content. The calculations are done proportional
to weight of the respective materials.
182
Fig. 8.16 Particle size distribution for SCC group 1 and group 6
Fig. 8.17 Particle size distribution for normal concrete
183
Fig. 8.18 (a) Oven-dried marble powder
Fig. 8.18 (b) Oven-dried granite powder
184
Fig. 8.18 (c) Marble in paste form
Fig. 8.18 (d) Granite in paste form
185
Fig. 8.18 (e) SCC at flow of 640 mm
Fig. 8.18 (f) SCC at flow of 690 mm
186
Fig. 8.18 (g) SCC inside mixer
Fig. 8.18 (h) L-box test with 3 rebars
187
Fig. 8.18 (i) V-funnel test
Fig. 8.18 (j) BT2 rheometer test
Fig. 8.20 SCC with marble and granite powders
188
Fig. 8.16 shows the comparison betwen group 1 and group 6. Group 1 represents a high
w/b with a lower strength and group 6 shows one with a low w/b with higher sand. Surprisingly,
all the mixes of granite, marble and fly ash showed similar graphs while G1-S and G6-S showed
a lower trend.
In Fig. 8.17, the G1-M and G1-F are kept constant for reference. Three mixes were
considered. The 4 digits represent fly ash, micro silica, marble and granite. The low strength
concrete 2C1 was lowest in the graph showing coarser distribution. Increase in strength requires
more cement. Hence 2C3 came up. However, even at 500 kg/m3 cement, its particle size was
even lower than SCC sand mixes. The 3rd mix of 2M7 showed the particle size as good as the
SCC cases with marble/ granite or fly ash.
8.11 Picture story of utilization of marble and granite powders
Utilization of marble and granite powders in concrete has been challenging in terms of
determining the water absorption capacity and specific gravity at SSD condition. Fig. 8.18 (a – j)
presents a series of pictures of utilization of marble and granite powders in the making of self-
compacting concrete.
8.12 Conclusion
In the previous chapter, the strength aspect had been discussed. In this chapter, the
rheological part has been presented. For SCC mixes, four sets of mixes were adopted. The first
two sets had granite and marble powders. In the next group, the granite/ marble powder was
replaced with fly ash. In the last group, the replacement was done equally between fly ash and
sand. The following conclusions can be drawn:
a) All fine powder materials, cement, fly ash and marble and granite needs to be taken
into consideration to estimate plasticizer demand.
189
b) The cement contribution was slightly higher compared to fly ash and marble
powder. However, the difference was marginal and in these experiments the first
estimation was done by the assuming plasticizer use as a percentage of the total
weight of cement, fly ash and marble powder.
c) The utilization of marble/ granite powders was promising in a lower strength range.
d) Mix designs utilizing marble and granite powders up to 360 kg/m3 were presented.
e) T500, Vft and viscosity showed linear inter-relationship. Though the four groups
showed independent trendlines, they are similar.
f) T500 − Vft of granite and sand mixes are similar, while marble and fly ash are
similar. Viscosity − Vft graph shows a confusing relationship. The results of T500 −
Vft are expected to be more reliable as the viscosity results of the BT2 rheometer
show wide variation and taking the average was difficult.
g) Most mixes fell under the VS2/VF1 or VS2/VF2 category of EFNARC. Fly ash
provided a higher viscosity and failed to achieve qualifying criteria in group 7 of
high strength concrete, showing the necessity of decreasing viscosity. Both micro
silica and fly ash can increase strength but provide extremely high viscosity.
h) Dosage of plasticizer depends on the particle size or surface area.
i) Particle size of marble is finer than granite particle. This is reflected in the surface
area per unit weight. As a result, granite powder produces lower viscosity.
It can be concluded that marble and granite powders can be significantly utilized in a
normal and self-compacting concrete, as they are of similar order of particle size of cement or
fly ash, but are coarser than them. The utilization of these materials is expected to decrease
consumption of other materials significantly.
190
CHAPTER 9
Conclusion
9.0 General
India is now in a stage where the construction of roads, bridges, ports, factories,
residential and commercial buildings, etc. is going to take place at a very rapid pace in the
coming decade. Concrete is one industry that is very important for any developing country
where large amounts of material are consumed. Other than cement and steel, concrete requires
the utilization of fine and coarse aggregates. This large scale construction utilizes materials on
an enormous scale. This thesis presents a scientific proof that marble and granite powders can
be effectively used, significantly decreasing the need for other materials, namely fine and coarse
aggregates.
In Chapter 2, literature review of work done related to the utilization of marble and
granite powders in normal and SCC, and other relevant studies was presented. Many researchers
attempted to experiment with marble and granite powders in normal and SCC. Some attempted
it as a replacement of cement while others attempted it as a replacement of sand. In most cases,
the results were varying with decrease in strength when compared with control mixes.
In Chapter 3, an experimental setup, the equipment used were explained. Special
emphasis laid on the equipment relevant to self-compacting concrete. In Chapter 4, material
properties were presented. The details of all the normal materials were as expected. The new
materials of marble and granite powder had slightly coarser particles compared to fly ash and
191
cement. Micro silica is almost 100 times finer than cement. However it comes in an
agglomerated form. Care must be taken to break down micro silica for it to be effective.
In Chapter 5, the findings of the site visits conducted at Kishangarh, Makrana and
Rajsmand in Rajasthan and Khammam, in Andhra Pradesh to understand the extraction and the
processing of marble and granite respectively were presented. The quantum of waste generated
and waste handling practices followed at these locations were assessed. The process of
extraction and processing of these stones were explained, and the waste utilization and
environmental impact were presented with photographic evidences and data from literature. It
was shown that the consumption of this slurry material is possible if there is a will. The
Government should also declare the incentives to promote the use of these material in concrete.
Chapter 6 presented the importance of water correction. In this chapter, the concept of
specific gravity and SSD condition were explained. It was shown that the determination of the
SSD condition was difficult for fine materials like marble and granite powders. Assuming that
marble and granite powders are inert, it was indirectly realized, based on plasticizer demand,
that marble and granite powders have water absorption of 6% and 9% respectively and a
specific gravity of 2.54 and 2.37 respectively. Chapter 7 presented comparisons between
strengths of normal and self-compacting concrete. Chapter 8 discussed the particle size,
plasticizer demand and other rheological properties of concrete.
The following conclusions can be drawn.
1. Production: A State wise production of marble and granite powders was estimated
based on the production of these stones. It is possible that some of these stones were not
cut in the state and hence other states may have a larger production of slurry material.
The site visit showed that both pre-processing and post-processing wastes were creating
192
Chapter 9: Conclusion
great environmental problems. Hence it was important to consume these material in
concrete.
2. Environmental impact: Rajasthan, the largest producer state, has realized the
environmental impact and has better organized material disposal methods. Researchers
have shown that leaching of these materials to earth can block pores. The Khamam
district of Andhra Pradesh (presently part of Telengana) is the largest granite production
centre and has a much unorganised waste disposal system. One may find slurry and
large chunk blocks often deposited on road sides, causing immense inconvenience and
hazardous to locals and vehicular traffic.
3. Material property: Marble and granite powder specific gravity were 2.54 and 2.37
respectively with SSD moisture content to be 6% and 9% respectively. The particle size
distribution was marginally coarser than cement and fly ash available in Northern India.
4. Method of utilization: One may use dry marble powder in the absolutely dry form.
However, it would be better if the material is converted to paste for utilization and water
correction is carried out to achieve proper strength.
5. Strength Development: Concrete compressive strength, split and flexural strengths
were tested. These showed excellent trends where both sets of normal and SCC mixes
showed similar interdependence. Compressive strength followed a predicted strength
trend in line with Abram’s law. Pusa’s formulation helped in the estimation of fly ash
utilization. Relationship of split and flexure with compressive strength were referred to
in EN-1992-1-1 and IS 456. The flexural strength results showed higher than expected
trend, while split strength was closer to the trend mentioned in EN-1992-1-1.
193
6. Strength achieved: The concrete strength for SCC mixes of about 77 MPa in
compression, 9.0 MPa in flexure and 4.9 MPa as split tensile strength was achieved at
about w/b = 0.27. Even in normal concrete, 70 MPa in compression, 8.8 MPa in flexure
and 4.9 MPa in split tensile strength was achieved
7. Utilization: Here, marble or granite up to 360 kg/m3 was successfully used in both
normal and SCC mixes. It was shown in Chapter 8 that the possibility of utilization was
higher at normal and lower strength ranges. Here a hypothetical data was assumed to
show how fly ash can be economically used to increase the consumption of marble and
granite powders.
8. Plasticizer consumed: Plasticizer consumed seemed to depend on the particle size or
the surface area of the particles. Micro silica made the mix excessively cohesive.
Experiments showed that cement’s plasticizer demand to be slightly higher, while fly
ash and marble/granite powder had a similar plasticizer demand. Hence, when micro
silica is not used, the plasticizer amount is estimated as a percentage of the total weight
to cement, fly ash and marble/granite powder.
9. T500, Vft and Viscosity (as measured by BT2 Rheometer) showed a linear relationship.
Individual groups showed slight variations
10. T500, Vft and Viscosity against flow showed an interesting pattern. In a lower w/b, the
cement increased, gradually as micro silica was introduced, the viscosity increased. The
Vft curves vs. flow which were flatter for higher w/b became steeper for lower w/b. The
slopes of these linear trend lines taken, and their slope and intercepts showed good trend.
11. Are the results universal: The results would depend on the mixer capacity and mixing
time. This point is yet to be investigated in details.
194
Chapter 9: Conclusion
12. Plasticizer Dosage: In experiments of rheological parameters vs. flow, plasticizer
dosage was added gradually. It was noted that if the correct dosage was directly put in
water, the results were slightly different. It was impossible to do such high number of
mixes.
13. Confirmation of EFNARC specification: The marble and granite powder mixes with
higher w/b qualify for VS1/VF1. Possible G1-S would also qualify with a slight increase
in plasticizer. The fly ash mixes showed a higher viscosity. As a result, even the G7-F
of the fly ash group, did not even qualify for VS2/VF2, even a high dosage, whereas
G7-G, G7-M and G7-S qualified for VS2/VF2.
14. Confirmation casting showed excellent strength predictions and other rheological
properties. Here L-box, V funnel, T 500, flow, viscosity were measured.
15. Fines and its roles: Most SCC mixes and high strength mixes had higher fines. It may
be noted that fines should exist in a mix. Marble and granite powder mixes had great
workability. The particle size of marble is finer then granite particles. This is reflected
in the surface area per unit weight. As a result, granite powder produces lower viscosity.
16. Cost benefit: For a typical mix, compared to the original mix without fly ash and
naphthalene based plasticizer, savings of 13% to 16% were achieved, whereas savings
of 11% to 13% compared with PCE based plasticizer. Even if comparison is done with
fly ash based mixes and PCE admixture, savings of 4% to 7% is possible.
Marble and granite are important decorative stones that are widely available in various
parts of India. Rajasthan plays a leading role in the production of marble, while Andhra Pradesh
followed by Rajasthan and Karnataka plays an important role in the production of granite.
Materials are supplied both inside and outside India.
195
The production process of these stones leaves a large quantity of waste during the
extraction and processing stages. The site visit to Kishangarh, Rajasthan and Khammam, Andra
Pradesh showed that the marble industry is more organized as the industry is larger than the
granite industry. However, the waste produced per ton of production is higher in the case of
granite.
In this thesis, the utilization of the powder/slurry in the processing stage in concrete is
established. It is convincingly proved that there will be no reduction in strength if marble and
granite powders are used.
The government should take the initiative by either providing a tax benefit to the user,
or by forcing the marble and granite producers to spend money to make the system robust. The
Utilization of marble and granite powders as Green Building Materials in Concrete will surely
play an important role.
196
REFERENCES
1. Pusa V. Study on mechanical properties of concrete with respect to fly ash, M. Tech
Thesis, Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, 2011.
2. Pandey J. S. Use of marble powder in self-compacting concrete. B. Tech Project Report,
Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, 2008.
3. Bansal A. gainful utilization of powder material in self compacting concrete. B. Tech
Project Report, Civil Engineering Department, IIT Delhi, 2009.
4. Washa G. W. and Withey N. H. Strength and durability of concrete containing Chicago
fly ash, Journal of the ACI, Proceedings, JL49-49, Vol. 49, No. 4, April 1953, pp. 701 –
712.
5. Smith I. A. The design of fly ash concretes, Proceedings, Institution of Civil Engineers,
London, Vol. 36, April 1967, pp. 769 – 790.
6. CEB-FIP Model Code 1990. Comité Euro-International du Béton, Thomas Telford
Services Ltd., London E14 4JD, 1993, pp. 404 – 405.
7. EN 206-1:2000. English Version, Concrete – Part 1: Specification, performance,
production and conformity, European Committee for Standardization, rue de Stassart, 36
B-1050 Brussels.
8. Vollpracht A. performance concept, k-value approach – which concept offers which
advantages? International RILEM Conference on Material Science – MATSCI, Aachen
2010 – Vol. III, AdIPoC, pp. 403 – 411.
9. Babu K. G. and Rao. G. S. Efficiency of fly ash in concrete, Cement and Concrete
Composites, 15, 1993, pp. 223-229.
10. Babu, K.G., Nageswara Rao, G.S., 1996. Efficiency of fly ash in concrete with age,
Cement and Concrete Research, 26(3), 465-474.
197
11. Khuito M., Gupta Supratic, Evaluating the efficiency factor of fly ash for predicting
compressive strength of fly ash concrete, , Structural Engineering Convention 2014, 9th
Biennial Event. New Delhi, India, 22–24 December 2014. New Delhi: Indian Association
for Structural Engineering (IASE).
12. Meera, M., Gidey, M. B. and Gupta, S., 2014. Confirmation of efficiency factor in low
strength range, Structural Engineering Convention 2014, 9th Biennial Event. New Delhi,
India, 22–24 December 2014. New Delhi: Indian Association for Structural Engineering
(IASE).
13. IS 456 : 2000. Plain and reinforced concrete – Code of practice (fourth revision), Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
14. Okamura H., Ozawa K., and Ouchi M. Self-compacting concrete. Structural Concrete,
Vol. 1, No. 1, March 2000, pp. 3-17.
15. Gupta S., Kumar P., Lepcha K. C., and Tripathi S. M. Study of the effect of
hyperplasticizer on characteristics of concrete. Proceedings of the 4th International
RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete, Chicago, Vol. 1, 2005, pp. 33-38.
16. Gupta S., Verma V. G. K., and Maheshwari A. The effect of poly-carboxylic ether based
and naphthalene based super-plasticizers on concrete. Proceedings of the EASAC 10,
Bangkok, 2006.
17. Saak A. W., Jennings, H. M., and Shah S. P., New methodology for designing self-
compacting concrete. American Concrete Institute, ACI Materials Journal, Vol. 98, No. 6,
Nov-Dec 2001, pp. 429-439.
18. Subramanian S. and Chattopadyay D. Experiments for mix proportioning of self
compacting concrete. Indian Concrete Journal, Jan 2002.
198
References
19. Chowdhury S. and Basu P. C. New methodology to proportion self-consolidating
concrete with high-volume fly ash, American Concrete Institute, ACI Materials Journal,
Vol. 107, No. 3, May-June 2010, pp. 222-230.
20. Zhao H., Sun W., Wu X., and Gao B. The effect of sand ratio on the properties of self-
compacting concrete. Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 65, No. 5, 2013, pp. 275-282.
21. Rola D. Mix proportioning of self-compacting normal and high-strength concretes.
Magazine of Concrete Research, Vol. 65, No. 9, 2013, pp. 546-556.
22. Saak A. W., Jennings, H. M. and Shah S. P. Characterization of the rheological parameters
of cement paste for use in self compacting concrete. First International RILEM Symposium
on Self-Compacting Concrete, Stockholm, Sweden, 1999, pp. 83-94.
23. Yamamoto M., Wattanalamlerd C., and Ouchi M. Influence of VMA on fresh properties
of self-compacting concrete. RILEM publications, Conference on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Chicago, 2005, pp. 75.
24. Sakata N., Yanai S., Yoshizaki M., Phyfferoen A., and Monty H. Evaluation of S-657
biopolymer as a new VMA for self-compacting concrete. Proceedings of the second
International Symposium on Self- Compacting Concrete, 2001, pp. 267.
25. Asamoto S., Ishida, T., and Maekawa K. Investigations into volumetric stability of
aggregates and shrinkage of concrete as a composite. Journal of Advanced Concrete
Technology, Vol.6, No.1, Feb 2008, pp. 77-90.
26. The European guidelines for self-compacting concrete, specification, production and use,
The European Federation of Specialist Construction Chemicals and Concrete Systems
(EFNARC), May 2005.
27. Ramakrishnan S., Anuj, Kumar D., Jain A. K., and Gupta S. A study of segregation
behaviour of self-compacting concrete. RILEM publications, Proceedings of the 5th
199
International conference on self-compacting concrete, Gent, Belgium, Sept 2007,
pp. 223-228.
28. Omar O. M., Abd Elhameed G. D., Sherif M. A., and Mohamadien H. A. Influence of
limestone waste as partial replacement material for sand and marble powder in concrete
properties. Housing and Building National Research Center (HBRC) Journal, 2012, Vol.
8, pp. 193-203.
29. Ambarish K., Manjunath S., Renukadevi M. V., and Jagadish K. S. Effect of granite fines
on strength of hollow concrete blocks. International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Technology, Vol. II, Oct-Dec 2011, pp. 475-479.
30. Williams K. C., Partheeban P., and Felix Kala T. Mechanical properties of high
performance concrete incorporating granite powder as fine aggregate. International
Journal on Design and Manufacturing Technologies, Vol. 2, No. 1, July 2008, pp. 67-73.
31. Felix Kala T. and Partheeban P. Granite powder concrete. International Journal of Science
and Technology, Vol. 3 No. 3, Mar 2010, pp. 311-317.
32. Divakar Y., Manjunath S., and Aswath M. U. Experimental investigation on behaviour
of concrete with use of granite fines. International Journal of Advanced Engineering
Research and Studies, Vol. I, Issue IV, July-Sept 2012, pp. 84-87.
33. Abd Elmoaty A. E. M. Mechanical properties and corrosion resistance of concrete
modified with granite dust. Construction and Building Materials, 47, 2013, pp. 743-752.
34. Vijayalakshmi M., Sekar A. S. S., and Prabhu G. G. Strength and durability properties of
concrete made with granite industry waste. Construction and Building Materials, 2013,
46, pp. 1-7.
35. Vaidevi C. Study on marble dust as partial replacement of cement in concrete.
International Journal of Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 9, July 2013, pp. 14-16.
200
References
36. Shelke V. M., Pawde P. Y., and Shrivastava R. R. Effect of marble powder with and
without silica fume on mechanical properties of concrete. IOSR Journal of Mechanical
and Civil Engineering. Vol. 1, Issue 1, May-June 2012, pp. 40-45.
37. Corinaldesi V., Moriconi G., and Naik T. R. Characterization of marble powder for its
use in mortar and concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 24, 2010, pp. 113-117.
38. Awol A. Using marble waste powder in cement and concrete production. M.Sc. Thesis,
Addis Ababa University, March 2011.
39. Hameed M. S. and Sekar A. S. S. Properties of green concrete containing quarry rock dust
and marble sludge powder as fine aggregate. ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied
Sciences, Vol. 4, No. 4, June 2009, pp. 83-89.
40. Hamza R. A., El-Haggar S., and Khedr S. Marble and granite waste: Characterization and
utilization in concrete bricks. International Journal of Bioscience, Biochemistry and
Bioinformatics, Vol. 1, No. 4, Nov. 2011, pp. 286-291.
41. Al-Joulani N. M. A. Sustainable utilization of stone slurry waste in the West Bank. Geo-
Frontiers 2011, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), 2011, pp. 1345-1354.
42. Almeida N., Branco F., and Santos J. R. Recycling of stone slurry in industrial activities:
Application to concrete mixtures. Building and Environment, 42, 2007, pp. 810-819.
43. Almeida N., Branco F., de Brito J., and Santos J. R. High-performance concrete with
recycled stone slurry. Cement and Concrete Research, 37, 2007, pp. 210-220.
44. Belaidi, Azzouz L., Kadri E., and Kenai S. Effect of natural pozzolana and marble powder
on the properties of self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 31,
2012, pp. 251-257.
45. Topcu I. B., Bilir T., and Uygunoglu T. Effect of waste marble dust content as filler on
properties of self-compacting concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 2008, pp. 1-7.
201
46. Hunger M. and Brouwers H. J. H. Natural stone waste powders applied to SCC mix
design. Restoration of Buildings and Monuments, Vol. 14, No. 2, 2008, pp. 131-140.
47. Hameed M. S., Sekar A. S. S., Balamurugan L., and Saraswathy V. Self-compacting
concrete using marble sludge powder and crushed rock dust. Korean Society of Civil
Engineers, KSCE Journal of Civil Engineering. 2012, 16 (6), pp. 980-988.
48. Hebhoub H., Aoun H., Belachia M., Houari H., and Ghorbel E. Use of waste marble
aggregates in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 2010, pp. 1-5.
49. Binici H., Shah T., Aksogan O., and Kaplan H. Durability of concrete made with granite
and marble as recycle aggregates. Journal of Materials Processing Technology, 2008,
Vol. 208, pp. 299-308.
50. Nagabhushana and Bai H. S. Use of crushed rock powder as replacement of fine aggregate
in mortar and concrete. Indian Journal of Science and Technology, Aug 2011, Vol. 4, No.
8, pp. 917-922.
51. Misra A. K., Mathur R., Rao Y. V., Singh A. P., and Goel P. A new technology of marble
slurry waste utilisation in roads. Journal of Scientific & Industrial Research, Vol. 69, Jan
2010, pp. 67-72.
52. IS 2386: 1963 (Reaffirmed Apr 2011) Part 1. Methods of test for aggregates for concrete,
Part 1, Particle Size and Shape, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
Part 2, Estimation of Deleterious Materials and Organic Impurities , Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
Part 4, Mechanical Properties, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
55. IS 9377: 1979 (Reaffirmed Apr 2004). Specification for apparatus for aggregate impact
value, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
202
References
56. IS 2720 : 1985 (Part 4). Methods of test for soils: Part 4 Grain size analysis, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
57. ASTM D422 – 63 (2007). Standard test method for particle-size analysis of soils,
American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2007.
58. ASTM C128 – 01e1. Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity),
and absorption of fine aggregate, American Society for Testing and Materials
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2001.
59. AASHTO T84. Specific gravity and absorption of fine aggregate, American Association
of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC 20001.
60. ASTM C127 – 12. Standard test method for density, relative density (specific gravity),
and absorption of coarse aggregate, American Society for Testing and Materials
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
61. BS 812 – 103.1: 1985. Testing aggregates, method for determination of particle size
distribution sieve tests), London, W4 4AL, UK.
62. ASTM C131 – 06. Standard test method for resistance to degradation of small-size coarse
aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine, American Society for
Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2006.
63. ASTM C535 – 12. Standard test method for resistance to degradation of large-size coarse
aggregate by abrasion and impact in the Los Angeles machine, American Society for
Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
64. IS 7320: 1974 (Reaffirmed Oct 2008). Specification for slump cone, Bureau of Indian
203
65. ASTM C143/ C143M – 12. Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete,
American Society for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA,
2012.
66. ASTM C1610/ C1610M – 10. Standard test method for static segregation of self-
consolidating concrete using column technique, American Society for Testing and
Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2010.
67. ACI 238.1R-08, Report on Measurements of Workability and Rheology of Fresh
Concrete.
68. Koehler E., ICAR Rheometer, Power Point Presentation
69. IS 516: 1959 (Reaffirmed Oct 2008). Method of tests for strength of concrete, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
70. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_of_Delhi [Accessed 17.02.2014]
71. ASTM C31/ C31M – 12. Standard practice for making and curing concrete test specimens
in the field, American Society for Testing and Materials International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
72. IS 5816: 1999 (Reaffirmed Oct 2008). Method of test for splitting tensile strength of
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
73. ASTM C192/ C192M – 13. Standard practice for making and curing concrete test
specimens in the laboratory, American Society for Testing and Materials International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
74. IS 3025: 1964. Methods of sampling and test (physical and chemical) for water used in
industry, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
75. IS 383: 1970 (Reaffirmed Apr 2011). Coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
204
References
76. ASTM C 494-99. Specification for chemical admixtures for concrete, American Society
for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1999.
77. IS 9103: 1999 (Reaffirmed Oct 2008). Specifications for admixtures for concrete, Bureau
of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
78. Kosmatka S. H., Kerhoff B., and Panarese W. C. Design and control of concrete mixtures.
14th ed., Portland Cement Association, Skokie, Illinois, USA, 2003.
79. ASTM C150/C150M-12. Standard specification for Portland cement, American Society
for Testing and Materials International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
80. Madlool, N.A.; Saidur, R; Hossain,M.S.; Rahim, N.A.; A critical review on energy use
and savings in the cement industries, Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 15
(2011), 2042 – 2060.
81. IS 12269: 2013. Specification for Ordinary Portland cement, 53 Grade, Bureau of Indian
82. ASTM C618 -12a. Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural
pozzolan for use in concrete, American Society for Testing and Materials International,
West Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
83. IS 3812: 2013 (Part 1). Specification for pulverized fuel ash: part 1, for use as pozzolana
in cement, cement mortar and concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
84. IS 3812: 2013 (Part 2). Specification for pulverized fuel ash: part 2, for use as admixture
in cement mortar and concrete (third revision), Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi-
110 002.
85. ACI 234R – 96 (Reconfirmed 2000). Guide for the use of silica fume in concrete,
American Concrete Institute, Farmington Hills, Mich, 51 pp.
86. http://www.dmg-raj.org/marble.html. Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of
Rajasthan, India (Accessed 18/07/2013).
205
87. http://www.dmg-raj.org/granite.html. Department of Mines and Geology, Govt. of
Rajasthan, India (Accessed 18/07/2013).
88. IS 1130: 1969 (Reaffirmed 2003). Specification for marble (blocks, slabs and tiles),
Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi- 110 002.
89. Indian minerals yearbook 2011 (Part II), Marble, Advance Release, 50th ed., Indian
Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, Oct. 2012, Chapter 56, pp. 2-11.
90. Indian minerals yearbook 2011 (Part II), Granite, Advance Release, 50th ed., Indian
Bureau of Mines, Ministry of Mines, Govt. of India, Oct. 2012, Chapter 43, pp. 2-13.
91. http://www.cdos-india.com/CDOS/NerveCenters.html (Accessed 16/07/2013).
92. http://www.cdos-india.com/CDOS/Production.html (Accessed 16/07/2013).
93. Robleda A. S., Vilan J. A. V., Lago M. L., and Castro J. T. The rock processing sector:
Part I: Cutting technology tools. A new diamond segment band saw. Part II: Study of
cutting forces, Dyna, Year 77, Nro. 161, pp. 77-87. Medellin, March, 2010.
94. Rizzo G., D'Agostino F., and Ercoli L. Problems of soil and groundwater pollution in the
disposal of "marble" slurries in NW Sicily. Environ Geol, 2008, 55, pp. 929-935.
95. IS 2386: 1963 (Reaffirmed Apr 2011) Part 3 Methods of test for aggregates for concrete,
Part 3, Specific gravity, density, voids, absorption and bulking, Bureau of Indian
96. Popovics S.; Strength and related properties of concrete A quantitative approach, John
Wiley and Sons, Inc.
97. Locher, F.W., Die Festigkeit des Zements (Strength of cement), Beton, Vol. 26, Nos.7
and 8, Dusseldorf, July and Aug. 1976, pp. 247-249, 283-286.
98. Winslow, D.N., Diamond, S., A mercury porosimetry study of the evolution of porosity
in Portland cement, Journal of Materials, JMLSA, vol. 5, No. 3, Sept. 1970, pp. 564-585.
206
References
99. Sandstedt, C. E., Ledbetter, W.B., and Gallaway, B.M., Prediction of concretestrength
from the calculated porosity of the hardened cement paste, ACI Journal, Proc. Vol. 70,
No. 2, Feb. 1973, pp 115-116
100. A.I. Laskar, Rakesh Kumar and B. Bhattacharjee. Some aspects of evaluation of concrete
through mercury intrusion porosimetry. Cement and Concrete Research. Vol 27, No.1.
pp. 93-105, Jan 1997.
101. Rakesh Kumar and B.Bhattacharjee. Study on some factors affecting the results in the use
of MIP method in concrete research. Cement and Concrete Research. Vol 33, No.3.
pp. 417-424. Mar 2003.
102. Abrams, D.A., Design of concrete mixtures, Bulletin 1, Structural Materials Research
Laboratory, Lewis Institute, Chicago, Dec. 1918.
103. Graf, O.,Albrecht, W., and Schaffler, H., Die Eigenschaften des Betons (Properties of
Concrete), 2nd ed., Springer- Verlag, Berlin, 1960.
104. Zielinszki, S., and Zhuk, J.,Roman cementek osszehassonlito vizsgalata (Comparative
investigation of Roman Cements), Third International Congress of the Association for
Testing Materials, Budapest, 1901.
105. Zielinszki, S.,The Development of the Setting of Roman and Portland Cements in Pastes,
in Mortars, and in Concrete. Proceedings International Association for Testing Materials,
Vol I, Copenhagen, 1909, pp. 1-55
106. Kaplan, M.F., The Relation between ultrasonic pulse velocity and the compressive
strength of concrete having same workability but different mix proportions, Magazine of
Concrete Research, Vol. 12, No. 34, March 1960, pp. 3-8.
107. Schiller, K.K., Porosity and strength of brittle solids (with Particular Reference to
Gypsum), Mechanical Properties of Non-Metallic Brittle Materials, W.H. Walton (Ed.),
Interscience Publishers, New York, 1958, pp. 35-49.
207
108. Fulton, F.S., Concrete technology, A South African Handbook, 3rd Edn., Portland Cement
Institute, Johannesburg, South Africa, 1964.
109. EN 1992-1-1, Eurocode 2: Design of concrete structures – Part 1-1: General rules and
rules for buildings, European Committee for Standardization, 2004.
110. Demirel B. The effect of the using marble dust as fine sand on the mechanical properties
of the concrete. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, Vol. 5(9), Aug 2010, pp.
1372-1380.
111. Alyamac K. E. and Ince R. A preliminary concrete mix design for SCC with marble
powders. Construction and Building Materials, 23, 2009, pp. 1201-1210.
112. Guneyisi E., Gesoglu M., and Ozbay E. Effects of marble powder and slag on the
properties of self-compacting mortars. Materials and Structures, 42, 2009, pp. 813-826.
113. Day K. W. Concrete mix design, quality control and specification. 3rd ed., Table 3.2,
Taylor & Francis, Oxlon OX14 4RN, 2006, p 32.
114. Wallevik O. H. Rheology – A scientific approach to develop self-compacting concrete.
Proceedings of the 3rd International RILEM Symposium on Self-Compacting Concrete,
PRO 33, Reykjavik, Aug 2003, pp. 208-219.
115. Bui V. K., Akkaya Y., and Shah S. P. Rheological model for self-consolidating concrete.
American Concrete Institute, ACI Materials Journal. Nov-Dec 2002, Vol. 99, No. 6,
pp. 549-559.
116. Zerbino R., Barragán B., Garcia T., Agulló L., and Gettu R. Workability tests and
rheological parameters in self-compacting concrete. Materials and Structures, Vol. 42,
2009, pp. 947-960.
208
SHORT INTRODUCTION OF THE DOCTORAL STUDENT
Name: ANUJ
Date of Birth: May 08, 1967
Nationality: Indian
Educational Qualification
B. Tech.: Civil Engineering, IIT Kanpur (1988)
M. E.: Structural Engineering, IIT Roorkee (1991)
Present Employment:
Vice President (P&C)
Reliance Industries Limited, Mumbai
Past Association:
 UltraTech Concrete, Vice President (Technical), Mumbai
 . M/s Ashoka Buildcon Ltd.
 M/s IJM-SCL Ltd.
 M/s ACC Ltd.
 M/s Unitech Prefab Ltd.
 Engineering College, Kota
Area of Interest:
Concrete Technology; Self Compacting Concrete; High Strength Concrete;
Sustainability and Innovations in Concrete; Quality Control and Good
Construction Practices in Concrete and RMC.
209
Conference Publications:
1. Gupta S., Verma V. G. K., and Maheshwari A. The effect of poly-carboxylic
ether based and naphthalene based super-plasticizers on concrete.
Proceedings of the EASAC 10, Bangkok, 2006.
2. Ramakrishnan S., Anuj, Kumar D., Jain A. K., and Gupta S. A study of
segregation behaviour of self compacting concrete. RILEM publications,
Proceedings of the 5th International conference on Self-Compacting
Concrete, Gent, Belgium, Sept 2007, pp. 223-228.
Papers Proposed to be published:
1. Cost benefit of utilization of marble and granite powders in concrete.
2. The importance of moisture correction fine materials with high water
absorption properties in concrete
3. Utilization of marble and granite powders in normal concrete.
4. Utilization of marble and granite powders in self-compacting concrete.
210

After Review Anuj Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

After Review Anuj Thesis

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

After Review Anuj Thesis

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

UTILIZATION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE POWDERS AS

GREEN BUILDING MATERIALS IN CONCRETE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

university of institute for the award of any other degree or diploma.

(Dr. Supratic Gupta)

grateful to him for all the inspiration.

direction for completion of this thesis.

support and critical suggestion.

required for the study.

directly or indirectly encouraged for the completion of this work.

and moral support.

Department of Civil Engineering,

Indian Institute of Technology Delhi

New Delhi, India

of consumption of the materials making the construction little more sustainable.

size of the order on cement and fly ash.

with grave consequences.

The most important contribution of this thesis is

achieve strength of concrete similar to the composition without them.

high water absorption capacity.

contribute to the fines and create a cohesive mix.

Chapter 2: LITERATURE REVIEW 7

Chapter 3: EQUIPMENT, SETUP AND EXPERIMENTS 19

Chapter 4: MATERIAL PROPERTIES 31

Chapter 5: AVAILABILITY AND UTILIZATION 51

5.3 Waste handling 63

6.4 A sequence of events to understand the importance of water correction 81

Chapter 7: MECHANICAL PROPERTIES 7.1OF CONCRETE

Chapter 8: WORKABILITY, RHEOLOGY AND OTHER

Chapter 9: CONCLUSION 191

Fig. 2.1 Comparison of k-values predicted 10

Fig. 2.3 Trends in usage of s/a over the past 20 years 11

Fig. 2.4 Effect of admixture dosing on workability 11

Fig. 3.1 Laboratory scale concrete mixers

Fig. 3.1 (a) Tilting drum type mixer 21

Fig. 3.1 (b) Pan type mixer 21

Fig. 3.2 Different types of tests for workability

Fig. 3.2 (a) Slump test - concrete 21

Fig. 3.2 (b) Mini slump cone - Mortar 21

Fig. 3.2 (c) Flow table 21

Fig. 3.3 Schematic diagram of equipment for SCC

Fig. 3.3 (a) Flow Table showing T500 23

Fig. 3.3 (b) V Funnel 23

Fig. 3.3 (c) L Box 23

Fig. 3.3 (d) U Tube 23

Fig. 3.4 Tests for SCC 24

Fig.3.5 Static segregation column test apparatus for SCC 25

Fig. 3.6 Different types of rheometers 25

Fig. 3.7 BT2 rheometer 26

Fig. 3.8 Typical readings of BT2 rheometer 26

Fig.3.9 Temperature and precipitation variations in New Delhi (typical) 29

Fig 3.10 Open curing tank 30

Fig. 3.11 (a) Load-controlled 30

Fig. 3.11 (b) Servo-controlled 30

Fig. 4.1 Percentage passing and limits for aggregates 34

Fig. 4.2 Images showing shapes of different materials