USE OF COCONUT SHELLS AS COARSE

AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE
REPORT OF SEMINAR

Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY

In

CIVIL ENGINEERING
By

MANASA N S (211CV230)

Under the guidance of

Dr. Rajasekaran C

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUE OF TECHNOLOGY KARNATAKA

SURATHKAL, MANGALORE-575025

APRIL 2024
 Certificate

This is to certify that this report entitled USE OF COCONUT SHELLS AS COARSE
AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE being submitted by MANASA N S (211CV230) is accepted
as the record of work carried out by him/her as the part of SEMINAR (CV390) in partial
fulfilment of the requirements for the award of the degree of Bachelor of Technology in Civil
Engineering of the Department of Civil Engineering, National Institute of Technology
Karnataka, Surathkal, Mangaluru.

Dr. Rajasekaran C Prof.

Associate Professor Head & Chairman (DUGC)
Department of Civil Engineering National Institute of Technology
National Institute of Technology Karnataka, Surathkal
Karnataka, Surathkal
 ABSTRACT

The incorporation of coconut shells as coarse aggregate in concrete offers a

sustainable solution to meet the escalating demand for construction materials,
particularly in light of population growth. This study advocates for the use of
coconut shell aggregate to support low-cost housing initiatives and address
environmental concerns associated with traditional construction practices.

Coconut shells, alongside other natural materials like rice husks, coconut fibers, and
palm kernel shells, present viable alternatives to conventional aggregates. With
aggregates comprising a significant proportion of concrete, substituting them with
renewable resources helps mitigate environmental impact while promoting resource
efficiency.

The mechanical properties of coconut shells, including high strength and modulus,
are attributed to their abundant lignin content, enhancing weather resistance and
structural integrity. Furthermore, as agricultural waste, coconut shells pose disposal
challenges, making their utilization in construction a practical and eco-conscious
solution.

Performance evaluations of coconut shell concrete (CSC) demonstrate its suitability

for various applications, including lightweight concrete (LWC) for economic
upliftment and partition wall construction. Notably, CSC exhibits superior impact
resistance compared to conventional cement concrete (CC), making it an attractive
option for structural elements.

This study underscores the importance of leveraging natural resources like coconut
shells to alleviate the strain on traditional construction materials and promote
sustainable building practices. By assessing the durability properties and elasticity
modulus of CSC, this study provides valuable insights into the feasibility and
advantages of integrating coconut shells as coarse aggregate in concrete production.
 CONTENTS

List of figures iii

List of tables iv
Nomenclature v
1. Introduction 1
2. Literature review 2
3. Aim and Objective 4
4. Why coconut shells 4
5. Preparing the CS & its properties 5
6. Compressive strength property 7
7. Flexural, Split tensile & Impact strength 9
8. Slump test 12
9. Durability test 13
10. Cost factor 17
11. Conclusion 20
12. References 21
 LIST OF FIGURES

Fig. 4.1: Top 10 coconut producing countries

Fig 5.1: Collection and Making of Coconut
Shell

Fig 6.1: Lab Performance for Compressive Strength of Coconut Shell

Fig 7.1: Flexural test on CSC. (a) Flexural test specimen in UTM and (b)
tested specimen of flexural test

Fig 7.2: Splitting tensile test on CSC: (a) Splitting testing in compression
testing machine (CTM) and (b) tested specimen of split tensile in CTM and
(c) tested specimen of split tensile.

Fig 7.3: Impact resistance test on CSC. (a) Impact resistance testing instrument.
(b) Testing of specimen under impact and (c) tested specimen of impact
resistance

Fig 8.1: Slump test

Fig 8.2: Slump test graph.

Fig 9.1 a & b: Soaking for 180 days for acid penetration test.
LIST OF TABLES

Table 5.1: Physical properties for 20 mm

Table 5.2: Physical properties for 12.5mm
Table 6.1: Mix proportion used for compressive
test Table 6.2: Result of slump and compressive
test Table 6.3: Replacing with CS shell
Table 6.4: Mix proportion
Table 6.5: 7 days & 28 day compressive strength
Table 7.1: Compressive, flexural and Split test result at 28
days
Table 7.2: Impact test at 28 days
Table 8.1: Sample for workability test.
Table 9.1: Mechanical properties of the mixes
Table 9.2: Assessment criteria for water absorption, CEB,
1989
Table 9.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Limits, ASTM, 1997
Table 9.4: Results of Water Absorption Test
Table 9.5: Results of Effective Porosity
Table 9.6: Results of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test
Table 9.7: Results of Resistance to Chemical Attack
Table 10.1: Mix design for conventional concrete
Table 10.2: Mix design for 10%
replacement
Table 10.3: Mix design for 20%
replacement
Table 10.4: Mix design for 30%
replacement Table 10.5: Specimen vs Cost
saving
1. INDTRODUCTION

Concrete is a crucial building component in the construction industry, with cement

and aggregate being its primary constituents. However, the overreliance on natural
coarse aggregate for aggregate production is depleting natural resources rapidly and
driving up material costs. To address this challenge, there is a pressing need to
explore alternative and sustainable aggregate sources. Extensive research is being
conducted to enhance concrete properties by incorporating recycled materials,
synthetic substitutes, and agricultural waste.

In many tropical countries, large quantities of agricultural waste are discarded,

posing environmental and social challenges. By utilizing these waste materials as
sustainable alternatives, we can mitigate environmental issues and improve
concrete's mechanical characteristics. Coconut shells (CS) are one such potential
replacement for traditional aggregates. India, being a major coconut producer, offers
abundant CS resources. Concrete made with CS as aggregate meets the minimum
requirements of conventional concrete, and CS does not require pre-treatment for
compatibility with cement. Additionally, CS exhibits good workability properties,
making it a promising option for sustainable concrete production.

Moreover, utilizing CS as aggregate not only reduces reliance on natural resources

but also addresses the disposal issue of agricultural waste, contributing to
environmental sustainability. By incorporating CS into concrete production,
construction industries can lower costs while promoting eco-friendly practices.
Further research and development in this area are essential to optimize CS concrete
properties and encourage its widespread adoption in construction projects, thereby
fostering sustainable development in the construction sector.
2. SUMMARY OF LITERATURE REVIEW

● Compressive strength of Coconut concrete shells

This paper talks about why coconut shell is a suitable replacement of your
natural stone aggregate. In this paper, the author has used untreated CS. The
experiment was carried out for M20 concrete grade. A total of 138 cubes were
casted. The experiment was carried out in 2 phases. The first phase is
preparing a mix design of M20 grade of control concrete without CS with
maximum permissible w/c ratio of 0.55. Then C.A was replaced by CS in
proportions of 10%, 20%,30%, and 40% keeping w/c ratio and quantity of
other ingredient same. The second phase constituted of preparing and testing
of M20 concrete with varying proportion of CA & CS. 6 ratios were
considered. The CS were sun dried for 30 days before being crushed manually
to size ranging from 5 to 20mm and was submerged before using it.
Compressive test was performed at 7 and 28 days. Compressive strength
decreases with increase of coconut shell but significant increase from 7 day to
28 day. Also, the density decreases about 7.5% for replacement of 40%. 40%
replacement reduced 22% reduction in 28 days strength (22.2 Mpa). Initially
no additional cement is required, but as percentage increase, cement
requirement incIn the cited study, coconut shell (CS) is explored as a potential
substitute for natural stone aggregate in concrete production. The research
focused on M20 grade concrete and involved two phases of experimentation.
Initially, a control concrete mix without CS was formulated according to M20
specifications, with a maximum water-to-cement (w/c) ratio of 0.55.
Subsequently, CS replaced coarse aggregate (CA) in proportions of 10%, 20%,
30%, and 40%, while maintaining the w/c ratio and other ingredient quantities
constant.

The CS, untreated and manually crushed to sizes ranging from 5 to 20mm,
underwent a 30-day sun drying process before incorporation. Concrete cubes
were then cast and subjected to compressive strength testing at 7 and 28 days.
Results indicated a decline in compressive strength with increasing CS
content, yet a significant enhancement was observed between the 7-day and
 28-day periods. Furthermore, the density exhibited a 7.5% decrease with 40%
CS replacement.
Notably, the 40% replacement resulted in a notable 22% reduction in 28-day
strength (22.2 MPa). While initial concrete formulations required no
additional cement, higher CS percentages necessitated increased cement
quantities. The study underscores cost considerations as the primary concern,
yet emphasizes the manifold advantages of CS employment in concrete
production. (Apeksha & S.K Jain, 2017)

● Flexural and Slump test related

This paper delves into an examination of various properties of coconut shell

(CS) concrete in comparison to conventional methods. The CS utilized
underwent a meticulous process, being dried for two months and subsequently
crushed in a quarry. Notably, CS displayed a variety of shapes including
curved, flaky, elongated, roughly parabolic, and irregular forms. The study
also highlights the biological properties of CS, particularly its high lignin
content and associated benefits.

For experimental purposes, four beams were cast with varying mix designs,
while four cubes were subjected to compressive strength testing at intervals of
7, 14, and 28 days. Workability of the CS concrete was deemed average, with
slump values ranging between 70 to 80mm. The findings indicated that CS
concrete is suitable for partial replacement, particularly for producing
cost-effective and lightweight concrete. Moreover, CS exhibited superior
resistance to crushing, impact, and abrasion compared to crushed granite
aggregate, albeit with a minor decrease in compressive strength observed.

However, the author cautions against complete reliance on CS concrete until

its durability properties are thoroughly investigated over an extended period,
spanning at least a year. This underscores the need for comprehensive
long-term studies to ascertain the suitability and reliability of CS concrete for
widespread application. (Dangi & Soni, 2017)
● Mechanical and Bond properties to be dicussed

This paper sheds light on the bonding and mechanical properties of coconut
shell (CS) concrete. The author employed crushed CS, restricted to a size of
12mm, using a mini crusher, while ensuring the CS remained in a saturated
surface dry (SSD) condition. Ordinary Portland cement (OPC) 53 grade,
adhering to IS 12269:1987 standards, served as the binder, alongside sand
conforming to zone 2 specifications as per IS 383:1970.

To meet structural concrete criteria, a total of 297 cubes were cast across 33
trial mixes, comprising 9 cubes each. From these, 11 mixes were selected.
Additionally, to optimize the wood-cement ratio, 243 cubes were cast in 27
trial mixes, with 9 selected mixes. Flexural strength was assessed using 6
beams, splitting tensile strength with 6 cylinders, impact strength with 6
specimens, and bond properties with 24 specimens.

Flexural tests were conducted following ASTM guidelines, with the author
asserting that despite CS being prone to fracture, no occurrences were noted
across experiments. The author suggests that CS concrete exhibited behavior
akin to conventional concrete. Splitting tensile tests, as per ASTM standards,
indicated comparable behavior between CS concrete and conventional
concrete, ranging between 9.1% to 10.25% of compressive strength

Impact tests, following ACI standards, revealed higher impact resistance

strength in CS concrete. Bond strength, assessed through pull-out tests,
showed similar behavior between CS concrete and conventional concrete for
small reinforcement bar sizes. However, as the size of reinforcement
increased, bond strength between them decreased, although the author justifies
this by stating that practical bond values surpassed theoretical ones.

In conclusion, the author asserts that CS fulfills the basic requirements for
lightweight aggregate (LWA), based on the findings of this study.
3. AIM AND OBJECTIVES

● Assessing the feasibility of coconut shells as a cost-effective substitute for coarse

aggregate in concrete production.
● Establishing the physical properties of coconut shell concrete (CSC) to determine
its suitability and performance compared to traditional concrete mixtures.

4. WHY COCONUT SHELLS?

Fig 4.1: Top 10 coconut producing countries

India ranks among the top three largest producers of coconuts, cultivating
approximately 1.5 million hectares for coconut production. However, this extensive
cultivation also contributes significantly to the nation's pollution woes, generating
around 3.18 million tonnes of waste (Verma & Shrivastava, 2019). Notably, coconut
shells, being non-biodegradable, exacerbate environmental concerns.

The construction industry in India, characterized by numerous stakeholders, exhibits a

substantial demand for construction materials, particularly crushed aggregate sourced
from natural stone deposits. This escalating demand has led to a noticeable increase in
construction material costs, posing a challenge in constructing affordable housing. As
of 2023, the average construction cost for a 1000 sq. ft. area stands at approximately
Rs 12 lakhs, varying depending on the state and region (source: 99acres).

Numerous schemes exist to address this issue, yet the practical cost constraints faced
by contractors remain a significant barrier to undertaking such projects. Additionally,
the utilization of lightweight concrete (LWC) offers potential cost reductions by
decreasing structural material sizes due to lighter loads. Consequently, the industry is
gradually shifting towards producing concrete using waste materials from various
industries, such as fly ash, industrial slag, waste plastic, over-burnt bricks, waste
rubber tires, waste glass, recycled coarse aggregate, and papercrete (Apeksha & Jain,
2017).

This report specifically emphasizes the use of coconut shells as a replacement

material for aggregates, aiming to address challenges like increased demand, resource
depletion, waste reuse, and overall cost reduction in the construction sector.
5. PREAPARING THE CS & ITS PROPERTIES

First, we need to prepare the CS. The most common method followed is crushing ,
seasoning for 60 days so as to achieve dry surface then soak for 24hr to achieve SSD
before using it as aggregate. Below table displays the properties of CS used.

Fig 5.1: Collection and Making of Coconut Shell

Table 5.1: Physical properties for 20 mm (Vishnu & Soni 2018)

 Table 5.2: Physical properties for 12.5 mm (Gunasekaran & Kumar 2010)

Table 5.1 is for 20mm of CSA and table 5.2 for 12.5mm of CSA. It was observed that
the average specific gravity for 1.05 to 1.25 which is less then your normal coarse
aggregate. OPC 53 grade was used

6. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH PROPERTY

Table 6.1: Mix proportion use for compressive test (Sujatha & Balakrishnan 2022)

To investigate the compressive properties, A. Sujatha (Sujatha & Balakrishnan, 2022)

produced three cubes measuring 150mm x 150mm x 150mm. In Table 6.1, the mix ratio is
outlined, where 0.5/9.5/W signifies a ratio of 0.5 of crushed stone aggregate (CSA) to
cement, with 9.5mm denoting the maximum size of CSA, and W or C indicating water or
concealed curing. Compressive testing was conducted following IS 516 standards, utilizing
a CTM machine with a capacity of 2000KN. Tests were conducted after 28 days of curing,
with the results detailed in Table 6.2.
 Table 6.2: Result of slump and compressive test (Sujatha & Balakrishnan 2022)

The compressive strength values of crushed stone aggregate (CSA) concrete mixes
range from 36.07 to 39.34 MPa, falling within the range of High-Strength
Lightweight Concrete (HSLWC). Therefore, all the CSA concrete mixes can be
categorized as HSLWC. The optimal mix was identified as 0.6/9.5/W, exhibiting a
compressive strength of 38.92 MPa, achieved with Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC)
53 grade.

Furthermore, the study explored the strength behavior when replacing a percentage of
natural aggregate with coconut shell (CS). For this purpose, a mix ratio of 1:1.5:3 by
volume and a water-cement ratio of 0.50 were utilized for M20 grade concrete,
employing OPC 43 grade cement. The resulting compressive strengths are presented
in Table 6.3 (Verma & Shrivastava, 2019
Fig 6.1: Lab Performance for Compressive Strength of Coconut Shell. (Verma & Shrivastava 2019)

Table 6.3: Replacing with CS shell (Verma & Shrivastava 2019)

(Apeksha & S.K Jain 2017) has also performed with similar condition for M20. Table
6.4 shows their mix proportion. Hence it fit to say that CSC can be used as HSLWC.
7. FLEXURAL, SPLIT TESNILE & IMPACT STRENGTH

Gunasekaran and Kumar (2010) conducted tests on flexural, splitting tensile, and
impact strengths. For each test, two trials were conducted, with three specimens in
each trial.

The flexural test (Figure 7.1) involved beams measuring 100mm x 100mm x 150mm,
subjected to a 4-point load method according to ASTM guidelines. The load was
steadily increased until cracking occurred, without any sudden shocks.

The splitting tensile test (Figure 7.2) followed ASTM guidelines, utilizing cylindrical
specimens with dimensions of 100mm diameter x 200mm length. The results are
presented in Table 7.1.

Impact testing was performed in accordance with ACI committee 544.1R-82

standards. Specimens used for the impact tests were 152.4 mm in diameter and 63.5
mm thick. The number of blows was recorded until the initial crack appeared on each
specimen, and counting continued until the specimen fractured into multiple pieces.
Results are summarized in Table 7.2.

Fig 7.1: Flexural test on CSC. (a) Flexura specimen in UTM and (b) Tested specimen of
flexural test
 Fig 7.2: Splitting tensile test on CSC: (a) Splitting testing in compression testing
machine (CTM) and (b) tested specimen of split tensile in CTM and (c) tested
specimen of split tensile. (Gunasekaran, Kumar 2010)

Table 7.1: Compressive, flexural and Split test result at 28 day (Gunasekaran, Kumar 2010)

Fig 7.3: Impact resistance test on CSC. (a) Impact resistance testing instrument.
(b) Testing of specimen under impact and (c) tested specimen of impact resistance
 Table 7.2: Impact test at 28 day (Gunasekaran, Kumar 2010)

For the selected mixes, the flexural strengths are recorded as 4.68 N/mm² (17.53% of
compressive strength) and 4.26 N/mm² (16.42% of compressive strength) for
water-to-cement (w/c) ratios of 0.42 and 0.44, respectively. Typically, in conventional
concrete, flexural strength ranges between 10% to 15% of compressive strength.
Comparatively, these values exceed conventional standards by 29% and 19%,
respectively, as per IS 456:2000 guideline, reinforcing the similarity in behavior
between coconut shell concrete (CSC) and conventional concrete.

Similarly, for the selected mixes, splitting tensile strengths are measured as 2.70
N/mm² (10.11% of compressive strength) and 2.38 N/mm² (9.17% of compressive
strength) for w/c ratios of 0.42 and 0.44, respectively. This further supports the
conclusion that the behavior of CSC closely resembles that of conventional concrete.

Moreover, in impact resistance testing, it's observed that the impact resistance
generally increases with concrete strength for both initial crack and failure. However,
in normal concrete, there's typically an optimal value beyond which increased strength
reduces impact resistance. In contrast, CSC exhibits enhanced impact resistance,
requiring 23-32 blows for failure compared to 10-22 blows for normal concrete with
similar compressive strength. This increase is attributed to the fibrous nature of CS
aggregate and its inherent high impact resistance (Swamy RN et al., 1982).
8. SLUMP TEST

Fig 8.1: Slump test

(Vishnu & Soni, 2018) conducted slump tests for four different mix trials, as detailed
in Table 8.1. The results indicated that the concrete mix containing 30% coconut shell
aggregate exhibited the lowest slump, measuring at 60 mm, whereas the control mix
registered a slump of 78 mm. Figure 8.2 illustrates the decrease in slump
measurement with the addition of coconut shell aggregate.

Visual observations made during the mixing and compaction processes revealed that
the concrete was homogeneous, with no segregation or bleeding observed. The mixes
were found to be easily compactable. The study noted that coconut shell concrete
demonstrated average workability, attributed to the smooth surface of the coconut
shell aggregates. Additionally, the lightweight nature of coconut shells facilitated the
lifting of the concrete mixture.

Table 8.1: Sample for workability test. (Vishnu & Soni 2018)
 Fig 8.2: Slump test graph. (Vishnu & Soni 2018)

9. DURABILTIY TEST

Yashida & Sujatha A. et al. (2017) and Ganesan et al. (2015) conducted tests to
investigate the durability characteristics of concrete, including microstructure-related
properties such as Saturated Water Absorption (SWA), effective porosity, resistance to
chemical attack, and rapid chloride ion penetrability.

For the preparation of test specimens, a mixture comprising cement, M sand, coarse
aggregates, coconut shells, fly ash, and blast furnace slag was utilized. Four different
mixes were formulated using a ratio of 1:1:1.6:2.9, with a water-to-cement (w/c) ratio
of 0.46. Table 9.1 presents the mechanical properties of the prepared mixes.

Table 9.1: Mechanical properties of the mixes. (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)
 Test for SWA and effective porosity water absorption test was carried out according to
ASTM C 642 (ASTM, 1994). Specimens of size 100mm x 100mm x 100 mm were
cast with M30 grade mix. The prepared specimens were immersed in water for 28
days and then taken out, wiped dry and kept in oven for 24 hours. Dry weights of the
specimens were determined (W1). Then the specimens were immersed in water for 24
hours and after surface drying, wet weights were also determined (W2). The 3
specimens were tested in each series and the average values of results were obtained.

Using the above equation, % of water absorption is calculated and the values are
compared to the table 9.2.

Table 9.2: Assessment criteria for water absorption, CEB, 1989 (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)

The effective porosity indicates the quantity of water that can be removed by drying
the saturated specimen. 100 mm cube samples were taken and its initial dry weight
was noted as W1. Then the samples were immersed in water for about 120 h. W3 was
denoted as the weight after immersion. For the calculation of the voids, the difference
W3- W1 was used. The ratio of volume of voids to the bulk volume of specimens was
used for finding the effective porosity of the specimens.

The chloride ion permeability test was carried out as per ASTM C 1202 (ASTM,
1997). Three specimens of 100 mm diameter and 50 mm thick were prepared from
each mix. One face of each specimen was exposed to 3% NaCl solution and the other
face was exposed to 0.3 M NaOH solution. 60 V DC was applied across the opposite
faces of specimen for 6 h. At every 30 min interval, the current between the electrodes
was monitored. The chloride ion penetrability limits suggested by ASTM C 1202 is
given
in Table 9.3. Comparison was made between the obtained test results and the limit as
given in Table 9.3.

Table 9.3: Chloride Ion Penetrability Limits, ASTM, 1997 (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)

To assess resistance to chemical attack, 100 mm cube specimens were cast and
allowed to cure for 28 days. Subsequently, they were oven-dried at 100°C for 24
hours and weighed. Three specimens from each mix were then immersed in a
3% sulphuric acid (H2SO4) solution, while another three were submerged in a
3% sodium sulphate solution, for a duration of 180 days, following ASTM
standards (2002). Among the nine cube specimens, three were designated as
control specimens, and their compressive strengths were determined.

After 180 days, the specimens were removed from the solutions, and their dry
weights were recorded. Visual inspections were conducted to assess any changes
in appearance, and the percentage loss in weight was calculated. Additionally,
the specimens were subjected to compressive strength testing, and the
percentage loss in compressive strength due to chemical attack, in comparison to
the control specimens, was determined.

The results of the tests, including Saturated Water Absorption (SWA), effective
porosity, chloride permeability, and acid penetration, are presented in Tables 9.4,
9.5, 9.6, and 9.7, respectively.

Table 9.4: Results of Water Absorption Test (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)
 Table 9.5: Results of Effective Porosity (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)

a) b)
Fig 9.1 a) & b): Soaking for 180 days for acid penetration test. (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)

Table 9.6: Results of Rapid Chloride Permeability Test (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)
Table 9.7: Results of Resistance to Chemical Attack Tests (Yashida & Sujatha A. 2017)

10. COST FACTOR

Prashant et al. (2016) conducted a cost analysis when coconut shell (CS) was utilized
as an aggregate replacement. Four mix designs were formulated, with one mix
representing conventional concrete and the others incorporating 10%, 20%, and 30%
replacement of CS. For each mix, three beams were casted, resulting in a total of
three beams for control concrete and three beams for each replacement percentage.

The beam cross-section dimensions were 230mm x 300mm, with a length of 3

meters. The tests were conducted using a 4-point loading setup. Tables 10.1, 10.2,
10.3, and 10.4 present the details of the mix designs employed in the study.

Table 10.1: Mix design for conventional concrete (Prashant 2016)

Fine Coarse Coconut

On basis of Water Cement Aggregate Aggregate shell
Mass 191.6 lit 383 kg 546 kg 1187 kg -
Ratio 0.5 1.0 1.42 3.09 -
Per Bag 24.35 lit 50 kg 72.42 kg 153.73 kg -

Table 10.2: Mix design for 10% replacement (Prashant 2016)

Fine Coarse Coconut
On basis of Water Cement Aggregate Aggregate shell
 Mass 191.6 lit 383 kg 546 kg 937.08 kg 118.7 kg
Ratio 0.5 1 1.42 2.44 0.31
Per Bag 24.35 lit 50 kg 72.42 kg 122.33 kg 15.49 kg

Table 10.3: Mix design for 20% replacement (Prashant 2016)

Fine Coarse Coconut

On basis of Water Cement Aggregate Aggregate shell
Mass 191.6 lit 383 kg 546 kg 756.24 kg 237.4 kg
Ratio 0.5 1 1.42 1.97 0.61
Per Bag 24.35 lit 50 kg 72.42 kg 98.72 kg 30.99 kg

Table 10.4: Mix design for 30% replacement (Prashant 2016)

Fine Coarse Coconut

On basis of Water Cement Aggregate Aggregate shell
Mass 191.6 lit 383 kg 546 kg 572.112 kg 356.1 kg
Ratio 0.5 1 1.42 1.49 0.93
Per Bag 24.35 lit 50 kg 72.42 kg 74.68 kg 46.48 kg

The cost was for 10% replacement calculated in following way:

1) Coarse aggregate required for Control Beam = 1187 kg / m3

2) Coarse aggregate required for 10% replacement = 937.08 kg / m3
3) Coarse aggregate saved = 249.92 kg
/ m3 Sample Calculations:
Actual Coarse Aggregate used = 1187 kg
Specific Gravity = G = ps / p w
Therefore, 2.75 = ps / 1000 = 2750 kg/m3

ps= 2750 kg/m3

Therefore,
1 m3 carries 2750 kg of aggregate
1187 kg = 0.43 m3 = 0.43 x 0.353 = 0.152 brass.
Similarly, Coarse aggregate required for 10% replacement = 937.08 kg/m3
937.08 kg = 0.339 m3
 937.08 kg = 0.339 x 0.353 = 0.119 brass; as 1m3 = 0.353 brass
Therefore, Coarse Aggregate saved = 0.152 - 0.119 = 0.033 brass
Rate of 1 brass of Coarse Aggregate = Rs. 2200/-
Therefore, Cost of Coarse Aggregate saved = 0.033 x 2200 = Rs. 72.6/-
Cost of crushing 500 kg of Coconut Shell to required size = Rs. 150/-
Therefore for 118.7 kg cost of crushing = Rs. 35.60/-
Therefore, Net Saving = 72.6 – 35.60 = 37 Rs. /m3 of concrete
Cost Saved in Percentage = (Net Saving / Cost of aggregate) x100
Cost saved in % = (37/ 0.152 x 2200) * 100
Cost Saved in Percentage = 11.06 %

Similarly cost and saving was calculated for 20% and 30%. (Table 10.5)

Table 10.5: Specimen vs Cost saving (Prashant 2016)

Specimen Cost Saved in %

Control beam 0%
10% replacement 11.06%
20% replacement 26.19%
30% replacement 41.32%
11. CONCLUSION

Water absorption and effective porosity were observed to be higher in coconut shell
(CS) mixes compared to the control mix. However, the incorporation of mineral
admixtures into CS aggregates led to improvements in these properties, suggesting
enhanced microstructure characteristics in CS concrete specimens. Although the
compressive strength of CS concrete is slightly lower compared to conventional
concrete (achieving around 22 MPa for M20 grade compared to approximately 26
MPa for conventional concrete), CS concrete demonstrates superior performance in
impact and chemical resistance tests due to the inherent properties of coconut shell.

Cost analysis indicates that proper utilization of CS aggregates can significantly

reduce overall construction costs. Consequently, coconut shell concrete (CSC) is
deemed suitable for low-cost housing schemes. However, it is advised against using
CSC for high-rise buildings or structures subjected to high dynamic loading behavior
until further studies are conducted to assess its suitability in such applications.
12. REFERNCES

● Apeksha (2017). Performance of coconut shell as coarse aggregate in

concrete
● K. Gunasekaran (2010). Mechanical and bond properties of coconut shell
concrete. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.0
● Prospects of Low Cost Housing in India

● Average Cost of construction (Per Sq Ft) in India: February 2024

● Steep rise in construction material prices puts realtors in a tight spot, to make
homes dearer

● Prashant K. Nawale, Mr. Sumit R. Thakur (2016). Cost and Strength

Analysis on Partial Replacement of Coconut Shell in Concrete as Coarse
Aggregate. Vol-2 Issue-4 2016 IJARIIE-ISSN(O)-2395-4396

● Sanjay Kumar Verma, Sagar Shrivastava (2019). Use of coconut shell as

partly substitution of coarse aggregate - An experimental analysis | AIP
Conference Proceedings

● Vishnu Dangi (2017). Improving the engineering properties of reinforced

concrete modified with coconut shell aggregates. International Journal for
Technological Research in Engineering Volume 4, Issue 11, July-2017

● Yashida (2017). Durability Properties of Coconut Shell Aggregate Concrete.

pISSN 1226-7988, eISSN 1976-3808

● S. Janani (2023). Study of coconut shell as coarse aggregate in light weight

concrete - a review. Proceedings 65 (2022) 2003–2006.

● A. Sujatha (2022). Properties of high strength lightweight concrete

incorporating crushed coconut shells as coarse aggregate
​