01

Group Members

Jahangir Abbas Sahil (1755)

M. Yousuf Hussain (1837)

Hamza Manzoor (1995)

Project Advisor: Engr M. Waqas Malik

02
 TITLE
 Development of Light Weight
Concrete Using Saw Dust.

03
 Introduction

 What is Lightweight concrete?

 Lightweight concrete is a
mixture made
with lightweight coarse
aggregates or fine aggregates
such as shale, clay, saw dust, or
slate, which give it its
characteristic low density.
04
Cont.…

 About FYP:
 This project is an experimental study of the partial replacement of sand
with sawdust regarding the compressive properties and weight of concrete.
 Fine aggregate has been partially replaced with 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and
30% of Sawdust by weight.
 A total 54 cubes of 6” x 6” x 6” dimensions have been casted and cured in
water for 7 ,14 and 28 days.

05
 Cont.…
 For conventional concrete, 9
cubes have been prepared.
 45 cubes of lightweight concrete
have been prepared.
 Super structural members of 5-
storey will be tested by ETABS
software,(properties of
lightweight concrete will be
utilized).

06
 What is Saw dust?

 Sawdust is composed of fine particle of

wood.
 It is by product of cutting lumber with
saw.
 It can present a hazard in manufacturing
industries, especially in terms of its
flammability.
 To minimize its disposal, it is reused
such as, Fiber & wood base board uses.

07
Properties of Sawdust:

 It has low density. (300-1400 kg/m3)

 Thermal Resistance.
 Sound Insulation.

08
 Using of saw dust by sand replacement in
normal concrete for real time projects thereby
reducing the overall cost.

Reduction in mining river sand helps protecting

Advantages the ground water table.

The effective way of utilising waste material

leads clean environment.

09
Objective:
 To compare the weight and compressive strength of lightweight concrete
with conventional concrete.
 To understand the actual behavior of concrete when Saw dust is added in
different proportion.
 Compare the behavior of Saw Dust on Super Structure member of 5 storey
building by using ETABS software.

10
Literature Review
Reference Year Outcome

A. V. S. Sai. 2014 By using 25% of wooden powder as a partial

Kumar, Krishna replacement to fine aggregate there is no change in
Rao compressive strength.

Venkata Sairam 2009 By using 25% of partial replacement of aggregate

Kumar, Dr. B. with waste material (wooden powder, sugarcane
Panduranga Rao, residue) improves harden concrete properties.
Krishna Sai

11
 Cont.…
Reference
Emmanuel A. Okunade “ The
Effect of Wood Ash &
Sawdust Admixtures on the
Engineering Properties of a
Burnt Laterite-Clay Brick”,
Journal of Applied Sciences 8
(6).
Page No: 1042 – 1048.
Year Outcome
2008 The effects of the addition of Sawdust & wood ash
admixture to a 70:30 parts by weight laterite-clay mix
were investigated. The admixtures were added in various
combinations of proportions by volume. It was
discovered that the major contribution of sawdust
admixture is the reduction in the dry density of finished
burnt product. Increasing contents of sawdust in the
mixes produced the opposite results in the finished
products, mainly due to its effect of producing a less
compact structure in the finished product.
12
Cont.…
Reference Year Outcome

O.Ata, E.A 2006 This Paper presents the results of an investigation carried out
Olanipekun & on the comparative cost analysis and strength characteristics
K.O.Oluola, of concrete produced using crushed, granular coconut and
“ A comparative
study of Concrete palm kernel shells as substitute for conventional coarse
Properties using aggregate in gradation of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. The
Coconut Shell & results of compressive strength of concrete decreased as
Palm Kernel the percentage of the shells increased. However, concrete
Shell as Coarse obtained from coconut shells exhibited a higher compressive
Aggregates” strength than palm kernel shell concrete in the two mix
Build
Environ.,41, Page proportions. The results also indicated cost reduction of 30%
No:297-301 and 42% for concrete produced from coconut shells and palm
kernel shells, respectively.

13
Cont.…
Reference Year Outcome
F.A. Olutoge, 2010 This study investigated the use of saw dust and palm Kernel Palm
“Investigations On Shells (PKS) as replacement for fine and coarse aggregates in
Sawdust And Palm reinforced concrete slabs. Sawdust and KPS were used to replace both
Kernel Shells As fine and coarse aggregates from 0% to 100% in steps of 25%.
Aggregate Increase in percentage of sawdust or palm kernel shell in concrete
Replacement” APRN slabs led to a corresponding reduction in both flexural and
Journal of Engineering compressive strength values. It is seen that at a low replacement
and Applied Sciences, value 25% sawdust and KPS can produce lightweight reinforced
Page No:7-13 concrete slabs which could be used where low stress is required at
reduced cost.

Chandana Sukesh, 2013 When fine aggregate was partially replaced with 25%-50%
Katakam Bala waste material ( wooden powder, sugar-cane residue)
Krishna maximum strength was achieved as partial replacement for
aggregates.
14
Cont.…
Reference Year Outcome

Liew Chung Meng, 2018 Porous lightweight aggregate of low specific gravity is used in this
Introduction to lightweight concrete instead of ordinary concrete. The lightweight
Lightweight aggregate can be natural aggregate such as pumice, scoria and all
Concrete. of those of volcanic origin and the artificial aggregate such as
www.maxpages.com.
expanded blast-furnace slag, vermiculite and clinker aggregate.
The main characteristic of this lightweight aggregate is its high
porosity which results in a low specific gravity.
By increasing the dosage of admixture the compressive
strength of concrete decreases.

15
16
Methodology

Material Selection:
 For this project, following materials have been selected:
1. Saw dust
2. Cement
3. Coarse Aggregate
4. Fine Aggregate (Sand)
5. Water

17
Testing of materials

1. Aggregate Impact Value (AIV).

2. Specific Gravity Test or Water Absorption
Test of Coarse Aggregate .
3. Specific Gravity Test of cement.
4. Specific Gravity Test of Saw Dust.
5. Specific Gravity Test of Fine Aggregate.
6. Los Angeles Abrasion Test.
7. Sieve Analysis (Gradation Test) of Coarse
Aggregate .
8. Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate.

18
1. Aggregate Impact Value (AIV)
( IS:2386-IV ASTM C-131 AASHTO T96).

1. Sieve material through 12.5mm sieve and collect in 10mm sieve.

2. Oven dry the sample up to 4 hours
3. Fill the metal cup by layers. Each layer tamped 25 times.
4. Weight the aggregate sample, in the metal cup. (W1)
5. Place the metal cup in impact testing machine.
6. Release the hammer of impact test machine 15 times.
7. Then sieve via 2.36mm sieve.
8. Now weigh the collected samples. (W2)

19
 Cont.…
+ .

Impact Value Testing During Tamping Sieving the impacted aggregates

Machine, Cylinder test Aggregate
cup and Tamping Rod.

Formula:
AIV=(W2/W1)*100
20
Cont.…
Formula: AIV=(W2/W1)*100

W1 W2 AIV=(W2/W1)*100
0.60 0.10 16.67%

Aggregate Impact Value Classification

<10% Exceptionally Strong
10 – 20% Strong
20-30% Satisfactory for road surfacing
>35% Weak for road surfacing

21
2. Specific Gravity Test or Water Absorption Test
(IS:2386-III).
 Procedure:
 Take some amount of thoroughly washed aggregate..
 The basket immersed in water requires immediate removal of entrapped air.. Then basket
filled with aggregate allowed to be immersed in water for a period of 24 hrs.
 After 24 hours the basket and the aggregates are weighed in the water. (W1)
 Then the basket and the aggregates are taken out from water and then placed on the dry
cloths.
 For accelerating the unheated air may be used after the first 10 minutes for those
aggregates which is difficult to dry and weight it. (W2)
 Then the aggregates are put into oven at a temperature of 100° C to 110° C for the 24
hours.
 After 24 hours removed specimen from the oven and weight it. (W3)
22
Cont.…
W3 (kg) W2 W1 W3 W2 W1 Water
(kg) (kg) Specific Specific Specific Absorption of
Gravity Gravity Gravity Agg

3.856 3.890 2.326 2.465 2.487 2.520 0.882

Limitations:
 The specific gravity of aggregates normally used in construction ranges from
about 2.5 to 3.0 with an average value of about 2.68. Specific
gravity of aggregates is considered as an indication of strength. Material having
higher Specific Gravity is generally considered as having higher strength.
 The specific gravity value of any substance gives the idea about how heavy, or light
is the substance compared to the standard substance. From the value, we can judge
it will float or sink in another substance.
23
Cont.…

24
3. Specific Gravity Test of Cement
 Procedure:
 Weigh the empty flask. (W1)
 Next, fill the cement on the bottle up to half of the flask about 50gm and weight it. (W2)
 Add Kerosene to the cement up to the top of the bottle. Mix well to remove the air bubbles in it.
Weigh the flask with cement and kerosene. (W3)
 Empty the flask. Fill the bottle with kerosene up to the top and weigh the flask for counting. (W4)

 Specific Gravity Calculation Formula:

 The specific gravity of a sample of cement = 3.15

 (Ref:https://wecivilengineers.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/specific-gravity-test-of-cement/) 25
Cont.…
Limitation:

26
 4. Specific Gravity Test of Saw Dust
(AASHTO T 96 or ASTM C 131).
PROCEDURE:
 Weight the empty pycnometer. (W1)
 Place some amount of sawdust in the Pycnometer and weight it. (W2)
 Pour distilled water into it until it is full.
 Wipe out the outer surface of Pycnometer and weigh it. (W3)
 Transfer the sawdust from Pycnometer into a tray.
 Refill the Pycnometer with distilled water to the same level and record
the weight. (W4)
 Calculate Specific Gravity with the formula:
 G = (W2 - W1) / {(W4 – W1)-(W3 – W2)}
Standard Pycnometer Apparatus

27
Cont.…

+ Specific Gravity= dry weight/ weight of aggregate of equal

volume of water
W1 W2 W3 W4 G=(𝑊2−𝑊1)
(empty weight of (weight of (weight of (weight of /𝑊2−𝑊1 −
pycnometer ) pycnometer + oven pycnometer + oven pycnometer + water) (𝑊3−𝑊4)
saw dust) dried aggregate +
water )
0.65kg 0.87kg 1.42kg 1.43 0.97
 5. Specific Gravity Test of Fine aggregate
(AASHTO T84 C128)
PROCEDURE:
 Weight the empty pycnometer. (W1)
 Place some amount of fine aggregate in the Pycnometer and weight
it. (W2)
 Pour distilled water in it until it is full.
 Weight the Pycnometer. (W3)
 Transfer the sample from Pycnometer into a tray.
 Refill the Pycnometer to the same level and record the weight.
(W4)
 Calculate Specific Gravity with the formula:
 G = (W2 - W1) / {(W4 – W1)-(W3 – W2)}
Cont.…

Specific Gravity of Fine

Aggregate = 2.60.
 6. Los Angeles Abrasion Test
(AASHTO T 96 or ASTM C 131).
 Procedure:
 Sample is placed in the abrasion-testing machine.
 A specified number of steel spheres are placed in the machine and the drum is
rotated for 500 revolutions at a speed of 30 - 33 revolutions per minute (RPM).
 Then material is sieved from 1.70 mm (No. 12) sieve and material retained on
the 1.70 mm (No. 12) sieve.
 Dry the sample in an oven.
 Calculate %age loss due to Abrasion by calculating the difference between the
retained material compared to the original sample weight. The difference in
weight called the "percent loss".

28
Cont.…
Abrasion test is carried out to test the hardness property of
aggregates. The principle of Los Angeles abrasion test is to find the
percentage wear due to relative rubbing action between the
aggregate and steel balls used as abrasive charge.
Loss Angeles Los Angeles
W1 (Kg) W2 (Kg) Pan (Kg) wear and tear Abrasion
Value
6 4.712 1.242 1.288 21.466%

29
Cont.…
Rock Type L.A. Abrasion Loss (by percent weight)

General Values
Hard, igneous rocks 10
Soft limestones and sandstones 60
Ranges for specific rocks
Basalt 10 – 17
Dolomite 18 – 30
Gneiss 33 – 57
Granite 27 – 49
Limestone 19 – 30
Quartzite 20 – 35
30
 Cont.…

Keeping Sample Cleaning Los Angeles Doing Switch After grinding

in Oven Apparatus on of Los
Angeles
Apparatus

31
7. Sieve Analysis (Gradation Test)
(ASTM C136 - 14 )
 Procedure:
 Take an oven-dried sample of aggregate and weight it in grams.
 Prepare a stack of test sieves. The sieves are stacked in order, with the
largest aperture size at the top, and the smallest at the bottom. A receiver is
placed under all the sieves to collect samples.
 Weigh all the sieves and the pan separately.
 Pour the samples in sieves and put the lid on, place the stack in the sieve
shaker and fix the clamps, adjust the timer to between 10 and 15 minutes.
 Stop the sieve shaker and measure the mass of each sieve and retained
soil/material.
 Once the whole procedure has been completed users can analyze the
results.
32
Cont.…
Results:
Sieve Weight % % % Limit As Per
size Retain weight Cumulative Passin IS :383
(mm) ed (kg) Retaine weight g
d Retained
25 0 0 0 100 100

20 0.10 2.5 2.5 97.5 85-100

10 2.90 72.5 75 25 0-20

4.75 0.95 23.75 98.75 1.25 0-5

Pan 0.05 1.25 100 0.00

Tota 4 100
l
33
Cont.…

34
Cont.…

 A sieve analysis or gradation test determines

the distribution of aggregate particles by size
within a given sample.
 It helps to determine the size of particles and
fineness of aggregates.

35
8. Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate
(ASTM C136)

 Procedure:
 Arrange the sieve in descending order with the largest sieve on top.
 Then shake the sieves by mechanical shaker at least 5 minutes.
 After sieving, record the sample weights retained on each sieve.
 Then find the cumulative weight retained. Finally determine the cumulative
percentage retained on each sieves. Add the all-cumulative percentage values and
divide with 100 then we will get the value of fineness modulus.

36
Cont.…

Fineness modulus is used to get an idea of

how coarse or fine the aggregate is.

More fineness modulus value indicates that the aggregate is

coarser and small value of fineness modulus indicates that
the aggregate is finer.

37
 Cont.…
Sieve Size % of Individual Fraction Cumulative % Retained % Passing by Weight
Retained, by weight by weight
9.5mm (3/8 in) 0 0 100
4.75mm (No. 4) 2 2 98
2.36mm (No. 8) 13 15 85
1.18mm (No. 16) 25 40 60
0.60mm (No. 30) 15 55 45
0.30mm (No. 50) 22 77 23
0.15mm (No. 100) 20 97 3
Pan 3 0
Total 100 = 286

Fineness Modulus = 286/100 = 2.86

38
Cont.…
Gradation Curve for Fine Aggregate
120
Cumulative % passing

97
100

77
80

60 55

40
40

20 15
2 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Sieve Size

39
 Cubes Casting:

 Total 54 cubes of concrete, have been casted

and cured in water for 7, 14 & 28 days.
 9 cubes of each formulation were casted.
 Also tested 3 cubes of every different
proportion of concrete after 7, 14 & 28 days of
curring.

Lightweight concrete cubes after

casting
40
Cont.…
 For both lightweight and natural
1:1.5:3 ratio has utilized.
 Water cement ratio , W/C=0.57

41
Results
 Weight of lightweight concrete cube:
Ratio Weight (KG)
10% 7.70
15% 7.45
20% 7.20
25% 6.85
30% 6.60

 As the percentage of sawdust increases the weight of concrete decreases.

 Decrease in weight leads to less reinforcement usage, that provides economy.
42
Cont.…
 Compressive Strength
 Compressive strength of Lightweight and conventional concrete (KN) after
7 days of curing:
% of Saw Dust Test Cubes Compressive Strength in KN/In^2
replacement
7 Days
1 2 3 Compressive Strength
(KN/IN^2)
Conventional Cube 414 416 412 11.5
10% 199 160 188 7.02
15% 126 126 123 5.47
20% 100 98 98 3.74
25% 86 74 84 2.25
30% 48 46 80 1.61
43
Comparison graph of Conventional and lightweight concrete
after 7 days of Curing:
Compressive strength of 7-Days

450
400
Crushing Load (KN)

350
300
250 414
200
150
182.33
100 125
98.67 81.33
50 58

0
Conventional Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight
Concrete Concrete(10%) Concrete(15%) Concrete(20%) Concrete(25%) Concrete(30%)

44
Compressive strength of Lightweight and Conventional
concrete (KN/IN^2) after 14 days of curing.

% of Saw Dust Test Cubes Compressive Strength in KN/In^2

replacement 14 Days
1 2 3 Compressive Strength
(KN/IN^2)
Conventional Cube 475 495 498 14.59
10% 210 180 193 9.39
15% 170 135 139 7.11
20% 137 120 147 5.74
25% 135 128 113 4.48
30% 110 122 112 3.18

45
Comparison graph of Conventional and lightweight concrete after
14 days of Curing:
Compressive strength of 14-Days

500

450
Crushing Load (KN)

400

350

300
489.33
250

200

150
194.33
100 148 134.67 125.33 114.67
50

0
Conventional Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight
Concrete Concrete(10%) Concrete(15%) Concrete(20%) Concrete(25%) Concrete(30%)
46
Compressive strength of Lightweight and
Conventional concrete (KN) after 28 days of curing.
 Compressive strength of lightweight concrete, (28 days).
% of Saw Dust
replacement
28 Days
1 2 3 Compressive Strength (KN/IN^2)

Conventional Cube 600 716 628 21.00

10% 270 280 230 13.60
15% 218 225 260 11.50
20% 160 183 150 9.56
25% 158 130 125 6.83
30% 120 121 110 4.25
47
Comparison graph of Conventional and
lightweight concrete after 28 days of Curing:
Compressive strength of 28-Days

700

600
Crushing Load (KN)

500

400
648
300

200
260 234.3
164.3 137.7
100 117

0
Conventional Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight Lightweight
Concrete Concrete(10%) Concrete(15%) Concrete(20%) Concrete(25%) Concrete(30%)
48
Effect of Compressive Strength of LWC and conventional
concrete due to Different Curing Age
% of saw dust Compressive Strength (KN/IN^2)
replacement

Curing Period 7 days 14 days 28 days

Conventional 11.5 14.59 21.00

Concrete
10% 7.02 9.39 13.60
15% 5.47 7.11 11.50
20% 3.74 5.74 9.56
25% 2.25 4.48 6.83
30% 1.61 3.18 4.25

49
Comparison Graph.
Effect of Compressive Strength with curing age.
20
Compressive Strength

18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
Conventional 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Concrete

Type of concrete

7 Days 14 Days 28 Days

50
 Results
(Reinforcements)
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Conventional concrete

51
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Lightweight concrete (10%).

52
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Lightweight concrete (15%).

53
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Lightweight concrete (20%).

54
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Lightweight concrete (25%).

55
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Reinforcement for Lightweight concrete (30%).

56
Cont.…
Weight Comparison (Reinforcement)

COMPARISON WEIGHT OF REINFORCEMENT

Conventional
120000
Concrete,

LWC 10%,
100000
LWC 15%,
LWC 20%,
LWC 25%,
Weight (kg)

80000

LWC 30%,
60000

40000

20000

Different of ratio of Concrete

57
Cont.…
Cost Comparison Graph
CON- COST of reinforcements
VEN-
TIONAL
16000000000 10%
15%
14000000000 20%
12000000000 25%
30%
10000000000
PKR

8000000000

6000000000

4000000000

2000000000

Different ratio of Concrete

58
Cont.…
References

59
 Concrete
Quantity and Cost of Concrete for Beam

60
Cont.…
Graph for Quantity of Beam (Diff Ratios)

Quantity of Concrete for Beam

weight of concrete (kg)

40000

39000

38000

37000 0%
10%
15%
36000 20%
25%
30%
35000

34000

Different ratio of concrete

61
Cont.…
Graph for Cost of Beam (Diff Ratios)
Cost for beam (PKR)
Conventional
Concrete
120000

119500 10%
15%
Ccost (pkr)

119000 20%
25%
118500
30%
118000

117500

117000

Different ratios of concrete

62
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Concrete for Column

63
 Cont.…
Comparison of Quantity (concrete) for Concrete Column

23000

22500
weight (kg)

22000

21500
0%
21000 10%
15%
20%
20500 25%
30%
20000

19500

different ratio of concrete

64
Cont.…
Conventional Cost (PKR)
Concrete
69000

68000 10%
67000 15%
20%
cost (pkr)

66000

65000 25%
64000 30%
63000

62000

61000

60000

Different Ratios of concrete

65
Cont.…
Quantity and Cost of Concrete for Beam

66
Cont.…
Quantity of Concrete for Slab(kg)

94000

92000
WEIGHT (KG)

90000

Conventional
88000 Concrete
10%
15%
86000 20%
25%
30%
84000

82000

DIFFERENT RATIOS

67
Cont.…
COST FOR sLAB (PKR)

18000000

17500000
COST (PKR)

17000000

16500000 Conventional
Concrete
10%
15%
16000000 20%
25%
30%
15500000

15000000

DIFFERENT RATIOS

68
Cont.…
Total Concrete

69
Cont.…
Graph for Total Concrete
Total Cost Comparison
Conventional
450000000 Concrete

440000000
10%
15%
Cost (PKR)

430000000
20%
420000000 25%
30%
410000000

400000000

390000000

Different Ratios of Concrete

70
Cont.… References

71