.

.
 GROUP MEMBERS
 Jahangir Abbas Sahil (1755)
 M. Yousuf Hussain (1837)
 Hamza Manzoor (1995)

 Project Advisor: Engr M. Waqas Malik

 TITLE
Development of Light Weight
concrete using Saw Dust
 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.
 CONT.…
 About FYP:
 This project is an experimental study of the partial replacement of coarse
aggregates, fine aggregates and Cement with Pumice Stone with regard to the
compressive properties and weight of concrete.
 Coarse aggregates has been partially replaced with 5% 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%
and 30% of Pumice Stone by weight.
 Then Fine aggregates has been partially replaced with 10%, 25%, 50%, 75%,
90% and 100% of Pumice Stone by weight.
 Also Cement has been partially replaced with 10%, 20% and 30% of Pumice
Stone by weight.
 A total of 48 cubes have been casted and cured in water for 7 ,14 and 28 days.
 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) e.g., SFD and BMD.
 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.
 CONT.…
 Properties of Sawdust:
 It has low density. (300-1400 kg/m3)
• Thermal Resistance.
• Sound Insulation.

Saw dust
 ADVANTAGES
 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 the ground
water table.
 The effective way of utilising waste material leads clean
environment.
 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 SFD and BMD of Super Structure member of 5
storey building by using ETABS software.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Reference
A. V. S. Sai. Kumar, Krishna Rao
Venkata Sairam Kumar, Dr. B.
Panduranga Rao, Krishna Sai
Chandana Sukesh, Katakam Bala Krishna
Year Outcome
2014 By using 25% of wooden powder as a partial
replacement to fine aggregate there is no
change in compressive strength.
2009 By using 25% of partial replacement of
aggregate with waste material (wooden
powder, sugarcane residue) improves harden
concrete properties.
2013 When fine aggregate was partially replaced
with 25%-50% waste material ( wooden
powder, sugar-cane residue) maximum
strength was achieved as partial replacement
for aggregates.
 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.
 CONT.…
Reference
O.Ata, E.A Olanipekun & K.O.Oluola,
“ A comparative study of Concrete
Properties using Coconut Shell & Palm
Kernel Shell as Coarse Aggregates”
Build Environ.,41, Page No:297-301
Year Outcome
2006 This Paper presents the results of an investigation
carried out on the comparative cost analysis and
strength characteristics of concrete produced using
crushed, granular coconut and palm kernel shells as
substitute for conventional coarse aggregate in
gradation of 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100%. The
results of compressive strength of concrete
decreased as the percentage of the shells increased.
However, concrete obtained from coconut shells
exhibited a higher compressive strength than palm
kernel shell concrete in the two mix proportions. The
results also indicated cost reduction of 30% and 42%
for concrete produced from coconut shells and palm
kernel shells, respectively.
 CONT.…
Reference
F.A. Olutoge, “Investigations On
Sawdust And Palm Kernel Shells As
Aggregate Replacement” APRN Journal
of Engineering and Applied Sciences,
Page No:7-13
Year Outcome
2010 This study investigated the use of saw dust and palm
Kernel Palm Shells (PKS) as replacement for fine and
coarse aggregates in reinforced concrete slabs.
Sawdust and KPS were used to replace both fine and
coarse aggregates from 0% to 100% in steps of 25%.
Increase in percentage of sawdust or palm kernel
shell in concrete slabs led to a corresponding
reduction in both flexural and compressive
strength values. It is seen that at a low replacement
value 25% sawdust and KPS can produce lightweight
reinforced concrete slabs which could be used where
low stress is required at reduced cost.
 METHODOLOGY
. Study of physical properties of
Collection of materials Primary test on materials
materials , mix design

Analysis and Modelling on Casting and curing of specimens

Test on concretes
discussion ETABS
 METHODOLOGY
Material Selection:
 For this project these materials have been selected:
1. Saw dust
2. Cement
3. Coarse Aggregate
4. Fine Aggregate (Sand)
5. Water
 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
 CONT…
1. Aggregate Impact Value (AIV) ( IS:2386-IV ASTM C-131 AASHTO T96)

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

Impact Value Testing Sieving the

Machine, Cylinder test During Tamping
impacted
cup and Tamping Rod. Aggregate
aggregates
CONT…
Aggregate Impact Value Classification
<10% Exceptionally Strong
10 – 20% Strong
20-30% Satisfactory for road surfacing
>35% Weak for road surfacing
 CONT.…
2. Specific Gravity Test or Water Absorption Test (IS:2386-III)
 Wo=Oven dry weight
 Ws=SSD weight= Saturated Surface Dry
 Ww=Weight of Sample in Water
 Oven Dry Specific Gravity
 CONT…
. Oven SSD Apparent Water
Wo(kg) SSD(kg) Ww(kg) Dry Specific Specific Absorpti
Specific Gravity Gravity on of Agg
Gravity

3.856 3.890 2.326 2.465 2.487 2.520 0.882

 CONT.…
3. Specific Gravity Test of Cement
 Specific Gravity of Cement is calculated by using following formula,

 = (W2 – W1) / ((W2 – W1) – (W3 – W4) X 0.79)

 Where,

 W1 = Weight of Empty Flask.

 W2 = Weight of Flask + Cement.

 W3 = Weight of Flask + Cement + Kerosene.

 W4 = Weight of Flask + Kerosene.

 Here, the specific gravity of kerosene is 0.79g/cc (grams per cubic centimeter)

 The specific gravity of a sample of cement = 3.15

 (Ref:https://wecivilengineers.wordpress.com/2018/04/06/specific-gravity-test-of-cement/)
 CONT.…
4. Specific Gravity Test of Saw Dust (AASHTO T 96 or ASTM C 131)
The test was conducted using pycnometer.
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
 CONT.…
5. Specific Gravity Test of Fine aggregate (AASHTO T84 C128)
G=2.60

Standard Pycnometer Apparatus

 CONT…
6. Los Angeles Abrasion Test (AASHTO T 96 or ASTM C 131)
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%
 CONT..
.

Keeping Sample in Oven Cleaning Los Angeles Apparatus Doing Switch on of After grinding
Los Angeles Apparatus
 CONT..
7. Sieve Analysis (Gradation Test) (IS:383)

Sieve size Weight % weight % Cumulative % Passing Limit As

(mm) Retained Retained weight Retained Per IS :383
(kg)
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
Total 4 100
 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.
 CONT.…
8. Fineness Modulus of fine aggregate (ASTM C136)
 Fineness modulus is generally 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.
 CONT.…
Sieve Size % of Individual Fraction Commulative % 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

 CONT.…
Gradation Curve for Fine Aggregate
120
97
100
Comulative % passing

77
80
60 55
40
40
20 15
2 0
0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Sieve Size
 CONT…
Cubes Casting:
 For lightweight concrete 45 cubes have been casted

Days 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% Total

1-7 3 3 3 3 3 15
1-14 3 3 3 3 3 15
1-28 3 3 3 3 3 15
Total 9 9 9 9 9 45
CONT.…

Lightweight concrete cubes after casting

 CONT…
 For natural concrete 9 cubes have been casted.

Day Quantity

1-7 3
1-14 3
1-21 3
Total 9
CONT.…

Conventional Concrete cubes after casting

Before casting cubes
 CONT..
 For both lightweight and natural 1:1.5:3 ratio has utilized.
 Water cement ratio , W/C=0.57
 RESULTS
 Weight of lightweight concrete cube:

Ratio Weight (KG)

10% 7.70
15% 7.45
20% 7.20
25% 6.85
30% 6.60
 CONT.…
 Compressive Strength
 Compressive strength of Lightweight and conventional concrete (KN) after
7 days: % of Saw Dust replacement Test Cubes Compressive Strength in KN/In^2

7 Days

1 2 3 Ave. Crushing Compressive

Load (KN) Strength
(KN/IN^2)
Conventional Cube 414 416 412 414 11.5

10% 199 160 188 182.33 5.06

15% 126 126 123 125 3.47

20% 100 98 98 98.67 2.74

25% 86 74 84 81.33 2.25

30% 48 46 80 58 1.61
 CONT.…
 Comparison graph of Conventional and lightweight concrete after 7 days of Curing:

Compressive strength of 7-Days

450

400

350
Crushing Load (KN)

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%)
 CONT…
 Compressive strength of Lightweight and Conventional concrete (KN/IN^2) after
14 days
% of Saw Dust replacement Test Cubes Compressive Strength in KN/In^2

14 Days

1 2 3 Ave. Crushing Load Compressive

(KN) Strength (KN/IN^2)
Conventional Cube 475 495 498 489.33 13.59

10% 210 180 193 194.33 5.39

15% 170 135 139 148 4.11

20% 137 120 147 134.67 3.74

25% 135 128 113 125.33 3.48

30% 110 122 112 114.67 3.18

 CONT.…
 Comparison graph of Conventional and lightweight concrete after 14 days of Curing:

Compressive strength of 14-Days

500
450
400
Crushing Load (KN)

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%)
 CONT.…
 Compressive strength of Lightweight and Conventional concrete (KN) after
28 days
% of Saw Dust replacement

28 Days

1 2 3 Ave. Crushing Load Compressive

(KN) Strength (KN/IN^2)
Conventional Cube 600 716 628 648 18.00

10% 270 280 230 260 7.22

15% 218 225 260 234.3 6.50

20% 160 183 150 164.3 4.56

25% 158 130 125 137.7 3.83

30% 120 121 110 117 3.25

 CONT.…
 Comparison graph of Conventional and lightweight concrete after 28 days of Curing:
Compressive strength of 28-Days

700

600

500
Crushing Load (KN)

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%)
TIMELINE
Month (2020)
Phase
Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Phase-1 Project Proposal

Phase-2 Literature Review
Phase-3 Methodology of Project
Phase-4 Evaluation of FYP ( At the end of 7th semester)

3w 3 Week 3w 3 Week 2w 2 Week 1w 1 Week

CONT.…
Month (2021)
Phase 3w 3 Week
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun July

5 5w 5 Week
6
4w 4 Week
7

8 3w 3 Week
9
3w 3 Week
10

Phase-5 Data Collection 2w 2 Week

Phase-6 Sampling/Testing of samples

Phase-7 Result Evaluation
Phase-8 Modelling Via ETABS
Phase-9 Thesis write up
Phase-10 Final evaluation of FYP ( at the end of project)
 .

THANK YOU..!