The /nternatJonal Journal of Cement Composites and Lightweight Concrete, Volume 4, Number 4
Effect of
varying sand
content in
laterized
concrete
L. A. Balogun * and D. Adepegba t
Lawal A Balogun is a Senior Lecturer in the Civil Engineering
D~partment, UniversJtyof Lagos, Nigeria. He got his Ph.D. in 1967from
Queen Mary College. University of London. He is a member of the
Inshtution of Civil Engineers, Great Britain and Member of the Society
of Engineers, Nigeria.
;Dotun Adepegba is Professorof Structural Engineering, Universityof
Lagos, Nigeria. He has pioneered laterized concrete on which he has
pubhshed numerous papers He got his Ph.D. in 1966 from the
Unwersityof Leicester, England. He is a Fellow of the British Instituhon
of Civil Engineers, a Fellow of the American Societyof Civil Engineers
and a Ferlow of the Faculty of Building.
b:, Construction Press 1982
0262-5075/82/04450235/$0200
November 1982
SYNOPSIS
Tests are reported on concrete containing crushed
granite, sharp sand and fine laterite in varying
proportions. The percentage of sand by weight of the
total fine aggregate was varied =n steps of 25% up to a
maximum of 100% corresponding to normal concrete.
The standard mixes which were investigated were 1:2:4,
1:1~:3, and 1:1:2. The compressive strengths were
determined up to 84 days. The most suitable mix for
structural applications was found to be 1 : 1; :3 with about
0.65 water/cement ratio provided that the percentage
laterite content is kept below 50%. Compressive
strength of not less than 25 N/mm :~was obtainable at 28
days for this mix with laterite content of about 25-60%.
The density of laterized concrete and its compres-
sive strengths show that laterized concrete is a dense
and structurally sound material. The modulus of elasticity
of the recommended mix of laterized concrete (1:1~:3)
may be as high as 18-20 kN/mm* if the mix is well
controlled.
KEYWORDS
Laterized concrete, mechanical properties, compressive
strength, tensile strength, aggregates, sand replace
ment, workability, density, modulus of elasticity,
stresses, strains, strength of matenals, composite
construction.
INTRODUCTION
Laterized concrete is a new structural materiar which has
recently received the attention of researchers in Nigena.
By definition laterized concrete is concrete in which part
or all the aggregates ae of lateritic origin. The origin of
the word laterite dates back to 1807 when Buchanan 11]
a British engineer christened a building material used in
the mountain regions of Malabar in India as laterite. The
word laterite comes from the Latin word 'later' which
means 'brick'. However, laterite can be described as the
alteration product of various matenals including crystal-
line igneous rocks, sediments, detrital deposits and
volcanic ash. The UNESCO (United Nations Educational
Scientific and Cultural Organisation) has shown consid-
erable interest in the development of laterite. The
Advisory Committee for Humid Tropics Research, which
is an Agency of UNESCO has organised and hosted
regular symposia on laterites since 1964.
Laterites may be differentiated in terms of their
chemical composition. Laterites with high clay content
are not suitable for laterized concrete because of the
difficulty in mixing which may result in poor compressive
strengths. Laterites which contain up to about 40% clay
may be used but lower clay content than 40% is
recommended.
Samples of laterite soils used in this work and the
preceding works on laterized concrete gave the
following analysis
Size analysis %
Gravel 5.0
Sand 48.0
Silt 12.0
Kaolin clay 35.0
235
Effec~ of varying sand content in latenzed concrete Baiogun and Adepegba

j/
Total analysis % 100
S,O2 67.0
AI203 17.1 ~ 80
TiO~ 1.0
Fe203 5.6 ~60~
MgO 0.1
K20 0.1
SO3 0.3
Ignition loss 7.6 20
Exhangeable sodium (ESP) 1.5
Moisture content as received 4.8 0
2OO 72 52 25 14 ? 3/16 3/8 1/2 }14in
The design of laterized concrete vis-a-vis normal B S Sieve size
concrete has been examined [2], and it was found that
the mechanical properties of laterized concrete com-
pared [3] fairly with that of normal concrete. However, " %
the compressive strengths of laterized concrete
reported by Adepegba [4, 5] were much lower than 100 _,,. % , .
those of normal concrete for the same mix. The aim of 9O
this research was to determine the minimum quantity of
sand that can be added to laterized concrete to enhance
its mechanical properties to values which are acceptable 7o
in practice as recommended by Codes of Practice in
6o
various countries.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE ._~ 4C

The coarse aggregate was crushed granite of maximum
size 19 mm and the fine aggregate was made up of
various proportions of sharp sand and fine laterite. The
grading curves for sand and the gravel are shown in Fig.
la while the w e t and dry analyses of fine laterite are
shown in Figure 1 b. The cement was ordinary portland
cement which conformed with the specifications in
BS12.
The standard mixes which were covered by this
work are 1:2:4, 1:1½:3, and 1:1:2. The variation of
water/cement ratio was limited to 0.55, 0.65 and 0.85
since previous research [2] had recommended a
water/cement ratio of 0.65 for structural laterized
concrete. The consideration of 0.55 and 0.85
water/cement ratios was to investigate the likely
changes in the water content due to the introduction of
sand into laterized concrete. The mixes were made in a
horizontal pan type of mixer. The slump test was carried
out with the standard 'slump cone' and steel rod.
The test specimens were 15.24 cm (6 inch) cubes
and 30 cm by 15 cm (12 inch by 6 inch) cylinders. All test
specimens were kept immersed underwater throughout
the tests for various ages of 7, 14, 28 and 84 days. At
least two cylindrical specimens were tested in
compression and an average of three cubes for the cube
tests. In order to determine the stress-strain characteris-
tics of the cylinders a measuring instrument known as
Compressometer was used to record the strains while
the load was applied by a 3000 kN Clockhouse
Compression testing machine.
EVALUATION OF RESULTS
(i) Effect of varying water content The effect of water
content on any type of concrete is mainly indicated by
two tests viz (a) slump test which is an indicator of the
workability of concrete in the wet state: it is an indirect
5 3O
2o
m E
0
Particle size mm
Wet un Qlysis
Dry anetysis
Figure 1 (a) Sieve analysis of sand and gravel
(b) Dry and wet analysis of laterite fines
method of investigating the effect of water content on
concrete mixes, (b) compression test which will indicate
the effect of water content on various concrete mixes in
the hardened state. The slump test may therefore be
regarded as an early warning method whereas the
compression test is to ascertain and quantifY the
compressive strength. If the compression test is carried
out on concrete specimens at an early age the results
could be decisive in construction works.
The variation of slump for various mixes of laterized
concrete is shown in Table 1 for maximum size of coarse
aggegate of about 19 mm. Observation shows that the
water/cement ratio for 1:1:2 mixes must be about 0.55
and not higher if segregation is to be avoided. This is
because the fine aggregate content for this mix is much
lower than that for 1:1 ~:3 and 1:2:4 mixes. The slump for
1 t ~:3 mix showed limits of 0.55 to 0.65 water/cement
ratio for good results whereas the water/cement ratio for
1:2:4 mix which contained the highest amount of fine
aggregate is about 0.65 for good results. The results

236
Effect of varying sand content in/aterized concrete Balogun and Adepegba

Table 1 Slumptests-laterizedconcretewithmaximumsizeofcoarseaggregateof19 mm

Water/cement ratio
% laterite of
Mix total fine 0.55 0.65 0.85
proportion aggregate slump (mm) slump (mm) slump (mm)

1O0 40 80 collapse
75 60 collapse collapse
:1:2 50 collapse collapse collapse
25 collapse collapse collapse
0 collapse collapse co lla pse

100 0 7 100
75 4 35 collapse
:1 !,:3 50 20 65 collapse
40 65 co lla pse co lla pse
25 collapse collapse collapse
0 collapse collapse collapse

1oo 0 0 48
75 0 18 70
1:2:4 50 0 30 collapse
25 25 90 collapse
0 70 collapse collapse

obtained from the compression tests for the three
standard mixes confirmed this observation of the
limitation of water/cement ratios. It appears therefore
that 1:1 ~:3 mix is the best mix proportion that could yield
structural laterized concrete of good quality and high
strength at all ages provided the laterite content is kept
below 50% and water/cement ratio limits are observed.
(ii) Compressive and tensile strengths The compres-
sive and the tensile strengths for the various laterized
concrete mixes are shown in Tables 2 and 3 respectively.
The results show that the tensile strength is not sensitive
enough to indicate any noticeable pattern. The
compressive strength being much higher than the
tensile strength indicated some noticeable variations as
the water content and the quantity of laterite fines
increased. A brief observation of Table 2 shows that the
compressive strengths for all 1:1½:3 mixes are generally
higher than those for 1:1:2 and 1:2:4 mixes except for
1:1:2 at 0.55 water/cement ratio and for 1:2:4 at 0.65
water/cement ratio when the results are similar. The
reason for this difference has already been shown by the
slump tests. The 1:1:2 mixes were generally too wet and
therefore prone to segregation due to lack of enough
fines. Similarly most mixes of 1:2:4 were either too stiff
or too wet.
The results show that for 1:2:4 mixes at
water/cement ratio of 0.65 the compressive strengths
are generally higher than those for 0.55 and 0.85
water/cement ratio and similar comments apply to
1:1~:3 mixes. For the 1:1:2 mixes the highest
compressive strengths were recorded for 0.55
water/cement ratio and the lowest for 0.85
water/cement ratio (Figure 2). This is because
segregation increases with increasing water content if
other factors remain constant. If however the water
content is kept constant and the quantity of fine
aggregate is reduced there could be segregation as in
1:1:2 mixes. If a mix contains large quantity of fine
aggregate as in 1:2:4 mixes more water will be needed
than for mixes with less fines such as 1:1:2 and 1:1~:3
otherwise the mix will be stiff and difficult to compact.
The density of laterized concrete for various mixes is
shown in Table 4. The density is a useful pointer to the
compressive strengths of many materials including
concrete. It is very clear from Table 4 that laterized
concrete is not a lightweight concrete. It is as dense as
normal concrete hence it is not surprising that the
compressive strengths of most laterized concrete
considered in this research are comparable with those of
normal concrete. The density at early ages of 7 and 14
days was slightly lower than those at 28 and 84 days.
The slight increase in weight is due to absorption of
water during the immersion of the test specimens in
water.
(iii) Stress-strain characteristics The stress-strain
curves for laterized concrete and that of normal concrete
are shown in Figure 3. The stress-strain curves of normal
concrete (0% laterite) and that of concrete which
contains 25% laterite of total weight of fine aggregate
nearly coincide and both sustained the highest load at a
strain of 65 ~ 10 4 m/m with a modulus of elasticity of
about 18 kN/mm 2. The mix with 100% laterite and no
sand at all behaved in similar manner with the mix which
contained 75% laterite and the modulus of elasticity was
about 10 kN/mm 2. Although the mix with 50% laterite
failed at lower loads than the mixes with 25% laterite yet

237
Effec*. of varying sand content in tatenzed concrete L~ %jur~ and Adepegba

Table 2 Average cube strength (N/mm ~)

1:2:4 mix 1:11:3 rnlx ~ 1:2 mix

Age Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio

Percentage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
laterite (days) 0.55 0.65 0.85 055 0.65 0.85 0.55 0.65 0.85

7 2.2 5.2 7,1 7.9 8.8 7.5 19.1 16.5 7.7

14 3.9 7.5 10,8 9.7 12.7 9.2 22.5 19.7 10.t
100% 28 5.6 77 11.4 10,5 14.2 11.4 240 20.2 !1.4
84 12.0 14.2 20.2 19.8 21.0 15.9 272 21.9 16,3

7 3.7 14.0 10.9 13.5 ] 7.8 7.5 20.6 145 9.4

14 5.2 16.3 14.8 14.2 20.7 !0.7 24.3 167 9.9
75% 28 6.7 20.2 16.1 15.9 24.5 ~!,6 26.(i) 1 7 . 2 13.3
84 21.9 28.4 25.6 25.3 28. t ]50 300 21.5 !6.7"

7 6.5 15.9 75 18.5 16.1 10.0 19.7 15.0 i0.5

14 9.5 19.5 9,1 22.5 20,2 i2.0 27.2 18.0 !i.2
50% 28 14.0 20.8 11.8 29.0 23.8 14.5 31.2 21.0 t4.0
84 19.3 23.2 21.0 35.6 2"7. 0 i5.2 32 2 257 16.7

7 21.1 17.6 9.3 19.3 17.4 13.1 24.0 16.0 !0,9

14 24.3 22.1 10.6 24.0 19.0 i5.2 32.2 !8.5 I 1.8
25% 28 28.8 26.0 13.3 28.5 24.5 18.9 35.9 22,5 13.3
84 30.0 29.2 20.2 31 5 281 ~9.9 378 240 t4.2

7 20.8 19.5 10.8 21.5 1"7,4 i2.9 245 18.2 12.0

14 24.3 22.1 13.8 268 20.8 !6.3 32.0 21.2 !3.7
0% 28 29.0 22.3 15.5 28.7 25.1 20,9 35.2 26.0 16.5
84 31.3 25.7 21.9 33.3 26.6 23,4 395 28.7 20.7

Table 3 Tensile strength of 28 days old cylindrical specimens (N/mm 2)

1:2:4 mix 1:1½:3 mix ! : ! : 2 mix

Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio

Percentage
laterite 0.55 0,65 0,85 0.55 0.65 0.85 0.55 0.65 0.85

100% 1.0 1.9 1.2 1.2 1.4 1,1 1.5 1.8 1.0
75% 1.9 2.1 1.4 1.4 2.1 1.2 23 ]8 1.5
50% 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8 1.9 0.9 23 1.9 1.2
25% 2.7 !5 1.3 1.7 2.2 1.1 2.2 1.9 1.2
0% 2.0 1.9 1.4 1.8 1.8 19 25 2.I 19

238
Effect of varying sand content Jn /atenzed concrete Balogun and Adepegba

Figure 2
Compressive strength-
×
percentage laterite -
1:1:2 mix

30

._......~ •. . . . . u a y._.................~_. - . . - - . - ~.
qo
~15

~-'-'~'~"Q'---~.__. o . . . . ---.~ 14Days

~o
i
Q_
E W/C = 0 5 5 "~-- "-e
0
!
U
5[- . . . . . W/C = 0 6 5
------ WtC = 0.85

. . . . . . . J ~ I [ L
0 25 50 75 100
°lo L a t e r i t e

Table 4 Density of laterized concrete (kg/m 3)

1:2:4 mix 1:1~:3 mix 1:1:2 mix

Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio Water/cement ratio

Percentage Age
laterite (days) 0.55 0.65 0.85 0.55 0.65 0.85 0.55 0.65 0.85

7 1910 2320 2370 2290 2350 2330 2370 2340 2200

100% 14 2020 2290 2270 2270 2300 2350 2350 2370 2270
28 2200 2260 2290 2270 2340 2310 2410 2340 2290

7 2190 2290 2370 2380 2390 2360 2400 2420 2230

75% 14 2150 2280 2360 2370 2370 2310 2330 2300 2290
28 2190 2370 2360 2290 2350 2310 2330 2260 2290

7 2370 2440 2380 2420 2370 2220 2370 2420 2400

50% 14 2320 2430 2480 2430 2370 2240 2430 2330 2260
28 2360 2440 2400 2360 2380 2260 2410 2370 2260

7 2450 2470 2450 2420 2470 2450 2430 2280 2280

25% 14 2450 2460 2390 2460 2460 2450 2420 2300 2290
28 2980 2450 2450 2490 2400 1440 2490 2260 2350

7 2500 2520 2460 2460 2490 2470 2540 2400 2300

0% 14 2530 2520 2480 2400 2470 2430 2460 2510 2320
28 2480 2460 2450 2460 2480 2450 2500 2440 2370

239
 E ffe~,'t (:H varying sand content ~n /atenzed concrete ~,~o,Tun and Ade:pegba

Figure 3
220
Load-strain characteristics
laterized concrete
cylinder at 28 days

25%

165 r .----"...50"1o ,75%

//" t00o/oLat
/
/
,3 - 100% LQtcrite
x -- 75% Late[ite
t
O

>(
4 •
E3 --
-- 50% Laterite
25°•o L a t e r i t e

A 0% Laterite

55 F Test Specimens

3 0 x 15cm C y l i n d e r s
(3. Mix P r o p o r t i o n 1 " !~'2:3~ = 0.65
E
o

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 B0 XlO -4
Strain

~ts initial tangent modulus of elasticity was, at better the m i x

18 kN/mm ~, similar to that of laterized concrete which
contained 25% laterite.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Ill order to improve the mechanical properties of laterized
concrete it is expedient to add some sharp sand to
replace part of the total weight of fine laterite required in
the mix. A comparison of the mechanical properties of
various normal concrete mixes with those of laterized
concrete shows that up to 50% of the total fine
aggregate can be fine laterite with only slight variation in
mechanical properties especially if the mix proportions
are 1:1½:3 and water/cement ratio is kept at about 0.65.
Like normal concrete too little water may produce
stiff laterized concrete which cannot be easily
compacted and too much water can produce wet
laterized concrete with the resulting segregation and
consequent reduction in Compressive stength. Laterized
concrete unlike normal concrete has narrow limits of
water/cement ratios which if exceeded may cause
segregation or lack of compaction. Laterite with clay
content of 50% or more may not be suitable for laterized
concrete stuctures; the smaller the clay content the
It is recommended that future research should
concentrate on the test of beams, creep, and resistance
to adverse weather conditions.
REFERENCES
1. Magnien, R., 'Review of researches on ta[erite'
UNESCO Publication, 1966, pp. !-148.
2. Adepegba, D., 'The effect of water content on the
compressive strength of laterized concrete', Journal
of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 3, No. 6, November
1975, pp. 449-453.
3. Adepegba, D., 'A comparative study of norrnai
concrete with concrete which contained laterite
instead of sand', Building Science, Vol. 10, !975,
pp. 135-141.
4. Adepegba, D., 'Structural strength of silort, axially
loaded columns of reinforced, laterized concrete',
Journal of Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 5, N o 2,
March, 1977, pp. 134-140.
5. Adepegba, D., 'Random axial loading ol short
reinforced laterized concrete columns', Journal oi
Testing and Evaluation, Vol. 5, No. 6, November
1977, pp. 494-498.

240