CELLULAR LIGHT WEIGHT CONCRETE

A report Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING

ASHUTOSH KUMAR
(Enrollment no. 150100002111)

Under the Supervision of

Mr. PRINCE YADAV
Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lucknow

To the

Department of Civil Engineering Institute of Engineering & Technology, Lucknow

An Autonomous Constituent Institute of
DR. APJ ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
(Formerly Uttar Pradesh Technical University)

LUCKNOW

1
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION 1

2 LITERATURE REVIEW …………………………………………... 9

3 DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE USING

OILPALM SHELLS ….. .......................................................... 17

4 DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF OPS CONCRETE………….. 25

5 CONCLUSIONS…………………………………………………… 46

2
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION
Concrete is the largest material that is consumed by the construction industry. This
industry consumes a large number of natural and non-renewable sources such as
water, sand and gravel. Global concrete industry roughly consumes 7.5 billion tons
annually. This reduces stone deposits and causes ecological imbalances. Concrete is
not an environmentally friendly material. Construction industry has a significant
social, economic and environmental impact. Using waste from the industries and the
by-products available as waste can be used as raw materials as best alternative
materials to achieve sustainable development of the concrete.

Concrete made with lightweight aggregates to produce structural concrete is

said to be Lightweight Concrete (LWC). Lightweight aggregates can either be natural
lightweight aggregates or artificial lightweight aggregates. Natural aggregates are
pumice, scoria and perlite. Artificial aggregates are shale, expanded clay and slate.
Aggregates from industrial waste can also be used to produce lightweight concrete.
Lightweight aggregates produced in the rotary kiln are expanded clays and shale
which are termed as LECA aggregates. Lightweight aggregates produced by water jet
or slag expanded mechanically are termed as FOAMED lightweight aggregates.
Sintered pulverized fuel ash aggregates are termed as LYTAG aggregates.

Artificial aggregates are used for decades. These lightweight aggregates help
in reduction in deadweight, reduction in sizes of the members and thermal protection.
This helps in imperviousness to fire of the structures. Concretes produced with these
lightweight aggregate types had a density of 1400-1750 kg/m3 with maximum
compressive strength of 18-25MPa. According to ACI 318-R, lightweight concrete
producing more than 25MPa are said to be structural lightweight concrete.
Researchers used coconut shells, eggshells and many other types as a replacement for
coarse aggregate to some extent. All the studies represent that any replaced material in
concrete can be used only for producing non-structural elements in the construction.

3
 Waste products from industries such as oil palm shells, recycled plastic and
recycled rubber are also used as lightweight aggregates in making of lightweight
concrete. OPS are a waste material from the palm oil industries. Malaysia, Nigeria and
India are well known for the production of palm oil worldwide. Typically around 110
million tons of OPS waste is produced by these countries (Shafigh, Mahmud, Jumaat,
& Zargar, 2014). Research in OPS as aggregate in concrete is attracting researchers
continuously. Using OPS as aggregate for the making of structural lightweight
concrete is studied in this research.

Lightweight aggregates usually contain large pores in their internal structure.

They are called lightweight because they have density than the conventional
aggregates. Concrete made with lightweight aggregates is termed as lightweight
concrete. Lightweight concrete has a density of less than 20-25% of conventional
concrete made with gravel as coarse aggregate. Lightweight concrete is widely used as
its consumption increases year by year globally. The advantages behind the use of
lightweight concrete are as follows.

➢ Reduction in concrete density helps in the erection of precast products for easy
removal and easy transportation.
➢ Reduction in size of the members helps in reducing the cost of the construction.
➢ Internal curing in lightweight concrete helps in increasing strength and improves
durability.
➢ Due to higher moisture retention than the conventional concrete, there is a
decrease in shrinkage cracks in the lightweight concrete.
➢ Fire resistance of lightweight concrete is near twice the conventional concrete.
➢ Lightweight concrete had low thermal expansion than the conventional concrete.
➢ Faster in the construction and low handling rates than the conventional concrete.

Historic background and applications

Lightweight concrete was first patented in the year 1923 to use as an insulation
material. Roman’s used air-entrained agents to decrease the density of the concrete.
There is a significant improvement on lightweight concrete for the past 20 years by
producing foamed concrete with better quality. Lightweight concrete is used in a wide

4
range of application such as panels, floor screeds, wall casting, void infill and many
more applications.

Lightweight concrete was first put into market in 1945 during the war period
with different names. Depending upon the techniques used for making of lightweight
concrete they are classified into four main types. First is autoclaved gas concrete
which is made up of foaming agent. Second is to use expanded clay additives or wood
fibres for producing lightweight concrete. The third is by using volcanic stone like
pumice or slag as coarse aggregate. The fourth type of lightweight concrete is injected
foam mechanically whipped.

Countries like Switzerland, Belgium and some of the European countries

during the 1920s and 1930s conducted experiments to reduce the weight of the
concrete and many types of lightweight concrete were introduced. First lightweight
concrete was named as LECA (Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregates) and
produced in Denmark in 1939 with an annual production of 20,000 m3. At the end of
1972 production of lightweight concrete has reached nearly 6 million m 3 per year in
European countries. Lightweight concrete was very popular in Sweden from 1935,
after World War II lightweight aggregate lightweight concrete became the important
building materials in the country. Lightweight concrete is manufactured over 34
factories in 11 countries in the 1960s -1970s.

Lightweight concrete gains its popularity due to its inherent properties and
characteristics. Manufacturers around the world started developing lightweight
concrete in their own series of compositions, different characteristics, and various
dimensions. Furthermore, the advantages of lightweight concrete are fire and water-
resistant and easy to handle on the building sites without any heavy equipment.
Ranging from houses to industrial buildings lightweight concrete was made attractive
and with a broad field of applications. Lightweight concrete had no significant
implication for architectural design.

Types of Lightweight concretes vary according to the type of manufacturing

process and type of ingredients used. Here are the lightweight concretes types listed

5
A) Autoclaved gas concrete

This is one type of lightweight concrete made up of foaming agent with aluminium
powder and water. Both were mixed together and poured into the moulds. The
aluminium powder mix creates a chemical reaction and forms a foaming reaction and
causes a change in the volume. This volume change creates a porous material with
interconnecting bubbles. The density of autoclaved gas concrete depends on the
quantity of aluminium powder added to mix the concrete. The final dried material is
demoulded and put into an autoclave. In autoclave, the dried pieces were steamed in
between 180-190° C.

B) Lightweight aggregate concrete

Concrete is made with lightweight aggregates. Different types of lightweight

aggregate are used for making of lightweight aggregate concrete.

1. Durisol and Fixolite developed wood fibres aggregate in 1937 which was
patented by Alex Bosshard in 1932. Wood fibres were cleaned and the chemical
treatment of fibres is made to resist the moisture and harmful agents. Lightweight
aggregate concrete made with wood fibres is manufactured for hallow elements. These
are manufactured by perfectly filling the mould with vibrator and kept for curing for
initial setting and then immediately moved to open air for six weeks and then
transported to the construction yard.
2. The second type of lightweight aggregate concrete was made with expanded
clay aggregates developed in the year 1960s by a French company in the name of
Argex. Expanded clay aggregates are produced in several stages. The clay was
excavated from clay pits and then dried, granulated and baked in the rotary oven at
temperature up to 1150 or 1200° C. In the defining phase of the expanded clay
aggregates high temperature of clay granules tends to expand. After the defining
phase, the final properties are changed according to the demand of the consumers. Due
to the voids and cavities in the internal structure of the expanded clay aggregates, a lot
of water is absorbed. This water absorption rate should be maintained before it is
mixed with the binding agent.

6
3. The third type of lightweight aggregate concrete is made up of cellular
aggregates. The volcanic stone like pumice or slag is said to be cellular aggregates.
Pumice is one of the natural materials that can be used as coarse aggregate in making
of lightweight concrete. This pumice comes after the volcano erupts and liquid lava
cools rapidly leaving bubbles in the stone. The high-temperature process of the pumice
stone which can be used in concrete can resist high and low temperatures. The history
of pumice is from the Roman period but extensively used in the period 1990s. The
pressure resistance of pumice is 3.4 to 4.9N/mm2 and has a thermal conductivity of
0.14-0.35 W/mK.
4. The fourth type of lightweight aggregate is industrial waste aggregates.
Malaysians are the first to introduce industrial waste as coarse aggregate for producing
lightweight concrete. They used OPS which are end product after the production of
palm oil from palm oil industries. This OPS waste is growing day by day as the
Malaysians economy is based on imports of palm oil throughout the world. As the
production increasing OPS waste is also increasing. Researchers found the use of OPS
waste as a replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete and the research is going on.
Lightweight concrete produced with OPS as coarse aggregate can resist the pressure
up to 15-20 N/mm2 and had a thermal conductivity of 0.2-0.47 W/mK.

C) No-fines lightweight concrete

Concrete consists only cement matrix and coarse aggregate are said to no-fines
concrete. In No-fines concrete voids is distributed uniformly throughout its mass. No-
fines concrete can be used as non-load bearing external walls and partitions. Strength
of no-fines concrete increase with an increase in cement content. It consumes more
water as the internal structure is completely distributed with voids. This may lead to
the subsequent loss of mechanical strength of the concrete. Advantages and
disadvantages of lightweight concrete made with different lightweight aggregates are
listed in Table 1.1.

7
 Table 1.1Comparisons of lightweight concrete with aggregates used

Type of Type of Advantages Disadvantages

aggregate lightweight
concrete
Foamed Autoclaved a) Prepared in a short a) Low strength
or gas gas time. b) Only used in non-load
(Sayadi et lightweight b) Used as an bearing applications
al., 2016) concrete insulating material
c) Economical

Pumice Natural a) Low density a) Process for preparing

(Celik, et lightweight b) Low thermal aggregate is not
al., 2016) concrete conductivity economical.
c) Good insulating b) The high water absorption
qualities rate
c) More voids in the internal
structure of aggregate
Expanded Expanded clay a) Low thermal a) Round in shape
clay lightweight conductivity b) Manufacturing of ECA
(Hubertova concrete b) Medium strength need skilled labour
& Hela c) Low density c) More time for the
2013) manufacturing process
No-fines Cement and a) High water a) The high density than other
concrete coarse permeability lightweight concrete
(Rasheed aggregate b) Voids are b) More voids lead to low
& Prakash, concrete distributed compressive strength.
2015) uniformly

Wood Wood fibre a) Low water a) Low strength

fibres lightweight absorption b) Not economical
(ACI 318 concrete b) Fire resistant c) Need chemical treatment
R) c) Low density

8
Oil Palm Industrial a) Medium to a) Need to be cleaned and dried
shells waste high strength b) The high water absorption
(Aslam, lightweight b) Low density rate
Sha, & concrete c) Low thermal c) Need more quantity of
Zamin, conductivity cement
2016) d) No manufacturing
process

Concluding remarks
Use of industrial waste aggregates in the making of lightweight concrete has
numerous advantages than the use of other lightweight aggregates. Use of OPS as
coarse aggregate in concrete not only decreases the density of the concrete but also
improvement in strength which can be comparable with conventional concrete.
Conventional coarse aggregate replacement with OPS aggregate can minimise the
industrial waste and is a better alternative for non-renewable conventional aggregate
(gravel or granite). Lightweight aggregates other than OPS need to be manufactured
or processed under elevated temperatures and need to be monitored step by step in
every process of making. OPS are only aggregates that are not manufactured or
prepared and they are directly taken from industries.

9
 CHAPTER 2

LITERATURE REVIEW

Introduction

A review of the literature on lightweight concrete and lightweight aggregates is

presented. This includes the use of industrial waste as coarse aggregate for producing
lightweight concrete, replacement of conventional aggregate with different
lightweight aggregates, the effect of lightweight concrete in bond, interfacial
transition zone thickness and compressive strength.

Review on lightweight concrete made with lightweight aggregates

The use of lightweight aggregate was first proposed by Durisol and Fixolite in the
year 1937. The first lightweight aggregate was wood fibres aggregate which were
patented by Alex Bosshard in 1932. Lightweight aggregate wood fibres as a
replacement of conventional aggregates were proposed to reduce the dead weight of
the material. Lightweight concrete blocks with 200*200*500 mm were prepared to
use as non-structural elements for the construction of walls. Wood fibre lightweight
concrete has a density of 750 kg/m3. Later these became the best alternative for
conventional aggregates.

Lightweight aggregates like pumice and scoria were used to build Port of Cosa on
the west coast of Italy in 273 B.C. The builder used natural lightweight aggregates instead
of locally available aggregates (beach sand and gravel). The density of lightweight
concrete made with natural lightweight aggregates is in between 450-850 kg/m3. According
to reports concrete with natural aggregates shows good mechanical behaviour and this port
is still in use.
In 27 B.C the Pantheon Dome was constructed with a diameter of 43.3 m as shown
in Fig. 2.1. The builders used two types of lightweight aggregates with varying densities.
Higher densities of aggregates were used at the base to maintain the stresses coming on that
and lower densities of aggregates were used at the top of the dome were the stresses are
low. The Pantheon is still in use today even after hundreds of years. In between 75 to 80
A.D a massive size ancient amphitheatre Coliseum was

[Type text]
constructed with 50 thousand seating capacity. Crushed volcanic lava lightweight
aggregates were used for the foundation of the Coliseum, porous-tufa cut stone was used in
the walls (ACI Committee 213, 2003).

Fig. 2.1Pantheon, the roman temple

In the 20th century the manufacturing of lightweight aggregates became

commercially available since the use of lightweight aggregates by Romans was limited.
Producing and making of lightweight aggregates was patented by Stephen J. Hyde in 1981.
He made the lightweight aggregates like expanded clay, shale or slate in a rotatory kiln
through heating and expanding the process. Expanded aggregates were first used in the
concrete ship for U.S. fleet.
From the second half of 20th-century lightweight concrete has been used widely for
construction of many multi-storey buildings. A 42 storied high rise building was
constructed in Chicago with lightweight concrete floors and 18 storied hotels were
constructed in Dallas with a lightweight concrete frame and flat plate floors.
Lightweight concrete made with lightweight aggregates usually possesses low
mechanical strength than the conventional concrete. Aggregate behaviour plays a major
role in concrete as the concrete consists of nearly 70% of coarse aggregate. Mechanical
behaviour of lightweight concrete depends on the type of lightweight aggregates used in
the production of lightweight concrete. Many types’ lightweight

[Type text]
aggregates were studied by many researchers to improve the mechanical behaviour of
lightweight concrete.
Application of lightweight concretes is extended too many constructions like high
rise buildings, marine structures and also bridges. Recent applications of lightweight
concrete constructions are in Stolmen Bridge 1998 in Norway. The bridge was constructed
with 1600 m3 of lightweight concrete for which, the 28 days mean compressive strength
was 70.4 MPa and the mean density was 1940 kg/m3 as shown in Fig. 2.2.

Fig. 2.2 Stolmen Bridge, Norway

Concrete using OPS as partial replacement of coarse aggregate in conventional

concrete can attain good mechanical behaviour as reported by Basri et al. (1999). Use of
OPS in producing lightweight concrete can attain compressive strength of 15-20 MPa with
a concrete density of 1856 kg/m3. Increase in cement content can improve the mechanical
properties of lightweight concrete containing oil palm shells as coarse aggregate as
explained by Shafigh et al. (2011).

Mannan and Ganapathy (2002) used agricultural wastes OPS as lightweight

aggregates to produce lightweight concrete. By using different mix proportions the
maximum 28 days compressive strength attained was about 21 MPa. Without using
any admixture for making the concrete, the flexural strength of OPS concrete is in
between 2-4 MPa and splitting tensile strength of 2.41 MPa. Modulus of elasticity of

[Type text]
 OPS concrete is 0.70-0.76*104 N/mm2, 14% higher drying shrinkage can be seen in
OPS concrete then the control concrete. OPS have higher absorption capacity.
Demirbog (2003) used expanded perlite as lightweight aggregate. Silica fume
and fly ash are used as 30 % replacement of cement and expanded perlites are used as
the replacement of coarse aggregate. Thermal conductivity and dry unit weight are
decreased up to 18.6% after the replacement of silica fume and fly ash with 30%.
Increase in percentage of lightweight perlite aggregates decreases density of concrete.

Atis (2003) reported that high-strength lightweight concrete can be made with
scoria lightweight aggregates with added mineral admixtures. Compressive strength
of 40 MPa is achieved by using scoria lightweight concrete with a density of 1955
kg/m3. Different percentages of fly ash and silica fumes were used to produce high-
strength lightweight concrete. Fig. 2.3 show scoria aggregates.

Fig. 2.3 Scoria aggregates

Hossain (2004) reported that volcanic pumice based lightweight concrete can
be produced using 25% replacement of cement with fly ash. Maximum bulk density
attained by the volcanic pumice lightweight concrete is 1183 kg/m3. In mix design the
w/c ratio used is 0.45, maximum cement content is 490 kg/m3 and aggregate density is
360 kg/m3. The compressive strength of volcanic pumice concrete is 40-45% lower
than control concrete. The split tensile strength of volcanic pumice concrete is 3.7
MPa compared to 2.6 MPa in control concrete. Volcanic pumice aggregates are used

[Type text]
 as a replacement of conventional aggregates. Since the water absorption rate is high
when compared to conventional aggregate there is an effect on the mechanical
strength. Lightweight concrete made with natural pumice shows less compressive
strength when compared to conventional concrete. This is due to the higher water
absorption rate in pumice aggregate. Maximum compressive strength attained by
pumice lightweight concrete is in between 15-23 MPa. Use of silica fume in pumice
lightweight concrete shows good mechanical behaviour with an increase in
compressive strength up to 25-29 MPa.

Katip (2005) reported the use of different fine and coarse pumice aggregates to
produce structural lightweight concrete. Different pumice aggregate/ cement ratios
i.e., 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1 were used to prepare the lightweight concrete. Different mix
proportions show the maximum fresh bulk density of concrete as 1526 kg/m3.
Compressive strength of 27.86 MPa is achieved with aggregate/cement ratio of 2:1
with the water content of 281 kg/m3. Drying shrinkage of pumice concrete is low at
0.028 % and wetting expansion of 0.033%. The values are lower when compared to
other lightweight aggregates. They proposed the use of pumice aggregate as fine and
coarse aggregate replacement in concrete with conventional coarse and fine
aggregates. Pumice aggregates are screened to 15 mm coarse aggregates and 7 mm
fine aggregates. Cement to aggregate is maintained between 1:2 – 1:4 water content in
between 281-314 kg/m3 and fresh density of lightweight concrete is between 1427-
1526 kg/m3. Results show maximum compressive strength as 14-26 MPa, modulus of
elasticity of concrete as 11,129 GPa and tensile strength after 28 days was 4 to 6.38
MPa.

Sari and Pasamehmetoglu (2005) reported that the gradation of pumice effects
on the strength and other mechanical properties of lightweight pumice concrete.
Particle size of the pumice aggregate affects the strength of the pumice concrete.
Pumice aggregate made with 12 mm aggregates shown compressive strength of 20
MPa. Pumice aggregate made with 10 and 8 mm shown compressive strength of 25
MPa.
Teo(2006) reported oil palm shells as coarse aggregate in concrete to produced
structural lightweight concrete. Bond properties and mechanical properties of OPS

[Type text]
 lightweight concrete are examined and reported that 28 days compressive strength is
28 MPa and bond properties of OPS concrete is comparable with other lightweight
aggregates.
Use of expanded perlite as coarse aggregate replacement in concrete was proposed
by Ilker Bekir and Burak Isikdag (2007). They investigated the expanded perlite aggregates
in concrete by replacing conventional aggregate with 10, 30, 45 and 60%. Fresh and
hardened properties were studied with these replacements and concluded that expanded
perlite lightweight concrete compressive strength was between 20-30 MPa, bulk density of
lightweight concrete made with perlite as coarse aggregate was 1800 kg/m3. Ultrasonic
pulse velocity was about 3.2 km/s and modulusof elasticity was between 11 and 20 GPa.

Mechanical behaviour of lightweight concrete can be improved by the effect of

aggregate to cement ratios. Pumice aggregate to cement ratio increase the compressive
strength of concrete with little change in densities. Pumice concrete with aggregate/cement
ratio of 6:1 shows the fresh density of 1400 kg/m3 whereas aggregate/cement ratio of 15:1
shows 1290 kg/m3 as reported by Gündüz (2008). Compressive strength of lightweight
concrete made with aggregate/cement ratio of 6:1 shows 14.15 MPa whereas the
aggregate/cement ratio of 15:1 shows 5.32 MPa. So an increase in aggregate percentage in
lightweight concrete can decrease the mechanical strength of lightweight concrete. Pumice
concrete with aggregate/cement ratio of 6:1 shows static elasticity modulus is 9990 MPa,
whereas pumice concrete with aggregate/cement ratio of 15:1 shows static elasticity
modulus is 5015 MPa.

Alengaram and Jumaat (2008) reported the influence of cementitious materials

in palm kernel shell concrete. The effect of cementitious materials and curing
condition of lightweight concrete made with palm kernel shells were studied for a
period of 90 days and analysed. Influence of silica fumes in concrete is also studied
and reported in this research. 28 days compressive strength was in the range of 26-36
MPa for all the mix designs and the percentage increase of silica fumes affected the
compressive strength of concrete. Concrete curing conditions does not affect the
compressive strength of concrete as there is only 3 to 5% variation.

[Type text]
 Suba (2009) explained about the effects of using fly ash in expanded clay
aggregate lightweight concrete. Cement with 0, 10, 20 and 30% replacement of fly
ash shows variations in mechanical properties of concrete. 10% replacement of
cement with fly ash shows the highest strength values when compared with the
remaining percentage fly ash replacements. Cement content of 450 kg/m3 shows
compressive strength of 41.27 MPa whereas cement content with 300 kg/m3 shows
15.60 MPa. Microscopic examination was conducted to examine the bond between
the expanded clay aggregate and cement paste which represents strong bond between
both of them. Expanded clay aggregate concrete can be used in the construction of
lighter buildings.
Alengaram and Jumaat (2010) used industrial waste oil palm shells as coarse
aggregate for producing lightweight concrete. Oil palm shells are extracted after the
production of palm oil from palm oil fruit. The maximum dry density of concrete is
1850 kg/m3 when OPS is used as aggregate. The density of OPS concrete is 22%
lower than the conventional concrete. Concrete beams made with lightweight and
conventional concretes show higher moment capacity in lightweight OPS concrete
than in conventional concrete. Palm kernel shells possess same hard characteristics as
conventional aggregate as shown in Fig. 2.4. Conventional concrete and palm oil
concrete shows similar flexural behaviour of reinforced concretes. The deflection of
OPS concrete is similar to conventional concrete.

Fig. 2.4 Oil palm shell

Many research studies show the replacement of cement with fly ash, silica fume and
furnace slag, some other researchers replaces the conventional aggregate with expanded clay
aggregates, pumice, scoria, oil palm shells etc. to find the mechanical properties similar to that of
conventional concrete. Ali et al. (2011) used hybrid fibres in lightweight concrete made with
natural pumice to enhance the ductility and mechanical behaviour of lightweight concrete. To
improve the seismic behaviour of structures lightweight concrete plays a key role.
As compared to all the lightweight aggregates that are available to produce lightweight
concrete oil palm shells are from industrial wastes and remaining are from naturally available

[Type text]
material. Use of industrial waste OPS as replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete can reduce
solid waste that is produced after the production of palm oil and also it helps to decrease the
atmospheric pollution problem.

27
 CHAPTER 3

DEVELOPMENT OF LIGHTWEIGHT CONCRETE

USING OIL PALM SHELLS

Introduction

In this chapter, strategic methods are used to prepare oil palm shells as replacement of
coarse aggregate for producing lightweight concrete. The following issues are
discussed in detail: water absorption rate; impact strength of oil palm shells; material
characterization of oil palm shell.

Methodology for producing oil palm shell lightweight concrete

OPS have different properties as compared to conventional aggregate. The

methodology followed for oil palm shell lightweight concrete is shown in Fig. 3.1. In
this study, the following steps are considered to produce oil palm shells lightweight
concrete and conventional concrete.

Fig. 3.1 Methodology for producing oil palm shell lightweight concrete.

28
 First is the collection of oil palm shells, from the palm oil industry and
conventional aggregate from manufactures. As these are from industrial waste any
kind of toxic chemicals may be present on the surface of the aggregate. Materials so
collected are processed and cleaned.

Second step is to find physical properties. Physical properties of OPS

aggregates and conventional aggregates are evaluated and compared. Physical
properties like specific gravity, water absorption, aggregate impact value, elongation
index, flakiness index are evaluated for conventional aggregate and oil palm shell
aggregates.

Third step is to do mix design for both the concretes i.e., conventional
concrete and oil palm shell concrete. The mix design of oil palm shell lightweight
aggregate is carried out according to the previous research studies. Conventional
concrete mix design is done according to IS 10262:2009.

Fourth step is to evaluate the mechanical properties of OPS concrete and

conventional concrete. Concretes prepared are cured according to the standards.
Cured concretes are subjected to mechanical testing (compressive strength test) to
compare the mechanical behaviour. If the results of OPS lightweight concrete are
comparable with conventional concrete then the next step is to find the
microstructural properties. If results are not satisfied, change in parameters of
lightweight concrete is carried out and again the process is continued from mix design
procedure.

Fifth step is to find microstructural properties and bond properties of

conventional concrete and OPS lightweight concrete. In microstructural properties,
ITZ thickness and bond characteristics of both the concretes are studied.

Durability properties of lightweight concrete and conventional concrete are

carried out in the next step. The durability of concrete is an important parameter.
Permeability of the OPS concrete is carried out and explained. Alkali-silicate reaction
is an important study in the durability of concrete. Oil palm shell is used as a new
constituent in the concrete and it may be subjected to high silica or it may contain
other chemical compositions. Oil palm shells are to be studied for the alkali-silicate
reaction and sulphate attack in durability point of view.

29
 Details of the experimental programme

Properties of materials are categorised in two ways. One is physical properties and
second is the chemical composition of the material. Physical properties play a major
role in the mechanical behaviour of the material. The physical properties include
grading of OPS aggregates, specific gravity and water absorption of OPS coarse
aggregate, flakiness, elongation index, bulk density and aggregate impact value. The
chemical properties are evaluated from XRD analysis. The physical properties and
chemical properties that are discussed in this session are of oil palm shells which are
collected from Andhra Pradesh, India.

Before checking for physical and chemical properties of OPS, the first process
is cleaning of oil palm shell aggregates with distilled water. This is to remove any
toxic chemicals or any debris or dust particles that are present on the surface of the
aggregate. If oil palm shells are not cleaned properly there is a possibility of aggregate
degradation. Oil palm shells which are used in producing lightweight concrete are
made free from fibers as the OPS waste is full of fibers. After cleaning of OPS
aggregates they are dried in room temperature for 6-8 hours. After the aggregates are
dried they can be used as replacement of coarse aggregate in making concrete.

Grading of OPS aggregate

Grading of aggregate is an important physical property. As the aggregate percentage

in concrete is about 70 grading of aggregates plays an important role.

The oil palm shells (palm kernel shells) are collected from the palm oil
industries. They are cleaned and dried. The OPS aggregates used for making of
lightweight concrete as a replacement of coarse aggregate for conventional aggregate
is subjected to sieve analysis. Sieve analysis is carried out according to ASTM C136
(Test method for sieve analysis of fine and coarse aggregates). Sieve analysis carried
out for the OPS sample of 25 kg. The sieve sizes of 13.2 mm, 11.2 mm, 10 mm, 8
mm, 4.75 mm and 2.36 mm were used for gradation of OPS coarse aggregate. Sieve
size and pass percentage of OPS are listed in Table 3.1. OPS aggregates passed
through 10 mm sieve size and retained on 8 mm sieve size are used to make the
lightweight concrete. River sand is used as fine aggregate as per standards for making
OPS lightweight concrete.

30
 Table 3.1 Sieve size and pass percentage of oil palm shells

S.No Sieve size Pass percentage

1 13.2 100
2 11.2 94.4

3 10 82.6

4 8 57

5 4.75 16.8
6 2.36 0

Fig. 3.2 Sieve sizes and OPS of 10 mm size

Fig 3.2 shows the sieve sizes and OPS aggregates of size 10 mm. Aggregates retained
on 10 and 8 mm sieves are used to prepare the lightweight concrete. Using of
combined 10 and 8 mm aggregates help in gaining strength of concrete.

Specific gravity and water absorption of OPS coarse aggregate

Specific gravity and water absorption are important physical parameters to know the
density and water absorption percentage of OPS aggregates.

The specific gravity of OPS aggregate is tested according to standards as

shown in Table 3.2. The specific gravity of OPS is tested by taking a sample of 1 kg.
Empty vessel with a lid is taken to measure the specific gravity of the sample.

31
 A=Weight of the oven-dry sample.
B=Weight of the saturated surface dry sample.
C=Weight of the vessel containing only sample.

Table 3.2 Specific gravity of oil palm shells

OPS Weight of oven- Weight of Weight of

Aggregate dry sample (g) saturated surface sample+ vessel
(A) dry sample (g) (g)
(B) (C)
Sample 1 377 812 1322
Sample 2 377 816 1325
Average 377 814 1323.5

A
Specific gravity of OPS aggregate = (3.1)
(B)−(C−B)

377
= = 1.238
(814)−(1323.5−814)

The specific gravity of oil palm shells is calculated using the formula (3.1) and
the value is 1.238. Malaysian oil palm shell has specific gravity of 1.37 and the
specific gravity of the OPS never crossed more than 2.0 as reported by Alengaram et
al., (2014). A low specific gravity of 1.14 was noticed by Shafigh et al., (2011).
Conventional aggregate has a specific gravity of 2.61 and this value does not vary by
place to place as reported by Pascal et al., (2014).

For water absorption test, oil palm shell samples of 100 g is taken for testing
as shown in Fig. 3.3, and calculated using the formula 3.2. The sample taken is kept in
water for 24 hours according to ASTM C 127. The sample is taken out and wiped with
a dry cloth considered as surface dry aggregate. The sample is kept in over for 24
hours and weight of the sample is taken as weight of oven dry sample.

C= Weight of saturated surface dry aggregate reading.

D= Weight of the oven dry sample.

C−D
Water absorption of OPS aggregate = X100 (3.2)
𝐷

32
 Fig. 3.3 Water absorption before and after the test.

Table 3.3 Water absorption in oil palm shells

S.No Determination Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3

1 Weight of saturated 131 132 127
surface dried sample ing
(C)
2 Weight of oven-dried 105 104 102
sample in g (D)
3 Water absorption = 24.7% 25.7% 24.5%
𝐶−𝐷 X100%
𝐷
Average water 24.9
absorption rate (%) =

Water absorption rate in convention aggregate is 4 to 5% whereas in oil palm

shell lightweight aggregate used in this research it is 24.9%. As oil palm shell internal
structure contains many pores and these pores allow more absorption of water,
whereas in conventional aggregate internal pores are limited and it absorbs 4 to 5% of
water. 24 hours of water absorption of Malaysian OPS is about 23.30% as reported by
Shafigh et al. (2011).

3.2.3. Elongation index and flakiness index of OPS aggregate.

Testing of OPS aggregate is carried out to determine the flakiness index and
elongation index. This testing helps to determine the surface texture and thickness of
the aggregate. By the estimation of elongation and flakiness of OPS aggregate, the
concrete mix design can be carried out. A sample of 500 grams is taken to estimate
the flakiness index and elongation index. The sample taken are passed through a metal

33
thickness gauge of sieve size 16mm, 12.5mm, 10mm, 6.3mm and 4.75mm to examine
the flakiness index and elongation index. The elongation and flakiness index test
equipment’s are shown in Fig. 3.4 and Fig. 3.5. Table 3.4 shows the weight of passing
and retained sample of OPS aggregate on IS sieves.

Fig. 3.4 Elongation index test equipment for OPS aggregate

Fig. 3.5 Flakiness index test equipment for OPS aggregate

34
 Table 3.4.Sieve analysis for flakiness index and elongation index

Passing Retained Aggregate Weight of Total Weight of

sieve sieve size sample for Flaky aggregate Elongated
size (mm) Flakiness particles sample aggregates passed
(mm) index (g) passed (g) (g)
16 12.5 0 0 0 0
12.5 10 12 4 25 5.18
10 6.3 78 42 45 13.68
6.3 4.75 185 75 190 52.18
4.75 2.36 378 175 555 112.4
Total weight (gm) 653 296 815 183.44
=

Flakiness index % for OPS aggregate = 296 X100 = 45.3%

653

183.44
Elongation index %= X100 = 22.5%
815

Table 3.4 shows flakiness index for OPS aggregate as 45.3% whereas
elongation index is 22.5%. Mannan et al. (2001) used OPS having flakiness index of
54.2% and elongation index of 12.36% still they can achieve compressive strength of
24 MPa. Crushing of OPS aggregates in to small sizes can improve the bond in
concrete as reported by Mannan et al. (2001). Conventional aggregate has flakiness
index of 24.94%.OPS used in this research has maximum thickness of 3mm and
maximum OPS size of 12mm. As reported by Mannan et al. (2001) OPS has thickness
ranging up to 8mm to 14mm and this is the reason for less flakiness index in OPS
aggregates used in this study.

Aggregate impact value for OPS aggregates

Aggregate impact value (AIV) gives toughness or impact value of aggregate. AIV for
aggregates are tested according to standards IS 2386 part IV (2004). OPS aggregates
and conventional aggregates are considered for testing of AIV with 10 mm aggregate
size. The apparatus required to conduct the test is impact testing machine. The impact

35
testing machine consists of measuring cup which should be filled with samples and
should be fixed firmly at the bottom of the testing machine as shown in Fig.3.6.The
falling weight is 14 kg and the falling distance is 300 mm height. The sample is taken
out from measuring cup and passed through 2.36 mm sieve and is weighed. The
aggregate impact value is computed. The samples of conventional aggregate and OPS
aggregates are considered for the test and AIV is found as reported in Table 3.5. Test
results show that the percentage impact values are in the range of values as per (IS:
2386 part IV 2004).

Table 3.5 Aggregate impact value of conventional and OPS aggregates

Conventional aggregate OPS aggregate

Total weight of sample = 420 g Total weight of sample = 118g

Weight of sample passing 2.36mm Weight of sample passing 2.36 mm

sieve =75g sieve = 35 g
Aggregate impact value = 17.85 % Aggregate impact value = 29.6 %

Table 3.5 shows the aggregate impact value of conventional and OPS
aggregates. The weight of sample taken to conduct the impact value test for
conventional aggregate is 420 g. After the test procedure weight of sample passing
through sieve size of 2.36 mm is 75 g. In case of OPS aggregate, sample taken for
conducting the test is 118 g weight. The weight of sample passing through 2.36 mm
sieve is 35 g. OPS aggregate impact value is 29.6 % which is higher than the
conventional AIV. The higher impact value of OPS aggregate can decrease the
strength of the concrete. However higher compressive strength is noticed with the
higher impact value as reported by Shafigh et al. (2011).

36
 Fig. 3.6Aggregate impact value test setup

Porosity of OPS aggregate

Porosity of OPS aggregate is an important parameter for producing concrete. When

compared to other biomass materials OPS are very dense. As OPS is high in lignin
percentage and residual oleic acid presence results in large heating value. Porosity of
the OPS influences the thermal behaviour of lightweight concrete. Concrete with high
porosity gives low thermal conductivity. Due to the air voids in the OPS aggregate the
transport of thermal conductivity reduces in OPS lightweight concrete. Porosity of
OPS aggregate is carried out using standard code IS 1124 (Method of test for porosity,
water absorption and specific gravity). A sample of 100 g is taken for testing of
porosity in OPS aggregate. The sample taken is dried in oven for 24 hours at 100 to
110 °C and weight of the sample is taken as oven dry sample (A). Sample is immersed
in water for 24 hours and weight of surface dry sample is taken as (B). Sample is
taken in 1000 ml measuring cylinder. Distilled water is poured in cylinder up to the
1000 ml mark the weight is taken as (C).

37
Porosity of the OPS aggregate is expressed in percentage by using the expression
B−A
Porosity = X100 (3.3)
1000−𝐶

Where A = weight of oven dry sample in g

B= weight of surface-dry sample in g

C= quantity of water added in 1000 ml jar in g

Table 3.6. Porosity of OPS aggregate

OPS A= Weight of B= Weight of C= quantity of water

Aggregate oven-dry saturated surface added in 1000 ml jar in
sample (g) dry sample (g) (g)

Sample 1 105 131 905

Sample 2 104 127 910
Sample 3 102 132 907
Average 103.3 130 907.3

B−A
Porosity = X100
1000−𝐶

130−103.3
= X100 = 28.8%
1000−907.3

Porosity of OPS aggregate is 28.8%. Edmund et al. 2014 reported that oil palm
shell has porosity of 28%. High porosity of OPS is due to the macro pores in the OPS
aggregate.

Comparison of physical properties of OPS aggregates with

conventional aggregates.

Different physical properties are reported by different researchers on OPS aggregate

and conventional aggregates. These parameters are compared with OPS aggregates
used in this research study and are listed in Table 3.7.

38
 Table 3.7.Comparisons of physical properties of Malaysian OPS and conventional aggregate.

Properties Oil Palm Shell Conventional aggregate

(Malaysia) (Alengaram et al.,
(Aslam et al., 2016), 2013), (Shafigh et al.,
(Sha et al., 2014), 2011),
(Jumaat et al., 2015) (Yew et al., 2014)
Maximum grain 13 40
size (mm)
Thickness (mm) 0.3-8 -

Bulk density 590 1470-1580

(kg/m3)
Specific gravity 1.37 2.61
(SSD)
24-h Water 23 2-4
absorption (%)
Aggregate 29.5 17.8
impact value
(%)
Flakiness index 65.17 24.39
(%)
Elongation 12.36 33.38
index (%)
Porosity (%) 28% 16%

39
 Design of lightweight concrete mix.

Method for mix design using for OPS lightweight concrete is taken from the previous
studies. W/c ratios, cement content and size of aggregate combinations are considered
from previous studies reported. Many mix designs are coming into existence for oil
palm shell lightweight concrete as it is typical to design the lightweight concrete.
Researchers selected their own way of mix designs for producing lightweight concrete
to obtain maximum strength. Mannan el al. (1999) started the use 100% of OPS as
coarse aggregate to produce lightweight concrete. Mannan proposed to use 480 kg/m3
of cement in OPS lightweight concrete to produce compressive strength of 25 MPa
(Mannan et al. 1999). In his research, they used 10% and 15% fly ash as a
replacement of cement content. He used w/c ratio of 0.41. As a result, the obtained
compressive strength is 25% less than the expected compressive strength.

Mannan et al. (2002) used 6 mix proportions in which one of them is 1:1.85:1
(cement: sand: OPS) with a cement content of 400 kg/m3. He used a different mix
proportion with maximum cement content 420 kg/m3, maximum w/B ratio of 0.48 to
produce compressive strength of 30 MPa. The resulted compressive strength is only
22 MPa.

The motivation for choosing the above parameters is as follows:

1. As oil palm shells are porous material it consumes more water than the
conventional concrete. So higher water/cement ratios can be noticed in oil palm
shells lightweight concrete.
2. Cement content used in producing the oil palm shells lightweight concrete is more
when compared to conventional concrete.

The objective of considering these parameters is to produce lightweight concrete and

to compare the results with conventional concrete.

Mix design is carried out according to the following steps as suggested by Chandra
and Berntsson.

1. Determine the compressive strength of lightweight concrete

m> fck+ 入S (3.4)

40
Where ‘m’ is the mean strength.
fck is the characteristic strength of the concrete in MPa.
入is number of samples.
S is the standard deviation.

2. Volume of lightweight aggregates should be in the ratio 2:1 (cement: aggregate)

B = 1000Vcp/(0.31 +W/B) (3.5)

3. Water / cement ratio should be more than the conventional concrete water cement ratio.

W/B = log(140/fm)/0.87 (3.6)

Where fm is strength of mortar.

4. Volume of fine aggregate should be according to the equation

VS = 1 − (Vcp + Vla + Vair) (3.7)

Where Vcp is the volume of the cement paste (m3), Vla is volume of
lightweight aggregate and Vair is the volume of air which is assumed to be 2% of the
total concrete volume.

5. Determination of water absorption by the lightweight aggregate particles is

25%

Design mix with nominal cement content.

Two types of concretes, lightweight concrete and conventional concretes are

investigated with different mix proportions for comparisons of compressive strength.
Conventional concrete is designated as normal weight concrete (NWC) whereas oil
palm shell lightweight concrete is named as (LWC) in this trail mix. 3 No’s for each
samples are prepared and cast in cube moulds of size 150X150X150 mm and
cylindrical moulds of size 100X200 mm are prepared to compare for compressive
strengths and split tensile strength of concretes as shown in Fig 3.8.

Oil palm shells consume more water as compared to conventional aggregate.

OPS are soaked in water for 24 hours before the preparation of lightweight concrete.
Soaked oil palm shells are wiped with dry cloth after 24 hours and then used as coarse

41
aggregate in lightweight concrete in surface dry conditions. The samples are mixed in
a rectangular pan by placing the aggregates first and secondly sand and third cement.
These constituent elements are mixed thoroughly and finally calculated quantity of
water is used to mix the concrete. The prepared concrete is transferred to respective
moulds for examination and kept in room temperature of 29 to 30 °C for 24 hours.
Samples prepared are demoulded after 24 hours and cured for 28 days in water. After
28 days of curing the samples are taken out from the water and are prepared for
testing. Samples are tested with compressive testing machine with 2000 kN capacity
and readings are taken for analysis of compressive strength as shown in Fig 3.9. Table
3.8 shows the mix design details of lightweight concrete and normal weight concrete.

Table 3.8. Mix design details for lightweight concrete and normal weight concrete.

Coarse
Cement Water w/c Sand aggregate Slump Density
Mix
(kg) (liter) (ratio) (kg) OPS Grave (mm) (kg/m3)
(kg) l (kg)
NWC 380 152 0.4 750 - 1080 60 2362
LWC 480 192 0.4 715 382 - 95 1769

Variation in cement content for LWC and NWC can be noticed in the table
3.6. Same water/cement ratio is used for making LWC and NWC. Increase in cement
content in LWC is due to the concave shape of the OPS which required more quantity
of paste phase to fill the gaps in the concrete. So the cement quantity is more when
compared to conventional concrete. Slump value of LWC is 95 mm whereas in NWC
it is 60 mm. Variations in slump value is due to the higher water absorption of OPS
and low density of OPS aggregate make the concrete not to settle down even after few
minutes when compared to NWC. Density of lightweight concrete is 25.11% less
when compared to conventional concrete. Compressive strength to the age of curing
between NWC and LWC is shown in Fig.3.7.

42
 30

Compressive strength (MPa)

25

20

15
NWC
10 LWC

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Age (days)

Fig. 3.7 Compressive strength of LWC and NWC

Compressive strength for 28 days of LWC is 15 MPa and NWC is 26.1 MPa.
The reduction in compressive strength in LWC is due to the higher water absorption
rate in OPS aggregate and higher flakiness index. Due to higher water absorption rate
the estimated water/cement ratio in LWC is not sufficient to mix the cement in
concrete matrix which resulted in less compressive strength than the NWC. Due to the
flaky particles of the OPS aggregate and the concave shape of OPS aggregates
consumption of cement in concrete matrix is higher than the conventional concrete.
This is the reason for increase in the quantity of cement in LWC. In order to reduce
the cement content the mix design is modified to include other binders.

Fig. 3.8 Concrete constituent elements mix in pan and casting of cubes.

43
 Fig. 3.9 Compressive strength testing for LWC and NWC samples.

3.3.2. Design mix with modified cement content.

Addition of admixtures like silica fume, fly ash, GGBS can improve the compressive
strength of lightweight concrete as reported by Alengaram et al. (2010). In the
modified design mix, silica fume and GGBS are used to produce the oil palm shell
lightweight concrete.

Cement content is initially taken as 500 kg/m3 for LWC. The increase in
binder content is due to the insufficient cement matrix in previous design mix. LWC
SF 20 represents the lightweight concrete with silica fume of 20% and cement content
of 80%. LWC GGBS 20 represents lightweight concrete with GGBS of 20% and
cement content of 80%. In LWC SF 20 and LWC GGBS 20 cement content is 400
kg/m3 and remaining 100 kg/m3 will are SF or GGBS as shown in Table 3.9, w/b ratio
is taken as 0.4 for all the cases.

Table 3.9 Quantity of constituent materials as per mix design

Cement Water Sand Coarse Slump Density

Mix
(kg) (liter) (kg) aggregate (mm) (kg/m3)
(kg)
LWC 500 200 690 390 95 1750
LWC SF Cement SF
200 690 90 1750
25 400 100 390
LWC Cement GGBS
200 690 90 1750
GGBS 25 400 100 390

44
 25

Compressive strength (MPa)

20

15
LWC
10 LWC SF 20
LWC GGBS 20
5

0
7 14 28 56
Curing age (days)

Fig. 3.10. Compressive strength variations for LWC mix designs.

Increase in binder content in LWC shows an increase in compressive strength

to 22 MPa as shown in Fig. 3.10. To reduce the cement content SF and GGBS are
used as a replacement of cement to improve the compressive strength of concrete but
couldn’t reach the compressive strength as NWC as in mix design 1. In design mix 1
compressive strength of LWC is 15.6 MPa, in the design mix 2 the maximum
compressive strength attained is 22 MPa this is due to the increase in binder content.
Addition of silica fume and GGBS binder content had improved the mechanical
properties of LWC but could not achieve similar compressive strength as NWC.

Use of different constituent materials and increase in binder constituents does

not achieve the expected compressive strength. Hence it is proposed to study the
chemical and microstructural properties of OPS aggregate.

Chemical composition of OPS aggregate.

X-Ray Diffraction (XRD) analysis of OPS aggregate is carried out to know the
mineralogical characteristics. XRD analysis is carried out with an interval 2 θ
between 10°-90° with the count of 0-600; strip K-alpha with Rechinger
testing method. Fig.
3.11 shows the XRD analysis peaks of OPS aggregate. OPS aggregate having
peaks at 13.2, 18.6, 22.8 and 37.3 which represent calcium, aluminium, silica
and magnesium. Whereas the chemical composition of conventional aggregate
is taken from the previous research studies (Vargas et al., 2017), as the
45
conventional aggregate is well- known material from so many decades.
Chemical composition percentages are taken from the standard software and
crosschecked with manual calculations and listed in Table 3.10

Fig. 3.11 XRD peaks with 2-Theta position for OPS aggregate.

Table 3.10. Chemical composition of OPS aggregate and conventional aggregate in

percentage.

Chemical Conventional
composition Aggregate
(Vargas et al., 2017)
SiO2 58.43
Al2O3 13.46
Fe2O3 8.33
MgO 6.00
CaO 7.17
Na2O 1.89
SO3 0.09
 CHAPTER – 4

DURABILITY PROPERTIES OF OPS CONCRETE

Alkali-silicate reaction in concrete.

Effect of Alkali-silicate reaction (ASR) in new materials needs to be studied in detail.

Even in conventional concrete effect of ASR can be observed when there is reactive
silica available in concrete. ASR causes cracking of concrete due to thermal stresses
developed by the concrete. Due to presence of hydroxyl ions in concrete pore solution
pressure develops and increase in pH value causes concrete expansion and leads to
cracking. Alkali- aggregate reaction caused is reactive silica in aggregate which is a
subset of causing ASR. Aggregates used in making of concrete should be free from
active silica, and should not react with the pore solution in concrete.

OPS used making concrete should be examined to find out availability of

reactive silica to react with pore solution in concrete to form ASR. ASR is identified
with the petrographic examination of aggregate as per ASTM C295. For examining of
ASR, motor bars or prism bars are made according to ASTM C1260. These are stored
in natural environment for a period of 16 days to 90days accordingly and examined
for regular intervals for ASR in concrete. For ASR to occur there should be high
alkali content in the concrete pore solution, and the aggregates used in concrete
should be reactive and availability of water in concrete should be more.

In order to find the ASR in concrete two types of sample preparation is made. For
motor bars 200*10*10 mm bars are made and for prism bars 100*100*500 mm bars
are made. As the concrete is lightweight and had density of 1800 kg/m3 the aggregate
to cement ratio is 0.8:1 and the water cement ratio is maintained to 0.4. In accelerated
mortar bar test the sample is demoulded after 24 hours and immersed in water for 24
hours and the length of the mortar bar is measured by the digital vernier calipers which
has a range of 0-15 cm and least Count of 0.01mm and the strain is measured by the
mortar bar test equipment. The prism bar specimens are immersed in sodium
hydroxide solution for 7days and later again examine for the expansion of prism bars.
The average expansion of samples readings are given in Table 4.1. Test samples and
test equipment’s are shown in Fig. 4.1.
 Fig. 4.1. Mortar bar mould with test equipment and concrete prism.

Prepared samples are immersed in 0.1 N of NaOH solutions. ASR reaction in

the two types of concretes is between silicious constituents in the concrete. The
available silica in the pore solution of concrete and the reactive silica in the
aggregates lead to ASR. During the hydration process potassium hydroxide and
alkali-sodium were released and affects the constituents of the concrete which help in
development of ASR in concrete as shown in Fig. 4.2. The pore solution reacts with
hydroxyl ions in the concrete and the concrete tends to expand. The expanded
concrete is measured with the mortar bar equipment as per IS: 2386 (Part VII).

Fig. 4.2 shows the schematic representation of alkali silicate reaction in

concrete. OPS aggregate containing silica reacts with mature alkali silicate from
cement matrix. The excess of silica from OPS aggregate forms as immature silica.
This reacts with alkali silica from cement matrix and form immature alkali silica. This
immature alkali silica penetrated in to the aggregate and aggregate tends to expand
leads to crack in aggregate.

The excess of expantion in concrete leads to crack. The pore solution or cementious
gel effects due to the following condtions.

• Quantity of reactive silica present in the aggreagte.

• Free water availability to allow external sources to enter the concrete
• Prsence of hydroxyl ions, sodium and potassium in the pore solution in the concrete.
 Fig. 4.2 Schematic representation of alkali silicate gel penetration in aggregate

The test results in Fig 4.3 reveals the expaniton of mortor and concrete test
specimens are in the permissible limit. The expation of mortar bar is 0.038 % for
16days and 0.039 % for 90days where as expantion in concrete prism specimen is
0.041 % for 16 days and 0.0425 % for 90 days. ASR expansion in motar bars with
0.2% are highly reactive as based on ASTM C1260. As reported by Asrah et al.
(2018) ASR expansion is 0.023% and 0.074% when OPS are replaced by 40 % and
60%. This shows the OPS lightweight concrete shows less reactive than the
conventional concrete in their mortar bar and prism bar tests. So OPS can be used as
coarse aggreagte and fine aggreagte for making of lightweight concrete and these can
be used as alternate coarse aggreagte in conventional concrete.
 Table 4.1 Strain guage readings for ASR in Mortor bar and Prism bar test.

Sample Aggreagte Expantion after Expantion after

16 days (mm) 90days (mm)
X1 OPS Coarse 0.041 0.0425
X2 OPS coarse 0.045 0.0455
X3 OPS coarse 0.042 0.0422
Y1 OPS fine 0.038 0.039
Y2 OPS fine 0.036 0.037
Y3 OPS fine 0.036 0.0365

Prism bar expantion

0.25

0.2

0.15
ASR (%)

0.1

0.05

0
Conventional OPS ASTM limit

Fig. 4.3 Prism bar expansion at 16 days in NaOH solution as per ASTM C1260.

Sulphate resistance for OPS concrete

Sulphate resistance is an important durability property. According to ASTM C1012

sulphate resistance of OPS concrete is carried out. A sample of 150X150 X150 mm is
cast to examine the sulphate resistance of concrete. The samples cast are immersed in
solution of 5% MgSO4 for 28 days and 56 days. The samples castare dried and tested
for compressive strength. Comparison of compressive strength of OPS concrete before
and after immersion in MgSO4 solution is noticed. Reduction in compressive strength
of OPS concrete is calculated using equation 4.1.
Strength reduciton %= [(a-b)/a] X 100% (4.1)

Where “a” is average compressive strength of OPS concrete immersed in distilled

water and “b” is average compressive strength of OPS concrete immersed in MgSO4
solution.

Table 4.2Compressive strength of OPS concrete immersed in sulphate solution and immersed in
distilled water.

Compressive strength of OPS Compressive strength of OPS

concrete in distilled water (MPa) concrete in sulphate solution (MPa)
28 days 56 days 28 days 56 days

28.5 28.9 28.3 28.5

27.9 28.2 27.9 28.1

28.2 28.3 28.1 28

Variaiton in compressive strength of TOPS concrete immersed in sulphate

solution and distilled water is listed in Table 4.2. 28 days compressive strength of
TOPS concrete immersed in disstled water is 28.5 MPa, where as similar compressive
strenght is noticed in OPS concrete immersed in sulpate solution. Fig. 4.4 shows the
sulphate attach in OPS concrete. Immersion of OPS concrete in sulpate solution for 56
days does not show any detoriation in concrete. This indicates OPS concrete is free
from sulphate attack and this can be used as structural concrete.
 Fig. 4.4. Sulphate attack in OPS concrete.

Permeability of OPS concrete

Permeability of concrete is an important durability parameter to consider. This helps

to know the rate of flow in the speciment when the liquid is passed through the porous
medium. Specimens of 150X150X150 mm is prepared for testing. Test setup for
permeability is shown in Fig 4.5. Test setup consists of three water level chambers. At
the bottom of the water level chambers there is a water regulator to open and close the
water flow. Water penetration cell is shown at the bottom of the chamber where the
specimens are kept for testing. This water penetration cell is connected with water
pipe from water regulator. Presure regulator is present on the top of the water
chambers. This pressure regulator helps to maintain the pressure flow of liquid from
water level chamber to the water penetration cell. Water pressure of 5 kg/cm2 is
maintained thorough out the test. Test is continued for 18 h and the specimens are
removed from the test setup. Immediately the specimens are removed from the test,
the concrete specimens are split in to two with the help of UTM testing machine. The
depth of water penetration is mesured using the vernier scale. Discharge of water is
determined as Q (m3/s), head of the water as H (m) and co-efficient of permeability K
(m/sec). Using Darcy’s law the co-efficient of permeablity is determined by the
equation 4.2.
 QL
Ks= (4.2)
AH

Where Ks – coefficent of permeability (m/s)

Q - volume of flow rate (m3/s)

A - Cross-sectional area (m2)

L – specimen thickness (m)

Fig. 4.5.Permeability of concrete by pressure setup

 Table 4.3 Coefficent of permeability for TOPS lightweight concrete.

Sample Discharge Time T (hr) Head of water Co-efficent of

Q (m3/s) H (m) permeability,
K (m/sec) X 10-
12

LWC 1 10 18 65.21 15
LWC 2 11 18 71.6 14.4
LWC 3 11 18 72.1 14.2

Table 4.3 shows the co-efficient of permeability of OPS lightweight concrete.

The co-efficent of permeablility of OPS concrete is 14.5X10-12 m/s. Permeability of
OPS concrete is ranging from 8-20X10-12 m/s as reported by Mannan et al. 2006. This
shows the TOPS lightweight concrete is less permeable than the conventional
concrete promising higher durability. Use of OPS as coarse aggregate in concrete
reduces the permeablility in concrete.
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSIONS

This present report involves an experimental investigation on OPS aggregate as

possible replacement in concrete with the aim to find the suitability for structural
application and have lower density of concrete. The initial study revealed that the
OPS has higher water absorption rate, lower impact strength, lower content of
aluminium oxide and larger pore size. Concrete made with OPS aggregate shows
lower compressive strength, higher cement content, higher ITZ thickness and bond
break between aggregate to matrix phase when compared to normal concrete. In order
to improve these properties OPS aggregate is treated with organosiline compound to
improve the physical, mechanical and microstructural properties. The conclusions
regarding detailed experimental study on structural lightweight concrete made with
NTOPS and TOPS aggregates are summarised as follows.

Physical properties of TOPS aggregate.

1. The water absorption rate of Treated OPS (TOPS) reduced from 25% to
8%, which lowers the water absorption rate by three times. This has an influence on
water cement ratio of concrete and hence improves workability.
2. Aggregate impact value for TOPS is reduced from 29.6 % to 21.1% after
treatment. This is in the range of strong impact value classification, which is
absolutely fine to use as a replacement of coarse aggregate in concrete.
3. From XRD peaks, TOPS shows improved percentage of aluminium oxide
from 8.6% to 27.5%. This is due to minimal segregation of silicon and aluminium
compounds after treatment of OPS with organosiline compound admixture. This
improves the strength property of OPS aggregate.
Mechanical and microstructural properties of TOPS aggregate.

4. TOPS concrete yields a compressive strength of 27.5 MPa as that of

conventional concrete. This shows that TOPS concrete falls in structural property
range and these can be used as structural concrete.
5. The Tops concrete produced had higher cement content and that was due to
the concave shape of the OPS aggregate which consumes more quantity of cement
matrix to fill the gaps. In order to reduce the cement content addition of SF and
GGBS were used to match the binder requirement for making TOPS concrete.
6. The slump value in TOPS concrete increased from 65 to 90 mm. This is
due to treatment of OPS aggregate with organosiline compound admixture. The
water cement ratio is brought down from 0.5 to 0.4 resulting in improved
workability and higher strength attainment.

7. Microstructural investigation reveals that NTOPS concrete shows bond

break between the cement matrix and the OPS aggregates due to insufficient water
content, whereas in TOPS concrete no traces of bond break is observed due to the
lower water/cement ratios. This resulted in an increase of compressive strength
from 15.6 MPa to 27.5 MPa.
8. It is observed that the water content influences the ITZ thickness of the
concrete. In TOPS concrete and conventional concrete water content is lower,
which helps the fine grains move close to the aggregate phase. This fine grains
bonds the cement phase and aggregate phase tightly which resulted in higher
mechanical properties.
9. In NTOPS lightweight concrete fine grains move away and the liquid phase
comes in between coarse aggregate phase and cement phase as seen in the digital
image processing microscope.

Durability properties for TOPS concrete

10. Alkali silicate reaction for TOPS aggregate concrete is lower than that of
conventional concrete. This is due the lower percentage of reactive silica available
in OPS aggregate. So TOPS aggregates can be used as replacements of coarse
aggregate in concrete which is more durable than the conventional concrete.
 11. Immersion of TOPS concrete in sulpate solution for 56 days does not show
any detoriation in concrete and attined compressive strength of 28 MPa. This indicates
that TOPS concrete is free from sulphate attack and this can be used as structural
concrete.
12. The permeability of TOPS concrete is 14 to 15 X 10-12 m/sec, where as in
conventional concrete it is 18 to 25 X 10-12 m/sec. This shows that TOPS concrete is
less permeable than the conventional concrete. This improves the durability property
of TOPS concrete.

Hence it is concluded that usage of TOPS in structural lightweight concrete shows

similar mechanical and microstructural properties that of conventional concrete. The
durability property also improved. Thus the research study confirms the use of TOPS
aggregate as replacement of conventional aggregate to make concrete for structural
application. In addition the density of TOPS concrete is lower by 25 % than that of
conventional concrete which will result in reduced dead load and consequently reduced
use of reinforcing steel.
 REFERENCES

1. Uemura, Y., Omar, W.N., Tsutsui, T., Yusup, S.B and Basiron, Y. (2012). Oil palm
biomass as a sustainable energy source", A Malaysian case study. Biomass and Bio
energy, 3, 97–103.
2. Vargas, P., Restrepo-Baena, O., and Tobón, J. I. (2017). Microstructural analysis of
interfacial transition zone (ITZ) and its impact on the compressive strength of
lightweight concretes. Construction and Building Materials, 137, 381–389.
3. Yew, M. K., Mahmud, H. Bin, Ang, B. C., and Yew, M. C. (2014). Effects of Oil
Palm Shell Coarse Aggregate Species on High Strength Lightweight Concrete. The
scientific world journal, 2014, 1-12.

4. Zhang, Binyu and Chi Sun Poon. (2018) 'Sound Insulation Properties of Rubberized
Lightweight Aggregate Concrete,' Journal of Cleaner Production', 172, 176–85.

5. Zhang, Hongru, Yuxi Zhao, Tao Meng, and Surendra P. Shah. (2016) 'Surface
Treatment on Recycled Coarse Aggregates with Nanomaterials,' Journal of
Materials in Civil Engineering', 28(2), 04015094-1-11.
6. Zulkarnain, F., Sulieman, M. Z., and Serri, E. (2014). The Effect of Mix Design on
Mechanical and Thermal Properties Oil Palm Shell ( OPS ) Lightweight Concrete.
Journal of civil engineering research, 4 (3A), 203–207.

7. Teo, D.C.L., Mannan, M.A and Kurian, J.V. (2006). Structural Concrete Using Oil
Palm Shell ( OPS ) as Lightweight: Structural bond and durability properties.
Building and Environment, 30, 251–257.

8. Teo, D.C.L., Mannan, M.A., Kurian, J.V and Ganapathy, C. (2007). Lightweight
concrete made from oil palm shell ( OPS ) : Structural bond and durability
properties. Building and Environment, 42,2614–2621.