International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-022-04380-9

ORIGINAL PAPER

Feasibility study on application of ready mix concrete in construction

projects in Nepal
A. K. Mishra1 · J. S. Sudarsan2 · S. Nithiyanantham3 

Received: 16 September 2020 / Revised: 5 July 2021 / Accepted: 27 June 2022

© The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Iranian Society of Environmentalists (IRSEN) and Science and Research Branch, Islamic Azad University 2022

Abstract
Ready mix concrete (RMC) is a new concreting concept in the Nepali construction industry introduced before one decade.
The paper aims to assess the acceptance of ready mix for residential buildings of Nepal. The relation was developed for
average compressive strength with slump value and water cement ratio based on laboratory test nominal mix M20 (1:1.5:3)
and M25 (1:1:2) along with questionnaire survey. The result also shows that the compressive strength of RMC is higher in
comparison with the SMC (site mix concrete). During questionnaire, more than 60% of users prefer the RMC over SMC.
The merit and demerit of construction projects using RMC and SMC are discussed and interpreted.

Keywords  Strength · Ready mix · Ordinary concrete · Cost variations · Acceptance · Green marketing

Introduction The process of preparing the mix is called ordinary con‑

Concrete is most widely used as construction material in
place of brick work or reinforced brick. It is used in the
construction of heavy structures like dams, reservoirs, mul‑
tistory buildings, bridges, flyovers, and runways, etc. Con‑
crete can be used in foundations, superstructures, partitions,
slabs, etc. (Shetty 2000; Dua 2013). Ordinary concrete is
a homogeneous combination of cement, sand, and stone
chips that is cast using sufficient water. All of the raw ele‑
ments for concrete, such as cement, sand, and stone chips,
are measured out and placed in the proper proportions in a
plain sheet or brick soling, where they are mixed by hand
first in a dry state, and then enough water is added to form
an usable concrete.
Editorial responsibility: Samareh Mirkia.
* S. Nithiyanantham
s_nithu59@rediffmail.com
1
Madan Bhandari Memorial Academy Nepal and Pokhara
University, Urlabari‑3, Morang, Nepal
2
National Institute of Construction Management and Research
(NICMAR), 25/1, Balewadi, Pune 411045, India
3
Post Graduate and Research Department of Physics
(Ultrasonic/NDT and Bio‑Physics Divisions),
Thiru. Vi. Kalyanasundaram Govt. Arts and Science College,
Bharadhidasan University (Thiruchirapalli), Tamil Nadu,
Thiruvarur 610003, India
crete mix (Rao 2013). But in case of normal concrete it
is mixed in the site of work. This type of concrete is also
known as in situ concrete mix. Preparation of concrete is a
controlled process, and different grades of concrete can be
prepared as per requirement or site conditions (Hager et al.
2020; Abousnina et al. 2020). In the construction practices
in Nepal, both the readymade and ordinary concretes are
used (Matarul et al. 2016; Mishra and Umesh, 2018). In
this regard, ready mix concrete is produced in controlled
way in factory and ordinary concrete is produced in situ by
local practice and hand mix. This study is for the comparison
between these concrete (Shah et al. 2014).
The goal of the study is to undertake a limited inves‑
tigation, focusing on samples obtained from the field four
construction sites of Kathmandu Valley, in order to conduct
the proposed work in selected construction site. The aim
of the study is to assess the acceptance of readymade con‑
crete effectiveness, strength in response to ordinary concrete
among user for 20MPA and 25MPA grades (Shahi, 2013).
Materials and methods
Research approach
The research approach will be based on the primary and
secondary data of the slump test and compressive strength

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

test of different site of Kathmandu Valley. Both qualitative
and quantitative approaches of research were used (Yadav
et al. 2017).
Study area
The secondary data were collected from different construction
site for the Kathmandu Valley (Fig. 1). The primary data analysis
is from: (a) Construction of Auditor General Building supreme
audit institution of Nepal, (b) Construction of Nepal Army Head
Quarter Building, Bhadrakali, (c) Commercial Building for
Sushil Gupta at Kupondole, Lalitpur, and (d) Residential Build‑
ing for Bishnu Agrawal at Sanepa, Lalitpur (RMC, 2010).
Conceptual frame work
Conceptual frame work of the study is shown in Fig. 2.
Study population
In this study, the targeted population was the different type
of buildings of Kathmandu Valley. The total samples used in
the study are 72 numbers for compressive strength test (for
laboratory test) and 24 samples for slump test (field test). The
samples for laboratory tests include 36 samples from three
batches of M20 and M25 concrete formed by ready mix con‑
crete from the site: a) Auditor General Building supreme audit
institution of Nepal and b) Nepal Army Head Quarter Build‑
ing, Bhadrakali. The remaining 36 samples are taken by site
mix concrete of three batches of M20 and M25 concrete from
the site: a) Commercial Building for Sushil Gupta at Kupon‑
dole, Lalitpur and b) Residential Building for Bishnu Agrawal
at Sanepa, Lalitpur. The field test was carried out by slump test
Army Head quarter
Building, Bhadrakali
Commercial building
Kupandol
Residen al Building
Sanepa
Fig.1  Location map of construction site in Kathmandu Valley
13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
which includes 12 samples for RMC and 12 samples for SMC.
The samples were collected according to IS 456 2000 as Sam‑
pling and Strength of Designed Concrete Mix (IS 456, 2000).
Sample selection
The typical samples were chosen based on visual identi‑
fication of a suitable RMC and SMC, as well as a variety
of samples collected from different places. For the study,
96 samples were collected which includes: a) cube test: 36
samples for RMC, 36 samples for SMC and b) slump test: 24
samples for both RMC and SMC (IS 456, 2000).
Data collection/analysis
Field test
The slump test was carried out from (4 × 3(M20) + 4 × 3(M25)
24 numbers of concrete mix. Slump test results were achieved
in the site using test mould for slump test: non-porous base
plate, measuring scale, tamping rod (IS 456, 2000).
Questionnaire survey
The questionnaire sheet includes 23 numbers of question,
from each selected site five personnel was asked to answer
the question (Appendix).
Laboratory test
Based on the samples retrieved from the sites, laboratory
tests on the 72 samples were conducted in the Central
Auditor General
BuildingAnamnagar
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Fig.2  Location map of con‑

struction site in Kathmandu
valley

Material Testing Laboratory of Institute of Engineering,
Pulchowk. Laboratory test was performed on the data
collected from primary source. The compressive strength
tests have been performed from the samples collected.
Laboratory compressive strength value from primary data
was observed from laboratory test (Shetty 2000).
The above-mentioned tests, compressive strength from
the cube which were casted from each site of three number
of batch, i.e., (4 × 3 × 3(M20, 28 days) + 4 × 3 × 3(M25,
28 days)) 72 no of cube samples (IS 456, 2000).
c) Mixing of concrete was done by taking the required
amount of ingredient from their site.
d) Ordinary Portland cement was used from their site, and
minimum grade was 25MPA
e) Slump test (IS: 1199 – 1959).
f) Cost comparisons of RMC and SMC (Allan 2006).
Rate of SMC and RMC as per government norms and
district rate is shown in Table 1.

Data analysis Results and discussion

a) Slump test is conducted in field to find workability Strength of RMC and SMC by laboratory test
value. and results
b) Arbitrary value of mix design was taken which is already
done by contractor. The result obtain based on the ages shows that the strength
for RMC is uniform and meets nearly as design strength,
Table 1  Cost for concrete for S. No. Category Unit Rate SMC/RMC
SMC: M25 and M20
a Supply of material and cement concrete work for superstruc‑ Cu.m 18, 380.4 SMC
ture, deck slab, beam including 30 m transportation in valley
for M20
b Supply of material and cement concrete work for superstruc‑ Cu.m 22, 424.98 SMC
ture, deck slab, beam including 30 m transportation in valley
for M25
c Ready mix concrete including 3 km outside ring road for M20 Cu.m 14, 500 RMC
d Ready mix concrete including 3 km outside ring road for M25 Cu.m 15, 500 RMC

13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

whereas in SMC, the result found more variance with
respect to design concrete strength (Haq et al. 2013; Nadu‑
puru 2015). And the result shows that more W/C ratio
leads to low compressive strength and low porosity. This
may be due to the cause that the lower water/cement ratio
has stronger compression strength than the larger water/
cement ratio, according to the results (Chaudhari et al.
2014).
Table  2 shows the compressive strength test of the
samples at 28 days of casting obtained from the Auditor
General Building. The test results show that the compres‑
sive strength of the concrete of batch 3 at M20 is higher,
whereas that of the batch 1 at M25 is higher.
Table  3 shows the compressive strength test of the
samples at 28 days of casting obtained from the Army
Head Quarter. The test results show that the compres‑
sive strength of the concrete of batch 1 at M20 is higher,
whereas that of the batch 3 at M25 is higher.
Table 4 shows the compressive strength test of the sam‑
ples at 28 days of casting obtained from the commercial
building of Sushil Gupta. The test result shows that the com‑
pressive strength of the concrete of batch 3 at M20 is higher,
whereas the batch 1 at M25 is higher (Suryakanta 2015).
Table 5 shows the compressive strength test of the sam‑
ples at 28  days of casting obtained from the residential
building of Bishnu Agrawal. The test results show that the
compressive strength of the concrete of batch 3 at M20 is
higher, whereas the compressive strength test of the concrete
of batch 3 at M25 is higher.
Plot of average strength of concrete and slump
or water cement ratio
The graph of average strength of concrete of different
grade with different slump and water cement ratios (w/c) is
obtained as shown in Fig. 3. Similarly, strength of concrete
was taken for RMC and SMC/OC.
Figure 3 shows the relation established between the
average strength and slump value. In Fig. 3, the minimum
strength is found at 155 mm slump and maximum strength
at the slump value at 80 mm The best fit line equation
was Avg. Str. = − 0.007*slump + 23.58 having R2 value
­R 2 = 0.757. The graph shows the slump value 80  mm
gained the best strength result.
Figure 4 shows the relation established between the aver‑
age strength and slump value. In Fig. 4, the minimum strength

Table 2  Slump test and 1 Site: Construction of auditor general building supreme audit institution of Nepal
compressive strength test for
site 1 Code 1B1-20 1B2-20 1B3-20 1B1-25 1B2-25 1B3-25

Section Raft Raft GFSlab GF Column GFColumn FFColumn

Casting Date 11/5/2074 11/6/2074 1/5/2075 11/28/2074 11/29/2074 1/24/2075
Testing Date 12/3/2074 12/4/2074 2/2/2075 12/26/2074 12/27/2074 2/21/2075
Nominal ratio 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1:2 1:1:2 1:1:2
W/C 0.45 0.48 0.46 0.42 0.43 0.44
Slump(mm) 80 155 145 135 140 146
S1 2.19 2.19 2.06 3.07 2.85 2.41
S2 2.28 2.15 2.54 3.11 3.07 2.59
S3 2.41 2.32 2.19 3.02 2.85 2.54
Avgstrength(KN/cm2) 2.29 2.22 2.26 3.07 2.92 2.51

Table 3  Slump test and 2 Site: Construction of Nepal Army Head quarter Building Bhadrakali, Kathmandu
compressive strength test for
site 2 Code 2B1-20 2B2-20 2B3-20 2B1-25 2B2-25 2B3-25
Section 3F-Slab 3F-Slab 4F-Slab 3F-Column 4F-Column 4F-Column
Casting Date 12/8/2074 12/9/2074 2/6/2075 11/15/2074 1/27/2075 1/28/2074
Testing Date 1/6/2075 1/7/2075 3/3/2075 12/13/2074 2/24/2075 2/25/2074
Nominal ratio 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1:2 1:1:2 1:1:2
W/C 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.43 0.44 0.45
Slump(mm) 145 155 160 148 150 152
S1 2.19 2.10 1.75 2.59 2.76 2.85
S2 1.84 2.02 2.08 2.72 2.85 3.07
S3 2.15 2.02 1.97 2.80 3.02 2.85
Avg. strength(KN/cm2) 2.06 2.05 1.94 2.70 2.88 2.92

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

Table 4  Slump Test and 3 Site: Commercial building for Sushil Gupta at Gusinggal, Lalitpur
Compressive Strength Test for
site 3 Code 3B1-20 3B2-20 3B3-20 3B1-25 3B2-25 3B3-25
Section Raft GF-Slab GF-Slab Pile GF-Column GF- Column
Casting Date 12/12/2074 1/25/2075 1/26/2075 12/4/2074 12/13/2074 12/28/2074
Testing Date 1/10/2075 2/22/2075 2/23/2075 1/2/2075 1/11/2075 1/26/2075
Nominal ratio 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1:2 1:1:2 1:1:2
W/C 0.48 0.5 0.49 0.42 0.44 0.43
Slump(mm) 85 125 123 126 130 135
S1 1.97 1.88 2.19 2.23 2.72 2.54
S2 2.23 1.53 2.41 3.29 3.07 2.54
S3 1.88 2.45 2.19 3.20 2.89 2.63
Avg. strength (KN/cm2) 2.03 1.96 2.26 2.91 2.89 2.57

Table 5  Slump Test and 4 Site: Residential Building for Bishnu Agrawal at Sanepa, Lalitpur
Compressive Strength Test for
site 4 Code 4B1-20 4B2-20 4B3-20 4B1-25 4B2-25 4B3-25
Section Tie Beam Tie Beam GF-Slab Footing Footing GF- Column
Casting Date 1/22/2075 1/29/2075 3/2/2075 1/6/2075 1/7/2075 2/15/2075
Testing Date 2/19/2075 2/26/2075 3/30/2075 2/3/2075 2/4/2075 3/12/2075
Nominal ratio 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1.5:3 1:1:2 1:1:2 1:1:2
W/C 0.47 0.46 0.45 0.4 0.44 0.42
Slump(mm) 135 133 128 130 133 128
S1 2.41 2.32 2.63 2.85 2.85 3.51
S2 2.41 2.41 2.72 2.76 3.07 3.42
S3 2.19 2.50 2.85 2.89 3.11 3.29
Avg. strength (KN/cm2) 2.34 2.41 2.73 2.83 3.01 3.40

23.00 40.00
Avg. Strength (MPa)

Avg. Strength (MPa)

22.80 30.00

22.60
20.00
Avg.str. = -0.007*slump + 23.58
22.40 R² = 0.757 Avg.str. = -0.510*Slump + 99.97
10.00 R² = 0.954
22.20
0.00
130 135 140 145 150
22.00
0 50 100 150 200 Slump, mm
Slump, mm
Fig. 4  Auditor General Building Average Strength vs. Slump for
Fig. 3  Auditor General Building Average Strength vs. Slump for (a) 25 MPa
20 MPa and (b) 25 MPa
concrete (Omotola and Idowu 2011). In Fig. 5, the mini‑
is found at 146  mm slump and maximum strength at the mum strength is found at 0.48 w/c and maximum strength
slump value at 135 mm. The best fit line equation was Avg. at the w/c value at 0.45 The best fit line equation was Avg.
str. = -0.510*Slump + 99.97 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.954. The str. = − 23.99*w/c + 33.71 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.994. The
graph shows the slump value 135 mm was the best strength result. graph shows the w/c value 0.45 was the best strength result.
Figure 5 shows the relation established between the aver‑ Figure 6 shows the relation established between the average
age strength and water cement (w/c) ratio value for 20 MPa strength and water cement ratio value for 25 MPa concrete.

13
 International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology

In Fig. 6, the minimum strength is found at 0.44 w/c and
maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.42. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = − 277.5*w/c + 147.6 having R2 value
­R2 = 0.930. The graph shows the water cement ratio (w/c) value
0.42 was the best strength result (Paul 2016; Lee et al. 2020).
23.00
Avg. Strength (MPa)
Army head quarter building
For Army Head quarter building, the relation was estab‑
lished between the average strength and slump value for
20 MPa concrete where the minimum strength is found at
160 slump and maximum strength at the 145 slump. The
best fit line equation was Avg. str. = − 0.620*slump + 21.37
having R2 value R ­ 2 = 0.836, whereas for M25 MPa the min‑
imum strength is found at 140 mm slump and maximum

22.80
strength at the slump value at 145 mm. The best fit line equa‑
tion was Avg. str. = − 2.775*slump + 33.88 having R2 value
22.60 ­R2 = 0.930 Fig. 7. The graph assessment shows the slump
22.40
value 125 mm was the best strength result (Kim 2009).
Avg.str. = -23.99*w/c + 33.71 This relation was established between the average strength
22.20 R² = 0.994 and water cement (w/c) ratio value for 20 MPa concrete where
22.00 the minimum strength is found at 0.48 w/c and maximum
0.44 0.45 0.46 0.47 0.48 0.49 strength at the w/c value at 0.45. The best fit line equation was
W/C ratio Avg. str. = − 0.620*w/c + 21.37 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.836.
The graph assessment shows the w/c value 0.45 was the best
Fig. 5  Auditor General Building Average Strength vs. W/C for (a) strength result. Similarly, the relation was established between
20 MPa and (b) 25 MPa the average strength and water cement ratio value for 25 MPa
concrete where the minimum strength is found at 0.43 w/c and
40.00 maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.45. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = 1.095*w/c + 26.14 having R value
­R2 = 0.892. The graph assessment shows the water cement
Avg. Strength (MPa)

30.00
ratio (w/c) value 0.45 was the best strength result (Titarmare
et al. 2012).
20.00 Avg.str. = -277.5*w/c + 147.6
R² = 0.930 Commercial building
10.00
The relation was established between the average strength
0.00 and slump value for 20 MPa concrete at commercial build‑
0.415 0.42 0.425 0.43 0.435 0.44 0.445 ing where the minimum strength is found at 85 slump and
W/C ratio
maximum strength at the 123 slump. The best fit line equa‑
tion was Avg. str. = 1.168*Slump + 18.50 having R2 value
Fig. 6  Auditor General Building Average Strength vs W/C for ­R2 = 0.531. The graph assessment shows the slump 123
25 MPa
gained the best strength result.
This relation was established between the average
strength and slump value. In Fig. 4, 10 the minimum strength

Fig. 7  Concrete Rates for 25000

25 MPa
20000

15000
NRs

10000

5000

0
RMC 20MPa SMC 20MPa RMC 25MPa SMC 25MPa ∆ rate in ∆ rate in
Rate/M3 Rate/M3 Rate/M3 Rate/M3 20MPa RMC 25MPa RMC
& SMC & SMC

Rate/M3

13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
is found at 135 mm slump and maximum strength at the
slump value at 130 mm. The best fit line equation was Avg.
str. = − 1.679*slump + 31.26 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.782.
The graph assessment shows the slump value 126 mm was
the best strength result.
The relation was established between the average strength
and water cement (w/c) ratio value for 20 MPa concrete.
In Fig. 4.11, the minimum strength is found at 0.5 w/c and
maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.49. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = 1.168*w/c + 18.50 having R2 value
­R2 = 0.531. While the graph was plotted, it was seen that the
w/c value 0.49 was the best strength result.
The relation was established between the average strength
and water cement ratio value for 25  MPa concrete. In
Fig. 4.12, the minimum strength is found at 0.42 w/c and
maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.43. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = − 1.679*w/c + 31.26having ­R2 value
­R2 = 0.782. The water cement ratio (w/c) value 0.43 was the
best strength result (Manjunatha et al. 2015; Domagała 2020).
Residential building
In the residential building site, the relation was established
between the average strength and slump value for 20 MPa con‑
crete with the minimum strength found at 135 slump and maxi‑
mum strength at the 128 slump The best fit line equation was
Avg. str. = 1.972x = *slump + 20.98 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.883.
It was seen that the slump 128 was the best strength result.
The relation was established between residential build‑
ing average strength vs. slump for 25 MPa; the minimum
strength is found at 130 mm slump and maximum strength
at the slump value at 128 mm. The best fit line equation was
Avg. str. = 2.848*slump + 25.12 having R2 value ­R2 = 0.953
with the slump value 128 mm that was the best strength result.
In the relation of residential building average strength vs. W/C
for 20 MPa, the minimum strength is found at 0.48 w/c and
maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.45. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = 1.972*w/c + 20.98 having R2 value
­R2 = 0.883 with the w/c value 0.45 that was the best strength
result. Residential building average strength vs. W/C for
25 MPa shows the minimum strength is found at 0.40 w/c and
maximum strength at the w/c value at 0.42. The best fit line
equation was Avg. str. = 2.848*w/c + 25.12 having R2 value
­R2 = 0.953 with the water cement ratio (w/c) value 0.42 that
was the best strength result (NPCS 2008; Schabowicz, 2019).
Cost comparison
The SMC unit price rate as per Government of Nepal,
Department of Building, is NRs 18,381.00/M3 for M20 and
NRs 22,425.00/M3, for M25, while that of the RMC is NRs
14,500.00/M3 for M20 and NRs 15,500.00/M3, for M25.
The RMC rates are below the government norms. These
prices yield a difference of about 26 and 45% for M20 and
M25 between RMC and SMC; SMC is higher than the upper
limit recorded in Nepal (Magudeaswaran and Eswaramoor‑
thi 2013). A typical intended concrete compressive strength
of 25 MPa is sought by over half of the sample, whereas
only about 10% seek a compressive strength of 25 MPa or
greater. According to Allen (2006), this could also result in
demand fluctuation.
User acceptance
Price, according to the experts interviewed, is likely the most
significant barrier to RMC adoption in the Nepali market. The
reader is advised to distinguish between unit pricing and overall
cost in this regard. They also stated that the majority of Nepa‑
lese clients wrongly believe that the unit pricing represents the
overall cost. To avoid the “apparent” price difference between
RMC and SMC, the average customer usually opts for the lat‑
ter, regardless of the design and construction implications that
ultimately result in direct savings (Shahi 2013). Customers’
perceptions and awareness of RMC qualities, according to the
experts, are equally important. They pointed out that RMC’s
small presence in the building industry is due to three character‑
istics that characterize the local market: reluctance to change, a
lack of market motive, and a lack of confidence among concrete
practitioners. (Mannan and Idris 2013).
It should be mentioned that, regardless of concrete type, it
is normal, albeit erroneous, in the local market to design resi‑
dential buildings at an average nominal compressive strength
of 25 MPa (Omotola and Idowu 2011). As a result, when RMC
is utilized, the structural design does not take advantage of its
greater strength. When it comes to customer satisfaction with
RMC quality, it appears to be fairly high. During the ques‑
tionnaire, approximately three quarters of the participants
expressed satisfaction with RMC. Jain (2017) shows prospects
of RMC and the same could be reviled from the questionnaire
as 61% of the respondents were satisfied with uses of RMC
regarding strength and cost with respect to site mix concrete.
A smaller group representing 29% of the respondents were dis‑
satisfied with RMC. A much smaller group amounting to 10%
of the respondents were willing to adopt both of two. Surpris‑
ingly, three quarters of the participants (almost the sum of the
previous three groups of participants) would adopt RMC for
greater quality, service, and sustainability in the construction
business.
Limitations
It will be difficult to collect large number of samples includ‑
ing geographical areas in Nepal for overall country and
hence will be focused in the study area.
13

Conclusion
The following conclusions are drawn from the comparative
study of RMC and OC.
• The average strength and slump for grade M20 and M25
of Auditor General and Nepal Army Head quarter Build‑
ing which was RMC was slump average slump value 80
and 145 mm, respectively, and its pave the consistency
in strength and value of slump was close.
• The average strength and water cement ratio of grade
M20 and M25 of Auditor General and Nepal Army Head
quarter Building which was RMC was average water
cement ratio value 0.45 and 0.45, respectively, and the
consistency in strength and value of w/c was close.
• It is evident that average strength and slump for differ‑
ent grade M20 and M25 of commercial and residential
building which was OC was slump average slump value
124 and 127 mm, respectively, and so the consistency in
strength and value of slump was wider than the RMC.
• In same way, average strength and water cement ratio for
different grade M20 and M25 of commercial and residential
building which was OC was W/C average w/c value 0.43
and 0.46 mm, respectively, and it narrated the consistency
in strength and value of slump was wider than the RMC.
Acknowledgements  The authors wish to thank all the supporting hands
and respondents along with Saanvi Lavanaya and all family and friends.
The research is dedicated to all those who are affected from COVID-19.
Declarations  37:80–85
Conflict of interest  The authors have no conflict of interest.
References
Abousnina R, Manalo A, Ferdous W, Lokuge W, Benabed B, Al-Jabri
KS (2020) Characteristics, strength development and microstruc‑
ture of cement mortar containing oil-contaminatedS. Constr Build
Mater 252:119155
Al Ajmani H, Suleiman F, Abuzayed I, Tamini A (2019) Evaluation of
concrete strength made with recycled aggregate. Buildings 9:56
Allan CW (2006) Demand fluctuations and plant turnover in the ready-
mix concrete industry. NYU Working Paper, Mimeo
Chaudhari JV, Pitroda J, Bhavsar JJ, (2015), Micro-pile: recent
advances and future trends, international conference on: engi‑
neering: issues, opportunities and challenges for development.
­11th April, (1–10)
IS Code 456 CO (2000) Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete,
code of practice. Delhi: government of India
Domagała L (2020) Durability of structural lightweight concrete with
sintered fly ash aggregate. Materials 13:4565
Dua H (2013) Readymix Concrete. mumbay: Khurmi
Hager I, Sitarz M, Mróz K (2020) Behaviour of fly ash geopolymer at
high temperature, 2020 5th International Conference on Smart and
Sustainable Technologies (SpliTech), pp 1–5
13
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
Hammed H (2020) Quantitative and qualitative research methods:
considerations and issues in qualitative research. Maldives Natl
J Res 8(1):8–17
Haq MN, Chowdhury MSR, Mahmud H (2013) A brief study of ready-
mix concrete: features and uses in construction on the context of
Bangladesh. IOSR J Mech Civ Eng 8(3):55–57
Izabela S, Wanda K, Joanna Z, Agnieszka L, Dariusz B, Lukasz B
(2020) A proposal of a method for ready-mixed concrete qual‑
ity assessment based on statistical-fuzzy approach. Materials
13:5674–5690
Jain A (2017) Ready mixed concrete – present status and future growth
prospects. Ultra Tech Studio, New Delhi
Kim B (2009) Testing fresh concrete for proper testing benefits the
contractor, ready mix producer, and owner C930550. Aberdeen
Group 38(8):550–556
Lee D, Lee D, Lee M, Kim M, Kim T (2020) Analytic hierarchy
process-based construction material selection for performance
improvement of building construction: the case of a concrete sys‑
tem form. Materials 13:1738
Magudeaswaran P, Eswaramoorthi P (2013) Experimental study on
durability characteristics of high performance concrete. Int J
Emerg Technol Adv Eng 3(1):507–510
Manjunatha LR, Sandhya AR (2015) History of readymix concrete
industry in India. AMBER, ABBS Manag Bus Entrep Rev
6(1):20–41
Mannan MA, Idris IM (2013) Variations on water absorption, VPV
and sorptivity properties at different concrete zones using ready
mixed concrete. FENG Res Bull 6:10–15
Matarul J, Mannanb MA, Mohammad Ibrahim Safawic MZ, Ibrahimd
A, Jainudine NA, Yusuhf NA (2016) Performance-based dura‑
bility indicators of different concrete grades made by the local
ready mixed company: preliminary results. Proc Soc Behav Sci
224:620–625
Mishra AK, Umesh C (2018) Cost effectiveness assessment of different
nepalese cement brands for selected sites of supermarket. J Adv
Res Constr Urban Archit 3(3):12–33
Nadupuru SR (2015) Comparison of RMC and ordinary concrete using
wasted glass material. Int J Latest Trends Eng Technol (IJLTET)
Niir project consultancy services (NPCS) (2008) Ready mix concrete
RMC plant. New Delhi-110007, India: Entrepreneur India
Omotola PG, Idowu OI (2011) Effect of water-cement ratios on the
compressive strength and workability of concrete and lateritic
concrete mixes. Pacific J Sci Technol 12(2):99–105
Paul A (2016) Compressive strength of concrete & concrete cubes.
Civi Digital 78:52–58
Rao S (2013) Ordinary concrete. Khanna Publications, New Delhi
RMC C (2010) Mero job. Civil Group, Nepal
Schabowicz K (2019) Non-destructive testing of materials in civil engi‑
neering. Materials 12:3237
Shah A, Pitroda J, Bhavsar JJ, (2014) The Ready mix concrete eco‑
nomic and qualitative growth for construction industry. National
conference on: trends and challenges of civil engineering in
today’s transforming world, (1–11)
Shahi PB (2013) Pavement design guideline flexible pavement. Kath‑
mandu, Nepal
Shetty M (2000) Concrete technology. In: M shetty concrete technology
theory and practice. S Chand Company Ltd: New Delhi
Suryakanta C (2015) Advantages of slump test. Civilblog Org 1:42–45
Titarmare AP, Deotale RS, Bachale SB (2012) Experimental study
report on use of fly ash in ready mixed concrete. Int J Sci Eng
Res 3(6):1–12
Yadav SB, Kumar N, Kumar R (2017) Quality control process for ready
mixed concrete plants. In: Internatinal conferences on Emerging
trends in engineering, technology & science and manag, Gtrater
Noida: ICETETSM. 388–393