Comparison of The Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks With Partial Replacement of Sharp Sand With Quarry Dust

COMPARISON OF THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF
SANDCRETE BLOCKS PRODUCED BY PARTIALLY
REPLACING SAND WITH QUARRY DUST
BY
OSUEKE, FRANKLINE CHIMUANYA- 20101710853
A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,
SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY,
FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OWERRI.
IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE
AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (B.ENG) IN CIVIL
ENGINEERING
SEPTEMBER, 2015.
1
CERTIFICATION
I, Osueke, Frankline Chimuanya, Reg. No. 20101710853, hereby certify that this project
report is original to me and has not been submitted elsewhere for the award of a degree.
______________________ ________________
Osueke, Frankline Chimuanya Date
2
APPROVAL
This research project “Comparison of the compressive strength of sandcrete blocks produced
by partially replacing sand with quarry dust,” by Osueke, Frankline Chimuanya, Reg. No.
20101710853, is hereby approved as a satisfactory project for the award of the degree of
Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng.) in Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering).
_____________________ _________________
Engr. Dr. O.M. Ibearugbulem Date
(Supervisor)
_______________________ __________________
(External Examiner) Date
_______________________ __________________
Engr. Dr. B.U. Dike Date
(Head of Department)
3
DEDICATION
To the Awesome God who saw me through my academic pursuit in Federal University of
Technology, Owerri.
4
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to sincerely appreciate my project supervisor, Engr. Dr. O.M. Ibearugbulem for his
encouragement, teaching, guidance and support before and during the course of this work.
To our dear H.O.D, Engr. Dr. B.U. Dike and the entire staffs of Civil Engineering
department, Federal University of Technology, Owerri (FUTO), Engr. Dr. L. Anyaogu, Engr.
Dr. J. C. Ezeh, Dr. D. O. Onwuka, Engr. Dr. B. C. Okoro, Engr. F. C. Njoku, Rev. Engr. N.
L. Nwakwasi, Engr. A. N. Nwachukwu, Engr. Dr. H. U. Nwoke, Engr. Dr. (Mrs) J. I.
Arimanwa, Engr. K. N. Onyema, Engr. K. C. Nwachukwu, Engr A.P.C. Amanze, Engr.
Anayanwu Timothy, Engr. (Mrs) C.T.G Awodeji, Engr. K. Agbo, Engr. S.I. Agbo, Engr. Dr.
O.R. Onasakponome, Engr. K.O. Njoku, Engr. C. Ajoku, and Engr. S. Iwuoha, I remain ever
grateful for knowledge well delivered to us. I also thank in a special way my class adviser,
Engr. Dr. C. E. Okere, for her efforts to see our dreams come true in FUTO. I also wish to
acknowledge the non-academic staffs, Mrs. B.I Onunkwo, Mr. V.O.A Achilike, Mr C.I
Ejiogu, Mrs. R.C Okonkwo, Mrs. Voilet Ejiogu, Mrs. H.C. Onwubu, Mrs. G.I. Duru, Mr. H.
Agwu, Mrs Njoku, and Miss C. Iheanacho. I will not fail to register my sincere gratitude to
Engr. Dr. U.C Anya and Engr. E.E. Anike, for their encouragement, teaching, guidance and
support throughout this project. My tribute also goes to Mr. I.N Nwachukwu, of the Civil
Engineering lab, FUTO for his assistance in carrying out our project work in the lab.
I appreciate my parents- Sir & Lady Ikechi R. Osueke and my siblings for their love, prayers
and support throughout my stay in FUTO. To my friends Mr. D.I. Bertram, Miss P.N.
Aniaku, Mr. Eze Chidubem, and Mr. Nwadibei Augustine- who were instrumental in many
ways to my numerous achievement in FUTO.
I thank God Almighty for his abundant grace, love and mercy towards me all through these
years.
5
ABSTRACT
This work aims at comparing the compressive strength of sandcrete blocks produced by
partially replacing sand with quarry dust”. The materials used include, Cement, Sand, Quarry
dust and Water. The laboratory test conducted in this project includes Sieve analysis, Trail
mix and Compression test. Two blocks were moulded per mix ratio for thirteen 13 different
percentages for three (3) different block types i.e. (450x225x225 hollow blocks,
450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150 cubes) amounting to a total of seventy eight
(78) blocks. Moulding was done manually with two drops and a long rubber hose with nozzle
was used for curing for 28 days. Spraying was done twice daily (morning and evening).
Universal Compression testing machine was used to determine the failure load of each block
sample. The graph of compressive strength against ratio of each constituent i.e. (cement,
sand, quarry dust and water) was plotted and their governing equation determined. The graph
of the compressive strength against sand-cement ratio, quarry dust-cement ratio and water-
cement ratio of each block size were plotted and their governing equation also determined.
The graph of the compressive strength of each block size was also plotted against themselves
and their governing equation determined. The graph shows that as cement and sand content
increased in 450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150
cubes, compressive strength equally increased but as quarry dust and water content increased,
the compressive strength decreased. Also, the graph of the compressive strength of
450x225x225 hollow blocks against the compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid blocks
and 150x150x150 cubes shows that as the compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow
blocks increased, the compressive strength of both 450x225x125 solid blocks and
150x150x150 cubes increased while the graph of compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid
blocks against the compressive strength of 150x150x150 cubes behaved in like manner.
6
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover page i
Certification ii
Approval iii
Dedication iv
Acknowledgement v
Abstract vi
Table of contents vii
List of tables xii
List of figures xvi
CHAPTER ONE
Introduction
1.1 Background of study 1
1.2 Statement of problem 2
1.3 Purpose of study 3
1.4 Significance of study 3
1.5 Scope of study 4
CHAPTER TWO
Literature review
2.1 Definition of terms 5
2.1.1 Sandcrete blocks 5
2.1.1.1 Constituents of sandcrete blocks: 5
7
2.1.1.1.1 Cement: 6
2.1.1.1.1.1 Chemical composition of Ordinary Portland Cement 6
2.1.1.1.2 Sand 8
2.1.1.1.3 Water 9
2.1.1.2 Properties and Strength Characteristics of Sandcrete Blocks 9
2.1.1.3 Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks 10
2.1.1.3.1 Factors affecting the Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks 11
2.1.1.3.1.1 Curing and protection 11
2.1.1.3.1.2 Water-cement ratio 11
2.1.1.3.1.3 Moulding/compaction 12
2.1.2 Sand-Quarry Dust blocks 12
2.1.2.1 Quarry dust 12
2.1.2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Quarry Dust 13
2.1.3 Comparison between the physical and chemical properties of sand and quarry dust 13
2.1.4 Comparison between the compressive strength of blocks produced using River Sand as
fine aggregate and Block produced by partially replacing River Sand with Quarry Dust 15
2.2 Why replacing sand with quarry dust in block production 15
CHAPTER THREE
Materials and methods
8
3.1 Materials 17
3.1.2 Sand 17
3.1.3 Quarry Dust 17
3.1.1 Cement 17
3.1.4 Water 17
3.2 Method 18
3.2.1 Trial mixes 18
3.2.2 Batching 18
3.2.3 Mixing 18
3.2.4 Moulding of blocks/ compaction of mix 25
3.2.5 Curing 25
3.2.6 Sieve analysis 25
3.2.6.1 Apparatus for the Experimental Details of Sieve Analysis 25
3.2.6.2 Procedures 26
3.2.6.3 Calculations 26
3.2.6.3.1 The Particle Size Distribution Curve 26
3.2.6.3.2 Effective Size (D10) 27
3.2.6.3.3 Uniformity Coefficient, (Cu) 27
3.2.6.3.4 Coefficient of Gradation, (Cg) 27
9
3.2.7 Testing 27
3.2.7.1 Compressive strength 27
CHAPTER FOUR
Result and discussion
4.1 Result 28
4.1.1 Sieve analysis 28
4.1.2 Block Masses 32
4.1.3 Block Crushing load 36
4.1.4 Block compressive strength 39
4.1.5 Relationship between compressive strength and different constituent of sand-quarry
dust block 41
4.1.5.1 Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement and sand (450x225x225 hollow blocks) 41
4.1.5.2 Compressive strength vs. ratio of quarry dust and water (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
4.1.5.3 Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement and sand (450x225x125 solid blocks) 44
4.1.5.4 Compressive strength vs. ratio of quarry dust and water (450x225x125 solid blocks 46
4.1.5.5 Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement and sand (150x150x150 solid cubes) 47
4.1.5.6 Compressive strength vs. ratio of quarry dust and water (150x150x150 solid cubes) 49
4.1.6 Relationship between compressive strength and different constituent-cement ratio of
sand-quarry dust block. 50
10
4.1.6.1 Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks) 50
4.1.6.2 Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks) 51
4.1.6.3 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks) 52
4.1.6.4 Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks) 54
4.1.6.5 Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks) 55
4.1.6.6 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks) 56
4.1.6.7 Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (150x150x150cubes) 57
4.1.6.8 Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes) 58
4.1.6.9 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes) 59
4.1.7 Compressive strength of the different block sizes. 60
4.1.7.1 Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks vs 450x225x125 solid block 60
4.1.7.2 Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks vs 150x150x150 cubes 61
4.1.7.3 Compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block vs 150x150x150 cubes 62
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions and recommendations
5.1 Conclusions 63
5.2 Recommendations 67
Appendix 68
References 8
11
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Chemical Composition of a Typical Portland Cement 7
Table 2.2 Hydration Characteristics of Cement Compounds 7
Table 2.3 Initial and final setting time of OPC/fresh water and OPC/salt water. 9
Table 2.4: Typical Chemical Composition of Quarry Dust and Natural Sand 14
Table 2.5: Physical Properties of Quarry Dust and Natural Sand 14
Table 3.1: Ratio of constituent material used for 450*225*225 (9inches) hollow block 19
Table 3.2: Ratio of constituent material used for 450*225*125 (5inches) solid block 20
Table 3.3: Ratio of constituent material used for 150 × 150 × 150mm cube 21
Table 3.4: shows the quantities of constituent materials in kilogram for 450*225*225
(9inches) hollow block 22
Table 3.5: shows the quantities of constituent material in kilogram for 450*125*225
(5inches) solid block 23
Table 3.6: Shows the quantities of constituent material in kilogram for 150 × 150 ×150mm
cube 24
Table 4.1 Sieve analysis results for River Sand 28
Table 4.2 Sieve analysis results for Quarry dust 29
Table 4.3 showing the mass of different percentage replacement for 450x225x225 (9”)
hollow blocks 30
12
Table 4.4 showing the mass of different percentage replacement for 450x225x125 (5”) solid
blocks 31
Table 4.5 showing the mass of different percentage replacement for 150x150x150 (6”) Cubes
32
Table 4.6 showing the Crushing load for different percentage replacement for 450x225x225
hollow blocks 33
(5”) solid blocks 34
(6”) Cubes 35
Table 4.9 showing the compressive strength of all block type at 28th days 36
TABLE A. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of 450x225x225
hollow block 55
TABLE B. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of
450x225x225 hollow block 55
TABLE C. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry Dust content of
450x225x225 hollow block 56
TABLE D. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of 450x225x225
hollow block 56
13
TABLE E. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of 450x225x125
solid block 57
TABLE F. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of 450x225x125
solid block 57
TABLE G. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry dust content of
450x225x125 solid block 58
TABLE H. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of 450x225x125
solid block 58
TABLE I. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of 150x150x150
cubes 59
TABLE J. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of 150x150x150
cubes 59
TABLE K. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry dust content of
150x150x150 cubes 60
TABLE L. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of 150x150x150
cubes 60
TABLE M. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 450x225x225
hollow blocks 61
TABLE N. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of
450x225x225 hollow blocks 61
TABLE O. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of 450x225x225
hollow blocks 62
14
TABLE P. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 450x225x125 solid
blocks 62
TABLE Q. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of
450x225x125 solid blocks 63
TABLE R. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of 450x225x125
solid blocks 63
TABLE S. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 150x150x150
cubes 64
TABLE T. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of
150x150x150 cubes 64
TABLE U. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of 150x150x150
cubes 65
TABLE V. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 450x225x125 solid blocks 65
TABLE W. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 150x150x150 cubes 66
TABLE X. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x125 solid blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 150x150x150 cubes 66
15
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig 4.1 showing the graph of percentage passing vs. sieve size for River sand 37
Fig 4.2 showing the graph of percentage passing vs. sieve size for Quarry dust 38
Fig 4.3 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement content of
Fig 4.4 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of sand content of 450x225x225
hollow blocks 39
Fig 4.5 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Quarry Dust content of
Fig 4.6 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Water content of
Fig 4.8 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Sand content of
Fig 4.10 showing the graph of compressive strength vs. ratio of water content of
Fig 4.11 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Cement content of
150x150x150 cubes 43
16
Fig 4.12 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio Sand content of 150x150x150
cubes 43
150x150x150 cubes 44
150x150x150 cubes 44
Fig 4.15 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Sand-Cement content of
Fig 4.16 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Quarry Dust-Cement content of
Fig 4.17 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Water-Cement content of
Fig 4.21 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes 48
Fig 4.22 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Quarry Dust-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes 48
17
Fig 4.23 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Water-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes 49
Fig 4.24 showing the graph of Compressive Strength (9”) vs. Compressive Strength (5”) 49
18
CHAPTER ONE
INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background of Study
Sandcrete blocks are composite materials comprising of cement, sand (fine aggregate) and
water. They are of different sizes and are made using specified mix ratio. It is widely used in
Nigeria as a walling unit. In fact, approximately 90% of buildings in Nigeria are constructed
using sandcrete blocks.
River sand is the most commonly used fine aggregate. It maintains uniformity in mixture and
workability. Due to the extensive use of this natural sand in the construction industry in
concrete works, it is no longer as abundant and inexpensive as it used to be. This
development lead engineers to the drawing board to look for alternatives to river sand. Some
of the successes include materials like quarry dust, fly ash etc.
Research has shown that Quarry dust can serve as an alternative material to river sand in the
construction industry in the casting of concrete, blocks, etc. Quarry dust is the by-product
formed in the quarrying of granite stones.
In as much as the economic use of material is important, the safety of structures remains
paramount. To this effect, it must be confirmed that the quarry dust replacing the river sand
has the minimum requirements by relevant authorities, (BS 115 (1986), BS1377 (1975) etc.)
i.e. durability, compressive strength, flexural strength, water absorption properties among
others. Here, different standard sizes of sandcrete blocks moulded, replacing river sand
partially with quarry dust would have their compressive strength checked for and compared.
19
Shelter is one of the basic amenities, this means that almost every human being have where
he or she lies down after daily activities. In Nigeria, the procurement of houses have become
a serious challenge to an average Nigerian, not to mention those below average. Sometimes
people don’t even venture into building houses because of fear of collapse caused by inferior
building materials.
Some geographical areas, blessed with granite stones but lack water bodies find it cheaper to
procure fine granite stones (quarry dust) than river sand. In line with the aim mentioned
earlier, incorporation of quarry dust in sandcrete production will help promote construction
process in such area.
Owing to the high demand of river sand in concrete, the need for replacing it cannot be over
emphasized. Some engineering properties must be tested including compressive strength, to
confirm the appropriate percentage of sand and quarry dust that is best for the production of
sand-quarry dust blocks.
1.2 Statement of Problem
Mining of river sand in some area is now leading to environmental hazard, e.g. erosion; it
simply means that the process of mining river sand should be reduced.
Large deposit of quarry dust waste on the surface of the earth is not good. This simply calls
for proper disposal of this material.
Some researchers have tried in similar studies but there is no defined graphical relationship
between the compressive strengths of sand-quarry dust blocks of sizes 450x225x225 hollow
blocks, 450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150 cubes.
20
1.3 Purpose of Study
The main objective of this work is to compare the compressive strength of sandcrete blocks
produced by partially replacing sand with quarry dust. To achieve this main objective, the
specific objectives were set aside;
(i) To obtain the ratio of cement, sand, quarry dust and water content that will give the
highest and lowest compressive strength value in production of different sizes of sand-quarry
dust block.
(ii) To obtain the relationship between the compressive strength and different constituent
making up block of different sizes.
(iii) To obtain the relationship between the compressive strength of different sizes of sand-
quarry dust blocks.
1.4 Significance of Study
(i) This work is expected to determine the ratio of cement, river sand, quarry dust and water
that will give the highest compressive strength value for different sizes of sandcrete blocks.
(ii) It shall ascertain if the compressive strength of smaller sizes ofsandcrete blocks is high
enough to be used as walling units when produced by partially replacing river sand with
quarry dust, thereby encouraging the construction of low cost buildings.
(iii) It shall encourage the production of quality quarry-sandcrete blocks by block dealers.
(iv) Toemploy the use of quarry dust thereby reducing its deposit as waste in the
environment.
21
(v) To help relieve financial stress on people living in areas with abundant granite stone but
less or no river by reducing the quantity of river sand needed in such areas for sandcrete
block production.
(vi) To minimise the potential environmental hazard like erosion that may arise due to
frequent mining of river sand by reducing the demand for river sand.
1.5 Scope of Study
This work is only based on the comparison of the compressive strength of different sizes of
sandcrete blocks produced by partially replacing sand with quarry dust. All materials are
obtained from Owerri, Imo state apart from quarry dust which was sourced from Asphalt
unity construction limited, quarry division Eluama in Abia State, Nigeria.
Only 78 blocks of sizes 450*225*225, (Hollow blocks), 450*125*225 (solid block) and
150*150*150 (cubes) were tested. The percentage replacement with quarry dust ranges from
5% to 60% only at 5% intervals with two blocks per percentage replacement
Only manual mixing and compaction method was employed in this work and the
compression testing machine owned by Federal University of Technology Owerri was used.
Only the graphical relationship between compressive strength and different constituents’
making up sand-quarry dust block for different block sizes was determined in this work.
22
CHAPTER TWO
LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 DEFINITION OF TERMS
The terms peculiar to this study are defined below to easy understanding.
2.1.1 Sandcrete blocks
The word “Sandcrete” has not been giving a standard definition but different disciplines have
tried to define it in a way to suit their purpose. Sandcrete blocks are composite materials
made up of cement, sand and water, moulded into different sizes. Montgomery (2002)
defined sandcrete block as blocks made or moulded with sand, water and cements which
serve as a binder. Oyetola and Abdullahi (2006) defined Sandcrete blocks as comprising of
sand, water and binder, stating thatcement as a binder, is the most expensive input in to
the production of sandcrete blocks. It is widely used in Nigeria and other countries like
Ghana, Irish as walling units. Sandcrete blocks also participate mainly in the task of
transforming the actual load from the overlaying structural element to the foundation. Blocks
are those building unit used in the construction of wall and partitions. They are of sizes and
weights that can be easily handled by the bricklayer, with the facing surface layer than that of
a brick but conveniently dimensioned. Sandcrete blocks are available for the construction of
load bearing and nonload bearing structures(Abdullahi, 2005). Sandcrete block is one of the
best walling materials due to its bearingcapacity, durability and stability if compared with
other wall units, such as brick or stone (Adedeji, 2000).
2.1.1.1 Constituents of sandcrete blocks
As we have defined earlier, sandcrete blocks are composed of cement, sand and water.
Below is a brief description of these constituents.
23
2.1.1.1.1 Cement
The term cement here generally refers to binders. There are different types of cement
available, but that employed in this work is the Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC). There are
several brands of OPC available in market but their chemical compositions are same. Cement
can also be defined as a fine grey powder which when reacted with water hardens to form a
rigid chemical mineral structure which gives concrete its high strength (Neil et al., 1996)
According to Bhavikkati (2000), cement is a product of calcareous (lime) and argillaceous
(Clay) materials which when mixed with water forms a paste and binds the inert materials
like sand, gravel and crushed stones. Variations in physical properties occur due to the
variation in the amount of chemical constituents. The chemical constituents include silica,
Al2O3, Fe2O3, lime content, magnesium oxide and free lime (M.S. Ali et al, 2008). Portland
cement is produced by firing to partial fusion, at approximately 1500oC a well- homogenized
and finely ground mixture of limestone or chalk (calcium carbonate) and an appropriate
quantity of clay or shale (Danso 2005,18).
2.1.1.1.1.1 Chemical composition of Ordinary Portland Cement
OPC has four major oxide constituent namely Lime, Silica, Aluminate and Iron-oxide. Four
compounds are usually regarded as the major constituents of cement (Danso 2005, 20). The
are
(i) Dicalcium Silicate (2CaO.SiO2)
(ii) Tricalcium Silicate (3CaO.SiO2)
(iii) Tricalcium Aluminate (3CaO.Al2O3)
(iv) TetracalciumAluminoferrite (4CaO.Al2O3.Fe2O3).
24
Table 2.1 shows the chemical symbols and notation adopted for OPC oxides. Three ratios that
defines the chemical composition of cement (Anike, E.E, Iwunze, C.C. 2012, 5) are shown
below.
Lime Saturation Factor (LSF)= C

__________________ (2.1)
2.8S + 1.2A + 0.65F
Silica Ratio (SR)= S

_______ (2.2)
A+F
Alumina Ratio (AR)= A
_______ (2.3)
F
Table 2.1 Chemical Composition of a Typical Portland Cement
Name of Chemical Shorthand Chemist’s Typical

Oxide Notation Nomenclature Shorthand Level (mass%)
Lime CaO C3 S C 65.5
Silica SiO2 C2 S S 21.1
Aluminate Al2O3 C3 S A 5.6
Iron-Oxide Fe2O3 C4AF F 3
Table 2.2 shows the hydration Characteristics of Cement Compounds (Anike, E.E and
Iwunze, C.C. 2012, 5).
Table 2.2 Hydration Characteristics of Cement Compounds
Anhydrous Rate of Heat Evolved Strength

Compound Hydration Contributed
C3 S Moderately fast Considerable over a 1-28 days
long period
C2 S Slow Little 14-28 days
C3 A Very rapid Very considerable Up to 1 day
C4AF Slow Little No cementitious
properties
25
From table 2.2, it is obvious that C3A gives the early strength of cement while C2S gives the
latter strength.
The basic chemistry of Portland cement shows that during calcination the volume contracts,
and during hydration it swells (Ali, M.S et.al, 2008). Two possible reactions takes place.
Calcination: CaCO3(s) = CaO(s) + CO2(g)
Hydration: CaO(s) + H2O(l) = Ca(OH)2(s).
2.1.1.1.2 Sand
This is generally referred to as fine aggregate in concrete technology. Sand are produced
naturally by the natural weathering of rocks. The main source of sand and it transportation is
via rivers and streams (Omoregie, 2012). He also added that constitutes 60 to 80% of the
volume of sandcrete and thus functions as an inert material acting as a filler. Sands can be
grouped based on its source or based on their size. These include wind sand, marine sand,
erosion sand, common sand, river sand and glacial sand (Anike, E.E and Iwunze, C.C, 2012).
The agents of transportation of this fine aggregate include surface runoff, rainfall intensity,
eroding soil surface, vegetation etc.
The size of sand for block making should be of particle size passing the 5mm sieve and it
should be well graded with the finer ones filling the void created by the larger one.
According to Omoregie, majority of this fine aggregate employed in sandcrete block making
is contaminated with organic materials such as humus, dirt, silt, clay, mica and salts. This
continues despite the fact that it is a widely accepted fact that choice (quality) of sand and its
grading has a considerable consequence on the consistence (workability).
26
2.1.1.1.3 Water
When the mortar for sandcrete is dry mixed, water is added to the mix to initiate the chemical
reaction between it and cement for binding to occur. The binding property of cement is
useless unless water is added to it. When mortar loses water it shrinks, and when it gains
water it swells (Jikai Zhou et.al, 2009). The condition of this water is also of paramount
important. Table 2.3 is an experimental by Mbadike E.M and Elinwa A.U, (2011) showing
the result of the initial and final setting time of cement using fresh and salt water respectively.
The initial setting time of cement using fresh water is 50mins while the final setting time is
587mins. The initial and final setting time of cement using salt water is 55mins and 605mins.
The higher the setting time, the lower the strength of concrete produced. This is because salt
water increases the setting of cement which indicates that the strength of concrete produced is
reduced.
Table 2.3 Initial and final setting time of OPC/fresh water and OPC/salt water.
Type of water Initial setting time (min) Final setting time (min)
Fresh 50 587
Salt 55 605
Now it is obvious that potable water is the best and standard for sandcrete block making.
Also, water for curing purpose need not be necessarily potable but should be wholly free of
any traces of substances that can attack set blocks (Anike E.E and Iwunze C.C, 2012).
2.1.1.2 Properties and Strength Characteristics of Sandcrete Blocks
The properties exhibited by sandcrete blocks are dependent on their production condition
different methods employed in the production and the properties of the constituent materials
27
.Factors like curing temperature, presence of admixture, water (salty or portable), compaction
method, time difference between mixing and compaction greatly affect the property of
sandcrete blocks (Oyekan G.L and Kamiyo O.M, 2008). The quality of blocks produced
however, differs from each industry (Abdullahi 2005, 126). Alohan Omoregie (2012) claims
that there is evidence to suggest a wide variation in compressive strength from one block
manufacturer to another and also within block samples from a single source. This problem
has been attributed to poor quality control and substandard constituent materials.
2.1.1.3 Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks
The compressive strength of sandcrete blocks is affected by the mix proportion, quality of
material used in making them, size, shape, and the mode of manufacture (i.e. hand or
machine mould). Physical conditions such as method and days of curing, duration of time,
temperature etc will also contribute to the strength of the block (Dhir, 1980). The strength of
the block will contribute to the strength of the units used in a structure. For example, walls
built with poor quality blocks that falls short of the standard strength are likely to fail, thereby
causing severe damage to the structure and sometimes even loss of lives and properties. This
shows that there is need to know the compressive strength of blocks. And in order to
minimize the huge loss of money by the block users in the course of handling and
transporting substandard blocks, a standard information on the mix proportion and the quality
of materials to be used in achieving the desired strength of structure, will certainly be useful
to block manufacturers, block users and building designers (Nene, 2009).
The recommended compressive strength for sandcrete in the British standard is 3.5N/mm2
and NIS standard is 2.5N/mm2 (Samuel Sunday Omopariola, 2014).Vallenger (1980)
observed that the compressive strength of sandcrete materials increases with increased
cement content.
28
2.1.1.3.1 Factors affecting the Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks
Curing and protection, water-cement ratio and moulding/compaction are factors affecting the
compressive strength of sandcrete blocks.
2.1.1.3.1.1 Curing and protection
Curing is the name given to procedures used for promoting the cement hydration, and consists of
temperature control and moisture movement from and into the block. According to (Nene, 2009),
Curing and protection of sandcrete block should start as soon as compaction is completed. This will
protect the block from the following: - Leaching out by rain and flowing water, premature drying out
particularly with solar radiation and wind and rapid curing during the first few days of moulding or
production. The effect of curing condition on strength, In order to obtain good block, the place of an
appropriate mix must be followed by curing in a suitable environment during the early stages of
hardening. According to Hamza (2009), to gain enough strength before being laid, sandcrete blocks
should be allowed to mature for at least 28 days. During this period, the blocks are cured to prevent
loss of moisture needed for hydration reaction to continue. In low water – cement ratio blocks, it is
more advantageous to supply additional water during curing than in the case with higher water-
cement ratio block. Curing temperature increases, the compressive strength of blocks because rise in
curing temperature speeds up the chemical reaction of hydration and, thus, affects the early strength of
blocks positively (Ali H. Hameed, 2009). Hamza (2009) also confirmed that curing produces good
quality blocks, prevents premature drying out with radiation and wind. Curing could be done by
covering the blocks with polythene, by spraying with water and or with hot steam (Yusuf, 2011).
2.1.1.3.1.2 Water-cement ratio
As the name implies, this is the ratio of water to cement in blocks. This ratio does not include
the water absorbed during the curing period. The volume of water is determined from the
from the water-cement ratio. The complete hydration of cement depends on this ratio for a
29
particular mix ratio and mix constituents of the block. The appropriate ratio also helps in
compaction of the mix in the mould. This appropriate ratio is known as optimum value.
A water-cement ratio above 0.7 has been discovered found to cause damage during
demoulding and subsequent reduction in strength of the block and the ratio below 0.4 is not
workable under compacting equipment (Eze-Uzoamaka, 1975) and (Tyler, 1961). A water-
cement ratio within the range of 0.4 to 0.6 has been found appropriate in practice for adequate
strength and workability (Anike E.E and Iwunze C.C, 2012).
2.1.1.3.1.3 Moulding/compaction
In block production, compaction is either done by mechanical vibration or by hand. The
manual mould pre-dates the mechanical operation, and does not give proper compaction, and
normally associated with occurrence of micro distortion due to poor separation of the mould
and the block. These consequently result in relative weakness of the block. Conversely, the
mechanical mould gives adequate compaction and produces block at faster rate, and at a
relatively higher strength (Oladeji O.S and Awos O.A, 2013). The blocks are supposed to
have adequate compaction pressure so that they can be confidently used in building of walls
and other structures at various levels during construction (Hamza, et al, 2009).
2.1.2 Sand-Quarry Dust blocks
These can be defined as blocks produced by mixing sand, quarry dust, cement and water
together in right proportion and water-cement ratio. The addition of quarry dust made this
type of block different from sandcrete blocks.
2.1.2.1 Quarry dust
The quarry dust is the by-product which is formed in the processing of the granite stones
which broken downs into the coarse aggregates of different sizes (ChandanaSukesh
30
et.al,2013). Sivakumar and Prakash (2011) defined quarry dust as a waste obtained during
quarrying process. It can also be described as a cohesionless sandy material (Anike E.E and
Iwunze C.C, 2012). Its size ranges from below 0.063mm to 5mm.
2.1.2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Quarry Dust
The Specific gravity depends on the nature of the rock from which it is processed and the
variation is lesswhile its limitation is that shrinkage is more in when compared to that of the
natural river sand. Water absorption is present so that increase the water addition to the dry
mix.
2.1.3 Comparison between the physical and chemical properties of sand and quarry
dust
Properties of quarry dust mainly depend on the properties of the parent rock such as chemical
and mineralogical composition, physical and chemical stability, petrographic characteristics,
specific gravity, hardness, strength, pore structures and colour. As far as quarry dust quality is
concerned, the most important property is the mineralogical composition (Jayawardena and
Dissanayake, 2006, 2).
Table 2.4 and 2.5 is a comparison of the chemical and physical properties respectively of
quarry dust and natural river sand as documented by Jayawardena and Dissanayake (2006, 2).
31
Table 2.4: Typical Chemical Composition of Quarry Dust and Natural Sand
Constituent Quarry rock dust Natural Sand Test Method

(%)
SiO2 62.48 80.78
AlO3 18.72 10.52
Fe2O3 6.54 1.75
CaO 4.83 3.21
MgO 2.56 0.77 IS: 4032-1968
Na2O Nill 1.37
K2O 3.18 1.23
TiO2 1.21 Nil
Loss of ignition 0.48 0.37
Table 2.5: Physical Properties of Quarry Dust and Natural Sand
Property Quarry rock dust Natural Sand Test Method

(%)
Specific gravity 2.54- 2.60 2.60 IS2386 (part III) 1963
Bulk density (kg/m3) 1720-1810 1460 IS2386 (part III) 1963
Absorption (%) 1.20-1.50 Nil IS2386 (part III) 1963
Moisture Content Nil 1.50 IS2386 (part III) 1963
(%)
Fine particles less 12-15 6 IS2386 (part I) 1963
than 0.075
Sieve analysis Zone II Zone II IS383-1970
32
2.1.4 Comparison between the compressive strength of blocks produced using River
Sand as fine aggregate and Block produced by partially replacing River Sand with
Quarry Dust
Works by Oyekan and Kamiyo, (2008) and Anya (2015) show that the addition of quarry dust
in the production of sandcrete blocks improved the compressive strength property of the
blocks. In an experiment of partial replacement of river sand with quarry dust, conducted by
Anya, C.U, Osadebe, N.N. (2015), shows that as the proportion of sand decreases and the
other components increase, the compressive strength increases moderately. As the sand
proportion increases, and the other components decrease, the compressive strength decreases.
The quarry dust behaved in a similar manner as sand the also observed that as the proportion
of cement in the mixture increases (and the other mixtures decrease), the compressive
strength increases rapidly as the cement proportion decreases (other components increase),
the compressive strength increases and as the water proportion increases, and the other
components decrease, the compressive strength decrease.
Ilangovana et al, (2008) reported strength of quarry rock dust concrete was comparably 10-12
% more than that of similar mix of conventional concrete. In an experimental result
conducted by Balamungan, Grand and Dr Perumal. (2013), gives a clear picture that quarry
dust can be utilized in concrete mixtures as a good substitute for natural river sand giving
higher strength at 50% replacement.
2.2 Why replacing sand with quarry dust in block production?
The need for the partial replacement of sand with quarry dust has arisen from two major
considerations namely: (i) to reduce the need for the use of river sand, thus preventing
environmental degradation arising from excessive sand mining and (ii) to provide additional
use for quarry dust, a waste product of rock quarrying process which, if left to accumulate in
33
large volumes, is hazardous to the environment (Anya U.C and Osadebe N.N). Sreekantan P
and George Mathew, (2013) also added that Most widely used fine aggregate for making
conventional concrete is the natural river sand. However river sand is scarce due to several
reasons. He also confirmed that mining of river sand causes environmental threats such as
lowering of river beds, lowering of water table, sinking of bridge piers, subsidence of river
banks etc. he continued that, it is desirable to obtain a substitute material for river sand that is
economical compared to the cost of river sand. Quarry dust waste, is not being used for any
application other than filling low lying area. Balamungan, Grand and DrPerumal, (2013)
lamented that now-a-days, the natural river sands has become scarce and very costly. Hence
we are forced to think of alternative materials. The function of the fine aggregate is to assist
in producing workability and uniformity in the mixture as such, quarry dust may be used in
the place of river sand fully or partly. Chandana Sukesh, et. Al, 2013 also added thatthe
reduction in the sources of natural sand and therequirement for reduction in the cost of
concrete production hasresulted in the increased need to identify substitute material tosand as
fine aggregates in the production of concretes especiallyin Concrete.
Since addition of quarry dust to blocks meet the engineering requirements of blocks as has
been reported by confirmed and by several authors and since it is relatively cheaper and
abundantly available it is worth employing in block production.
34
CHAPTER THREE
MATERIALS AND METHODS
3.1 MATERIALS
The materials used in this work include cement, sand, quarry dust and water.
3.1.1 Cement
Dangote cement (grade 42.5N/mm2), a good brand of Ordinary Portland cement both by
touch and hydration was used. It conforms to BS12 (1978).
3.1.2 Sand
River sand used was procured from Ottamiri River in Onummiri Ihiagwa Owerri Imo State.
The moisture free sand was sieved with mechanical sieve in shaker in accordance with
BS1377 (1975). The sand was well graded with size range of 0.063mm to 4.7mm
3.1.3 Quarry Dust
Quarry dust of granite origin from asphalt unity construction limited Quarry division Eluama
Agunchara 2 Abia state was used. Mechanical sieve shaker was employed for sieve analysis
in accordance with BS 1377 (1975). The Quarry dust was air dried and has no traces of
moisture. It was uniformly graded with size range of 0.063mm to 4.7mm
3.1.4 Water
Portable water fit for drinking was used.
35
3.2 METHOD
The following methods were adopted to achieve the aim of this project; trial mix, batching,
mixing, moulding of blocks/ compaction of mix, curing, sieve analysis and testing.
3.2.1 Trial mixes
Trial mixes were carried out to determine the amount of water required for each percentage
replacement. Due to the finer particles of the specimen (quarry dust), more water was needed
than that required for sand to achieve zero slump when block was demoulded. 150*150*150
mould was used to carry out the trial mix. Ratio of 1:3.6:2.4, I: 3.9:2.1 and 1:6:0 of cement,
sand and quarry dust formed basic mix ratios.
3.2.2 Batching
Batching of all the constituent materials i.e. cement, sand, quarry dust and water was done by
weighing using a weighing balance of 50kg capacity.
3.2.3 Mixing
Manual mixing was employed using shovel. The dry samples were thoroughly mixed first
before further mixing with water present. The mix was transferred to the mould for
processing once a consistent and homogeneous mix was achieved. Table 3.1 to 3.3 shows the
different mix ratios for different percentage replacement determined from the trial mix while
Tables 3.4 to 3.6 shows different quantities of constituents (i.e. mass) of block in kg for each
size of block and each percentage replacement.
The different masses (kg) were calculated thus;
Mc= weight of block (3.1)

Sum of ratio
36
Ms= Mc x Rs (3.1a)
Mq= Mc x Rq (3.1b)
Mw= Mc x Rw (3.1c)
Where Mc, Ms, Mq and Mw are mass of cement, sand quarry dust and water respectively and
Rs, Rq and Rw are ratios of sand, quarry dust and water respectively.
Table 3.1: Ratio of constituent material used for 450*225*225 (9inches) hollow block
Percentage Percentage Ratio of Ratio of Cement W/C

of sand of quarry sand quarry
dust dust
100 0 6.0 0.0 1 0.42
95 5 5.7 0.3 1 0.44
90 10 5.4 0.6 1 0.46
85 15 5.1 0.9 1 0.48
80 20 4.8 1.2 1 0.50
75 25 4.5 1.5 1 0.52
70 30 4.2 1.8 1 0.54
65 35 3.9 2.1 1 0.56
60 40 3.6 2.4 1 0.58
55 45 3.3 2.7 1 0.60
50 50 3.0 3.0 1 0.62
45 55 2.7 3.3 1 0.64
40 60 2.4 3.6 1 0.66
37
Table 3.2: Ratio of constituent material used for 450*225*125 (5inches) solid block

dust dust
100 0 6.0 0.0 1 0.42
95 5 5.7 0.3 1 0.44
90 10 5.4 0.6 1 0.46
85 15 5.1 0.9 1 0.48
80 20 4.8 1.2 1 0.50
75 25 4.5 1.5 1 0.52
70 30 4.2 1.8 1 0.54
65 35 3.9 2.1 1 0.56
60 40 3.6 2.4 1 0.58
55 45 3.3 2.7 1 0.60
50 50 3.0 3.0 1 0.62
45 55 2.7 3.3 1 0.64
40 60 2.4 3.6 1 0.66
38
Table 3.3: Ratio of constituent material used for 150 × 150 × 150mm cube

dust dust
100 0 6.0 0.0 1 0.42
95 5 5.7 0.3 1 0.44
90 10 5.4 0.6 1 0.46
85 15 5.1 0.9 1 0.48
80 20 4.8 1.2 1 0.50
75 25 4.5 1.5 1 0.52
70 30 4.2 1.8 1 0.54
65 35 3.9 2.1 1 0.56
60 40 3.6 2.4 1 0.58
55 45 3.3 2.7 1 0.60
50 50 3.0 3.0 1 0.62
45 55 2.7 3.3 1 0.64
40 60 2.4 3.6 1 0.66
39
Calculated mass of 450*225*225 (9inches) hollow block =27.54kg
Table 3.4: shows the quantities of constituent materials in kilogram for 450*225*225
(9inches) hollow block
Percentage Percentage Mass of Mass of Mass of Mass of

replacement replacement cement sand (kg) quarry water
of sand of quarry (kg) dust (kg) (kg)
dust
100 0 3.71 22.26 0.00 1.56
95 5 3.70 21.09 1.11 1.63
90 10 3.69 19.93 2.21 1.70
85 15 3.68 18..77 3.31 1.76
80 20 3.67 17.62 4.40 1.84
75 25 3.66 16..47 5.49 1.90
70 30 3.65 15.33 6.57 1.97
65 35 3.64 14.20 7.64 2.04
60 40 3.63 13.07 8.71 2.11
55 45 3.62 11.95 9.77 2.17
50 50 3.61 10.83 10.83 2.24
45 55 3.60 9.72 11.88 2.30
40 60 3.59 8.62 12.92 2.36
40
Calculated mass of 450*225*125 (5inches) solid block = 36.18kg
Table 3.5: shows the quantities of constituent material in kilogram for 450*125*225
(5inches) solid block

dust
100 0 4.88 29.28 0.00 2.05
95 5 4.86 27.70 1.46 2.14
90 10 4.85 26.19 2.91 2.23
85 15 4.84 24.68 4.36 2.32
80 20 4.82 23.14 5.78 2.41
75 25 4.81 21.65 7.23 2.50
70 30 4.80 20.16 8.64 2.59
65 35 4.79 18.68 10.06 2.68
60 40 4.77 17.17 11.45 2.77
55 45 4.76 15.71 12.85 2.86
50 50 4.75 14.25 14.25 2.95
45 55 4.74 12.80 15.64 3.03
40 60 4.72 11.33 16.99 3.12
41
Calculated mass of 150 × 150 × 150mm cube = 9.50kg
Table 3.6: Shows the quantities of constituent material in kilogram for 150 × 150
×150mm cube

dust
100 0 1.28 7.68 0.00 0.54
95 5 1.27 7.24 0.38 0.56
90 10 1.27 6.86 0.76 0.58
85 15 1.27 6.48 1.14 0.61
80 20 1.26 6.05 1.51 0.63
75 25 1.26 6.05 1.89 0.66
70 30 1.25 5.25 2.25 0.68
65 35 1.25 4.88 2.63 0.70
60 40 1.25 4.50 3.00 0.73
55 45 1.25 4.13 3.38 0.75
50 50 1.24 3.72 3.72 0.77
45 55 1.24 3.35 4.09 0.79
40 60 1.24 2.98 4.46 0.82
42
3.2.4 Moulding of blocks/ compaction of mix
Manual compaction method was adopted with two drops and followed by levelling and
demoulding. The mould was borrowed from the department of Civil Engineering, Federal
University of Technology Owerri. The sizes of mould borrowed include 450*225*225,
(hollow blocks), 450*125*225 (solid block), 150*150*150, (cubes).
3.2.5 Curing
A long rubber hose with nozzle was used to sprinkle water for 28 days. Spraying was done
twice daily (morning and evening).
3.2.6 Sieve analysis
Sieve analysis of sand and quarry dust was conducted. Apparatus used are described below
followed by procedures adopted and calculation.
3.2.6.1 Apparatus for the Experimental Details of Sieve Analysis
i. Sensitive weighing balance
ii. A set of BS sieve with lid and receiver complying with BS 410
iii. Mechanical sieve shaker with timer
iv. Set of sieve brushes
v. Set of evaporating dishes
vi. Set of metal trays
vii. A scoop of at least 200mm long
viii. One set of mortar rubber pestle
43
3.2.6.2 Procedures
Each of the sieve was cleaned, weighed and recorded, then the dried specimens were weighed
(1000g for each of the river sand and quarry dust) using a sensitive weighing balance. The
empty pan was set to zero before sand and quarry dust were added. The set of sieves were
arranged in a descending order with the largest sieve place on top to the bottom pan or
receiver. The set of sieves were firmly clamped on the mechanical sieve shaker with the lid
and receiver in position. The specimen was poured into the top sieve; the timer of the sieve
shaker set to 10 minutes and then switched on at a uniform speed. When the sieve shaker
stopped, each of the sieves and the content retained were weighed and recorded.
3.2.6.3 Calculations
The mass of the specimen retained on each sieve was summed up. If the sum of the mass of
the specimen retained has a discrepancy of up to ± 5% from the original mass of the
specimen, then the whole experiment shall be repeated. Otherwise, the mass retained by each
sieve is converted to the percentage of total mass and the percentage passing (percentage
fine) shall be obtained.
3.2.6.3.1 The Particle Size Distribution Curve
This is a graph or curve that describes the grading of the analysed specimen. This is a curve
plotted after the sieve analysis test has been performed.
The specimen is said to be uniformly graded if the major part almost vertical. This means that
the particles are of the same size. If the shape of the curve is not steep i.e. it covers over are
reasonable range of the graph, ie all the particle sizes are present, then such specimen is said
to be well graded. A specimen is said to be gap graded if it lack intermediate particles.
44
3.2.6.3.2 Effective Size (D10)
The effective size is defined as the largest size of the smallest 10 percent.
3.2.6.3.3 Uniformity Coefficient, (Cu)
This is the ratio of the maximum particle size of the smallest 60 percent to the effective size,
and is calculated as:
Cu = D60 (3.2)
D10
If Cu < 4, the specimen is uniformly graded. If Cu > 4, the specimen is either well graded or
gap graded.
3.2.6.3.4 Coefficient of Gradation, (Cg)
This is calculated from the equation below:
Cg = (D30)2 (3.3)
D60 × D10
3.2.7 Testing
The test conducted was only compressive strength test.
3.2.7.1 Compressive strength
The compressive test of the blocks and cubes were done with the aid of Universal
Compression Testing Machine belonging to Civil Engineering Department, Federal
University of Technology, Owerri. It conforms to BS 1881: part 115(1986). Compressive
strength will be calculated as follows.
Compressive strength = Average failure load(N) (3.4)

Cross sectional area (mm2)
45
CHAPTER FOUR
RESULT AND DISCUSSION
4.1 RESULT
The following results were obtained for sieve analysis of sand and quarry dust, masses of
different block sizes, crushing load and the compressive strength of the different block sizes.
The results of the relationship between compressive strength and different constituent of
sand-quarry dust block were also obtained.
4.1.1Sieve analysis
Tables 4.1 to 4.2 are the sieve analysis result of sand and quarry dust respectively. The sieve
sizes used ranged from 5.6mm to 0.063mm for both river sand and quarry dust. River Sand
has a fineness modulus of 3.29 while quarry dust has a fineness modulus of 2.94 Fig 4.1 and
4.2 are the distribution curves for sand and quarry dust respectively.
46
Table 4.1 Sieve analysis results for River Sand
Sieve sizes Mass % mass Cumulative % %

(mm) retained retained (g) mass cumulative Passing
(g) retained (g) mass
retained (g)
5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.75 10.50 1.05 10.50 1.05 98.95
2.80 53.45 5.35 63.95 6.40 93.60
1.18 264.07 26.41 328.02 32.81 67.19
0.3 631.04 63.10 959.06 95.91 4.09
0.15 38.01 3.80 997.07 99.71 0.29
0.075 1.61 0.16 998.68 99.87 0.13
0.063 0.49 0.05 999.17 99.92 0.08
Receiver 0.83 0.08 1000.00 100.00
Fineness modulus = 329.35/100 =3.29
47
Fig 4.1 showing the graph of percentage passing vs. Sieve size for River sand.
Sieve analysis of River sand
100
90
80
70
60
% passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve sizes
SILT SAND GRAVEL

CLAY
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE
Effective size (D10) = 0.35
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) =D60/D10
D60= 1.0, therefore, Cu=1.0/0.35= 2.857
This shows that this sample is uniformly graded
Coefficient of gradation, (Cg)= (D30)2/(D60xD10)
D30=0.55
Therefore, Cg = 0.552/ (1.0x0.33)= 0.916
48
Table 4.2 Sieve analysis results for Quarry dust
Sieve size Mass % mass Cumulative % %

(mm) retained retained (g) mass cumulative Passing
(g) retained (g) mass
retained(g)
5.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 100.00
4.75 2.45 0.25 2.45 0.25 99.75
2.80 112.05 11.21 114.50 11.46 88.54
1.18 313.93 31.39 428.43 42.85 57.15
0.3 293.16 29.32 721.59 72.17 27.83
0.15 128.53 12.85 850.12 85.02 14.98
0.075 88.78 8.88 938.90 93.90 6.10
0.063 37.40 3.74 976.30 97.64 2.36
Receiver 23.70 2.37 1000.00 100.00
Fineness modulus =294.19/100 =2.94
49
Fig 4.2 showing the graph of percentage passing vs sieve size for Quarry dust
Sieve analysis of Quarry dust

100
90
80
70
60
% passing
50
40
30
20
10
0
0.001 0.01 0.1 1 10 100
Sieve sizes
SILT SAND GRAVEL

CLAY
FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE FINE MEDIUM COARSE
Effective size (D10)= 0.11
Uniformity coefficient (Cu) =D60/D10
D60= 1.4 , therefore, Cu=1.4/0.11= 12.72
This shows that this sample is well graded
Coefficient of gradation, (Cg)= (D30)2/(D60xD10)
D30=0.32
Therefore, Cg = 0.322/ (1.4x0.11)= 0.66
4.1.2 Block Masses
Tables 4.3 to 4.5 presents the masses of different percentage replacement for the different
block sizes. It shows that 450x225x125 solid block has the highest mass with average size of
25.38kg followed by 450x225x225 hollow block with average size of 23.75kg and 150x
150x150 cubes as the least with average size of 6.90kg
50
hollow blocks
Percentage replacement Mass 1 (kg) Mass 2 (kg) Average Mass (kg)
100 23.0 23.7 23.4
95 24.5 24.6 24.6
90 23.2 23.3 23.3
85 22.4 22.6 22.5
80 24.0 24.0 24.0
75 23.5 23.6 23.6
70 23.4 23.7 23.6
23.1 23.7 23.4

65
60 23.9 24.0 24.0
55 24.0 24.8 24.4
50 24.0 23.8 23.7
45 23.6 23.8 23.7
40 24.0 24.1 24.1
51
Solid blocks
100 25.2 25.6 25.4
95 26.0 26.2 26.1
90 25.4 25.8 25.6
85 26.0 26.3 26.1
80 26.4 26.4 26.4
75 24.6 24.7 24.5
70 25.2 25.2 25.2
65 25.6 25.6 25.6
60 25.0 25.0 25.0
55 25.2 25.2 25.2
50 25.8 25.8 25.8
45 25.3 25.5 25.4
40 23.2 24.1 23.7
52
Cubes
100 6.6 6.7 6.7
95 6.6 6.6 6.6
90 7.0 7.0 7.0
85 6.5 6.5 6.5
80 7.0 7.0 7.0
75 7.0 7.0 7.0
70 7.4 7.4 7.4
65 6.1 6.2 6.2
60 7.0 7.1 7.1
55 7.0 7.2 7.1
50 6.8 6/9 6.9
45 7.1 7.1 7.1
40 7.0 7.1 7.1
53
4.1.3 Block Crushing load
The crushing load for 450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid blocks,and
150x150x150 are as shown in tables 4.6 to 4.8. 170kN was required to crush 450x225x125
solid blocks at 85% replacement but only 40kN was required to crush 40% replacement. For
450x225x225 hollow blocks, 100kN was required to the block at 80% replacement and only
18kN was required to crush the same block size at 40% replacement. While 120kN crushed
150x150x150 cubes at 80% replacement and 40kN crushed 45% sand replacement.
Table 4.6 showing the Crushing load for different percentage replacement for
450x225x225 (9”) Hollow blocks
Percentage replacement Crushing Load 1 Crushing Load 2 Average Crushing

(kN) (kN) Load (kN))
100 26 26 26
95 65 65 65
90 60 60 60
85 80 95 80
80 100 100 100
75 40 55 48
70 60 70 65
65 40 45 43
60 60 65 63
55 45 50 48
50 40 40 43
45 85 95 90
40 15 20 18
54
450x225x125 solid blocks

100 55 55 55
95 120 155 138
90 110 140 125
85 160 180 170
80 150 150 150
75 120 155 138
70 135 135 135
65 90 95 93
60 110 140 125
55 100 105 103
50 60 75 68
45 160 175 168
40 40 40 40
55
150x150x150 (6”) Cubes

100 45 50 48
95 100 105 103
90 65 70 68
85 115 115 115
80 120 120 120
75 60 65 63
70 90 110 100
65 50 55 53
60 65 80 73
55 54 65 60
50 110 125 118
45 30 50 40
40 45 50 48
56
4.1.4 Block compressive strength
The compressive strength of each block size at 28th days is represented in table 4.9. The result
shows that 150x150x150 cubes have the highest compressive strength at 80% replacement
(5.33N/mm2) and the least strength at 45% replacement (1.78N/mm2). The highest
compressive strength attained by this cubes could be due its small exposed surface area. Also
450x225x125 solid block has its highest compressive strength at 85% replacement
(3.02N/mm2) and its least at 40% replacement (0.71N/mm2). These blocks have higher
compressive strength than 450x225x225 hollow blocks but are lower than 150x150x150
cubes. Higher loads were required to crush them than that required for 150x150x150 cubes
but due to larger surface area, their average compressive strength is lower. Consequently
450x225x225 hollow blocks has its highest compressive strength at 80% replacement
(1.57N/mm2) and its least compressive strength at 40% replacement (0.28N/mm2). Though
the crushing load required to crush these blocks were not as much as those required for
450x225x125 solid blocks, their larger surface area contributed to their lower compressive
strength.
The area of the different block are as follows
450x225x225 hollow blocks = 63750mm2
450x225x125 solid blocks = 56250mm2
1509x150x150 cubes = 22500mm2
57
Table 4.9 showing the compressive strength of all block type at 28th days
Percentage Compressive Compressive Compressive

Replacement Strength (N/mm2) Strength (N/mm2) Strength (N/mm2)
5” Solid 9” Hollow 6” Cubes
100 0.98 0.41 2.13
95 2.24 1.02 4.58
90 2.22 0.94 3.02
85 3.02 1.33 5.11
80 2.67 1.57 5.33
75 2.19 0.75 2.8
70 2.40 1.02 4.44
65 1.65 0.67 2.36
60 2.22 0.99 3.24
55 1.83 0.75 2.67
50 1.21 0.67 5.24
45 2.99 1.41 1.78
40 0.71 0.28 2.13
58
4.1.5 Relationship between compressive strength and different constituent of sand-
quarry dust block
The graphical relationship between compressive strength, cement, sand, quarry dust and
water for 450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150 cubes
are presented in fig 4.3 to 4.14 while the graphical relationship between compressive
strength, sand-cement ratio, quarry dust-cement ratio and water-cement ratio for
450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150 cubes are
presented in 4.15 to 4.23. Also in fig 4.24 to 2.26 are the relationship between compressive
strength of the different block sizes.
In this section “y” represents compressive strength and “x” represents the different
constituents i.e. cement, sand, quarry dust and water.
4.1.5.1 Compressive strength vsratio of cement and sand (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
Fig 4.3 and 4.4 presents the graphical relationship between compressive strength, cement and
sand. Its shows that as cement and sand content increased for 450x225x225 hollow block
compressive strength also increased progressively with the relation y= 37 7/9x – 4 73/900
and y= 257/682x + 640/917 respectively. Cement has its highest compressive strength i.e.
1.57N/mm2 at the ratio of 0.133 and its lowest compressive strength i.e. 0.28N/mm2 at the
ratio of 0.130 while Sand has its highest compressive strength at the ratio of 0.64 and lowest
at the ratio of 0.313, ( see tables A and B). Due to the larger exposed surface area of river
sand, cement particles were able to go round the sand particles, thus more sand particles were
cemented, this lead to the increase in compressive strength.
59
450x225x225 hollow blocks
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF CEMENT CONTENT (9")

HOLLOW
1.8
1.6 y = 37 7/9 x - 4 73/900
Compressive Strength
1.4
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.6 Linear (Series1)
0.4
0.2
0
0.129 0.13 0.131 0.132 0.133 0.134 0.135
Cement Content
Fig 4.4 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of sand content of
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF SAND CONTENT (9")

HOLLOW
1.8
1.6 y = 257/682x + 640/917
1.4
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.6
Linear (Series1)
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sand Content
60
4.1.5.2 Compressive strength vs.ratio of quarry dust and water (450x225x225 hollow
blocks)
Fig 4.5 and 4.6 presents the graph of compressive strength vs. quarry dust and water for
450x225x225 hollow blocks.It shows that as quarry dust and water content increased, for the
same block size, compressive strength also decreased with the relation y= -94/237x + 1
2/793 and y= -6 295/982 + 1 62/171 respectively. Quarry dust has it highest compressive
strength at the ratio 0.16 and its lowest at the ratio of 0.47 while water has its highest
compressive strength at the ratio of 0.067 and its lowest at the ratio of 0.087, (see tables C
and D). Quarry dust being finer in nature does not give enough room for cement to go round
its particles, this lead todecrease in compressive strength as more of the fines is added. As
quarry dust increased, the need for water also increased to enhance workability of mix.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF QUARRY DUST CONTENT

(9") HOLLOW
1.8
1.6
1.4
y = - 94/237x + 1 2/793
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Quarry Dust Content
61
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF WATER CONTENT (9")

HOLLOW
1.8
1.6
1.4 y = -6 295/982x + 1 62/171

1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Water Content
4.1.5.3 Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement and sand (450x225x125 solid blocks)
Fig 4.7 and 4.8 show that as cement and sand content increased for 450x225x125 solid
blocks, compressive strength increased progressively with the relation y = 91 133/162x - 10
14/16 and y = 1 29/635x + 1 209/457 respectively. Here cement has its highest compressive
strength i.e. 3.02N/mm2 at the ratio 0.133 and its lowest compressive strength i.e. 0.71N/mm2
at the ratio 0.130, while sand has its highest and lowest compressive strength at the ratio
0.682 and 0.313 respectively, (see tables E and F). The increase in compressive strength as
cement and sand increased can also be attributed to the larger surface area present in sand
covered by cement paste.
62
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF CEMENT CONTENT (5"

SOLID)
3.5
3 y = 91 133/162x - 10 14/163
2.5
2
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0.129 0.13 0.131 0.132 0.133 0.134 0.135
Cement Content
Fig 4.8 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Sand content of

SOLID
3.5
3
y = 1 29/635x + 1 209/457
2.5
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sand Content
63
4.1.5.4 Compressive strength vs. ratioof quarry dust and water (450x225x125 solid
blocks)
The relationship between the compressive strength, quarry dust and water fig 4.9 and 4.10
shows that as the quarry dust and water content increased, the compressive strength decreased
with the relation y = -1 95/962x + 2 229/758 and y = -17 257/392x + 3 49/156. Quarry dust
has its highest compressive strength at the ratio 0.12 and its lowest at the ratio of 0.47. Water
has its highest and lowest compressive strength at the ratio of 0.065 and 0.087 respectively,
(see tables G and H). Here also the fineness of quarry dust lead to the decrease in
compressive strength.

(5") SOLID
3.5
3
2.5
2 y = -1 95/962x + 2 229/758
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Quarry Dust Content
64
Fig 4.10 showing the graph of compressive strength vs. ratio of water content of
450x225x125 solid block

SOLID
3.5
3
y = -17 257/392x + 3 49/156
2.5
1.5 Series1
Linear (Series1)
1
0.5
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Water Content
4.1.5.5 Compressive strength vs. ratio of cement and sand (150x150x150 solid cubes)
It can be seen from fig 4.11 and 4.12 that 150x150x150 cubes followed the same
configuration with 450x225x225 hollow and 450x225x125 solid blocks. That is as cement
and sand content increased, compressive strength also increased progressively with the
relation y = 300 5/27 x - 36 43/216 and y = 2 107/429x + 2 51/266 respectively. Cement
has its highest compressive strength i.e. 5.33KN/mm2 at the ratio 0.133 and its lowest at ratio
0.130 while sand has its highest at the ratio 0.64 and its lowest at ratio 0.353( see tables I and
J).
65
Fig 4.11 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio of Cement content of
150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS RATIO OF CEMENT CONTENT (6")

CUBES
y = 300 5/27 x - 36 43/216
6
5
3
Series1
2 Linear (Series1)
0
0.129 0.13 0.131 0.132 0.133 0.134 0.135
Cement Content
Fig 4.12 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. ratio Sand content of
150x150x150 cubes

CUBES
y = 2 107/429x + 2 51/266
6
5
3
Series1
2 Linear (Series1)
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
Sand Content
66
4.1.5.6 Compressive strength vs ratio of quarry dust and water (150x150x150 solid
cubes)
The graphical relationship between compressive strength, quarry dust and water is presented
in fig.4.13 and fig 4.14, as quarry dust and water content increased, the compressive strength
decreased with the relation y = -2 157/431x + 4 5/546 and y = -40 9/61 x + 6 271/792
respectively. Quarry dust has its highest and lowest compressive strength at ratios 0.162 and
0.432 respectively, while water has its highest and lowest compressive strength at ratios
0.067 and 0.085 respectively, ( see tables K and L).
150x150x150 cubes

(6") CUBES
6
y = -2 157/431x + 4 5/546
5
3
Series1
2 Linear (Series1)
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
Quarry Dust Content
67
150x150x150 cubes

CUBES
6
y = -40 9/61 x + 6 271/792
5
3
Series1
2 Linear (Series1)
0
0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
Water Content
4.1.6 Relationship between compressive strength anddifferent constituent-cementratio
of sand-quarry dust block.
The following graphicalrelationships represent compressive strength vs. sand- cement ratio
quarry dust- cement ratio and water- cement ratio for 450x225x225 hollow blocks,
450x225x125 solid blocks and 150x150x150 cubes.
In this section “y” represents compressive strength and “x” represents the different
constituents- cement ratio i.e. sand-cement, quarry dust-cement and water-cement.
4.1.6.1 Compressive strength vs.Sand-cement ratio(450x225x225 hollow blocks)
The relationship between compressive strength and sand-cement ratio,for 450x225x225
hollow block as shown in figs 4.15, is y = 28/529x + 223/325. From the relation it can be
seen that as sand-cement ratio increased, compressive strength also increased. Just as has
68
being mentioned earlier, the compressive strength increased with increase in sand-cement
ratio due to more cement paste bonding more sand particle available in the mix.
The sand-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table M
is 4.8, while the sand-cement ratio corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 2.4
shown in the same table.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS SAND-CEMENT RATIO (9") HOLLOW

1.8
1.6
1.4 y = 28/529x + 223/325

COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH
1.2
0.8 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6 8
S/C
4.1.6.2 Compressive strength vs Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
The relationship between compressive strength and quarry dust-cement ratio for
450x225x225 hollow block as shown in figs 4.16, is y = - 28/529x + 1 3/803. From the
relation it can be seen that as quarry dust-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength
decreased. Just as has being mentioned earlier, the compressive strength was decreasing as
69
quarry dust-cement ratio was increasing due to increase in the amount of fines in quarry dust.
The quarry dust-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in
table N is 1.2, while that corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 3.6.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS QUARRY DUST-CEMENT RATIO (9")

HOLLOW
1.8
1.6
1.4 y = - 28/529x + 1 3/803
1.2
1
Series1
0.8
Linear (Series1)
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4
Q.D/C
4.1.6.3 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
The relationship between compressive strength and water-cement ratio for 450x225x225
hollow block as shown in figs 4.17, y = - 289/364x + 1 320/949. From the relation it can be
seen that as water-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength decreased. The water-
cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table O is 0.5,
while the water-cement ratio corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 0.66.
70
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS WATER-CEMENT RATIO (9") HOLLOW

1.8
1.6
1.4 y = - 289/364x + 1 320/949
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.4
0.2
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
W/C
71
4.1.6.4 Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
The relationship between compressive strength and sand-cement ratio, for 450x225x225
hollow block as shown in figs 4.18, is y = 67/459x + 1 3/7. From the relation it can be
seen that as sand-cement ratio increased, compressive strength also increased, Just as has
being mentioned earlier, the compressive strength increased with increase in sand-cement
ratio due to more cement paste bonding more sand particle available in the mix.
The sand-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table P
shown in table P
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS SAND-CEMENT RATIO (5") SOLID

3.5
3 y = 67/459x + 1 3/7
2.5
2
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 2 4 6 8
S/C
72
4.1.6.5 Compressive strength vs Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
The relationship between compressive strength and quarry dust-cement ratio for
450x225x225 hollow block as shown in figs 4.19, is y = - 67/459x + 2 213/700. From the
relation it can be seen that as quarry dust-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength
decreased. Just as has being mentioned earlier, the compressive strength was decreasing as
quarry dust-cement ratio was increasing due to increase in the amount of fines in quarry dust.
The quarry dust-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in
table Q is 0.9, while that corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 3.6
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS QUARRY DUST-CEMENT RATIO

(5") SOLID
3.5
3
y = - 67/459x + 2 213/700
2.5
2
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 1 2 3 4
Q.D/C
73
4.1.6.6 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
hollow block as shown in figs 4.20, y =-2 69/364x + 3 163/728. From the relation it can be
seen that as water-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength decreased. The water-
cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table R is 0.48,
while the water-cement ratio corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 0.66.
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS WATER-CEMENT RATIO (5")

SOLID
3.5
3
2.5 y = -2 69/364x + 3 163/728
2
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
W/C
74
4.1.6.7 Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (150x150x150cubes)
The relationship between compressive strength and sand-cement ratio, for 150x150x150
cubes is y = 5/16 x + 2 29/213 (fig 4.21). From the relation it can be seen that as sand-
cement ratio increased, compressive strength also increased. This is also due to the reason
already mentioned.
The sand-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table S
shown in table P
Fig 4.21 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS SAND-CEMENT RATIO (6")

CUBES
y = 5/16 x + 2 29/213
6
3
Series1
2
Linear (Series1)
1
0
0 2 4 6 8
S/C
75
4.1.6.8 Compressive strength vs Quarry dust-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
From fig 4.22 the relationship between compressive strength and quarry dust-cement ratio for
150x150x150 cubes, is y = - 5/16 x + 4 1/92. From the relation it can be seen that as quarry
dust-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength decreased. Reason being as already
mentioned. The quarry dust-cement ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength
as shown in table T is 1.2, while that corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 3.3
Fig 4.22 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Quarry Dust-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS QUARRY DUST-CEMENT RATIO

(6") CUBES
6
5 y = - 5/16 x + 4 1/92
3
Series1
2
Linear (Series1)
1
0
0 1 2 3 4
Q.D/C
76
4.1.6.9 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
cubesas shown in figs 4.23, y = -4 125/182x + 5 237/242. From the relation it can be seen
that as water-cement ratio increased, the compressive strength decreased. The water-cement
ratio corresponding to the highest compressive strength as shown in table U is 0.5, while the
water-cement ratio corresponding to the lowest compressive strength is 0.64.
Fig 4.23 showing the graph of Compressive strength vs. Water-cement content of
150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH VS WATER-CEMENT RATIO (6")

CUBES
6
5
y = -4 125/182x + 5 237/242
4
3
Series1
2
Linear (Series1)
1
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
W/C
77
4.1.7 Compressive strength of the different block sizes.
The relationship between the different block sizes is presented in the graphs below
4.1.7.1 Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks vs. 450x225x125 solid block
Fig 4.24 gives the relationship between the compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow
blocks and 450x225x125 solid block as y = 425/887x - 41/588. It can be seen that there
exist a positive relationship between the two block sizes, i.e. as compressive strength of
450x225x225 hollow block is increasing the compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid
block is also increasing. Also from table V it can be seen that 450x225x225 hollow block has
its highest and lowest compressive strength at 80% and 40% replacement respectively while
450x225x125 solid block has its highest and lowest compressive strength at 85% and 40%
replacement. The highest compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block is 1.45N/mm2
higher than the compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block i.e. about 92.4% higher.
Also the lowest compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block is 0.43N/mm2 higher than
the lowest compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block i.e. about 153.6% higher.
Both also have their lowest compressive strength existing at the same replacement.
Here “y” represents compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block and “x” represents
compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block
78
Fig 4.24 showing the graph of Compressive Strength (9”) vs. Compressive Strength (5”)
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (9") HOLLOW VS COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (5") SOLID
1.8
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH 9"
1.6 y = 425/887x - 41/588

1.4
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.6
Linear (Series1)
0.4
0.2
0
0 1 2 3 4
4.1.7.2 Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks vs 150x150x150 cubes
The relationship between the compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks and
150x150x150 cubes is given in fig 4.25 as y = 31/222x + 257/602. It can also be seen that
there exist a positive relationship between these two block sizes, i.e. as compressive strength
of 450x225x225 hollow block is increasing the compressive strength of 150x150x150 cubes
is equally increasing. From table W it can be seen that 150x150x150 cubes has its highest
and lowest compressive strength at 80% and 45% replacement respectively. The highest
compressive strength of 150x150x150 cubes is 3.76N/mm2 higher than the highest
compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block i.e. about 239.5% higher. Also the lowest
compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block is 1.50N/mm2 higher than the lowest
compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block i.e. about 535.7% higher. Both also have
their highest compressive strength existing at the same replacement.
79
Here “y” represents compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block and “x” represents
compressive strength of 150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (9") HOLLOW VS COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (6") CUBES
1.8
y = 31/222x + 257/602
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8 Series1
0.6
Linear (Series1)
0.4
0.2
0
0 2 4 6
4.1.7.3 Compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block vs 150x150x150 cubes
Fig 4.26 gives the relationship between the compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block
and 150x150x150 cubes as y = 170/851x + 1 73/207 . The graph shows that as compressive
strength of 450x225x125 solid block is increasing the compressive strength of 150x150x150
cubes is also increasing. From table X, it can also be seen that the highest compressive
strength of 150x150x150 cubes is 2.31N/mm2 higher than the compressive strength of
450x225x125 solid blocks i.e. about 76.5% higher. Also the lowest compressive strength of
150x150x150 cubes is 1.07N/mm2 higher than the lowest compressive strength of
450x225x125 solid blocks i.e. about 150.7% higher.
80
Here “y” represents compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block and “x” represents
compressive strength of 150x150x150 solid cubes
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH (5") SOLID VS COMPRESSIVE

STRENGTH (6") CUBES
3.5
3
y = 170/851x + 1 73/207
2.5
2
1.5 Series1
1 Linear (Series1)
0.5
0
0 2 4 6
81
CHAPTER FIVE
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
5.1 CONCLUSIONS
The partial replacement of sand with quarry dust improved the compressive strength of
450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid block and 150x150x150 cubes as shown in
table 4.9. The compressive strengths at 40% sand for 450X225X225 hollow block and
450x225x125 solid blocks were the only ones lower than 100% sand and finally, for
150x150x150 cubes, the 45% partial replacement was the only one lower than 100%. This
shows that quarry dust can serve as a good partial replacement for sand in the production of
sandcrete blocks.
The relationships between compressive strength and different constituent replacement for all
the block types were established and summarized below.
Compressive strength vs. Cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
y= 37 7/9x – 4 73/900 (5.1)
Compressive strength vs. Sand ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
y= 257/682x + 640/917 (5.2)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
y= -94/237x + 1 2/793 (5.3)
Compressive strength vs. Water ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks);
y= -6 295/982 + 1 62/171 (5.4)
Compressive strength vs. Cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = 91 133/162x - 10 14/163 (5.5)
82
Compressive strength vs. Sand ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = 1 29/635x + 1 209/457 (5.6)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = -1 95/962x + 2 229/758 (5.7)
Compressive strength vs. Water ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = -17 257/392x + 3 49/156 (5.8)
Compressive strength vs. Cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = 300 5/27 x - 36 43/216 (5.9)
Compressive strength vs. Sand ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = 2 107/429x + 2 51/266 (5.10)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = -2 157/431x + 4 5/546 (5.11)
Compressive strength vs. Water ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = -40 9/61 x + 6 271/792 (5.12)
Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
y = 28/529x + 223/325 (5.13)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
y = - 28/529x + 1 3/803 (5.14)
Compressive strength vs. Water-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks)
83
y = - 289/364x + 1 320/949 (5.15)
Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = 67/459x + 1 3/7. (5.16)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = - 67/459x + 2 213/700 (5.17)
Compressive strength vs. Water-cement ratio (450x225x125 solid blocks)
y = -2 69/364x + 3 163/728 (5.18)
Compressive strength vs. Sand-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = 5/16 x + 2 29/213 (5.19)
Compressive strength vs. Quarry dust-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = - 5/16 x + 4 1/92 (5.20)
Compressive strength vs. Water-cement ratio (150x150x150 cubes)
y = -4 125/182x + 5 237/242 (5.21)
The relationship between the compressive strength of different block sizes were also
established and summarized as shown below.
Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks vs. 450x225x125 solid block
y = 425/887x - 41/588 (5.22)
Compressive strength of 450x225x225 hollow block vs. 150x150x150 cubes
y = 31/222x + 257/602 (5.23)
84
Compressive strength of 450x225x125 solid block vs. 150x150x150 cubes
y = 170/851x + 1 73/207 (5.24)
The ideal percentage replacement was found to be at 80% sand and 20% quarry dust at ratios
1:4.8:1.2:0.5 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust and water ) for 450x225x225 hollow blocks, while
that for 450x225x125 solid block was found to be at 85% sand and 15% quarry dustat ratios
1:5.1:0.9:4.8 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust and water ) and finally 150x150x150 cubes had its
own at 80% sand and 20% quarry dust at ratios 1:4.8:1.2:0.5 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust and
water ).
The percentage replacement corresponding to the lowest compressive strength for
450x225x225 hollow blocks, 450x225x125 solid block and 150x150x150 cubes occurred at
40% sand and 60% quarry, 40% sand and 60% quarry, and 45% sand and 55% quarry dust
respectfully. While their corresponding ratios are 1:2.4:3.6:0.66 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust
and water ), at ratios 1:2.4:3.6:0.66 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust and water ), at ratios
1:2.7:3.3:0.64 ( cement ,sand, quarry dust and water ) respectfully.
5.2 RECOMMENDATIONS
Similar work should be carried out with other sizes of sandcrete blocks like 450x225x150
hollow and solid blocks and 100x100x100 cubes. This research work should also be carried
out using machine mould and the result compared. Other materials like fly ash, should also be
partially replaced to ascertain their compressive strength when used to produce sandcrete
blocks. Seminars and workshops should be organized for block manufacturers, educating
them on the safe mix ratio in order to produce reliable blocks that can be used in construction
projects with full confidence on safety.
85
APPENDIX
Table A to Table L presents values of the compressive strength and different constituent
ratios of all the block sizes
TABLE A. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of

450x225x225 hollow block
CEMENT COMPRESSIVE
CONTENT STRENGTH (N/mm2)
0.134 0.410
0.134 1.020
0.134 0.940
0.133 1.330
0.133 1.570
0.132 0.750
0.132 1.020
0.132 0.670
0.131 0.990
0.131 0.750
0.131 0.670
0.130 1.410
0.130 0.280
TABLE B. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of

SAND COMPRESSIVE
0.808 0.410
0.766 1.020
0.724 0.940
0.682 1.330
0.640 1.570
0.600 0.750
0.557 1.020
0.516 0.670
0.476 0.990
0.434 0.750
0.394 0.670
0.353 1.410
0.313 0.280
86
Table C showing Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry Dust content of
QUARRY DUST COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.000 0.41
0.040 1.02
0.080 s0.94
0.120 1.33
0.160 1.57
0.200 0.75
0.238 1.02
0.277 0.67
0.317 0.99
0.355 0.75
0.394 0.67
0.432 1.41
0.470 0.28
TABLE D. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of

WATER COMPRESSIVE
0.058 0.410
0.060 1.020
0.062 0.940
0.065 1.330
0.067 1.570
0.068 0.750
0.073 1.020
0.075 0.670
0.075 0.990
0.080 0.750
0.081 0.670
0.085 1.410
0.087 0.280
87
TABLE E. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of
CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.134 0.98
0.134 2.45
0.134 2.22
0.133 3.02
0.133 2.67
0.132 2.19
0.132 2.40
0.132 1.65
0.131 2.22
0.131 1.83
0.131 1.21
0.130 2.99
0.130 0.71
TABLE F. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of

SAND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.808 0.98
0.766 2.45
0.724 2.22
0.682 3.02
0.640 2.67
0.600 2.19
0.557 2.40
0.516 1.65
0.476 2.22
0.434 1.83
0.394 1.21
0.353 2.99
0.313 0.71
88
TABLE G. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry dust content of

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.000 0.98
0.040 2.45
0.080 2.22
0.120 3.02
0.160 2.67
0.200 2.19
0.238 2.40
0.277 1.65
0.317 2.22
0.355 1.83
0.394 1.21
0.432 2.99
0.470 0.71
TABLE H. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of

WATER CONTENT
(N/mm2)
0.058 0.98
0.060 2.45
0.062 2.22
0.065 3.02
0.067 2.67
0.068 2.19
0.073 2.40
0.075 1.65
0.076 2.22
0.080 1.83
0.081 1.21
0.085 2.99
0.087 0.71
89
TABLE I. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Cement content of
150x150x150 cubes
CEMENT COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.134 2.13
0.134 4.58
0.134 3.02
0.133 5.11
0.133 5.33
0.132 2.80
0.132 4.44
0.132 2.36
0.131 3.24
0.131 2.67
0.131 5.24
0.130 1.78
0.130 2.13
TABLE J. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Sand content of 150x150x150
cubes
SAND COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

(N/mm2)
CONTENT
0.808 2.13
0.766 4.58
0.724 3.02
0.682 5.11
0.640 5.33
0.600 2.80
0.557 4.44
0.516 2.36
0.476 3.24
0.434 2.67
0.394 5.24
0.353 1.78
0.313 2.13
90
TABLE K. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Quarry dust content of
150x150x150 cubes

(N/mm2)
CONTENT
0.000 2.13
0.040 4.58
0.080 3.02
0.120 5.11
0.160 5.33
0.200 2.80
0.238 4.44
0.277 2.36
0.317 3.24
0.355 2.67
0.394 5.24
0.432 1.78
0.470 2.13
TABLE L. Showing the Compressive Strength and ratio of Water content of

150x150x150 cubes
WATER COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH

CONTENT (N/mm2)
0.058 2.13
0.060 4.58
0.062 3.02
0.065 5.11
0.067 5.33
0.068 2.80
0.073 4.44
0.075 2.36
0.076 3.24
0.080 2.67
0.081 5.24
0.085 1.78
0.087 2.13
91
Table M to table U presents the values of compressive strength and the different constituent-
cement ratio of all block sizes
TABLE M. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 450x225x225

hollow blocks
S/C
(N/mm2)
6.00 0.41
5.70 1.02
5.40 0.94
5.10 1.33
4.80 1.57
4.50 0.75
4.20 1.02
3.90 0.67
3.60 0.99
3.30 0.75
3.00 0.67
2.70 1.41
2.40 0.28
TABLE N. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of

Q.D/C
(N/mm2)
0.00 0.41
0.30 1.02
0.60 0.94
0.90 1.33
1.20 1.57
1.50 0.75
1.80 1.02
2.10 0.67
2.40 0.99
2.70 0.75
3.00 0.67
3.30 1.41
3.60 0.28
92
TABLE O. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of
W/C
(N/mm2)
0.42 0.41
0.44 1.02
0.46 0.94
0.48 1.33
0.50 1.57
0.52 0.75
0.54 1.02
0.56 0.67
0.58 0.99
0.60 0.75
0.62 0.67
0.64 1.41
0.66 0.28
TABLE P. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 450x225x125

solid blocks
S/C
(N/mm2)
6.00 0.98
5.70 2.45
5.40 2.22
5.10 3.02
4.80 2.67
4.50 2.19
4.20 2.40
3.90 1.65
3.60 2.22
3.30 1.83
3.00 1.21
2.70 2.99
2.40 0.71
93
TABLE Q. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of
Q.D/C
(N/mm2)
0.00 0.98
0.30 2.45
0.60 2.22
0.90 3.02
1.20 2.67
1.50 2.19
1.80 2.40
2.10 1.65
2.40 2.22
2.70 1.83
3.00 1.21
3.30 2.99
3.60 0.71
TABLE R. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of

W/C
(N/mm2)
0.42 0.98
0.44 2.45
0.46 2.22
0.48 3.02
0.50 2.67
0.52 2.19
0.54 2.40
0.56 1.65
0.58 2.22
0.60 1.83
0.62 1.21
0.64 2.99
0.66 0.71
94
TABLE S. Showing the Compressive Strength and Sand-Cement ratio of 150x150x150
cubes
S/C
(N/mm2)
6.00 2.13
5.70 4.58
5.40 3.02
5.10 5.11
4.80 5.33
4.50 2.80
4.20 4.44
3.90 2.36
3.60 3.24
3.30 2.67
3.00 5.24
2.70 1.78
2.40 2.13
TABLE T. Showing the Compressive Strength and Quarry dust-Cement ratio of

150x150x150 cubes
Q.D/C
(N/mm2)
0.00 2.13
0.30 4.58
0.60 3.02
0.90 5.11
1.20 5.33
1.50 2.80
1.80 4.44
2.10 2.36
2.40 3.24
2.70 2.67
3.00 5.24
3.3 1.78
3.6 2.13
95
TABLE U. Showing the Compressive Strength and Water-Cement ratio of
150x150x150 cubes
W/C
(N/mm2)
0.42 2.13
0.44 4.58
0.46 3.02
0.48 5.11
0.50 5.33
0.52 2.80
0.54 4.44
0.56 2.36
0.58 3.24
0.60 2.67
0.62 5.24
0.64 1.78
0.66 2.13
Tables V to table X presents the values of the compressive strength of all the block sizes
TABLE V. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 450x225x125 solid blocks
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) OF 9” HOLLOW
OF 5” SOLID
0.98 0.41
2.45 1.02
2.22 0.94
3.02 1.33
2.67 1.57
2.19 0.75
2.40 1.02
1.65 0.67
2.22 0.99
1.83 0.75
1.21 0.67
2.99 1.41
0.71 0.28
96
TABLE W. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x225 hollow blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) OF 9” HOLLOW
OF 6” CUBES
2.13 0.41
4.58 1.02
3.02 0.94
5.11 1.33
5.33 1.57
2.80 0.75
4.44 1.02
2.36 0.67
3.24 0.99
2.67 0.75
5.24 0.67
1.78 1.41
2.13 0.28
TABLE X. Showing the Compressive Strength of 450x225x125 solid blocks and the
Compressive Strength of 150x150x150 cubes
COMPRESSIVE
STRENGTH (N/mm2)
(N/mm2) OF 5” SOLID
OF 6” CUBES
2.13 0.98
4.58 2.45
3.02 2.22
5.11 3.02
5.33 2.67
2.80 2.19
4.44 2.40
2.36 1.65
3.24 2.22
2.67 1.83
5.24 1.21
1.78 2.99
2.13 0.71
97
REFERENCES
Abdullahi, M. (2005). Compressive strength of sandcrete blocks in Bosso and Shiroro Areas of
Minna, Niger State, Nigeria. AU J.T, 9 (2), 126-132.
Adeyeye, A.O. (2013). Strength properties of commercially produced sandcrete blocks in Ado
Ekiti, Akure and Ile Ife Nigeria. International Journal of engineering science invention, 8
(8), 25-34.
Anya, C.U. and Osadebe, N.N. (2015). Mixture experiment models for predicting the
compressive strength and water absorption of sand-quarry dust blocks. The international
journal of engineering and science (IJES), 4 (2), 27-31.
Ali, M.S., Khan, I.A and Hossain, M.I. (2008).Chemical analysis of ordinary portland cement
of Bangladesh. Chemical engineering research bulletin, 12, 7-10.
Afolayan, J.O., Arum, C. and Daramola. (2008). Characteristics strength of sandcrete blocks in
Ondo state, Nigeria. Journal of civil engineering research and practice, 5 (1), 15-28.
Akinsola, O., Emmanuel, F., Agibila O. and Ogunsanmi O. (2012). Investigation of salinity
effect on compressive strength of reinforced concrete. Journal of sustainable development
5, 6, 74-82.
Ali, H.H. (2009). The effect as curing condition on compressive strength in high strength
concrete. Diyala Journal of Engineering Science, 2, 35-48.
Amana O. and Manasseh Joel. (2014). Effect of variation in temperature on some properties of
cement stabilized lateritic inter locking bricks. International Journal of engineering and
technology, 4 (1), 12-16.
Anike, E.E. and Iwunze, C.C. (2012). Regression equation for sand-quarry dust-cement hollow
blocks using Sheffe’s four-component degree four simplex theory. B.ENG thesis,Federal
University of Technology Owerri .
Alohan, O. (2012), Impact of vibration time on compressive strength of hardened sandcrete

building blocks. Buildings, 2, 123-172.
Anosike, M.N. and Oyebade A. A, (2012). Sandcrete blocks and quality management in
Nigeria building Industry. Journal of Engineering, Project, and Production Management,
2(1) 37-46.
Balamungan, G.and Dr Perumal. (2013). Use of Quarry dust to replace sand in concrete – An
experimental study. International journal of scientific and research publication, 3 (12),1-
4.
Chandana, S., Katakkan, B.K., Lakshmi, S.T., Sui, R. and Kanakmava, S. (2013). Partial
replacement of sand with quarry dust in concrete. International journal of innovative
technology and exploring engineering (IJITEE), 2 (6), 1-5.
98
Dio, A.W. and Morris, E.E. (2009). Physico-mechanical behavior of sandcrete block masonry
unit. Journal of building appraisal, 4, 301-309.
Dr Arulraj, G.P., Mr Adin, A. and Sunesh K. (2013). Granite Powder concrete. International
Journal (ESTIJ) 31 February 193-198.
Ettu, L.O., Mbajiogu M.W. and Arimanwa, J.I. (2013). Strength of blended cement sandcerte
and soilcrete blocks containing cassava waste ash and plantain leaf ash. American journal
of engineering research (AJER), 2 (5), 55-60
Ewa, D.E. and Ukpata, J.O. (2013). Investigation of the compressive strength of commercial
sandcrete blocks in Calabar, Nigeria. International journal of engineering and
technology, 3 (4), 477-482.
Ettu, L.O., Nwachukwu, K.C., Arimanwa, J.I., Anyanwu T.U, and Okpara, S.O. (2013).
Strength of blended cement sandcrete and soilcrete blocks containing Afikpo rice husk
ash and corn cob ash. International journal of modern engineering research (IJMER), 3
(3), 1366-1371.
Ewa, D.E., Ukpata O., Joseph, E. and Anderson, A. (2013). Effects of curing on the
compressive strengths of commercial sandcrete blocks in Calabar Nigeria. International
Journal of Engineering and Technology, 3 (7), 716-729.
Ezeh, J.C., and Ibearugbulem, O.M. (2009). Application of Scheffer’s model in optimization of
compressive cube strength of river stone aggregate concrete. International Journal of
Natural and applied sciences, 5 (4), 303-308.
Fagbenle, O.I. and Oluwunmi, A.O. (2010). Building Failure and collapse in Nigeria: The
influence of the informal sector. Journal of sustainable Development, 3 (4), 268-276.
Jikaizhou, X.C, Longqianng, W. and Xiaowei K. (2011). Influence of free water content on
compressive mechanical behaviour of cement mortar under high strain rate. Sadhana, 36
(3), 357-369.
Lohani, T.K., Padhi, M., Dash, K.P. and Jena, S. (2012). Optimum utilization of quarry dust as
partial replacement of sand in concrete. International journal of applied science and
engineering research I, 2, 391-404.
Mbadike, E,M., and Elinwa, A.U. (2011). Effect of saltwater in the production of concrete.
Nigeria. Journal of technology, 30 (2), 106-110.
Mbadike, E.M. and Osadebe N.N. (2013). Application of scheffe's model in optimization of
compressive strength of lateritic concrete. Journal of civil engineering and construction
technology, 4 (9),265-274.
Oyekan, G.C. and Kamigo, O. M.(2008). Effects of granite fines on some engineering
properties of sandcrete blocks. 33Rd conference in OUR WORLD IN CONCRETE AND
STRUCTURES,Singapor, August 25-27th 2008.
99
Oladeji O.S. and Amos O. A. (2013). Assessment of materials and process variables on
regulatory compliance of sandcrete blocks: A case study of Ogbomoso, Nigeria.
International journal of engineering research and applications, 3 (6),793-799.
Omoregie, A. and Alutu O,E. (2006). The influence of fine aggregate combinations on particle
size distribution, grade parameters, compressive strength of sandcrete blocks. Canadian
Journal of civil engineering, 33 (10). 1271- 1278.
Orie, O.U. and Osamede, P. Mechanical properties of GuareaThompsonil sawdust modified

concrete. Journal of emerging trends in engineering and applied science (JETEAS), 5 (4),
285-290.
Patil, B.B. and Kumbhar, P.D. (2012). Strength and durability of high performance concrete
incorporating high reactivity metakaolin. International journal of modern engineering
research(IJMER), 2 (3), 1099-1104.
Radhikesh, N.P., Amiya, D. and Moharana N.C. (2010). Stone crusher dust as a fine
aggregates in concrete for paving blocks. International Journal of civil and structural
engineering, 1 (3), 613-620.
Sivakumar, A. and Prakash, M. (2011). Characteristic studies on the mechanical properties of

quarry dust addition in conventional concrete. Journal of Civil Engineering and
Construction Technology, 2 (10), 218-285.
Samuel, S.O. (2014). An evaluation of durability of hollow blocks in Idiroko area of Nigeria.
Research journal in engineering and applied science, 3 (1), 50-54.
Yusuf, S. and Hamza, A.A. (2011). The compressive strength of six and nine inches hand
moulded sandcrete blocks. Journal of engineering and applied science, 3, 1-6.
Zhenhua, W., Wonchang, C., Amir, M., Sami, R. and Paul, P. Z. Flexural behaviour and design
of high strength concrete member.
100

Comparison of The Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks With Partial Replacement of Sharp Sand With Quarry Dust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of The Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks With Partial Replacement of Sharp Sand With Quarry Dust

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Comparison of The Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks With Partial Replacement of Sharp Sand With Quarry Dust

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

What is the research project about?

What is the research project about?

What materials were used in the research?

What materials were used in the research?

COMPARISON OF THE COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH OF

SANDCRETE BLOCKS PRODUCED BY PARTIALLY

REPLACING SAND WITH QUARRY DUST

OSUEKE, FRANKLINE CHIMUANYA- 20101710853

A PROJECT REPORT SUBMITTED TO THE

DEPARTMENT OF CIVIL ENGINEERING,

SCHOOL OF ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY,

FEDERAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY, OWERRI.

IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

AWARD OF BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING (B.ENG) IN CIVIL

Bachelor of Engineering (B.Eng.) in Civil Engineering (Structural Engineering).

L. Nwakwasi, Engr. A. N. Nwachukwu, Engr. Dr. H. U. Nwoke, Engr. Dr. (Mrs) J. I.

Arimanwa, Engr. K. N. Onyema, Engr. K. C. Nwachukwu, Engr A.P.C. Amanze, Engr.

ways to my numerous achievement in FUTO.

Table of contents vii

List of tables xii

List of figures xvi

1.1 Background of study 1

1.2 Statement of problem 2

1.3 Purpose of study 3

1.4 Significance of study 3

1.5 Scope of study 4

2.1 Definition of terms 5

2.1.1 Sandcrete blocks 5

2.1.1.1 Constituents of sandcrete blocks: 5

2.1.1.1.1.1 Chemical composition of Ordinary Portland Cement 6

2.1.1.2 Properties and Strength Characteristics of Sandcrete Blocks 9

2.1.1.3 Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks 10

2.1.1.3.1 Factors affecting the Compressive Strength of Sandcrete Blocks 11

2.1.1.3.1.1 Curing and protection 11

2.1.1.3.1.2 Water-cement ratio 11

2.1.2 Sand-Quarry Dust blocks 12

2.1.2.1 Quarry dust 12

2.1.2.1.1 Advantages and Disadvantages of Quarry Dust 13

2.2 Why replacing sand with quarry dust in block production 15

Materials and methods

3.1.3 Quarry Dust 17

3.2.1 Trial mixes 18

3.2.4 Moulding of blocks/ compaction of mix 25

3.2.6 Sieve analysis 25

3.2.6.1 Apparatus for the Experimental Details of Sieve Analysis 25

3.2.6.3.1 The Particle Size Distribution Curve 26

3.2.6.3.2 Effective Size (D10) 27

3.2.6.3.3 Uniformity Coefficient, (Cu) 27

3.2.6.3.4 Coefficient of Gradation, (Cg) 27

3.2.7.1 Compressive strength 27

Result and discussion

4.1.1 Sieve analysis 28

4.1.2 Block Masses 32

4.1.3 Block Crushing load 36

4.1.4 Block compressive strength 39

4.1.5 Relationship between compressive strength and different constituent of sand-quarry

4.1.6 Relationship between compressive strength and different constituent-cement ratio of

sand-quarry dust block. 50

4.1.6.3 Compressive strength vs. water-cement ratio (450x225x225 hollow blocks) 52