Assessing the Usage of Barytes Powder and Cuddapah Stone Dust as Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete of Grade M30 and M35

Abstract

This research studied the effects of using Barytes powder and Cuddapah stone waste as substitutes for cement in M30 and M35 grade concrete using OPC. Cement production is known to harm the environment and consume a lot of energy, making the search for alternative materials to replace cement in concrete important.In this study, different amounts of Barytes powder and Cuddapah stone waste were added to concrete mixes as partial replacements for cement. The resulting concrete was tested for compressive strength and compared to normal concrete. The experiment involved making concrete samples with varying percentages of cement replacement, ranging from 0% to 50%, using Barytes powder, Cuddapah stone waste and Combination. The samples underwent standard curing and testing according to Indian standards.The research analysed the results to find the optimum percentage of cement replacement that provided satisfactory mechanical properties. This study determined the feasibility and effectiveness of using Barytes powder and Cuddapah stone waste as partial replacements for cement in concrete production.

Introduction

I. INTRODUCTION

Concrete is one of the oldest and the most widely used construction material in today’s world. It is easily obtainable, relatively cheap, strong, and durable. On the other hand, the concrete industry is one of the major consumers of the natural resources. The annual concrete production 11 billion metric tons, of which 70-75% are made up of aggregates (mostly natural rock),15% are water, and 10-15% are cementitious binder. Globalisation, privatization, liberalization, and the development of important infrastructure projects have all contributed to the rise in demand for aggregates.

An ecological imbalance has resulted from increased extraction due to the increased demand for natural aggregates’ response, scientists and engineers have looked for fine aggregate substitutes in building. Innovative solutions such as filtered sand, robot silica or sand, treated and sieved silt removed from reservoirs and dams, and sand from other water bodies are among the proposals. The search for substitute materials highlights the importance of both assuring local availability in significant quantities and satisfying the technical specifications of fine aggregates, particularly considering the current need for sustainable infrastructure expansion. This strategy is in line with the main objective of sustainable development, which is to lessen the negative environmental effects of building projects while preserving resources for future generations.

II. SCOPE OF THE STUDY

This study focuses on the environmental impacts of concrete production, with a particular emphasis on substitution materials for cement, the primary binder, which is a significant contributor to CO2 emissions. Barytes stone powder, Cuddapah slab polishing waste powder is used as substitue to cement (ordinary portland cement) in making concrete of Grades M30 and M35. The basic tests on materials were condcted, Conrete Mix Design done as per IS: 10262:2019 and cubes were casted and tested for 07 days and 28 days compressive strength. Futher The optimum dosage in usage of the materials considered as supplementary cementitious is found.

III. OBJECTIVES OF RESEARCH

1. To examine the suitability of barytes powder and Cuddapah stone dust as Supplementary Cementious material.
2. To design M30 and M35 grades of concrete with OPC and replacing cement with Barytes powder and Cuddapah stone dust as partial replacement
3. To find out the combined optimum dosage of Baryte powder and Cuddapah stone dust  for partial replacement of OPC for Grade M30 and M35

IV. MATERIALS USED

Cement-OPC 53 Grade(Zuari Brand), Sand: Papagni River,  Aggregate: 20mm and 12mm (crushed Granite,), Water: R.O Plant, Water Reducing Agent: Roof plast PC455

V. MATERIAL TESTS RESULTS

Table 1. Summary of tests results

VI. METHODOLOGY

A. Experimental Program

The aim of the experiment was to assess the compressive strength of concrete made with partial replacement of cement with cuddapah slab polishing waste, barytes and its combination for 10%, 20%, 30%, 40% and 50% replacement of cement apart from other raw materials for M30 and M35 Grade of concrete. Initially raw materials procured and tested to determine various properties for analysis and Mix Design of concrete purpose. Further Design mix of concrete is done as per IS: 10262-2019 and cubes casted as per trial mix data, cured for 7 days and 28 days. The compressive strength of cubes consists of variable portion of cement with Cuddapah slab polishing waste, lime stone and its combination is determined and analysed. A total of 128 cubes were casted. Based on the analysis of results regarding compressive strength, the optimum dosage of material used as substitute to cement is arrived.  

Table 2: Details of sample cubes casted

B. Trial Mix Data

M30Trial Mix Data (per cubic metre)

Cement = 369.19 Kg

Water = 177.21 Kg

Coarse aggregate = 1178.33 Kg;

20 mm@70% = 1178.33* 0.7=824.83 Kg, 

12mm@30 % = 1178.33*0.3=353.5 Kg

Fine aggregate = 686.6 Kg

Mass of admixture= 4.10 Kg

M35 Trial Mix Data (per cubic metre)

Cement = 393.81 Kg

Water = 177.21 Kg

Coarse aggregate = 1175.89 Kg;

20 mm@70% = 1175.89*0.7=823.123Kg, 

12mm@30 % = 1175.89*0.3=352.76 Kg

Fine aggregate = 667.83 Kg

Mass of admixture= 4.30 Kg

VII. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS

Table 3:  7 Days Compressive strength Details

Table 4: 28 Days Compressive strength Details

A. Graphical Analysis of Results and Inferences Drawn

Consists of the graphical analysis of the results obtained and discussions pertaining to compressive strength variation upon cement replacement.

GRAPH 1-Compressive Strength of Normal Concrete of M30 and M35

Inferences drawn

From the above chart, it can be seen that the 28-day strength - M30 and M35 grades of the tested concrete cube for normal concrete are 38.56 N/mm2 and 41.22 N/mm2, meeting the target average strength level

GRAPH 2- Analysis of Compressive strength of M30 Grade concrete-with 10% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 10 % cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 95.67% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 10 % cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 93.36% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 10 % cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 94.50 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade

GRAPH 3 Analysis of Compressive strength of M30 Grade concrete with 20% cement replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 74.35% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 87.6% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 90.48 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade

GRAPH 4 - Analysis of Compressive strength of M30 Grade concrete-with 30% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 69.16% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 72.04% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement  with Combination which results 28 days strength as 72.04% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete

GRAPH 5- Analysis of Compressive strength of M30 Grade concrete-with 40% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 47.28% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 70.59% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 48.99 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete

GRAPH 6- Analysis of Compressive strength of M30 Grade concrete-with 50% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3)Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 0.00% against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 62.24% against Targeted Mean Strenght of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 35.74 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M30 Grade concrete

GRAPH 7- Analysis of Compressive strength of M35 Grade concrete-with 10% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3)Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 10% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 89.50 against Targeted Mean Strenght of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 10% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 89.50 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 10% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 89.23 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete

GRAPH 8 -Analysis of Compressive strength of M35 Grade concrete-with 20% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3)Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 73.31 against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
2. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 86.54 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
3. From the above graph it is seen that on 20% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 77.10 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete

GRAPH 9Analysis of Compressive strength of M35 Grade concrete-with 30% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. 1. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 67.32 against Targeted Mean Strenght of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   2. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 80.62 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   3. From the above graph it is seen that on 30% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 52.30 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete

GRAPH 1- Analysis of Compressive strength of M35 Grade concrete-with 40% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. 1. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 47.99 against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   2. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 71.18 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   3. From the above graph it is seen that on 40% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 44.76 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete

GRAPH 11- Analysis of Compressive strength of M35 Grade concrete-with 50% Cement Replacement 1) Barytes 2) Cuddapah Stone polished waste 3) Combination

Inferences Drawn

1. 1. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Barytes which results 28 days strength as 0.00 against Targeted Mean Strenght of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   2. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Limestone  which results 28 days strength as 59.58 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete
   3. From the above graph it is seen that on 50% cement Replacement with Combination which results 28 days strength as 40.17 % against Targeted Mean Strength of Normal concrete of M35 Grade concrete

B. Photographs During the Work

Conclusion

A. Conclusions Based on the results and analysis of present experimental work the following conclusions were drawn: 1) Optimum Dosage for M30 Grade Concrete a) For M30 Grade Concrete , if Barytes powder alone used, the optimum dosage is up to 10% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete b) For M30 Grade Concrete, if Lime stone polished waste powder alone used, the optimum dosage is up to 10% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete c) For M30 Grade Concrete, if both i.e Lime stone polished waste powder and Barytes powder used, the optimum dosage is below 20% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete. d) Further use of barytes powder beyond 10% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases and at 50 % cube loss its shape during curing. e) Further use of lime stone polished powder beyond 10% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases , but not as much as barytes and at 50 % it is observed that concrete cube loses its strength by 40% to Normal concrete Compressive strength. f) Further increase use of Lime stone polished waste powder and Barytes powder beyond 20% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases , as much as barytes and at 50 % it is observed that concrete cube loses its strength by 65% to TMS. 2) Optimum Dosage for M35 Grade Concrete a) For M35 Grade Concrete , if Barytes powder alone used, the optimum dosage is below 10% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete b) For M35 Grade Concrete , if Lime stone polished waste powder alone used, the optimum dosage is below 10% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete c) For M35 Grade Concrete both if both ie Lime stone polished waste powder and Barytes powder used the optimum dosage is below 10% ONLY as cement replacement material in preparation of concrete d) Further increase use of barytes powder beyond 10% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases and at 50 % cube loss its shape during curing. e) Further increase use of lime stone polished powder beyond 10% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases , but not as much as barytes and at 50 % it is observed that concrete cube loses its strength by 40% to TMS. f) Further increase use of Lime stone polished waste powder and Barytes powder beyond 20% as replacement of cement, it is noticed that 28 days compressive strength decreases even below to barytes powder and Lime stone polished waste and at 50 % it is observed that concrete cube loses its strength by 60% to TMS. B. Recommendations 1) The optimum dosage of Bartyes powder alone as SCM is upto 10% for M30 and below 10% for M35 Grade of concrete 2) The optimum dosage of Lime stone polished waste alone as SCM is up to 10% for M30 and below 10% for M35 Grade of concrete 3) The optimum dosage of Combined of Bartyes powder and Lime stone polished waste powder as SCM is below 20% for M30 and below 10% for M35 Grade of concrete. C. Future Scope 1) The Present work can be continued to find exact dosage (i.e in between 5%-20%) to replace cement portion in concrete. 2) The present work can be continued for combination of barytes with fly ash/ other puzzolana material 3) The present work can be adopted for combination of barytes powder and lime stone polished waste to find exact dosage to replace cement portion in concrete for M20 and M25 Grades. 4) The present work can be extended to study the effects of these materials on other properties of concrete like permeability, RCPT, Flexural strength, water absorption etc. D. Limitations 1) Since the materials chosen in this work as SCM are locally available materials in the region of Kadapa District Andhra Pradesh it is suggested to consider this while estimating the savings towards cement replacement 2) Through this experimental work it is clear that the lime stone polished waste and barytes powder as SCM may be selected for below M30 or M35 grades of concrete. 3) The Concrete is mixed, poured manually in to the cube moulds, Hand tamping using cylindrical tamping rod to remove any air is adopted to make fresh concrete further dense.

References

[1] Anju T .U., Nikhil R. “Study of partial replacement of cement by barite powder and silica fume in self compacting concrete” International Research Journal of Engineering and Technology (IRJET) e-ISSN: 2395-0056 Volume: 10 Issue: 04 | Apr 2023 [2] Bhruguli Gandhi “Review Paper on Use of Barite Powder in Concrete” International Journal for Technological Research in Engineering Volume 5, Issue 9, May-2018 ISSN (Online): 2347 – 4718 [3] C. Navya Kiran, Dr.S.M.V.Narayana “Effect Of Barytes Power On Mechanical And Durability Properties Of M30 Concrete” © 2018 Jetir September 2018, Volume 5, Issue 9 Www.Jetir.Org (Issn-2349-5162) [4] Dr. E. K. Mohanraj1, R. Vasanth2 “A Review: The Effect and Behaviour of Concrete Using Lime Stone Powder” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET) ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 1 Volume 10 Issue XII Dec 2022 [5] Harinath Balimidi , Ramesh Sarakadam “Compressive Strength And Anti Radiation Shielding Of Concrete By Partial Replacement Of Coarse Aggregate By Barites And Cement By Silica Fume” IJRET: International Journal of Research in Engineering and Technology eISSN: 2319-1163 | pISSN: 2321-7308 Volume: 05 Issue: 05 | May-2016 [6] Jianhua Hu , Xiaotian Ding , Qifan Ren , Zhouquan Luo and Quan Jiang “Effect of Incorporating Waste Limestone Powder into Solid Waste Cemented Paste Backfill Material” Appl. Sci. 2019, 9, 2076; doi:10.3390/app9102076 [7] M. Vimalanathan “Partial Replacement of Cement by Baryte” International Journal for Research in Applied Science & Engineering Technology (IJRASET)ISSN: 2321-9653; IC Value: 45.98; SJ Impact Factor: 7.538 Volume 10 Issue VI June 2022 [8] Maja K?pniak, Piotr Woyciechowski, Pawe? ?ukowski, Justyna Kuziak and Rafa? Koby?ka “The Durability of Concrete Modified by Waste Limestone Powder in the Chemically Aggressive Environment” , MDPI, [9] P. Anusha, K. Sai Ramya “Experimental Study on Concrete with Limestone Powder and Copper Slag” International Journal of Engineering Research And Management (IJERM)ISSN: 2349- 2058, Volume-05, Issue-09, September 2018 [10] P. Vipul Naidu1 and Pawan Kumar Pandey “Replacement of Cement in Concrete” by, International Journal of Environmental Research and Development”. ISSN 2249-3131 Volume 4, Number 1 (2014), pp. 91-98© Research India Publications [11] P.Meenakshi1 “Partial Replacement of Cement by Barites and Lime Powder in Concrete M30 grade” International Journal of ChemTech Research CODEN (USA): IJCRGG, ISSN: 0974-4290, ISSN(Online):2455-9555 Vol.10 No.3, pp 143-148, 2017 [12] S. Harmandeep and S. Lovneesh “Effect of Limestone Waste Powder and Marble Waste over the Strength Properties of the Conventional Concrete”, ICASF-2022 IOP Conf. Ser.: Earth Environ. Sci. 11100(2023)12077, doi:10.1088/1755-1315/1110/1/012077, [13] Tahir Kibriya “Crushed Limestone Waste as Supplementary Cementing Material for High Strength Concrete-“ American Journal of Civil Engineering and Architecture, 2017, Vol. 5, No. 3, 93-97 ©Science and Education Publishing DOI:10.12691/ajcea-5-3-3 [14] V.G. Kalpana, Aravind B, P. Eswaramoorthi “Use of Kadappa Waste as a Resource Material for Building Construction” International Journal of Innovative Technology and Exploring Engineering (IJITEE) ISSN: 2278-3075, Volume-8 Issue-2S December, 2018. [15] Wendimu gudissa and Abebe dinku “The use of limestone powder as an alternative cement replacement material: An experimental study” Journal of EEA Vol. 27, 2010 [16] IS 269:2015 Portland Pozzolana Cement – specification (fly ash based) [17] IS 516 Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete [18] IS 383 : 2016 Code For Aggregates For Concrete [19] IS 2386 Methods of test for aggregates for concrete [20] IS 2430 Methods for sampling of aggregates for concrete [21] IS 10262:2019 Concrete Mix Proportioning — Guidelines [22] IS 456-2000 Code of Practice for Plain and Reinforced Concrete. [23] IS:1199 IS 1199: Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete [24] IS:9103 IS 9103: Specification for Concrete Admixtures

Copyright

Copyright © 2024 Putta Venkata Nagaraju, Dr. Hemanth Sood. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.