Concrete using agro-waste as fine aggregate for ... · PDF fileConcrete using agro-waste as...

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment (2016) 5, 312–333

HO ST E D BYGulf Organisation for Research and Development

International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment

ScienceDirectwww.sciencedirect.com

Review Article

Concrete using agro-waste as fine aggregate for sustainablebuilt environment – A review

Jnyanendra Kumar Prusty a,⇑, Sanjaya Kumar Patro b, S.S. Basarkar c

aSchool of Civil Engineering, KIIT University, Bhubaneswar, Odisha, IndiabDepartment of Civil Engineering, VSS University of Technology, Burla, Odisha, India

c ITD Cementation India Ltd., Mumbai, India

Received 15 April 2015; accepted 12 June 2016

Abstract

High demand of natural resources due to rapid urbanization and the disposal problem of agricultural wastes in developed countrieshave created opportunities for use of agro-waste in the construction industry. Many agricultural waste materials are already used in con-crete as replacement alternatives for cement, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate and reinforcing materials. This paper reviews some of theagro-waste materials, which are used as a partial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete. Different properties of fresh and hardenedconcrete, their durability and thermal conductivity when admixed with agro-wastes are reviewed. Agro-waste used in self-compactingconcrete and mortar are also reviewed and their properties are compared. It has been seen that the agro-waste concrete containinggroundnut shell, oyster shell, cork, rice husk ash and tobacco waste showed better workability than their counterparts did. Agro-waste concrete containing bagasse ash, sawdust ash and oyster shell achieved their required strength by 20% of replacement as fine aggre-gate, which were maximum among all agro-waste type concrete. Close relations were predicted among compressive strength, flexuralstrength, tensile strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity and elastic modulus of agro-waste concrete. Addition of bagasse ash as fine aggregatein mortar increased the resistance of chloride penetration whereas inclusion of cork in mortar showed better thermal resistance andimproved cyclic performance. After the review, it is of considerable finding that more research is deserved on all fine aggregates replacingagro-waste materials, which can give more certainty on their utilization in concrete.� 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Agro-waste concrete; Agricultural waste; Fine aggregate; Sustainable concrete

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313

http://d

2212-6

⇑ CoE-m

Peer re

1.1. Agricultural wastes used as a fine aggregate replacement in concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
1.1.1. Sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 314
x.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.003

090/� 2016 The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development. Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

rresponding author.ail addresses: [email protected] (J.K. Prusty), [email protected] (S.K. Patro), [email protected] (S.S. Basarkar).

view under responsibility of The Gulf Organisation for Research and Development.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.003

mailto:[email protected]





http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22126090

http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.ijsbe.2016.06.003&domain=pdf

J.K. Prusty et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 312–333 313

1.1.2. Groundnut shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3151.1.3. Oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3151.1.4. Sawdust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3161.1.5. Wild giant reed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3161.1.6. Rice husk. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3171.1.7. Cork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3171.1.8. Tobacco waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317

2. Physical and chemical properties of agricultural wastes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3183. Mix proportion of agro-waste based concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3204. Fresh properties of concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

4.1. Slump test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3214.2. Compaction factor test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3214.3. Air content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3224.4. Flow table test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3224.5. Penetration and ball-drop . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3224.6. Water requirement and unit weight. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3224.7. Slump flow diameter and T50cm slump flow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3234.8. V-funnel test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3234.9. J-Ring test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323

5. Hardened properties of concrete . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
5.1. Compressive strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 323
5.1.1. Bagasse ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3235.1.2. Groundnut shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.1.3. Oyster shell . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.1.4. Sawdust ash . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.1.5. Wild giant reed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.1.6. Rice husk ash. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3245.1.7. Cork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3255.1.8. Tobacco waste . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325

5.2. Tensile strength. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3255.3. Flexural strength . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3265.4. Elastic modulus (E-value) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3265.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3275.6. Shrinkage and creep . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328

6. Durability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 328
6.1. Freezing and thawing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3286.2. Chemical attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3286.3. Carbonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3296.4. Permeability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3296.5. Water absorption test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 329
7. Thermal conductivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3308. Cyclic behaviour . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3309. Future recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33110. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331

References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 332

1. Introduction

Concrete is a mixture of cement, fine aggregate andcoarse aggregate, which is mainly derived from naturalresources. Increasing population, expanding urbanization,climbing way of life due to technological innovations hasdemanded a huge amount of natural resources in the con-struction industry, which has resulted in scarcity ofresources. This scarcity motivates the researchers to use,solid wastes generated by industrial, mining, domestic andagricultural activities. It is observed that in India more than600 MT wastes have been generated from agricultural

waste, which is seriously leading to a disposal problem.Reuse of such wastes as sustainable construction materialstake care of the issue of contamination, as well as the issueof area filling and the expense of building materials(Madurwar et al., 2013). TheMajor quantity of solid wastesgenerated in India is reported in Fig. 1. Shafigh et al. (2014)expressed that research on the utilization of agriculturalwaste, as an aggregate substitution is generally new andmore research is needed for long-term durability propertiesof concrete. They also studied the relationship between theconcrete made using this type of materials; environmentallyfriendly concrete and green building rating systems.

314 J.K. Prusty et al. / International Journal of Sustainable Built Environment 5 (2016) 312–333

The current Green Building Rating (GBR) systems eval-uate the sustainability of buildings according to variouscategories of which the construction material is one suchcategory in most of the systems. Issues like emission of car-bon dioxide, use of energy, water, aggregates, fillers anddemolition waste in concrete look less compatible withenvironmental requirement of a modern sustainable con-struction industry. At the same time, concrete made usingagricultural wastes has shown better thermal property inresearch which can result in sustainability points in theenergy and atmosphere category of the LEED rating sys-tem (Shafigh et al., 2014).

1.1. Agricultural wastes used as a fine aggregate replacement

in concrete

The Agricultural wastes used as fine aggregate in con-crete are sugarcane bagasse ash, groundnut shell, oystershell, sawdust, giant reed ash, rice husk ash, cork andtobacco waste. The major differences of these agro-wastesare the place from where they collected and the processesto convert into a fine aggregate. It can be observed thatsugarcane, giant reed, and rice husk are produced world-wide and they have a similar type of processing, those areburnt to convert into sugarcane bagasse ash, giant reedash and rice husk ash. These are used as partial replace-ment of fine aggregate which provide additional pozzolanicproperty in concrete. Groundnut shells are crushed in millto convert into fine aggregate prior to use in concrete. Oys-ter shells are the sea shells generally available in coastalareas. These are used as partial replacement of fine as well

23%

13%

10%

4%

4%

3%

3%

3%

3%

3%3%

2% 2%

2%

1%1%

1%

1%

Fig. 1. Status of solid waste generated

as coarse aggregate in coastal regions. Sawdust is generatedfrom mechanical processing of raw wood from saw millindustry. These are dried by leaving in sun and sieved prop-erly before using in concrete (Oyedepo et al., 2014). Corkand tobacco wastes are collected and processed from corkoak trees and cigarette making industries which were usedas fine aggregate replacement in concrete. The shape, sizeand availability of mentioned agro-wastes are discussedbelow. The purpose of this review is to study the propertiessuch as workability, mechanical properties, durability,thermal conductivity of agricultural wastes used as a par-tial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete.

1.1.1. Sugarcane bagasse ash (SCBA)

The fibrous residue (about 40–45%) of sugarcane aftercrushing and extraction of its juice is known as ‘‘bagasse”(Loh et al., 2013). The bagasses are reused as fuel for heatgeneration which leaves behind 8–10% of ash, known as sug-arcane bagasse ash (SCBA) Modani and Vyawahare, 2013.Sugarcane bagasse consists of approximately 50% of cellu-lose, 25% of hemicellulose and 25% of lignin (Modani andVyawahare, 2013). Rukzon and Chindaprasirt (2012)reviewed that a lot of sugarcane bagasse from the sugar fac-tory is accessible in Thailand. Sugarcane bagasse is partlyutilized as fuel in sugar plant but the rest is treated as wasteand unutilized. As production of sugar cane is more than1500 million tons in the world and in India, about 10 milliontons of sugarcane bagasse ash are treated as awastematerial,it can therefore be advantageous to use it as a fine aggregatereplacement in concrete to mitigate the disposal problem aswell as to minimize the use of natural aggregates (Modani

19%

Coal Combustion Residues

Bagasse

Coal Mine

Municipal Waste

Rice Husk

Lime Stone

Jute Fibre

Construction

Rice Wheat Straw

Blast Furnace

Groundnut Shell

Iron Tailing

Marble Dust

Waste Gypsum

Red Mud

Hazardous Waste

Copper Tailing

Lime Sludge

Zinc Tailing

in India (Madurwar et al., 2013).

Fig. 2. Sugarcane bagasse ash.


and Vyawahare, 2013). Fig. 2 shows the raw sugarcanebagasse and the sugarcane bagasse ash which is used as fineaggregate replacement in concrete. Sales and Lima (2010)analysed the SCBA samples to determine the crystallinityby X-ray diffractometry, leachability and particle morphol-ogy by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The X-raydiffractometry test result revealed the absence of an amor-phous halo in the diffractograms (Sales and Lima, 2010).Quartz appeared as the principal element of SCBA. TheSEM analysis revealed that the SCBA samples were com-posed of grains with varied shapes and sizes up to 150 lm.Authors (Sales andLima, 2010) suggested that these findingsreinforce the hypothesis of using SCBA as a substitute forfine aggregate which has binding properties.

1.1.2. Groundnut shellGroundnut shell can be found in large quantities as agri-

cultural farm waste in Nigeria, producing up to 2.699 mil-lion metric tons per year (Sada et al., 2013). Groundnutshell was first planted in South Africa mainly Brazil andlater spread to other part of America, Asia, and northwest-ern Argentina (Tata et al., 2015). The outer part of ground-nut is called groundnut shell. Over a period of years, it istreated as a solid waste. Utilization of groundnut shell inthe construction industry is expected to solve the pollutionproblem and increase the economic base of farmers, whichencourage them to increase the production (Sada et al.,2013). Groundnut shell is already used for developing roof

Fig. 3. Groun

sheet materials (Akindapo et al., 2015), sandcrete blocks(Mahmoud et al., 2012), as cement replacement (Olutogeet al., 2013; Buari et al., 2013; Kanagalakshmi et al.,2015) and as fine aggregate replacement (Sada et al.,2013; Tata et al., 2015) in concrete. Fig. 3 shows thegroundnut and its crushed shell which can be used as fineaggregate in concrete.

1.1.3. Oyster shell

Aquaculture is one of the key businesses in islandnations. The southwestern seaside territory of Taiwan pri-marily develops oysters. As per the information of fisherycommercial enterprises, the oyster shell yield was300,000 tons over the last five years, which would initiateenvironmental pollution concerns (Kuo et al., 2013).Yang et al. (2010, 2005) stated the same problem createdby oyster shell in South Korea, can be solved by their uti-lization in the construction industry. One of the most pop-ular uses of oyster shell in construction industrythroughout history has been in its burnt form as limeknown as quicklime. Recently researchers (Kuo et al.,2013; Yang et al., 2010, 2005) studied the properties of oys-ter shell based concrete using oyster shell as fine aggregate,which are discussed briefly in following sections. Fig. 4shows the shape of the oyster shell used in concrete. Oystershell grows over the years and it is found in several sizes.The shells are spiral in structure and having rough surface

dnut shell.

Fig. 4. Oyster shell.


texture. It should be crushed properly as per the coderequirement prior to use in concrete.

1.1.4. Sawdust

Sawdust is the main component of particleboard. It hasa variety of other practical uses including serving as mulch,an alternative to clay cat litter, or as a fuel. It can present asa hazardous material in manufacturing industry, in termsof its flammability (Ganiron, 2014). The use of sawdustfor making lightweight concrete has received some atten-tion over the past years (Udoeyo and Dashibil, 2002).Mageswari and Vidivelli (2009) reported, that as a substitu-tion material for natural sand, sawdust ash might be theright choice as fine aggregate in concrete. It can consider-ably reduce the dumping problem and simultaneously helps

Fig. 5. Saw

Fig. 6. Giant reed fi

the preservation of natural fine aggregate. Fig. 5 shows theshape of the sawdust which is treated as a waste material.Many researchers tested the behaviour of sawdust ash inconcrete and reported that sawdust possessed unique char-acteristics, which make it competitive among other con-struction materials (Mageswari and Vidivelli, 2009).

1.1.5. Wild giant reed

Giant reed is an aggressive wild agricultural specieswhich can be found all over the world. It has hollow, rigid,woody stalks which are nearly one inch in diameter and cangrow over 13 feet in height as shown in Fig. 6. Continuousreduction of natural resources and at the same time theenvironmental hazards posed by the disposal of severalwaste materials create an opportunity to use this waste

dust.

bres and its ash.


material in concrete (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014). Researchwork on the utilization of giant reed fibres and giant reedash is reviewed in this paper.

1.1.6. Rice huskRice husk is one of the fundamental agrarian wastes

obtained from the external covering of rice grains amidthe processing procedure. Fig. 7 shows the shape of the ricehusk and its ash. The rice husk has no useful applicationand is treated as a waste material that creates the pollutionproblem (Givi et al., 2010). Because of low nutrition prop-erty of rice husk, it is unsuitable and does not have edibilityyet in a few nations, it has been utilized generally as fuel forrice plants and electric power plants as a compelling tech-nique to reduce the volume of rice husk waste(Madandoust et al., 2011). Many researchers in the pasthad used rice husk ash as a cement replacement materialin concrete (Givi et al., 2010; Madandoust et al., 2011;Zaid and Ganiyat, 2009). After colossal researches Iamand Makul (2013) tested the properties of self-compacting concrete using rice husk and limestone as a fineaggregate replacement. It was reported that use of rice huskash in self-compacting concrete reduced the unit weight,flowability, porosity, water absorption, compressivestrength, ultrasonic pulse velocity and the cost. Shafighet al. (2014) reported the use of rice husk as cement replac-ing material, fire making, litter material, marking the con-crete, board production, as silicon carbide whiskers to

Fig. 7. Rice h

Fig. 8. Cork processing

reinforce ceramic cutting tools and aggregate replacementin concrete in low-cost housing.

1.1.7. Cork

Cork is a renewable resource. It is a natural lightweightcellular material separated from the bark of Cork Oaktrees. Fig. 8 shows the processing of cork and its particlesize. The world’s cork creation is evaluated at 340,000 tonsper year from approximately 22,000 km2 of cork forestsand it is assessed that yearly, 68,000–85,000 tons of corkremains an under-utilized waste (Panesar and Shindman,2012). Variety of analysts utilized cork as a part of con-struction industry mainly in cement mortar because of itsunique composition and cell structure, which gives lowdensity, low thermal conductivity, good sound absorptionand water resistance (Panesar and Shindman, 2012).Novoa et al. (2004) considered the low density and lowstiffness of cork and introduced it in a mortar formulationto diminish the material weight and brittleness respectively.Cork also exhibited low strength and extensive compressivestrain, prompting more energy absorbing material (Novoaet al., 2004).

1.1.8. Tobacco waste

Large quantities of tobacco waste are produced annu-ally by processing and cigarette making (Shafigh et al.,2014). Fig. 9 shows the shape of tobacco waste used in con-crete. Ozturk and Bayrakl (2005) carried out a study to

usk ash.

and its particle size.

Fig. 9. Tobacco waste.

0

30

60

90

120

0.01 0.1 1 10

Per

cent

age

of P

assi

ng

Sieve size (mm)

sand [8]

GNS [8]

WOS [15]

CORK [34]

Upper limit (ASTM C33)Lower limit (ASTM C33)Upper limit (BS 882)

Lower limit (BS 882)

Fig. 10. Sieve Analysis of sand (Sada et al., 2013), groundnut Shell (GNS) Sada et al., 2013, waste oyster shell (WOS) Kuo et al., 2013 and cork (Braset al., 2014).


determine the possible use of tobacco waste in concrete.They tested different properties with varying percentagereplacement of tobacco waste and pumice. Based on den-sity, lightweight concretes are divided into three groups.Low density and low compressive strength which is usedin isolation, middle density and middle compressivestrength concretes used for briquette producing and thecarrier lightweight concretes are used in constructing foun-dations and supporting parts (Short et al., 1978; Bhattyand Reid, 1989). Ozturk and Bayrakl (2005) found thelow density and compressive strength of tobacco wastewhich can be used as an isolation material in concrete.All the material properties of tobacco waste are discussedin the following sections.

2. Physical and chemical properties of agricultural wastes

The particle size distribution of sand and different agro-waste used in concrete and mortar is illustrated in Fig. 10.It can be seen that sand and groundnut shell follow the lim-its of particle size as per ASTM C33 standard (AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, 1978). Similarly, wasteoyster shell followed the limits of BS 882 (BritishStandard Institute, 1992). It can be observed that the over-all passing percentage of cork (Bras et al., 2014) was similaras that of sand and other materials.

The physical properties of sand, crushed granite and dif-ferent agricultural waste which are used in agro-waste con-crete are presented in Table 1. It can be observed thatproperties such as specific gravity and fineness modulusof agro-wastes were nearly similar or less than the rangeof natural sand presented in that same table. Sales andLima (2010) reported that specific gravity (2.45), bulk den-sity (2040 kg/m3) and water absorption (0.88%) of SCBAmet the requisites of Brazilian standards NM 52 (2004),NM 45 (2004) and NM 30 (2001) respectively. Accordingto Shafana and Venkatasubramani (2014)’s report, specificgravity and fineness modulus of SCBA satisfied the guide-lines of IS 2386 part-3 (Indian Standard, 1963) and part-1(Indian Standard, 1963b) respectively. Bulk density ofGNS (254.55 kg/m3), SDA (1250 kg/m3) and WGR(535 kg/m3) is very much smaller than the range of sand(1428–1744) which indicates that the agro-waste containsmore voids in comparison to the conventional fine aggre-gate and it can adversely affect the workability, strengthand durability of the agro-based concrete or mortar. Waterabsorption of GNS (1.61%) falls within the range of natu-ral river sand (0.74–2.9%) however, water absorption of OSranging 2.9–7.66% which is higher than the range of natu-ral aggregates as well as the other agro-wastes. Cork shows0.1% of water absorption that indicates good water resis-tance property.

Table 1Physical properties of sand, granite and agricultural waste used as replacement of fine aggregate.

Properties SandModani and Vyawahare(2013), Rukzon andChindaprasirt (2012), Sadaet al. (2013), Kuo et al.(2013), Yang et al. (2010),(2005), Mageswari andVidivelli (2009), Ismail andJaeel (2014), Iam andMakul (2013), Novoa et al.(2004), Bras et al. (2014),(2013), Shafana andVenkatasubramani (2014),Shah et al. (2014)

Crushed GraniteModani and Vyawahare(2013), Rukzon andChindaprasirt (2012),Sada et al. (2013), Kuoet al. (2013), Yang et al.(2010), (2005), Mageswariand Vidivelli (2009), Iamand Makul (2013),Shafana andVenkatasubramani (2014),Shah et al. (2014)

SCBA1

Modani andVyawahare (2013),Shafana andVenkatasubramani(2014), Shah et al.(2014)

GNS2

Sadaet al.(2013)

OS3

Kuo et al.(2013),Yanget al.(2010),(2005)

SDA5

Mageswariand Vidivelli(2009)

WGR6

IsmailandJaeel(2014)

RHA4

Iam andMakul(2013)

CorkPanesar andShindman (2012),Novoa et al. (2004),Bras et al. (2014),(2013), Moreira et al.(2014), Carvalho et al.(2013)

Specific gravity 2.38–2.64 2.6–2.83 1.25–2.54 – 2.1–2.48 2.5 – 2.03 –Fineness Modulus 2.21–3.44 5.96–7.52 1.42–2.12 – 2–2.8 1.78 – – –Bulk Density (kg/m3) 1428–1744 1365–1744 837–2040 254.55 – 1250 535 – 112.4Water Absorption (%) 0.74–2.9 0.57–1.8 0.88 1.61 2.9–7.66 – – – 0.1Moisture Content (%) 0.94–0.97 0.81 – – – – – – –Silt Content (%) 5.7–13 – – – – – – – –Flakiness index (%) – 1 – – – – – – –Elongation index (%) – 9.61 – – – – – – –

1 SCBA-Sugarcane Bagasse Ash.2 GNS-Groundnut Shell.3 OS-Oyster Shell.4 RHA-Rice Husk Ash.5 SDA-Saw Dust.6 WRG-Wild Giant Reed.

J.K.Prusty

etal./In

ternatio

nalJournalofSusta

inable

Built

Enviro

nment5(2016)312–333

319

Table 2Chemical properties of agro-waste.

ChemicalCompounds(%)

Sugarcane Bagasse ashModani and Vyawahare (2013), Shafana andVenkatasubramani (2014), Shah et al. (2014)

Oyster ShellKuo et al. (2013),Yang et al. (2005)

Saw DustMageswari andVidivelli (2009)

Rice HuskAshIam andMakul (2013)

Tobacco WasteOzturk andBayrakl (2005)

SiO2 62.43–90 2–13.28 65.3 89.87 –Al2O3 2.85–4.28 0.5 4 0.14 –Fe2O3 4.76–6.98 0.2 2.23 0.94 –CaO 1–11.8 51.06–77.81 9.6 0.49 –MgO 0.07–3.61 0.51 5.8 – –SO3 1.48 0.06–1.09 – – –K2O 3.19–3.53 0.06–0.51 0.11 2.16 –P2O5 0.23–2 – 0.43 – –Fe 2–4 – – – 0.46N 0.2–0.3 – – – –Na2O – 0.58 0.07 0.25 –TiO2 0.02 – – – –Mn2O3 0.02 – – – –P2O5 0.18 – – – –SrO 0.09 – – – –K2+Na2 5–10 – – – –Cl – 2.92 – – –MnO – – 0.01 – –SO2 – – 0.45 – –Zn – – – – 0.0098Mn – – – – 0.026Cu – – – – 0.0021Ca – – – – 5.72Mg – – – – 0.8K – – – – 1.03Na – – – – 0.09P – – – – 0.2Organic matter – – – – 66.21LOI 1.86–4.73 44.16 – 4.81 –


The chemical properties of agricultural wastes are pre-sented in Table 2. It can be observed that the chemicalcomposition of SCBA, RHA and SD is dominated by sili-con dioxide (SiO2). The sum of SiO2, Al2O3 and Fe2O3 ofSCBA, RHA and SD is higher than 70%, the requiredchemical composition of natural pozzolana as per ASTMC618 (American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005).Thus, the utilization of these mentioned agro-wastes as fineaggregate replacement could help in the hydration processof the agro-based concrete or mortar. Oyster shell (OS) dif-fers from the other agro-wastes by its CaO content (51.06–77.81%) and LOI (44.16%). The ASTM C618 standard(American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005) andBrazilian standard (NBR 12653) Brazilian Standard, 1992limits the LOI content of 6%. It can be observed thatSCBA and RHA satisfy the limitation of mentioned stan-dards, however oyster shell does not. Tobacco waste con-tains the highest percentage of organic matter (66.21).

3. Mix proportion of agro-waste based concrete

Selected mix proportions of agro-waste based concreteare presented in Table 3. Researchers have attempted differ-ent target strengths ranging from 20 MPa to 51.6 MPa usingdifferent cement types, agro-waste types, replacement levels

of fine aggregate and water-cement ratio. Different codessuch as IS 10262: 2009 (Indian Standard, 2009), ACI 211.1(American Concrete Institute, 1991), KCI (KoreaConcrete Institute, 1999), AIK (Korea Concrete Instituteand Architectural Institute of Korea, 1999), and CSAA23.3-09 (Canadian Standards Association, 2009) havebeen followed by different researchers (Modani andVyawahare, 2013; Sales and Lima, 2010; Yang et al., 2010;Panesar and Shindman, 2012; Shafana andVenkatasubramani, 2014; Shah et al., 2014) for mix propor-tioning the agro-waste concrete. Researchers (Modani andVyawahare, 2013; Shafana and Venkatasubramani, 2014;Shah et al., 2014) targeted different strengths of M20, M25andM30 by replacing SCBAofmaximum 50%of fine aggre-gate in concrete. Sales and Lima (Sales andLima, 2010) haveused three different types of cement, sulphate resisting Port-land cement, blast furnace slag cement and slag modifiedPortland cement to achieve three different target strengths.They have designed the concrete with SCBA based on theABCP (Brazilian Portland cement association) methodwhich was adopted from ACI method (American ConcreteInstitute, 1991). Yang et al. (2010) reported that substitutionratio of oyster shell was determined considering chloride ionamounts contained in OS to satisfy the requirement of theKorea Concrete Institute (KCI) Korea Concrete Institute,

Tab

le3

Selectedmix

proportionofagro-w

aste

based

concrete.

Author

Code

Design

strength

Typ

eofcementused

Agro-w

aste

used

SP*(%

)w/c

ratio

Nam

eofag

ro-w

aste

Replacement(%

)

Modan

ian

dVya

wah

are(201

3)IS

10262:

2009

M20

OPC

(53grad

e)Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

0,10

,20

,30

,40

0.8

0.4

Sales

andLim

a(201

0)ACI21

1.1

51.6

MPa

SulphateresistingPortlandcement

Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

0,30

,50

0.52

–0.54

38.6

MPa

Blast

furnaceslag

cement

Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

0,30

,50

0.53

–0.55

31.6

MPa

Slag-modified

Portlandcement

Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

0,30

,50

0.52

–0.54

Sad

aet

al.(201

3)–

M30

OPC

Groundnutshell

0,5,

15,25

,50

,75

0.5

Kuoet

al.(201

3)–

OPC

Typ

e-1

Oystershell

0,5,

10,15

,20

Yan

get

al.(201

0)KCIan

dAIK

code

30MPa

OPC

Typ

e-1

Oystershell

0,10

,20

0.45

Yan

get

al.(200

5)-

M30

OPC

Typ

e-1

Oystershell

0,10

,20

0.45

Ismailan

dJaeel(201

4)–

OPC

Giantreed

fibre

andGiantreed

ash

2.5,

5,7.5,

10,12

.50.55

Pan

esar

andShindman

(201

2)CSA

A23

.2–09

OPC

Cork

0,10

,20

0.82

0.4

Shafan

aan

dVenkatasubraman

i(201

4)IS

10262:

2009

M30

PPC

(53grad

e)Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

0,10

,15

,20

,25

,30

0.43

–0.45

Shah

etal.(201

4)IS

10262:

2009

M25

OPC

(53grad

e)Suga

rcan

ebagasse

ash

10,20

,30

,40

0.4

*SP–Superplasticizer.


1999 and Architectural Institute of Korea (AIK) KoreaConcrete Institute and Architectural Institute of Korea,1999 codes. Panesar and Shindman (2012) followed theCanadian standard (CSA 23.2-09 Canadian StandardsAssociation, 2009) for proportioning cork based concrete.They replaced the cork from 0 to 20% of fine aggregate witha w/c ratio of 0.4. They have used superplasticizer of 0.82%to maintain the workability of cork based concrete. The cor-responding fresh and hardened properties are discussed infollowing sections.

4. Fresh properties of concrete

4.1. Slump test

Slump test, is a very common test to assess the workabil-ity of any kind of concrete. Table 4 represents the slumpvalue of different agro-waste based concretes in differentreplacement levels. It can be observed that in the case ofbagasse ash (Modani and Vyawahare, 2013), groundnutshell (Sada et al., 2013), oyster shell (Kuo et al., 2013)and giant reed (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014) based concrete,the slump value was maximum at 0% replacement and thenit decreased in further increasing the amount of agro-waste.This type of behaviour in slump value was due to the highwater absorption of agro-wastes which declined the flowability of the mix at same w/c ratio. However, it can beobserved that the slump value of tobacco waste based con-crete was increased as the substitution of tobacco wasteincreased (Ozturk and Bayrakl, 2005).

Modani and Vyawahare (2013) reported that the slumpvalue of sugarcane bagasse ash concrete decreased, whenthe substitution of bagasse ash increased and it becameunworkable when the replacement was 40%. Sada et al.(2013)’s experiment showed that the slump value ofgroundnut shell concrete was less, compared to all otheragro-waste based concretes. Authors (Sada et al., 2013)suggested that, these low workable concrete could be usedin road construction and light weight concretes. Kuo et al.(2013) reported that waste oyster shell, as a sand replace-ment showed the slump value in the range between 215and 265 mm which is highest among all agro-waste basednormal concrete. In contradictory, Yang et al. (2005)reported that the slump value of oyster shell based concretewas near about 90 mm at 0% replacement and becameunworkable at 20% replacement level. Thus, they suggestedto add selected admixture while targeting better slumpvalue. Ismail and Jaeel (2014) found the decreasing slumpvalue, using giant reed fibres and giant reed ashes as fineaggregate replacement in concrete. They reasoned thatthe reduction of slump value was due to the angularity ofparticles and the water absorption of ash.

4.2. Compaction factor test

Table 5 shows the compacting factor values of bagasseash and groundnut shell for different replacement percent-

Table 4Slump value of agro-waste concrete in different percentage of replacement.

Percentage ofreplacement

Bagasse ashModani and Vyawahare(2013)

GroundnutshellSada et al.(2013)

Oyster shellYang et al.(2010)

Giant reed ashIsmail and Jaeel(2014)

Giant reed fibreIsmail and Jaeel(2014)

Tobacco wasteOzturk and Bayrakl(2005)

0 110 52 265 58 65 –2.5 – – – 55 61 –5 – 38 250 54 59 –7.5 – – – 52 56 –10 78 – 250 49 55 –12.5 – – – 48 54 –15 – 20 250 – – –20 65 – 215 – – 11025 – 15 – – – -30 32 – – – – 14040 7 – – – – -50 – 5 – – – 15075 – 5 – – – -

All slump values are in mm.

Table 5Compacting factor values of agro-waste concrete.

Percentage ofreplacement

Bagasse ashModani and Vyawahare(2013)

GroundnutshellSada et al.(2013)

0 0.92 0.885 0.84 0.8910 0.81 –15 0.75 0.8820 0.64 –25 – 0.8250 – 0.7875 – 0.75


ages. It can be observed that this parameter decreases whenthe percentage of replacement increases. These values arereduced from 0.92 to 0.64, which conveys, good workabil-ity property to the very low workability of agro-waste con-crete. Sada et al. (2013) reported that the use of groundnutshell reduced the concrete’s workability due to highabsorption of water.

4.3. Air content

Yang et al. (2005) analysed the effect of the substitutionratio of oyster shell in concrete using the pressure method.They measured constant values of air contents, when theair entrained; water-reducing admixtures were not used.However, when they used water-reducing admixture, theair content significantly increased. It is to be noted that thisfactor depends on the degree of increment with substitutionratio and type of oyster shell.

4.4. Flow table test

Workability of fresh mortar was determined using aflow table test. The measurement was done as per

provisions of American Society for Testing Materials(1999) and Bras et al. (2014). Bras et al. (2014) fixed a tar-get value of 175 ± 10 mm in terms of water and high rangewater reducer (HRWR) quantity for each mortar. Based onthis target value, adjustments were adopted in selectedmortar compositions in terms of water-binder ratio andhigh range water reducer (HRWR) percentage. It wasobserved that the workability decreased in the case ofincreasing the cork dosage, which is due to the reductionof binder paste (Bras et al., 2014). For cork dosage lessthan 20%, all mortars exhibited good workability evenafter 30 min of the mix preparatory.

4.5. Penetration and ball-drop

Kuo et al. (2013) conducted the penetration and ball-drop test under various replacements of oyster shell in con-crete. They observed that the penetration became 2.74 MPaat 210–260 min, when the replacement increased from 0%to 5%, which conforming the required 3–5 h for earlystrength controlled low strength materials. It has beenobserved that the addition of waste oyster shell affectedthe time of penetration (Kuo et al., 2013).

The ball-drop test value is the preliminary index of thebearing capacity of the material. Kuo et al. (2013) carriedout the ball-drop test with diameter of indentation as4.9 cm, at 5% replacement of waste oyster shell, and thisvalue was increased gradually as the replacement ratioincreased. The indentation diameter was 4.9–5.9 cm thatis less than 7.6 cm, indicating that the mix ratio had the suf-ficient bearing ratio for the construction (Kuo et al., 2013).The test results are represented in Fig. 11.

4.6. Water requirement and unit weight

Iam and Makul (2013) reported that the water require-ment increased with increasing rice husk ash content, which

0

2

4

6

8

0

100

200

300

400

500

0 5 10 15 20

Ball drop (cm

)Tim

e (m

ins)

WOS content (%)

Reached penetration pressure 2.74 MPa of the timeBall drop

Fig. 11. Effect of waste oyster shell content on penetration and ball-droptest (Kuo et al., 2013).


is due to increasing surface area, and high-unburned car-bon content of rice husk ash. However, the use of rice huskash combined with limestone reduced the water require-ment. The unit weight of self-compacting concretedecreased with increasing percentage of rice husk ash.

Unit weight of tobacco waste concrete varied between0.50 and 0.56 kg/m3, indicating that the concrete sampleswere in the heat isolation lightweight concrete categories(Sahin et al., 2000).

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40

Com

pres

sive

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Percentage replacement

(a) 7 Days M20 [5]

M25 [48]

M30 [38]

15202530354045

essi

ve s

tren

gth

(Mpa

) (b) 28 Days M20 [5]M25 [48]M30 [38]

4.7. Slump flow diameter and T50cm slump flow

Iam and Makul (2013) used rice husk ash as fine aggre-gate replacement in self-compacting concrete (SCC) andreported that the slump flow diameter ranged between690 and 700 mm up to 80% of the replacement level. Theyalso combined the rice husk ash and limestone by differentpercentages as a fine aggregate replacement in SCC andobserved the slump flow diameters were between 600 mmand 710 mm, which comes within the workability require-ment range of 650–800 mm as per American Society forTesting Materials (2014) and EFNARC (2002).

The time required for the self-compacting concrete toreach the slump flow of 50 cm diameter were within 3–7 s, the range considered acceptable in EFNARC (2002)guidelines (Iam and Makul, 2013). Iam and Makul (2013)observed that the slump flow time of SCC increased withincreasing rice husk ash as well as limestone. The increasedslump flow time varies from 6 to 15 s and 6–16 s for SCCmixtures containing RHA and RHA with limestone respec-tively. Authors (Iam and Makul, 2013) predicted that theslump flow time increased due to the increased surface areaof rice husk ash, which increased the viscosity of paste.This increased viscosity reduces the risk of segregation atthe time of placement of concrete.

05

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 40

Com

pr


Fig. 12. Compressive strength of bagasse ash concrete at (a) 7 days and(b) 28 days of curing.

4.8. V-funnel test

V-funnel test was taken to measure the required time forconcrete mixtures to flow through a funnel and provide anevaluation of viscosity and segregation resistance of

concrete mixtures (Iam and Makul, 2013). Flow times wereacceptable up to 20% replacement of rice husk ash, whichare within the acceptable limit provided by EFNARC(2002) guideline, that is, between 8 s and 12 s.

4.9. J-Ring test

Iam and Makul (2013) adopted the J-ring test to checkthe passing ability of concrete under its own weight to com-pletely fill all voids and to obtain the blocking assessment.According to American Society for Testing Materials(2014), 0–25 mm defines no visible blocking, 25–50 mmdefines minimal to noticeable blocking and greater than50 mm defines noticeable to extreme blocking. Authors(Iam and Makul, 2013) reported that up to 40% replace-ment of rice husk ash indicated small degree of blocking,while more than 60% of replacement indicated extremeblocking behaviour and a combination of rice husk ashand limestone indicated a good passing ability and goodresistance to segregation around congested reinforcedareas.

5. Hardened properties of concrete

5.1. Compressive strength

5.1.1. Bagasse ash

Researchers (Modani and Vyawahare, 2013; Shafanaand Venkatasubramani, 2014; Shah et al., 2014) have con-ducted the compressive strength of bagasse ash concrete as


per IS 516: 1959 (Indian Standard, 1959). Concrete usingsugarcane bagasse ash as fine aggregate shows an increas-ing compressive strength at 10% replacement than the con-trol concrete, but further increase of bagasse ash decreasedthe strength as reported by Modani and Vyawahare (2013).Shafana and Venkatasubramani (2014) reported the sameresult with sugarcane bagasse ash concrete in which com-pressive strength improved by increasing the curing period.

Fig. 12(a) and (b) represents the compressive strength ofbagasse ash concrete in different mix proportions and cur-ing periods. In case of M25 (Shah et al., 2014) and M30(Shafana and Venkatasubramani, 2014) grade of concrete,it can be observed that concrete achieved its minimumcompressive strength at 20% replacement of bagasse ash.Almeida et al. (2015) reported that the use of sugarcanebagasse ash as fine aggregate did not affect the compressivestrength of mortar.

5.1.2. Groundnut shell

Sada et al. (2013) performed an experiment usinggroundnut shells as a fine aggregate replacement having amix ratio of 1:2:3, in which they observed that the compres-sive strength increased at 5% replacement than the controlconcrete. However, it decreased by further increment ofreplacement, which behaved like a lightweight concrete.They also reported that groundnut shell concrete couldnot be used in important structural members, which areexposed to water, since moisture affects the weight andstrength (Sada et al., 2013).

5.1.3. Oyster shell

Yang et al. (2010) tested the compressive strength ofoyster shell concrete over a long period of 1 year basedon American Society for Testing and Materials (1979).They reported that oyster shell substitution as a fine aggre-gate showed a drastic increase of compressive strengthfrom 7 days to 28 days curing period and after 28 days,effect was apparent. The compressive strength variancewas not proportional to the substitution ratio, which isclear from Fig. 13. Yang et al. (2005) tested the compres-

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

7days 28days 7 days 28days

Com

pres

sive

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

MIX 1:1.85:2.62 [16] MIX 1:6.4:2 [15]

0%

10%

20%

Fig. 13. Compressive strength of oyster shell concrete.

sive strength using oyster shell as fine aggregate with andwithout admixture. They reported the compressive strengthof concrete increased at oyster shell substitution of 5%, butthe substitution ratio can be increased up to 10% usingadmixture in the concrete mix. Kuo et al. Kuo et al.(2013) also examined the same result regarding the oystershell concrete and the compressive strength decreased dueto the porous structure and the absorption rate of oystershell sand.

From Fig. 13 it can be observed that in the mix1:1.85:2.62 (Yang et al., 2010) the strength increased mar-ginally at 20% replacement of oyster shell than the controlconcrete, but in the case of controlled low strength concrete(mix 1:6.4:2 Kuo et al., 2013) the strength decreased at allreplacement levels than the control concrete.

5.1.4. Sawdust ash

Mageswari and Vidivelli (2009) have cast the concreteusing sawdust ash as fine aggregate in both cube and cylin-der. They followed the procedure of compressive strengthtest as per IS 516: 1959 (Indian Standard, 1959). It has beenseen that the strength of concrete containing 5%, 10% and15% mix ratio of sawdust ash was higher than that of con-trol concrete. However, concrete containing 20%–30% ofsawdust ash displayed a reduction in compressive strengththan that of plain concrete.

5.1.5. Wild giant reed

Ismail and Jaeel (2014) added giant reed ash and giantreed fibre in concrete as fine aggregate to check the com-pressive strength of concrete. Casting, compaction and cur-ing were accomplished according to BS 1881 (BritishStandard Institute, 1983). They reported that in earlierstages of the replacement, compressive strength increasedand at higher percentages, it decreased in comparison tothe strength of control concrete. However, for all casesthe compressive strength was higher than the minimumrequirement. Fig. 14 represents comparison of the strengthof giant reed ash and giant reed fibres, which confirms thatat 7.5% of replacement, giant reed ash concrete providesoptimal strength. The cause of such behaviour of giant reedash concrete is due to the content of silica; giant reed ashmay have pozzolanic activity. However, silica with an alu-mina content of their structure may form additional cal-cium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) by reacting with calciumhydroxide occurring because of cement hydration, whichincreases the strength of concrete (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014).

5.1.6. Rice husk ash

Iam and Makul (2013) have cast the self-compactingconcrete samples using rice husk ash (RHA), limestone(LS) and a mixture of RHA and LS in cylinder of 150mm diameter and 300 mm length. Samples were tested afteraging for 1, 7, 28 and 91 days in accordance with AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials (1979). Compressivestrength value was very low at 100% replacement of ricehusk ash and it was maximum at 10% replacement of only

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5

Com

pres

sive

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Percentage of replacement

7days 7days 14days 14days 28days 28days

Fig. 14. Compressive strength of Giant Reed Ash (GRA) and Giant Reed Fibres (GRF) based concrete at mix 1: 1.78: 2.23 (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014).


limestone. The compressive strength value decreased, whenthe replacement level increased. They attributed lowercompressive strength due to greater porosity as indicatedby the higher water requirement of rice husk ash and lime-stone. However, they found that rice husk ash was able tofill the micro-voids in improved way within the cement par-ticles (Iam and Makul, 2013).

5.1.7. CorkBras et al. Bras et al. (2013) tested the compressive

strength of mortar containing cork as fine aggregate andindicated that addition of cork generated a mortar havinglower compressive strength. These values may be expecteddue to higher water binder ratio than the control mortarand an increase of cork as sand replacement. They alsoexplained that when cork replacement is higher than50%, there was no major difference in compressive strengthof mortar that is just 20% of the compressive strength ofcontrol mortar (Bras et al., 2013).

Compressive strength of lightweight polymer mortarcontaining waste cork was higher than that of normal mor-tar as reported by Novoa et al. (2004). Moreira et al. (2014)tested the compressive strength of lightweight screed con-taining expanded cork according to NP EN 12390-3:2011(Portuguese Standards, 2011) at the age of 7, 28, 56, and84 days. They reported that the compressive strengthincreased, with increase of cement content and it reducedwith increase of percentage cork granulates.

5.1.8. Tobacco waste

The 28 day cube compressive strength of tobacco wastelightweight concrete sample was within 0.2–0.6 N/mm2

which varied on the mix ratio. It has been observed thatminor amount of organic matter, which is tobacco waste,resulted in a high compressive strength of concrete. Thecompressive strength of tobacco waste was under 1 N/mm2 due to which, this lightweight concrete can be sug-gested to be used as an insulating material for coatingand separation material into construction (Ozturk andBayrakl, 2005).

From the above compressive strength analysis, it can beobserved that, in case of agro-waste concrete containingbagasse ash, saw dust ash and oyster shell, minimumstrength of concrete is achieved by a maximum 20%replacement, but with further increase of replacement,strength decreased. However, the maximum compressivestrength of concrete containing groundnut shell and giantreed (both GRA and GRF) was achieved at 5% and7.5% respectively. Cork and rice husk ash also showedgood strength in mortar and self-compacting concrete asfine aggregate replacement.

5.2. Tensile strength

Researchers (Modani and Vyawahare, 2013; Mageswariand Vidivelli, 2009; Shafana and Venkatasubramani, 2014)have conducted the tensile strength of agro-waste basedconcrete in accordance with IS 5816: 1999 (IndianStandard, 1999). Modani and Vyawahare (2013) reportedthat the tensile strength of concrete decreased by additionof sugarcane bagasse ash whereas in case of other agro-waste materials, tensile strength was initially increasedand then decreased as increasing the percentage of replace-ment. Shafana and Venkatasubramani (2014) alsoobserved that bagasse ash increased the tensile strengthwith optimum strength gain achieved at 10% replacementvalue. Fig. 15 represents the relation between compressivestrength and tensile strength of M20 and M30 grade ofconcrete with the substitution of bagasse ash. Relation inM20 grade of concrete shows that, tensile strength ofbagasse ash concrete can be predicted very closely like con-ventional concrete in the following form:

f t ¼ 0:7f 0:56ck R2 ¼ 0:784 ð1Þ

where f t and f ck are tensile and compressive strength ofconcrete in MPa. However, in case of M30 grade ofbagasse ash concrete the regression coefficient, R2 is moreappropriate than the M20 grade of concrete.

f t ¼ 0:644f 0:521ck R2 ¼ 0:985 ð2Þ

ft = 0.700 (fck)0.556

R² = 0.784

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

10 15 20 25

Ten

sile

str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Compressive strength (MPa)

(a)

ft = 0.644(fck)0.521

R² = 0.985

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

10 15 20 25 30 35

Ten

sile

str

engt

h (M

Pa)


(b)

Fig. 15. Correlation between compressive strength and tensile strength ofbagasse ash concrete (a) M20 grade (Modani and Vyawahare, 2013) and(b) M30 grade (Shafana and Venkatasubramani, 2014).

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

0 10

Fle

xura

l str

engt

h (M

Pa)

15 20 25 30


Fig. 16. Flexural strength of sugarcane bagasse ash concrete (Shafana andVenkatasubramani, 2014).


where f t and f ck are tensile and compressive strength ofconcrete in MPa.

Yang et al. (2005) observed the development of tensilestrength using oyster shell in high strength concrete. The28 day tensile strength was higher at a smaller replacementpercentage, than the control concrete, but it reduced asincreasing the substitution ratio of oyster shell (Yanget al., 2005). They also performed a regression analysis tocompare the relation between compressive strength andtensile strength with the substitution of oyster shell, givingthe following relationship.

f t ¼ 0:18� ðf 0cÞ3=4 ð3Þ

where f c and f t are the compressive and tensile strength ofconcrete.

At 5%, 10% and 15% replacement of sawdust ash as fineaggregate in concrete there was increasing of tensilestrength and above the 20%, replacement displayed areduction in strength (Mageswari and Vidivelli, 2009).

5.3. Flexural strength

Bagasse ash concrete was cast in beam specimen size100 mm � 100 mm � 500 mm and cured in water for28 days. After 28 days, beams were tested as per IS 516:1959 (Indian Standard, 1959). The results indicated thatthe flexural strength increased by 10% replacement and itreduced with further increase of percentage (Shafana andVenkatasubramani, 2014). Fig. 16 shows the flexuralstrength variation of bagasse ash concrete at different sub-stitution ratios and curing period.

Ismail and Jaeel (2014) conducted the flexural strengthtest of giant reed based concrete in accordance withAmerican Society for Testing and Materials (2015). Theyexplained that the replacement of giant reed ash (GRA)and giant reed fibres (GRF) in concrete showed an increas-ing strength up to 7.5% and the strength decreased by 10%and 12.5% even below the strength of control concrete asshown in Fig. 17. The increase in compressive and tensilestrength can be attributed to presence of organic bindingsin giant reed fibres in acidic or alkali environment, whichdecomposed into monosaccharide-hexose and pentose.This monosaccharide dissolved in water easily and resultedin the formation of hydrophilic adsorption layers uponcement grains (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014). Novoa et al.(2004) and Bras et al. (2013) conducted the flexuralstrength test as per RILEM CPT PCM-8 (1995) standardtest method and EN-1015-11 (1999) standard. Theyreported the same result, regarding the flexural strengthof mortar that it reduces with increase in the percentageof cork.

Fig. 18 shows the regression analysis of GRA and GRFconcrete. From the figure, it is observed that GRA concretegives more predictable relation than the GRF concrete in aparticular mix ratio. Flexural strength of GRA concretecan be predicted from the compressive strength from thefollowing;

f r ¼ 0:68f 0:56ck R2 ¼ 0:93 ð4Þ

Eq. (5) also gives the relation to predict flexural strengthfrom its compressive strength with a regression coefficientR2 = 0.75.

f r ¼ 0:88f 0:47ck ð5Þ

where f r and f ck are flexural strength and compressivestrength of concrete in MPa.

5.4. Elastic modulus (E-value)

Yang et al. (2010) tested the elastic modulus of concretewith the substitution of oyster shell over a period of 1 yearas per ASTM C469 (American Society for Testing andMaterials, 2014). The elastic modulus test results are pre-

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0 2.5 5 7.5 10 12.5

Fle

xura

l str

engt

h (M

Pa)

Percentage of replacement

7 Days 7 Days 14 Days 14 Days 28 Days 28 Days

Fig. 17. Comparison of flexural strength between Giant Reed Ash (GRA) and Giant Reed Fibre (GRF) (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014).

fr = 0.68 (fck)0.56

R² = 0.93

fr = 0.88 (fck)0.47

R² = 0.75

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Fle

xura

l str

engt

h (M

Pa)


GRA GRF

Fig. 18. Correlation between flexural strength and compressive strengthof GRA and GRF concrete at mix 1:1.78:2.23 (Ismail and Jaeel, 2014).

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

14 days 28 days 6 months 1 year

Ela

stic

mod

ulus

Curing period

SR-0% SR-10% SR-20%

Fig. 19. Elastic modulus of oyster shell concrete (Yang et al., 2010).

Fig. 20. Relation between compressive strength and ultrasonic pulsevelocity in oyster shell concrete (Kuo et al., 2013).


sented in Fig. 19. They observed that at 20% replacementthe elastic modulus value decreased approximately 10–15% compared to other replacement level. They reasoned,it might be more due to the lower elastic modulus of oystershell than the natural fine aggregate. Yang et al. (2005)measured elastic modulus at 28 days to evaluate the effectof substitution of oyster shell on the elastic modulus ofconcrete. They reported that the elastic modulus dependedon the type of oyster shell, substitution ratio and use ofadmixture. Elastic modulus decreased approximately 10%by increasing the substitution ratio of 20% of oyster shell.They also compared the experimental value with the valueobtained from the relation proposed by ACI code(American Concrete Institute, 1997) and CEB-FIP modelequation (CEB-FIP, 1993) and the resulting experimentalvalue was higher even without using the admixture than

that value obtained from the code (Yang et al., 2005).The elastic modulus of cork modified polymer mortarwas less than that of conventional mortar, due to viscoelas-ticity properties of polymers, which are reported by Novoaet al. (2004). They Novoa et al. (2004) also included thepredicted elastic modulus based on Kelvin-Voigt modelfor the rule of mixture,

Ecomp ¼ EcV c þ EmV m ð6Þwhere E refers to elastic modulus and V refers to volumefraction. The indices comp, c and m are relative to finalcomposite, cork and matrix.

5.5. Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV)

Ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) is a form of non-destructive testing in which ultrasonic pulsing are used totest the quality of concrete and detect the depths andwidths of crack so as to determine the density variationof the concrete (Kuo et al., 2013). Kuo et al. (2013) testedthe ultrasonic pulse velocity of concrete with the substitu-tion of oyster shell as per ASTM C597 (American Societyfor Testing and Materials, 2009). They reported that at5% replacement, UPV value was higher than the controlconcrete and in all other level of replacement, it was lowerthan the control concrete. It can be expected that the lowerUPV value may be due to the weakness of C–S–H gel. Therelation between compressive strength and ultrasonic pulsevelocity of oyster shell concrete is presented in Fig. 20.


From the regression analysis, it can be observed that thecompressive strength of oyster shell concrete can be pre-dicted using following relationship from its UPV valuewith a regression coefficient of R2 = 0.87.

f ck ¼ 0:06ðUPV Þ4:93 ð7ÞIam and Makul (2013) measured the UPV value of self-

compacting concrete after aging for 1, 7, 28 and 91 days inaccordance with ASTM C597 (American Society forTesting and Materials, 2009) and reported its variationwas from 0.7 km/s to 4.4 km/s. Highest UPV value wasachieved in control concrete and lowest value was at100% replacement of rice husk ash. They also noticed thatthe UPV value increased by an addition of rice husk ash,which was likely due to micro filling and pozzolanic effecton property of concrete pore structures. They found goodrelation between compressive strength and ultrasonic pulsevelocity of self-compacting concrete with rice husk ashmixture having R2 = 0.9403 which is shown in Fig. 21.

5.6. Shrinkage and creep

Yang et al. (2010) conducted a series of tests to evaluatethe behaviour of drying shrinkage of concrete using oystershell as fine aggregate. Experimental values were comparedwith the value obtained from several codes (ACI AmericanConcrete Institute, 1997; CEB-FIP, 1993), and BP modelequations (Bazant and Wittmann, 1982) and showed agood agreement between these two values. The increasein drying shrinkage based on regression analysis was 7%and 28% in the substitution ratio of 10% and 20%, respec-tively, compared with the control concrete. They analysedthat the shrinkage increased due to the lower rigidity ofoyster shell and effect of size of fine powder (Yang et al.,2010). Kuo et al. (2013) reported that the shrinkage ofspecimen increased if the natural aggregate of higherYoung’s modulus was replaced by waste oyster shell as fineaggregate having a lower Young’s modulus, which meantthat larger replacement percentage resulted in greatershrinkage.

Fig. 21. Relation between compressive strength and ultrasonic pulsevelocity of self-compacting concrete made with replacement of RHA (Iamand Makul, 2013).

Yang et al. (2010) conducted a series creep test to knowthe effect of creep on oyster shell concrete and reported thatat 0% replacement, the creep was larger than that at 10%replacement even at an early age.

6. Durability

Durability is the important characteristics of hardenedconcrete to check when it contains any replacement mate-rials of cement or aggregate. Many researchers conductedthe durability test such as freezing and thawing, carbona-tion, chemical attack, permeability and water absorption,etc. of concrete having agricultural waste as a fine aggre-gate replacement.

6.1. Freezing and thawing

Yang et al. (2010) studied the freezing and thawing testof oyster shell-mortar. Freezing and thawing tests were per-formed according to ASTM C666 (American Society forTesting and Materials, 2015). According to their study,the variance rates of the dynamic modulus of elasticityand weight of the concrete substituted by oyster shellshowed smaller and more satisfactory values respectivelythan those of control concrete. They reported that oystershell shows improved performance of freezing and thawingresistance of concrete, which is because the fine grain ofoyster shell fills the entrapped air voids scattered in con-crete specimen (Yang et al., 2010).

6.2. Chemical attack

Yang et al. (2010) did the chemical attack experiment onconcrete with the substitution of oyster shell by depositingthe concrete specimens in sulphuric acid and hydrochloricacid. After a certain age, they tested the specimen andreported that the attack of concrete increases graduallywith age. The attack of sulphuric acid was continued asage increased. They also found that there is no effect ofthe substitution ratio of oyster shell on weight loss of con-crete specimen (Yang et al., 2010). Kuo et al. (2013)observed the same result of sulphate attack on oyster shellconcrete. Weight loss of concrete specimen increased from1.17% to 4.822%, according to the increasing of age period.There is some effect of the substitution ratio of oyster shell.

Ismail and Jaeel (2014) observed the effect of alkali onconcrete containing giant reed ash and giant reed fibres.They observed that modified concrete with giant reed fibrescould be affected by alkali faster than the control concretesince they affected the lignin complex molecules causingfibre fracture.

Almeida et al. (2015) applied colorimetric treatment tothe mortar specimens for analysis of chloride penetrations.Fig. 22 shows the average chloride penetration values inmillimetres obtained at different immersion times in a3.5% NaCl solution. The M30 (30% substitution of bagasseash) and M50 (50% substitution of bagasse ash) samples

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

30

Chl

orid

e pe

netr

atio

n (m

m) RM M

60 90Imersion period (days)

30 M50

Fig. 22. Average chloride penetration values at different ages for themortar samples (Almeida et al., 2015).


showed significantly different chloride penetration values inthe first month of conditioning but showed same magni-tude at later stage. The RM (Referenced Mortar) specimenshowed less resistance to chloride penetrations because itshowed the highest average chloride penetration values atall of the studied ages. Thus, the addition of bagasse ashincreased the chloride penetration resistance of mortar.

6.3. Carbonation

Yang et al. (2010) conducted carbonation test to evalu-ate the effect of substitution ratio of oyster shell on carbon-ation characteristics of concrete. These tests wereperformed in a chamber under the temperature of 30± 3 �C, relative humidity of 60 ± 5%, and 10% carbondioxide. After splitting, a 1% of phenolphthalein alcoholliquid was sprayed on the fractured specimen surface andthe thickness of the discoloured portion was measured.As a result, it has been observed that the carbonation depthincreased with increasing carbonation age. Almeida et al.(2015) measured the carbonation depth of sugarcanebagasse ash mortar (at 0%, 30%, and 50% substitutionratio) using colorimetric treatment. They reported that, ini-tially the carbonation depth magnitude was similar for

Fig. 23. Mortar specimen after colorimetric treatment at 365 days ofcarbonation period containing 50% replacement bagasse ash (Almeidaet al., 2015).

each replacement level. However, at 365 days carbonationperiod, carbonation depth was significantly increased formortar containing 50% replacement of bagasse ash thanthe controlled mortar and mortar containing 30% ofbagasse ash. Fig. 23 shows the colorimetric treatment ofmortar for carbonation depth analysis.

Almeida et al. (2015) also mentioned that the carbona-tion depth could be decreased by reducing the watercement ratio and by the packing effect of cementitiousmatrix provided by bagasse ash fineness. The reductionof water cement ratio and incorporation of finer materialslead to a denser and stronger mortar matrix.

6.4. Permeability

Yang et al. (2010) determined the permeability ratio ofmortar in accordance with ASTM C109 (AmericanSociety for Testing and Materials, 2016) and comparedwith the substitution ratio of oyster shell. The permeabilityratio of mortar having 10% and 20% of oyster shell wasapproximately 80% less than that of standard mortar. Theyalso explained that the improvement of permeability wasdue to the effect of small particle size, more flakiness andelongation of oyster shell (Yang et al., 2010). Panesarand Shindman (2012) tested the rapid chloride permeabilitytest on cement-cork mortar by an increasing percentage ofcork, taking different size of the cork, cork gradation andweathered cork. The procedure employed was ASTMC1202 (American Society for Testing and Materials,2012). They observed that cork content had more effecton the permeability of mortar than the size and weatheredcork (Panesar and Shindman, 2012). The water vapour per-meability test of cement-cork mortar and lime-cork mortarwas performed according to European norm EN1015-19(1988), EN 1015-19 (1999) and Bras et al. (2014). It hasbeen observed that there was no effect of cork on changesof permeability. Cement based mortars were less permeableto water vapour than lime based mortar (Bras et al., 2014).But according to Moreira et al. (2014), addition ofexpanded cork granulates in the mix induced greater watervapour permeability.

6.5. Water absorption test

Water absorption and porosity are important indica-tors of durability of hardened concrete and reductionof these values can greatly affect the long-term perfor-mance and serviceability of concrete (Ismail and Jaeel,2014). The water absorption test was carried out todetermine the sorptivity coefficient of a concrete speci-men. It is observed that this coefficient increases withincrease in percentage of sugarcane bagasse ash anddecreases with an increase in compressive strength(Modani and Vyawahare, 2013). Ismail and Jaeel(2014) used 100 mm cubes for water absorption testand tested in accordance to BS 1881-122 (BritishStandard Institute, 1983). They explained that concrete

Fig. 24. Cyclic test (a) Uniaxial compression (b) Diagonal compression (c) Rupture in uniaxial compression (d) Rupture in diagonal compression(Carvalho et al., 2013).


containing giant reed fibres attained higher percentage ofwater absorption as compared to giant reed ash concreteand control concrete. It is also observed that waterabsorption percentage increased as increasing the per-centage of replacement of giant reed ash in concretemixes. Kuo et al. Kuo et al. (2013) reported that theabsorption rate of replacing waste oyster shell sand isincreased by 1.1–1.6% than the control concrete sincewaste oyster shell sand has a higher porosity andabsorption rate.

7. Thermal conductivity

Panesar and Shindman (2012) tested the thermal resis-tance and thermal conductivity of concrete containing corkand expanded polystyrene (EPS) based on the proceduredescribed in American Society for Testing and Materials(2010). They reported that the mixture containing 10%and 20% of cork reduced the thermal conductivity byapproximately 16% and 30% respectively. They alsoexplained a relation that thermal conductivity increasedas the density increased. Thermal conductivity not onlycontrolled by the density, but also influenced by the size,gradation and percentage of replacement of cork(Panesar and Shindman, 2012). Bras et al. (2014) observedthat, for mortars with a high substitution ratio of corkgranulates lead to a linear decrease of thermal conductivityas well as density. In another study, Bras et al. (2013)reported the same result that mortar containing cork gran-ulates shows linear decreasing thermal conductivity and

that the decrease was higher than the mortar containingexpanded polystyrene (EPS). Moreira et al. (2014) addeddifferent substitution ratio of expanded cork granulateswith cement mortar. They noticed the declining thermalconductivity coefficient like other researchers and reportedthat thermal conductivity decreased due to lower cementcontent in mortar mixes. The thermal conductivity of pro-ducing tobacco waste materials was in the range of 0.194–0.220, which indicated that it could be used as a coatingand dividing materials in concrete (Ozturk and Bayrakl,2005).

8. Cyclic behaviour

Carvalho et al. (2013) tested the cyclic behaviour of acomposite material made from a mortar incorporated withgranulated cork. Specimens with 0%, 15% and 30% of corkaddition, in volume mix, were prepared and tested. Cyclicuniaxial and diagonal compression tests were carried outto characterize the cyclic behaviour of the composite mate-rials. It has been observed that, for whole set of mortarstudy, there is a tendency for improvement of performancewhen the cork granulates are added, either uniaxial or diag-onal compression test. Fig. 24 shows the cyclic test of mor-tar incorporated with granulated cork.

They also concluded the improvement behaviour ofenergy dissipation capacity and conformed that inclusionof cork granulates in controlled volume fractions in con-struction mortar was beneficial for the seismic protectionof building (Carvalho et al., 2013).


9. Future recommendation

Based on the review done on concrete made with agri-cultural waste as partial replacement of fine aggregate,the following future studies can be recommended.

1. Limited research work has been reported on utilizationof agro-waste as fine aggregate in concrete/mortar. Thusa complete study of engineering properties on everyagro-waste based concrete could be conducted and com-pared with the conventional concrete.

2. Compressive strength is the only hardened propertywhich conducted on every mentioned agro-waste basedconcrete. However, other mechanical properties suchas tensile and flexural strength, elastic modulus, UPVcould be studied on all agro-waste based concrete andrelate with conventional concrete.

3. Durability is an important property to observe beforeestablishing any kind of concrete for practical applica-tion. There are limited durability studies reported onagro-waste based concrete. Therefore a brief study ondurability properties of every type of agro-waste con-crete can be done.

4. It has been seen that only rice husk ash was used as fineaggregate in self-compacting concrete. Thus other agro-wastes could be used as partial replacement of fineaggregate in self-compacting concrete and observedtheir effect on properties of SCC.

5. Further research work is required regarding these agro-wastes as a fine aggregate replacement in concrete toconfirm the strength variation and thermal property.

10. Conclusion

Literature and experimental studies on fine aggregatereplacement by agro-waste in concrete, self-compactingconcrete and mortar have been reviewed. Following impor-tant conclusions have been drawn from these studies:

1. Different workability tests of agro-waste based con-crete and mortar are reviewed. It has been concludedthat slump value of agro-waste concrete containingbagasse ash, groundnut shell, oyster shell, giant reedash, giant reed fibres and rice husk ash decreased asthe percentage of replacement increased. However,in case of tobacco waste concrete, slump valueincreased as the replacement increased. Compactingfactor, penetration, and ball drop increased up to5% replacement of groundnut shell and oyster shellrespectively. In case of flowability and V-funnel test,cork and rice husk managed improved workability upto 20% of replacement.

2. It has been observed that, in case of agro-waste con-crete containing bagasse ash, sawdust ash and oystershell, minimum strength of concrete was achieved byaddition of optimal 20% of replacement but with fur-

ther increase, strength was decreased. However, themaximum compressive strength of concrete contain-ing groundnut shell and giant reed (both GRA andGRF) was achieved at 5% and 7.5% respectively.Cork and rice husk ash also showed good strengthin mortar and self-compacting concrete as fine aggre-gate replacement.

3. It has been observed that concrete containing saw-dust ash gave maximum tensile strength up to 15%of replacement in comparison to bagasse ash and oys-ter shell. The regression analysis of bagasse ash con-crete gives a close prediction of tensile strength fromits compressive strength. Giant reed ash concreteshows its maximum flexural strength at 7.5% replace-ment. GRA concrete gives more predictable flexuralstrength than the GRF concrete and bagasse ashconcrete.

4. Elastic modulus of agro-waste based concretedepends on types of material used, substitution ratioand use of admixture. The experimental elastic mod-ulus of oyster shell concrete was higher than that ofthe value obtained from ACI code. The elastic mod-ulus of cork modified polymer mortar was less thanthat of conventional mortar, due to viscoelasticityproperties of polymers.

5. Strong co-relation between compressive strength andultrasonic pulse velocity of oyster shell based con-crete has been observed. Rice husk ash based self-compacting concrete showed better relation than oys-ter shell based concrete which was expected due tomicro filling and pozzolanic effect on property of con-crete pore structures.

6. Groundnut shell as a fine aggregate replacement can-not be used in water sensitive structures and water-logged areas since the moisture affects the weightand strength.

7. A complete review was done on durability proper-ties of agro-waste concrete and agro-waste mor-tars. It has been observed that chemical attackon agro-waste concrete increased with age. Addi-tion of bagasse ash as fine aggregate in mortarincreased the resistance of chloride penetration.Carbonation depth was increased by increasingthe substitution of agro-waste in concrete andmortar, but it can be decreased by reducing thewater cement ratio.

8. The percentage of cork used as a sand replacementhas a significant effect on mechanical strength,microstructure and thermal resistance of cork cementcomposites. It has been observed that, the size of thecork plays an important role in strength achievement.Lower size of the cork gives more strength toconcrete.

9. All properties of tobacco waste concrete satisfied theproperty of heat insulation materials, which can berecommended for use as a coating and separationmaterials in construction.


10. The cyclic behaviour of cork-based mortar wasobserved. It has been seen that for the whole mortarstudy, there is an improvement of performances ofspecimen due to the inclusion of cork, which is bene-ficial for seismic protection of building.

References

Akindapo, J.O., Bini, U.A., Sanusi, O.M., 2015. Development of roofingsheet material in using groundnut shell particles and epoxy resin ascomposite material. Am. J. Eng. Res. 4 (6), 165–173.

Almeida, F.C.R., Sales, A., Moretti, J.P., Mendes, P.C.D., 2015.Sugarcane bagasse ash sand (SBAS): Brazilian agroindustrial by-product for use in mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 82, 31–38.

American Concrete Institute, ACI Committee 209, 1997. Prediction ofCreep, Shrinkage, and Temperature Effects on Concrete Structures.ACI Manual of Concrete Practice (ACI 209R-92).

American Concrete Institute, ACI 211.1 – Recommended practice forselecting proportions for normal and heavy weight concrete, 1991,USA.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2009. ASTM C597-09.Standard Test Method for Pulse Velocity through Concrete.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2012. ASTM C1202-12,Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s Abilityto Resist Chloride Ion Penetration.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2014. ASTM C469/C469M-14. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity andPoisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015. ASTM C293: StandardTest Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2015. ASTM C666/C666M-15. Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to RapidFreezing and Thawing.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2016. ASTM C109/C109M-16a, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of HydraulicCement Mortars.

American Society for Testing and Materials, ASTM C33. StandardSpecification for Concrete Aggregates. 1978, Philadelphia.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2005. AASTM C618.Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcinated naturalpozzolan for use in concrete.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 1979. ASTM C39. StandardTest Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical ConcreteSpecimens.

American Society for Testing and Materials, 2010. ASTM C177-10.Standard test methods for steady-state heat flux measurements thermaltransmission properties by means of the guarded-hot-plate apparatus.

American Society for Testing Materials, 2014. ASTM C1621. StandardTest Method for Passing Ability of Self-consolidating Concrete by J-Ring.

American Society for Testing Materials, 1999. ASTM C330. Standardspecification for lightweight aggregates for structural concrete, TheUnit Stat Amer..

Bazant, Z.P., Wittmann, F.H., 1982. Creep and Shrinkage in ConcreteStructures. John Wiley Son, London, p. 363.

Bhatty, J.L., Reid, K.J., 1989. Moderate strength concrete from light-weight sludge ash aggregates. Cem. Comp. Lightwt. Concr., 179–187

Bras, A., Leal, M., Faria, P., 2013. Cement-cork mortars for thermalbridges correction Comparison with cement- EPS mortars perfor-mance. Constr. Build. Mater. 49, 315–327.

Bras, A., Alvesa, F.G., Faustinoa, P., 2014. Cork-based mortars forthermal bridges correction in a dwelling: thermal performance and costevaluation. Energy Build. 72, 296–308.

Brazilian Standard, NBR 12653, 1992. Materials Pozzolans-Specification.

British Standard Institute, 1983. BS 1881–122: Method for Determinationof Water Absorption.

British Standard Institute, 1992. Specification for aggregates from naturalsources for concrete. BS 882, London.

Buari, T.A., Ademola, S.A., Ayegbokiki, S.T., 2013. Characteristicstrength of groundnut shell ash and ordinary Portland cement blendedconcrete in Nigeria. IOSR J. Eng. 3 (7), 1–7.

Canadian Standards Association, 2009. CSA A23.2-09 Test Methods andStandard Practices for Concrete.

Carvalho, R.D., Dias, F.T., Varum, H., 2013. Cyclic behaviour of alightweight mortar with cork granulate composite. Comp. Str. 95, 748–755.

CEB-FIP, 1993. Model Code for Concrete Structures (MC-90). CEB,Thom Telfo, London, p. 112.

EFNARC, 2002. Specifications and Guidelines for Self-compactingConcrete, The Unit Stat Amer..

EN 1015-19, 1999. Methods of Test for Masonry. Determination of WaterVapour Permeability of Hardened Rendering and Plastering Mortars.

EN-1015-11, 1999. Methods of Test for Mortar for Masonry. Determi-nation of Flexural and Compressive Strength of Hardened Mortar.

Ganiron Jr., T.U., 2014. Effect of sawdust as fine aggregate in concretemixture for building construction. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 63, 73–82.

Givi, A.N., Rashid, S.A., Aziz, F.N.A., Salleh, M.A.M., 2010. Assessmentof the effects of rice husk ash particle size on strength, waterpermeability and workability of binary blended concrete. Constr.Build. Mater. 24, 2145–2150.

Iam, G.S., Makul, N., 2013. Utilization of limestone powder to improvethe properties of self-compacting concrete incorporating high volumesof untreated rice husk ash as fine aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 38,455–464.

Indian Standard, 1959. IS 516: Method of Tests for Strength of Concrete,New Delhi.

Indian Standard, 1963. IS 2386-3: Methods of Test for Aggregate forConcrete, Part 3: Specific Gravity, Density, Voids, Absorption andBulking, New Delhi.

Indian Standard, 1963b. IS 2386–1: Methods of Test for Aggregates forConcrete, Part-1: Particle Size and Shape, New Delhi.

Indian Standard, 1999. IS 5816: Method of Test Splitting Tensile Strengthof Concrete.

Indian Standard, 2009. IS 10262: Guidelines for Concrete Mix DesignProportioning. Indian Standard, New Delhi.

Ismail, Z.Z., Jaeel, A.J., 2014. A novel use of undesirable wild giant reedbiomass to replace aggregate in concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 67, 68–73.

Kanagalakshmi, A.S., Velu, S., Tamilnathan, R., 2015. Study of peanutshell beams on shear and flexure. Int. Conf. Eng. Trend Sci. Humani.,32–44

Korea Concrete Institute, 1999. Standard Specifications for Concrete,Korea.

Korea Concrete Institute and Architectural Institute of Korea, 1999.Standard for Structural Calculations of Reinforced Concrete Struc-tures, Korea.

Kuo, W.T., Wang, H.Y., Shu, C.Y., Su, D.S., 2013. Engineeringproperties of controlled low-strength materials containing waste oystershells. Constr. Build. Mater. 46, 128–133.

Loh, Y.R., Sujan, D., Rahman, M.E., Das, C.A., 2013. Sugarcanebagasse-The future composite material: a literature review. Resour.Conserv. Recycl. 75, 14–22.

Madandoust, R., Ranjbar, M.M., Hamed Ahmadi Moghadam, H.A.,Mousavi, S.Y., 2011. Mechanical properties and durability assessmentof rice husk ash concrete. Bio. Syst. Eng. 110, 144–152.

Madurwar, M.V., Ralegaonkar, R.V., Mandavgane, S.A., 2013. Applica-tion of agro-waste for sustainable construction materials: a review.Constr. Build. Mater. 38, 872–878.

Mageswari, M., Vidivelli, B., 2009. The use of sawdust ash as fineaggregate replacement in concrete. J. Environ. Res. Dev. 3 (3), 720–726.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2212-6090(15)30011-X/h0005























































































































Mahmoud, H., Belel, Z.A., Nwakaire, 2012. Groundnut shell ash as apartial replacement of cement in sandcrete blocks production. Int. J.Dev. Sustain. 1 (3), 1026–1032.

Modani, P.O., Vyawahare, M.R., 2013. Utilization of bagasse ash as apartial replacement of fine aggregate in concrete. Proc. Eng. 51, 25–29.

Moreira, A., Antonio, J., Tadeu, A., 2014. Lightweight screed containingcork granules: mechanical and hygrothermal characterization. Cem.Concr. Comp. 49, 1–8.

NM 30, 2001. Fine Aggregate – Test Method for Water Absorption.NM 45, 2004. Aggregates – Bulk Density and Volume of Voids – Method.NM 52, 2004. Fine Aggregates – Specific Gravity and Bulk Density

Method.Novoa, P.J.R.O.N., Ribeiro, M.C.S., Ferreira, A.J.M., Marques, A.T.,

2004. Mechanical characterization of lightweight polymer mortarmodified with cork granulates. Comp. Sci. Technol. 64, 2197–2205.

Olutoge, F.A., Buari, T.A., Adeleke, J.S., 2013. Characteristics strengthand durability of groundnut shell ash blended cement concrete insulphate environments. Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res. 4 (7), 2022–2034.

Oyedepo, O.J., Oluwajana, S.D., Akande, S.P., 2014. Investigation ofproperties of concrete using sawdust as partial replacement for sand.Civ. Environ. Res. 6 (2), 35–42.

Ozturk, T., Bayrakl, M., 2005. The Possibilities of Using Tobacco Wastesin Producing Lightweight Concrete, vol. 7, vol. 7, pp. 1–9.

Panesar, D.K., Shindman, B., 2012. The mechanical, transport andthermal properties of mortar and concrete containing waste cork. Cem.Concr. Comp. 34, 982–992.

Portuguese Standards, 2011. NP EN 12390-3: Testing Hardened Concrete,Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens, ed. 3. IPQ.

RILEM CPT PCM-8, 1995. Method of Test for Flexural Strength andDeflection of Polymer Modified Mortar. TC 113. RILEM, UK.

Rukzon, S., Chindaprasirt, P., 2012. Utilization of bagasse ash in highstrength concrete. Mater. Des. 34, 45–50.

Sada, B.H., Amarteyb, Y.D., Bakoc, S., 2013. An Investigation into theuse of groundnut shell as fine aggregate replacement. Niger J. Technol.32 (1), 54–60.

Sahin, R., Demirboga, R., Uysal, H., Gul, R., 2000. The effects of differentcement dosages, slumps and pumice aggregate ratios on the compres-sive strength and densities of concrete. Cem. Concr. Res. 3 (33), 1245–1249.

Sales, A., Lima, S.A., 2010. Use of Brazilian sugarcane bagasse ash inconcrete as sand replacement. Waste Manag. 30, 1114–1122.

Shafana, T., Venkatasubramani, R., 2014. A study on the mechanicalproperties of concrete with partial replacement of fine aggregatewith sugarcane bagasse ash. Int. J. Adv. Str. Geotech. Eng. 3 (1),34–39.

Shafigh, P., Mahmuda, H.B., Jumaat, M.Z., Zargar, M., 2014. Agricul-tural wastes as aggregate in concrete mixtures – A review. Constr.Build. Mater. 53, 110–117.

Shah, P.A., Mehta, J.G., Pathariya, S.C., Ranajaykrushna, A., Patel, A.N., 2014. Sugarcane baggase ash and pozzocrete as an techno-economical solution in design mix concrete. Ind. J. Appl. Res. 4 (5),243–245.

Short, A., Kinniburg, W., 1978. Lightweight Concrete. Galliard (Printers),Great Yormouth, Great Britain, p. 113.

Tata, K.H., Sani, M., Ekundayo, O.O., Frederick, K., 2015. Feasibilitystudy of the use of groundnut shells as fine aggregates in lightweightconcrete construction. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. 1 (1), 13–16.

Udoeyo, F.F., Dashibil, P.U., 2002. Sawdust ash as concrete material. J.Mater. Civ. Eng. 14 (2), 173–176.

Yang, E.I., Yi, S.T., Leem, Y.M., 2005. Effect of oyster shell substitutedfor fine aggregate on concrete characteristics: part I. Fundamentalproperties. Cem. Concr. Res. 35, 2175–2182.

Yang, E.I., Kim, M.Y., Park, H.G., Yi, S.T., 2010. Effect of partialreplacement of sand with dry oyster shell on the long-term perfor-mance of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 24, 758–765.

Zaid, A.A., Ganiyat, O., 2009. Comparative utilization of biodegradedand undegraded rice husk in Clarias gariepinus diet. Afr. J. Biotechnol.8 (7), 1358–1362.





































































Concrete using agro-waste as fine aggregate for ... · PDF fileConcrete using agro-waste as...

Documents

Transcript of Concrete using agro-waste as fine aggregate for ... · PDF fileConcrete using agro-waste as...