Ijciet 08 02_043

http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/index.asp 400 editor@iaeme.com
International Journal of Civil Engineering and Technology (IJCIET)
Volume 8, Issue 2, February 2017, pp. 400–409 Article ID: IJCIET_08_02_043
Available online at http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
ISSN Print: 0976-6308 and ISSN Online: 0976-6316
© IAEME Publication Scopus Indexed
UPV CHARACTERISTICS AND DURABILITY
ASPECTS OF THE COCONUT SHELL ASH
CONCRETE
Sankalp Sharan
Research Scholar, Sardar Vllabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India
Dr. D B Raijiwala
Associate Professor, Sardar Vllabhbhai National Institute of Technology, Surat, Gujarat, India
ABSTRACT
Researchers from all over the world are finding new ways and new materials to replace the
cement constituents. In this paper cement in mortar was replaced by 10%, 15%, 20%, 30%, 40%
50% and 60% with coconut shell ash (CSA). Durability of mortar was found out for NaCl, MgSO4
and saline marine or marshy water. To assess the resistance for the temperature change wet and
dry cycle test were also performed on the CSA mortar. Change in weight and strength of the
samples were found before and after conducting the test. Ultra sonic pulse velocity test were also
conducted to find out the quality of the concrete samples prepared with coconut shell ash (CSA).It
is found that the samples shows good resistance in different durability test and UPV test also
shows that the samples are homogenous and compact. Coconut shell ash may be considered as
suitable replacement of cement up to 10% as far as durability is concerned.
Key words: Coconut shell ash, Durability, UPV.
Cite this Article: Sankalp Sharan and Dr. D B Raijiwala, UPV Characteristics and Durability
Aspects of the Coconut Shell Ash Concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering and
Technology, 8(2), 2017, pp. 400–409.
http://www.iaeme.com/IJCIET/issues.asp?JType=IJCIET&VType=8&IType=2
1. INTRODUCTION
The constituents of which cement and concrete are made are started to replenish from this world. It is
necessary to found the alternative ways for the replenishment of those materials. If any suitable
replacement material is found then there are lot of factors like durability aspects, economic aspect and
strength factors etc are taken in to the consideration. It is necessary that all the factors strike the right
chord so that any material can be selected for either for replacement or addition in the concrete. Plenty of
research work is done on coconut shell fiber. Coconut shell is agricultural waste which is available in
huge quantity in many parts of the world. Coconut shell ash is a cheap material and if is used to enhance
the durability of concrete then it could result in cost saving without affecting it strength of the concrete.
This paper aim was to assess the durability of coconut shell ash in mortar inn different conditions and also
to check the quality and homogeneity of concrete samples by UPV so that it can be used in non-structural
components, concrete pavements and other structures which is somehow exposed to those situations
which affects its durability.

Sankalp Sharan and Dr. D B Raijiwala
2. EXRIMENTAL TEST METHODS
For all durability test plain mortar samples were casted according to the code standard and of size
7.06cm2
and in proportion of 1:3.Coconut shell ash is replaced in mortar samples by 10%, 15%, 20%,
30%, 40% and 50%.UPV test is conducted on the concrete samples of M 20 and M 30 mix. All Concrete
cubes were prepared according to standard IS Code.
2.1. NaCl and MgSO4 Solution
Marine structures, industrial structures and structures which exist in the humid climate generally degrade
with the passage of time due to various acid present in the nature or water. NaCl and MgSO4 solution are
used here for testing the durability of mortar samples. Plane mortar cubes samples were made with the
replacement of cement with coconut shell ash (CSA).Cement is replaced by CSA by
10%,15%,20%,30%,40% and 50 %.Samples were put in curing tank for 56 days and then taken out and
weighed. Then it is put in the curing tank containing 5% NaCl and 5% of MgSO4 solution. After 56 days
it is again weighed and tested for the compressive strength.
2.2. Wet and Dry Cycle Test
The outer structure of the buildings where there is hot and humid climate exits and where days are hot and
night are cold structures get severely damaged due to the change in the temperature. Concrete pavements
in arid regions faces high temperature in the day time and temperature suddenly drops down in the night
which causes pavements to expand and cracks occur. The mortar cubes were subjected to temperature
change and a total of 20 alternate cycles were performed in every cycle samples were put in a ventilated
oven at 1050
C and after that it is submerged in the normal water for 18 ±1 hours whose temperature is
less than 200
C.Sample is weighed and tested for compressive strength. Results were compared with
values before conducting the test and after conducting the test.
2.3. Marine Environment Test
Concrete structures which are in constant contact with sea water or river water like canal, weir, dams,
spillways etc are subjected to various chemical ingredients present in saline or marshy water. Due to these
ingredients concrete structures degrades. Samples were put in normal water curing tank for 56 days after
that it is weighed and tested for compressive strength. Again after that it put in the curing tank with water
containing marshy saline sea water. Results were found out and compared.
2.4. Ultra Sonic Pulse Velocity Test
Ultra sonic pulse velocity measures the velocity at which the electronic Waves pass through the concrete
samples. The speed at which the waves travel determines the quality of the samples. UPV test is done two
concrete mix M 20 and M 30.
3. EXPERIMENTAL TEST RESULT
3.1. Compressive Stress
In M 20 the strength for 7, 28, 56,112 days for 10% replacement of cement with coconut shell ash (CSA)
are 21.31 N/mm2
, 30.89 N/mm2
, 39.13 N/mm2
, and 43.87 N/mm2
respectively.

UPV Characteristics and Durability Aspects of the Coconut Shell Ash Concrete
Figure 1 Strength of M 20 and M 30 with CSA
While for 10% replacement of CSA in M 30 mix the strength for 7, 28, 56,112 days is
31.31N/mm2
,42.89 N/mm2
,51.13N/mm2
and 54.87 N/mm2
respectively. There is increase in the strength
of the concrete cubes only up to maximum15% replacement of CSA .However after 15% strength going
to decrease with increase in the percentage of CSA.
3.2. Durability Test Results
3.2.1. Weight and Strength of Samples for NaCl Test
Figure 2 Strength loss in mortar samples for the NaCl durability test
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
0 10 15 20 30 40 50 0 10 15 20 30 40 50
STRENGTHN/mm2
%CSA
7 days
28 days
M20 M30
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
StrengthN/mm2
CSA %
Strength before putting in NaCl solution Strength after removal from Nacl solution

Figure 3 Weight loss in mortar samples for the NaCl durability test
Mortar samples were made with replacement of cement with CSA up to 60%.Compressive strength
and weight of samples before putting in the solution were find out. The strength before putting in the
solution of NaCl for 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% and 30% CSA were 59.23 N/mm2
,60.35 N/mm2
,65.23
N/mm2
,68.26 N/mm2
,61.23 N/mm2
,58.30 N/mm2
respectively. The mortar samples were put in solution of
NaCl for 56 days. After 56 days the strength for 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 30% CSA were 53.67
N/mm2
,56.79N/mm2
,57.67 N/mm2
, 54.7 N/mm2
, 53.67 N/mm2
, 51.24 N/mm2
respectively. Similarly
weight of the samples before putting in the solution of NaCl were also found out.The weight for the
samples for 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% and 30% before putting in NaCl solution are 0.821 gm,0.817
gm,0.805 gm,0.796 gm,0.790 gm and 0.785 gm respectively while after 56 days removing from the Nacl
solution the weight were found out to 0.765 gm,0.753 gm,0.725gm,0.703 gm,0.683 gm and 0.625 gm
respectively. It is found that compressive strength and weight of the samples after NaCl durability test is
less than the normal strength and weight and decreases more as CSA % increases after 10%.
3.2.2. Weight and Strength of Samples for MgSO4 Test
Figure 4 Strength loss in mortar samples for MgSO4 durability test
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
Weightingm
CSA %
Weight before putting in NaCl solution
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
StrengthN/mm2
CSA%
Strength before putting in MgSO4 Solution

Figure 5 Strength loss in mortar samples for MgSO4 durability test
Samples were put in the solution of 3% MgSO4. Weight and strength of samples were taken before
putting in the solution of MgSO4.The mortar samples were put in solution of MgSO4 for 56 days. After 56
days the strength for 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20% and 30% CSA were 49.13 N/mm2
, 51.25N/mm2
,
53.13N/mm2
, 50.16 N/mm2
, 49.13 N/mm2
, and 46.70 N/mm2
respectively. Weight of the samples after
removing it from the MgSO4 solution are found to be 0.686gm, 0.675gm, 0.625gm, 0.618gm,0.614gm
and 0.568 gm for 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% and 30% of CSA respectively. It is found that weight loss and
strength loss is more in MgSO4 solution than NaCl.
3.3. Wet and Dry Cycle Test
Figure 6 Weight loss of samples in Wet and dry cycles
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Weightingm
CSA %
Weight before putting in MgSO4 solution
Weight after removalfrom MgSO4 solution
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
Weightingm
CSA%
Weight before conductingtest Weight after Wet and Dry cycle test

Figure 7 Strength loss of samples in Wet and dry cycles
The strength of the samples after conducting the wet and dry cycle test are found to be 45.98
N/mm2
,48.97N/mm2
,49.76N/mm2
,46.68N/mm2
,45.56N/mm2
,42.88N/mm2
for 0%,5%,10%,15%, 20%,
and 30% of CSA replacement respectively. The weight of the samples were found to 0.745gm, 0.723gm,
0.696gm, 0.663gm, 0.589 gm and 0.593 gm respectively after conducting the wet and dry cycles test for
0%,5%,10%,15%,20% and 30% of CSA replacement.
3.4. Marine Environment Test
Figure 8 Strength loss of samples in marine environment
Weight and strength loss for the samples where found out after conducting the marine environment
durability test. The strength after the test for 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% and 30% were 46.73 N/mm2
,52.85
N/mm2
,54.25 N/mm2
,56.25 N/mm2
,52.73 N/mm2
and 48.90 respectively. While the
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
STRENGTH
CSA%
Control strength Strength After Wet and Dry Cycle Test
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
Weightingm
%Replacement of CSA
Weight before puttingin the solution Weight after removal from saline water

Figure 9 Weight loss in samples for salt crystallization
weight loss in the sample after the completion of the test cycle for 0%,5%,10%,15%,20% AND 30%
CSA replacement were 0.645 gm,0.635gm,0.619 gm,0.584 gm,0.556 gm and 0.535 gm respectively.
3.5. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Test
Figure 10 Ultrasonic pulse velocity for M 20 mix with CSA replacement
Ultra sonic pulse velocity test is conducted on the two mix of concrete samples after 28, 56 days and
112 days of curing age. According to the IS CODE 13311(Part 1) the quality of concrete samples is
excellent if ultrasonic pulse velocity is above 4.5 km/sec and quality is to be good if velocity is in the
range of 3.5 to 4.5 km/sec. Relation between the UPV and compressive strength were also found out and
R Squared value is also found out for both grades of the concrete. It is
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
0 5 10 15 20 30 40 50 60
STRENGTH
CSA %
Control strength Strength after removal from saline water
3500
3600
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
28 days 56 days 112 days
Ultrasonicpulsevelocity(m/s)
0%
10%
15%
20%
30%
40%
50%

Figure 11 Relation between UPV and Compressive strength for M 20 mix with CSA
Figure 12 Ultrasonic pulse velocity for M 30 mix with CSA replacement
Figure 13 Relation between UPV and Compressive strength for M 30 mix
y = -0.0006x2 + 5.7156x - 13400
R² = 0.9873
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
4020 4040 4060 4080 4100 4120 4140 4160 4180 4200
Strength
Ultra sonic pulse velocity (m/s)
3700
3800
3900
4000
4100
4200
4300
4400
4500
4600
28 days 56 days 112 days
Ultrasonicpulsevelocity(m/s)
0%
10%
20%
15%
30%
40%
50%
y = -0.0005x2 + 5.1722x - 12555
R² = 0.9836
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
4200 4250 4300 4350 4400 4450
Strength
Ultra sonic pulse velocity (m/s)

found that in M 20 grade of concrete after 28 days of curing the velocity for 0%,10%,15%20% and
30% CSA are3856 m/s,3868 m/s,3885 m/s,3920 m/s,3845 m/s respectively and for M 30 mix for
0%,10%,15%,20% and 30% CSA for 28 days of curing UP velocity are 4029 m/s,4046 m/s,4110
m/s,4103 m/s,4044 m/s respectively. A relationship between the 56th
day strength and UPV value is also
found out it has the R Squared value of 0.9873 and 0.9836 respectively for M 20 and M 30 mix. All
samples have UPV above 3.5km/sec which indicates that all samples have good homogeneity and density.
After that relation between the compressive strength and UPV were also plotted and it has R squared
value of 0.9873 and 0.9836 which is quite good.
Figure 14 Weight of the sample Figure 16 Samples put in curing tank
Figure 17 UPV testing of the samples Figure 18 Samples in ove
4. CONCLUSION
For NaCl and MgSO4durability test the reduction in weight and strength of the mortar samples were
observed. In both the cases degradation occur due NaCl and MgSO4.It is found that up to 10% CSA the
samples after conducting the test do not deteriorate much in weight and strength than the control samples
however with more % of CSA sample degradation is in not in accordance with the control samples and it
is degraded more. For wet and dry cycle test and marine environment test durability performance is quite
good up to 10 % to 15% replacement of CSA deterioration was not much as compared to control sample
but as CSA percentage increases deterioration was more in the weight and strength of sample with respect
to weight and strength before the test.UPV test of the concrete samples also gives good result as velocity
of electronic wave through all the samples are above 3.5 km/sec which is considered as good quality

concrete. Coconut shell ash can be used for the replacement of cement up to 10% where durability is the
concern however more research it needed. Coconut shell ash is a agricultural waste and a cheap material
so it can be used instead other waste material in concrete however more research is needed.
REFERENCES
[1] Paramasivam P, Nathan GK, Das Gupta NC. Coconut fibre reinforced corrugated slabs. Int J Cem
Compos Lightweight Conc 1984; 6(1):19–27.
[2] Gunasekaran K, Kumar PS. Lightweight concrete using coconut shell as aggregate. In: Proceedings of
the ICACC-2008. International conference on advances in concrete and construction, Hyderabad,
India, 7–9 February, 2008.p. 450–9.
[3] Ambraseys, N.N., Melville, C. P. A History of Persian Earthquakes. Britain: Cambridge University
Press, 1982, pp.219.
[4] Mannan MA, Ganapathy C. Mix design for oil palm shell concrete. CemConcr Res 2001; 31:1323–5.
[5] Nuhu-Koko MK. The use of palm kernel shell as aggregates for concrete. Paper presented at the 21st
annual conference of materials testing control and research, Federal Ministry of Works, Lagos, Nigeria,
1999, 20pp.
[6] Omange GN. Palm kernel shells as road building materials. Nigerian Society of Engineers Technical
Transactions 2001; 36(1).
[7] Rodriguez de Sensale G. Effect of rice-husk ash on durability of cementitious materials. CemConcr
Comp 2010; 32(9):718–25.
[8] Kumar S, Kumar R, Bandopadhyay A, Alex TC, Kumar BR, Das SK, et al. Mechanical activation of
granulated blast furnace slag and its effect on the properties and structure of Portland slag cement.
CemConcr Comp 2008;30(8):679–85
[9] Puertas F, Palacios M, Manzano H, Dolado JS, Rico A, Rodriguez J. Amodel for the C–A–S–H gel
formed in alkali-activated slag cements. J. Eur Ceram Soc 2011; 31(12):2043–56.
[10] Ray D, Sarkar BK, Rana AK, Bose NR. Effect of alkali treated jute fibres on composite properties.
Bull Mater Sci 2001;24(2):129–35.
[11] Allahverdi A, Skvara F. Sulfuric acid attack on hardened paste of geopolymer cements. Part I.
Mechanism of corrosion at relatively high concentrations. Ceram–Silikaty 2005; 49(4):225–9.
[12] Tikalsky PJ, Roy D, Scheetz B, Krize T. Redefiningcement characteristics for sulphate resistant
Portland cement. CemConcr Res 2002; 32(8):1239–46.
[13] C.Junco, J. Gadea, A. Rodríguez, S. Gutiérrez-González, V. Calderón, and Durability of lightweight
masonry mortars made with white recycled polyurethane foam, Cem.Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 1174–
1179.
[14] Fernández-JiménezA, García-LodeiroI, Palomo A. Durability of alkali-activated fly ash cementitious
materials. JMaterSci 2007; 42:3055–65.
[15] Santhanam M, Cohen M, Olek J. Differentiating seawater and groundwater sulphate attack in Portland
cement mortars. CemConcr Res2006; 36(2):2132–7.
[16] Kalyanapu Venkateswara Rao, A.H.L.Swaroop, Dr.P.Kod anda Rama Rao and Ch.Naga Bharath,
Study on Strength Properties of Coconut Shell Concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering
and Technology (IJCIET), 6(3), 2015, pp.42–61.
[17] Dewanshu Ahlawat and L.G.Kalurkar, Strength Properties of Coconut Shell Concrete. International
Journal of Advanced Research in Engineering and Technology (IJARET). 4(7), 2013, pp.20–24

Ijciet 08 02_043

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (19)

Similar to Ijciet 08 02_043

Similar to Ijciet 08 02_043 (20)

More from IAEME Publication

More from IAEME Publication (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ijciet 08 02_043