INTRODUCTION:

The high consumption of raw materials by the construction industries results in enduring shortage of building materials and the associated environmental damage. In the last few years, the construction companies have conducted various researches on the utilization of waste products in concrete in order to reduce the utilization of natural resources. Ceramics are one among the construction wastes.

The ceramic waste from ceramic and construction industries is a major contribute to ceramic industries, building construction and building demolition waste, representing a serious environmental, technical and economical problem of society nowadays. However, this waste is not recycled in any form at present. (Siddesha H 2011). As the ceramic waste is piling up every day, there is pressure on the ceramic industries to find a solution for its disposal(RM Sentharamai, 2005).

The ceramic waste can be reused, recycled and can be converted from waste to energy system. Its introduction into the productive cycle will be beneficial from an environmental point of view. There is a broad range of possibilities to reuse this type of waste in a sustainable way. At the same time, these practices represent an economic cost.

However, if waste is managed correctly it can be converted into a resource which contributes to savings in raw materials, conservation of natural resources and the climate, and promotes sustainable development.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:

To put theory into work, experiments were conducted to determine the strength of ceramic concrete and compared the results with the conventional concrete. This project deals with the partial replacement of fine aggregate by ceramics in different percentages (5%, 10%, 15% and 20%). The materials used are cement, natural fine aggregate, ceramic fine aggregate, coarse aggregate, water and ceraplast 300.

Fine aggregate property test are carried out to determine the properties such as specific gravity, bulking, fineness modulus of sand and ceramics. Fresh concrete test like slump cone, flow table and compaction factor test are conducted to understand the workability of concrete. The mix ratio is determined using the specific gravity of sand and ceramic fine aggregate.

Cubes and cylinders of ceracrete and conventional were casted for testing the compressive strength and tensile strength respectively for each 3, 7 & 28 days. During casting of ceracrete, Ceraplast 300 is added to reduce the absorption of water. For every increase in percentage of ceramics, the ceraplast to be added also increases.

THEORITICAL FRAMEWORK

NEED FOR CERAMIC REUSE

Ceramic wastage occurs during building construction, building demolition and also during its production. These ceramic wastes are used as landfills. Dumping of these wastes leads to environmental issues like air, soil pollution etc., which affects the environment.

When defective construction material is thrown away or when a building is demolished, much incorporated energy is wasted. It is necessary to find practical method of reusing these materials. One of the best ways of using these materials is to incorporate them in the manufacture of concrete. This helps in reduction in wastage of incorporated energy and also waste generation is minimized. Thus an effective concrete is made which would be eco efficient and economical.

MATERIALS

AGGREGATES

In this study locally available river sand which is free from impurities is used. The ceramics are obtained from demolition debris and construction wastes are used. The coarse aggregate used here is crushed angular shape and free from dust. The physical properties are given in table 1.

TABLE 1 Properties of Aggregates

Aggregates	Size	Specific Gravity	Fineness Module	Percentage Of Passing	IS Codes
Fine Aggregate	Less than 2.36mm	2.67	3.3	Within the limits	383-1970 [9]
Ceramic Fine Aggregate	Less than 2.36mm	2.67	3.4	Within the limits	EN 933-2
Coarse Aggregate	20mm	2.6	-	Within the limits	383-1970 [9]

CEMENT

Ordinary Portland cement (OPC-53 grade) is used as the main binder. The physical properties of cement used in this study evaluated by standard test are given in Table 2 as per IS-12269-1987.

TABLE 2 Property of OPC Cement

S. No	Description	Value	Unit
1	Specific Surface	225 min	m²/kg
2	Soundness (expansion)
	By Le –chatelier	10max	mm
	By Autoclave	0.8max	%
3	Setting time
	Initial set	30min	Minutes
	Final set	600 max	Minutes
4	Compressive strength
	3 days	27 min	MPa
	7 days	37 min	MPa
	28 days	53 min	MPa

CERAPLAST 300

It is a high grade super plasticizer based on Naphthalene highly recommended for increased workability and high early and ultimate strengths of concrete conforming to ASTM C 494-98 Type F and IS 9103-1999. The physical properties of Ceraplast 300 is given in the Table 3.

TABLE 3 Property of CERAPLAST 300

S. No	Property	Result
1	Physical state	Brown liquid
2	Specific gravity	1.2±0.3
3	Chloride content	Nil
4	Dosage	0.3%-1.2% by weight of cement

EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION

FINE AGGREGATE PROPERTY TEST:

The property test such as specific gravity, bulk density and fineness modulus for fine aggregate and ceramic fine aggregate were conducted and the results for the same are tabulated.

TABLE 4 Properties of Ceramic and Fine Aggregates

S. No	Description	Fine aggregate	Ceramic Aggregate	Limits
1	Specific Gravity	2.6	2.56	2.6 - 2.8
2	Bulk Density	15.15%	17.24%	15 – 30 %
3	Fineness Modulus	3.3	3.4	2-3.5

MIX PROPORTIONS

The concrete mix is designed as per IS 10262 – 2009 [8], IS 456-2000 [7] for the normal concrete. Finally the Superplasticizer, Ceraplast 300 which is 1%by weight of cement is added to the concrete. The grade of concrete which we adopted is M30 with the water cement ratio of 0.45.

TABLE 5 Mix Proportions of Concrete

Water	Cement	Fine Aggregate	Coarse Aggregate
191.6 lit	425.8 kg/m³	525.09 kg/m³	1164.25 kg/m³
0.45	1	1.23	2.73

TABLE 6 Mix Proportions of Ceracrete

Water	Cement	Fine aggregate	Coarse Aggregate
191.61 lit	425.8 kg/m³	465.25 kg/m³	1163.94 kg/m³
0.45	1	1.09	2.73

FRESH CONCRETE TEST

Fresh concrete test such as slump cone, flow table, compaction factor tests were conducted and the values are tabulated and the workability for the tests are listed.

TABLE 7 Fresh Concrete and Ceracrete Test

S. No	Description	Concrete Value	Ceracrete Value	Limit	workability
1	Slump Cone	85	90	50-90	High
2	Flow Table	498	481	400-500	High
3	Compaction Factor	0.85	0.83	0.75-1	High

CASTING AND CURING

Two different sets of specimens were prepared using design mix. In the first set, the normal specimens are casted. In the second set, the specimens are casted by varying the percentage of replacement of fine aggregate by ceramic fine aggregate starting from 0 to 20% with an increment of 5% by weight of fine aggregate and they are represented as 5, 10, 15, and 20% respectively with Super plasticizer of 1% by weight of cement. Cubes with size 150mm X150mm X150 mm, cylinders with 150mm diameter X 300mmheight are prepared. The samples are de-moulded after 24 hrs from casting and kept in a water tank for 3, 7 and 28 days curing.

Fig 1 Preparation and casting of concrete and ceracrete specimens

RESULT AND DISCUSSION:

Effect of Compression

Compressive strength of concrete cubes varies according to its grade of concrete. Water cement ratio and curing period are also taking the main role for improving the compressive strength. The compressive strength is defined as the ratio between load and area. The compressive strength increases with increase in density.

Compressive Strength = Load(P) / Area(A)

Graph 1 Comparison of 3 days compressive strength of concrete with ceracrete

Graph 2 Comparison of 7 days compressive strength of concrete with ceracrete

Graph 3 Comparison of 28 days compressive strength of concrete with ceracrete

The 3 days compressive strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 25.62N/mm2, 30.07N/mm2, 32.44N/mm2 and 34.44N/mm2 respectively. From the Graph 1, it is inferred that the 3 days compressive strength of 5 & 10% replacement ceracrete is lesser when compared to the conventional concrete whereas the strength of 15 & 20% replacement ceracrete gradually increases.

The 7 days compressive strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 33.17N/mm2, 38.81N/mm2, 29.53N/mm2 and 35.11N/mm² respectively. From the Graph 2, it is inferred that the 7 days compressive strength of 5& 10 % replacement ceracrete gradually increases than the conventional concrete and there is a decrease in 15% replacement followed by the increase in the strength.

The 28 days compressive strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 32.88N/mm2, 36.73N/mm2, 33.47N/mm2 and 33.47N/mm²respectively. From the Graph 3, it is inferred that the 28 days compressive strength of 5,10,15& 20% replacement ceracrete is higher than the conventional concrete.

Table 8 Compressive Strength Based on Replacement Percentage

Replacement %	Compressive strength ((N/mm²)
Replacement %	3 days	7 days	28 days
0	30.66	30.14	32.57
5	25.62	33.17	32.88
10	30.07	38.81	36.73
15	32.44	29.53	33.47
20	34.44	35.11	33.47

Graph 4Comparison of 3, 7 and 28 days compressive strength of concrete with ceracrete

EFFECT ON TENSION

Tensile strength of concrete cylinder depends upon the grade of concrete. Water cement ratio and curing period are also taking the main role for improving the tensile strength. The tensile strength is defined as measure of the ability of a material to withstand a longitudinal stress as the greatest stress that the material can stand without breaking.

Tensile Strength T = 2P/ πDL

Where, P = applied load

D = diameter of the specimen

L = length of the specimen

Graph 5 Compression of 3 Days Tensile Strength of Concrete with Ceracrete

Graph 6 Comparison of 7 days tensile strength of concrete with ceracrete

Graph 7 Comparison of 28 days tensile strength of concrete with ceracrete

The 3days tensile strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 3.6N/mm2, 2.97N/mm2, 3.53N/mm2 and 3.38N/mm2 respectively. From the Graph 5, it is inferred that for 3 days the tensile strength increases for 5& 15% replacement ceracrete whereas for 10 & 20% replacement ceracrete, it decreases when it is compared with conventional concrete.

The 7 days tensile strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 3.28N/mm², 3.31N/mm², 2.85N/mm² and 3.7N/mm²respectively. From the Graph 6, it is inferred that the 7 days tensile strength of 5 & 10 % replacement ceracrete gradually increases than the conventional concrete and there is a decrease in 15% replacement followed by the increase in the strength.

The 28 days tensile strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete are 3.37N/mm², 3.45N/mm², 3.41N/mm² and 3.7N/mm²respectively. From the Graph 7, it is inferred that for 28 days the tensile strength of 5 & 10 % replacement ceracrete gradually increases and there is a decrease in 15% replacement followed by the increase in the strength. But when it is compared with conventional concrete, the strength of ceracrete is lesser.

Table 9 Tensile Strength Based on Replacement Percentage

Replacement %	Tensile strength (N/mm²)
Replacement %	3 days	7 days	28 days
0	3.41	3.52	4.69
5	3.6	3.28	3.37
10	2.97	3.31	3.45
15	3.53	2.85	3.41
20	3.38	3.7	3.7

Graph 8 Comparison of 3, 7 and 28 days compressive strength of concrete with ceracrete

CONCLUSION:

Compressive Strength:

In Table 8, the 3, 7 and 28 days compressive strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete values are given.

From the graph 4, it is observed that

o The strength of ceracrete for 3 days gradually increases for 5,10,15 & 20% respectively but when it is compared with conventional concrete, the strength of 5 & 10% replacement is less whereas for 15 & 20% the strength is high.

o For 7 days while comparing with conventional concrete 5 & 10% replacement strength is higher and in 15% there is a fall in the strength which is followed by an increase in strength for 20% replacement.

o For 28 days strength of ceracrete is higher than conventional concrete.

Tensile Strength:

In Table 9, the 3, 7 and 28 days tensile strength of 5%, 10%, 15% & 20% ceracrete values are given.

From the Graph 8, it is inferred that

o The tensile strength of ceracrete for 3 days increases for 5 & 15% replacement and decreases for 10 & 20% replacement when compared with Conventional Concrete.

o For 7 days, the tensile strength of 5, 10, 15% replacement increase and for 20% it decreases when compared to Conventional Concrete.

o For 28 days, the strength of ceracrete is lesser than the conventional concrete

RECOMONDATION

In this study, the ceramic broken waste tiles have been crushed to the required sieve size and partially replacing it in the place of natural sand. The study has shown positive results that the waste can be effectively used in concrete. Thus construction waste that are to be dumped into landfills causing environmental degradation can be avoided. Hence Ceracrete can be used in number of ways like highways, bridge decks, airport runways, levelling for carpet floors, and structural concrete repair only after conducting relevant tests like abrasion test, resistance to wear, durability etc.

REFERENCES:

1 H Siddesha (2011), “Experimental Studies on the Effect of Ceramic fine aggregate on the Strength properties of Concrete” International Journal of Advances in Engineering, Science and Technology (IJAEST), pp 71-75.

2 R.M. Sentharamai, P Devadas Manoharam (2005), “Concrete with ceramic waste aggregate,” Cement & Concrete Composites, 27, pp.910-913.

3 Mashitah M.D, Kin CC, Badorui AH (2008), “Recycling of homogenous ceramic tiles for the production of concrete block”, International Symposium on Environmental Management: Hazardous-Environmental Management Toward Sustainability, pp 25-28.

4 C. Medina Martinez, MI Guerra Romero, JM Moran del Pozo and A Juan Valdes (2009), “Use of ceramic wastes in structural concretes,”1^stSpanish national conference on advances in materials recycling and Eco-energy Maoria, pp 137-139.

5 F Pacheco-Torgal, S Jalali (2010), “Reusing ceramic wastes in concrete,” Construction and Building Materials, 24, pp 832-838.

6 I Guerra, I Vivar, B Llamas, A Juan, J Moran (2009), “Eco-efficient concretes: The effects of using recycled ceramic material from sanitary installations on the mechanical properties of concrete,” Waste Management, 29, pp 643-646.

7 S. Karthikkrishnan, Dr. R.M. Senthamarai (2006), “Strength characteristics of concrete with ceracrete and bottom ash,” National Conference on Recent Developments in Concrete Technology, Government College of Technology, pp 2

8 M.V. Reddy, C.N.V.S. Reddy (2007), “An experimental study on use of Rock flour and insulator ceramic scrap in concrete,” Journal of the Institution of Engineers, India, 88, pp 47-50.

9 IS: 10262-2007, “Recommended guidelines for concrete mix design,” Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.

Received on 15.11.2015 Accepted on 21.12.2015

Int. J. Tech. 5(2): July-Dec., 2015; Page 118-124

DOI: 10.5958/2231-3915.2015.00007.3