Loading article...
Loading article...
Stream/Area:
-
Subject:
-
Paper ID:
10.55041/IJSREM30638
Volume:
8 |
4 |
Apr 2024
Pages:
Publication Frequency:
Monthly (12 issues per year)
License:International Journal of Scientific Research in Engineering and Management follows the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 (CC BY 4.0) License, allowing free use and distribution with proper attribution.
The high cost of conventional construction materials affects the economy of structure. The possibility of utilizing recycled coconut shell aggregates in concrete as coarse aggregate is examined in the present study. An optimum percentage replacement of coarse aggregate with coconut shell aggregate is determined from the study. Coconut shell is a lightweight material thus producing lightweight concrete. The replacement of coarse aggregate of coconut shell by 10%, 20% and 30%. The Design mix used is M20 grade and testing of specimens are conducted after 7 and 28 days of curing. The flexural and compressive strength of concrete are tests. The main objective is to encourage the use of these waste products as construction materials in low-cost housing Aggregate is a major ingredient for making concrete, occupying almost 70-80% part of concrete. Conventionally crushed rocks are used as coarse aggregate and river sand as fine aggregate. Both are naturally available materials. Due to the speedy growth of construction works, conventional aggregate sources are exhaust very fast leading to a significant increase in the cost of construction. For sustainable development, these materials should be used wisely and alternative materials need to be searched to replace regular aggregate. A large number of studies have been done to search for alternative materials for the production of concrete. At the same time due to fast industrialization, production of waste material is increasing day by day. Its disposal has become a real problem. It can be concluded that the ideal amount of coconut shell replacement for coarse aggregate for M20 Concrete is 10% -20%.
KEYWORDS
Publication Date
12/31/45392
Peer Review Type
Double-Blind Peer Review
Review Rounds: 2
Documents
Article Views
0
Total views since publication
PDF Downloads
1
Total downloads since publication
Geographic Reach
5
Digital Preservation: This article is permanently archived on Zenodo and complies with all data preservation standards across major indexing platforms.
Plagiarism Screening
This manuscript has been checked for plagiarism using TurnitinPlagiarismChecker software.
Conflict of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest related to this research work.
Funding Information
No funding information available for this research.
Related research in the same subject area
Loading similar articles...