good testing

8/13/2019 Good Testing

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/good-testing 1/127

THE USE OF LIMESTONE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE

MUSFA BIN MOHAMAD

UNIVERSITI TEKNOLOGI MALAYSIA



THE USE OF LIMESTONE AGGREGATE IN CONCRETE.

MUSFA BIN MOHAMAD

A project report submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the award of the degree of

Master of Engineering (Civil Structure)

Faculty of Civil Engineering

Universiti Teknologi Malaysia

APRIL, 2005



Alfatihah to the passed of my beloved mother and father.

To my beloved Tuan Guru, my wife and my daughters.



ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

In preparing this thesis, I was in contact with many people, researchers,

academicians, and practitioners. They have contributed towards my understanding

and thoughts. In particular, I wish to express my sincere appreciation to my main

thesis supervisor, Professor Ir. Dr. Hj. Mohd. Warid bin Hussin, for

encouragement, guidance, critics and friendship. I am also very thankful to Dr.

Othman Cik Puan, Dr. Aziz Chik, En.Ros Ismail, En. Suhaimi Abdul Rahman and

Technicians from Highway laboratory UTM Skudai for their guidance, advices

and motivation in doing all the relevant tests. Without their continued support and

interest, this project report would not have been the same as presented here.

I am also indebted to University Teknologi Malaysia (UTM) for finding

my Master study. Librarians at UTM also deserve special thanks for their

assistance in supplying the relevant literatures.

I am also very thankful to my head of department Majlis Daerah

Raub(MDR) Tuan Haji Abdul Rashid Mohamed in preparing this project report,

for his advices and also continued support was very much appreciated.

My sincere appreciation also extends to my friends En. Arifin bin Siran

(Laboratory Assistance Sekolah Menengah Sulaiman Bentong), Ir. Kamaruddin

Hassan ( JKR Bridge Section, Kuala Lumpur), Ir. Abdul Kadir Bin Ahyat

(Consultant), Ir. Che Husni Ahmad (Consultant), Ir. Azli Shah Bin Ali Bashah



iii

(Engineer of Dewan Bandar Raya Kuala Lumpur) and my colleagues who have

provided assistance at various occasions. Thanking to all of you in advanced. I am

also very thankful to En. Adnan (Supervisor of Poh Mix. Sdn. Bhd), En. Ramli

Abu Bakar (Senior Technician MDR), En. Khairul Effendi Tuaman(Technician

MDR) and others who have provided assistance in preparing and making the

cubes tests. Very much thankful is also extends to Engineer Mohd Zaid Bin Abdul

Samad (From Petronas) who have provided continued support and assistance in

preparing the project report.

Lastly, I am also deserve special thanks to my beloved wife for her

commitment, encouragement while preparing the works and continued support at

various occasions.



iv

ABSTRACT.

Concrete structure is made up of cement, aggregate and water. In building

construction the aggregates commonly used are limestone and granite. Three

quarters of concrete is made up from aggregate, thus the selection of aggregateshould be in the prime condition. To produce a good, strength and high quality

concrete the materials used should be in accordance to standard specification.

JKR standard specification for building works mentioned that the use of limestone

is limited to super structure only whereas for substructure granite aggregate

should be used. Due to this problem statement this study is carried out to

investigate whether chemical attack in limestone aggregate is the source of

problem for sub structure (concrete structure below ground level). This study

involved in testing of limestone and granite aggregates. The scope of study

includes the investigation on the strength, bonding and chemical attack in the

concrete. The main objective of the research is to study the properties of lime

stone related to strength and its performances. The method of study to be carried

out is through the appropriate test. The types of testing required are sieve analysis,

flaky and elongation index test, cube test and aggregate crushing value test. All

the tests have been carried out and the results had been recorded in appropriate

table and graph. Discussion on the analysis of the results is explained to provide

more information about the effect of chemical and the behavior of concrete

properties. Lastly the conclusion had been done and one recommendation had

been introduced for future work.



v

ABSTRAK.

Struktur konkrit terdiri daripada simen, batu baur dan air. Di dalam

pembinaan bangunan, batu baur yang biasa di gunakan ialah terdiri daripada batu

kapur dan granit. Tiga suku daripada kandungan konkrit ada lah terdiri daripada

batu baur, oleh yang demikian pemilihan batu baur amat lah penting sekali. Untuk

menghasilkan konkrit yang baik, kuat dan berkualiti tinggi, maka penggunaan

bahan-bahan hendaklah memenuhi spesifikasi piawai. Di dalam spesifikasi Piawai

JKR menyatakan bahawa penggunaan batu kapur di hadkan hanya untuk struktur

dari tanah keatas sahaja, manakala bagi struktur di bawah tanah hendaklah

menggunakan granit. Berdasarkan kepada petikan ini, maka satu kajian untuk

menyiasat samaada serangan dari tindak balas kimia merupakan masalah bagi

binaan struktur di bawah aras tanah. Kajian ini melibatkan ujian terhadap batu

baur jenis batu kapur dan granit. Bidang kajian termasoklah penyiasatan

berhubung dengan kekuatan, ikatan dan tindak balas kimia di dalam konkrit.

Objektif utama kajian ini adalah untuk mengkaji ciri-ciri batu baur yang berkaitan

dengan kekuatan dan keupayaannya. Kaedah kajian ini adalah melalui beberapa

ujian yang sesuai. Jenis-jenis ujian tersebut ialah analisis ayakan, indek leper dan

indek pemanjangan, ujian kiub dan nilai hancur batu baur. Semua ujian ini telah

dijalankan dan keputusannya telah direkodkan dalam bentuk jadual dan geraf.

Perbincangan mengenai analisis daripada keputusan ujian akan memberikan

maklumat berhubung dengan kesan tindak balas kimia terhadap perilaku dan sifat

konkerit. Akhir sekali di sertakan satu kesimpulan dan juga satu cadangan untuk

kajian di masa depan.



vi

TABLE CONTENT

CHAPTER TITLE PAGE

Title Page i

Declaration ii

Dedication iii

Acknowledgement iv-v

Abstract vi

Abstrak viiTable of Content viii-xi

List of Tables xii-xiv

List of Figures xv-xix

List of Symbols xx

List of Appendices xi

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction 1-3

1.2 Back ground of the research 3-5

1.3 Significance of the research 5

1.4 Objective of the Study 5-7

1.5 Scope of the research 8-12

2 LIETERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction 13

2.2 General Information of Aggregate 13-14

2.3 Particles Shape and Texture 14-16

2.4 Bond of aggregate 16



vii

2.5 Theory of rocks 16-17

2.5.1 The Nature of rock 17-18

2.5.2 Igneous rock 18-19

2.5.3 Sedimentation rock 20-22

2.5.3.1 Carbonate rocks 22

2.5.3.2 Limestone(Biochemical) 22-23

3 RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction 24

3.2 Experimental framework 24-27

3.3 Experimental Detail 27-29

3.3.1 JKR Standard For Aggregate 29

3.3.1.1 General Aggregate 29

3.3.1.2 Fine aggregate 30

3.3.1.3 Coarse aggregate 31

3.3.2 Aggregate grading 31-32

3.3.2.1 Sampling and testing of aggregate 32

3.3.2.2 Storage of aggregate 33

3.4 Water 33

3.5 Types of test Recommended 33-34

3.5.1 Sieve Analysis Test 34-35

3.5.1.1 Sample of aggregate to be tested 35-36

3.5.1.2 Elongation and Flakiness Index Test 37-39

3.5.2 Concrete Cube Test 39-40

3.5.2.1 Preparation of concrete cube grade 40-46

3.5.3 Aggregate crushing value test 46-47

3.5.3.1 Preparation of limestone aggregate 47-53

for ACV test



ix

5.3.1 What can be discussed on the Flaky and

Elongation Properties? 80-81

5.4 Discussion about Concrete Cube Strength 81-82

5.4.1 Cube Strength 7 days period 82-84

5.4.2 Cube Strength 14 days period 84

5.4.3 Cube Strength 21 days 84-85

5.4.4 Cube Strength 28 days 85-87

5.5 Discussion on ACV Test results 87

5.5.1 Discussion on ACV test for 7 days 88-92

6 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Introduction 93

6.2 Conclusion 94

6.3 Recommendation 94-95

REFERENCES 96-98

APPENDICES A – C2 99-103



x

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE NO. TITLE PAGE

1.1 Classification of natural aggregates according to rock

type (BS812: Part 1 : 1975) 2

1.2 Coarse Aggregate (Nominal Size 20 mm) -

Standard specification Section 2 to 6 M.S. 7.5) 9

1.3 Testing of aggregate 9

1.4 Minimum Strength Specification of Concrete Cube

( 150x150x150). 10

2.1 Particle Shape Classification of BS 812: Part 1: 1975

with examples. 15

2.2 Compressive Strength of American Rocks Commonly

Used as Concrete Aggregates. 17

2.3 Minerals crystallization from magma. 18

2.4 Minerals present in the four main groups of

Igneous rock. 19



xi

2.5 Chemistry of selected carbonate rocks sediment. 23

3.1 Date of Cube test. 27

3.2 Fine Aggregate (Natural sand) 32

3.3 Coarse Aggregate (Nominal size 20 mm). 32

3.4 Position of Sieve size 36

3.5 Standard Format for Calculation of Elongation

And Flakiness Index Test. 38

3.6 The mix proportion of Concrete Cube Grade 25. 40

3.7 Date of Casting and Testing of Concrete Cube. 44

3.8 Quantity of aggregate/ Mg SO4+ Na NO

3and water

Content. 48

3.9 Date of Immersion and Taken out of an Aggregate. 49

4.1 Results of Sieve Analysis of Limestone Aggregate. 55

4.2 Results of the Elongation and Flakiness Index of

Limestone aggregate. 57

4.3 Comparison of Aggregate Passing to JKR specification. 58

4.4 The Results of Cubes Test. 60



xii

4.5 The Results of Cube Strength Compare to JKR

Specification. 64

4.6 Comparison of Compressive Strength of Rock to

Concrete Cube. 66

4.7 Data Record of ACV Test 1 (14-10 sieve). 68

4.8 Data Record of ACV Test 2 (14-10 sieve). 69

4.9 Data Record of ACV Test 3 (20-14 sieve) 70

4.10 Data Record of ACV Test 4 (20-14). 71

4.11 Data Record of ACV Test 5 (14-10) 72

4.12 Data Record of ACV Test 6 (20-14) 73

5.1 The Results of Acv test for Limestone and Granite. 87

5.2 Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone

(28 days). 91



xiii

LIST OF FIGURES.

FIGURE NO TITLE PAGE

1.1 Sample of limestone aggregate (Source from Kg.

Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang). 2

1.2 Sample of Aggregate. 8

1.3 Sample of concrete cube with 150x150x150 in size. 11

1.4 Sample of Chemical (Magnesium Sulphate + Natrium

Nitrate) 12

2.1 How sedimentation rock is formed. 20

2.2 Limestone Rock (Sample 1) 21

2.3 Limestone Rock (Sample 2) 21

3.1 Preparation of Chemical solution 25

3.2 Immersion of cubes in to chemical solution. 26

3.3(a) Front view of Gunong Panas, Ulu Gali, Raub. 28



xiv

3.3(b) Side View of Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub. 28

3.4 The Sieve Analysis Apparatus. 30

3.5 Sample of Limestone and granite aggregate in UTM

Highway Laboratory. 31

3.6 Source of Limestone from Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali,

Raub, Pahang. 34

3.7 Sample of limestone aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test. 35

3.8 Apparatus in Sieve Analysis Test. 36

3.9 Apparatus for Elongation and Flakiness Index Test

(Steel Plate With Standard Hole) 37

3.10 Procedure for Elongation and Flakiness index test 39

3.11 Preparation of Concrete Cubes. 41

3.12 Procedure in Preparation of Cube. 41

3.13 Step to prepare 150x150x150 Concrete Cube 42

3.14 Measuring The Slump of Fresh Concrete 43

3.15 Preparing the concrete cubes 43

3.16 Weighting the Cube Sample 44



xv

3.17 Testing of Cube 45

3.18 Recording Compressive Strength From Dial Gauge 45

3.19 Failure Pattern of Cube. 46

3.20 End of The Test 46

3.21 Weighting of Limestone Aggregate for ACV Test 50

3.22 Placing Aggregate in to the Mould 51

3.23 Aggregate under Testing (400kN/10 minutes) 51

3.24 Aggregate Under Rate of Crushing 52

3.25 Sample of Aggregate after Crushing 52

3.26 Crushed Sample of Aggregate Retain on 2.36 Sieve 53

4.1 Graph of Sieve Analysis Test for Limestone Aggregate 56

4.2 Relationship Between Elongation/Flakiness Index and

JKR Standard. 57

4.3 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Chemical

Solution for 7 days. 61

4.4 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 7 days. 61



xvi

4.5 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Chemical

Solution for 28 days. 62

4.6 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 28 days. 62

4.7 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR

Standard for 7 days (Average Strength) 64

4.8 Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR

Standard for 28 days (Average Strength). 65

4.9 Relationship Between Concrete Cube Compressive

Strength To Original Rock. 67

4.10 Results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7 days

in Chemical Solution and Water. 74

4.11 Results of Limestone Aggregate Crushing Value Test

for 28 days in Chemical Solution and Water. 75

4.12 Results of Aggregate Crushing Value of Granite for

28 days. 76

5.1 Types of Aggregate Texture 81

5.2(a) Failure Pattern in Water 83

5.2(b) Failure Pattern in Chemical Solution 84

5.3(a) Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete 84

in Chemical Solution.



xvii

5.3(b) Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete

in Water. 84

5.4(a) Results of Limestone ACV Test for 28 days in

Chemical Solution and Water. 89

5.4(b) Results of Granite ACV Test for 28 days in Chemical

Solution and Water. 90

5.4(c) Results of ACV Test for Granite and Limestone

Aggregate in Chemical Solution (28 days) 91

5.4(d) Results of Granite and Limestone Aggregate on

ACV Test for 28 days in Water. 92



xviii

LIST OF SYMBOLS

B.S - British Standard

> - More than

< - Less than

G25 - Grade 25

Mg SO4 - Magnesium Sulphate

Na NO3 - Natrium Nitrate

Ca O - Calcium Oxide

Mg O - Magnesium Oxide

CO2 - Carbon Dioxide

S1,S2,ect - Sample in Chemical Solution

S.O - Superintendent Officer

ACV - Aggregate Crushing Value

JKR - Jabatan Kerja Raya

Fe O - Ferrous Oxide

Mn O2 - Manganese Dioxide

Ca(OH) - Calcium Hydroxide

Mpa - Mega Pascal

Psi - Ib/square in.

Ca CO3 - Calcium Carbonate (Limestone)



xix

LIST OF APPENDICES

APPENDIX TITLE PAGE

A1 JKR Specification page 35 99

A2 JKR Specification page 36 100

B JKR Standard Limit for Laboratory Testing 101

C1 Cube Test Results 7 days in Water 102

C2 Cube Test Results 7 days in Chemical Solution 103



CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 Introduction.

Since concrete is the most important part in structural construction, the

aggregate content should be in a form of good strength for structural purposes.

Concrete is made up of aggregate, cement and water. Through this combination of

materials, three – quarter of the mix is governed by aggregate. The aggregate

itself is categorized as fine and course aggregate.

In this study, the scope of research will be focused on the use of coarse

aggregate using lime stone material. Before further discussion, it shall be better to

have knowledge and clear understanding about the lime stone material and its

properties and performances.

Lime stone is one of the aggregate to be used in concrete, other than that

are granite, basalt, Quardz, Gneis, Gabbro, Sand stone, Felsit ect. The

classification of the aggregates according to BS 812 :Part 1 :1975 as stated from

table 1.1 in this chapter.



2

Figure 1.1 : Sample of Limestone Aggregate (Source from Kg. Ulu Gali,

Raub, Pahang)

Table 1.1: Classification of natural aggregates according to rock type ( BS

812 : Part 1 :1975 )

Basalt Group Flint Group Gabbro group

Andesite

Basalt

Basic porphyrites

Diabase

Dolerites of all kinds

including theralite and

teschenite.

Epidiorite

Lamprophyre

Quartz-dolerite

Spilite

Granite Group

Gneiss

Chert

Flint

Gritstone Group

( including fragmental

volcanic rocks)

Basic diorite

Basic Gneiss

Gabbro

Hornblende-rock

Norite

Peridotite

Picrite

Serpentinite

Hornfels group

Contact-altered rocks



3

Granite

Granodiorite

Granulite

Pegmatite

Quartz-diorite

Syenite

Limestone Group

Dolomite

Limestone

Marble

Schist Group

Phyllite

Schist

Slate

All severely sheared

rocks.

Arkose

Greywacke

Grit

Sandstone

Tuff

Porphyry Group

Aplite

Dacite

Felsite

Granophyre

Keratophyre

Microgranite

Porphyry

Quartz-porphyrite

Rhyolite

Trachyte

of all kinds except

marble.

Quartzite Group

Ganister

Quartzitic sandstones

Re-crystallized

quartzite.

Page 110: Properties of Concrete – A.M. Neville

1.2 Back ground of the research

Limestone and granite are two types of aggregates commonly used in

industrial construction. For JKR project, the used of limestone aggregate is

limited to super structure only whereas for substructure there is no recommended

to use limestone below ground level. Due to this statement the study is to be

carried out to find what source of the problems in related to concrete below

ground level. One of the problems in the ground level is about chemical attack, so



4

that a few numbers of laboratory test should be carried out to get the results for

analysis purposes.

In conjunction to this matter, the problem arises is based on the JKR

specification mention under Section D (Concrete Work) item 3.0 for aggregate

contents.

From Item 3.3 Coarse Aggregates:

Standard Specifications For Building works page 35 standard specification

for building works written as below:-

“The coarse aggregate shall be crushed hard stone except that for work

below ground level, only crushed granite will be used. The aggregate shall not

contain clay lumps exceeding 1% by weight. A representative dry sample shall

not show an increase in weight exceeding 8% after immersion in water when

tested according to the method in M.S. 7.5. It shall be well shaped and not flaky

with the flakiness index not exceeding 35%. The maximum nominal size of coarse

aggregate shall be 19mm.”

Through the statement above, it is understood that the use of limestone

aggregate was not recommended in building works below ground level. Since

concrete work is the importance structure, understanding about the material

properties shall be significantly in the advanced condition. A few tests to get the

strength should be carried out in the laboratory and the results can be analyzed.

The results obtained can be compared to the standard specification for building’s

work. So, through this study I would like to further the use of limestone in a

certain area as alternative to granite aggregate.

The main reason to study this topic is to get better knowledge and to bare

in mind whether “ Chemical Attack below ground level “ source of the

problem in using limestone concrete structure. In the preparation of this thesis,

many factors should be considered and there must be some references towards thestudy for getting clear information and understanding about the chemical attack in



5

concrete structure. At the end of this study, a conclusion can be made according to

the results obtained through the laboratory tests.

1.3 Significance of the research.

In construction industries, the use of aggregates is the most importance

material in composition of concrete. Places having granite aggregate should have

no problem in construction projects, but for places without granite the problems

will be arises and cost incurred become higher. Due to this reason this study

should be carried out in the approaching method to overcome the problem as well

as beneficial to local people.

The advantages of this study are:-

i) To provide some information about the used of limestone aggregate.

ii) Beneficial and economic value to local people.

iii) New finding during the test and methods required to overcome the problems.

iv) Have chances to explore the used of local material in construction industries.

1.4 Objective of the study.

In our country, stone can be selected from a certain area which is in theform of various types of materials such as granite, limestone, basalt, quardz,

gneiss, gabbro, sand stone and others as stated in table 1.0 from the previous

paragraph.

Area of easily granite formed shall have no problems for concrete

structure, but for an area of without granite and limestone easily selected this

might be incurred cost to import granite aggregate from other places. As a result,



6

this also will reduce the beneficial economic value for that particular place due to

granite demand.

The main issue of this study is to identify weather the chemical reaction

can affect the concrete structure from limestone aggregate below ground level. In

the ground, there are various types of chemical reactions such as sulfate, chloride,

nitrate, sodium, atrium and others soluble exist in that particular places. For this

purpose, every places will have different soluble in the ground and its depend on

the types of soil or rock for that particular area.

At the end of this study some information regarding limestone aggregate

will be obtained from the test results. Due to the results required, the beneficial

values of the study can be shared together and its will bring objectives as the

followings:-

i) To study the limestone properties related to strength and its

performances.

In this objective, the strength of the limestone should be obtained in many

ways. One of the methods is cube test. However the method pertaining to this

matter will be discussed on the next topic under chapter 2 under methodology

section.

Through this objective, all the information should be collected and might

be one of the proven sign to get a solution to the problem. If there is exist, it

means that the limestone aggregate is no longer to be a selected and approved

material in concrete structure. For this purpose, the specification of JKR should

the one to refer and compared with the results of the tests.

ii) To compare the results with granite concrete and costing required.

As according to JKR specification in building works, the use of granite is

the recommended aggregate in construction of JKR projects. For this particular

situation, the comparison between limestone and granite is the options to get someinformation to public use and acknowledgement purposes.



7

Since granite concrete is no matter stronger and its characteristic strength

is more than limestone concrete, so that the results of the cube tests is

significantly functioning to this study. Because of the local interest to economic

value, the cost incurred for both types of aggregate will be established to public

information.

iii) To provide the information on demands of local material and its

benefits.

Once the result of the tests is recorded, there are specifics analysis can be

ascertained and very important factors to encourage people on the demands of

each materials. For this particular objective, the demand on limestone is

predictably on advanced because the study is focusing to the local materials on the

beneficial aspects especially on the economic aim.

However, in promoting the local material demands there must be a specific

reason and advantages to welcome people without prejudice. Through this study,

it will provide some guide lines and references for really problems arise towards

the specific solution otherwise there are no neglected inspiration exists. Once it’s

come through there are clear information to people involved in construction

industries.

iv) As an alternative materials without prejudice.

If the concrete made of limestone aggregate can produce a strength and

durability, therefore its performance is good for concrete structure. The important

thing in construction technology is the material used is followed the specification

and the test results should according to specification. Any materials set the

specification, meaning that the material can be used for construction purposes. In

the case of limestone, it also a type of aggregate involved in obtaining a good

concrete provided the required test should followed the specification in the

contract document.



8

1.5 Scope of the research.

The construction industries are becoming more challenging than ever

before. To be competitive, the field of engineering related to the industries has to

be established. One of the areas that can be established is the used of material in

the construction purposes. A specific scope of study on the limestone aggregate is

presented in this paper as to improve the knowledge in the field of construction

technology.

1.5.1 Bond of aggregate :

The bond between aggregate and cement paste is essential to produce the

flexural strength of concrete, but the nature of this bond is not fully understood.

For this reason, an analysis needs to be conducted by performing specific tests in

the laboratory. The flakiness index and elongation tests on the limestone

aggregate are required that to prove the specification in JKR contract document is

met. Bonding between aggregate and cement paste depends on the surface of the

aggregate. Since the rough surface requires more bonding than the smooth

surface, the texture of aggregate to be tested should comply to the requirement of

standard specification.

Figure 1.2: Sample of aggregates (left is limestone, right is granite).



9

The aggregate used in the tests must comply to the standard grading which

is through sieve analysis test with 4 kilogram of limestone aggregate sample.

The test shall follow a proper procedure and the results are compared to the

standard as tabulated in Table 1.2 below:-

Table 1.2: Coarse Aggregate (Nominal Size 20 mm) – Standard specification

Section 2 to 6 M.S. 7.5

British Standard

Sieve

20 mm 10 mm 5 mm

Percent passing

( %)

100 25-55 0-10

The flakiness and elongation tests shall comply to the standard specification

listed in Table 1.3 below:-

Table 1.3: Testing of aggregate ( Refer Appendix B).

Properties Types of

aggregate

Test

Methods

Limits

Grading

Elongation

Index

Flakiness Index

Aggregate

Crushing Value

Coarse

Coarse

Coarse

Coarse

M.S 7.5

M.S 30

M.S 30

M.S 30

As mention in Table 2.1

Not exceeding 30%

Not exceeding 35%

Not exceeding 40%



10

1.5.2 Strength of Aggregate

To get strong and good concrete, the crushing value and cube tests are

recommended. Crushing strength of concrete and crushing value of aggregate

shall be determined according to a specific strength mentioned in the specification

for both limestone and granite. For the granite aggregate, the sample was initially

immersed in the water and chemical solution (MgSO4 + NaNO3) for 28 days. The

procedure is to discover the effect that water and chemical solution have on the

strength of concrete. The crushing value test shall meet the standard in table 1.3

above. The cube strength test shall meet the specification in Table 1.4 below:-

Table 1.4: Minimum Strength Specification of Concrete Cube (150x150x150).

Equivalent

nominal

mix

Minimum crushing

Strength at 7 days

and 28 days after

mixing.

At 7 days At 28 days

Maximum

aggregate

size

Minimum cement

content per cubic

meter of finished

concrete

1:1:2 (G30)

1:11 / 2 :

3(G25)

1 : 2 : 4

(G20)

N/mm2 N/mm2

30

17.0 25.5

14.0 21.00

mm

19

19

19

Kg

380

361

321



11

Figure 1.3: Sample of concrete cube with 150 x 150 x150 in size.

1.5.3 Shulphate Reaction Below Ground Level

The chemical attack on the concrete below ground level is proven by

immersing the cube samples of concrete grade 25 in solution of Magnesium

sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate. The Magnesium Sulphate and natrium Nitrate are

shown in figure 1.4 below. Twelve samples of cube were immersed in solution of

Magnesium sulphate plus natrium nitrate and another twelve samples of cube

were immersed in water. The samples are to be immersed in the solution and

water, separately for 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. To get more accurate

information on the effect of chemical reaction on the granite and limestone

aggregate, test a period of 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days was justified.



12

Figure 1.4: Sample of chemical (Magnesium Sulphate + Natrium Nitrate)

Figure 1.4 above show the chemicals to be used in the research. The

chemicals are to be used in two different ways as the followings:-

i) Half of the chemical to be used for the immersion of the concrete cube in the

solution.

ii) Another half of chemical to be used for the immersion of the granite and

limestone aggregate in the solution.



CHAPTER 2.

LIETERATURE REVIEW

2.1 Introduction.

Back to the problem about the specification in JKR project, there must be

a reason why the limestone not to be recommended in concrete below ground

level (Concrete Substructure). In obtaining to the matter a rise, there shall be some

review about the aggregate in concrete structure and what is the weakness of

limestone aggregate. This type of question is an objective of this study. Before we

go further discussion, a few questions about the limestone aggregate are to be in

mind as follows:-

(a) What are the weaknesses and the results contribute to limestone concrete?

(b) Is the chemical attack exists due to the use of limestone aggregate?

(c) Corrosion will result crack in the concrete. Is the limestone the source of

problem?

(d) Can limestone concrete last long?

2.2 General Information of Aggregate.

Firstly to answer that such question above, we have to get some general

information regarding the use of aggregate in construction industrial technology inMalaysia.



14

Since three-quarters of volume of concrete is governed by aggregate, it is not

surprising that its quality is of considerable importance. Not only may the

aggregate affects the strength of the concrete, aggregate with undesirable material

would not get a good and strong concrete but also its can produce low durability

and performance of the concrete.

Aggregate was originally a composition of a concrete mix with the

proportion to the cement content and also as an inert material dispersed

throughout the cement paste largely for economic purposes. It is possible to take

into account that aggregate is a building material connected into a cohesive whole

by means of the cement paste, as a comparison similar to masonry work in

building construction. In fact, the aggregate can absorb heat, water, chemicals and

also its physical properties will influence the performance of concrete.

Aggregate cheaper compare to cement, there fore it is possible an

economic value to put into consideration. But economy not the only reason why to

select aggregate , it is also have engineering advantages on concrete, so that it can

bring higher volume stability , produce better durability than the hydrated cement

paste alone.

2.3 Particle shape and texture.

Aggregate, whether crushed or naturally reduced in size, it can be dividedinto many groups of rocks having common characteristics. According to BS 812:

Part 1: 1975 the rocks are classified as given in Table 1.0 in the early page.

The aggregate to be used in the concrete shall have good shape and surface

texture. In the case of crushed rocks, the particle shape depends not only on the

nature of the parent material but on the type of crusher and its reduction ratio, for

example the ratio of the size fed into crusher and the size of finished product.



15

According to standard BS 812: Part 1: 1975 is given from Table 1.2 in this

chapter. For reference to the classification used in United States is as follows:-

Well-rounded - No original faces left

Rounded - Faces almost gone

Sub rounded - Considerable wear, faces reduce in area

Sub angular - Some wear but faces untouched

Angular - Little evidence of wear (* Page 113 Properties of concrete)

Table 2.1: Particle Shape Classification of BS 812: Part 1: 1975 with examples

Classification Description Examples

Rounded

Irregular

Flaky

Angular

Elongated

Flaky and

Elongated

Fully water-worn or completely shaped by

attrition

Naturally irregular, or partly shaped by

attrition and having rounded edges

Material of which the thickness is small

relative to the other two dimensions.

Possessing well-defined edges formed at

the intersection of roughly planar faces

Material, usually angular, in which the

length is considerably larger than the

other two dimensions

Material having the length considerably

larger than the width, and the width

considerably larger than the thickness

River or seashore

gravel, desert,

seashore and

wind- blown sand

Other gravels,

land or dug flint

Laminated rock

Crushed rocks of

all types , talus,

crushed slag

-

-

(Note: The above table Refer to page 114 Properties of Concrete -A.M. Neville )



16

As far as the aggregate concerned, the mass of flaky particles compare to a

mass of sample isalled flakiness index where as for elongation index is similarly

defined. For this case, particularly refer to JKR specification mention at the early

page which means that the percentage of the flakiness and elongation should not

more than 35% (Refer Appendix B).

2.4 Bond of the aggregate

Bond between aggregate and cement paste is an important factor to

produce a strength of concrete , therefore due to this reason a fully understood

about the material properties is very significant.

2.5 Theory of Rocks.

Everything should start with theory, so that it will bring more significant

in studying towards analyzing purposes. Without the theory, an analysis meaning

less to good results and better Due to this statement, a proper knowledge about the

nature of rocks should be required in this research. The more the nature and the

characteristics of the rocks required the more the analysis to be performed.

In general, the Table 2.2 below shows the compressive strength of theoriginal rocks for comparison to concrete cube strength.



17

Table 2.2: Compressive Strength of American Rocks Commonly Used as

Concrete Aggregate.

Compressive Strength

After deletion of extremes ‡

Average# Maximum Minimum

Type of

rock

Number

of

samples* MPa Psi MPa Psi MPa Psi

Granite 278 181 26200 257 37300 114 16600

Felsite 12 324 47000 526 76300 120 17400

Trap 59 283 411000 377 54700 201 29200

Limestone 241 159 23000 241 34900 93 13500

Sandstone 79 131 19000 240 34800 44 6400

Marble 34 117 16900 244 35400 51 7400

Quartzite 26 252 36500 423 61300 124 18000

Gneiss 36 147 21300 235 34100 94 13600

Schist 31 170 24600 297 43100 91 13200

* For most sample, the compressive strength is an average of 3 to 15 specimens.

# Average of all sample.

‡ 10 per cent of all samples tested with highest or lowest values have been

deleted as not typical of the material

Refer: A.M.Naville 1995 Page 121.

2.5.1 The Nature of Rocks

Rocks are aggregate which is made of one or more minerals. Rocks are

classified into three main types as follow:-

a) Igneous rocks are formed from magma, which form below the

surface, it ascends towards the surface, and crystallizes as solid rock on the

surface of the earth.

b) Sedimentary rocks are formed by the accumulation and compaction of



19

Table 2.4: Minerals present in the four main groups of igneous rock.

Rock

composition

Amount of

SiO2(%)

Minerals

Acid

Intermediate

Basic

Ultra basic

65

55-65

45-55

45

Quartz,orthoclase,Naplagioclase,muscovite,

Biotite,(+/-hornblende)

Plagioclase,biotite,hornblende,quartz,

orthoclase (+/- augite)

Ca-plagioclase,augite(+/-olivine,+/-

hornblende)

Ca-plagioclase,olivine(+/-augite)

Magma consists of two distinctive layers, the bottom layer is the ultra

basic igneous rocks which comprise divine, olivine, calcium-rich plagioclase and

augite to form an ultra basic igneous rocks. This layer exists at high temperature.

The second upper layer is the acids rock which comprises quartz, orthoclase,

sodium-rich, plagioclase and micas. This second upper layer exists at a lower

temperature. The layers are shown in table 2.4 above.

2.5.3 Sedimentation Rocks

There are four major groups of sedimentary rocks:-

a) Terrigenous sedimentary rocks that are formed by fragments

derived from the breakdown of pre-existing rocks.

b) Chemical sedimentary rocks that are formed through the

precipitation of salts dissolved in water.

c) Organic sedimentation rocks, which are formed from oil, coal and

the skeletal remains of plants and animals.



20

d) Lime stones and dolomites, which are sedimentation, rocks consist

of more than 50% carbonate including chemical, clastic and biological

material. In this study, the rock which contains more carbonate is called

carbonate rocks and limestone falls under this type of rocks. Therefore the

fact of limestone is significant in this chapter to be further elaborated..

Figure 2.1: How sedimentation rock is formed

For millions of years, little pieces of the earth have been eroded by wind

and water. These little bits of the earth are washed downs by streams and

eventually settle to the bottom of the rivers, lakes, and oceans. Layer after layer of

the eroded earth is deposited on top of each other. These layers are pressed down

more and more through time, until the bottom layers slowly turn into rock.

(http://sln.fi.edu)



21

Figure 2.2: Limestone Rock (Sample 1)

Limestone rocks are sedimentary rocks that are made of mineral calcite

which comes from the beds of evaporated seas, lakes and sea animal shells. This

rock is used in concrete and is an excellent building stone for humid regions.

(http://sln.fi.edu).

Figure 2.3: Limestone Rock (Sample 2)

Limestone is the most abundant of the non-clastic sedimentary rocks. The

main source of limestone is the limy ooze formed in the ocean. The calcium

carbonate can be precipitated from the ocean water or it can be formed from the

sea creatures that secrete lime such as algae and coral. Chalk is another form of

limestone that is made up of very small single-celled organisms. Chalk is usually

white or gray. Limestone can easily be dissolved by acids. If some vinegar is

dropped onto a limestone, it will fizz. Put a limestone rock into a plastic jar and



22

cover it with vinegar. Cover the jar and watch the bubbling of the calcium

carbonate and also the disintegration of the rock over a few days,

(http://volcano.und.nodak.edu).

2.5.3.1 Carbonate Rocks.

Limestone aggregate is one of carbonate rocks. Like other rocks, carbonate

rocks are classified on the basis of their minerals and textures. The mineral

compositions are limited and the textures of carbonate rocks are assumed of added

importance. Some carbonate rocks are crystalline, and the others are clastic. Most

rocks contain both crystalline and clastic elements.

Limestone is composed predominantly of calcite, namely Magnesium

calcite, aragonite and dolostones, dolostones consists primarily of dolomite,

aragonite and dolostones are the two main types of carbonate rocks. Magnesium

calcite and aragonite are particularly subject to diagenetic change and therefore

calcite and dolomite are the most common phases in older carbonate rocks.

Chemically, CaO, MgO and CO2 are lead carbonate rocks and the content of

oxygen and carbon are significant in the analysis.

2.5.3.2 Limestone (Biochemical)

Limestone is formed in various colour such as white, grey, cream or

yellow. It’s texture is highly variable from very fine-grained, and porcellaneous,

to coarsely crystalline and of sugary appearance. Its structure bedding is usually

form the formation fossil layers.

Usually limestone light is white or grey but can also be black if many

impurities are present. It’s grain is typically fine, but it ranges from themicroscopic to the size of a coral reef, which technically corresponds to one grain.



23

However, the formation of calcite or another carbonate can therefore be identified

by dropping dilute hydrochloric acid onto its surface.The calcite rock releases

carbon dioxide, and fizzes vigorously which indicates the presence of fossils.

Theoretically, carbonate rocks consists of chemical sediments as shown

below:-

Table 2.5: Chemistry of selected carbonate rocks sediment.

Si O2 K 2 O

Ti O2 P 2 O 5

Al2 O3 H 2 O +

Fe2O3 H 2 O -

Fe O C O 2

Mn O2 Ca CO3

Ca O Na 2 O

Mg O LOl

*Refer to Carbonate rock.

Calcium carbonate normally comprises 50% of calcite, and the balanced are

clay, sand, dolomite, carbon and iron oxides.

In general, limestone is such as weathered rocks are crinoidal limestone,

chalk, shelly limestone and fossiliferous fresh water limestone. Weathering often

develops a thin white coating on pure limestone. Commonly the appearance of the

limestone pebbles are grey and it is compact at the rock center and porous at the

surface. Since limestone is formed in several ways and contains numerous

impurities, many variations are found. This is includes shaly or argillaceous

limestone, sandy or arenaceous limestone, lime conglomerate, bituminous

limestone and glauconitic limestone.



CHAPTER 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

3.1 Introduction

Since the scope and the objectives of the study has been obtained, there are

a procedures should be followed to perform a specific function in this chapter. All

the tests and the results shall be shown from appropriate table and graph that can

be prepared simultaneously. At this stage, the main function is to show the various

steps and methodology that lead to the results of testing materials selected.

Once the characteristic of the materials selected has been tested through

appropriate tests, the applicable standard of specification should be referred and

the analyzed of the results should be done for better information as well as good

conclusions. One of the objectives in this research is towards a better knowledge

and good information to public that can make this study very significant. As a

results this would brings the advantages to local people in promoting local

material demands.

3.2 Experimental framework.

In this research the methods to be carried out is through laboratory tests.The types of testing to be carried out are as follows:-



25

3.2.1 Sieve Analysis Test.

3.2.2 Flaky and Elongation Index Tests.

3.2.3 Cube Test

3.2.4 Aggregate Crushing Value Test.

The sample of limestone aggregate was taken from quarry Poh Chan Sdn.

Bhd located at Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang. This sample was

taken about one meter cube. The aggregate was divided into two volumes. One

volume to make the concrete cubes in 24 numbers at ready mix kiln ( Poh Mix

Sdn. Bhd.). These cubes were divided into two groups of specimen as the

followings:-

( a ) 12 numbers of specimens fror immersions in chemical solution ( Magnesium

Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate) sample designated as :

S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S9,S10,S11 and S12.

( b ) 12 numbers of specimens for immersions in water, designated as :

1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11 and 12.

Figure 3.1 Preparation of Chemical Solution.



26

Figure 3.2 Immersion of cubes in to tank (chemical solution).

Figure 3.1 and 3.2 above shows the preparation of cube to be immersed

into the chemical solution for 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days.

Another one volume of limestone aggregate was divided into two portions

as the followings:-

( i) 20 kilograms for immersion in chemical solution ( Magnesium Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate)

( ii ) 20 kilograms for immersion in water.

The aggregates were taken out from curing tank after 7 days and 28 days for

sieve analysis test, flaky/elongation test and aggregate crushing value test. The

tests were carried out in UTM Skudai Highway Laboratory in January 2005.



27

Whereas for concrete cubes, the samples were taken out after 7 days, 14

days, 21 days and 28 days for cube tests at Poh Chan Sdn. Bhd. Plant. The date of

testing as shown in Table 3.1 below:-

Table 3.1 Date of Cube Test.

No. of days Date of

testing

7 9.12.2004

14 16.12.2004

21 23.12.2004

28 30.12.2004

3.3 Experimental Details.

Since the study of aggregate is more important, it is not really truth accept

by the method of testing should be carried out to that particular material. For this

purpose, before material has to be tested, one consideration should be noticed

where the raw material is located and where the materials to be used in particular

project. In this research, the raw material to be tested is from Gunong Panas, Kg.

Ulu Gali, Raub, Pahang. This raw material is commonly used as limestone

aggregate in Raub district and very popular to the local people as the main sourceof local material demands. Figure 3.1 and 3.2 below shows where the location and

the site of the raw material was been taken for the specimen.



28

Figure 3.3(a): Front view of Gunong Panas, Ulu Gali, Raub.

Figure 3.3(b) Side View Of Gunong Panas, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub.



29

3.3.1 JKR Standard Specification for Aggregate

The most important thing in this chapter is to describe an appropriate

methods how to initiate and solving procedure in respect to the back ground

situation and problem arise. Since the research is subjected to the effect of

limestone aggregate in concrete structure below ground level, it is more

significant the material should accordance to the standard JKR specification.

Therefore, the following paragraphs are the procedures and the standard

specification for building work prepared by JKR.

3.3.1.1 General Aggregate

The aggregate to be used in the concrete should comply to standard

specification mentioned below:-

The aggregate shall in general comply with M.S 7.5. All aggregate shall be

hard, strong, durable, clean and free from adherent coating and shall not contain

harmful materials in sufficient quantity to affect adversely the strength or

durability of the concrete or to attack the reinforcement. Aggregate shall be store

in such a manner as to prevent contamination by undesirable substance. The

different type of aggregates shall be stored in separate bins and not be allow to

intermingle. (Refer to Appendix A1).



30

Figure 3.4: The sieve analysis apparatus.

Figure 3.4: Method of testing the aggregate in the UTM Highway laboratory

on January 2005.

3.3.1.2 Fine Aggregate

The fine aggregates shall be naturally occurring fresh water sand. The

aggregates shall not contain silt or other fine materials exceeding 3% by volume

when tested according the Standard Method given in M.S 7.5. Neither shall it

contain organic material in sufficient quantity to show a darker colour then the

standard depth of colour No. 3 when tested according to the method in M.S 7.5.

The use of crushed stone sand shall not be permitted.(Refer to appendix A1).



31

3.3.1.3 Coarse Aggregate

The course aggregate shall be crushed hard stone except that for work

below ground level, only crushed granite will be used. The aggregates shall not

contain clay lumps exceeding 1% by weight. A representative dry sample shall

not show an increase in weight exceeding 8% after immersion in water when

tested according to the method in MS. 7.5. It shall be well shaped and not flaky

with the flakiness index not exceeding 35. The maximum nominal size of coarse

aggregate shall be 19mm. (Refer to Appendix A1).

Figure 3.5: Sample of Limestone and granite aggregate in UTM Highway

Laboratory.

3.3.2 Aggregate Grading

The analysis for the grading of aggregate shall be as described in MS. 7.5

and shall be within the limits specified as Table 3.2 and 3.3 below:-



32

Table 3.2: Fine Aggregate (Natural sand)

B.S. Sieve 5mm 2.36mm 1.18mm 0.60mm 0.30mm 0.15mm

% Passing 95-100 70-95 45-85 25-60 5-30 0-10

Table 3.3: Coarse Aggregate (Nominal size 20mm).

B.S. Sieve 20mm 10mm 5mm

% Passing 100 25-55 0-10

The grading between the limits specified above shall be to the approval of

the S.O., and when tested as provided herein after shall approximate closely to the

grading of the approved samples. If it should be found necessary, the fine

aggregate shall be washed and/or screened to comply with and the requirements

of the S.O. (Refer Appendix A2 under clause 3.4)

3.3.2.1 Sampling and Testing of Aggregates

The method of sampling and the amount of aggregate to be provided for

the tests shall be in accordance with section 2 to 6 of MS. 7.5. Samples of the fine

and coarse aggregate approved by the S.O. shall be kept on site and shall be used

to compare the general quality of the aggregates delivered during the course of the

work. The tests to be performed on the aggregates shall be as specified herein

before. The S.O. may require further tests to be carried out on samples of the

aggregate delivered to site at intervals. The tests shall be carried out by the S.O. or

his representative. Should a sample fail to comply with any of the tests the S.O.,

may, at his discretion, either reject the batch from which the sample was taken,

order it to be washed and or screened or permit it to be used with variation in the

proportions of the concrete mixes specified. Any batch of aggregate rejected by

the S.O. shall be removed from the works site forthwith.



33

3.3.2.2 Storage of Aggregates

Separate storage facilities with adequate provision for drainage shall be

provided for each different size of aggregate used.

Aggregate shall be handled and stored so as to minimize segregation and

contamination.

3.4 Water

Water shall comply with the requirements of M.S. 28. It shall be clean and

free from materials deleterious to concrete in the plastic and hardened state and

shall be from a source approved by the S.O. If in doubt, the S.O. may instruct the

contractor to carry out chemical test at any approved laboratory at the expense of

the contractor. The contractor shall make adequate arrangement to supply and

store sufficient water at the work site for use in mixing and curing of concrete. All

costs for installing and maintaining the supply shall be borne by the contractor.

3.5 Types of Test Recommended

The test to be carried out in the laboratory at University Technology

Malaysia, Skudai, Johor are represents as follows:-

( i ) Sieve Analysis Test

( ii ) Elongation

( iii ) Flakiness Index

( iv ) Concrete Cube Test

( v ) Aggregate Crushing Value



34

In conjunction to the tests, it is important to notice that every steps of the

procedure in making the appropriate tests should be identified and followed to get

an accurate result.

Every procedure in the tests should be strictly followed for getting a good

results and this can be explained each of the tests in the following paragraphs.

3.5.1 Sieve Analysis Test

Before the aggregate to be tested for sieve analysis, the sample of

aggregate has to be taken from the source of the materials. In this case, the sample

of aggregate is taken from the quarry Po Chan situated at Gunong Panas,Kg. Ulu

Gali, Raub, Pahang as shown in the Figure 3.6 below:-

Figure 3.6: Site view of Gunong Panas, Kg.Ulu Gali,Raub, Pahang



35

The sample of aggregate was taken from Gunong Panas area as shown

from figure 3.6 above. The test was carried out at UTM Highway laboratory on

January 2005.

The procedure to carry out Sieve analysis test:-

3.5.1.1 Sample of Aggregate to be tested.

Take the sample of limestone aggregate of 4 kilogram as shown in Figure

3.7 below:-

Figure 3.7: Sample of limestone aggregate for Sieve Analysis Test.

The sample of limestone then placed into the apparatus for sieve analysis

test as shown in Figure 3.8 below:-



36

Figure 3.8: Apparatus in Analysis Test.

The aggregate analysis should according to JKR specification and passing

through the sieve as Table 3.4 below:-

Table 3.4: Position of Sieve size

Layer of sieve Sieve Size.( mm )

Top

Third

Second

First

37.5

20.0

10.0

5.0

The limestone aggregate shall be sieved until an appropriate time that the

aggregate pass through each sieve size and weight the balance on each sieve for

calculation and record purposes. The results of this test will be written under next

chapter which is on the Results and Analysis section.



37

3.5.1.2 Elongation and Flakiness Index Test.

Elongation is the test which is aggregate particles can pass through the

plate consist of longitudinal hole whereas flakiness index is the aggregate

particles can pass through the standard hole from the steel plate apparatus as

shown from Figure 3.9 below:-

Figure 3.9: Apparatus for Elongation and Flakiness

Index Test (Steel plate With Standard Hole)

The procedure for elongation and flakiness index test are the followings:-

Once the sieve analysis test completed, the aggregate will be taken into

elongation test. The aggregate sample which is retained on sieve of 14mm, 10 mm

and 6.3 mm in size is to be tested by passing through the slot from the hole of the

steel plate apparatus as shown from the Figure 3.9 above.

By this method, the amount of aggregate passing through the slot will be

taken and take the weight of the aggregate, compare to the total weight of

aggregate retained. Method of testing elongation and flakiness index is by taken

the weight of aggregate passing through the slot of steel plate. The results should

be recorded using the format in table 3.5 below:-



38

Table 3.5: Standard Format for Calculation of Elongation and Flakiness Test.

Aggregate

Sieve size

(mm)

Aggregate

Weight retained

on sieve

( gm )

Aggregate

Passing

Elongation Slot

(gm )

Aggregate

Passing

Flakiness Slot

( gm )

14

10

6.3

5.0

Total Weight

A1

A2

A3

A4

(A1+A2+A3+A4)

= A

B1

B2

B3

B4

(B1+B2+B3+B4)

= B

C1

C2

C3

C4

(C1+C2+C3+C4)

= C

After Sieve Analysis Test completed.

Weight and record all the samples retained on the sieve as in

the table 3.5 above.

Take the Value of A, B and C



39

Calculate the percentage passing on the slot.

Use formula, Elongation = B/A X 100%

Flakiness = C/A X 100%

as shown in table 3.5 above

Compare and analyzed the results to JKR Specification

End

Figure 3.10: Procedure for Elongation and Flakiness Index Test.

3.5.2 Concrete Cube Tests.

For concrete cube strength, the tests was done at the kiln which is situated

at factory of Pohmix Sdn. Bhd., Lipis Road, Raub, Pahang. Before concrete cube

to be tested, the mixed was to be prepared and immersion into the ordinary water

and chemical soluble Of Magnesium Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate for a period of

7, 14, 21 and 28 days.

The process of immersion the cube into chemical solution was very

important because the actual strength can be compared simultaneously for an

analysis purposes. For the purpose of the test, there were twenty four (24)

numbers of cubes to be prepared and placed into the water and chemical solution.

The sample of chemical Magnesium Sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate was shown



40

from the Figure 1.4 under Chapter 1 at the previous paragraph. For a practical

knowledge and information purposes, the sample of Magnesium Sulphate and

Natrium Nitrate was in the form of small particles and looks like the salt which is

in white colour.

3.5.2.1 Preparation of Concrete Cube 150x150x150 Grade 25

Before concrete cube to be ready, the limestone aggregate was taken from

Quarry at Gunong Panas to the Pohmix Sdn. Bhd. Kiln. The concrete cube was

prepared for the numbers of twenty four(24) using machine mixed (Computer

Operated).

The mixed of concrete used was for grade 25 which is according to the JKR

specification as per listed below:-

Table 3.6 The mix proportion of Concrete cube Grade 25.

Water Cement Ratio = 0.5

Proportion of Concrete Cube by Volume Proportion by weight per 1m3

concrete

Cement = 1 361 kg.

Fine Aggregate = 1 ½ 525 kg

Coarse Aggregate = 3 1225 kg.

The preparation of the concrete cube was carried out by the supervisor of

Pohmix Sdn Bhd. and his assistant as shown from the Figure 3.10 below:-



41

Figure 3.11 Preparation of Concrete Cube.

The procedure for the preparation of concrete cube should be followed

according to the general procedure as mentioned in Figure 3.13 below:-

During the placing of concrete into the mould, there are a standard

procedure for the compaction of the concrete. The concrete to be poured into the

mould shall be in separate time with three layers compaction and each layers need

35 strokes by steel 25x25 square pattern. The methods of compaction the concrete

in the mould as shown through the Figure 3.12 below:-

150

Layer 3(35 stroke)

Layer 2(35 stroke) 150

Layer 1(35 stroke)

Concrete in Mould Steel Rammer

Compacted in Three Layers. 25 x 25 square.

Figure 3.12: Procedure in Preparation of cube.



42

Once the mix ready, take out the sample and take the

Slump as shown from Picture 3.9 below.

Prepare Concrete Cube.

Figure 3.15

Test Slump

Figure 3.14

Prepare the concrete mix( Gred 25 )

Marked The Cube: In Solution

S1,S2,S3,S4,S5,S6,S7,S8,S9,S10,S11,S12

Figure 3.13: Step to prepare 150x150x150 Concrete Cube.



43

Figure 3.14 Measuring the Slump of Fresh Concrete.

Figure 3.15 Preparing the Concrete Cubes.



44

Table 3.7 Date of Casting and Testing of Concrete Cube

Date of casting:

02 December

2004/

No. of days

Date of testing Sample No. in

the soluble.

Sample No. in

the normal

water(JBA)

7 09 December

2004

S1, S2 & S3 1, 2 & 3

14 16 December

2004

S4, S5 & S6 4, 5, & 6

21 23 December

2004

S7, S8 & S9 7, 8 & 9

28 30 December

2004

S10,S11 & S12 10,11 & 12

The procedures carried out the cubes test are the following:-

1. Take out the sample from the tank and weighted the cube as shown in Figure

3.16 below:-

Figure 3.16: Weighting the cube sample



45

2. Put the cube under the plunger and test under compression as shown in Figure

3.17 below:-

Figure 3.17: Testing of Cube.

3. Read the compressive strength through dial gauge as shown in Figure 3.18

below:-

Figure 3.18: Record Compressive Strength from dial gauge.



46

4. Take out the cube sample from Testing machine and see the failure pattern as

figure 3.19 below:-

.

Figure 3.19 Failure Pattern Of Cube.

5. End of the test.

Figure 3.20: End of the test.

3.5.3 Aggregate Crushing Value Test.

Since concrete is formed mostly by the aggregate, therefore the crushing

strength of the material should be determined for acknowledgement.



47

Before the limestone aggregate to be tested for crushing value, the sample

firstly has to be immersed in normal water and solution of Magnesium sulphate

plus Natrium nitrate for comparison purposes.

3.5.3.1 Preparation of Limestone aggregate for crushing value test.

The sample of limestone selected, however for the purpose of the study the

materials need to immerse in the water and soluble Magnesium sulphate plus

Natrium Nitrate. In reality the concrete below ground level is subjected to reaction

of sulphate, chloride, Nitrate and others chemical agent.

At the beginning of this case study, the selected limestone aggregate was

taken from the source( Quarry Poh Chan, Kg. Ulu Gali, Raub) and on Fifth

December 2004 was been immersed in the water and in the soluble of Magnesium

sulphate plus Natrium Nitrate. The amount of the aggregate and the volume of

soluble required as per table 3.8 below:-



48

Table 3.8: Quantity of Aggregate /Mg SO4 + Na NO3 and Water Content.

Amount of

Limestone

/Granite

Aggregate

selected

( Kg )

Volume of

water required

( liter )

Volume of

soluble

Magnesium

sulphate +

Natrium

Nitrate.

(Liter/Kg)

Duration of

aggregate in

the water/in the

chemical

solution.

( Days )

5 (Limestone)

5 (Limestone)

5 (Limestone)

5 (Limestone)

5( Granite )

5 ( Granite )

10

10

10

10

10

10

20

20

-

-

-

20

7

28

7

28

28

28

On the selection of limestone and granite aggregate for the immersion into

the water with the soluble of Magnesium sulphate plus Nitium Nitrate, the process

was began on the Fifth December 2004 and the testing will be carried out at UTM

laboratory, Skudai, Johor Bahru. Aggregates are allowable to be tested on the

laboratory, the dates for taken out from immersion tank should be calculated and

the dates required are according to table 3.9 below:-



49

Table 3.9 Date of Immersion and Taken out of an Aggregate.

Date of Immersion into

Normal water(JBA)

and Solution Mg SO4 +

Na NO3

/ No of sample

Numbers of Immersion

Period ( Days )

Date of Aggregate to be

taken out.

( Limestone/Granite)

( solution/non solution)

Fifth December 2004

( A1 )

( A2 )

( A3 )

( A4 )

( A5 )

( A6 )

7

7

28

28

28

28

Limestone aggregate

12 December 2004

( Non soluble )

12 December 2004

( With soluble )

2 January 2005

( Non soluble )

2 January 2005

( With soluble )

Granite aggregate

2 January 2005

( Non soluble )

2 January 2005

( With soluble )

In this chapter the methods of the test involved to the limitation time of 28

days only and the results will be obtained after the test has been done in the

laboratory UTM Skudai. For this purpose the detailed explanation will be

appeared in next chapter under the results and analyzed topic.



51

Put the aggregate in to the mould until full.

(Figure 3.22)

Figure 3.22: Placing Aggregate in to the mould.

Put the mould under Plunger and testing.

(Figure 3.23)

Figure 3.23: Aggregate under testing (400kN/10 minutes)



52

Set time for 10 minutes until load reach 400

kN reading from Dial gauge.

(Figure 3.24)

Figure 3.24: Aggregate under rate of crushing 40kn/minutes.

After 10 minutes with 400 kN reading on

dial gauge, take out the sample, weighted.

(Figure 3.25) Take value as ‘ A’.

Figure 3.25: Sample of aggregate after crushing.



53

Figure 3.26: Crushed sample of aggregate retain on 2.36mm sieve.

Sieve the sample on 2.36 mm sieve size, take

the retain sample and weight.

(Figure 3.26) Take value as ‘B’.

Calculate ACV = B/A X 100

END

Figure 3.26 above shows end result of the ACV test. The amount of aggregate

crushed divided to total weight of aggregate sample (Figure 3.25) time by 100% is

called Aggregate Crushing Value. Detail results will be shown under next chapter.



CHAPTER 4

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

4.1 Introduction.

In this chapter, the most important thing is the analysis of the results due

to the back ground problems. However, for this particular topic the record of the

test should be the first priority to be considered in predicting any theory towards

the actual condition on site before conclusion can be made.

4.2 The results of Sieve Analysis.

The specimen of the aggregate has been sieved in the laboratory of UTM

Skudai in January 2005. Before further discussion it is possible to look into the

analysis in which the fact and figure can be traced. For that reason the results of

the tests should be properly arranged for better understanding of the problem.

Here are the results of the test to be discussed and analyzed as in the table

4.1 below:-



55

Table 4.1 Results of Sieve Analysis of Limestone Aggregate.

Sieve Size

( mm )

Weight

retain on

Sieve

( gm)

Weight

passing

( gm )

Percent

retain

( % )

Percent

Passing

( % )

37.5 - - - -

28.0 - - - -

20.0 15.1 3966.3 0.37 99.63

14.0 1480.6 2485.7 37.2 62.43

10.0 1451.3 1034.4 36.45 25.98

6.3 990.6 43.8 24.88 1.10

5.0 43.8 0.0 1.10 0.0

Total 3981.4 gm 100.00%



56

Graph % Passing VS Sieve Size

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

5 6.3 10 14 20 28

Sieve Size

% P

a s s i n g

Max passing

Min passing

Actual passing

Figure 4.1: Graph of Sieve analysis test for Limestone aggregate

Since the sieve analysis resulted to size of aggregate comparing to the JKR

standard specification (Section D – concrete work clause 3.40, the elongation andflakiness index directly can be measured and the results of the test are listed in the

Table 4.2 below:



57

Table 4.2: Results of the Elongation and Flakiness index of Limestone

aggregate.

Sieve Size (mm) Weight retain

( gm )

Passing Slot

Elongation

( gm )

Passing Slot

Flakiness ( gm )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

TOTAL

-

-

15.1

1480.6

1451.3

990.6

43.8

3981.4

-

-

-

271.5

313.0

143.0

-

727.50

-

205.1

378.2

200.7

-

784.00

The Calculations for Elongation and Flakiness Index are as follow:

Elongation = 727.5/3981.4 X 100 = 18.27% < 30% (JKR) , Pass.

Flakiness Index = 784.00/3981.4 X 100 = 19.7% < 35% (JKR), Pass

18

30

19.7

35

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

% Limits

1Elongation/Flakiness Index and JKR Standard

Graph Relationship Between Elongation/Flakiness Index and JKR Standard

Elongation Index

Elongation (JKR

Standard)

Flakiness Index

Flekiness Index (JKR

Standard)

Figure 4.2: Relationship between Elongation/Flakiness Index and JKR Standard



58

4.2.1 Analysis of Sieve analysis results.

Before further discussion on the results, comparison to the JKR

specification should firstly be considered.

With reference to the Table 4.1 and Figure 4.1 for the last paragraph, it

shows that the percent passing of limestone aggregate (red line) is in the region of

the standard JKR specification. Through this testing it shows that the limestone

aggregate complies to the JKR standard specification. For reference purposes,

below is a comparison table showing the values recorded through the test.

Table 4.3 Comparison of Aggregate Passing to JKR specification.

Sieve Size (mm) % Passing of aggregate

from JKR specification.

% Passing of

Limestone aggregate

sample.

20 100 99.63

10 25 – 55 25.98

5 0 – 10 0

From the Table 4.3 it shows that the percent of limestone aggregate

passing through the standard sieve size are 99.63%, 25.98% and 0% which is in

the range of the JKR specification.

4.2.2 Analysis of Elongation and Flakiness Index Test Results.

From the result of the tests showed that the values of elongation and

flakiness index are below the limit of JKR standard specification. With that values

of index, it will reflects to positive answer and make this study very significant.



59

The advantages of this study are very important to predict and discussed further

about the use of limestone since the texture and the shape of the aggregate on the

acceptance condition. Due to this study, some justification is applicable to be an

acknowledgement to public especially for local people.

From the analysis, some assumption can be predictable since the aggregate

was very useful to the local benefit. The factors make the aggregate acceptable are

as follows:-

( i ) The main factor to produce a good crushed aggregate is the operation of the

quarry which is very important role in every aspect of quality control as well as

machinery and skill operators.

( ii ) The condition of rock at that place whether the chemical existence mixed

more than the required limit compare to rock origin.

( iii ) Psychology effect due to the alternative aggregate such as granite.

( iv ) The knowledge about the aggregate properties should be very useful

especially to the designers and Engineers which is responsible in preparing the

specification.

( v ) Cost incurred is the most important part on the demands of the material

without prejudice.

4.3 The Results of Concrete Cubes Strength.

Strength is the most important factor to be considered in concrete structural

purposes. This is because of the technical and engineering theory about the

structure in respect to strength and durability. Durability and strength are two

different things in concrete structure, however the higher the strength the betterthe concrete but it does not guaranteed for long lasting as well as high



60

performance as required. The results of the cube test for limestone concrete are

shown in Table 4.4.

Table 4.4 The Results of Cubes Test.

Date of

casting/

No. of

days

Date of

Testing /

No of

Sample

Cube Strength in

solution :

Mg SO4+Na

NO3(N/mm2)

Cube Strength in

normal water curing

(N/mm2)

02.12.2004

7

09.12.2004

S1

S2

S3

26.6

25.7

26.2

Average

26.16

23.50

22.60

23.20

Average

23.10

02.12.2004

14

16.12.2004

S4

S5

S6

29.7

29.3

29.5

29.5

26.6

26.2

27.7

26.8

02.12.2004

21

23.12.2004

S7

S8

S9

34.2

31.5

34.6

33.4

29.7

31.5

30.4

30.5

02.12.2004

28

30.12.2004

S10

S11

S12

31.1

35.3

32.8

33.06

33.5

33.5

33.3

33.40



61

26.6 25.7 26.2

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Compressive

Strength

(N/mm2)

1Specimen and JKR

Standard

Limestone cube strength compared to JKR

Standard 7 days in so lut ion.

SPECIMEN S1

SPECIMEN S2

SPECIMEN S3

JKR STANDARD

Figure 4.3: Limestone concrete cube strength in chemical solution for 7 days.

23.5 22.6 23.2

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

Compressive

Strength

(N/mm2)

1Specimen and JKR Standard

Limestone cube strength compared to JKR

standard 7 days in water.

SPECIMEN 1

SPECIMEN 2

SPECIMEN 3

JKR STANDARD

Figure 4.4: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in Water for 7 days.



62

31.1

35.332.8

25.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Compressive

Strength

(N/mm2)


Cube strength of limestone concrete compared to

JKR standard 28 days in solut ion.

SPECIMEN S10

SPECIMEN S11

SPECIMEN S12

JKR STANDARD

Figure 4.5: Limestone concrete cube strength in chemical solution for 28 days.

33.5 33.6 33.3

25.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

Compressive

Strength

(N/mm2)


Cube strength of limestone concrete compared to

JKR standard 28 days in water.

SPECIMEN 10

SPECIMEN 11

SPECIMEN 12

JKR STANDARD

Figure 4.6: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength in water for 28 days.



63

4.3.1 Analysis from the Results.

The tests which has been done separately as mentioned in the above table

4.4 was taken at the factory of Poh Mix Sdn. Bhd.,Lipis Road,Raub, Pahang.

From the results obtained, we can analyzed and discuss about the concrete

strength as well as quality of the concrete.

4.3.1.1 Analysis in respect to strength.

To analyze and discuss about the strength of the concrete, it is better in the

formed of questionnaire to get clear understanding and better information. To

begin that lets start with first question regarding the strength of the concrete.

( 1 ) Why is so important the cube strength of the concrete during the

construction?

The answer of this question will reflects to this study and related to the back

ground problem from the JKR specification. There are various reasons and also

many factors contribute to the strength of the concrete structure. Through this case

study, the element concerned in concrete is the use of limestone aggregate in

concrete structure. Through this study, a few advantages can be found especially

related to quality of the concrete. In respect to the first question above, it is

possible to relate this with JKR specification from table 1.4 (Chapter 1) and also

table 2.2 (Chapter 2) compressive strength of American rocks in the first and

second chapter under previous paragraph.

To have a clear picture and better explanation about the results and analyzed

purposes the table 4.5 below is very appropriate to the answer.



64

Table 4.5 The Result of Cube Strength Compare to JKR Specification.

No of

days

Characteristic

Strength from JKR

specification

( N/mm2 )

Average Strength

from sample

specimen in normal

water.

( N/mm2 )

Average Strength

from sample

specimen in

soluble Mg SO4 +

Na NO3

( N/mm2 )

7 17.0 23.10 26.16

28 25.5 33.40 33.06

Average Cube Strength for 7 days.

23.1

26.16

17

0

5

10

15

20

25

30


C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h ( N / m

m 2 )

STRENGTH IN WATER

STRENGTH IN

SOLUTION

JKR STANDARD

Average Cube Strength for 7 days.

Figure 4.7: Limestone Concrete Cubes Strength Compared to JKR Standard for 7

days (Average Strength)



65

Average Strength of Concrete Cube in 28 days.

33.06 33.4

25.5

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40


C o m p r e s

s i v e S t r e n g t h ( N / m m 2 )

SPECIMEN IN

SOLUTION

SPECIMEN IN WATER

JKR STANDARD

Figure 4.8: Limestone Concrete Cube Strength Compared to JKR Standard for 28

days (Average Strength)

( 2 ) What can we say on the above figure?

Figure 4.8 conformances to specification.

Everything done on the construction area, the first priority to be in the mind

of Engineers as well as supervisors is to make sure that the work is follows the

specification bound in the contract. This statement is the answer to the first

question. For the second question, the answer will be discussed below:-

( a ) Strength of Concrete Cube in Normal Water.

The values in Table 4.5 are summarized below:-

Cube Strength of Specimen for 7 days = 23.10 > 17.0 (JKR Spec), Satisfied

Cube Strength of Specimen for 28 days = 33.40 > 25.5 (JKR Spec), Satisfied.

Since the concrete cubes comply to the specification for 7 days and 28 days

duration, one case study was conducted by researchers as mentioned in the



66

Table 2.2 under Chapter 2 last paragraph. This is the study about the compressive

strength of the American rock which is commonly used for crushed aggregate in

concrete structure. For comparison purposes, this is a significant answer and one

of the criteria to be considered in selecting the aggregate for concrete structure.

To elaborate the compressive strength of the rock, it is relevant to compare

the result and the cube strengths for record purposes. The comparison is tabulated

below:-

Table 4.6: Comparison of Compressive Strength of Rock to Concrete Cube.


of Limestone Rock

( N/mm2 )


of Granite Rock.

( N/mm2 )


of Concrete Cube

Specimen

( N/mm2 )

159.00 181.00 33.06



67

Compressive strength in concrete cube as compared to the

compressive strength in original rock

159

181

33.06

1

2

3

Limestone

Rock

Granite

Rock

Limestoneconcrete cube

Figure 4.9: Relationship between Concrete cube Compressive Strength to Original

Rock.

4.4 The Results of Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) Test.

In the Aggregate Crushing Value(ACV) Test, the limestone and granite

aggregate, which were tested from 5 January to 6 January 2005 at Highway

Laboratory UTM Skudai, Johor Bahru.

The results of test were properly recorded in the following tables:-

4.4.1 Test 1 on the 5 January 2005:

Sample of Limestone Immersion in Soluble Mg SO4 + Na NO3 for 7 days.

Total weight of Sample Aggregate in Sieve Analysis test = 4000 gram.

Total Weight of sample Aggregate retain on 14- 10 sieve = 2931.9 gram



68

Table 4.7 Data Record of ACV Test 1(14-10 sieve)

Sieve size ( mm ) Weight retain before

ACV test ( gram )

Weight

Passing/retain after

ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

2.36

-

-

15.1

1480.6

1451.3

990.6

43.8

-

Passing Retain

807.3 1,971.70

Total = 3981.4 2779.00

Total Weight of Aggregate after ACV test = 2779.00 gram.

Total weight of aggregate Passing in 2.36 sieve = 807.30 gram.

Therefore, ACV = 807.30/2779 X 100% = 29.00%

Standard JKR Specification for ACV Test = Not Exceeding 40%

(Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer appendix B

Therefore, ACV = 29% < 40%, consider satisfied.

4.4.2 Test 2 carried out on the 5 January 2005:

Sample of Limestone Immersion in Soluble Mg SO4 + Na NO3 for 28 days.


Total Weight of Sample Aggregate retain14- 10 sieve = 2955.84 gram



69

Table 4.8: Data Record of ACV Test2 (14-10 sieve).


ACV test ( gram )

Weight


ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

2.36

-

-

13.97

1557.30

1398.54

978.57

45.90

-

Passing Retain

898.10 1,976.80

3,994.28 2,874.90


Total weight of aggregate passing in 2.36 sieve = 898.10 gram.

Therefore, ACV = 898.10/2874.90 X 100% = 31.24%


(Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B

Therefore, ACV = 31.24% < 40%, consider satisfied.

4.4.3 Test 3 on the 6 January 2005 :

Sample of Limestone in water for 7 days.


Total Weight of sample Aggregate ratain20- 14 sieve = 2,806.90 gram



70

Table 4.9 Data Record of ACV Test3 (20-14 sieve)


ACV test ( gram )

Weight


ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

3.35

-

-

568.00

2238.90

909.72

213.87

60.21

-

Passing Retain

-

823.90 1,942.00

3,990.70 2,765.90

Total Weight of Aggregate after ACV test = 2,765.90 gram.


Therefore, ACV = 823.90/2765.90 X 100% = 29.80%



Therefore, ACV = 29.80% < 40%, consider satisfied.

4.4.4 Test 4 on the 6 January 2005:

Results Limestone in water (28 day)


Total weight of sample Aggregate retain 20- 14 sieve = 2,840.50 gram



71



ACV test ( gram )

Weight


ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

3.35

-

-

508.20

2332.30

298.00

807.08

13.02

-

Passing Retain

-

716.50 1,890.70

3,958.60 2,607.20


Total weight of aggregate passing in 3.35 sieve = 716.50gram.

Therefore, ACV = 716.50/2607.20 X 100% = 27.48%



Therefore, ACV = 27.48% < 40%,(satisfied).

4.4.5 Test 5 on the 6 January 2005 :

Results of Granite in chemical solution Mg SO4 + Na NO3 (28 day).

Total weight of Sample Aggregate in Sieve Analysis test 4000 gram.

Total weight of sample Aggregate retain 14-10 sieve = 3010.30 gram



72



ACV test ( gram )

Weight

passing/Retain after

ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

2.36

-

-

40.20

1600.40

1409.90

890.85

56.35

-

Passing Retain

-

588.50 2,410.40

3,997.70 2,998.90



Therefore, ACV = 588.50/2998.90 X 100% = 19.62%


( Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B

Therefore, ACV = 19.62%< 40%, (satisfied).

4.4.6 Test 6 on the Six January 2005:

Results of Granite in water ( 28 day).


Total Weight of sample Aggregate retain 20-14 sieve = 3005.10 gram



73

Table 4.12 Data of ACV Test 6 (20-14 sieve)


ACV test ( gram )

Weight

passing/Retain after

ACV test ( gram )

37.5

28.0

20.0

14.0

10.0

6.3

5.0

3.35

-

-

1224.70

1780.40

500.90

450.73

36.47

-

Passing Retain

-

550.80 2,438.40

3,993.20 2,989.20



Therefore, ACV = 550.80/2989.20 X 100% = 18.43%


( Table 3 page 30 Specification for Structural Concrete.) – Refer Appendix B

Therefore, ACV = 18.43%< 40%, (satisfied).

4.5 Analyzing the results of the Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) Test.

All 6 test results tabulated in test 1, test 2, test 3, test 4, test 5 and test 6 are as

per the digits obtained accurate and the numbers elaborate the strength of the

aggregate required.

Figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12 below are the above test results in bar chart

format. Figure 4.10 showing the results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7

days of limestone aggregate in chemical solution and water.



74

29 29.8

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage

Crushing(%)

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

Crushing values of limestone aggregate

compared to JKR Standard for 7 days.

Limestone in Solution

Limestone in water

JKR Standard

Crushing values of limestone aggregate compared toJKR Standard for 7 days.

Figure 4.10: Results of Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 7 days in Chemical

Solution and Water.

4.5.1 Analysis of limestone aggregate for 7 days in solutions Mg SO4 + Na

NO3 and 7 days in water.

According to Figure 4.10 above, the results of the ACV test can beelaborated by means of comparison to the specification of JKR standard. The

analysis towards the strength of the aggregate as compared to the value in

specification stated in JKR specification can be best explained with the following

questions below:-

( i ) What is significance of the test results shown from the chart above?

From the bar chart in Figure 4.10 the two specimens, which were immersed

in chemical solution and water separately, were considered acceptable because the

percentage of aggregate crushing value is below JKR standard specification. In



75

this respect, the limestone aggregate does not have a strength problem as the

material to be used in building construction since the allowable crushing in JKR

specification is higher than the actual tests (40%> 29.8%).

( ii ) How significant the ACV test compared to the cube test?

Since the compressive strength of the cube tests for the limestone concrete is

above the specified strength in JKR specification and is considered acceptable, it

is imperative to discover the actual strength of the limestone aggregate through

aggregate crushing value test with respect to the material properties. More

information will lead to more established.

4.5.2 Analysis of limestone aggregate for 28 days in solutions Mg SO4 +

Na NO3 and 28 days in water.

31.2427.48

40

05

1015

2025303540

Percentage

Crushing

(%)

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

Crushing values of limestoneaggregate compared to JKR Standard

for 28 days.

LIMESTONE IN

SOLUTION

LIMESTONE IN

WATER

JKR

SPECIFICATION

Figure 4.11: Results of Limestone Aggregate Crushing Value Test for 28 day in

Chemical Solution and Water.



76

From the bar chart above, the results of the aggregate crushing value test can

be summarized as the following:-

( i ) The results of 28 days are satisfactory since the ACV is below the JKR

standard( 31.24% < 40% ).

( ii ) It is not much different between the limestone in chemical solution and in

water for the aggregate crushing value.

Limestone in Soluble = 31.24%

Limestone in Water = 27.48%

Difference = 3.76%

4.5.3 Analysis of Granite aggregate for 28 days in solution Mg SO4 +

Na NO3 and 28 days in water.

19.6218.43

40

05

10152025303540

Percentage

Crushing(%)

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

Crushing values of Granite aggregate

for 28 days in Solution and Water.

Granite in Solution

Granite in Water

JKR Specification

Figure 4.12: Results of Aggregate Crushing Value of Granite for 28 day.

To appreciate the results from Figure 4.10, 4.11 and 4.12, an analysis

between the limestone and granite for aggregate crushing value is very significant



77

in this research. The most important part of this study is on the influence that the

method of immersion into chemical solution and water has towards the strength of

both limestone and granite, respectively.

Since both limestone and granite aggregates have performed minimum

values of ACV compared to JKR standard specification, both of the aggregates

can be used for concrete structure in building works. Further discussion of this

study will focus on next chapter which is under discussion part.



CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

5.1 Introduction.

Before further discussion in this chapter, I would like to focus the issue of

this study with respect to the strength of the aggregate according to the JKR

specification for building works only.

Our main issue in this chapter is related to the material properties and part of

the study’s scope is to ascertain weather the strength of the aggregate can be

affected by chemical attack such as magnesium sulphate and natrium nitrate

below ground level. However, the end results of this study will possibly show a

few signs on the behavior of concrete structure due to chemical attack.

5.2 Discussion on the texture of the aggregate.

Since concrete structure is to be designed according to BS 812, and three

quarters of the component is aggregate, so that the texture and shape of the

material are the first important things to be considered to require a good bonding

prior to the compressive strength of the concrete structure.

For this particular reason, the selected aggregate to be tested duringconstruction period must have a standard testing in which “sieve analysis” is the



79

most popular methods of testing in the field of construction industries. In this

testing, the aggregate should pass sieve analysis according to M.S 7.5 section 2 to

6 which is mentioned in JKR specification page 36 under clause 3.4 aggregate

grading and 3.5 sampling and testing of aggregate.( Refer Appendix A ). Under

this testing the aggregate was sieved through sieve sizes of 20mm, 14mm, 10mm

and 5mm. The results of the testing were recorded and graph plotted as shown in

figure 4.1 under Chapter 4.

The results were mentioned in previous paragraph 4.2.1. What can be

discussed in this chapter are the objectives of this research. The characteristic of

the material to be used is the most important thing for supervisors to be bear in

mind during construction period. Engineers shall have more knowledge on the

behavior of the concrete as well as aggregate, and regular check should be done

on site. During the experiment, there were many factors found in this study prior

to the performance of the concrete. The factors involved are as follows:-

5.2.1 The source of the Limestone aggregate.

To initiate the aggregate, the source of the raw material should be identified

first before recognizes and testing the aggregate in the laboratory. This is very

important because different places have different quality and mechanical

properties. How do these factors contribute to the strength of the concrete?

To answer and discuss this question, it is another scope to be provided and a

relevant answer can be found. However, at the current time, the irregularities and

surface texture will definitely be one of the criteria during initial stage of selecting

the raw material. By visual method, we can recognize weather the raw material is

a good quality for construction purposes.



80

5.2.2 Discussion on the Sieve Analysis.

Sieve analysis is the only type of test to be considered firstly to make sure

the aggregate is well graded according to M.S. 7.5 section 2 to section 6. The

specific function of this test is to get a better bonding between aggregate and

cement paste. What say about sieve analysis results? Let’s refer to the graph

obtained from the test as mentioned in Figure 4.1under Chapter 4.

From the graph in Figure 4.1, we can describe the results of the test as the

following:-

( a ) The graph shows the relationship between aggregate and sieve size, drawn as

percentage passing versus sieve size on Y-axis and X-axis respectively.

( b ) The maximum and minimum percentage are plotted as black line whereas

actual passing is plotted as red line. From the graph, the red line falls within the

region of maximum and minimum line, implicating that the aggregate is well

graded and considered as passing the sieve analysis test. Well graded aggregate is

the stringent specification to be strictly followed because of the concrete depends

on its sizes.

Once the sieve analysis has passed, it is very important to test the aggregate

in term of its flaky and elongation properties which contributes also to the

strength of the concrete.

5.3 Discussion on Flaky and Elongation Properties.

5.3.1 What can be discussed on the Flaky and Elongation Properties?

Since strength is related to the bonding between aggregate and cement paste,

surface contact and texture of the aggregate are the main factors to the

composition in concrete structure. To elaborate further, the flaky and elongation

properties should be firstly acknowledged.



81

The best way to recognize are through the textures as shown in figure 5.1

below:-

( i ) Flaky shape ( ii ) Elongation shape ( iii ) Angular shape

(Recommended shape)

Figure 5.1: Types of Aggregate Texture.

To have a good strength on the texture of the aggregate, flaky and elongation

does not allowed in concrete structure. The allowable percentage for M.S. 30 is

40% and this is according to specification as stated in JKR contract document

(Refer to appendix B).

Through Figure 5.1 and the description above, obviously the function of the

flaky and elongation test should be clearly understood. From the test results of this

study, it is clearly recognized that limestone aggregate from Gunong Panas Kg.

Ulu Gali, Raub can be used in construction because the flaky and elongation index

are 19.7% and 18% respectively, and this is below 40% which is considered

acceptable.

So through this study, flaky and elongation are textures not the major problem

about concrete structure below ground level.

5.4 Discussion on the Concrete Cube Strength.

From paragraph 5.1, 5.2 and 5.3, it was obtained that all the tests done had

passed and they were not the major problems of concrete structure in this study.

Why should a cube test be done for this research?

The answer to that question is the main topic of our discussion in this chapter.



82

Cube strength is a part of concrete construction for obtaining the grade of concrete

according to the specification. Normally 6 cubes are prepared for testing purposes.

For this particular study, 24 cubes have been prepared and also have been tested

to the required strength of 7 days, 14 days, 21 days and 28 days. During the

preparation of the cubes slump test was done and recorded 70 mm maximum

slump was allowed.

5.4.1 Cube Strength 7 days period.

According to the results of the tests different strengths was recorded for cubes

in the chemical solution and in water. From Figure 4.3 and 4.4, the cube strengths

of the three specimens were above the standard of JKR, which is considered

acceptable.

5.4.1.1 What’s new finding on the results?

The results obtained had been analyzed and can be explained according to the

criteria and scope of study. Observations through the test are as follows:-

( I ) The compressive strength of the cube in Magnesium Sulphate plus

Natrium Nitrate was more than the compressive strength in normal water.

( ii ) The concrete cube prepared for grade 25 and standard compressive

strength should reach 17 N/mm2 for the 7 day period.

( iii ) From the observations, it shows that the cube in solution ( Mg SO4 +

Na NO3 ) reacts with cement paste very fast creating hardening when compared to

cube in water. The strength value increased in such a short time, i.e. average value

is 26 N/mm2

compared to 22 N/mm2

in water, which is 4 N/mm2

increase,



83

considered very much difference. This also is the answered to the above question

on new finding.

( iv ) From this observations, a few factors could have contributed to the

strength as follows:-

( a ) Due to the amount of chemical content, this soluble reacted with the

cement paste, filled and occupied the voids prior to becoming more dense and

harden the concrete composition faster.

( b ) During the tests, the weight of each concrete cube was recorded and it

showed that different cubes weight differently weight( Refer Appendix C ). The

cube in chemical solution was recorded heavier than in water.

( c ) Another finding through the test was the colour of the cube,

formed in white for chemical solution whereas grey in water.

( d ) The last observation in the test was about the crack failure. Different

pattern exists between the cubes failure pattern of crushed for the cubes are shown

through Figures 5.2(a) and (b) below:-

Figure 5.2 ( a ) – Failure Pattern in Water.



84

Figure 5.2 ( b ) – Failure Pattern in Chemical Solution.

( v ) To continue the discussion on this matter, lets have a look at the cube strength

at 14 days and 21 days for data purposes.

5.4.2 Cube Strength 14 days period.

According to the results from table 4.4, it is obvious that the strength

increases as time increases. This is possibly due to the same criteria as mentioned

for the strength 7 days period.

5.4.3 Cube Strength 21 days.

Since concrete cube increases in compressive strength as time goes by the

significance of this has served little purpose. This is because the chemical has

reacted in the composition of the concrete and has recorded a significant value for

immersion into chemical solution. For this case study, there was not enough time

to get genuine results since the duration is only for 28 days. However the results

obtained through this study can predict a possibility of concrete behavior whenmixed with chemical. For this particular discussion, I would like to focus on the



85

factor of time. In the next study it would be better to put the cube for one year into

the ground and do the tests for a more practical and genuine result. At the same

time relate the results in the chemical solution and water in the laboratory for the

same period. Now let’s analyze the results of the 28 days period the cube in

chemical solution and in water.

5.4.4 Cube Strength 28 days.

With reference to Table 4.4, it can be noticed that the strength differs

slightly. As strength goes higher for 7 days, 14 days and 21 days in chemical

solution, the results suddenly change for that of 28 days. The strength shows

lower than that in water, about 0.34 N/mm2, and this should be the criteria to be

taken into consideration to make this study significant and beneficial for

construction industries.

This shows that chemicals are the elements to be seriously considered to

produce good, durable and quality concrete structure. Once there is a sudden

reduced strength in the cube at 28 days, it must be studied and adjustments made

to overcome this problem. This is an interesting topic to be discussed because the

objective of this study is to explore the use of limestone aggregate in construction

industries without prejudice. To make this statement reality there must be a

specific answer and good results about the strength of concrete product. A longer

study should be carried out in future for better information about the chemical

attack in concrete structures.



86

Cube Strength Versus Duration

0

15

26.1629.5

33.4 33.06

0

5

10

15

20

2530

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6

Duration

C o m p r e s s i v e S t r e n g t h (

N / m m 2 )

Cube Strength

0 3 7 14 21 28

Figure 5.3(a): Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete in Chemical

Solution.

Cube Strength Versus Duration

0

12

23.1

26.8

30.533.4

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

1 2 3 4 5 6

Duration

C o m p r e s s i v e

S t r e n g t h ( N

/ m m 2 )

Cube Strength

0 3 7 14 21 28

Figure 5.3(b): Average Cube Strength of Limestone Concrete in Water.

Figure 5.3(a) and (b) are the results of cubes strength for 7 days, 14 days, 21

days and 28 days summarized in graph. Figure 5.3(a), showing a sudden drop of

strength on limestone concrete cube immersion in chemical solution for 28 days.

The reduced of strength has a significant on the problem of limestone below

ground level as mentioned in JKR specification. Where as figure 5.3(b) showing

the results of limestone concrete cube immersion in water, proven that the

strength increased as time increased. From the tests carried out, many information



87

was obtained related to the strength and comparison was made to suit the

objective of the study.

In the analysis of this study, the strength of the concrete and the strength of

the aggregate are two things with different answers. Concrete strength is the result

of combination strength between cement paste, fine aggregate, coarse aggregate

plus water, where as aggregate strength is the value of it’s original strength. This

can be discussed in the next paragraph which is under Aggregate Crushing Value

test.

5.5 Discussion on the Aggregate Crushing Value Test Results.

Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) is a test that will show the strength of the

original aggregate in term of percentage for crushed aggregate weight compared to

the whole specimen weight. Before moving on, let’s have a look at Table 5. 2 below

to explain the strength of the aggregate in the ACV test.

Table 5.1 The results of ACV test for Limestone and Granite

Test 1

Limest

-one

In

Chemi

-cal

solu-

tion

( 7 days )

Test 2

Limest-

one

In

Chemi

-cal

solu-

tion

(28 days )

Test 3

Limest

-one

In

Water

( 7 days )

Test 4

Limest

-one

In

Water

( 28 days)

Test 5

Granite

In

Chemi

-cal

solution

(28 days)

Test 6

Granite

In

Water

(28 days)

ACV

stan

-dard

spec.

of

JKR.

29 % 31.24% 29.8% 27.48% 19.62% 18.43% 40%



88

5.5.1 Discussion on ACV test for 7 days.

The results for 7 days period are as mentioned in table 5.1 above through

test 1 and test 3. All the value is below 40% which is considered acceptable. The

finding of this test is almost the same about percentage 29% and 29.8%

respectively. This result giving a difference answer compared to test 2 and test 4,

however test 5 and test 6 shows a significant value.

What can be explained on the chemical attack of this test?

The main issue is the chemical attack in the concrete whether limestone in the

solution of magnesium sulphate plus natrium nitrate is the source of the problem.

According to the results from Table 5.1 above, it is proved that concrete

effect on chemical reaction more in solution compare to water. However for the

case of 7 days test, value in chemical solution is less than value in water, further

study should be carried out in the future to get a significant answer and methods

to overcome the problems.

Through the end result of the test it is proved that limestone crushes more

than granite. The value of the test can be summarized in figure 5.4 (a) and (b), (c)

and (d) below:-



89

Limestone 28 days ACV test

31.2827.48

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

45

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

P e r c e n t a g e C r u s h i n g (

% )

Specimen in Solution

Specimen in Water

JKR Specification

Figure 5.4(a): Results of Limestone ACV Test for 28 days in Chemical Solution

and Water.

Since the value of ACV test are below JKR specification (40%), however the

issue of chemical attack to concrete is slightly have a significant. From figure

5.4(a) above shows that limestone aggregate crushed more in chemical solution

compare in water.

Figure 5.4(b) Results of Granite ACV test for 28 days in Chemical Solution and

Water.



90

ACV test for Granite in 28 days.

19.6218.48

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

3540

45

1Specimen and JKR

Specfication

P e r c e n t a g e C r u s h i n g (

% )

Specimen in

Solution

Specimen in Water

JKR Specification

Figure 5.4(b) Results of Granite ACV test for 28 days in Chemical Solution

and Water.

Figure 5.4(b) above, shows that granite aggregate less affected to chemical

attack compared to limestone aggregate. The results are shown through the values

obtained in figure 5.4(a) and 5.4(b) above. The summary of the results can be

tabulated in Table 5.2 below:-



91

Table 5.2: Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone (28 days).

Aggregate 28 days in Chemical

Solution

( % )

28 days in Water.

( % )

Granite 19.62 18.48

Limestone 31.28 27.48

31.24

19.62

40

0

10

20

30

40

Percentage

Crushing

(%)

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

Results of Granite, Limestone

compared to JKR Specification

(28 days)

LIMESTONE

GRANITE

JKR SPEC.

Figure 5.4(c) Results of ACV test for Granite and Limestone aggregates in

Chemical Solution (28 days).

From the results obtained in figure 5.6(c) above, it shows that percentage of

the limestone crushes more higher than the granite. The limestone percentage is

31.24% compare to granite 19.62%, the differences is 11.62% proved that the

effect of chemical reaction is more on the limestone. Where as in the water the



92

results is less than 30% as shown in figure 5.4(d) below, this value is within the

JKR specification and can be used to super structure for building works.

27.48

18.48

40

0

10

20

30

40

Percentage

Crushing

(%)

1Specimen and JKR

Specification

Results of Granite, Limestone

compared to JKR Specification

(28 days)

LIMESTONE

GRANITE

JKR SPEC.

Figure 5.4(d) Results of Granite and Limestone Aggregate on ACV test for 28

days in Water.



CHAPTER 6.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION.

6.1 Introduction.

All the tests had been carried out and the results were obtained, finally the

conclusion should be made. The results of cube tests has obtained during the

research and served the study objective relating to strength and performances of

limestone concrete. From ACV test shows that the limestone crushed higher

compared to granite, significantly suit the second objective of this study.

All the tests involved in the study are sieve analysis, flaky/elongation

index, cube strength and aggregate crushing value test has been carried out in

Highway Laboratory of UTM Skudai on January 2005 and the results was shown

in chapter 4. The methodology of this study was mentioned and described in

chapter 3.

The final objective of this study is about the use of limestone aggregate asan alternative material without prejudice. Since the results of cube strength in

water and in chemical for 28 days was accordance to JKR specification, definitely

limestone concrete was proved can be used for super structure in construction

industries, to meet the last objective. However for substructure, further study

about the chemical attack should be carried out and this will be mentioned under

recommendation.



94

6.2 Conclusion.

Conclusion can be summarized as the followings:-

a) Limestone properties and its performances was been shown through results of

laboratory tests which include sieve analysis, elongation/flakiness index, cube

strength and aggregate crushing value. This statement has served the purpose of

study on the information for limestone properties.

b) Comparison of results of crushing value to granite related to aggregate

strength was made, granite having lower crushing value as compared to

limestone( 19.62%< 31.28%), these also has suit the second objective of this

study.

c) Information about limestone aggregate was known through appropriate tables

and graph, beneficial in the use local material and can provide on the demands of

the materials to serve the third objective of this study.

d) Since limestone aggregate meet the JKR specification in all the tests carried

out, it can be an alternative material in concrete superstructure construction.

However concrete below ground level (substructure), JKR has a significant reason

during the preparation of specification. This is the interesting topic to focus and

further study on how to overcome this problem should be carried out in the future.

6.3 Recommendation.

During the research I realized that the time factor is very important to

overcome the problems. In this study case about chemical reaction, I would

recommend that in the future the cube test and ACV test should be carried out for

a longer period up to a maximum of one year duration. I also would like to



95

recommend the cubes to be prepared should be buried in the ground for one year

period before testing and shall compare to normal condition.



96

REFERENCE:

1. Ketua Pengarah Kerja Raya Malaysia, JKR 344A Standard Specifications for

Building Works, Incorporating Amendments until DGPW Circular

No.7/1989.

2. A.M. Neville.(1995) Properties of Concrete. Fourth and final edition.

England. Addison Wesley Longman Limited.

3. Negeri Pahang Darul Makmur. Jabatan Kerja Raya.

Contract Document.

Poject: Membina Dan Menyiapkan Masjid Baru Di Mukim Sega,

Raub, Pahang Darul Makmur.

Contract No: S/PHG/R/DK/283/97.

Jurutera Daerah, Jabatan Kerja Raya, Raub. 1997.

4. A.C. McLean C.D.Gribble. (1985).Geology for Civil Engeers. Second edition.

London. George Allen & Unwin

5. Raymond E. Davis, Kenneth D. Gailey, Kenneth W. Whitten. (1984)

Principles of Chemistry. (Holt-Saunders International Edition)

by CBS Collage Publishing.

6. G E Barnes.( 1995, 2000) Soil Mechanics Principles and Practice. Second

Edition.

Graham Barnes.

7 T.J. Mac Ginley and B.S. Choo. (1978) - Reinforced Concrete. Design

Theory and Examples. Second Edition.

1978 T.J. MacGinley; 1990 T.J. MacGinley and B.S. Choo.

.

8. A. Anagnostopoulos, F.Schlosser N.Kalteziotis, R.Frank. (1993)

Geotechnical Engineering of Hard Soils soft rocks. Volume 1A.A. Balkema/ Rotterdam/ Brookfield.



97

9. Vernon R.Schaefer, Lee W.Abramson, Joe C.Drumheller, James D.

Hussin and Kevan D. Sharp. (Development 1987-1997) .

“Ground Improvement, Ground Reinforcement, Ground Treatment,

Geotechnical Special Publication No. 69.

Reston, Verginia : American Society of Civil Engineering (ASCE)

10. A.Wahab Khair. (1989). Rock Mechanics Natural resources : Proceeding of

the 30th U.S. Symposium.

A.A. Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield.

11. Philippe A.Charlez. (1991). Rock Mechanics. Volume 1

Theoretical Foundamental.

Editions technip .

Houston Texas, Gulf Publishing Company.

12. Internet: Limestone 1 – http://www.Johnsoncoun

topsoil.com/rock/page/limestone.htm

13. Internet: Limestone 2- http://www.clarelibrary.

ie/eolas/claremuseum/riches_of_clarel.earth/packed_limestone_large.htm

14. Internet: Limestone 4 – http://www.tursrock.com/hanchiseled.htm

15. P.R. Sheorey . (1997) -Empirical Rock failure Criteria.

ISBN 9054106700 hardbound edition.

ISBN 9054106719 Student paper edition

A.A.Balkema. Rotterdam.

16. Redacteurs, V.Maury & D. Fourmaintraux. (1989)

Rock at great depth – Volume 2.

A.A.Balkema/Rotterdam/Brookfield.

http://www.johnsoncoun/

http://www.clarelibrary/

http://www.tursrock.com/hanchiseled.htm

http://www.tursrock.com/hanchiseled.htm

http://www.clarelibrary/

http://www.johnsoncoun/



98

17 T.N.W.Akroyd. (1957). Laboratory Testing in Soil Engineering.

Chelsea, London,S.W.3. Soil Mechanic Ltd.

18. Fu, H.c. Erko M.A and Seckin, M.

“Review Of effects of loading rate on concrete in compression”

Journal of structural engineering. Dec. 1991, Vol. 117, No. 12

Pp 3645 – 3649.

19. Ezeldin, A.S and Aitcin, P-C.

“Effects of coarse aggregate on the behaviour of normal and high-strength

concrete”- Cement, concrete and aggregate. – Winter 1991, Vol. 13, No. 2

pp 121 – 124.

20. Durwing, T.A. and Hicks, M.C.

“ Using microsilica to increase concrete resistance to aggressive chemical”

Concrete international, Mar 1991, Vol. 13 No. 3 pp 42 – 48.

21. Collins, R.J.

“Alkali aggregate reactivity in dense concrete containing synthetic or porous

natural aggregate”- Cement and concrete research, Mar 1989, Vol. 19

pp 278 - 228.

22. Goldmen, A. and Benlur, A.

“Bond effects in high-strength silica-fume concrete”. – ACI materials

Journal, Sept. – okt. 1989, Vol. 86, No. 5 pp 440 – 447.



99

APPENDIX A1



100

APPENDIX A2



101

APPENDIX B



102

APPENDIX C1



103

APPENDIX C2

good testing

Documents