Initials and Surname: LB XABA

Student Number: 216137829.

Institution: Vaal University of Technology, Main Campus.
Department: Civil Engineering.
Module: Construction Materials.
Lecturer: Mr. Smit.
Date: 11 April 2022.
Document Control:
Construction Materials Practical Report 1:

EXPERIMENT 1: Sieve Analysis. EXPERIMENT 2: Slump Test,

Practical Name
Flow Test & Cube Test. EXPERIMENT 3: ACV and 10% FACT.
Practical Number PRACTICAL SESSION 1
Report Title: PRACTICAL REPORT
VAAL UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY: CIVIL ENGNEERING
Document Path
DEPARTMENT.
Document Status: Final Draft Issue Date: 11 April 2022
Supervisor’s Name: Contact Person: Mr. M Smit
Mr. Smit – Tel No.:
Prepared for: Construction Email address: [email protected]
Materials Lab
Instructor.
Prepared by: Lethumusa Xaba.
Verification
Name: Capacity: Signature:
Process:

Author: Lethumusa Xaba. Student

External
-
Reviewer

Internal Reviewer: -

Approval -

Quality Verification:
This report / document has been prepared under the quality controls established by
Lethumusa Xaba’s Quality Management System.

1
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Contents
Table of figures and tables ...................................................................................................................... 3
EXPERIMENT 1: Sieve Analysis.................................................................................................................. 4
1.1. Background: ........................................................................................................................ 4
1.2. Introduction: ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3. Objective: ............................................................................................................................. 5
1.4. Apparatus: ........................................................................................................................... 6
1.5. Methodology: ...................................................................................................................... 6
1.6. Results: ................................................................................................................................. 8
1.7. Observations: .................................................................................................................... 10
1.8. Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 11
EXPERIMENT 2: Slump Test , Flow Test & Cube Test. ............................................................................. 12
2.1. Background: ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.2. Introduction: ...................................................................................................................... 12
2.3. Objective: ........................................................................................................................... 13
2.4. Apparatus: ......................................................................................................................... 13
2.5. Methodology: .................................................................................................................... 14
2.6. Results: ............................................................................................................................... 19
2.7. Observations: .................................................................................................................... 23
2.8. Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 24
EXPERIMENT 3: ACV and 10% FACT. ...................................................................................................... 25
3.1. Background: ...................................................................................................................... 25
3.2. Introduction: ...................................................................................................................... 26
3.3. Objective: ........................................................................................................................... 26
3.4. Apparatus: ......................................................................................................................... 27
3.5. Methodology: .................................................................................................................... 27
3.6. Results: ............................................................................................................................... 28
3.7. Observations: .................................................................................................................... 29
3.8. Conclusion: ....................................................................................................................... 29
References: ........................................................................................................................................... 30
Bibliography .......................................................................................................................................... 30

2
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Table of figures and tables
Figure 1.5 (a): shows the large sieves used for coarse aggregates. .......................... 7
Figure 1.5 (b): shows the small sieves used for fine aggregates. ............................... 7
Figure 1.5 (c): shows the small sieves clamped to a mechanical shaker for shaking
purposes. ................................................................................................................... 8
Results table 1.6 (a): .................................................................................................. 8
Figure 1.6 (a): shows the weighing board weighing the mass of the material inside
the container. ............................................................................................................. 9
Figure 1.8 (a): shows the recommended coarse wire and softer cloth hair brushes for
the cleaning of sieve................................................................................................. 12
Figure 2.3 (a): shows the type of slumps that can occur after the slump mould cone
is lifted. ..................................................................................................................... 13
Figure 2.5 (a): shows the hand mixing of cement with the fine and coarse
aggregates. .............................................................................................................. 15
Figure 2.5 (b): shows the freshly mixed concrete in uniform consistency in colour. . 15
Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete placed in a slump mould cone neatly trimmed at
the top of the mould.................................................................................................. 16
Figure 2.5 (d): shows the tamping rod rested on top of the slump mould cone and the
measurement between tamping rod and highest point of the concrete being carefully
measured. ................................................................................................................ 17
Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete cube being cleaned ........................................... 18
Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete cube being trimmed for smooth finishing. .......... 18
Figure 2.5 (d): shows the placed concrete in the cube. ............................................ 19
Figure 2.6 (e): shows the measurement of the collapsed concrete slump due to the
flow test that has been performed to it. .................................................................... 21
Table 2.6 (a): ............................................................................................................ 21
Figure 2.6 (g): shows the measured weight of the dry cube (left) and the concrete
cube under a 400 kN force (right) ............................................................................. 22
Figure 2.6 (f): shows the Maximum Load it took to crush the cube. ......................... 22
Figure 2.7 (a): shows the achieved slump (semi-zero) and the voids seen on the
slump with bleeding observed at the bottom of the slump. ....................................... 23
Figure 3.6 (a): shows the crushed coarse aggregate after coming out of the
compression testing machine for sample 1. ............................................................. 28
Figure 3.6 (b): shows the sample 1 being weighed of the retained mass (left) and the
passed mass (right) after being sieve out of a 2 mm sieve. ..................................... 28
Table 3.6 (a): ............................................................................................................ 29

3
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
EXPERIMENT 1: Sieve Analysis.

1.1. Background:

The sieve analysis is a basic essential test for all aggregate technicians. The sieve
analysis determines the gradation, which is the distribution of aggregate particles, by
size, within the given sample, in order to determine compliance with design,
production control requirements, and verification specifications (AASHTO, 2015)

4
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
1.2. Introduction:

Sieve Analysis or gradation test is a procedure used in the civil engineering industry
to assess the particle size distribution of a granular or coarse material by allowing
the material to pass through a set of sieves of progressively smaller mesh size and
weighing the amount of material that is trapped by each sieve as a fraction of the
whole mass of the material.
On the 28th of March 2022, alongside my fellow colleagues, a sieve analysis test was
executed at the Vaal University of Technology Civil Engineering Laboratory on a given
set of coarse and fine aggregate samples.
This section of this report details the objective, apparatus used, methodology,
observations and results of the sieve analysis test. This test was performed in
accordance with the South African National Standard, SANS 3001 – PR5:2009; Part
PR5: Computation of soil-mortar percentages, coarse sand ratio, grading modulus and
fineness modulus.
The temperature in the laboratory was controlled to a suitable temperature for the
experiment to be carried out effectively.

1.3. Objective:

Sieve analysis is imperative because if the concrete is to be strong, watertight and

durable, it must be dense. A cubic metre of solid stone weighs approximately 260 kg,
when in the form of coarse aggregate it weighs approximately 1.56 kg, so that is
more than one third (1/3) in voids. Smaller stones are utilized to fill these voids and
there must be smaller and still smaller particles to fill the spaces between all the
sizes larger than the smallest. This proportioning is referred to as “grading”. The
better the grading, the better the concrete.
A known weight of material, the amount being determined by the largest size of
aggregate, is placed upon the top of a group of sieves. The top sieve has the largest
screen openings and the screen opening sizes decrease with each sieve down to the
bottom sieve which has the smallest opening size screen for the type of material
specified and shaken by mechanical means or manually for a period of time. After
shaking the material through the nested sieves, the material retained on each of the
sieves is weighed.
The objective of this test is to utilize a series of sieves to grade the fine and coarse
aggregates through manually shaking the sieves to get the weight of the smallest
particles that have passed and retained in specific sieves (5mm, 2mm, 1mm, etc.).

5
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
This test was essentially carried out to determine the grading of the fine and coarse
aggregates of the given laboratory sample which will be utilized for the concrete mix
design. This is done because these properties affect the amount of aggregate used
as well cement and water requirements, workability, pump-ability, and durability of
concrete.
The grading is expressed in computing or calculating the Grading and Fineness
modulus after the sieve analysis procedure has been carried out.

1.4. Apparatus:

 Sieves mounted as a suitable frame of sizes; 5mm, 2mm, 1.18mm, 0,6mm,

0.426mm, 0.3mm, 0.15mm; To sieve out all the coarse/unwanted material to
the desired retained particles in specific sieves.
 Sieve Pan: Retains the finest particles.
 Weighing Board: To get the weight of the sieved material.
 A scientific calculator: To aid in the calculation process.
 Mechanical Sieve Shaker: Properly shakes the particles for accurate results.
 Pen: Aids to scribing imperative and relevant data.
 Lab table: To work on.
 Shovel: To load the aggregates on the wheelbarrow.
 Container: To carry the fine and coarse aggregates when they are weighed.
 Wheelbarrow: To carry the coarse and fine aggregates from the storage area
to the working space.
 Oven: After washing the particles due to dust, they are dried in the oven.

1.5. Methodology:

The fine and coarse aggregate samples were drawn from the storage area using a
shovel and a wheelbarrow. The samples were checked and seemed to be in a suitable
working condition with no washing needed.
The sample was poured in a dish container and weighed to the nearest 0.1 g by total
weight of sample. This weight was used to check for any loss of material after the
sample had been graded.
The suitable sieve sizes were selected in accordance with the specifications.
The sieves were nested in order of decreasing size from top to bottom. The sample
was then poured into the nested sieves.
The sample shaking and agitating began for a sufficient amount of time.
For coarse aggregate, the large sieves were used as shown in figure 1.5 (a):

6
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 1.5 (a): shows the large sieves used for coarse aggregates.

These large sieves were shaken manually using hands in a vigorous back-to-front
motion.
For fine aggregate, smaller sieves were used as shown in Figure 1.5 (b).

Figure 1.5 (b): shows the small sieves used for fine aggregates.

These sieves are self-nesting and supported in a shaking mechanism at the top and
bottom by a variety of clamping and/or holding mechanisms. Small shakers were
utilized and let to shake for 15 minutes to adequately grade the fine aggregate
sample.

7
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 1.5 (c): shows the small sieves clamped to a mechanical shaker for shaking purposes.

Coarse Aggregates
After the material had been sieved, each tray was removed and weighed, and
recorded each weight to the nearest 0.1 g. Particles larger than 50 mm were hand
sieved. The final total of the weights retained on each sieve was within 0.3% of the
original weight of the sample prior to grading.
Fine Aggregates
The material retained on each sieve size was weighed to the nearest 0.1 g. All
material entrapped within the openings of the sieve were cleaned out and included in
the weight retained. The final total of the weights retained on each sieve was within
0.3% of the original weight of the sample prior to grading.

1.6. Results:
The sieve size (in mm), mass retained (in grams), percentage retained and the
percentage passed results are tabulated in table 1.6 (a) as shown below:
Results table 1.6 (a):
Sieve Size Mass Retained (%) Percentage (%) Percentage
(mm) (g) Retained Passed
5 30 1,18 98,82
2 103,2 4,07 94,74
1,18 134,8 5,32 89,42
0,6 423,9 16,73 72,69
0,426 545,196 21,52 51,18
0,3 943,8 37,25 13,93
0,13 261,6 10,32 3,60
Pan (0,075) 91,3 3,60 0,00
Total 2,53

8
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
The mass retained is weighed in grams using the weighing board as shown in figure
1.6 (a)

Figure 1.6 (a): shows the weighing board weighing the mass of the material inside the container.

The percentage retained on each sieve is calculated in the following manner:

[Mass Retained of each sieve (in kg) / Total Mass Retained (in kg)] x 100, e.g.:
0.03
Percentage Retained = 2.53 𝑥 100

= 1.18
The percentage passed on each sieve is calculated in the following manner:
For the 5mm sieve = 100 – Percentage Retained
= 100 – 1.18
= 98.82
For the 2mm sieve = Percentage Passed of previous sieve – Percentage Retained
= 98.82 – 4.07
= 94.74
NB: The percentage is then calculated in the same manner until the last sieved is
reached.
Fineness Modulus:
To calculate for the Fineness Modulus, the Fineness Modulus formula from SANS
3001 – PR5:2009 was utilized in the following manner:
SANS 3001:
FM = [600 – (Pp(5mm) + Pp(2mm) + Pp(1mm) + Pp(600um) + Pp(300umm) + Pp(150umm))] /100

9
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
 600−(98.82+94.74+89,42+72,69+13.93+3.60)
FM =
100

FM = 2.268
Grading Modulus:
To calculate for the Grading Modulus, the Grading Modulus formula from SANS
3001 – PR5:2009 was utilized in the following manner:
SANS 3001:
GM = [300 – (Pp(2mm) + Pp(425um) + Pp(75um) )] /100
300−(94.74+51.18+0)
GM =
100

GM = 1.541

1.7. Observations:

Immediately after shaking, when the sieves were opened, a large mist of dust sprung
out which indicates that the material should have been prepared accordingly by
washing and drying out the material before the commencement of works.
Between sieves 0.6, 0.426 and 0.3 that is where the higher values of the percentage
passed of the material is observed.
The Fineness modulus of fine aggregate was computed to be 2.268 which means the
average value of aggregate is in between the 2 nd sieve and 3rd sieve. The average
aggregate size is in between 0.3mm to 0.426mm.
The Grading modulus of the aggregates was computed to be 1.541, which means the
type of material that was used is natural gravel, G5, because the minimum grading
modulus of G5 is 1.5. Which means that CBR at 95% of modified AASHTO density
shall not be less than 45% (Hoffmann, 2017).
It should be noted that not the exact sieve sizes were used when conducting the test
as prescribed by the fineness and grading modulus formulas. For example, instead of
using the 1mm sieve size as prescribed in the formula, a 1.18 mm sieve size was
used.
The coarse material is the one retained on the 5 mm sieve and material passing the
5mm is the fine material.

10
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
1.8. Conclusion:

Carrying out this test has revealed to me that very fine sands or very coarse sands
are intolerable. The former is uneconomical due to low production rate, making the
concrete mix severely unworkable. The results furthermore showed that the stones
are significantly coarser than the allowable quantities. This could lead to the poor
dense packing of the aggregate volume in concrete which will result in the concrete
having unnecessary voids (Muhammad, 2021).
Every effort was made to avoid overloading the sieves. AASHTO defines overloading
large sieves as weight retained in excess of 2.5 times the sieve opening in mm, as
expressed in kg/m2. For fine aggregate, no weight was in excess of 7 kg/m2
(AASHTO, 2015).
Fine aggregate having fineness modulus more than 3.2 should not be considered as
fine aggregate. The objectives of the test were achieved.
Recommendations:
 Ensure the aggregates are well prepared (washed and dried out) before the
commencement of works.
 Be sure to remove any aggregate trapped within the sieve openings by gently
working from either or both sides with a trowel or piece of flat metal until the
aggregate is freed. Banging the sieve on the floor or hitting the sieve with a
hammer will damage the sieve.
 When passing large stones through sieves, do not force the aggregate
through the sieve openings.
 Quality control is needed to monitor the manufacturers to follow the
specifications when manufacturing aggregates.
 As a general rule, use coarse wire brushes to clean the sieves down through
the 300 µm sieve. Any sieve with an opening size smaller than 300 µm should
be cleaned with a softer cloth hair brush as shown in figure 1.8 (a):

11
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 1.8 (a): shows the recommended coarse wire and softer cloth hair brushes for the cleaning of
sieve.

EXPERIMENT 2: Slump Test , Flow Test & Cube Test.

2.1. Background:

Understanding the consistency of the concrete mix is useful for several technical
reasons. Essentially, it permits the technician to preview what the concrete will be
like before it sets, allowing for the adjustments to be made to the concrete mix
design to create a better product with more favourable consistency.

2.2. Introduction:

Slump test is the measurement of the consistency of fresh concrete before it sets and
it is performed to check the workability of freshly made concrete, and therefore the
ease with which concrete flows. The slump test is used to ensure uniformity for loads
of concrete under field conditions.
To put in simple terms, concrete slump refers to the workability and consistency of the
mixed concrete. Slump can be furthermore described as how fluid the concrete mix is.
The flow test is a method to determine consistency of fresh concrete. It is used
primarily for assessing concrete that is too fluid (workable) to be measured using the
slump test, because the concrete will not retain its shape when the slump mould cone
is removed.
On the 28th of March 2022, alongside my fellow colleagues, a slump and flow test was
executed at the Vaal University of Technology Civil Engineering Laboratory on the
mixed concrete.
This section of this report details the objective, apparatus used, methodology,
observations and results of the slump test. This test was performed in accordance with
the South African National Standards, SANS 5862-1: 2006, Concrete test –
Consistence of freshly mixed concrete – Slump Test. SANS 5862 – 2: 2006, Concrete
tests – Consistence of freshly mixed concrete – Flow Test.
The temperature in the laboratory was controlled to a suitable temperature for the
experiment to be carried out effectively.

12
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
2.3. Objective:

The aim of this test is to place the freshly mixed concrete, which was designed using
the sieved aggregates, in a slump mould cone to determine what type of slump is
obtained from the concrete mix design, whether the slump is: True, Zero, Collapsed
or Shear as shown in figure 2.3 (a):

Figure 2.3 (a): shows the type of slumps that can occur after the slump mould cone is lifted.

The primary objective of this test is to determine the workability of the concrete by
achieving the True slump. Moreover, the aim is to carefully lift the slump mould cone
upwards, so as not to disturb the concrete cone shape that has formed and let the
concrete slump. After, the slump of the concrete will be determined by measuring the
distance from the top of the slumped concrete to the level of the top of the slump
mould cone.
The Flow Test will be performed immediately after obtaining the slump. The objective
is to measure the total diameter of the concrete spread in two directions, parallel to
the edges of the flow table.
The objective of a concrete cube test is to ensure that the concrete meets its
expected compressive strength. If the concrete does not meet its design strength,
the quality of it cannot be guaranteed.

2.4. Apparatus:

 Laboratory mixing bowl – To mix all the quantities of the concrete that will
form.
 Wheelbarrow – To carry the cement.
 Hand Shovel – This is for mixing.
 Slump Mould Cone – This is used to hold the fresh concrete in place during
the slump test

13
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
  Tamping Rod – Used to tap the layers of the fresh concrete as it is being
placed in the slump mould cone.
 Base plate – Used to place the slump mould cone during the slump test.
 Ruler – To measure the distance from the top of the slump mould cone to the
top of the slump and the diameter of the spread concrete after a flow test has
been performed.
 Small mouthed shovel – To pour the freshly mixed concrete in slump mould
cone.
 Flow table – To perform the flow test drops.

2.5. Methodology:

It should be stated that before the slump test was conducted, a concrete mix design
was done to get the correct quantities (water, sand, stone and cement) of the
concrete product that will are mixed together. Refer to the heading 2.6. Results of
this section of the report for the concrete mix calculation.
The concrete mixing was conducted in accordance with the South African National
Standard, SANS 5861 – 1: 2006, Concrete tests – Mixing fresh concrete in the
laboratory, in the following manner:
 The concrete was mixed by hand.
 The concrete was mixed outside the laboratory to avoid spillage inside
laboratory and to maintain good housekeeping.
 The weighed quantities of the fine and coarse aggregate (sand and stone) was
poured into a mixing bowl.
 The cement with the fine and coarse aggregates were mixed together
thoroughly until a uniform colour was achieved as shown in figure 2.5 (a) below:

14
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 2.5 (a): shows the hand mixing of cement with the fine and coarse aggregates.

 The measured quantity of was then added slowly while the mixing process
continued.
 The entire batch was mixed until it appeared to be homogeneous and of
uniform consistency as shown in figure 2.5 (b):

Figure 2.5 (b): shows the freshly mixed concrete in uniform consistency in colour.

 After achieving a uniform mix of concrete, the slump test was then conducted.
The slump test was conducted in accordance with the South African National
Standard, SANS 5862 – 1: 2006, Concrete tests – Consistence of freshly mixed
concrete – Slump test, in the following manner:
 The freshly mixed was taken back inside the laboratory.
 The interior surface of slump mould cone was clean and damp.
 The slump mould was then placed on top of a sliver, clean, non-absorbent,
smooth, horizontal, and rigid base.
 The slump mould cone was then held firmly in place by physically holding it
down while a small mouthed shovel was used to pour the first layer of
concrete into the slump mould cone.
 After the first layer of concrete was poured into the slump cone, which was
approximately one-third of the height of slump mould cone, the layer was
tamped with 25 strokes using the tamping rod.
 The second layer was then poured and tamped with 25 strokes ensuring that
the strokes penetrate into the underlying first layer. The same process applied
when the third layer was poured.
 An excess of concrete was maintained at top of the slump mould cone.

15
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
  The top of the slump mould cone was then trimmed neatly using a ruler to
leave a good finishing.
 The spillages that occurred in the pouring process were wiped using a
disposal laboratory cloth as shown in figure 2.5 (c):

Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete placed in a slump mould cone neatly trimmed at the top of the mould.

 The slump mould cone was held by the handles to keep it steady while my
fellow colleague stepped off the foot pieces.
 The slump mould cone was then demoulded by slowly and carefully raising the
mould cone vertically in such a manner that minimal lateral movement was
experienced by the concrete.
 The stump mould cone was then quickly turned upside down near the slump
and the tamping rod was rested on top of the slump mould cone so that one
end is above the concrete as shown in figure 2.5 (d).
 The distance between the bottom of the tamping rod and highest point of the
concrete was carefully measured to the nearest 5 mm as seen in figure 2.5 (d)

16
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 2.5 (d): shows the tamping rod rested on top of the slump mould cone and the measurement
between tamping rod and highest point of the concrete being carefully measured.

The flow test was immediately performed after taking the slump test measurement in
accordance with SANS 5862 – 2: 2006, Concrete tests – Consistence of freshly
mixed concrete – Flow Test, in the following manner:
 The silver flow test table (base plate) where the slump is as in seen on figure
2.5 (d), was carefully raised vertically by means of the handles.
 The base plate was then dropped freely to the lower stop.
 This cycle was rapidly repeated for a total of 15 drops.
The cube was performed after taking the flow test measurement in accordance with
SANS 5862: 2006: Concrete tests – Flexural strength of hardened concrete in the
following manner:
 A cube 15 cm x 15 cm x 15 cm was clean thoroughly with a sterilising
solution

17
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete cube being cleaned

 The concrete was placed in cube in layers and tamped with a tamping rod on each layer as
done with previous tests.
 The cube was then eventually filled and the excess concrete was trimmed carefully with a
ruler to give a smooth finishing as shown in figure 2.5 (d):

Figure 2.5 (c): shows the concrete cube being trimmed for smooth finishing.

18
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Figure 2.5 (d): shows the placed concrete in the cube.

2.6. Results:

The following data was given by our test instructor, Mr. Smit:
1 bag of cement = 50 kg.
Stone Size = 19 mm
Stone Compacted Bulk Density = 1580 kg/m3
Cement type: CEM 42.5 (25 MPA).
Relative Density of stone = 3.28
Relative Density of sand = 3.48
Relative Density of cement = 3.14
The concrete mix design calculations:
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 (𝑘𝑔)
Solid Volume of one bag of cement = 𝑝𝑎𝑟𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑙𝑒 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑣𝑒 𝑑𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦 𝑥 1000

50
= (3.14 𝑥 1000)

= 0.0159 m3
= 20.83 Litre.

19
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Concrete with the required strength of 25 MPA will need a w:c of 0.67 (from table 2.6
of the green book) if made with CEM 42.5.
The water requirement was modified to suit the 100 mm slump. Since the stone is 19
mm in size, a water requirement of concrete of 210 l/m3 was selected and add 5 litres:
Quantity of Water = 210 + 5
= 215 l/m3
𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟 𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑠
Cement Content = 𝑤𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑟:𝑐𝑒𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡
215
= 0.67

= 320 kg
St = CBDst (K – 0.1 FM)
St = 1580 (0.94 – 0.1 (2.268))
= 1126.86 kg/m3

𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑛𝑑
Volume of Sand = 𝑅𝐷𝑠
𝐶 𝑆𝑡
= 1000 – [ + + volume of H2O]
𝑅𝐷𝑐 𝑅𝐷𝑠𝑡
320 1126.86
= 1000 – [3.14 + + 215]
3.28

= 339.53
Mass of Sand = 339.5 x 3.48
= 1181.46 kg.
(150)(150)(150)(3)
The required volume for the design = 10^3

= 0.01 m3
Therefore, the quantities of the required material is as follows:
Cement = 320 x 0.01
= 3.2 kg
Stone = 11.27 kg
Sand = 11.8 kg
Water = 2.15 litres

20
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
These quantities were used to produce the freshly mixed concrete as seen on figure
2.5 (b).
The slump was measured to be 20 mm.
The process of moulding and demoulding the slump took unless then 150s.
The Flow Test:
When the flow test was carried out, the slump concrete came crushing down spreading
in different directions as shown in figure 2.6 (e):

Figure 2.6 (e): shows the measurement of the collapsed concrete slump due to the flow test that has
been performed to it.

The total diameter of the concrete spread was measured in five (5) directions, the
mean total of the diameter was calculated and is tabulated in table 2.6 (a):
Table 2.6 (a):
Diameter
Direction
(mm)
1 260
2 265
3 280
4 290
5 299
Mean Total 278,8

21
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
 100
Flow percent = (mean total in cm – 25) x 25
278.8 100
=( – 25) x
10 25

= 11.2%
The Concrete Cube Test:

Figure 2.6 (g): shows the measured weight of the dry cube (left) and the concrete cube under a 400 kN
force (right)

Figure 2.6 (f): shows the Maximum Load it took to crush the cube.

22
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
The Compressive strength is calculated in the following manner:
𝐹𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒 (𝑘𝑁)
Compressive Strength =
𝐶𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑆𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝐴𝑟𝑒𝑎 (𝑚2)

130.5
CS = 0.15 𝑥 0.15

= 5800 kN
𝑀𝑎𝑠𝑠 (𝑘𝑔)
Density = 𝑉𝑜𝑙𝑢𝑚𝑒 (𝑚3)

7.5226
= 0.15 𝑥 0.15 𝑥 0.15

= 2228.919 kg/m3

2.7. Observations:

The given slump was 100 mm. The minimum slump that can be achieved is 67 mm
and the maximum is 110 mm. The one that was measured in regards to this test was
20 mm, therefore the slump is too low. This may be caused by the concrete being too
harsh. A semi-zero slump was achieved as shown in figure 2.7 (a):

Figure 2.7 (a): shows the achieved slump (semi-zero) and the voids seen on the slump with bleeding
observed at the bottom of the slump.

The achievement of a semi-zero slump is an indication that there is a low water-cement

ratio, which resulted in dry mix. These type of concrete is generally used for road
construction.

23
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
Voids were observed on the slump, this is may be due to the angular and rougher
surface texture of the aggregates. Air entrainment permits the water content of a mix
to be reduced without impairment of workability. The presence of voids in concrete
reduces its strength (roughly 4 to 6% for every 1 % of air) and consequently the gain
in strength resulting from increased cement: water ratio is opposed by the decrease
bought about by air voids.
Voids were also caused by the mortar paste not sticking to the aggregates which may
be a further indication that the water-cement was indeed low.
On the flow test, the standard flow percentage should be in a range of 105% to
115% and the computed is not within the range, meaning that this concrete product
has a poor a workability (Bediako, 2015).

2.8. Conclusion:

The primary objective of the slump was not achieved as the True Slump was not
obtained but rather a Semi-Zero slump of 20 mm with voids and tiny bleeding. It would
be best to redo the test but taking the following the recommendations into
consideration:
Any loss of fine aggregate during the mixing of concrete should be avoided.
To reduce the bleeding that was experienced on the concrete:
 Use less water (lower slump)
 Use more very fine material.
 Increasing the cementitious content – which is quite expensive for
testing/practice purposes.
To improve cohesiveness and avoid having voids in on the concrete, the following is
recommendations should be considered:
 The use of less water
 The use less stone
 The use a smaller size of stone
 Replace 50% of the cement with slag.
 Use more very fine material. The use of a fine blending sand is recommended
to increasing the amount of original sand.

24
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
EXPERIMENT 3: ACV and 10% FACT.

3.1. Background:

Aggregates (fine and coarse) should have sufficient toughness to resist their
disintegration due to impact. The characteristic of measuring this sufficient
toughness through a numerical value is termed the crushing value which provide the
relative measure of resistance to crushing under a gradually applied compressive
load.

25
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
3.2. Introduction:

The Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) test measures how resistant an aggregate is
when being crushed under a gradually applied compressive load.
The aggregate crushing value and 10% FACT are two well accepted tests for
assessing the mechanical properties of aggregates. The 10% FACT value is
preferred when the aggregate crushing value (ACV) exceeds 30% and the result
may then be deemed as unreliable. The wider range of loading may give a better
indication of the particle strength than ACV test

On the 28th of March 2022, alongside my fellow colleagues, a slump test was executed
at the Vaal University of Technology Civil Engineering Laboratory on mixed concrete.
This section of this report details the objective, apparatus used, methodology,
observations and results of the slump test. This test was performed in accordance with
the South African National Standard, SANS 5862-1: 2006, Concrete test –
Consistence of freshly mixed concrete – Slump Test.
The temperature in the laboratory was controlled to a suitable temperature for the
experiment to be carried out effectively.

3.3. Objective:

The objective of the Aggregate Crushing Value test is to determine the aggregate
crushing value of coarse aggregate. Low values indicate a more resistant rock and a
higher quality of pavement. An aggregates crushing value under 29 is regarded
adequate for road materials. The aggregates should be crushed and then sieved
through 12.5 mm and retained on 10.0 mm sieve, the sample fraction
The ten percent fines value test the aim is to look for the force required to produce
10 % of fine values.
The test results are utilized for the quality control, by means of particle strength, of
aggregates for concrete, surfacing (chips) and asphalt, and for crushed stone base.
The overall objective is to determine the aggregate crushing value and 10% fines
aggregate crushing test values in a dry condition of a prepared aggregate sample, by
measuring the fines generated by a load of 400 kN and the load required to crush
the fraction of the aggregate passing the 14 mm sieve and retained on the 10 mm
sieve, to the extent that 10% of the sample, after crushing, passes a 2 mm sieve.

26
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
3.4. Apparatus:

 A steel cylinder with plunger and base plate – It is used to hold the
aggregates.
 Metal tamping rod – It is used to tamp the samples poured into the steel
cylinder.
 A compression testing machine.
 Dry Oven – Used to dry the aggregate sample.
 Sieves – To sieve
 Weighing board – Used to weigh the aggregate samples before and after the
tests are performed.

3.5. Methodology:

The Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) and 10% of fines aggregate crushing test
(FACT) was conducted in accordance with the South African National Standard,
SANS 3001 – AG10: 2012, Part AG10: ACV and 10% FACT in the following manner:
 The fine and coarse aggregate samples were drawn from the storage area
using a shovel and a wheelbarrow. The samples were checked and seemed to
be in a suitable working condition with no washing needed.
 The aggregate sample was sieved through a 14 mm to get the retaining
material.
 The retained material on the 14 mm sieve was weighed to 3 kg.
 This sieving out of material on the 14 mm sieve to 3 kg was done three (3)
times.
 The empty cylindrical measure was placed on the balanced and tared.
 The cylindrical measure was filled with the sample aggregates.
 The aggregate measure was then tamped with a tamping rod 25 times using
the hemispherical end.
 This process was continued until the cylindrical measure was finally filled and
the excess material was stroked off with the flat edge of the tamping rod.
 The cylindrical was then closed with plunger and placed in the compression test
machine.
 The compressed material was then poured into a container and weighed.
 The compressed material was than sieved using a 2 mm sieve and the retained
material was weighed.
 This process was done for all three samples after being compressed in the
compression test machine.

27
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
3.6. Results:

After the cylindrical measure was taken out of the compression testing machine, the crushed coarse
were seen as shown in figure 3.6 (a):

Figure 3.6 (a): shows the crushed coarse aggregate after coming out of the compression testing
machine for sample 1.

The sample 1 aggregate was weighed of the retained and passed material after
being sieved out of a 2 mm sieve was measured in the following manner (all the
samples were weighed in the similar manner):

Figure 3.6 (b): shows the sample 1 being weighed of the retained mass (left) and the passed mass
(right) after being sieve out of a 2 mm sieve.

28
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
The Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) is calculated below in accordance with the
South African national standard SANS 3001-AG10:2012:
𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑎𝑓𝑡𝑒𝑟)
Aggregate Crushing Value = 𝑚𝑎𝑠𝑠 𝑜𝑓 𝑠𝑎𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑒 (𝑏𝑒𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑒) x 100

For sample 1;
𝑀2
ACV = 𝑀1 x 100
0.4904
= x 100
2.4397

= 20.1 %
The same calculation was repeated for all three (3) samples and tabulated on table
3.6 (a) as shown below:
Table 3.6 (a):
Mass of the Mass of the
Sample ACV (%)
retained(kg) passed (kg)
1 2,4397 0,4904 20,1
2 2,4521 0,6195 25,3
3 2,3089 0,6156 26,7

3.7. Observations:

The Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) was found to within the range of 35% as
specified in the standard. The 10% FACT test is not required to be performed due to
the ACV value being under 35% for all samples.
The Aggregate Crushing Value (ACV) that are under 29 are suitable for road
materials and all ACV sample values are suitable for road use.

3.8. Conclusion:

The calculation of the 10% FACT wet/dry relationship, or the water absorbed was not
computed due to technical reasons.
The test was conducted successfully and the objectives were achieved.

29
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.
References:

Bibliography
AASHTO. (2015). SIEVE ANALYSIS OF FINE AND COARSE AGGREGATES.

Bediako, M. (2015). Effects of Chemical Admixuture on Flow and Strength Properties of Calcined Clay
Used as a Supplementary Cementitious Material. British Journal of Applied Science &
Technology, 1 - 4.

Hoffmann, P. (2017). GRADING ANALYSIS. Gauteng: Zero Azania.

Muhammad, A. (2021). Critical Evaluation for Grading and Fineness Modulus of Concrete Sands used
in Sulaymaniyah. Civil and Architectural Engineering, 35 - 40.

30
LB XABA – 216137829. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS PRACTICAL REPORT.