1

Suitability of manufactured sand (M-Sand) as

fine aggregate in mortars and concrete
(CSIC project: CP 6597/0505/11-330 dated 5 th July 2011)

Project sponsored by:

Department of Mines and Geology
(Govt. of Karnataka)
No. 49, Khanija Bhavan, Race Course Road
Bangalore 560 001

Prof. B. V. Venkatarama Reddy

Department of Civil Engineering
Indian Institute of Science
Bangalore 560 012

January 2012

Suitability of manufactured sand (M-Sand) as fine aggregate in

mortars and concrete
1. Introduction
Sand is used as fine aggregate in mortars and concrete. Natural river sand is the most preferred
choice as a fine aggregate material. River sand is a product of natural weathering of rocks over a
period of millions of years. It is mined from the river beds and sand mining has disastrous
environmental consequences. River sand is becoming a scarce commodity and hence exploring
alternatives to it has become imminent. Rock crushed to the required grain size distribution is
termed as manufactured sand (M-sand). In order to arrive at the required grain size distribution
the coarser stone aggregates are crushed in a special rock crusher and some of the crushed
material is washed to remove fines. This investigation is an attempt to evaluate the
characteristics of mortars and concrete using M-sand as fine aggregate. For the purposes of
comparison characteristics of mortar and concrete with river sand has also been explored.

2. Scope and details of the study

Major objective of the study was to examine the suitability of M-sand as fine aggregate in
mortars and concrete. Apart from characterising the properties of M-sand, tests were performed
on the mortars and concrete using M-sand as well as natural river sand. One M-sand sample
(supplied by the Department of Mines and Geology) and one natural river sand sample were used
in the investigations. The following tests were performed.
1. Characteristics of M-sand; grain size distribution, pH and chemical composition
2. Mortar and masonry characteristics using M-sand and river sand
a. Compressive strength of mortar
b. Flow/workability
c. Water retentivity
d. Brick-mortar bond strength
e. Compressive strength and stress-strain relationships for masonry
3. Concrete characteristics (two grades M20 and M30)
a. Consistency
b. Strength (compression and flexure)
c. Shrinkage
d. Bond (pull out test) strength
e. Modulus: stress-strain relationships
The test programmes for mortars and concrete are highlighted in Tables 1 and 2 respectively.
Two cement mortars (1:6 and 1:4, cement : sand by volume) were used and tested for strength,
workability, water retentivity, masonry compressive strength and masonry bond strength.
Similarly, M20 and M30 grade concretes were tested for workability, shrinkage, strength, stressstrain characteristics and bond strength.

Table 1: Test programme for mortars using River sand and M-sand
Mortar and masonry property

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

W/C ratio versus mortar flow

Compressive strength at 85% and 100% flow
Water retentivity of mortars
Strength and stress-strain relationships for masonry
Flexure bond strength of masonry

1:6
cement mortar
River
Msand
sand

1:4
cement mortar
River
Msand
sand

-------------

Table 2: Test programme for concrete using River sand and M-sand
Concrete property
1. Consistency (slump)
2. Drying shrinkage
3. Compressive and flexure strength
4. Stress-strain relationships
5. Bond strength (pull out test)

M20 grade concrete

River sand M-sand

M30 grade concrete

River sand M-sand

-------------

3. Test methods and testing procedures

One rich mortar (1:4) and one commonly used mortar (1:6, M2 grade as per IS: 1905) were
selected. Standard mix proportions for M20 and M30 grade concrete (commonly used) were
selected following IS 456 code guidelines. Selected mix proportions for M20 and M30 grade
concretes are 1:2:4 and 1: 1.66: 3.33 (cement: fine aggregate: coarse aggregate, by weight)
respectively. The tests were performed using relevant standard codes of practice guidelines as
mentioned below.
(a) Mortars
i) Flow characteristics: BS 4551 - 1980
ii) Water retentivity and compressive strength: IS 2250 1981 (2000)
iii) Flexure bond strength: ASTM C1072
iv) Masonry compressive strength: IS: 1905 1987 (2002)
(b) Concrete
i) Consistency of concrete: IS: 1199 1959 (2004)
ii) Drying shrinkage: IS: 1199 1959 (2004)
iii) Stress-strain relationships: IS: 516 1959 (2004)
iv) Bond strength (pull out test): IS: 2770 (Part I) 1967 (2002)
v) Compressive strength and flexure strength: IS: 516 1959 (2004)

4. Test results and discussion for mortars

(a) Characteristics of M-sand and natural river sand
Fig. 1 shows texture and shape of the M-sand and natural river sand particles. The grain size
distribution curves of these sand samples are displayed in Fig. 2. Also, the upper and lower
bound grain size distribution of curves of grading Zone-II sand specified in IS 383 code are
displayed. Table 3 gives details of the properties of both the types of sand. The following
observations can be made from the grain size analysis results in Fig. 2 and the results given in
Table 1 and Fig. 1.
1) The shape of the M-sand particles resembles with those of river sand particles. Flaky and
elongated coarse particles are absent in the M-sand.
2) M-sand is well graded and falls within the limits of grading Zone-II sand, grading limits
specified in IS 383 code. Code allows 20% fines less than 150 microns for crushed stone
sands. M-sand is devoid of clay size fraction and the fraction below 150 microns is about 18%
(IS 383 code limit is 20%).
3) The specific gravity is 2.63 and 2.67 for M-sand and river sand respectively. Bulk densities of
M-sand and river sand are 15.1 and 14.5 kN/m3 respectively. Bulk density of M-sand is
marginally higher than that of river sand. The pH of M-sand and river sand is 10.11 and 8.66
respectively.
4) M-sand contains typical rock forming minerals like quartz, feldspar, mica group of minerals,
etc as revealed by X-ray diffraction (XRD) studies. Rock forming minerals like Quartz,
feldspar, etc are basically inert in nature. Mica group consists of muscovite, biotite,
boromuscovite, etc. The mica group of minerals are not interfering in the cement hydration
and strength development in mortars and concrete.

Table 3 Properties of M-sand and river sand

Type of Sand
Properties
M-sand
River sand
1. Textural composition (% by weight)
Coarse Sand (4.75 2.00 mm)
28.1
6.6
Medium sand (2.00 0.425 mm)
44.8
73.6
Fine sand (0.425 0.075 mm)
27.1
19.8
2. Specific gravity
2.63
2.67
3
3. Bulk density (kN/m )
15.1
14.5
4. pH
10.11
8.66
5. Chemical composition of M-sand
M-sand contrains elements like Si, Al, Ca, Mg, Na, K, Fe,
etc.

Fig. 1 Texture of M-sand and natural river sand particles

100

% Finer

80

M-Sand
River sand
Zone II sand

60
40
20
0
0.01

0.1

Partical size (mm)

Fig. 2 Grain size distribution curves of the M-sand and River sand

10

6
(b) Mortar characteristics using M-sand and river sand
Flow/workability: Workability of the mortar should be such that it allows the mason to spread
the mortar easily and adheres well to the masonry units. Mortar composition as well as watercement ratio affects the workability. Workability of the fresh mortar can be measured by
conducting a flow table test following the BS 4551 code guidelines. Workability of fresh
mortar is expressed as flow value. Fig. 3 shows mortar flow at 85% using M-sand in 1:6 cement
mortar.

Fig. 3 M-sand mortar at 85% flow (no segregation)

Flow tests were performed on the two types of mortars in order to establish relationships
between flow and water-cement ratio. Figs. 4 and 5 show the flow versus water-cement ratio
relationships for the 1:6 and 1:4 cement mortars respectively. Mortars with M-sand exhibit better
flow characteristics. For example in case of 1:6 cement mortar, to achieve 100% flow the water
cement ratio required is about 1.4 using M-sand and 1.75 using river sand. Similarly, for 1:4
cement mortar, it is 0.88 and 1.20. To achieve a given flow value, mortar with M-sand requires
lower water-cement ratio. Lower water-cement ratio results in better characteristics for the
mortars in hardened state. Flow values of different types of mortars from various construction
sites were measured by Reddy and Gupta (2005) and they indicate a range of 85 100% for flow
values.

Flow (%)

160
140

M-Sand

120

River sand

100
80
60
40
20
0
0.75

1.25

1.5

1.75

Water-cement ratio

Fig. 4 Flow versus water cement ratio for 1:6 cement mortar

160

M-Sand
River sand

140

Flow (%)

120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0.5

0.65

0.8
0.95
Water-cement ratio

1.1

Fig. 4 Flow versus water cement ratio for 1:4 cement mortar

1.25

8
Compressive strength: Compressive strength of mortars was assessed following the guidelines
of IS 2250 code. Mortar flow (indicates workability) measurements carried out by Reddy and
Gupta (2005) for a set masonry mortars collected from the different construction sites indicate a
range of 85 100%. Therefore, the strength of the mortars was examined at two flow values of
85 and 100%. The water-cement ratio corresponding to the flow of 85 and 100% for the 1:4 and
1:6 cement mortars (using river sand and M-sand) is given in Table 4. For a given flow value
there is considerable difference in the water-cement ratio of mortars using M-sand and river
sand. Mortars with M-sand exhibit better flow and need lower water-cement ratio when
compared to mortars with river sand.
Compressive strength values given in Table 4 represent mean of four specimens. Considerable
increase in compressive strength of mortars between 7 and 28 days curing irrespective of flow
value and sand type for both the mortars. There is doubling of mortar strength when M-sand is
used instead of river sand. 28 day compressive strength of 1:6 and 1:4 cement mortars is about 8
and 16 MPa respectively for flow in the range of 85 100%. The results reveal that use of Msand produces higher strength for the mortars.
Table 4 - Compressive strength mortars
Mortar
Proportion
(by volume)
Cement : sand
1:6
1:4

Flow
(%)
85
100
85
100

Water cement ratio

Compressive strength (MPa)

River sand
M-Sand

River sand

M-Sand

7 days

28 days

7 days

28 days

1.72
1.75
1.13
1.18

1.30
1.34
0.84
0.88

2.10
1.96
2.84
2.77

4.03
3.82
7.35
6.04

5.15
4.88
12.89
11.89

8.53
8.19
15.96
15.50

Water retentivity: Fresh mortar is sandwiched between bricks or blocks during the construction
of masonry. Moisture gets sucked by the brick or block from the water rich mortar joint. The
amount of water sucked by the brick or block from the mortar depends upon the porosity of the
masonry unit, moisture content of the brick or block at the time of construction and the ability of
the mortar to retain water against brick suction. Thus water retentivity can be defined as the
ability of the mortar to retain water against the suction of the brick or block. Mortar has
cementitious materials, thus initially it requires certain amount of water for the hydration process
and development of strength. If the water loss from the mortar is large, this leads to low watercement ratio in the mortar and improper hydration of the fresh mortar, thereby affecting the
mortar characteristics and the bond development. Water retentivity of the mortar depends upon
various factors like the mix proportion, water-cement ratio, type of cementitious binder, etc.
Water retentivity of 1:6 and 1:4 cement mortars was examined using the procedure laid down in
IS-2250 code.

9
Water retentivity values for 1:6 cement mortar using river sand and M-sand are 27.3% and
28.5% respectively. For 1:4 cement mortar it is 25.6% and 35.6% for river sand and M-sand
respectively. Thus, water retentivity of mortars improves with the use of M-sand. Better water
retentivity results in better strength and bond development.
Brick-mortar bond strength: There should be good bond between the mortar and the brick for
the masonry to perform satisfactorily. Bond strength becomes significantly important when the
masonry has to resist tensile and shear stresses. Large number of parameters pertaining to
bricks/blocks, mortars and construction practices influence the masonry bond strength. Surface
characteristics of the masonry unit (pore size distribution, porosity, etc.), moisture content of the
unit at the time of construction, absorption characteristics of the unit and mortar composition are
some of the important characteristics influencing brick-mortar bond development. Brick-mortar
bond strength can be measured by testing the masonry prism using a bond-wrench test set-up.
ASTM C1072 code gives the procedure for bond-wrench test to evaluate the flexure bond
strength of masonry prism. Fig. 5 shows the modified bond wrench set-up used in determining
the flexure bond strength of masonry prism.
Flexure bond strength of masonry prisms using local burnt clay bricks and the 1:6 cement mortar
with M-sand and river sand was determined. Six prisms were tested in each category to get the
mean value of flexure bond strength. The flexure bond strength of masonry using 1:6 cement
mortar (with 85% flow) was 0.06 MPa and 0.15 MPa for river sand and M-sand mortars
respectively. The flexure bond strength of masonry prism has improved by 150% when M-sand
was used instead of river sand in the 1:6 cement mortar.

Fig. 5 Flexure bond test set-up for masonry prism

10
Compressive strength of masonry: Compressive strength of masonry was examined by testing
five brick high stack bonded masonry prisms. Prisms (size: 105 x 225 x 445 mm, having height
to width ratio of 4.23) were prepared using burnt clay bricks having compressive strength of 10.1
MPa (mean value) and using 1:6 cement mortar with river sand and M-sand. Compressive
strength of the masonry prisms was 3.35 MPa and 4.38 MPa for mortar with river sand and Msand respectively. These are the mean values of six prisms. Nearly 30% increase in masonry
strength due to the use of mortar with M-sand was observed. Fig. 6a shows the masonry prism
failure (typical vertical splitting cracks) using mortar with M-sand.

(a) Typical failure pattern

(b) Prism with strain gauge

Fig. 6 Stack bonded masonry prisms under compression tests

Stress-strain relationships for masonry: Stress-strain relationship was generated by testing stack
bonded masonry prisms built using 1:6 cement mortar. The longitudinal strains were monitored
through electrical resistance strain gauge as shown in Fig. 6b. The stress-strain curve for the
masonry is shown in Fig. 7. The initial tangent modulus for the masonry is 1200 MPa and 500
MPa for the mortar with M-sand and river sand respectively. Modulus of masonry with M-sand
is more than double that of modulus for masonry with river sand. The increase in modulus can be
attributed to better bond between the mortar and the brick.

11

Compressive stress (MPa)

M-sand
River sand

4
3
2
1
0
0

0.005

0.01

0.015

0.02

0.025

Strain
Fig. 7 Strain-strain relationships for the masonry

5. Summary of results on mortars

The results of the tests on mortars and masonry using river sand and M-sand as fine aggregate
can be summarised as follows.
1. Grading limits of M-sand falls within the grading Zone-II sand, grading limits specified by
IS 383 code.
2. Shapes of the M-sand particles resemble the shape of river sand particles.
3. Bulk density and specific gravity of M-sand are comparable to those of river sand.
4. Mortars with M-sand show better workability and require lower water-cement ratio to
achieve a specific flow value when compared to mortars with river sand.
5. M-sand mortars show higher water retentivity values
6. Compressive strength of mortar with M-sand is higher than that of the mortar with river
sand for mortar flow in the range of 85 100%.
7. Flexure bond strength of masonry using M-sand mortar is significantly higher when
compared with the mortar using river sand.
8. M-sand mortar shows higher compressive strength and modulus for masonry when
compared with the values for masonry using river sand.

12

6. Test results and discussion for concrete

Standard mix proportions for commonly used M20 and M30 grade concrete were selected
following IS 456 code guidelines are given in Table 5. Various tests on fresh and hardened
concrete were conducted following the guidelines of standard codes of practice mentioned in
section 3.
Consistency of concrete: This was measured by conducting a slump test. Keeping the watercement ratio at 0.50 and using super plasticizer (at 15 ml per kg of cement as specified by the
manufacturer) the slump values were determined for both M20 and M30 mixes using river sand
and M-sand as fine aggregate. Concrete with river sand gives higher slump value. IS 456 code
specifies a minimum slump of 50 mm for medium workability. Both the concrete mixes meet
this requirement irrespective of the type of sand.
Compressive and flexure strength of concrete: Compressive strength was determined by testing
the 28 days cured cube specimens (of size: 150 mm). The mean compressive strength values of 5
cube specimens are reported in Table 5. Compressive strength of M20 and M30 grade concretes
with M-sand as fine aggregate is 6 9% higher when compared with the results using river sand
as fine aggregate.
Flexure strength of concrete was determined using prisms (size: 100 x 100 x 500 mm) following
the IS 516 code guidelines. Three specimens were tested in each category and the mean values
are reported in Table 5. The results show that use of M-sand as fine aggregate lead to 12 15%
higher flexure strength when compared to the results of concrete with river sand.
Table 5 Characteristics of concrete using M-sand and river sand
* C: cement, FA: Fine aggregate, CA: Coarse aggregate;
Standard deviation values in parenthesis
Mix
River sand
M-Sand
proportion W/C Slump Compressive Flexure Slump Compressive
(by weight) ratio (mm)
strength
strength (mm)
strength
(C:FA:CA)*
(MPa)
(MPa)
(MPa)
1: 1.66: 3.33 0.50
80
42.20
3.90
55
44.78
(M30 grade)
(1.00)
(0.04)
(2.59)
1: 2: 4
0.50
110
37.68
3.29
76
41.03
(M20 grade)
(6.06)
(0.16)
(3.95)

Flexure
strength
(MPa)
4.54
(1.15)
3.86
(0.33)

Bond strength: The bond between rebar and the concrete was examined by conducting a pull out
test. The pull out test was performed using 12 mm tor-steel bar for M20 concrete following the
IS 2770 code guidelines. Fig. 8 shows the pull-out test specimens and the test set-up. The bond
strength at failure (mean of three specimens) with river sand and M-sand as fine aggregate is
13.9 and 14.1 MPa respectively. The bond strength is marginally higher in case of M20 concrete
with M-sand.

13

(a) Test specimen

(b) Test set-up

Fig. 8 Pull-out test

Stress-strain characteristics of concrete: Concrete cylindrical specimens of size 150 mm

diameter and 300 mm height were cast using M-sand and river sand as fine aggregates. After 28
days of curing the cylinders were tested in a displacement controlled testing machine. Fig. 9
shows the test set-up with electrical resistance strain gauge in position and the typical failure of
the concrete cylindrical specimen. Fig. 10 shows the stress strain curves (mean of three) for M20
concrete with M-sand and river sand as fine aggregate. Both the concretes show similar stressstrain behaviour. The secant modulus (at 30% of compressive strength) of the concrete (M20
grade) with M-sand and river sand is nearly equal at 24,000 MPa. The strain corresponding to
peak stress is 0.0017 and 0.0021 for the concrete using river sand and M-sand respectively.

Fig. 9 Test set-up for stress-strain measurements and the failure pattern of concrete cylinder

14

35
River sand

30
Compressive stress (MPa)

M-sand
25
20
15
10
5
0
0

0.0005

0.001

0.0015

0.002

0.0025

0.003

0.0035

0.004

Strain

Fig. 10 Stress-strain curve for concrete with M-sand

Drying shrinkage: Shrinkage studies are under progress

7. Summary of results on concrete

Two commonly used grades of concretes M20 and M30 were examined for their characteristics
in fresh and hardened state. The results can be summarised as follows.
1. IS 456 code specifies a minimum slump of 50 mm for medium workability. M20 and M30
grade concrete mixes meet this requirement when M-sand is used as fine aggregate.
2. Compressive strength of concrete (M20 and M30) with sand is marginally higher (6 9%)
when compared to the concrete with river sand.
3. Flexure strength of M-sand concrete is 12 15% higher than that of river sand concrete.
4. Pull out bond test indicates marginally higher bond strength for M-sand concrete when
compared with the bond strength of river sand concrete.
5. The stress-strain behaviour of M-sand and river sand concretes are similar. The secant
modulus (at 30% of compressive strength) of the M20 grade concrete with M-sand and
river sand is nearly equal at 24, 000 MPa.

15

References
1) ASTM C1072-11 Standard Test Methods for Measurement of Masonry Flexural Bond
Strength American Society for Testing Materials.
2) BS: 4551 - 1980, "British standard methods of testing mortars, screeds and plasters", British
Standards Institution, U. K.
3) IS: 456 2000, Plain and reinforced concrete code of practice, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
4) IS: 383 1970 (2002), Specification for coarse and fine aggregates from natural sources for
concrete, Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
5) IS: 2116 1980 (1998), Specification for sand for masonry mortars, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
6) IS: 2250 1981 (2000), "Indian Standard Code of Practice for Preparation and Use of
Masonry Mortars", Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi.
7) IS: 1905 - 1987, "Code of Practice for Structural Use of Un reinforced Masonry", Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi
8) IS: 1199 1959 (2004), Methods of sampling and analysis of concrete Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
9) IS: 516 1959 (2004), Methods of tests for strength of concrete, Bureau of Indian
Standards, New Delhi, India.
10) IS: 2770 (Part I) 1967 (2002), Methods of testing bond in reinforced concrete, Bureau of
Indian Standards, New Delhi, India.
11) Venkatarama Reddy, B. V. and Ajay Gupta, Characteristics of cement-soil mortars, Materials
and Structures (RILEM), Vol. 38 (July 2005), No. 280, 639-650.

Summary and Recommendations

Characteristics of mortars, masonry and concrete were examined using M-sand as fine aggregate
and the results were compared with those of river sand as fine aggregate. Two mortars (1:6 and
1: 4, cement : sand, by volume) and two grades of concrete (M20 and M30) were considered in
these investigations. M-sand supplied by the Department of Mines and Geology was used. A
natural river sand belonging to grading Zone II sand classification (IS 383) was used for the
purposes of comparison. The following points emerge from the experimental investigations using
M-sand and river sand examined in the present investigation.
(1) M-sand is a well graded material and falls within the grading limits specified by the IS
383 code for grading Zone II sand. Shape of the M-sand particles resemble with those of
river sand particles. Flaky and elongated coarse particles are absent in the M-sand.
(2) Mortars with M-sand exhibit better workability and water retentivity characteristics.
(3) Compressive strength of mortars with M-sand is higher than that of the mortar strength
with river sand for a given flow.
(4) Flexure bond strength of masonry using M-sand mortar is significantly higher than the
mortar using river sand. This indicates better adherence of mortar to the masonry unit.

16
(5) Compressive strength and modulus for masonry using M-sand mortar is higher when
compared with the values for masonry using river sand.
(6) Concrete with M-sand possess higher strength (compressive and flexure) when compared
with river sand concrete.
(7) M-sand concrete possess better bond strength between rebar and concrete. M-sand
concrete and river sand concrete have similar stress-strain behaviour and stress-strain
characteristics.
IS 2116 and IS 383 codes on sand for mortars and masonry specify the use of crushed stone sand
for concrete and masonry mortar. Some of the definitions and notes on crushed stone sand
mentioned in these two IS codes are highlighted below.
1. IS 2116, clause 2.3: Crushed stone sand and crushed gravel sand: A fine aggregate
produced by crushing of stone or natural gravel.
2. IS 383, clause 1.1: This standard covers requirements for aggregates, crushed or
uncrushed, derived from natural resources, such as river beds, deposits, rocks, bed rocks
and gravel.
3. IS 383, clause 2.1.2: Crushed stone sand is a fine aggregate produced by crushing of
hard stone
4. IS 383, clause 2.1.3: Crushed gravel sand is a fine aggregate produced by crushing of
natural gravel.
5. IS 383, Table 4 (clause 4.3): This Table is about fine aggregates. Fine aggregates are
grouped under four grading zones (Grading Zone I to IV). Table gives upper and lower
bound limits for the grain sizes in each grading zone. Note 1 in this Table specifies the
permissible limit enhancement for crushed stone sands. Note 1 reads as: For crushed
stone sands, the permissible limit on % passing 150-micron IS Sieve is increased to
20%. This does not affect the 5% allowance permitted in clause 4.3 applying to other
sieve sizes.

The present investigation shows that the characteristics of mortars and concrete
using M-sand as fine aggregate are superior when compared to the natural river
sand as fine aggregate. The results pertain to the most commonly used grading
zone II sand. M-sand falling within the grading Zone II sand, grading limits
specified by IS 383 code and manufactured from the hard rock is suitable as fine
aggregate in concrete and masonry mortars. Also, IS-2116 and IS 383 codes
permit the use of crushed stone fine aggregate in masonry mortars and concrete.