Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Mechanical and bond properties of coconut shell concrete

K. Gunasekaran *, P.S. Kumar, M. Lakshmipathy
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and Technology, SRM University, Kattankulathur 603 203, TamilNadu, India

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history:
Received 29 November 2009
Received in revised form 12 May 2010
Accepted 19 June 2010

Keywords:
Coconut shell
Aggregate
Lightweight concrete
Mechanical
Bond properties

a b s t r a c t
The properties of concrete using coconut shell as coarse aggregate were investigated in an experimental study. Compressive, exural, splitting tensile strengths, impact resistance and bond strength were
measured and compared with the theoretical values as recommended by the standards. For the
selected mix, two different watercement ratios have been considered to study the effect on the exural and splitting tensile strengths and impact resistance of coconut shell concrete. The bond properties were determined through pull-out test. Coconut shell concrete can be classied under structural
lightweight concrete. The results showed that the experimental bond strength of coconut shell concrete is much higher than the bond strength as estimated by BS 8110 and IS 456:2000 for the mix
selected.
2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
Lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) is an important and
versatile material in modern construction. It has gained popularity
due to its lower density and superior thermal insulation properties [1]. Many architects, engineers, and contractors recognize
the inherent economies and advantages offered by this material,
as evidenced by the many impressive lightweight concrete
(LWC) structures found throughout the world. Lightweight concrete has strengths comparable to normal concrete; yet is typically
2535% lighter [2]. Structural LWC offers design exibility and
cost savings due to self-weight reduction, improved seismic structural response, and lower foundation costs. Lightweight concrete
pre-cast elements offer reduced transportation and placement
costs [3].
Pumice, scoria and other materials of volcanic origin are the
lightweight aggregates available naturally. Expanded blast-furnace
slag, vermiculite and clinker, which are the by-products of industrial processes, are man-made lightweight aggregates. The main
characteristic of lightweight aggregate is its high porosity, which
results in a low specic gravity. Although commercially available
lightweight aggregate has been used widely for manufacture of
LWC, more environmental and economical benets can be
achieved if waste materials can be used as lightweight aggregates
in concrete. In view of the escalating environmental problems, the
use of aggregates from by-products and/or solid waste materials
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +91 9443353507; fax: +91 44 27453903.
E-mail address: gunarishi@yahoo.com (K. Gunasekaran).
0950-0618/$ - see front matter 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.06.053

from different industries is highly desirable. In recent years,

researchers have also paid more attention to some agriculture
wastes for use as building material in construction [47]. One such
alternative is coconut shell (CS), which is one of the most common
agricultural solid wastes in many tropical countries [6].
The main coconut players in the global market for 2005 are
shown in Table 1. Eight of the ten largest producers are in the Asia
Pacic region. The three main producers, Indonesia, the Philippines
and India account for 75% of world production. India is the third
largest coconut producing country, with an area of 1.9 million ha
and annual production of 2.74 million tones copra equivalent [8].
Within India, 90% of the total production of coconut is concentrated in South India (www.foodmarketexchange.com). The average annual production of coconut is estimated at about 15 billion
nuts in India (www.cpcri.ernet.in). After the coconut is scraped
out, the shell is usually discarded as waste. The vast amount of this
discarded CS resource is yet unutilized commercially; its use as a
building material, especially in concrete, on the lines of other lightweight aggregates is an interesting topic for further studies. This
coconut shell can be crushed and used as a coarse aggregate in
the production of LWC. Coconut Shell Concrete (CSC) could be used
in rural areas and places where coconut is abundant and may also
be used where the conventional aggregates are costly. In this study,
the important mechanical properties of CSC, namely compressive,
exural, splitting tensile strengths and impact resistance have
been measured to assess its suitability as a lightweight aggregate.
The bonding property of CS is also studied to analyze the suitability
from a structural point of view. The results are produced in the following paragraphs.

93

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

Table 1
Selected coconut production statistics, 2005.
Country

Indonesia
Philippines
India
Brazil
Thailand
Vietnam
Mexico
Sri Lanka
Papua New Guinea
Malaysia

Production (nuts)

Area

(kt)

(%)

(ha)

(%)

16,300
14,797
9500
3034
1500
972
950
890
650
642

30.1
27.3
17.5
5.6
2.8
1.8
1.8
1.6
1.2
1.2

2670
3243
1860
281
343
110
150
395
180
179

25.0
30.4
17.4
2.6
3.2
1.0
1.4
3.7
1.7
1.7

2. Materials used
2.1. Coconut shell as coarse aggregate
The freshly discarded shells were collected from the local oil
mills and they were well seasoned. The seasoned CS is crushed
by a mini crusher, which was developed and erected in SRM University specically for this purpose. The crushed edges were rough
and spiky and the lengths were restricted to a maximum of 12 mm.
The surface texture of the shell was fairly smooth on concave and
rough on convex faces. CS aggregates used were in saturated surface dry (SSD) condition. The physical properties of CS were compared with crushed granite and oil palm shell (Table 2).
2.2. Other concrete mix constituents
Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC) 53 Grade conforming to Indian
Standard IS 12269:1987 was used as a binder. River sand (from Palar river bed) was used throughout the investigation as the ne
aggregate conforming to grading zone III as per IS 383:1970. The
potable water from the University was used for mixing and curing.
Specimens were cast in such a way as to produce full compaction
of the concrete with neither segregation nor excessive laitance.
Compaction was achieved through use of a table vibrator.
3. Experiments
Table 3 shows the set of experiments and number of samples
used for measuring the mechanical and bond properties of CSC.
The studies on the effect of cement content and woodcement ratio on CSC included the effect of watercement ratio on the workability by measuring slump, densities and compressive strength.
For one mix, the effect of free watercement ratios of 0.42 and

0.44 was considered to study the exural and splitting tensile

strengths and impact resistance of CSC. The bond strength between
the concrete matrix and the steel reinforcement is one of the most
important aspects in structural reinforced concrete. A perfect bond
existing between concrete and steel reinforcement is one of the
fundamental assumptions of reinforced concrete [9]. Therefore,
an investigation was carried out by conducting pull-out test on
both plain and deformed steel bars to determine the bond strength
of CSC.
3.1. Studies on cement content
It has been reported that the cement content for LWC lies between 285 and 510 kg/m3 [5]. It was proposed to achieve the target
to produce structural concrete with CS as a coarse aggregate. A
number of trial mixes were made using weigh batches with different cement contents varying from 300 to 510 kg/m3 and by adjusting ne aggregate and coarse aggregate (coconut shell) ratios to
reach the target. Watercement ratio varied between 0.42
(510 kg/m3) and 0.72 (300 kg/m3). From the 33 trial mixes prepared, 11 mixes were selected, designated as M1 M11. The properties of the 11 mixes at 28 days are presented in Table 4.
3.2. Studies on woodcement ratio
Literature shows that the woodcement composites need enough cement to fully encapsulate wood materials to get a cohesive
mix with acceptable properties [10]. A lower woodcement ratio
will result in weak bonds. However, if the amount of cement is
too high, the compaction ratio will be reduced, leading to a brittle
material. So woodcement ratio strongly inuences the properties
of the nal product. A woodcement ratio below 0.5 had an adverse effect on strength of cement concrete composites [11].
Hence, it is necessary to optimize the woodcement ratio and
watercement ratio for coconut shell aggregate concrete. For optimization of the woodcement ratio to achieve the target strengths,
the cement content of the CSC samples was set at 510 kg/m3 as selected from the trial mix. Woodcement ratios of 0.55, 0.60 and
0.65 have been considered for this study and ne aggregate ratios
were also adjusted appropriately. From the 27 trial mixes prepared, 9 mixes were selected. These are designated as CS1 CS9
and their properties at 28 days are given in Table 5.
3.3. Studies on watercement ratio
It is not easy to specify an optimal watercement ratio for all
kinds of woodcement concrete composites, since the properties
of woodcement composites are varying in nature [12]. It has been
found that with the increase of watercement ratio, the strength of

Table 2
Properties of coconut shell, oil palm shell, crushed granite and river sand.
Sl. No
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
a

Physical and mechanical properties

Coconut shells

Oil palm shells [4,5,19]

Crushed granite

River sand

Maximum size (mm)

Moisture content (%)
Water absorption (24 h) (%)
Specic gravity
SSDa apparent
Impact value (%)
Crushing value (%)
Abrasion value (%)
Bulk density (kg/m3)
Compacted loose
Fineness modulus
Shell thickness (mm)

12.5
4.20
24.00
1.051.20
1.401.50
8.15
2.58
1.63
650
550
6.26
28

12.5

23.32
1.17

7.86

4.80
590

6.24
1.52.5

12.5

0.50
2.82
2.86
12.40
6.30
1.85
1650
1450
6.94

2.57

2.56

Saturated surface dry

94

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

Table 3
Experimental programme to assess mechanical and bond properties of CSC.
Sl. No

Parameter

No. of trials

Age during test

1
2
3
4
5
6

To meet structural concrete criteria

To optimize the woodcement ratio
Flexural strength
Splitting tensile strength
Impact strength
Bond properties

33 trials, 9 cubes in each trial, total of 297 cubes

27 trials, 9 cubes in each trial, total of 243 cubes
2 trials, 3 beams in each trial, total of 6 beams
2 trials, 3 cylinders in each trial, total of 6 cylinders
2 trials, 3 specimen in each trial, total of 6 specimen
8 trials, 3 specimen in each trial, total of 24 specimen

3-days, 7-days and 28-days

3-days, 7-days and 28-days
28-days
28-days
28-days
28-days

Table 4
Properties of selected trial mixes of CSC at 28-days.
Sl. No

Cement content (kg/m3)

Watercement ratio

Mix ratio (cement:ne

aggregate: CS)

Slump (mm)

Hardened density (kg/m3)

Compressive strength (N/mm2)

M1
M2
M3
M4
M5
M6
M7
M8
M9
M10
M11

300
400
425
450
480
480
480
480
480
480
510

0.72
0.55
0.50
0.45
0.51
0.42
0.42
0.44
0.42
0.42
0.42

1:3.27:1.34
1:2.05:0.84
1:1.93:0.79
1:1.83:0.75
1:1.37:0.75
1:1.67:0.69
1:1.52:0.75
1:1.60:0.80
1:1.60:0.80
1:1.60:0.70
1:1.47:0.65

10
25
15
25
110
65
50
50
05
30
05

1865
1890
1910
1960
1900
1990
1950
1910
1930
1980
1970

04.95
09.81
13.24
13.49
10.30
15.20
16.19
16.68
17.66
18.15
26.70

Table 5
Properties of CSC with at 28-days optimized woodcement ratio (cement content 510 kg/m3).
Sl. No

Woodcement ratio

Watercement ratio

Mix ratio (cement:ne

aggregate:CS)

Slump (mm)

Hardened density (kg/m3)

Compressive strength (N/mm2)

CS1
CS2
CS3
CS4
CS5
CS6
CS7
CS8
CS9

0.55
0.55
0.55
0.60
0.60
0.60
0.65
0.65
0.65

0.38
0.42
0.48
0.38
0.42
0.48
0.38
0.42
0.48

1:1.82:0.55
1:1.74:0.55
1:1.57:0.55
1:1.70:0.60
1:1.60:0.60
1:1.44:0.60
1:1.58:0.65
1:1.47:0.65
1:1.32:0.65

00
05
140
00
00
40
00
05
150

2060
2040
1960
2010
1990
1980
1985
1970
1920

23.40
16.72
13.38
19.50
16.16
13.38
27.20
26.70
14.50

Table 6
Flexural and splitting tensile strengths of CSC at 28-days.
Mix ratio (cement:ne
aggregate:CS:water
cement)

Compressive
strength (N/
mm2)

Flexural
strength (N/
mm2)

Split tensile
strength (N/
mm2)

1:1.47:0.65:0.42
1:1.47:0.65:0.44

26.70
25.95

4.68
4.26

2.70
2.38

100  100  500 mm size as shown in Fig. 1 were adopted. The

load was applied without shock and was increased until the specimen failed, and the maximum load applied to the specimen during
the test was recorded. The appearances of the fractured faces of
concrete failure were noted. The exural strength of the specimens
was calculated as follows:
2

Modulus of rupture; f b PL=bd ;

the woodcement concrete composites gets reduced. In this study,
watercement ratios of 0.38, 0.42 and 0.48 have been considered.

where P = Maximum load applied (N). L = Supported length of the

specimen (mm). b = Measured width of the specimen, mm. d = Measured width of the specimen at the point of failure (mm).

3.4. Mechanical properties

The compressive strength of 100 mm cubes was measured
according to IS 516:1959 [13]. Mix CS8 (1:1.47:0.65:0.42) was used
to study the exural, splitting tensile strengths and impact resistance of CSC. Also, watercement ratio was increased by 0.02 to
study its inuence. The 28-days exural and splitting tensile
strengths and impact resistance of CSC for the selected mix are given in Tables 6 and 7.
3.4.1. Flexural strength test
Four-point load method was adopted to measure the exural
strength of CSC. As per ASTM guidelines [14], beams of

3.4.2. Splitting tensile strength test

As per ASTM guidelines [15], 100 mm diameter  200 mm long
cylinders were used for splitting tensile strength test (Fig. 2). The
Table 7
Impact resistance of CSC at 28-days.
Mix ratio
(cement:ne
aggregate:CS:water
cement)

Compressive
strength (N/
mm2)

Average number
of blows for
initial crack

Average number
of blows for
fractured pieces

1:1.47:0.65:0.42
1:1.47:0.65:0.44

26.70
25.95

25
17

32
23

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

sile strength fsp of the specimen was calculated using the following
formula:

Table 8
Bond strength of CSC with plain bars (mix ratio 1:1.47:0.65:0.42).
Diameter of
bar (mm)

Experimental bond
stress (N/mm2)

8
10
12
16

7.49
6.54
4.99
3.56

Theoretical bond stress (N/mm2)

IS: 456-2000

1.40

95

fsp 2P=pDL

BS: 8110

1.36

test specimen was placed in the centering jig with packing strip
and/or loading pieces carefully positioned along diametrically vertical planes at the top and bottom of the specimen. The maximum
diametrical load applied was recorded. The measured splitting ten-

where P = maximum load applied to the specimen (N). D = cross

sectional diameter of the specimen (mm) and L = length of the specimen (mm).
3.4.3. Impact resistance
The method developed by ACI committee 544.1R-82 for the
determination of impact resistance of concrete was adopted.
The test specimens used for the impact tests were 152.4 mm
in diameter and 63.5 mm thick. The test equipment with the
specimen is shown in Fig. 3 (as recommended by the ACI
Committee 16-81). During this test, the number of blows

Fig. 1. Flexural test on CSC. (a) Flexural test specimen in UTM and (b) tested specimen of exural test.

Fig. 2. Splitting tensile test on CSC. (a) Splitting testing in compression testing machine (CTM) and (b) tested specimen of split tensile in CTM and Fig. 3 (c) tested specimen of
split tensile.

Fig. 3. Impact resistance test on CSC. (a) Impact resistance testing instrument. (b) Testing of specimen under impact and (c) tested specimen of impact resistance.

96

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

was counted till the rst crack appeared (initial crack) on each
specimen and counting was continued till the specimen was
broken into a number of pieces. The results are presented in
Table 7.

3.5. Bond properties

The bond strength was determined using the pull-out test and
the specimens were prepared as per IS 2770 (part-I 1967) [16].

Fig. 4. Pull-out test on CSC in UTM. (a) Bond (pull-out) testing in UTM. (b) Closure view of specially fabricated steel plates attached with UTM to conduct pull-out test.

Fig. 5. Schematic diagram of attachment made with UTM. Representing a schematic diagram of specially fabricated steel plates attached to the UTM to conduct bond (pullout) test.

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

The specimens were of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height

incorporating both deformed and plain bars of 8, 10, 12 and
16 mm diameters. For each specimen, a single reinforcing bar
was placed in the centre and both ends were provided with an
un-bonded length of 25 mm. The un-bonded lengths were provided by attaching a plastic sheathing to the bar. A short embedment length of 150 mm was selected to avoid yielding of the
steel bar under pull-out load. To prevent excessive evaporation
from the fresh concrete, the specimens were immediately covered
with plastic sheets upon casting and then de-molded after 24 h.
The pull-out test was carried out using the Universal Testing Machine (UTM) of 400 kN capacity. In order to pull the steel rod from
the specimen, a special attachment was made with steel plates and
used, as shown in Fig. 4. A schematic diagram of the attachment
along with the UTM is shown in Fig. 5. One end of the rod was tted with grips provided in the machine, which is movable in vertical, and load was applied by pulling the rod upward from the
specimen until failure to obtain the ultimate load [17]. The bond
strength is reported as an average of three tests in each case. The
experimental bond strength was computed using the following
formula:

i F=p  d  l

3
2

where i is the bond stress (N/mm ), F the applied load (N), d the
nominal bar diameter (mm) and l the embedment length (mm).
The results of the pull-out test are given in Table 8 and Table 9
for plain bars and deformed bars, respectively.
4. Discussions on test results
4.1. Cement content
To satisfy the criteria of structural LWC as per ASTM [18], minimum 28-days compressive strength should be greater than 17 N/
mm2. This criterion is satised for the CSC mixes M9, M10 and M11
(Table 4). The cement content required to meet this minimum
requirement lies between 480 kg/m3 and 510 kg/m3. This result
also conforms to published literature [5].
4.2. Woodcement ratio
Referring to Table 5, a woodcement ratio of 0.65 may be taken
as optimum for CS aggregate to satisfy the criteria of structural
LWC strength as per ASTM [18].

97

4.4. Compressive strength

Compressive strength of LWAC depends on both the strength of
the matrix and the particle tensile strength of the aggregate. Again,
the compressive strength of LWC is usually related to the cement
content at a given slump and air content, rather than to watercement ratio. This is due to the difculty in determining how much of
the total mix water is absorbed by the aggregate and is thus not
available for reaction with the cement [20]. However, in this study,
CS coarse aggregates were used in SSD condition and the watercement ratio was optimized to obtain desired workability. The compressive strengths of the CSC cube samples for all the trials are
shown in Tables 4 and 5. An examination of the failure surfaces
showed breakage of the CS aggregate, indicating that the individual
shell strength had a strong inuence on the resultant concrete
strength.
4.5. Flexural strength
The exural strength of CSC at 28-days is presented in Table 6.
For the selected mixes, the exural strength is 4.68 N/mm2 (17.53%
of compressive strength) and 4.26 N/mm2 (16.42% of compressive
strength), respectively, for watercement ratios of 0.42 and 0.44.
For conventional concrete, the exural strength is usually 10
15% of compressive strength. Compared to the exural strength
p
as per IS 456:2000 [21], 0.7 fck, where fck is the compressive
strength of conventional concrete, these values are higher by 29%
and 19%, respectively. It reinforces the assumption that the behavior of CSC would be similar to that of conventional concrete. In concrete with conventional aggregates, the failure in tension occurs as
a result of breaking of bond between the matrix and the surface of
the aggregate used or by fracture of the concrete matrix itself. Even
though CS is liable to fracture unlike the conventional aggregates,
this did not occur in any of the experiments when it is used as
aggregate. This shows that the brittle nature of CS is not a limiting
factor for its use as aggregate. When the size of the shells is reduced, the ability to be fractured easily also probably decreases.
This shows that the behavior of CSC is also similar to that of conventional concrete. However, further research is required on CSC
to establish the co-efcient to be used to nd out the exural
strength from the compressive strength. Compressive strength
and exural strength depend to some extent on the physical
strength of conventional aggregates. They are also inuenced by
the watercement ratio in the samples [22]. This holds true for
CS also as evidenced by this study.
4.6. Splitting tensile strength

4.3. Workability and density

The results for workability and density are presented in Tables 4
and 5. Coconut shell concrete probably has better workability due
to the smooth surface on one side of the shells and also due to the
smaller size of CS used in this study. This same trend was also reported by Basri [19]. For typical trial mixes, the 28-days air-dry
densities of CSC are less than 2000 kg/m3 and these are within
the range of structural LWC [7].

The splitting tensile strength of CSC at 28-days is presented in

Table 6. For the selected mixes, the splitting tensile strength is
2.70 N/mm2 (10.11% of compressive strength) and 2.38 N/mm2
(9.17% of compressive strength), respectively, for watercement
ratios of 0.42 and 0.44. Hence, it is evident that the behavior of
CSC is similar to conventional concrete. A similar result is also reported for oil palm shell concrete [4].
4.7. Impact resistance

Table 9
Bond strength of CSC with deformed bars (mix ratio 1:1.47:0.65:0.42).
Diameter of
bar (mm)

Experimental bond
stress (N/mm2)

8
10
12
16

9.84
7.45
5.93
4.22

Theoretical bond stress (N/mm )

IS: 456-2000

BS: 8110

2.24

2.42

The impact resistance generally increased with concrete

strength both for initial crack and for failure (Table 7). However,
in normal concrete there appears to be an optimum value beyond
which any increase in strength reduces the impact resistance both
at rst crack and at failure [23]. Literature shows that the number
of blows required for the failure of normal aggregate concrete having compressive strength of around 45 N/mm2 is in the range of
1022 [23], but in this study, for CSC having compressive strengths

98

K. Gunasekaran et al. / Construction and Building Materials 25 (2011) 9298

of 25.95 N/mm2 and 26.70 N/mm2, 2332 blows were required,

nearly 50% more. This increase may be due to the brous nature
of the CS aggregate and its high impact resistance.

are under way to assess its durability and suitability in structural

applications.
Acknowledgements

4.8. Bond strength

The theoretical bond strengths were obtained using the formula
as per BS 8110 [24]:

p
fbu b f cu

This project is funded by SRM University, Kattankulathur, India,

under Pilot Research Project Scheme (PRPS) 20082009. The
authors wish to thank the SRM management, for their nancial
aid as well as the technical support and those who were directly
or indirectly involved in this study.

where fbu is the theoretical bond strength (N/mm ); b the bond

coefcient (0.28 for MS bars and 0.50 for RTS bars) and fcu the compressive strength of concrete (N/mm2). The bond strength of specimens with plain bars ranged from 3.56 to 7.49 N/mm2 (1532% of
compressive strength). For deformed bars, the bond strength ranged
from 4.22 to 9.84 N/mm2 (1842% of compressive strength). The
theoretical bond strengths for plain bars in conventional concrete
are 1.4 and 1.36 N/mm2 as per IS 456-2000 and BS 8110, respectively. The corresponding values for deformed bars are 2.24 and
2.42 N/mm2. In general, the bond strength of CSC is comparable
to the bond strength of normal and other LWC. Similar trends were
reported by Teo et al. [25].
In all the tests, plain bars failed by pulling out of the concrete
whereas, deformed bars failed by concrete cover cracking and the
failure was sudden with the formation of longitudinal cracks. The
deformed bars had a good grip on the concrete through well-distributed mechanical anchorages along their length. This showed
that the projections on the surface of the deformed bars played
an important role in improving the bond strength. In case of plain
bars, the absence of anchorages and smooth surface on one side of
the CS aggregates coupled with the continuous presence of water
might have prevented good bond between the smooth bars, which
contributed to the lower bond strength as compared with deformed bars. However, even this lower bond strength value for
plain bars is greater than the theoretical prediction as per standards. It was also observed that for both plain and deformed bars,
as the bar size increases, the bond strength decreases. This may be
because the surrounding volume of concrete and hence the conning pressure reduces on the reinforcing bar as the sizes increase.
5. Conclusions
Coconut shell concrete has better workability because of the
smooth surface on one side of the shells and the size of CS used
in this study. The 28-days air-dry densities of CS concrete of the
typical mixes ranged from 1930 to 1970 kg/m3 and these are within the range of structural lightweight concrete of density less than
2000 kg/m3 [7]. The exural strength of CSC is approximately
17.53% and 16.42% of its respective compressive strengths
(26.70 N/mm2 and 25.95 N/mm2). The splitting tensile strength of
CSC is approximately 10.11% and 9.17% of its respective compressive strengths. The impact resistance of coconut shell aggregate
concrete is high when compared with conventional concrete. The
experimental bond strength of CSC is much higher compared to
the theoretical bond strength as stipulated by IS 456:2000 and
BS 8110. In general, the bond strength of CSC is comparable to
the bond strength of normal and other lightweight aggregate concretes. The experiments prove that coconut shells fulll the
requirements for use as lightweight aggregate. Further studies

References
[1] Weigler H, Sieghart K. Structural lightweight aggregate concrete with reduced
density lightweight aggregate foamed concrete. Int J Lightweight Concr
1980;2(2):1014.
[2] Lo TY, Cui HZ. Properties of green lightweight aggregate concrete. International
workshop on sustainable development and concrete technology. New York
(USA); 2002. p. 1138.
[3] Gerritse A. Design consideration for reinforced lightweight concrete. Cem
Comp Lightweight Conc 1981;3(1):5769.
[4] Mannan MA, Ganapathy C. Engineering properties of concrete with oil palm
shell as coarse aggregate. Const Build Mater 2002;16:2934.
[5] Mannan MA, Ganapathy C. Concrete from an agricultural waste-oil palm shell
(OPS). Build Environ 2004;39:4418.
[6] Olanipekum EA, Olusola KO, Ata O. A comparative study of concrete properties
using coconut shell and palm kernel shell as coarse aggregates. Build Environ
2006;41:297301.
[7] Alengaram JU, Jumaat MZ, Mahmud H. Ductility behavior of reinforced palm
kernel shell concrete beams. Eur J Sci Res 2008;23(3):40620.
[8] Warner B, Quirke D, Longmore C. A review of the future prospects for the world
coconut industry and past research in coconut production and product. Project
no. PLIA/2007/019, Final report, Australian centre for international agricultural
research (ACIAR), Australia; September 2007.
[9] Shetty MS. Concrete technology theory and practice. New Delhi: Chand &
Company Ltd.; 2006.
[10] Simatupang MH. Inorganic binder for wood composites: feasibility and
limitations. Wood Adhes Forest Prod Soc 1990;16:176.
[11] Geiver RL, Souza MR, Moslerni AA, Sirnatupang MH. Carbon dioxide
application for rapid production of cement particleboard. Proceedings,
inorganic-bonded wood and ber composite materials, vol. 3. Madison,
Wis: Forest Prod Soc; 1992. p. 3141.
[12] Huang C, Cooper PA. Cement-bonded particleboards using CCA-treated wood
removed from service. Forest Prod J 2000;50(6):4956.
[13] IS: 516-1959. Methods of tests for strength of concrete, edition 1.2 (1991.-07).
[14] ASTM C78-84. Standard test method for exural strength of concrete. Annual
Book of ASTM Standards.
[15] ASTM C496-90. Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of
cylindrical concrete specimens. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
[16] IS: 2770-(Part I)-1967. Indian standard methods of testing bond in reinforced
concrete. UDC 666.982: 620.172.21.
[17] ASTM C234. Standard test method for comparing concrete on the basis of bond
development with reinforcing steel. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
[18] ASTM C330. Standard specication for lightweight aggregates for structural
concrete. Annual Book of ASTM Standards.
[19] Basri HB. Concrete using waste oil palm shells as aggregate. Cem Concr Res
1999;29:61922.
[20] Grubl P. Mix design of lightweight aggregate concrete for structural purposes.
Lightweight Concr 1979;1(2):639.
[21] IS 456: 2000. Indian standard plain and reinforced concrete code of practice,
BIS, New Delhi; 2000.
[22] Short A, Kinniburgh W. Lightweight concrete. 3rd ed. London: Applied Science
Publishers.; 1978.
[23] Swamy RN, Jojagha AH. Impact resistance of steel bre reinforced lightweight
concrete. Cem Compo Lightweight Conc 1982;4(4):20920.
[24] BS 8110. Structural use of concrete Part 1. Code of practice for design and
construction. London: British Standard Institution.
[25] Teo DCL, Mannan MA, Kurian VJ, Ganapathy C. Lightweight concrete
made from oil palm shell (OPS): structural bond and durability properties.
Build
Environ
2007;42:261421.
<http://www.foodmarketexchange.
com/datacenter/product/fruit/coconut/detail/dc_pi_ft_coconut0603.htm>
01.05.2010 @8.30pm. <http://www.crnindia.com/commodity/coconut.html>#
Description on 03.05.2010 at 11.50 am IST.