Accepted Manuscript

A novel material for lightweight concrete production

Abdulkadir Kan, Ramazan Demirboğa

PII: S0958-9465(09)00080-8
DOI: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.05.002
Reference: CECO 1688

To appear in: Cement & Concrete Composites

Received Date: 17 November 2008

Revised Date: 29 April 2009
Accepted Date: 5 May 2009

Please cite this article as: Kan, A., Demirboğa, R., A novel material for lightweight concrete production, Cement
& Concrete Composites (2009), doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.05.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers
we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and
review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

A novel material for lightweight concrete production

1
2
3
4
5 Abdulkadir Kan* a Ramazan Demirboğa b
6
7 a
Vocational College of Erzurum, Construction Program, Ataturk University, 25240
8
9 Erzurum, Turkey
b
10 Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Ataturk University, 25240
11 Erzurum, Turkey
12
13
14
15 Abstract
16
17
18 This paper presents the results of an experimental study on the effects of using recycled waste
19
20 expanded polystyrene foam (EPS), as a potential aggregate in lightweight concrete. In this
21
22
23
study, thermal modified waste EPS foams have been used as aggregate. Modified waste
24
25 expanded polystyrene aggregates (MEPS) were obtained by heat treatment method by keeping
26
27 waste EPS foams in a hot air oven at 130oC for 15 minutes. Effects of MEPS aggregate on
28
29
30 several properties of concrete were investigated. For this purpose, six series of concrete
31
32 samples were prepared. MEPS aggregate was used as a replacement of natural aggregate, at
33
34
35 the levels of 0, 25, 50, 75, and 100% by volume. The density of MEPS is much less than
36
37 natural aggregate; MEPS concrete becomes a lightweight concrete with a density of about
38
39
40 900- 1700 kg/m3. The 28-d compressive strengths of MEPS concrete range from 12.58 to
41
42 23.34 MPa; this satisfies the strength requirement of semi-structural lightweight concrete.
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
Keywords: Artificial aggregate; Modified polystyrene; Freezing and thawing; Recycling;
50 Durability factor
51
52
53
54
55
56 *
57 Corresponding author. Tel: +90 442 231 2662; Fax: +90 442 236 0982
58 E-mail Address: akan@atauni.edu.tr
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1. Introduction
1
2
3
4
In many countries, due to the increasing cost of raw materials and the continuous reduction
5
6 of natural resources, the use of waste materials is a potential alternative in the construction
7
8 industry. Waste materials, when properly processed, have shown to be effective as construction
9
10
11 materials and readily meet the design specifications. The continued and expanding extraction
12
13 of natural aggregate is accompanied by serious environmental problems. Often it leads to
14
15
16 irremediable deterioration of the rural area. Quarrying of aggregates leads to disturbed surface
17
18 area, etc., but the artificial aggregates from industrial and post consumer wastes are not only
19
20
21 adding extra aggregate sources, but also reduce environmental pollution.
22
23 Lightweight concrete can be produced by introducing: i. gassing agents such as
24
25
aluminum powder or foaming agents, ii. lightweight mineral aggregate such as perlite,
26
27
28 vermiculite, pumice, expanded shale, slate, clay, etc., iii. plastic granules as aggregate e.g.
29
30 EPS, Polyurethane (PUR) or other polymer materials [1]. There are many publications
31
32
33 considering different wastes as a source of raw materials for the manufacturing of lightweight
34
35 concrete. Nevertheless, the application of the different types of waste produced either within a
36
37
38 single industry or by several industries located within a small region, can represent a complex
39
40 problem for their reutilization.
41
42
43
Original EPS beads can be easily incorporated with different contents in concrete to
44
45 produce lightweight concrete with a wide range of densities. However, EPS lightweight
46
47 concrete has not been used for structural concrete because of its generally low strength. The
48
49
50 strength of concrete is mainly influenced by the strength of the aggregate and it is known that
51
52 the EPS beads have almost zero strength. Their low strength and weak performances in both
53
54
55 concrete and mortar was clearly demonstrated by Kan and Demirboğa [2]. A new technique
56
57 has been developed to achieve the recycling of waste EPS foams, with the aim of reusing the
58
59
60 thermal modified waste EPS foams (MEPS) as aggregate in concrete. The MEPS aggregates
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

developed by Kan and Demirboğa [3] from waste EPS foams show higher strength values
1
2 than the unmodified EPS material.
3
4
5 The main objective of this paper is to provide some basic information on mechanical
6
7 properties of structural concrete using artificial MEPS aggregates. MEPS aggregate concrete
8
9
10 mixtures were obtained by partially replacing natural aggregate with the MEPS aggregates. In
11
12 addition, the effects of the MEPS aggregate on compressive strength, splitting tensile strength,
13
14
15
modulus of elasticity, and freeze- thaw resistance were investigated.
16
17
18
19 2. Experimental Details
20
21
22 Several experimental studies have been carried out on MEPS concrete specimens
23
24 according to Turkish and ASTM codes. The properties of the materials used in these concrete
25
26
27 mixtures are given below.
28
29
30
31 2.1. Materials
32
33
34
35
The following materials were used in the preparation of the concrete specimens. MEPS
36
37 aggregate were obtained modified from waste EPS foams by using a thermal treatment
38
39 method in the laboratory [3]. Specific gravity factor (SGF) of fine (0-4 mm) and coarse (4-16
40
41
42 mm) MEPS aggregate was 0.34 and 0.24 respectively. SGF is not a true specific gravity, since
43
44 its value incorporates compensation for absorption of free water by the MEPS aggregates, but
45
46
47 it is used in exactly the same way to calculate volume relationship. The SGF has a different
48
49 value for fine and coarse aggregate. Specification of MEPS aggregate can be seen from Table
50
51
52 1. The use of MEPS as lightweight aggregate makes it difficult to predict the concrete density.
53
54 Indeed, MEPS is a compressible material and exhibits high porosity, contrary to natural
55
56 aggregates such as sand or gravel.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The fine MEPS aggregates consisting of rigid and smooth shape spherical particles have
1
2 a maximum dimension 4 mm. The fine MEPS aggregate were classified according to their
3
4
5 aggregate sizes of 0-0.25 (5%), 0.25-0.5 (12%), 0.5-1.0 (%19), 1.0-2.0 (17%), and 2-4 mm
6
7 (47%). Coarse MEPS aggregate were classified 4-8 (59%) and 8-16 mm (41%).
8
9
10 Maximum aggregate size of MEPS and natural aggregates were 16 mm. The natural sand
11
12 used is from the Aras River and the coarse aggregate from Daphan. Unit weights of
13
14
15
aggregates were sand (0–4 mm) 1850 kg/m3; coarse aggregate (4–16 mm) 1660 kg/m3. The
16
17 specific gravity of aggregates were sand (0–4 mm) 2560 kg/m3; coarse aggregate (4–16 mm)
18
19 2620 kg/m3.
20
21
22 The cement used in this study was commercial grade ASTM Type I [4] Portland cement,
23
24 which is produced as CEM I in Turkey. The cement contents for the concrete mixtures were
25
26
27 constant at 500 kg/m3 throughout the study. A polycarboxylate-based superplasticizer was
28
29 used to produce mixtures of a flowable or highly flexible nature, to suit the adopted hand
30
31
32
compaction method.
33
34
35
36 2.2. Concrete mix design and experimental procedures
37
38
39 Mix preparation is particularly important when using very lightweight aggregates. For the
40
41
42 anticipated testing exactly six different mixtures of component materials were produced (they
43
44 are labeled as series from C1 to C6). MEPS aggregate was used as 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and
45
46
47 100% of natural aggregate by volume and three concrete prism specimens were produced for
48
49 each mixture proportion. For the 100% MEPS concrete, 50% fine MEPS+50% coarse MEPS
50
51
52
aggregate were used (C1). For a second group, 25% of fine MEPS were replaced with natural
53
54 sand. Thus, 25% fine MEPS+50% coarse MEPS+25% natural sand were used (C2). For the
55
56 third group, 50% coarse MEPS aggregate+50% natural sand was used (C3). The fourth group
57
58
59 was made up of 50% fine MEPS and 50% coarse natural aggregate (C4). The fifth group
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

consisted of 25% fine MEPS+25% coarse MEPS and 25% natural sand + 25% coarse natural
1
2 aggregate (C5). Finally, 25% fine MEPS aggregate +25% natural sand+50% coarse natural
3
4
5 aggregate were used (C6). The complete details of the MEPS aggregate and natural aggregate
6
7 ratios are presented in Table 2.
8
9
10 For each test 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders were used for the determination of compressive
11
12 and splitting tensile strength (at 7, 28 and 90 days) and freezing and thawing tests (300
13
14
15
cycles). ASTM C 39 [5] was the test procedure used to evaluate the compressive strength.
16
17 UPV measurements are reported for three repeats per cylinder and were conducted in
18
19 accordance with ASTM C 567-97 [6].
20
21
22 All the concretes were mixed in a planetary mixer of 50 dm3 capacity in the laboratory.
23
24 The production and curing of lightweight concrete (LWC) has been described earlier [7-10].
25
26
27 The mixing of materials was done in a specific sequence, by placing a part of the water with
28
29 superplasticizer in the mixture and adding the dry MEPS aggregates, which was thoroughly
30
31
32
mixed for about 5 min to get the aggregates wetted with water and plasticizer similar to the
33
34 mixtures designed for previous studies. Then, the remaining materials were added to the
35
36 mixer and the remaining water was gradually added while the mixing was in progress. The
37
38
39 mixing was continued until a mix of uniform consistency was achieved. The fresh concrete
40
41 densities and slump values were measured immediately after mixing for all the concretes. The
42
43
44 slump value for all the concretes varied between 25 mm and 50 mm. The test specimens were
45
46 cast with hand compaction only. The specimens were covered with wet gunny bags 10 h after
47
48
49 casting, demolded after 24 h and stored in water for curing until testing.
50
51 Properties of freezing and thawing of MEPS aggregate concrete were obtained by a
52
53
rapid test in water according to the ASTM C 666 procedure B [11]. The cylindrical mould
54
55
56 was used to measure the weight loss and the relative dynamic modulus of elasticity (RDME).
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

RDME is the ratio of the dynamic modulus of elasticity value measured after a number of
1
2 freeze–thaw cycles to the initial value before being subjected to freeze–thaw testing.
3
4
5 Pc= (n12/ n2) x100 (1)
6
7 Pc, denotes relative dynamic modulus of elasticity, after c cycles of freezing and thawing,
8
9
10 percent,
11
12 n, denotes fundamental transverse frequency at 0 cycles of freezing and thawing, and
13
14
15
n1, denotes fundamental transverse frequency at c cycles of freezing.
16
17 All specimens were removed from the molds 24 h after casting. Then, they were cured at
18
19 20 ± 3°C and 95% RH for 14 days according to ASTM C 666 [11]. A fraction of the
20
21
22 specimens were then immersed in water for 4 days before being exposed to the freezing and
23
24 thawing cycles; these specimens were put in the freeze–thaw apparatus and were used to
25
26
27 measure the compressive strength, weight loss and RDME after 300 freezing and thawing
28
29 cycles. An automatic environmental cabinet was used to carry out the accelerated freeze–
30
31
32
thaw test.
33
34
35
36 3. Results and Discussion
37
38
39
3.1. Workability and density
40
41
42
43 It is well known that the workability of fresh concrete and bonding between aggregates
44
45
46 and the mortar phase are influenced significantly by physical properties such as shape,
47
48 roughness and texture of aggregates. The smoothness or roughness of aggregate reflects the
49
50 surface texture; glassy, smooth, granular, rough, crystalline, porous and honeycombed
51
52
53 textures are the visual properties of the surface. The bond is the development of anchorage
54
55 and it depends on the roughness and porosity of the surface of the aggregate. Surface texture
56
57
58 may help in the development of good bonds by the absorption of the paste into pores.
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Replacement of the natural aggregate with MEPS aggregate reduced the workability of the
1
2 concrete mixtures because of the increased surface area of the aggregates. This was due to the
3
4
5 fact that coarse MEPS aggregate surfaces have a large number of pores. This was more
6
7 pronounced in the C1, C2, and C3 mixtures, due to their higher MEPS aggregate content
8
9
10 (50%), resulting in a lower degree of compaction in the test specimens, which partly
11
12 contributed to the reduction in strength. It was observed that when the MEPS aggregate
13
14
15
content was increased, the fresh concrete mix became rubbery, harsh, and difficult to place
16
17 and compact. Therefore, the use of a superplasticizer was found to be essential for the
18
19 concrete mixtures with 100% MEPS (C1) and 75% MEPS (C2) aggregate replacements of
20
21
22 natural aggregate. In addition, fine MEPS aggregates in mixtures without superplasticizer tend
23
24 to float to the top surface during setting, increasing the risk of poor mix distribution and
25
26
27 segregation. The fine MEPS aggregate improved the workability of the concrete mixture due
28
29 to its ‘shape effect’.
30
31
32
Slump tests were carried out to determine the consistency of the fresh concretes. The
33
34 results of slump tests belonging to six series of concrete are given in Table 2. The measured
35
36 slump values ranged between 25 mm and 50 mm. It can be seen that the slump values of the
37
38
39 fresh concretes were decreased with an increasing MEPS ratio of the concretes.
40
41 Density is one of the important parameters, which can control many physical properties
42
43
44 in lightweight concrete and it is mainly controlled by the amount and density of lightweight
45
46 aggregate. Previous studies indicate that the density of EPS concrete decreases with an
47
48
49 increase in volume of EPS aggregate and hence results in a decrease in compressive strength
50
51 of the concrete [2,7,12,13]. By incorporating the MEPS aggregate at different volume
52
53
percentages in a concrete, mortar or in the cement paste, a wide range of concrete densities
54
55
56 can be produced. The fresh density of C1 concrete was 876 kg/m3 compared to 1956 kg/m3 for
57
58 the C6 concrete. Thus the fresh density of the C1 concrete was 45 percent of the C6 (Table 2).
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

3.2. Compressive Strength

1
2
3
A comprehensive summary of density, UPV, compressive and splitting tensile strength
4
5 of MEPS aggregate concrete is presented in Table 3.
6
7 Fig. 1 shows the relationship between the density of MEPS concrete and the 7, 28 and
8
9
10 90 days compressive strength. Apparently, the rates of strength development of all MEPS
11
12 concretes have a similar trend. All MEPS concretes were able to develop more than
13
14
15 approximately 80% of their corresponding 28-day strength at 7 days and 90% of their
16
17 corresponding 90-day strength at 28 days, except for the C2 and C6 mixtures. As the MEPS
18
19
20
aggregate decreased in the mixtures, the strength of the concrete increased. This may be due
21
22 to the lower density and weakness of the MEPS aggregate. Higher MEPS aggregate ratio
23
24 concrete (C1) developed 83% of its 90- day strength after 7 d, while the lowest MEPS
25
26
27 aggregate concrete (C6) developed only 69%. The probable reason for this may be the lower
28
29 specific thermal capacity of the MEPS aggregate resulting in a reduced heat loss from the
30
31
32 concrete, thereby increasing the heat of hydration. Thus, the earlier strength gaining was
33
34 higher when compared to the lower MEPS content concrete mixture.
35
36
37 The strength of C3 was lower than that of C4 and C5 even though their MEPS aggregate
38
39 contents were all 50% by volume. However, 50% MEPS aggregate of the C3 was coarse
40
41
42
MEPS aggregate while for the others (C4 and C5), 50% MEPS were fine aggregate. It can be
43
44 said that the coarser aggregate is brittle and weaker because of their higher porosity structure.
45
46 Similar results are observed for conventional lightweight concrete where replacement of
47
48
49 coarse aggregate with LWA decreases strength more substantially than does replacement of
50
51 fine aggregate with LWA.
52
53
54 The relation between the compressive strength and density for the MEPS concretes
55
56 (having hardened densities ranging from 980 kg/m3 to 2025 kg/m3 and strengths ranging from
57
58
59
12.58 MPa to 23.34 MPa) were similar to those of previous studies using unmodified EPS
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

aggregates [2,7, 14]. Moreover, for equal concrete densities, MEPS aggregate concrete have
1
2 exhibited 40% higher compressive strength than vermiculite or perlite aggregate concrete and
3
4
5 these were found to be freezing-thaw resistant and hence used as a good thermal insulation
6
7 material in building construction. The relationship between hardened concrete density and
8
9
10 compressive strength, based on the results of MEPS concretes with densities ranging from
11
12 980 kg/m3 to 2025 kg/m3 can be proposed as
13
14
15 fc = 13.8Ln() – 85 (2)
16
17 Where; fc is the compressive strength (MPa) and  is the hardened density (kg/m3) of the
18
19
20 MEPS aggregate concrete.
21
22 Lots of studies can be found on the mechanical properties of lightweight concrete
23
24
25 mixtures made of polystyrene aggregates (PAC). Tang et al.[15], developed a class of
26
27 structural grade PAC with a wide range of concrete densities between 1400 kg/m3 and
28
29 2100 kg/m3 through partial replacement of coarse aggregate with EPS aggregate. Their results
30
31
32 show that the concrete density and concrete strength decrease with an increase of EPS
33
34 aggregate content in the mixture. Perry et al. [12] also studied the mechanical properties of
35
36
37 PAC over a density range from 850 kg/m3 to 1250 kg/m3 and stated that the mechanical
38
39 behavior of PAC should be considered similar to that of cellular concrete as the EPS
40
41
42 aggregate consists essentially of air. Similarly, Chen and Liu [16] investigated the strength
43
44 properties of PAC at a constant water/binder ratio (i.e., 0.37) producing a series of PAC with
45
46
47
compressive strengths of 10 MPa to 25 MPa over a density range between 800 kg/m3 and
48
49 1800 kg/m3. Recently, Babu and Babu [8,17] have studied the strength and durability of PAC
50
51 containing mineral admixtures with concrete densities varying from 550 kg/m3 to 2200 kg/m3
52
53
54 and the corresponding strength results were found to vary from 1 MPa to 21 MPa. It seems
55
56 that most studies reported to date have been essentially related to PAC of lower strength. To
57
58
59 better use the advantages of PAC for both structural and functional requirements, a series of
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

structural grade PAC of 1400 kg/m3 to 2100 kg/m3 densities with corresponding strengths of
1
2 about 17 MPa minimum were designed and studied [18].
3
4
5
6 3.3. UPV of MEPS aggregate concrete
7
8
9 UPV of MEPS aggregate concrete is influenced by many factors, such as density, age,
10
11
12 moisture content, porosity, the physical and chemical characteristics of component materials
13
14 and mixture proportions. Hence, it is desirable to keep the mixture proportions, type of
15
16
17 cement and ratio of MEPS aggregate/natural aggregate as well as the method of production
18
19 constant. A relationship exists between the UPV and density, and also between UPV and
20
21
22 compressive strength. Any change to the factors mentioned above could vary that relationship
23
24 quite markedly. The results indicate that the UPV values increase as the strength of the
25
26
concrete increases. UPV also decreased with the increase of the MEPS content. The variation
27
28
29 of UPV is given in Table 3.
30
31
32
33 3.4. Splitting- Tensile strength
34
35
36 The splitting tensile strengths and density of MEPS aggregate concretes are summarized
37
38
39 in Table 3. The variation of splitting tensile strength with the compressive strength is given in
40
41 Fig. 2. Similar to compressive strength, the splitting tensile strength of MEPS aggregate
42
43
44
concrete also increased with a decrease in the MEPS aggregate ratio. It can be seen that the
45
46 tensile strength increased with an increase in compressive strength. All test specimens exhibited
47
48 linear-elastic behavior until cracking. As seen in the Fig. 3, the splitting failure mode of the
49
50
51 concrete specimens containing MEPS aggregates also exhibited the typical brittle failure
52
53 normally observed in conventional concrete in splitting tensile tests.
54
55
56 Splitting tensile strength of concretes containing only MEPS aggregate is lower than that of
57
58 those partially containing natural aggregate. The differences are greater at lower water to
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

cement ratios. Substitution of sand for the fines of MEPS aggregates does not result in
1
2 improved strength. Concrete using fines from MEPS aggregate requires a higher water to
3
4
5 cement ratio. This is expected because of the presence of higher amounts of porosity.
6
7 The literature in the field of EPS concrete is mostly devoted to characterizing the
8
9
10 mechanical properties of these materials. It is shown that these properties can be significantly
11
12 improved by adding polypropylene fibers (PP) or silica fume (SF) in the concrete matrix or by
13
14
15
decreasing EPS beads size. This phenomenon has been proved by Babu and Babu [17] with
16
17 structural EPS concretes of higher densities and with two EPS beads sizes: 6.3 and 4.75 mm.
18
19 Comparisons of density, compressive strength and splitting tensile strength of the
20
21
22 unmodified EPS concretes and MEPS aggregate concretes are given in Table 4. This
23
24 comparison was made only for concretes containing unmodified EPS aggregates and similar
25
26
27 cement contents as in the present study.
28
29
30 3.5. Freezing and thaw resistance
31
32
33
34 An automatic environmental cabinet was used to carry out the accelerated freeze–thaw
35
36 test. The ASTM Standard test lasted for 5 h. The cylinders were kept in lime saturated water
37
38
39 until the date of the test. Performance results of C1-C6 in the accelerated freeze–thaw cycling
40
41 tests are given in Fig.4 and Table 5. In addition, Table 5 contains the relative dynamic
42
43
44 modulus of elasticity (RDME), compressive strength before and after freezing-thawing
45
46 cycles, durability factor (DF) and loss in weight of MEPS aggregate concrete as the
47
48
49 evaluation indicators. As is well known, lightweight concrete exhibits a higher frost resistance
50
51 due to the existence of 20%–50% voids in the lightweight aggregates. Hence, C1, C2 and C4
52
53
without any anti-frost treatment (air entrainment) can still fulfill the normal anti-frost
54
55
56 requirements, 60% RDME, up to 180 cycles of freeze– thaw tests. However, C3 and C5 fell
57
58 below 60% RDME at 150 cycles and C6 at 180 cycles. The highest performance was
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

observed, up to 240 cycles, for mixture C4. RDME of C4 was over 40% at 240 cycles. The
1
2 performance of C3 was lower than that of C4 even though both of them have the same
3
4
5 percentage (50%) of MEPS aggregate. This can be attributed to the coarser part of MEPS
6
7 aggregate size of C3. As can be seen from the Table 2, all 50% of MEPS aggregate of the C3
8
9
10 mixtures was coarse aggregate, while in C4 it was fine. Thus, coarse lightweight MEPS
11
12 aggregate is more susceptible to the freeze-thaw cycles when compared to the fine lightweight
13
14
15
aggregate. All mixtures failed before 300 freeze– thaw cycles with regards to RDME; in
16
17 general, none of them fulfills the basic requirements of durability. This explains that
18
19 lightweight concrete is also subject to deterioration due to freeze– thaw cycling. However,
20
21
22 increasing the MEPS aggregate ratio in mixtures, the concrete can be expected to exhibit a
23
24 higher frost resistance and bear a higher durability (Fig.5).
25
26
27 All freeze– thaw specimens were in saturated surface dry condition during mechanical
28
29 tests. The compressive strength losses after 300 freeze–thaw cycles were 67%, 52%, 63%,
30
31
32
58%, 68%, and 67% from C1 to C6, respectively.
33
34 The highest DF was observed for C4. Both C2 and C4 fulfill the minimum requirements
35
36 of ASTM C 666 [11] with respect to the DF. The lowest DF value was observed for C3.
37
38
39
40
41 4. Conclusions
42
43
44
45 The aim of this study was to evaluate the usability of MEPS as an aggregate for
46
47
48 concrete and other secondary construction materials. A basic experimental study on the
49
50 physical and mechanical properties of concretes containing MEPS as an aggregate provided
51
52
the following results.
53
54
55 All the MEPS concretes without any special bonding agents show good workability and
56
57 could be easily compacted and finished except for mixture C1. Experience with MEPS
58
59
60 aggregate concrete indicated that care must be exercised while mixing, pouring and
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

compacting the fresh concrete to minimize segregation of the concrete mixture. It was noticed
1
2 that a fairly uniform concrete may be achieved by limiting the amount of vibration to the
3
4
5 period when the fine MEPS aggregates just start to accumulate at the top of the mould. But in
6
7 order to achieve a good compaction at the same time, it was found necessary to add a
8
9
10 superplasticizer to the concrete mixture to improve its workability. The addition of MEPS
11
12 aggregate reduced the workability of the concrete, an effect that may have been caused by the
13
14
15
thermal treatment method applied to the MEPS aggregate particles. Research has shown that
16
17 fine MEPS aggregate particles (0-2 mm) increase the bond between the paste and the coarse
18
19 aggregate. The smooth and plane surface of the some coarse MEPS particles can significantly
20
21
22 weaken the bond between the cement paste and aggregate particles.
23
24 The rate of strength development of the concretes increased with increasing percentage of
25
26
27 natural aggregate. The strength of MEPS concretes was found to be directly proportional to
28
29 the concrete density. The strength of MEPS concrete marginally increased as the aggregate
30
31
32
size decreased, and increased as the natural coarse aggregate size increased. This increase in
33
34 strength was greater in leaner mixes compared to the richer mixes. The proposed equation for
35
36 the relation between compressive strength and hardened density of different MEPS concretes
37
38
39 with densities ranging from 980 kg/m3 to 2025 kg/m3 is given by fc = 13,8Ln() – 85.
40
41
Both compressive strength and UPV were very low for all concrete mixtures during the
42
43
44 early-age curing period, especially for samples containing high volumes of MEPS. However,
45
46 with the increase of the curing period, both compressive strength and UPV of all samples
47
48
49 increased. MEPS also caused the reduction of compressive strength and UPV at all curing
50
51 periods.
52
53
54 The increase of splitting tensile strengths with increasing MEPS concrete density was
55
56 about 31%, reaching up to 64% when natural aggregates were used.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

The density of concrete significantly affects hardened concrete properties of MEPS

1
2 aggregate concrete and compressive strength is more sensitive to the density compared to
3
4
5 tensile strength and RDME. The split tensile strength increased with an increase in the
6
7 compressive strength. The compressive and splitting failures of the concrete specimens
8
9
10 containing MEPS aggregates show a large compressibility of the material.
11
12 While using MEPS in the concrete as aggregate improves some of the concrete
13
14
15
properties, it also negatively affects some others. A high amount of MEPS as aggregate is
16
17 known to decrease the concrete density. As the amount of the MEPS added into the concrete
18
19 increases, compressive strength decreases on the grounds that adherence cannot be achieved
20
21
22 fully between the MEPS and cement paste and that the MEPS particles themselves are quite
23
24 weak.
25
26
27 Using MEPS in the concrete has gained far more importance in parallel to
28
29 environmental consciousness. If waste EPS aggregates were reused as lightweight aggregates
30
31
32
for concrete, positive effects are expected on the recycling of waste resources and the
33
34 protection of the environment. MEPS aggregates offer a potentially sustainable construction
35
36 material and simultaneously solve the environmental problem of reduction in solid waste.
37
38
39 This will have the double advantage of reduction in the cost of construction materials and also
40
41 cost of waste disposal.
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

References
1
2 [1] Sussman V. Lightweight plastic aggregate concrete. JA Conc Inst Proc 1975;72:32-3.
3
4
[2] Kan A, Demirboğa R. Effect of cement and EPS beads ratios on compressive strength and density
5
6
7 of lightweight concrete. Indian J Engineering Materials Sci 2007;14:158-62.
8
9 [3] Kan A, Demirboğa R. A new technique of processing for waste expanded polystyrene foams as
10
11 aggregates. Journal of Materials Processing Technology 2009; 206(6):2994-3000.
12
13 [4] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard specifications for Portland cement ASTM
14
15
16 C150-85a:1986;114-20.
17
18 [5] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test method for compressive strength of
19
20 cylindrical concrete specimens ASTM C39-96; 1996;17-21.
21
22 [6] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test method for pulse velocity through
23
24
25 concrete ASTM C597; 1997;309-12.
26
27 [7] Choi NW, Ohama Y. Development and testing of polystyrene mortars using waste EPS solution-
28
29 based binders. Construction and Building Materials 2004;18(4):235-41.
30
31 [8] Babu KG, Babu DS. Performance of fly ash concretes containing lightweight EPS aggregates.
32
33
Cement Concrete Compos 2004;26(6):605-11.
34
35
36 [9] Babu DS, Babu KG, Wee TH. Properties of lightweight expanded polystyrene aggregate concretes
37
38 containing fly ash. Cement Concrete Res 2005;35(6):1218-23.
39
40 [10] Chung HW, Sun P. New building materials from fly ash based lightweight inorganic polymer.
41
42 Construction Building Materials 2007;21(1):211-17.
43
44
45 [11] American Society for Testing and Materials. Standard test method for resistance of concrete to
46
47 rapid freezing and thawing ASTM C666:1997:312-19.
48
49 [12] Perry SH, Bischoff PH, Yamura K. Mix details and materials behavior of polystyrene
50
51 aggregate concrete. Mag Conc Res 1991;43:71-6.
52
53
54 [13] Park SG, Chilsholm DH. Polystyrene aggregate concrete. Building Research Association of New
55
56 Zealand, Study Report, SR 85 Judgeford, 1999.
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

[14] Babu DS, Babu KG, Tiong-Huan W. Effect of polystyrene aggregate size on strength and
1
2 moisture migration characteristics of lightweight concrete. Cement Concrete Compos
3
4 2006;28(6):520-7
5
6
[15] Tang WC, Lo Y, Nadeem A. Mechanical and drying shrinkage properties of structural graded
7
8
9 polystyrene aggregate concrete. Cement Concrete Comp 2008;30(5):403-9.
10
11 [16] Chen B, Liu J. Properties of lightweight expanded polystyrene concrete reinforced with steel
12
13 fiber. Cement Concrete Res 2004;34(7):1259-63.
14
15
[17] Babu KG, Babu DS. Behaviour of lightweight expanded polystyrene concrete containing silica
16
17
18 fume. Cement Concrete Res 2003;33(5):755-62.
19
20 [18] ACI Committee 213 R-87. Guide for structural lightweight aggregate concrete. American
21
22
23 Concrete Institute manual of concrete practice, Part 1. Farmington Hills, 1987.
24
25 [19] Miled K, Roy R Le, Saab K, Boulay C. Compressive behavior of an idealized EPS lightweight
26
27 concrete: size effects and failure mode. Mechanics of Materials 2004;36(11): 1031-46.
28
29 [20] Muravljov M, Jevtic D, Radosavljevic V. The application of EPS concrete reinforced with
30
31 polypropilene fibres for the production of precast elements. 9. Congress of Yugoslav Civil
32
33 Engineers Alliances, Cavtat 1991 09-12.
34 [21] Laukaitis A, Zurauskas R, Keriene J. The effect of foam polystyrene granules on cement
35
36
37 composite properties. Cement Concrete Compos 2005;27(1):41-47.
38
39 [22] Sabaa B, Ravindrarajah RS. Engineering properties of lightweight concrete containing crushed
40
41
expanded polystyrene waste. Materials Research Society, Fall Meeting, Symposium MM,
42 Advances in Materials for Cementitious Compos 1-3 December, Boston, USA, 1997.
43
44 [23] Ravindrarajah SR, Camporeale MJ, Caraballo CC. Flexural creep of ferrocement. Polystyrene
45
46 Concrete Composite, Second International Conference on Advances in Composites 18-20
47
48 December, Bangalore, India, 1996.
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Tables’ captions
1
2
3
4
5 Table 1.
6
7 Specification of MEPS aggregate [3].
8
9
10 Table 2.
11
12 Mixing details of MEPS aggregate concrete
13
14
15
Table 3.
16
17 Density, UPV, Compressive and Splitting Tensile Strength of MEPS aggregate concrete
18
19 Table 4.
20
21
22 Comparison of unmodified EPS with MEPS aggregate concretes
23
24 Table 5.
25
26
27 Relative dynamic modulus of elasticity of MEPS aggregate concrete (%)
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figures’ captions
1
2 Fig. 1. The relation between MEPS aggregate concrete density and compressive strength
3
4
5 Fig. 2. The relationship between MEPS aggregate concrete 7, 28 and 90 day compressive
6
7 strength and tensile strength
8
9
10 Fig. 3. Splitting failure mode of the concrete specimens containing MEPS aggregates
11
12 Fig. 4. RDME of MEPS aggregate concrete during freezing and thawing cycles
13
14
15
Fig. 5. MEPS concrete samples after 300 cycles of freezing- thawing
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 1
1
2 Specification of MEPS aggregate [3].
3
4
5 MEPS AGGREGATE
6 waste, expanded polystyrene foams
Origin of aggregate
7 (EPS)
8 At 130oC for 15 minute, thermal
Method of recycling
9 treatment method
10 loose dense
11 3 fine 191 220
Density (kg/m )
12 coarse 138 162
13 mixed 181 196
14 By weight 4.1%
Water absorption
15 By volume 0.58%
16 Compressive strength at According to density of MEPS
17 10% deformation (MPa) aggregate 1.76- 8.22 MPa
18 Thermal conductivity According to density of MEPS
19 [W/(m∙K)] aggregate 0.0366 - 0.0521
20 Weight loss of freezing-
21 thawing (10 cycling) 0.31%
22 Specific gravity factor Coarse 0.22-0.24
23 (SGF) Fine 0.31-0.34
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 2
1
2 Mixing details of MEPS aggregate concrete
3
4
Fresh Slump
5

cement
Mix MEPS / NA* MEPS NA* SP* w/c density values

(kg)
6 Type (%) (kg) (kg) (kg) (kg/m3) (mm)
7
8 (F+CA ) / (F+CA*) F CA F CA
9 C1 50%+50%/ 0% 500 108 77 - - 2.5 0.38 876 25
10 C2 25%+50%/25%+ 0% 500 53 75 402 - 2.5 0.39 1229 30
11 C3 0%+50%/50%+ 0% 500 - 74 786 - 2.5 0.42 1572 30
12 C4 50%+ 0%/ 0%+50% 500 104 - - 804 2.5 0.42 1621 30
13 C5 25%+25%/25%+25% 500 52 37 393 402 2.5 0.42 1596 40
14 C6 25%+ 0%/25%+50% 500 52 - 390 797 2.5 0.43 1956 50
15 *NA :natural aggregate
16
*F+CA : fine and coarse aggregates
17
18 *SP : super plasticizer
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 3
1
2 Density, UPV, Compressive and Splitting Tensile Strength of MEPS aggregate concrete
3
4
5 Mix Density UPV Splitting-tensile str. (MPa) Comp. Str (MPa)
Type (kg/m3) (m/s) fct, fc,
6
7 day 28 day 90 day 7 day 28 day 90 day 7 day 28 day 90 day
7
C1 980 1980 2190 2270 1.70 1.82 1.85 11.17 12.58 13.39
8 C2 1377 2500 2620 2750 2.23 2.34 2.40 12.55 13.08 15.62
9 C3 1692 2940 3060 3190 1.72 2.07 2.15 11.37 13.93 14.31
10 C4 1734 2820 3010 3180 2.13 2.38 2.39 13.44 17.65 18,92
11 C5 1741 3020 3150 3230 1.75 2.16 2.56 12.75 17.85 19.14
12 C6 2025 3420 3600 3670 2.47 3.00 3.01 19.22 23.34 27.78
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 4
1
2 Comparison of unmodified EPS with MEPS aggregate concretes
3
4
5 Compressive strength Splitting-
6 Reference Concrete mix Density (MPa) Tensile
7 (kg/m3) strength
8 (MPa)
9
7 day 28 day
10 Kan and Demirboğa[2] EPS+C 464-1370 - 0.11-8.53 -
11 Babu and Babu [8] EPS+FA+S+C 582-984 1.10-3.83 -
12 Babu et al.[9] EPS+C+S+FA 582 0.62 1.1 -
13 Park and Chisholm [13] EPS+ S+C 820 3.2 3.8 -
14 Chen and Liu [16] EPS+NA+C 876 7.6 10.6 1.32
15 Babu and Babu [17] EPS+NA+SF+C 1552 7.6-14 10.2-21.4 1.53-2.16
16 Miled et al. [19] EPS+S+C 1810 7.6-8.5 -
17 Muravljov [20] EPS+S+PP+C 1130-1484 6.4-10.84 7.73-14.62 -
18 Laukaitis et al. [21] EPS+C 149-275 - - 0.25
19 Sabaa and Ravindrarajah [22] EPS+C+NA 1600-2000 8.8-21.3 -
20 Ravindrarajah et al.[23] EPS+C+NA 1100-1920 8.5-37.5 0.92-4.05
21 MEPS+C (C1) 980 11.17 12.58 1.82
Present study
22 MEPS+C+NA (C4) 1734 13.44 17.65 2.38
23 EPS; unmodified expanded polystyrene
24 C; cement
25 NA; natural aggregate
FA; fly ash
26 S; natural sand
27 PP; polypropylene
28 SF; silica fume
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Table 5
1
2 Relative dynamic modulus of elasticity of MEPS aggregate concrete (%)
3
4 Relative Dynamic Elasticity Module (RDME)
Freeze-thaw cycles C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
5
6 30 94.94 97.85 92.58 91.62 87.96 89.00
7 60 93.28 95.03 92.03 91.04 86.85 88.49
8 90 81.31 87.47 81.73 91.04 81.43 88.49
9
120 80.54 84.14 78.10 87.00 75.66 85.97
10
11 150 65.93 75.78 51.14 81.39 38.23 73.93
12 180 62.50 66.67 27.99 74.37 14.79 38.43
13 210 49.12 46.22 14.95 48.62 4.17 19.30
14 240 32.31 28.73 10.98 41.64 0.00 12.66
15 270 0.00 0.00 0.00 18.59 0.00 10.46
16 300 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
17 Weight loss (%) 2.36 0.15 6.25 0.79 4.62 1.70
18
Compressive strength
19
before 300 cycles 12.58 13.08 13.93 17.65 17.85 23.34
20
(MPa), fc28
21
Compressive strength
22 4.14 6.31 5.14 7.34 5.63 7.96
after 300 cycles
23
24 DF 38 40 26 45 30 37
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6 30
7
8 25
Compr. Str. (MPa)

9 y = 13.8Ln(x) - 85
10 20
11
12 15
13
10
14
15 5
16
17 0
18 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000 2100
19
Density of MEPS aggregate concr. (kg/m3)
20 7 28 90 Log. (28)
21
22
23 Fig.1. The relationship between MEPS aggregate concrete density and compressive strength
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 30.00
2

Compr. and tensile strength

3
4 20.00
5 (MPa) .
6 10.00
7
8
9 0.00
10 7 28 90 7 28 90 7 28 90 7 28 90 7 28 90 7 28 90
11
12 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
13
14 Day and type of mix
15
16
17 Compressive strength Tensile strength
18
19
20 Fig.2. The relationship between MEPS aggregate concrete 7, 28 and 90 day compressive
21
22
strength and tensile strength
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Fig.3. Splitting failure mode of the concrete specimens containing MEPS aggregates
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1 100,00

RDME of MEPS concr.

2 90,00
3 80,00
4 70,00

(Pc) (%) .
5 60,00
6 50,00
40,00
7
30,00
8
20,00
9
10,00
10
0,00
11
12 0 30 60 90 120 150 180 210 240 270 300
13 cycles (n)
14
15 C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6
16
17
18 Fig.4. RDME of MEPS aggregate concrete during freezing and thawing cycles
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31 Fig.5. MEPS concrete samples after 300 cycles of freezing- thawing
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65