Advances in lightweight concrete: balancing strength and workabilityABSTRACT
This study investigates how the workability and mechanical qualities of concrete are affected by adding different amounts of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), Fine Aggregate (FA), Coarse Aggregate (CA), and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA). Traditional coarse aggregates were replaced with GGBS ranging from 5% to 20% and LECA included at varying degrees in a range of concrete mixtures. Slump, L-box, V-funnel, J-ring, and U-box tests were used to evaluate workability, while tests for compressive strength, split tensile strength, and flexural strength were used to evaluate mechanical characteristics at 7, 14, and 28 days. The results showed that workability and compressive strength increased with increasing GGBS concentration, with 15% GGBS achieving a maximum of 68.34 MPa. However, higher proportions of LECA negatively impacted mechanical strength. The optimal mix comprised 85% OPC, 15% GGBS, and a balanced LECA content, achieving enhanced workability without compromising strength. This research highlights the potential for sustainable concrete production by utilizing waste materials while ensuring structural integrity.
Keywords:
SCC; GGBS; LECA; HSC
1. INTRODUCTION
Lightweight concrete (LWC) has gained significant attention in the construction industry due to its reduced self-weight, which can lead to material and labor cost savings. However, achieving a balance between strength and workability remains a challenge.
The use of hybrid fibers in lightweight concrete has shown promising results in improving its mechanical properties while maintaining workability. A research looked at how hybrid fibers affected the mechanical, shrinkage, and workability of lightweight, high-strength concrete [1, 2]. Although the slump value decreased, the findings showed that adding fibers greatly improved the mix’s homogeneity and decreased aggregate sedimentation during mixing. Hybrid fibers significantly improved lightweight concrete’s brittleness and mechanical qualities while limiting its long-term shrinkage [3].
To overcome the drawbacks of conventional lightweight concrete, high-strength flowable lightweight concrete (HFLWC) was created by combining low C3A cement, silica fume, stalite, and macro-polyfelin polymer fibers [4]. This kind of concrete may attain excellent workability (slump flow value >550 mm) and high compressive strength (>90 MPa) [5]. LWC with remarkable strength and flowability was created by combining undensified silica fume (UDSF), low C3A cement, low water-binder ratio, and stalite [6]. According to the study, HFLWC may be made with a density of about 1800 kg/m3, which would make it appropriate for a number of structural uses [7].
The extensive usage of lightweight aggregate concrete (LWAC) has been restricted due to its brittleness and inferior mechanical qualities when compared to regular weight concrete. Nonetheless, it has been demonstrated that adding fibers to LWAC enhances its toughness and mechanical qualities [8]. A review highlighted that fibers, whether used singly or in hybrid forms, significantly enhance the mechanical properties, ductility, and energy absorption of LWAC, although they tend to decrease workability [9].
The impact of several parameters, including as fiber length, fiber content, and the presence of silica fume, on the characteristics of fiber-reinforced structural lightweight concrete were examined experimentally [10]. According to the study, fibers improved the modulus of elasticity by around 30% and markedly raised the flexural and splitting tensile strengths. For concretes with an equilibrium density of 1650 kg/m3, the use of high-range water-reducing admixtures and air-entraining admixtures enhanced workability and produced a compressive strength of around 42 MPa [11, 12].
Using lightweight and organic aggregates to improve the mechanical characteristics of wood-cement compositions has showed promise for creating substitute lightweight concretes [13]. According to one research, workability and strength development were greatly enhanced by the use of lightweight aggregates such expanded clay and glass, as well as organic aggregates like fruit pits and crushed nut shells [14]. These alternative lightweight concretes were both environmentally benign and economically competitive due to their tripled elastic modulus and doubled compressive strength [15].
To improve sustainability, the utilization of waste materials in the manufacturing of lightweight self-compacting concrete (LWSCC) has been investigated [16, 17]. The workability and toughened properties of LWSCC produced from waste expanded polystyrene (EPS) beads were investigated in a research [18, 19]. The findings demonstrated that although EPS increased workability, strength decreased. Nonetheless, the compressive strength satisfied the ACI-mandated lower limit for structural applications. The mechanical results and empirical models revealed in codes and literature also showed a significant linear association, according to the research [20, 21].
Advancements in lightweight concrete have focused on balancing strength and workability through the incorporation of various fibers and additives [22, 23]. Hybrid fibers, steel fibers, and organic aggregates have shown significant potential in enhancing the mechanical properties and toughness of lightweight concrete [24, 25]. The development of ultra-high performance lightweight concrete and sustainable lightweight self-compacting concrete further demonstrates the versatility and potential of lightweight concrete in modern construction.
2. MATERIALS AND METHODS
2.1. Cement
The cement used in this analysis meets the requirements set by IS:8112-1989, ensuring quality and consistency [26]. Its fineness is within the standard 2.5%, promoting optimal hydration and strength gain. The soundness is below 10 mm, indicating low expansion, essential for long-term durability. Initial setting time is 72 minutes and final is 420 minutes, both within permissible limits for adequate workability. Compressive strengths at 3, 7, and 28 days exceed minimum standards, achieving 34.4 N/mm2, 46.9 N/mm2, and 55.8 N/mm2, respectively. The standard consistency of 29% and specific gravity of 3.15 further confirm the cement’s suitability for structural applications.
2.2. GGBS
Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBFS) is characterized by its off-white color and a specific gravity of 2.9, which provides a balance of strength and density when used as a supplementary cementitious material [27]. With a bulk density of 1200 kg/m3, GGBFS contributes to the overall mass and compactness of concrete mixtures, aiding in their durability. Its fineness is over 350 m2/kg, which enhances its reactivity and pozzolanic properties, allowing it to contribute significantly to the long-term strength and chemical stability of concrete.
2.3. M-sand
Manufactured sand (M-sand) possesses specific characteristics that make it suitable for concrete applications. Its dry compacted bulk density is 1611 kg/m3, and in a loose state, it is 1472 kg/m3, indicating its stability and packing efficiency in mixes. With a specific gravity of 2.53, M-sand offers adequate mass for structural applications, ensuring strength and cohesion within concrete. A fineness modulus of 2.15 reflects its particle size distribution, making it a reliable alternative to natural sand by enhancing workability and reducing voids in concrete.
2.4. Coarse aggregate
Granite aggregates are known for their angular shape, which enhances the interlocking within concrete mixes, thus improving stability and load-bearing capacity [28]. With a specific gravity of 2.63, granite aggregates add substantial weight and density to concrete, contributing to strength and durability. The loose state bulk density is 1399 kg/m3, while in a compacted state, it reaches 1554 kg/m3, indicating good compaction potential. These properties make granite aggregates ideal for high-strength applications in construction, ensuring improved bonding, reduced voids, and overall enhanced mechanical performance in concrete structures.
2.5. Light weight aggregates
Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) is a lightweight, rounded aggregate with a specific gravity of 0.50, making it an ideal choice for lightweight concrete and insulation applications. Its loose bulk density is 269 kg/m3, and in a compacted state, it is 284.7 kg/m3, which helps reduce the overall weight of structures without compromising strength. LECA has a water absorption rate of 8.44%, indicating moderate porosity for effective moisture retention. The fineness modulus of 49.4 contributes to its particle size distribution. Chemically, LECA is composed mainly of 59.6% silicon dioxide (SiO2), along with ferric oxide (Fe2O3) at 14.33%, and minor quantities of other oxides, ensuring stability and durability in construction.
2.6. Mix proposition
Table 1 shows the mix proposition of various mix. The mix propositions for this study aimed to evaluate the performance of concrete with varying combinations of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), GGBS, Fine Aggregate (FA), Coarse Aggregate (CA), and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA). Twelve different mixes were formulated, starting with conventional concrete as the control (T1).
Subsequent mixes incorporated GGBS in varying proportions (5% to 25%) while maintaining a base of OPC (ranging from 95% to 75%). The optimal mix design (T4) consisted of 85% OPC and 15% GGBS, which showcased significant improvements in both mechanical properties and workability.
Further experimentation involved replacing conventional CA with LECA in mixes T7 to T12, with proportions ranging from 10% to 60%. This modification aimed to explore the impact of lightweight aggregates on concrete density and performance. The mix that achieved the best balance of strength and workability incorporated 85% OPC, 15% GGBS, and a combination of CA and LECA, indicating the potential for enhancing concrete sustainability while meeting structural requirements. These diverse mix designs provide valuable insights into optimizing concrete formulations for improved environmental performance without compromising mechanical integrity.
3. DENSITY CHARACTERIZATION
Table 2 shows the density of various mix. The results indicate that as the percentage of GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) increases in the concrete mix, the overall density decreases. Conventional concrete (T1) shows the highest density at 10.15 kg/m3, while partial replacements with GGBS reduce density slightly, as seen in T2 to T6, where density decreases from 10.08 to 10.00 kg/m3 with increasing GGBS content. Introducing LECA as a replacement for coarse aggregate (CA) further reduces density significantly, from 9.84 kg/m3 in T7 (10% LECA) to 9.41 kg/m3 in T12 (60% LECA). This trend demonstrates the impact of LECA’s lightweight characteristics, making it an effective option for reducing structural weight. These results are valuable for applications requiring lower-density concrete without substantial compromise on strength, particularly in projects where reduced load on structural elements is advantageous.
4. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
4.1. Slump cone test
The slump test results reveal a steady increase in workability with the incorporation of GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) in the concrete mixes. Conventional concrete (T1) has a slump value of 588 mm, while replacing cement with GGBS progressively increases the slump from 593 mm in T2 to 615 mm in T6 as GGBS content rises from 5% to 25%. This increase indicates improved workability likely due to the fine particles of GGBS, which enhance the mix’s lubrication.
By substituting portions of coarse aggregate (CA) with LECA in mixes with 15% GGBS (T7 to T12) results in additional increases in slump values, from 617 mm (10% LECA) to 635 mm (60% LECA). This trend shows that LECA’s rounded shape and lower density reduce internal friction, allowing for easier movement within the mix. The maximum slump of 635 mm at 60% LECA substitution (T12) demonstrates that higher LECA content significantly enhances workability. These findings suggest that mixes incorporating both GGBS and LECA are well-suited for applications requiring high workability. Figure 1 shows the slump cone test results.
4.2. L box test
The L-box test results show an increasing trend in passing ability as GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) are progressively incorporated into the concrete mixes. For conventional concrete (T1), the L-box ratio starts at 0.68. With incremental additions of GGBS, the ratio gradually rises from 0.69 in T2 (5% GGBS) to 0.74 in T6 (25% GGBS). This improvement can be attributed to the fine nature of GGBS, which enhances flowability by reducing inter-particle friction.
Incorporating LECA as a partial replacement for coarse aggregate (CA) further improves the L-box ratios, as seen in mixes T7 to T12. The L-box value increases from 0.76 at 10% LECA (T7) to 0.81 at 60% LECA (T12), highlighting LECA’s contribution to reducing resistance to flow. The combination of 15% GGBS and increasing LECA proportions enables better passing ability due to LECA’s rounded shape and lightweight properties, which minimize obstacles within narrow sections. These findings indicate that mixtures with GGBS and LECA exhibit enhanced flow characteristics, making them suitable for applications requiring self-compacting or high-flow concrete. Figure 2. shows the L box test results.
4.3. V-Funnel test
The V-funnel test results indicate a gradual reduction in flow time as GGBS and LECA are incorporated into the concrete mixes, improving the concrete’s flowability. Conventional concrete (T1) records a V-funnel flow time of 11.35 seconds. As GGBS content is progressively increased, flow times decrease from 11.3 seconds (T2) at 5% GGBS to 11.04 seconds (T6) at 25% GGBS. This reduction suggests that the fine particles of GGBS enhance the concrete’s viscosity, thereby improving its flow characteristics.
When LECA is introduced as a partial replacement for coarse aggregate (CA), the V-funnel flow times decrease further, from 10.85 seconds (T7 with 10% LECA) to 10.41 seconds (T12 with 60% LECA). This enhancement in flowability can be attributed to the lightweight and rounded shape of LECA, which reduces internal friction and allows for smoother flow through narrow sections. Overall, the combination of GGBS and LECA effectively enhances the flow performance of the mix, making it suitable for high-flow or self-compacting applications. Figure 3. shows the V-Funnel test results.
4.4. J-ring
The J-ring test results demonstrate a notable effect of incorporating GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) on the passing ability of concrete mixtures. Conventional concrete (T1) shows a J-ring flow value of 4.85 mm, indicating good passing ability. However, as GGBS is introduced, there is a slight decline in flow values, dropping to 4.73 mm by T6, which contains 25% GGBS. This decrease can be attributed to the increased viscosity introduced by GGBS, which may affect the material’s flow through confined spaces.
In stark contrast, the inclusion of LECA drastically impacts flowability, particularly when combined with GGBS. For example, T7, with 10% LECA, shows a significant drop in J-ring flow value to 1.69 mm, indicating a loss of passing ability. As the proportion of LECA increases from T8 (4.67 mm) to T12 (4.58 mm), the flow values continue to decrease, highlighting the detrimental effect of excessive LECA content on passing ability. Overall, these results suggest that while GGBS enhances the workability of concrete, the inclusion of LECA must be carefully controlled to maintain adequate flow characteristics. Figure 4. shows the J-RING test results.
4.5. U-box
The U-box test results illustrate the impact of GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) on the horizontal flow of concrete mixtures. Conventional concrete (T1) maintains a stable U-box flow value of 20 mm, indicating good passing ability through constricted spaces. As GGBS content increases in the mixes (T2 to T6), there is a slight reduction in flow values, decreasing from 20 mm in T2 (5% GGBS) to 18 mm in T6 (25% GGBS). This trend suggests that while GGBS enhances certain flow characteristics, higher content can introduce viscosity that may hinder optimal flow.
The incorporation of LECA significantly alters the flow characteristics, as seen in the results from T7 to T12. The flow values decrease notably, starting from 17 mm at 10% LECA (T7) and dropping to 15 mm by T12 (60% LECA). The decreased flow ability highlights the challenges of incorporating LECA, which, despite its lightweight benefits, can increase internal friction and reduce the ability of the concrete to flow smoothly through confined spaces. These findings indicate that while GGBS generally improves workability, careful consideration of LECA proportions is essential to maintain adequate flow characteristics Figure 5. shows the U-BOX test results.
4.6. Compression strength test
The compressive strength results indicate the influence of GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) on concrete performance over time. For conventional concrete (T1), compressive strengths are robust, reaching 65.05 MPa at 28 days. As GGBS content increases from 5% to 15% in mixes T2 to T4, there is a noticeable enhancement in strength, peaking at 68.34 MPa in T4 (15% GGBS) by day 28. This suggests that GGBS contributes positively to the strength development of concrete, likely due to its pozzolanic activity.
However, when LECA is introduced as a replacement for coarse aggregate, compressive strength begins to decline. The strongest mix with LECA (T7 with 10% LECA) achieves 67.32 MPa, while higher proportions of LECA (T9 to T12) result in further decreases in strength, with T12 showing only 63.04 MPa at 28 days. This reduction in strength can be attributed to the lower density and higher porosity of LECA, which affects the overall mechanical performance of the concrete. Overall, while GGBS enhances compressive strength, careful management of LECA content is essential to mitigate strength loss, especially in applications where structural integrity is paramount. These results highlight the need for optimizing mix design to balance workability and compressive strength. Figure 6. shows the Compression strength test results.
4.7. Split tensile strength test
The results for split tensile strength reveal significant insights into the performance of concrete mixtures containing GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) over time. Conventional concrete (T1) exhibits a split tensile strength of 6.1 MPa at 28 days, indicating good performance in tensile loading conditions.
As GGBS content increases in the mixes (T2 to T4), the split tensile strength shows a slight upward trend, with T4 (15% GGBS) achieving a strength of 6.25 MPa by day 28. This enhancement can be attributed to the pozzolanic properties of GGBS, which contribute to the formation of additional calcium silicate hydrates, improving the tensile resistance of the concrete.
However, the inclusion of LECA negatively impacts tensile strength. In mixes T7 to T12, while T7 maintains a tensile strength of 6.14 MPa, subsequent increases in LECA content lead to a gradual decline, reaching only 5.92 MPa in T12 (60% LECA). The decrease in tensile strength with higher LECA proportions can be linked to the aggregate’s lower density and potential for increased porosity, which compromises the bond and overall integrity of the concrete matrix.
Overall, while GGBS enhances split tensile strength, careful consideration is required when incorporating LECA to avoid reductions in tensile performance, especially for structural applications where tensile integrity is vital. Figure 7. shows the split tensile strength test results.
4.8. Flexural strength test
The flexural strength results highlight the impact of varying proportions of Ground GGBS and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA) on concrete performance. The conventional concrete (T1) achieves a flexural strength of 5.27 MPa at 28 days, establishing a baseline for comparison.
With increasing GGBS content (T2 to T4), there is a slight improvement in flexural strength, peaking at 5.40 MPa for the mix with 15% GGBS (T4). This enhancement is likely due to the pozzolanic activity of GGBS, which contributes to the formation of additional bonding compounds in the matrix, thus improving flexural resistance.
However, the addition of LECA in T7 to T12 introduces a declining trend in flexural strength. While T7 retains a strength of 5.31 MPa, mixes with higher LECA content exhibit notable reductions, with T12 showing only 5.12 MPa at 28 days. The diminished performance can be attributed to LECA’s lower density and potential for increased porosity, which may adversely affect the overall bonding and structural integrity of the concrete.
Overall, while GGBS positively influences flexural strength, excessive LECA may compromise performance, necessitating careful balance for optimal structural applications. Figure 8. shows the flexural strength test results.
5. CONCLUSION
The workability and mechanical characteristics of concrete were examined in relation to different ratios of Ordinary Portland Cement (OPC), Ground Granulated Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS), Fine Aggregate (FA), Coarse Aggregate (CA), and Lightweight Expanded Clay Aggregate (LECA). The outcomes showed that adding GGBS to the concrete mix enhanced a number of performance metrics. The slump values climbed steadily as the GGBS percentage rose from 5% to 15%, suggesting improved workability. The 15% GGBS mix had the highest slump values, measuring 604 mm.
The inclusion of LECA, which has lightweight qualities, did, however, have a detrimental impact on the compressive, split tensile, and flexural strengths at greater concentrations, even if it somewhat improved workability. The mix including 85% OPC and 15% GGBS had the highest recorded compressive strength of 68.34 MPa, indicating that the GGBS improves the concrete’s overall strength and longevity.
Moreover, the mechanical properties peaked at 28 days, with both split tensile and flexural strengths showing favorable results with GGBS inclusion. However, the performance metrics declined when LECA content exceeded 20%, suggesting that while LECA can reduce weight, it may compromise the structural integrity of the concrete.
The study emphasizes the balance needed between incorporating GGBS for enhanced strength and workability while cautiously managing the LECA content to prevent detrimental effects on mechanical properties.
6. BIBLIOGRAPHY
-
[1] CHEN, B., LIU, J., “Contribution of hybrid fibers on the properties of the high-strength lightweight concrete having good workability”, Cement and Concrete Research, v. 35, n. 5, pp. 913–917, 2005. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.07.035.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.07.035 -
[2] LIU, H., ELCHALAKANI, M., KARRECH, A., et al, “High strength flowable lightweight concrete incorporating low C3A cement, silica fume, stalite and macro-polyfelin polymer fibres”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 281, pp. 122410, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122410.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122410 -
[3] IQBAL, S., AHSAN ALI, K., “Mechanical properties of steel fiber reinforced high strength lightweight self-compacting concrete (SHLSCC)”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 98, pp. 325–333, 2015. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.112.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.08.112 -
[4] MAHMOUD HASSANPOUR, P., “Lightweight aggregate concrete fiber reinforcement: a review.”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 37, pp. 452–461, 2012. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.071.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.07.071 - [5] BALAGURU, P., FODEN, A., “Properties of fiber reinforced structural lightweight concrete”, ACI Structural Journal, v. 93, n. 1, pp. 62–78, 1996.
- [6] PAN, H., YAN, S., ZHAO, Q., et al, “Preparation and properties of ultra-high performance lightweight concrete”, Magazine of Concrete Research, v. 75, n. 6, pp. 310–323, 2023.
-
[7] LU, J.X., SHEN, P., ZHENG, H., et al, “Development and characteristics of ultra high-performance lightweight cementitious composites (UHP-LCCs)”, Cement and Concrete Research, v. 145, pp. 106462, 2021. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106462.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2021.106462 - [8] ARASU, N., “Investigation on partial replacement of cement by GGBS”, Journal of Critical Reviews, v. 7, n. 17, pp. 3827–3831, 2020.
-
[9] ESMAEILI, J., MAHDI GHAFFARINIA, M., “Mechanical and fractural characteristics of structural lightweight fiber reinforced concrete”, Structural Concrete, v. 24, n. 2, pp. 2420–2439, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200107.
» https://doi.org/10.1002/suco.202200107 -
[10] HAMAH SOR, N., HILAL, N., FARAJ, R.H., et al, “Experimental and empirical evaluation of strength for sustainable lightweight self-compacting concrete by recycling high volume of industrial waste materials”, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, v. 26, n. 15, pp. 7443–7460, 2022. doi: http://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1997827.
» https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2021.1997827 - [11] CHAO, Z., WANG, H., HU, S., et al, “Permeability and porosity of light-weight concrete with plastic waste aggregate: Experimental study and machine learning modelling”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 411, pp. 134465, 2024.
- [12] ARASU, A., “Optimization of high performance concrete composites by using nano materials”, Research on Engineering Structures and Materials, v. 9, n. 3, pp. 843–859, 2023.
- [13] ISLAM, M.M.U., LI, J., ROYCHAND, R., et al, “Microstructure, thermal conductivity and carbonation resistance properties of sustainable structural lightweight concrete incorporating 100% coarser rubber particles”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 408, pp. 133658, 2023.
-
[14] PITCHAIPILLAI, N., PARAMASIVAM, S.K., “Investigation on structural behavior for steel & tubes with light weight concrete using HLN aid of MKHO”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 2, pp. e20240087, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0087.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0087 -
[15] HELMY, S.H., TAHWIA, A.M., MAHDY, M.G., et al, “The use of recycled tire rubber, crushed glass, and crushed clay brick in lightweight concrete production: a review”, Sustainability (Basel), v. 15, n. 13, pp. 10060, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/su151310060.
» https://doi.org/10.3390/su151310060 -
[16] ALQAHTANI, F.K., SHERIF, M.A., GHANEM, A.M., “Green lightweight concrete utilizing sustainable processed recycled plastic aggregates: Technical, economic and environmental assessment”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 393, pp. 132027, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132027.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2023.132027 - [17] Parthasaarathi, R., Balasundaram, N., Arasu, N., “Analysing the impact and investigating Coconut Shell Fiber Reinforced Concrete (CSFRC) under varied loading conditions”., Journal of Advanced Research in Applied Sciences and Engineering Technology, v. 35, n. 1, pp. 106–120, 2024.
- [18] AKSHANA, V., ARASU, N., KARTHIGAISELVI, P., “Experimental study on concrete by partial replacement cement with silica fume”, Journal of Critical Reviews, v. 7, n. 17, pp. 3801–3805, 2020.
-
[19] SIFAN, M., NAGARATNAM, B., THAMBOO, J., et al, “Development and prospectives of lightweight high strength concrete using lightweight aggregates”, Construction & Building Materials, v. 362, pp. 129628, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129628.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.129628 -
[20] BAKHSHI, M., SOHEILI, H., DALALBASHI, A., “Optimization of a structural lightweight fiber-reinforced concrete for best performance under impact loading”, Cement and Concrete Composites, v. 136, pp. 104875, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104875.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2022.104875 -
[21] KUMAR, S., “A comprehensive microstructural analysis for enhancing concrete’s longevity and environmental sustainability.”, Journal of Environmental Nanotechnology, v. 13, n. 2, pp. 368–376, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584.
» https://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2024.06.242584 -
[22] NAKKEERAN, G., KRISHNARAJ, L., “Developing lightweight concrete bricks by replacing fine aggregate with vermiculite: a regression analysis prediction approach”, Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, v. 24, n. 6, pp. 1529–1537, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00586-5.
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s42107-023-00586-5 -
[23] CUI, T., NING, B., SHI, X., et al, “Axial tensile behavior of hybrid steel-polypropylene fiber reinforced high-strength lightweight concrete”, Case Studies in Construction Materials, v. 18, pp. e02134, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02134.
» https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2023.e02134 -
[24] KADELA, M., MALEK, M., JACKOWSKI, M., et al, “Recycling of tire-derived fiber: The contribution of steel cord on the properties of lightweight concrete based on perlite aggregate”, Materials (Basel), v. 16, n. 5, pp. 2124, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.3390/ma16052124. PubMed PMID: 36903236.
» https://doi.org/10.3390/ma16052124 -
[25] BULUT, H.A., “Examination of mechanical, permeability, and durability properties of sustainable lightweight concrete composites with natural perlite aggregate”, Civil Engineering (Shiraz), v. 48, n. 3, pp. 1329–1352, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-023-01226-3.
» https://doi.org/10.1007/s40996-023-01226-3 -
[26] PARTHASAARATHI, R., BALASUNDARAM, N., NAVEEN ARASU, A. “A stiffness analysis of treated and non-treated meshed coir layer fibre reinforced cement concrete”, In: AIP Conference Proceedings, vol. 2861, no. 1. AIP Publishing, 2023. doi: http://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672.
» https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0158672 -
[27] SRINIVASAN, S.S., MUTHUSAMY, N., ANBARASU, N.A., “The structural performance of fiber-reinforced concrete beams with nanosilica”, Matéria (Rio de Janeiro), v. 29, n. 3, pp. e20240194, 2024. doi: http://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194.
» https://doi.org/10.1590/1517-7076-rmat-2024-0194 - [28] SHANKAR, S., “Exploring the strength and durability characteristics of high-performance fibre reinforced concrete containing nanosilica”, Journal of the Balkan Tribological Association, v. 30, n. 1, 2024.
Publication Dates
-
Publication in this collection
17 Feb 2025 -
Date of issue
2025
History
-
Received
03 Dec 2024 -
Accepted
18 Dec 2024
