Home Physical Sciences A sustainable approach to optimum utilization of used foundry sand in concrete
Article Open Access

A sustainable approach to optimum utilization of used foundry sand in concrete

  • Khuram Rashid EMAIL logo and Sana Nazir
Published/Copyright: August 28, 2017
Download Article (PDF)
Become an author with De Gruyter Brill
Submit Manuscript Author Information
Science and Engineering of Composite Materials
From the journal Science and Engineering of Composite Materials Volume 25 Issue 5

Abstract

Conservation of natural resources, healthy environments, and optimal utilization of waste materials are intimate needs of the present time, and this research work was carried out to fulfill these needs. In this experimental and analytical study, concrete was prepared by replacing natural fine aggregates with two types of used foundry sands by 10%, 20% and 30% (by volume). The properties of fresh and hardened concrete were investigated and compared with a replacement amount of fine aggregates from 0% to 30%. Compressive strength was evaluated after 7, 28 and 63 days of moist curing. Along with compressive strength, the modulus of elasticity was also investigated and a reduction in compressive strength and modulus of elasticity was observed with the increase in the amount of used foundry sand. A prediction formula was proposed to predict the compressive strength, and verified by current experimental observations and also with a large database that was also established in this work. The prediction formula may be considered as very helpful for predicting the potential of using used foundry sand as an aggregate in concrete.

Keywords: compressive strength; concrete; fine aggregate; prediction formula; used foundry sand

1 Introduction

It is believed that concrete is the largest man-made material in the world, and it is widely used in the construction industry. The popularity of this construction material is mainly attributed to its durability, which can be further increased by repairing, conserving, or strengthening it periodically [1], [2]. Being a widely manufactured material, it requires large amounts of energy and consumption of natural resources such as aggregates. It is highly unlikely that utilization of concrete will be reduced in the near future; however, by incorporating treated waste or by-products, the cost, energy consumption, and utilization of natural resources may be reduced. Utilization of waste materials is considered to be a sustainable approach to concrete construction.

Ferrous and non-ferrous metals are processed in foundries. Sand is used to make mold or cores for metal casting due to its good insulating property and capability to bear high strength. These sands are also rich in silica. Depending on specific use, a variety of binders/additives are added to these sands (foundry sands) to enhance their properties. Foundry sands are reused several times in the metal casting process until they become too fine to reuse and are then discarded. This discarded sand is termed as used foundry sand (UFS) [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. The fundamental flow of the metal casting is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Metal casting procedure in the foundry.
Figure 1:

Metal casting procedure in the foundry.

UFSs discarded by non-ferrous metal casting are considered hazardous, whereas they are considered non-hazardous after casting of ferrous metals [3]. The classification of UFS depends on the type of binder used, type of furnaces, type of metal casting, and type of finishing process. With respect to binders, these sands are classified as green foundry sand and chemical bonded sand. Green foundry sand has clay and carbon contents, which are responsible for the dark gray or black color of UFS, whereas chemically bonded sand lacks the hydraulic characteristics of green foundry sand and are light in color. Chemically bonded sand has a coarser structure than green foundry sand and is preferable to use in agriculture and construction [3], [4], [6], [8], [9].

UFSs are utilized in various ways to manage waste (such as landfill cover). The American Foundry Sand Association conducted a survey and reported the beneficial uses of UFS, as shown in Figure 2, and 55% of UFS are being reused in concrete and construction fills [4]. Infrastructure development is considered as a backbone for the development of any country, and hence requires a large amount of economic input and resource consumption, which can be dealt with sustainably by incorporating waste materials (such as UFSs, glass and reused concrete crush). For example, for road constructions, UFS can be used in a base course with asphalt. It can also be used in stabilizing the slope along highways, etc. In concrete construction, UFSs can be used as partial or full replacement of fine aggregates [3], [5], [6], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14]. Depending on the utilization of concrete (lean concrete, foundation filling, pathways, garden sitting, etc.), there must be some optimal percentage for partial replacement of fine aggregates.

Figure 2: Beneficial use of UFS.
Figure 2:

Beneficial use of UFS.

Some studies are available in which UFSs were used in concrete as partial replacement of river sand [13], [14]. While some researchers reported the improvement in compressive strength of concrete by using UFS, few recorded the reduction in compressive strength with an increase in the amount of UFS from their experimental observations. However, the studies have one consensus: that the properties of UFS highly depend upon the type of the binder used [3], [5], [6], [10], [11], [12], [13], [14].

The main objective of the current research is to evaluate the properties of concrete with its fine aggregates partially replaced by UFS, and validate the proposed prediction formula for the evaluation of the comprehensive strength of concretes with UFS. For proper utilization of UFS in the building and construction industry, experimentation was conducted to evaluate the properties of fresh and hardened concrete with different amounts of UFS. Compressive strength was evaluated at different ages (7, 28 and 63 days) of all types of mixtures. The modulus of elasticity was also part of this investigation. Furthermore, a prediction formula was developed to assess the compressive strength of concrete by incorporating UFS and verified by the current experimental observations and by establishing a large database, which is summarized in this work.

2 Materials and methods

2.1 Materials

Ordinary Portland cement was used as a binding material in concrete. The type of cement was ASTM type-I with a specific gravity of 3.15 and fineness of 3656 cm2/g. Locally available crush was used as coarse aggregate, and it was washed and dried under sunlight before casting of concrete. The maximum size of coarse aggregate was 20 mm, density was 1550 kg/m3, and fineness modulus was 7.8. Locally available river sand was used as fine aggregate; its local name is Lawerencepur sand and is narrated as “NLS” in this work. Two types of UFSs were also used in place of fine aggregate and were procured from the local foundry. The type of binder used in the first type of UFS was sodium silicate and denoted as “FSS”, and the binder in the second type of UFS was phenolic resin and denoted by “FPR” in this work. The physical properties of both types of fine aggregates are mentioned in Table 1. The particle size distribution of fine aggregates was also assessed and shown in Figure 3. The visual analysis, fineness modulus (Table 1), and optical microscopic observation (at 50× magnification) indicated that the UFSs used in this study were finer than NLS. Olympus STM6 was used to analyze optical microscopic images of sands, as shown in Figure 4. It is clearly seen from Figure 4 that UFSs were finer than natural sand. Table 2 shows the chemical composition of the UFSs used in this study.

Table 1:

Physical properties of fine aggregates.

S. no.CharacteristicsNLSFSSFPR
1Specific gravity2.762.652.60
2Bulk relative density (kg/m3)159013251500
3Moisture content (%)1.841.440.1
4Fineness modulus3.82.71.3
5ColorGrayOff-whiteBlack
Figure 3: Particle size distribution of natural sand and UFS.
Figure 3:

Particle size distribution of natural sand and UFS.

Figure 4: Images of natural sand and UFSs by the naked eye (A–C) and by optical microscopy (D–F).(A) NLS, (B) FSS, (C) FPR, (D) NS-50×, (E) FSS-50× and (F) FPR-50×.
Figure 4:

Images of natural sand and UFSs by the naked eye (A–C) and by optical microscopy (D–F).

(A) NLS, (B) FSS, (C) FPR, (D) NS-50×, (E) FSS-50× and (F) FPR-50×.

Table 2:

Chemical oxide percentages of all types of sands.

ConstituentsDescriptionNLSFSSFPR
SiO2Silica16.4189.8
Al2O3Aluminum oxide4.033.825.27
Fe2O3Ferrous oxide2.324.172.11
SO3Sulfur trioxide0.272.351.2
CaOCalcium oxide7.420.451.09
MgOMagnesium oxide6.010.520.3
LOILoss on ignition6.515.456.23

2.2 Specimen preparation and testing

Clean drinkable water was used to mix all materials for concrete casting in the laboratory, with a water-to-cement ratio of 0.6. All parameters were fixed except the amount of fine aggregate. NLSs were partially replaced by UFSs by amounts of 10%, 20% and 30%. One mixture having 100% NLS was prepared and referred as a control specimen.

After mixing of all materials, the workability of all types of concrete was investigated by conducting a slump test [15] and a compacting factor test [16]. For investigation of hardened properties, all mixtures were poured into cubical and cylindrical molds to conduct compressive strength test and modulus of elasticity test, respectively. The standard size of cubical mold used was 150 mm and the cylinder size was 150×300 mm. After filling the molds (with concrete in the layer), it was compacted by using a vibrating table and sealed by using a polythene sheet to avoid the evaporation of moisture from the concrete. After 48 h of casting, the molds were removed and all specimens were submerged into water for curing and were taken out on the respective testing day. A universal testing machine of capacity 2000 kN was used to conduct the compressive strength test [17] and modulus of elasticity test [18]. The testing set-up for the modulus of elasticity is shown in Figure 5. The specimen types, age, and test, which were performed to evaluate the hardened properties of concrete, are listed in Table 3.

Figure 5: Testing set-up for the modulus of elasticity of concrete.
Figure 5:

Testing set-up for the modulus of elasticity of concrete.

Table 3:

Summary of specimens and tests performed on hard concrete.

Mixturew/cUFS (%)Compressive strength, daysModulus of elasticityAcronyms
72863
Control0.6–3333NLS
Sodium silicate as binder0.6103333FSS-10
0.6203333FSS -20
0.6303333FSS -30
Phenolic resin as binder0.6103333FPR-10
0.6203333FPR-20
0.6303333FPR-30

  1. w/c, Water to cement ratio.

3 Results and data discussion

3.1 Workability

The workability of concrete is measured by a slump test and a compacting factor test according to standards [15], [16]. The workability of concrete changes with variations in UFS amount. The workability of concrete at different replacement levels of NLS with UFS is presented in Figure 6. It was observed from Figure 6 that workability was almost unaffected up to the replacement level of 20% of NLS by FSS. At 30% addition of UFSs, workability was increased as compared to that of samples with 0%, 10% and 20% UFS. Usually, fine particles enhance the cohesion and finish ability of concrete due to the packing of voids but reduce the workability of concrete. However, the opposite behavior was observed in this work, which may be attributed to a reduction in bond strength between aggregate and paste. The excess of fine particles weakens the bond between aggregate and cement paste, causing loss of adhesion that consequently increases the workability of concrete [19]. This trend was also observed in another study [10].

Figure 6: Workability of concrete at different replacement levels of NLS with UFS.
Figure 6:

Workability of concrete at different replacement levels of NLS with UFS.

More specifically, the workability of chemically bonded sand was mostly higher than the concrete having green foundry sand due to a different amount of binder in it. Clay in green foundry sand absorbs moisture and needs more water to maintain the fluidity of concrete, whereas chemically bonded sand has high workability due to the absence of clay [10]. The UFSs used in this work were under the category of chemically bonded sand.

3.2 Compressive strength

3.2.1 Experimental observations

Compressive strength is considered the most valued parameter by designers and concrete quality control engineers. The compressive strength of concrete was investigated in this work by crushing concrete cubes (with 0%, 10%, 20% and 30% of UFSs) at different ages. Figure 7A,B presents the compressive strength of concrete having different amounts of UFSs. Compressive strength at the concerned age was recorded by taking the average of three specimens; the error bar in Figure 7A,B represents the standard deviation. Increase in compressive strength was observed with increase in the age of specimen, and reduction in compressive strength was observed with an increase in the amount of UFS in concrete.

Figure 7: Compressive strength of concrete at various ages.(A) FSS and NLS specimens, (B) FPR and NLS specimens, (C) strength reduction of FSS specimens and (D) strength reduction of FPR specimens.
Figure 7:

Compressive strength of concrete at various ages.

(A) FSS and NLS specimens, (B) FPR and NLS specimens, (C) strength reduction of FSS specimens and (D) strength reduction of FPR specimens.

At age of 7 days, it was observed that the compressive strength of concrete was reduced by an amount of 19.23%, 26.92% and 30.77% with the addition of FSS as a fine aggregate by the amount of 10%, 20% and 30%, respectively, as presented in Figure 7C. At a similar age, it was also clear that the increase in the amount of FSS influenced the compressive strength. Comparison was also made among the specimens with different amounts of FSS. Reduction in compressive strength by an amount of 9.52% and 14.29% was observed with the addition of 20% and 30% FSS, respectively, as compared to FSS-10. When the amount of FSS was increased from 20% to 30%, the reduction in compressive strength was only 5.26%. An almost similar trend was observed at ages of 28 and 63 days.

The reduction in percentage from the control specimen is presented in Figure 7C. In contrast, at 28 days of age, FSS-10 and FSS-20 had similar compressive strengths. However, with further increase of FSS (FSS-30), a 16% reduction in the compressive strength was observed. At age of 63 days, the compressive strength of concrete with UFS was still lower than the strength of the control specimen. At age of 63 days, the compressive strength of FSS-20 was marginally increased than that of FSS-10, which is different as compared to the previous trend (at 28 days, it was almost similar; at 7 days, it was lower). It may be concluded that 20% utilization of FSS in concrete shows the better result as compared to other percentages, and with further increase in age its compressive strength may approach (or even may even exceed) that of the control specimen. It may be concluded that 20% utilization of UFSs is the optimum amount and must be used to achieve sustainable and more economical concrete. This trend was observed in another study, in which at 20% replacement of natural sand with UFS, reduction in compressive strength was observed at age of 90 days. The reduction from the control specimen was 8.72%; however, it was increased from the control specimen by an amount of 5.99% at age of 365 days [20].

A similar trend was observed with respect to compressive strength in the case of FPR sand (as partial substitution of natural sand in concrete). The compressive strength of FPR specimens was recorded to be more than that of FSS specimens, which enables us to deduce that the compressive strength depends upon the type of UFS. At age of 63 days, the strengths of FPR-10 and FPR-20 were very close to that of the control specimen. The percentage reduction in compressive strength can be seen from Figure 7D. At age of 63 days, the reduction was zero for FPR-10 and only 3.03% for FRP-20. It is inferred that the sand with phenolic resin has more potential to be used as fine aggregate up to the amount of 20% as compared to FSS.

3.2.2 Comparison with available data

The compressive strength of concrete was highly influenced by its constituents, curing, and exposure conditions. At first, the aggregate was assumed to reduce the cost and act only as filler for concrete casting. However, the analysis of the test results revealed that it influenced the properties of fresh and hardened concrete. Although fine particles filled the voids and reduced the porosity, they weakened the link between aggregate and cement paste. Thus, it can be said that finer particles highly influence the compressive strength of concrete [19]. This phenomenon can also be explained by using the texture analysis. The rough texture of coarser aggregates provides more surface area to the cement paste as compared to finer aggregates. In this light, we can say that the presence of fine aggregates (UFS) is responsible for the weak aggregate-cement bond, contributing to the development of a weak interfacial transition zone (between aggregates and cement paste).

The type of binder was also another factor that is responsible for the reduction in compressive strength. There is considerable research on UFS that indicates that compressive strength decreases with the increase in the percentage of UFSs [3], [5], [10], [21], [22], which is also evident from our analysis. Figure 8 shows the comparison of observed values of compressive strength (at 28 days) with the available literature. Based on the evidence presented here, it is deduced that the maximum reduction highly depends upon the strength of the control specimen and also the type of foundry sand (as the properties of foundry sand may vary due to a different type of metal casting and different types of binders).

Figure 8: Comparison of observed values of compressive strength with the established database (Table 4).
Figure 8:

Comparison of observed values of compressive strength with the established database (Table 4).

Regression analysis was performed on available data by using the Microsoft Excel program. Data were fitted by selecting the exponential equation [Eq. (1)], although other types of equations were also tried. However, the value of coefficient of determination (R2) was very low, whereas 0.78 was obtained by using the exponential equation.

(1)f′c,28(UFS%)=f′c,(28)exp(−0.01×UFS),

where

f′c,28(UFS%), Predicted compressive strength of concrete with different amounts of UFS at 28 days.

f′c,(28), Compressive strength of the control concrete specimen at 28 days.

UFS, Amount of UFS and its range is 0<UFS≤30%.

3.2.3 Prediction formula

A prediction formula was proposed to predict the compressive strength of concrete with various amounts of UFS. A large database was established having 90 values of compressive strengths of different concrete samples at different ages, with the amount of UFS from 0% to 30%. The American Concrete Institute presents the empirical equation [Eq. (2)] to obtain the compressive strength at the concerned age by incorporating the compressive strength of 28 days [23]. By incorporating Eq. (1) in Eq. (2), Eq. (3) was obtained. Although Eq. (2) is the empirical equation, one coefficient was modified by experimental observations and the established database, and reported as Eq. (3). Two input parameters are involved in Eq. (3); the first one is the age and the second one is the amount of UFS. In light of the conducted analysis, it can be suggested that the type of binder highly influences the mechanical properties of concrete and must be selected as another parameter. Thus, it is recommended to extend the proposed model by incorporating the type of binder.

(2)f′c(t)=f′c,28[t4+0.85t],
(3)f′c,(UFS%,t)=f′c,(28)exp(−0.01×UFS)[t2.9+0.85t],

where

f′c,(UFS%,t), Predicted compressive strength of UFS concrete at the different amounts of UFS and days.

f′c,(28), Compressive strength of control concrete specimen at 28 days.

t, Age of concrete (days).

3.2.4 Validation of the prediction formula

Table 4 presents a comparison of the compressive strength of UFS concrete between the observed values and those present in the literature with the predicted values from Eq. (3). A close correspondence was observed between experimental and predicted values. The ratio between experimental to predicted values was 1.014, with a standard deviation of 0.097 and coefficient of variation of 9.580%, which verify the applicability of Eq. (3). A graphical presentation was also made between experimental and predicted values, and most of the data lie on the line of equality (X=Y), as shown in Figure 9. Some data also deviate from the line of equality but within the limit of ±15%. Figure 9 also shows the comparison between experimental and predicted values with respect to the age of specimen. Very close resemblance was observed at all ages, which again verifies the reliability and applicability of Eq. (3).

Table 4:

Comparison of experimental and predicted compressive strengths.

AuthorsUFS (%)Specimen nameDaysCompressive strengthExperimental
ExperimentalPredictedPredicted
Monosi et al. [6]0C1736.035.61.011
20C1-7731.029.11.064
30C1-10727.026.41.024
0C2743.044.30.971
30C2-10729.032.80.884
0C11442.042.60.987
20C1-71435.034.91.004
30C1-101432.031.51.015
0C21452.053.00.982
30C2-101436.039.20.917
0C12845.047.20.954
20C1-72838.038.60.984
30C1-102835.035.01.001
0C22856.058.70.954
30C2-102839.043.50.896
Monosi et al. [6]0M1741.038.01.080
10M1-10741.034.41.193
20M1-20734.031.11.094
30M1-30730.028.11.067
0M2733.031.61.043
20M2-20728.025.91.081
30M2-30723.023.40.981
0M11446.045.41.013
10M1-101444.041.11.071
20M1-201437.037.20.995
30M1-301432.033.60.951
0M21436.037.80.951
20M2-201431.031.01.001
30M2-301425.028.00.892
0M12848.050.30.954
10M1-102847.045.51.032
20M1-202838.041.20.922
30M1-302834.037.30.912
0M22840.041.90.954
20M2-202833.034.30.961
30M2-302827.031.10.869
Siddique et al. [20]0CM2836.338.00.954
10F102831.134.40.902
20F202832.531.11.044
0CM6343.940.51.085
10F106337.336.61.017
20F206340.133.11.209
0CM36544.442.31.051
10F1036543.138.31.126
20F2036547.134.61.360
Basar and Aksoy [3]0M0741.234.21.206
10M1736.730.91.187
20M2733.728.01.205
30M3731.025.31.225
0M02843.245.30.954
10M12841.741.01.017
20M22840.237.11.084
30M32836.633.61.091
0M05644.947.90.937
10M15644.143.31.017
20M25642.539.21.084
30M35639.135.51.102
0M09045.549.00.929
10M19044.644.31.007
20M29043.140.11.075
30M39040.336.31.111
Etxeberria et al. [10]0CC2839.341.20.954
30C-QFS2833.330.51.091
30C-GFS2830.530.50.999
Khatib et al. [5]00% WFS2843.645.70.954
2020% WFS2840.037.41.069
Observed values0NLS726.024.51.060
10FSS-10721.022.20.947
20FSS-20719.020.10.946
30FSS-30718.018.20.991
0NLS2831.032.50.954
10FSS-102825.029.40.850
20FSS-202825.026.60.939
30FSS-302821.024.10.872
0NLS6333.034.60.954
10FSS-106325.031.30.799
20FSS-206326.028.30.918
30FSS-306323.025.60.897
Observed FPR0NLS726.024.51.060
10FSS-10721.022.20.947
20FSS-20725.020.11.245
30FSS-30719.018.21.046
0NLS2831.032.50.954
10FSS-102827.029.40.918
20FSS-202829.026.61.090
30FSS-302823.024.10.955
0NLS6333.034.60.954
10FSS-106333.031.31.054
20FSS-206332.028.31.130
30FSS-306327.025.61.053
Average1.014
SD0.097
Coefficient of variation9.580
Figure 9: Comparison of experimental and predicted compressive strengths.
Figure 9:

Comparison of experimental and predicted compressive strengths.

3.3 Modulus of elasticity

Modulus of elasticity is another index that evaluates the mechanical properties of concrete. Modulus of elasticity was obtained at age of 28 days only and presented in Figure 10. Concrete mixture with natural Lawerencepur sand (NLS) shows the highest modulus of elasticity among other mixtures containing UFSs. The modulus of elasticity of FSS-10 was reduced by an amount of 10.48% from NLS, whereas an about 17–18% reduction was observed for FSS-20 and FSS-30, respectively, as compared to NLS. The comparison was made among concretes with different amounts of UFS. It was observed that the modulus of elasticity was reduced by 7.80% and 8.29% when the amount of UFS was increased from 10% to 20% and 10% to 30%, respectively. There was a marginal difference of the influence of 20–30% replacement of UFS on the modulus of elasticity. FPR had a marginal difference with the NLS mixture at all replacement levels.

Figure 10: Modulus of elasticity of concrete having various UFS amounts.
Figure 10:

Modulus of elasticity of concrete having various UFS amounts.

The modulus of elasticity of UFS concrete was also reduced by increasing the amount of UFS. The type of binder is one factor that is responsible for the reduction in modulus of elasticity [21], [22]. The other reason for the reduction in the modulus of elasticity is the fineness of UFS, which weakens the interfacial transition zone. Several theoretical and empirical relationships are available that show that the modulus of elasticity is dependent upon the compressive strength of concrete [23]. However, the relationship between compressive strength and modulus of elasticity for UFS concrete is not yet reported and must be explored by analyzing the specimens by incorporating fracture mechanics and proposing the constitutive models.

4 Conclusions

Experimental and analytical work was conducted in this study by incorporating different amounts of UFSs as partial replacements of natural fine aggregates. Two types of UFS were used having different binders. The physical and chemical properties of all types of sands were obtained and, finally, concrete was casted by replacing natural fine aggregate by 10%, 20% and 30% of UFS. Compressive strength and modulus of elasticity were evaluated. Compressive strength was investigated in detail and also compared with the database that was compiled in this work. The following conclusions can be extracted from this work:

  1. UFSs were finer than natural sand and the workability of the concrete casted with UFS was greater than that of conventional concrete due to its fineness.

  2. Compressive strength was reduced with the increase in the amount of UFS. The reduction in compressive strength of concrete with UFS having sodium silicate (FSS) as a binder was greater as compared to the UFS with phenolic resin (FPR) binder. FPR concrete had a marginal difference from conventional concrete at ages of 7 and 28 days. After 63 days, the compressive strength of FPR concrete was higher than that of conventional concrete.

  3. A prediction formula was proposed to predict the compressive strength at concerned ages and concerned amounts of UFSs. A close correspondence was observed between experimental and predicted values, and also verified by establishing a large database. Almost all values of compressive strength lie within the ±15% limit of the line of equality.

  4. Modulus of elasticity was also reduced with the increase in the amount of UFS. Again, the reduction was greater in FSS concrete as compared to FPR concrete. In all cases, the modulus of elasticity of conventional concrete was higher.

Several economic, environmental, and technical advantages can be achieved by substituting UFS as fine aggregate in concrete. Detailed analysis for other mechanical properties are missing, like split tensile and flexural strength, and must be investigated. The durability of such concrete must also be examined to obtain a healthy environment and sustainable construction industry. Further evaluation is recommended with regard to the above-mentioned missing parameters.

Acknowledgments

The authors are thankful for the support from the foundry sand industries of Pakistan: Qadri Brothers (Pvt.) Limited and QADCAST (Pvt.) Limited for their valuable support in provision of data and foundry sand materials. The authors are also thankful to the laboratory of Concrete Materials at Architectural Engineering and Design Department, University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore, Pakistan, which helped in the conduction of experimental work.

References

[1] Rashid K, Ueda T, Zhang D, Miyaguchi K, Nakai H. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 94, 414–425.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.07.035Search in Google Scholar

[2] Rashid K, Zhang D, Ueda T, Jin W. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 125, 465–478.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.08.067Search in Google Scholar

[3] Basar HM, Aksoy ND. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 35, 508–515.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.078Search in Google Scholar

[4] Scott MH, Jim B. Waste and Materials – Flow Benchmark Sector Report: Beneficial Use of Secondary Materials – Foundry Sand. Economics, Methods, and Risk Analysis Division, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, 2008.Search in Google Scholar

[5] Khatib J, Baig S, Bougara A, Booth C. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies. Università Politecnica delle Marche, Ancona, Italy, pp 28–30.Search in Google Scholar

[6] Monosi S, Sani D, Tittarelli F. Open Waste Manage. J. 2010, 3, 18–25.10.2174/1876400201003010018Search in Google Scholar

[7] Reddi LN, Rieck GP, Schwab A, Chou S, Fan L. J. Hazard. Mater. 1996, 45, 89–106.10.1016/0304-3894(95)00083-6Search in Google Scholar

[8] Siddique R. Waste Materials and By-products in Concrete. Springer Science & Business Media: New York, NY, 2007.Search in Google Scholar

[9] Siddique R. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2009, 54, 1–8.10.1016/j.resconrec.2009.06.001Search in Google Scholar

[10] Etxeberria M, Pacheco C, Meneses J, Berridi I. Constr. Build. Mater. 2010, 24, 1594–1600.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.02.034Search in Google Scholar

[11] Siddique R, De Schutter G, Noumowe A. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 976–980.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2008.05.005Search in Google Scholar

[12] Siddique R, Noumowe A. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2008, 53, 27–35.10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.09.007Search in Google Scholar

[13] Singh G, Siddique R. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 421–426.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.087Search in Google Scholar

[14] Singh G, Siddique R. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 26, 416–422.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.06.041Search in Google Scholar

[15] ASTM C143/C143M-15a. Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete, ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2015.Search in Google Scholar

[16] BS 1881-103:1983. Testing Concrete. A Method for Determination of Compacting Factor. BSI: British Standard Institution: London, UK, 1993.Search in Google Scholar

[17] ASTM C 39M-03. Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical Concrete Specimens. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.Search in Google Scholar

[18] ASTM C 469-02. Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

[19] Mehta PK. Concrete. Structure, Properties and Materials. McGraw-Hill: New York, 1986.Search in Google Scholar

[20] Siddique R, Aggarwal Y, Aggarwal P, Kadri E-H, Bennacer R. Constr. Build. Mater. 2011, 25, 1916–1925.10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.11.065Search in Google Scholar

[21] Khatib J, Ellis D. Spec. Publ. 2001, 200, 733–748.Search in Google Scholar

[22] Rashid K, Rashid T. Comput. Concr. 2017, 19, 617–623.Search in Google Scholar

[23] 318-02, A. Building Code Requirements for Structural Concrete (318-02) and Commentary (318R-02). American Concrete Institute (ACI): MI, USA, 2002.Search in Google Scholar

Received: 2017-01-11
Accepted: 2017-07-22
Published Online: 2017-08-28
Published in Print: 2018-09-25

©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Review
  3. Progress in the research and applications of natural fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
  4. Original articles
  5. Damage assessment of random multiwalled carbon nanotube-reinforced polymer nanocomposites
  6. A variational approach for predicting initiation of matrix cracking and induced delamination in symmetric composite laminates under in-plane loading
  7. Processing-structure-property correlations of in situ Al/TiB2 composites processed by aluminothermic reduction process
  8. Interface transition layer interaction mechanism for ZTAP/HCCI composites
  9. Mechanical and electrical properties of polylactic acid/carbon nanotube composites by rolling process
  10. Development of hydroxyapatite-polylactic acid composite bone fixation plate
  11. Dielectric and thermal properties of magnesium oxide/poly(aryl ether ketone) nanocomposites
  12. A sustainable approach to optimum utilization of used foundry sand in concrete
  13. Improving flame-retardant, thermal, and mechanical properties of an epoxy using halogen-free fillers
  14. Optimization of the PDMS/biochar nanocomposite membranes using the response surface methodology
  15. Preparation and characterization of low-cost high-performance mullite-quartz ceramic proppants for coal bed methane wells
  16. Experimental investigation and analysis on the wear properties of glass fiber and CNT reinforced hybrid polymer composites
  17. Preparation of polyaniline-polyvinyl alcohol-silver nanocomposite and characterization of its mechanical and antibacterial properties
  18. An effective approach to synthesize carbon nanotube-reinforced Al matrix composite precursor
  19. Effect of oxygen plasma treatment on tensile strength of date palm fibers and their interfacial adhesion with epoxy matrix
  20. A novel characterization method of fiber reinforced polymers with clustered microstructures for time dependent mass transfer
  21. Stress relaxation behavior of annealed aluminum-carbon nanotube composite
  22. Restrained shrinkage cracking of self-consolidating concrete roads
  23. The effective ellipsoid: a method for calculating the permittivity of composites with multilayer ellipsoids
https://doi.org/10.1515/secm-2017-0012
Keywords for this article
compressive strength; concrete; fine aggregate; prediction formula; used foundry sand
Creative Commons
BY-NC-ND 3.0

Articles in the same Issue

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Review
  3. Progress in the research and applications of natural fiber-reinforced polymer matrix composites
  4. Original articles
  5. Damage assessment of random multiwalled carbon nanotube-reinforced polymer nanocomposites
  6. A variational approach for predicting initiation of matrix cracking and induced delamination in symmetric composite laminates under in-plane loading
  7. Processing-structure-property correlations of in situ Al/TiB2 composites processed by aluminothermic reduction process
  8. Interface transition layer interaction mechanism for ZTAP/HCCI composites
  9. Mechanical and electrical properties of polylactic acid/carbon nanotube composites by rolling process
  10. Development of hydroxyapatite-polylactic acid composite bone fixation plate
  11. Dielectric and thermal properties of magnesium oxide/poly(aryl ether ketone) nanocomposites
  12. A sustainable approach to optimum utilization of used foundry sand in concrete
  13. Improving flame-retardant, thermal, and mechanical properties of an epoxy using halogen-free fillers
  14. Optimization of the PDMS/biochar nanocomposite membranes using the response surface methodology
  15. Preparation and characterization of low-cost high-performance mullite-quartz ceramic proppants for coal bed methane wells
  16. Experimental investigation and analysis on the wear properties of glass fiber and CNT reinforced hybrid polymer composites
  17. Preparation of polyaniline-polyvinyl alcohol-silver nanocomposite and characterization of its mechanical and antibacterial properties
  18. An effective approach to synthesize carbon nanotube-reinforced Al matrix composite precursor
  19. Effect of oxygen plasma treatment on tensile strength of date palm fibers and their interfacial adhesion with epoxy matrix
  20. A novel characterization method of fiber reinforced polymers with clustered microstructures for time dependent mass transfer
  21. Stress relaxation behavior of annealed aluminum-carbon nanotube composite
  22. Restrained shrinkage cracking of self-consolidating concrete roads
  23. The effective ellipsoid: a method for calculating the permittivity of composites with multilayer ellipsoids
Sign up now to receive a 20% welcome discount
Institutional Access
How does access work?
Have an idea on how to improve our website?
Please write us.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Downloaded on 12.12.2025 from https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/secm-2017-0012/html
Scroll to top button