Performance of Concrete Walls with Waste and Recycling Materials for Industrial Building Systems
Seyed Yaser Mousavi Siamakani1, Abdul Kadir Bin Marsono2, Neelam Memon3, Shariwati Binti Mansor4, Hares Nikookar5
1Seyed Yaser Mousavi Siamakani, Department of Civil Engineering, University Technology, UTM Skudai, Johor Malaysia.
2Assoc. Prof. Dr. Kadir Marsono, Department of Civil Engineering, University Technology, UTM Skudai, Johor Malaysia.
3Neelam Memon, Department of Civil Engineering, University Technology, UTM Skudai, Johor Malaysia.
4Shariwati Binti Mansor, Department of Civil Engineering, University Technology, UTM Skudai, Johor Malaysia.
5Hares Nikookar, Department of Civil Engineering, University Technology, UTM Skudai, Johor Malaysia.
Manuscript received on 10 July 2014 | Revised Manuscript received on 20 July 2014 | Manuscript Published on 30 July 2014 | PP: 93-97 | Volume-4 Issue-2, July 2014 | Retrieval Number: B1727074214/14©BEIESP
Open Access | Editorial and Publishing Policies | Cite | Mendeley | Indexing and Abstracting
© The Authors. Blue Eyes Intelligence Engineering and Sciences Publication (BEIESP). This is an open access article under the CC-BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Abstract: Concrete walls with lighter weight significantly reduce the dead loads. In this regard, the central question was to find, production of reduce dead load concrete; for this an experimental test were done on four sample scales of walls. The samples were based on size scale (640x220x30mm) which is 1/5 of the real wall size used in Industrial Building Systems (IBS). The samples were: (a) Normal IBS wall (control sample), (b) Bottom ash IBS wall (used 50% of the amount of sand), (c) Crushed brick IBS wall (used 100% of the amount of sand), and (d) No-fines aggregate concrete IBS wall (without sand). For comparison, the samples were tested on 28th day. The density of type (a), type (b), type (c) and type (d) were 2355, 1974, 2038.2 and 1800 kg/mᵌ, respectively. In respect of the compressive strength, type (a) (control sample) was the strongest type with 31N/mm² and type (d) was the weakest type with 8MPa. The other two, type (b) and type (c) with 25 and 28MPa, have been determined as their compressive strength, respectively. For the elastic modulus test; 22GPa, 17GPa, 22GPa, 6GPa were recorded for type (a), type (b), type (c) and type (d), respectively. For the flexural test on the walls, it has been clearly seen that type (a), (b) and (c) had almost the adequate value of 17.7MPa, 13.3MPa and 15.8MPa, sequentially while type (d) achieved the lowest value among the four walls with 8.1MPa. Since type (a) is considered as a control sample; thereby, type (b) and type (c) unlike type (d) are appropriate to be used in IBS wall constructions due to their passable engineering properties (density, compressive strength, E-value and bend rapture).
Keywords: IBS Wall, Waste Materials, Recycling Materials, Light Weight Aggregates, Bottom Ash, Cruched Brick.
Scope of the Article: Concrete Structures