4.7 Article

Experimental study on the behavior of RC beams containing recycled glass

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 344, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2022.128250

Keywords

Waste glass powder; Waste glass fine; Recycled concrete; Reinforced concrete beams; Ultimate load; Deflection; Flexure

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the use of waste glass as a replacement material in reinforced concrete beams. The experimental results show that concrete with waste glass as a substitute material has similar physical and mechanical properties compared to traditional concrete, while also providing some enhancements.
Concrete is one of the most commonly utilized building material and the source for some of the world's most serious environmental and sustainability problems. Instead, waste glass (WG) as recycled material is used. There is a lack in the experimental studies of the reinforced concrete (RC) beams containing WG. This research focus on the flexural behavior of RC beams containing WG as a replacement to cement and fine aggregates. The exper-imental program comprises 10 tested beams designated as: control beam, beams with cement replacement by WG with values of 10% and 20%, and beams with fine aggregate replacement by WG with values of 10% and 15%. The effect of longitudinal steel ratio is also included in the program. The experimental results included slump test, compressive and tensile strength tests, crack patterns, load-deflection and load-strain relationships for RC beams. On the material level, results of the slump tests showed close results for the slump, compressive and tensile strengths for the mixes containing WG when compared to the control mix. On the structural level, beams contain 10% WG showed an increase in the cracking and ultimate loads respectively by 29.0% and 6.9% and beams containing 20% WG showed insignificant reductions in the cracking and ultimate loads.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available