ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS CONTAINING AGGREGATE REPLACEMENTS OF WASTE GLASS AND RUBBER TIRE PARTICLES by Jerry W. Isler B.S., University of Colorado Denver, 1984 A thesis submitted to the University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science Civil Engineering 2012
108
Embed
Assessment of Concrete Masonry Units Containing Aggregate ...
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
ASSESSMENT OF CONCRETE MASONRY UNITS CONTAINING AGGREGATE
REPLACEMENTS OF WASTE GLASS AND RUBBER TIRE PARTICLES
by
Jerry W. Isler
B.S., University of Colorado Denver, 1984
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado Denver in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science
Civil Engineering
2012
This thesis for the Master of Science degree by
Jerry W. Isler
has been approved by
Dr. Frederick Rutz, Advisor
Dr. Kevin Rens
Dr. Rui Liu
Date: 4-13-2012
Isler, Jerry W. (M.S., Civil Engineering)
Assessment of Concrete Masonry Units Containing Aggregate Replacements of Waste
Glass and Rubber Tire Particles
Thesis directed by Assistant Professor Dr. Frederick Rutz
ABSTRACT
Sustainable construction has become an interest in the engineering community and
several standards have been developed to assess the environmental impact of new
construction projects. Research has shown that it is possible to use recycled materials to
replace some of the traditional mixture components in concrete products and produce a
more sustainable building material. Two materials that are currently recycled and have the
possibility of use in concrete applications are waste glass and rubber tire particles.
Because concrete masonry units are an important and widely used building material it is of
interest to determine if the recycled materials can be used to make a concrete block with
similar properties as those made with stone aggregate.
This paper examines the use of waste glass and rubber tire particles as a fine aggregate
replacement for the mixture design of concrete masonry units. Typically masonry units are
made in an automated manufacturing process that is different from other concrete
production. The process consists of filling molds with plastic cementitious material and
consolidating the material by rigorous vibration and direct pressure. The units are then
quickly removed from the molds and transferred to the curing section of the production
facility. Testing of trial mixtures can be done by evaluating small batch trials at a
production block manufacturing facility, but often this is impractical and expensive. The
concrete masonry units in this research were evaluated in the laboratory under conditions
meant to replicate an automated manufacturing process.
Concrete masonry units made with fine aggregate replacement consisting of waste glass
and rubber tire particles were evaluated and compared to current engineering standards.
Properties such as unit weight, compressive strength and absorption were evaluated. The
visual and aesthetic characteristics of the block and any potential benefits or problems
were reviewed.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the candidate’s thesis. I recommend itspublication.
Approved: Dr. Frederick Rutz
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The research for this thesis was performed in the concrete testing laboratory at theUniversity of Colorado at Denver. Because an unfunded research project can be achallenge to undertake, the author would like to thank the following companies forgenerously donating materials used in this project and encouraging research in a moresustainable future: Rocky Mountain Bottling Company for donating the waste glassmaterial and Academy Sports Turf for supplying the rubber tire particles.
I’d like to thank my advisors, Dr. Stephan Durham and Dr. Frederick Rutz for theirassistance during the preparation of this thesis. I also would like to thank all the membersof my committee for their participation and insights into this project.
Finally, I wish to thank my parents, Dick and Jean Isler, and other family members for theirkindness in supporting this thesis. All of their contributions, whether large or small, weregreatly appreciated and will not be forgotten.
v
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Figures ......................................................................................................................... vii
Tables ........................................................................................................................ viii
Chapter
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................12. Literature Review................................................................................................32.1 Concrete Masonry Construction..........................................................................32.2 Sustainable Concrete Masonry Practices............................................................32.3 Waste Glass Recycling.......................................................................................52.4 Concrete Masonry Units Made With Waste Glass ...............................................62.5 Concrete Made With Waste Glass ......................................................................72.6 Fresh Concrete Properties of Concrete Made With Waste Glass.........................72.6.1 Unit Weight ........................................................................................................72.6.2 Slump ........................................................................................................72.6.3 Air Content ........................................................................................................82.7 Hardened Concrete Properties of Concrete Made With Waste Glass ..................82.7.1 Compressive Strength ........................................................................................82.7.2 Tensile and Flexural Strength .............................................................................92.7.3 Alkali-Silica Reaction ........................................................................................102.7.4 Freeze–Thaw Durability....................................................................................112.8 Waste Tire Recycling........................................................................................122.9 Concrete Masonry Units Made With Rubber Tire Particles ................................142.10 Concrete Made With Rubber Tire Particles .......................................................152.11 Fresh Concrete Properties of Concrete Made With Rubber Tire Particles..........162.11.1 Unit Weight ......................................................................................................162.11.2 Slump ......................................................................................................162.11.3 Air Content ......................................................................................................172.12 Hardened Concrete Properties of Concrete Made With Rubber Tire Particles ...172.12.1 Compressive Strength ......................................................................................172.12.2 Flexural Strength ..............................................................................................192.12.3 Freeze–Thaw Durability....................................................................................192.12.4 Thermal Properties ...........................................................................................192.12.5 Potential Health Hazards ..................................................................................203. Problem Statement...........................................................................................224. Experimental Plan ............................................................................................244.1 Laboratory Plan and Goals ...............................................................................244.2 Testing Concrete Masonry Mixtures in the Laboratory.......................................254.3 Designing Concrete Masonry Unit Mixtures.......................................................274.4 Materials ......................................................................................................284.5 Phase 1 – Determining Control Mixture Proportions and Calibrating
Laboratory Equipment ......................................................................................284.6 Phase 2 – Examination of Aggregate Replacement in CMU Mixtures................29
vi
4.7 Concrete Properties..........................................................................................294.8 Viability As A Construction Material...................................................................305. Results ......................................................................................................325.1 Phase 1 – Determining Mixture Proportions and Calibrating
Laboratory Equipment ......................................................................................325.2 Materials ......................................................................................................325.3 Gradation Test..................................................................................................355.4 Dry Rodded Unit Weight ...................................................................................375.5 Control Mixture Proportions ..............................................................................375.6 Compaction ......................................................................................................425.7 Phase 1 Results ...............................................................................................465.8 Phase 2 – Effect of Aggregate Replacement with Recycled Materials ...............526. Conclusions......................................................................................................696.1 Conclusions and Recommendations .................................................................696.2 Recommendations for Future Studies ...............................................................71
Appendix
A Information on Materials Used in Mixture Designs.............................................74A.1 Materials Used in Research..............................................................................74B Results Data.....................................................................................................80B.1 Phase 1 Results Data.......................................................................................80B.2 Phase 2 Results Data.......................................................................................87
2.1 U.S. Scrap Tire Disposition 2003 .........................................................................145.1 Waste Glass........................................................................................................335.2 Trash in Waste Glass ..........................................................................................345.3 Crumb Rubber.....................................................................................................345.4 Gradation of Fine Aggregates ..............................................................................365.5 Gradation of Coarse Aggregates..........................................................................375.6 Water to Cement Ratio at Which Mixture Will Ball ................................................405.7 Squeeze Test ......................................................................................................415.8 Drop Hammer Compaction Equipment.................................................................435.9 Collar for Mold .....................................................................................................445.10 7 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight .......................................................465.11 Cubes Removed from Mold Immediately After Compaction ..................................475.12 Cube Produced – Top View .................................................................................485.13 7 Day and 28 Day Absorption ..............................................................................495.14 Unit Weight of Trail Mixtures ................................................................................505.15 Compressive Strength vs. Water to Cement Ratio – Trial Mixtures .......................515.16 Compressive Strength vs. Percent Cement – Trial Mixtures .................................525.17 1 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ...............................555.18 7 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ...............................565.19 Absorption vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement...........................................575.20 7 Day Strength vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ....................................585.21 7 Day Strength Decrease vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ....................595.22 28 Day Strength vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ..................................605.23 28 Day Strength Decrease vs. Percent Fine Aggregate Replacement ..................615.24 7 and 28 Day Strength Curves for Waste Glass Mixtures .....................................645.25 7 and 28 Day Strength Curves for Rubber Tire Particles Mixtures ........................655.26 Photo of CMU Cube with Waste Glass – Top View ..............................................675.27 Photo of CMU Cube with Rubber Tire Particles – Bottom View ............................685.28 Photo of CMU Cube with Rubber Tire Particles – Side View ................................68A.1 Potential Alkali Reactivity Testing ........................................................................78A.2 Fine Aggregate Gradation and Soundness Testing ..............................................79B.1 Trendline - 7 Day Compressive Strength vs. Unit Weight .....................................82B.2 Trendline - 7 Day and 28 Day Absorption.............................................................83B.3 Trendline - Unit Weight of Trial Mixtures ..............................................................84B.4 Trendline - Compressive Strength vs. Water to Cement Ratio - Trial Mixtures ......86B.5 Trendline - Compressive Strength vs. Percent Cement - Trial Mixtures ................87B.6 Trendline - 1 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement .....................89B.7 Trendline - 7 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement .....................90B.8 Trendline - Absorption vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement.................................92B.9 Trendline - 7 Day Compressive Strength vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement.....93B.10 Trendline - 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement ...95
viii
TABLES
Table
2.1 Chemical composition of waste glass.....................................................................52.2 Typical composition of manufactured tires by weight............................................135.1 Gradation test of fine aggregates .........................................................................355.2 Gradation test of coarse aggregates ....................................................................365.3 Unit weight of aggregates ....................................................................................375.4 Mixture proportions of trial control mixtures..........................................................415.5 Moisture content of aggregates............................................................................425.6 Mixture proportions of control mixture ..................................................................525.7 Proportions of mixtures containing waste glass ....................................................535.8 Proportions of mixtures containing crumb rubber .................................................53A.1 Concrete masonry mixture design materials.........................................................74A.2 Chemical composition of cement .........................................................................75B.1 Data for 7 day compressive strength vs. unit weight.............................................80B.2 Data for 7 day and 28 day absorption ..................................................................82B.3 Data for unit weight of trial mixtures .....................................................................84B.4 Data for compressive strength vs. water to cement ratio - trial mixtures................85B.5 Data for compressive strength vs. percent cement - trial mixtures ........................86B.6 Data for 1 day unit weight waste glass replacement .............................................87B.7 Data for 1 day unit weight crumb rubber replacement ..........................................88B.8 Data for 7 day unit weight ....................................................................................89B.9 Data for absorption strength vs. percent aggregate replacement..........................91B.10 Data for 7 day compressive strength vs. percent aggregate replacement .............92B.11 Data for 28 day compressive strength vs. percent aggregate replacement ...........94
1
1. Introduction
Currently there is a growing awareness that humanity may be living in an unsustainable
manner with respect to its usage of natural resources. Although the supply of natural
resources is finite, the demand for raw materials has increased greatly in recent years.
The growing demand for natural resources is thought to be the result of a number of
causalities such as technological improvements that have made more products available to
society, rising affluence levels in the developing world and the overall increase in the global
population. Another concern about the use of natural resources is the potential generation
of CO2 emissions and their harmful effect on the environment. These concerns have led to
a re-evaluation of how natural resources are used and call for the implementation of more
sustainable practices that preserve resources and allow them to endure for the future.
In response to these concerns, the engineering community has begun to develop programs
and standards that address sustainable construction practices. The U.S. Green Building
Council has developed the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
program that provides guidelines to certify that proposed construction projects use
resources that meet metrics for more sustainable construction (U S Green Building Council
2011). The International Standards Organization has developed a number of standards to
be used in environmental assessment methods (ISO 2012). Recently the Portland Cement
Association (PCA 2009) has proposed several amendments to the International Building
Code (International Code Council 2009) that consider sustainability. The amendments
differentiate between a high performance building that uses sustainable construction
practices and code requirements based upon minimum standards. Sustainability is an
2
important emerging topic in the field of engineering. Buildings and construction activities
worldwide consume 3 billion tons of raw materials or 40% of the total global use (Roodman
and Lenssen 1995). Therefore the design and construction of buildings is an important
area to examine in order to provide a more sustainable environment. One of the most
frequently used materials in building construction is the concrete masonry unit because of
its versatility and durability. Concrete blocks are made from cast concrete that is a mixture
of various batch materials including fine and coarse aggregates, cement and water.
Research on concrete mixtures has shown that it is possible to replace some of the
traditional batch ingredients with other materials such as those collected from recycling
processes. This feature of concrete mixtures presents a unique opportunity to use
materials that otherwise might be placed in a landfill.
Recycling involves the collecting and reprocessing of scrap materials into new, similar
materials. If a material cannot be reprocessed into its original form, often new uses for the
material are developed. Typically items that are collected for recycling include paper,
plastics, glass, metals, tires, motor oil and many other items. Two materials that present
possibilities for use in concrete block as an aggregate replacement are waste glass and
rubber tire particles. Waste glass has similar characteristic to the fine and coarse
aggregates traditionally used in concrete block while rubber tire particles are similar to
polypropylene fibers used in concrete to control minor cracking. Because sustainability is
an important topic in engineering and the mixture design of concrete block allows for the
possible use of recycled materials, this thesis will examine the potential for waste glass
and rubber tire particles to be used as an aggregate replacement in the mixture design of
concrete masonry units.
3
2. Literature Review
2.1 Concrete Masonry Construction
Concrete masonry is a widely used building material provided on a number of projects
such as industrial buildings, schools, hospitals, and residential buildings. It is an appealing
building material because of its aesthetic appearance, versatility, durability and fire
resistance capabilities. Concrete masonry units are rectangular blocks made of cast
concrete with hollow cores. They are produced in an automated manufacturing process
that consists of batching mixture materials, placing the materials in a mold assembly and
then transferring the units to a curing operation. Units are made with different textures and
widths to meet job conditions, but have common lengths and heights to standardize
construction practices. Concrete masonry wall assemblies are constructed by joining
individual concrete blocks together with mortar joints. In architectural applications concrete
masonry units can be used as veneer or partition walls. Structural applications consist of
loadbearing members where reinforcing steel can be placed in the hollow cores of the
block and grouted in place to give the member its required strength.
2.2 Sustainable Concrete Masonry Practices
The Merriam-Webster on-line dictionary defines sustainability as “a method of harvesting
or using a resource so that the resource is not depleted or permanently damaged
(Merriam-Webster 2010).” Although there are many ways to define and measure
sustainability, one of the most widely used methods for determining sustainability of
building construction is the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED)
4
program provided by the U.S. Green Building Council. LEED is defined as “an
internationally recognized green building certification system, providing third-party
verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at
improving performance across all metrics that matter most: energy savings, water
efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality and
stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts” (U S Green Building Council
2011). The LEED program has developed several categories to define sustainable
construction practices including: sustainable sites, water efficiency, energy and
atmosphere, materials and resources, indoor environmental quality, location and linkages,
awareness and education and innovation in design.
The concrete masonry industry has attempted to understand how masonry practices can
be more sustainable and promote known sustainable uses. Concrete masonry units are an
energy efficient material with a high thermal mass that store heat or cold for release at later
times. This storage capability allows the masonry to release energy when demand is not
during peak conditions saving energy and operating costs for the building. Other
sustainable masonry practices include examining the life-cycle cost and durability of
masonry walls. One example of this is the on-going research to reduce moisture infiltration
and provide proper drainage in masonry walls since moisture accumulation tends to reduce
the longevity of a wall assembly. Construction practices that utilize new types of
waterproofing or improved flashing techniques are currently being investigated. Finally,
sustainable masonry practices include re-examining the materials used in concrete
masonry. Materials that use less energy and eliminate the need for processing new raw
materials are favored over other materials. New sustainable materials being considered
include the use of new types of cements, fly ash, waste glass and other materials.
5
2.3 Waste Glass Recycling
The use of glass dates back for thousands of years and today covers a wide variety of
products. Typical uses of glass include container glass such as bottles and jars, flat glass
from which windows are made, specialized glass used in televisions and computer
screens, insulation made from fiberglass and other applications. Glass is made of sand,
calcium carbonate and limestone which are commonly found in nature. Shao et al. in their
study of the use of waste glass in concrete give the chemical composition of soda lime
glass and fly ash as shown in Table 2.1 (Shao et al. 2000).
Material Standard SourceCement ASTM C 150 Type I/II Ashgrove CementSand ASTM C 33 Bestway ConcretePea Gravel ASTM C 33 Home DepotWaste Glass Rocky Mountain
Bottling CompanyCrumb Rubber Academy Sports TurfWater Potable Tap Water
75
The chemical composition of the cement used in the research is shown in Table A.2.
Table A.2 Chemical composition of cement
Date and Time of Analysis 7/16/2009Type of Analysis Concentration AnalysisNumber of Repeats 1Cassette Number 43Type I-II
The following is the data results for the phase 2 work. Graphs of the results are included
with data scatter and the best linear curve fitting of the data unless noted otherwise.
The information shown in Table B.5 and Table B.6 are the results of the1 day unit weight of
the control mixture and various mixtures with aggregate replacement and was used to
produce Figure 5.17. Figure B.6 shows the data scatter and trendline of these results.
Table B.6 Data for 1 day unit weight waste glass replacement
MixtureControlMixture
10%WasteGlass
20%WasteGlass
30%WasteGlass
Cube 1 (lb/ft3) 138.78 137.27 138.89 138.67
88
Cube 2 (lb/ft3) 140.62 139.86 138.89 138.89
Cube 3 (lb/ft3) 138.24 139.86 137.92 137.59
Cube 4 (lb/ft3) 138.78 138.89 136.4 135.43
Cube 5 (lb/ft3) 141.59 138.46 137.81 134.78
Cube 6 (lb/ft3) 139.54 136.62 137.05 134.46
Average (lb/ft3
135.70 138.49 137.83 136.64
StandardDeviation (lb/ft
3)
1.28 1.33 0.99 1.92
Coefficient ofVariability
0.0092 0.0096 0.0072 0.0146
Table B.7 Data for 1 day unit weight crumb rubber replacement
MixtureControlMixture
10%CrumbRubber
20%CrumbRubber
30%CrumbRubber
Cube 1 (lb/ft3) 138.78 132.52 136.19 131.11
Cube 2 (lb/ft3) 140.62 134.46 134.68 129.49
Cube 3 (lb/ft3) 138.24 134.57 133.81 131.65
Cube 4 (lb/ft3) 138.78 138.86 130.25 128.20
Cube 5 (lb/ft3) 141.59 138.24 133.06 128.52
Cube 6 (lb/ft3) 139.54 138.56 133.16 126.79
Average (lb/ft3) 135.70 135.70 133.52 129.29
StandardDeviation (lb/ft3)
1.28 2.68 1.98 1.84
Coefficient ofVariability
0.0092 0.0173 0.0148 0.0142
89
Figure B.6 Trendline – 1 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement
The information shown in Table B.8 and Figure B.7 are the results of the 7 day unit weight
of the control mixture and various mixtures with aggregate replacement. These results
were used in Figure 5.18.
Table B.8 Data for 7 day unit weight
MixtureCube
1(lb/ft
3)
Cube2
(lb/ft3)
Cube3
(lb/ft3)
Average(lb/ft
3)
StandardDeviation
(lb/ft3)
Coefficientof
VariabilityControlMixture
137.6* 137.7* 137.9 137.7 0.15 0.0011
10% WasteGlass
134.2 136.2 139.1 136.5 2.46 0.0180
20% WasteGlass
136.7* 137.2* 136.7* 136.9 0.29 0.0021
90
30% WasteGlass
131.6* 130.9* 131.3* 131.3 0.35 0.0027
10%CrumbRubber
130.4 130.5 132.3 131.0 1.07 0.0082
20%CrumbRubber
131.0 128.8 129.1 129.6 1.19 0.0092
30%CrumbRubber
125.0 129.9 130.7 128.5 3.09 0.0240
Asterisk – denotes average result of two sample
Figure B.7 Trendline – 7 Day Unit Weight vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement
91
The information shown in Table B.9 and Figure B.8 are the results of the absorption tests
on the control mixture and various mixtures with aggregate replacement and was used to
produce Figure 5.19.
Table B.9 Data for absorption vs. percent fine aggregate replacement
MixtureCube
1(lb/ft
3)
Cube2
(lb/ft3)
Cube3
(lb/ft3)
Average(lb/ft
3)
StandardDeviation
(lb/ft3)
Coefficientof
VariabilityControlMixture
6.74 7.08 7.00 6.94 0.18 0.0256
10% WasteGlass
7.25 7.17 6.83 7.08 0.22 0.0315
20% WasteGlass
7.25 7.34 7.34 7.31 0.05 0.0071
30% WasteGlass
7.08 7.42 7.25 7.25 0.17 0.0234
10%CrumbRubber
7.17 7.08 6.66 6.97 0.27 0.0391
20%CrumbRubber
7.00 7.51 7.51 7.34 0.29 0.0401
30%CrumbRubber
8.33 7.84 7.59 7.92 0.38 0.0475
92
Figure B.8 Trendline – Absorption vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement
The information shown in Table B.10 and Figure B.9 are the results of the 7 day strength
tests on the control mixture and various mixtures with aggregate replacement and was
used to produce Figure 5.20.
Table B.10 Data for 7 day strength vs. percent aggregate replacement
MixtureCube 1
(psi)Cube 2
(psi)Cube 3
(psi)Average
(psi)
StandardDeviation
(psi)
Coefficientof
VariabilityControlMixture
2170 2465 2433 2356 162 0.069
10% WasteGlass
2405 2255 2218 2293 99 0.043
93
20% WasteGlass
1973 1905 1918 1932 36 0.019
30% WasteGlass
1700 1975 2255 1977 278 0.140
10%CrumbRubber
1345 1470 1705 1507 183 0.121
20%CrumbRubber
1135 1353 1628 1372 247 0.180
30%CrumbRubber
785 918 770 824 81 0.099
Figure B.9 Trendline - 7 Day Compressive Strength vs. Percent Aggregate Replacement
94
The information shown in Table B.11 and Figure B.10 are the results of the 28 day strength
tests on the control mixture and various mixtures with aggregate replacement and was
used to produce Figure 5.21.
Table B.11 Data for 28 day strength vs. percent aggregate replacement
MixtureCube 1
(psi)Cube 2
(psi)Cube 3
(psi)Average
(psi)
StandardDeviation
(psi)
Coefficientof
VariabilityControlMixture
2768 3320 2880 2989 292 0.098
10% WasteGlass
2263 2535 1930 2243 303 0.135
20% WasteGlass
1983 2063 2238 2095 130 0.062
30% WasteGlass
1923 2735 2128 2262 422 0.187
10%CrumbRubber
1998 2280 1935 2071 184 0.089
20%CrumbRubber
1843 1723 1368 1645 247 0.150
30%CrumbRubber
1130 1013 990 1044 75 0.072
95
Figure B.10 Trendline - 28 Day Compressive Strength vs. Percent AggregateReplacement
96
REFERENCES
American Concrete Institute (ACI). (2009). “Guide for Selecting Proportions for No-SlumpConcrete (ACI 211.3R-02).” American Concrete Institute. Farmington Hills, MI.
ASTM. (1997). “Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and Voids inAggregate.” C 29-97 (Reapproved 2003), West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2003). “Standard Specification for Concrete Aggregates.” C 33-03, WestConshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2003). “Standard Specification for Loadbearing Concrete Masonry Units” C 90-03,West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2002). “Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic CementMortars (Using 2-in. Cube Specimens).” C 109-02, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard Test Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse Aggregates.”C 136-05, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2003). “Standard Test Method for Sampling and Testing Concrete Masonry Unitsand Related Units.” C 140-03, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2005). “Standard Specification for Portland Cement.” C 150-05, WestConshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (1997). “Standard Test Method for Steady-State Heat Flux Measurements andThermal Transmission Properties by Means of the Guarded-Hot-Plate Apparatus.” C177-97, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (1997). “Standard Test Method for Total Evaporable Moisture Content of Aggregateby Drying.” C 566-97(Reapproved 2004), West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (1998). “Standard Specification for Coal Fly Ash and Raw or Calcined NaturalPozzolan for Use as a Mineral Admixture in Concrete.” C 618-98, WestConshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (1997). “Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid Freezing andThawing.” C 666-97, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (1994). “Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar Method).” C 1260-94, West Conshohocken, Pa.
ASTM. (2008). “Standard Practice for Use of Scrap Tires in Civil Engineering Applications.”D 6270-08, West Conshohocken, Pa.
97
ASTM. (1996). “Standard Practices for Force Verification of Testing Machines.” E 4-96,West Conshohocken, Pa.
Amrhein, James E. (1983). Reinforced Masonry Engineering Handbook, 4th
Edition,Masonry Institute of America, Los Angeles, CA.
Berg, Eric R. and Neal, John A. (1997). “A Procedure for Testing Concrete Masonry Unit(CMU) Mixes.” Cement, Concrete, and Aggregates, 19(1), 3-7.
Biel, T. D. and Lee, H. (1996). “Magnesium Oxychloride Cement Concrete with RecycledTire Rubber.” Transportation Research Record No. 1561, Transportation ResearchBoard, Washington, DC, 6-12.
Cairns R and Kew H Y and Kenny.M J. (2004). “The Use of Recycled Rubber Tyres inConcrete” The University of Strathclyd, Glasgow, Scotland, 1-91.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). (2009). “A Scoping Level Field Monitoring Studyof Synthetic Turf Fields and Playgrounds.” EPA/600R-09/135, Government PrintingOffice, Washington, DC, 1-123.
Fedroff, D., Ahmad, S. and Savas, B.Z. (1996). “Mechanical Properties of Concrete withGround Waste Tire Rubber.” Transportation Research Board Report No. 1532,Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 66-72.
Frankowski, Richard. (Tiremix Corp., USA). (1995). “Rubber-Crumb-Reinforced CementConcrete.” US Patent 5,391,226, February 21, 1995.
Ghaly, Ashraf M. and Cahill IV, James D. (2005). “Correlation of Strength, Rubber Content,and Water to Cement Ratio in Rubberized Concrete.” Canadian Journal of CivilEngineering, 32(6), 1075-1081.
Humphrey, Dana N. and Katz, Lynn E. (2001). “Field Study of Water Quality Effects of TireShreds Placed Below the Water Table.” Proceedings of the Conference on theBeneficial Use of Recycled Materials in Transportation Applications, Air and WasteManagement Association, Pittsburgh, PA, 1-10.
International Code Council. 2009. “International Building Code 2009” 1st Edition, CengageLearning, Country Club Hills, IL
International Standards Organization. (2012).<http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_catalogue/management_and_leadership_standards/environmental_management.htm> (March 24, 2012).
Ismail, Zainab Z. and Al-Hashmi, Enas A. (2009). “Recycling of Waste Glass as a PartialReplacement for Fine Aggregate in Concrete.” Waste Management, 29(2), 655-659.
Khatib, Z. K. and Bayomy, F. M. (1999). “Rubberized Portland Cement Concrete.” ASCEJournal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 11(3), 206-213.
98
Lee, Gerry and Ling, Tung-Chai and Wong, Yuk-Lung and Poon, Chi-Sun. (2011). “Effectsof Crushed Glass Cullet Sizes, Casting Methods and Pozzolanic Materials on ASR ofConcrete Blocks.” Construction and Building Materials, 25(5), 2611-2618.
Meyer C. and Egosi N. and Andela C. (2001). “Concrete With Waste Glass as Aggregate.”
Proceedings of the International Symposium Concrete Technology Unit of ASCE andUniversity of Dundee, 1-9.
Park, S.B. and Lee, B.C. and Kim, J.H. (2004). “Studies on Mechanical Properties ofConcrete Containing Waste Glass Aggregate.” Cement and Concrete Research,34(12), 2181-2189.
Polley, Craig and Cramer, S.M. and Cruz, Rodolfo de la. (1998). “Potential for Using WasteGlass in Portland Cement Concrete.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 10(4),210-219.
Portland Cement Association (PCA). 2009. “Proposed Amendments to the InternationalBuilding Code, 2009 edition, Relating to High Performance Building Requirementsfor Sustainability.” Version 1.5, October 2009,<http://www.cement.org/codes/pdf/HPBRS%20&%20commentary%20v2.0pdf>(March 24, 2012).
Roodman, David Malin and Lenssen, Nicholas. (1995). “A Building Revolution: HowEcology and Health Concerns Are Transforming Construction.” Worldwatch Institute,1-67.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. (2009). “Scrap Tire Markets in the United States, 9th
Biennial Report.” Washington, D.C., 1-105.
Rubber Manufacturers Association. (2004). “Toward a Cleaner Environment, U.S. TireMarket Activity and Cleanup Progress.” Washington, D.C., 1-2.
Siddique, Rafat and Naik, T. R. (2004). “Properties of Concrete Containing Scrap-TireRubber – An Overview.” Waste Management, 23(6), 563-569.
Shao, Yixin and Lefort, Thibaut and Moras, Shylesh and Rodriguez, Damian. (2000).“Studies on Concrete Containing Ground Waste Glass.” Cement and Concrete,30(1), 91-100.
99
Shi, Caijun. (2009) “Corrosion of Glasses and Expansion Mechanism of ConcreteContaining Waste Glass as an Aggregate.” Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering,21(10), 529-534.
Sukontasukkul, Piti. (2009). “Use of Crumb Rubber to Improve Thermal and SoundProperties of Pre-cast Concrete Panel.” Construction and Building Materials, 23(2),1084-1092.
Topcu, Ilker Bekir and Canbaz, Mehmet. (2004). “Properties of Concrete Containing WasteGlass.” Cement and Concrete Research, 34(2), 267-274.
U S Green Building Council. (2000). Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design,(LEED), <http://www.usgbc.org> (November 12, 2011).
Zhu, H., and Zhang, Xiong. (2002). “Adding Crumb Rubber into Exterior Wall Materials.”Waste Management and Research, 20(5), 407-413.