Materials and Structures

Influence of seashell on the physical, mechanical, hydraulic and thermal behaviors of

pervious concrete
--Manuscript Draft--

Manuscript Number: MAAS-D-22-01492

Full Title: Influence of seashell on the physical, mechanical, hydraulic and thermal behaviors of
pervious concrete

Article Type: Original Research

Keywords: Seashell by-products; Pervious concrete pavers; Permeability; Albedo; Thermal

conductivity; Surface temperature

Corresponding Author: Mohamed cheikh TEGUEDY, Ph.D

Ecole Supérieure Polytechnique de Nouakchott
Nouakchott, MAURITANIA

Corresponding Author Secondary

Information:

Corresponding Author's Institution: Ecole Supérieure Polytechnique de Nouakchott

Corresponding Author's Secondary

Institution:

First Author: Mohamed Lemine Mohamed Essalem, phd student

First Author Secondary Information:

Order of Authors: Mohamed Lemine Mohamed Essalem, phd student

Khaled Seifeddine

Toufik Cherradi

Sofiane Amziane

Mohamed Cheikh Teguedy

Order of Authors Secondary Information:

Funding Information:

Abstract: In this work, the influence of seashell by-products on the properties of pervious
concrete pavers was studied. The shells were heat treated at 105°C for 6h, then
crushed and sieved into seashell gravel. The seashell properties were fully
characterized by X-ray diffraction (XRD) and specific tests of concrete aggregates.
Then, seashells were used as aggregates to design a pervious concrete pavement
(SPCP). The physical, mechanical, hydraulic, and thermo-physical properties of SPCP
were characterized and compared to a control pervious concrete pavement (CPCP).
The thermal behaviors of SPCP and CPCP in dry and wet conditions were studied. The
results show an increase in the porosity and permeability of the SPCP while the
mechanical strength decreases. The maximum surface temperature of SPCP is up to
7°C lower than that of CPCP in wet conditions during the day (lamps on) and up to 4°C
lower at night (lamps off). It is concluded that the use of SPCP can be an interesting
solution for managing the quantity of stormwater and for the reduction of urban heat
islands.

Additional Information:

Question Response

Provide the total number of words in the 4187 words

manuscript (excluding figure caption and
table caption)?

Provide total number of FIGURES? 9

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Provide total number of TABLES? 5

Powered by Editorial Manager® and ProduXion Manager® from Aries Systems Corporation
Manuscript Click here to access/download;Manuscript;Blinded
Manuscript.docx
Click here to view linked References

Influence of seashell on the physical, mechanical, hydraulic

1
2 and thermal behaviors of pervious concrete
3
4
5
6
7
Mohamed Lemine Mohamed Essalem¹, Khaled Seifeddine², Toufik Cherradi¹, Sofiane
8 Amziane² & Mohamed Cheikh Teguedy³*
9
10 ¹University Mohammed V, Mohammadia School of Engineers, Rabat, Maroc.
11
12 ²CNRS, SIGMA Clermont, Institut Pascal, Université Clermont Auvergne, Clermont-Ferrand, France.
13
14 ³ Ecole Supérieure Polytechnique de Nouakchott, Nouakchott, Mauritania.
15
*
16 Corresponding author E-mail: med_cheikh.teguedy@esp.mr
17
18
19
20
21
22 Abstract:
23
24 In this work, the influence of seashell by-products on the properties of pervious concrete
25
26 pavers was studied. The shells were heat treated at 105°C for 6h, then crushed and
27 sieved into seashell gravel. The seashell properties were fully characterized by X-ray
28 diffraction (XRD) and specific tests of concrete aggregates. Then, seashells were used
29
30
as aggregates to design a pervious concrete pavement (SPCP). The physical,
31 mechanical, hydraulic, and thermo-physical properties of SPCP were characterized and
32 compared to a control pervious concrete pavement (CPCP).
33 The thermal behaviors of SPCP and CPCP in dry and wet conditions were studied. The
34
35 results show an increase in the porosity and permeability of the SPCP while the
36 mechanical strength decreases. The maximum surface temperature of SPCP is up to 7°C
37 lower than that of CPCP in wet conditions during the day (lamps on) and up to 4°C
38
39 lower at night (lamps off). It is concluded that the use of SPCP can be an interesting
40 solution for managing the quantity of stormwater and for the reduction of urban heat
41 islands.
42
43
44
45 Keywords:
46
47 Seashell by-products, pervious concrete pavers, permeability, albedo, thermal conductivity,
48
49
surface temperature.
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
1. Introduction
4
5 Urbanization continues due to population growth and socioeconomic development. It is
6 estimated that urban areas are responsible for about 70% of global carbon emissions [1].
7
8 Meanwhile, the urbanization process has also given rise to the urban heat island (UHI) effect,
9 a phenomenon in which urban areas are often warmer than their surrounding rural environment,
10
11
especially during warm seasons [2].
12
13 The effect of UHI is mainly due to the increase of impervious surfaces that absorb heat and the
14 decrease of natural vegetation [3]. To fight against the formation of heat islands, the reduction
15
16 of the impermeability of cities by promoting evapotranspiration is one of the solutions [4].
17
18 Pervious concrete pavement is one of the innovative structures designed to manage the quantity
19
20 and quality of urban stormwater. These pavements play an essential role in reducing urban heat
21 islands through evaporative cooling [5] [6]. Several researchers have highlighted the cooling
22
power of pervious concrete pavements [7], [8], [9]. These pavements provide evaporative
23
24 cooling by using thermal energy to vaporize liquid water and reduce heat absorption, thus
25 reducing the surface temperature of the pavement.
26
27
28 The performance of permeable pavers is relatively poor in terms of evaporation rate and
29 duration. Starke [10] reported that in a warm environment, the evaporation rate of permeable
30
31
pavers was initially high (1.1-1.2 g/10 min) and decreased to 0.07-0.10 g/10 min after 1-2 days.
32 Others have noted that surface rewetting can keep the permeable concrete surface fresh for 12-
33 24 hours on a hot summer day [11]. To maintain a desirable water level for evaporative cooling,
34
35 many researchers have tried to improve the evaporative cooling effect of permeable pavements.
36 One of the methods is to use aggregates with higher absorption coefficients and intergranular
37
38
porosity while improving the pore structure to retain water.
39
40 On the other hand, within the framework of sustainable development and to improve the
41 physical, hydraulic, and thermal properties of the pavement, waste materials have been used as
42
43 aggregates in the pervious concrete mixture [12] [13].
44
45 Every year about 45,000 tons of waste seashells are produced around the world [14]. These
46
47 seashell wastes have been used as aggregates in pervious concrete [15] [16] [17], The studies
48 show the feasibility of using seashell wastes as a replacement for natural aggregates in pervious
49
concrete. The authors concluded that seashell aggregates have a very high water absorption
50
51 coefficient and intergranular porosity compared to conventional aggregates [18]. It has the
52 effect, to increase the total pore volume of pervious concrete based on seashell aggregates [16].
53
54 These physical-hydraulic parameters of the seashell invite us to consider using it as aggregates
55 in permeable pavements to increase their evaporative cooling effect.
56
57
58
To date, reports focusing on the thermal and physical-thermal properties of pervious concrete
59 pavements based on seashells are not yet available. In this context, the objective of this study
60 is to investigate the effects of seashells on the properties of pervious concrete pavements. The
61
62
63
64
65
 study focuses on investigating the thermal behavior of the pavement to reduce its surface
1 temperature in dry and wet conditions. For this purpose, an experimental bench was designed
2
3 to control the climatic conditions in the laboratory. The influence of seashells on the physical,
4 mechanical, hydraulic, and thermophysical properties of pervious concrete pavements was
5
6
studied.
7
8 2. Experimental program
9
10 2.1. Materials
11
12
13
In this work, Portland cement (CEM II 32.5), natural aggregates and seashell aggregates have
14 been used (Fig. 1). The size fractions used were natural gravel (NA), with a fraction of 4-12.5
15 mm and mixed seashell gravel (SA), with a fraction of 5-14 mm. The properties of the
16
17 aggregates are presented in Table 1. The aggregate size distributions used are shown in Fig. 2.
18 The crystal phase content of the seashell was determined by X-ray diffraction pattern (see Fig.
19
20 3). The main seashell phases were determined to be aragonite (CaCO3) phases.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41 Fig. 1. Natural and seashell aggregates
42
43
44
Table 1 The properties of aggregates
45
46
47
Properties NA SA
48 Bulk density (kg/m³) 1620 760
49 ASTM C127-15 [19]
50
51
52 Specific gravity ASTM 2.757 2.860
53 C29 [20]
54
55
56 Water absorption at 24h 0.55 3.46
57 (%) ASTM C127-15 [21]
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Los Angeles coefficient 15 23.84
1 (%)
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
SA NA
11
12 100
13 90
14
80
PERCENT PASSING (%)

15
16 70
17 60
18 50
19 40
20 30
21 20
22 10
23
0
24
2 4 8 16
25
26 GRAIN SIZE (MM)
27
28
29 Fig. 2. Granulometric analysis of aggregates
30
31
32
33
1200
34 A
35
36 1000 A- CaCO3 Aragonite
37
38
A
39
40 800
41
Nº of counts

42
43
44 600
A
45
A
46
A
47 400 A
48 A
49 A
A A
50 A
51 200 A
A A
52 A
53 AA A A A
A A A
54
55 0
56 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
57 Pos. [°2Th.]
58
59 Fig. 3. XRD pattern of seashell
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4 2.2.Mix composition and specimen preparation
5
6 Table 2 shows the dosages used in the control pervious concrete and seashell pervious concrete
7
8 samples. In total, there were 2 batches of pervious concrete, with a mass of 45 kg each. For
9 each mix, six samples were made.
10
11
12  Three cylindrical samples (D = 11 cm; H = 22 cm) to measure the compressive strength,
13 open porosity and density.
14
15
 Two parallelepiped samples (15×15×6 cm³) to measure thermal conductivity.
16  One parallelepiped sample (30×40×5 cm³) to measure permeability, surface temperature
17 and cooling capacity (Fig. 4).
18
19
20
21 Table 2 Mixture proportions
22
23
24 Sample Gravel Cement Water W/C
25
26 (kg/m3) (kg/m3) (kg/m3)
27
28
29 CPCP 1600 350 112 0.32
30
31
32
33 SPCP 1600 350 112 0,32
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54 Fig. 4. Prepared samples
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 2.3. Test methods
1
2 2.3.1. Porosity and density
3
4 The interconnected open porosity of pervious concrete samples was determined using the same
5
6 methodology as employed in previous studies [22], [23]. This method consists of saturating all
7 the interstitial voids in a sample with water, to correlate the open porosity with the total volume
8
9
of water used. For this purpose, the samples were placed into non-deformable molds and
10 covered with a PVC film to ensure water tightness. The mold and the sample inside were placed
11 on a scale and water was added to fill the interstices of these porous materials. Considering the
12
13 weight difference between the dry mass and the saturated mass, the volume of water W (m3)
V
14
15 P
is obtained. Then, the open porosity 0 (%) is calculated using Eq. (1).
16
17
18 VW
19
P0 = (1)
VS
20
21
22 Where VS (m3) is the volume of the sample.
23
24
25
The average value (3 samples) of the density of the two mixes was measured using the
26 experimental procedure recommended by the French Association of Civil Engineering (NF EN
27 12390–7 [24]).
28
29
30
31
32 2.3.2. Water permeability test
33
34
35 The permeability of the pervious concrete was measured using ASTM C 1701 method [25].
36 This method uses the same principles as the constant-head permeability test. The infiltration
37 rate (coefficient of permeability or hydraulic conductivity) is calculated by Eq. (2):
38
39
40 γM
41
I= (2)
D2 t
42
43
44 Avec
45
46
47
I : infiltration rate, mm/h [in/h] ;
48
49 M : mass of infiltrated water, kg [lb] ;
50
51
52 D : inner diameter of the infiltration ring, mm [in] ;
53
54 t : the time required for the measured amount of water to infiltrate the pavement [s] ; (Constant
55
56 value) = 4,583,666,000 in SI units or 126,870 for the unit [in-lb].
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 2.3.3. Compressive test
1
2 Compressive strength was measured on 11 × 22 cm² cylindrical samples according to European
3
4 standard EN 12390 [26]. The compressive strength was performed at 28 days.
5
6 2.3.3. Thermal conductivity
7
8 Thermal conductivity was measured using a hot wire conductivity meter according to ASTM
9
10
C518 [27]. The thermal conductivity test was performed on 15×15×6 cm3 parallelepiped
11 samples.
12
13
14
15 2.3.4. Thermal behavior of pavers
16
17 To study the thermal behavior of pavements, an innovative experimental bench was used (Fig.
18
19 5). The experimental bench is equipped with several devices that allow us to study the thermal
20 behavior of pavement in dry and wet conditions. The experimental bench was developed in the
21 framework of the article by Seifeddine [28].
22
23
24 To study the thermal behavior of CPCP and SPCP, the reservoir was filled with a 10 cm thick
25 sand layer (0.08-5 mm), on which a 5 cm thick CPCP or SPCP pavement is laid. This
26
27 arrangement is used to simulate the complete permeable pavement structure (wearing layer +
28 reservoir layer).
29
30
31
An optical temperature sensor was installed on the bench to measure the surface temperature at
32 the center of the paver. The pyranometer was placed above the pavers to measure the shortwave
33 radiative flux reflected from the surface (albedo).
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 Fig. 5. The experimental setup
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2 3. Results and discussion
3
4 3.1. Bulk density and open porosity
5
6 The bulk density and porosity values of CPCP and SPCP were presented in Table 3. It can be
7
8 seen that there is a significant difference in bulk density between CPCP and SPCP. The bulk
9 density of SPCP is decreased by 19% compared to CPCP. This can be explained by their more
10
11 porous structure due to a strong disruption of the granular arrangement. The decrease in the
12 density of SPCP could also be due to the difference in density between the seashell and natural
13 aggregate.
14
15
16 The porosity of SPCP was increased by 94% compared to that of CPCP, this is largely
17 attributed to the higher water absorption of seashell aggregate compared to that of natural
18
19 aggregate (SA has an 84% higher water absorption capacity than NA).
20
21
22
23 Table 3 Porosity and bulk density of pavers
24
25
26 Sample Average open porosity Bulk density
27 (%) (kg/m³)
28
29
30
31 CPCP 21,97  1,67 1951  42,33
32
33
34
35 SPCP 42,7  2,04 1584  57.06
36
37
38
39
40
41 3.2. Water permeability and compressive strength
42
43
44 The results of the permeability and compressive strength of the two types of pavers are
45 presented in Table 4. The permeability increases by using SA. The permeability of SPCP was
46
increased by 200% compared to that of CPCP. These results can be interpreted by the very high
47
48 open porosity for SPCP. The infiltration rate of CPCP and SPCP is also related to the pore
49 network and pore characteristics including size, shape, distribution and tortuosity [16]. The
50
51 relatively flat shape of the seashells decreases the fractal dimension of the tortuosity of the pore
52 structure for SPCP. Shan et al [29] noted that Pore volume and fractal dimension of tortuosity
53
have some relationship with the permeability of pervious concrete.
54
55
56 SPCP has a lower compressive strength than CPCP, the compressive strength of SPCP is 21%
57 of that of CPCP. In agreement with [17], the reasons behind the decrease in mechanical
58
59 strengths of SPCP are :
60
61
62
63
64
65
  The shells are more brittle than natural aggregates.
1  The shells are flat and their surface area is larger than that of the natural aggregate.
2
3 Therefore, with the same amount of cement paste, the cement paste layer around the
4 aggregate grains for SPCP is thinner, probably because the seashells aggregate is
5
6 not fully covered. Poor paste thickness results in poor matrix bonding.
7  The bulk density of SPCP is decreased by 19% compared to CPCP. This leads to a
8
9
decrease in the compressive strength of SPCP due to the strong relationship between
10 the mechanical strength and density of pervious concrete [30].
11
12
13
14 Table 4 Water permeability and mechanical resistance of pavers.
15
16
17 Sample Permeability Compressive strength
18 (cm/s) (28 days) (MPa)
19
20
21
22 CPCP 1,296  0,051 11,6  0,460
23
24
25
26
SPCP 3,97  0.125 2,44  0,396
27
28
29
30
31
32 3.3. Thermophysical properties
33
34 Table 5 shows the albedo and thermal conductivity values of CPCP and SPCP under dry
35
36 conditions. The results show that the thermal conductivity of SPCP decreased by 43% compared
37 to that of CPCP. This variation is mainly related to the very high porosity of SPCP. In addition,
38 the variation in thermal conductivity is affected by the tortuosity and orientation of the contacts
39
40 between the air voids and the aggregates. The more porous the material, the less heat is
41 transmitted to the interior of the pavement [31].
42
43 Albedo or solar reflectance (SR) is a parameter that measures the fraction of solar radiation
44
45 reflected from the surface of the material in a range of 0 to 1. The albedo of pavements in dry
46 conditions was measured using a pyranometer which measures the ratio between the radiation
47
48
reflected from the surface and the incident shortwave radiation from infrared lamps. As shown
49 in Table 5, the albedo results of the SPCP are higher than that of the CPCP. This small variation
50 is related to the color difference between NA and SA. The higher albedo of SPCP may play an
51
52 important role in cooling the reflective coatings and decreasing the surface and near-surface air
53 temperature [32], [33].
54
55
56
57 Table 5 Thermal conductivity and albedo of pavers
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 Sample Thermal Albedo
1 conductivity
2
3
(W.m-1. K-1)
4 CPCP 0,613  0,0176 0,203  0,0073
5
6
7 SPCP 0,351  0,022 0,22  0,0053
8
9
10
11
12
13 3.4. Surface temperature of pavers
14
15 3.4.1. Dry condition
16
17 Fig. 6 shows the variation of surface temperature under dry conditions of CPCP and SPCP as a
18
19 function of time. During the diurnal period, the surface temperature of CPCP varies from 23 °C
20 to 59.1 °C. While the surface temperature of SPCP varies from 23 °C to 59.9 °C. During the
21
22
nocturnal period, the surface temperature of the CPCP decreases to 24.5 °C at the end of the
23 experiment. While the surface temperature of the SPCP decreases to 19.7 °C., The surface
24 temperature of the SPCP is up to ~5 °C lower than that of the CPCP during the night (lamps
25
26 off). The main reason is related to the low thermal conductivity which leads to a higher cooling
27 rate compared to CPCP. In dry conditions, the albedo values of SPCP and CPCP are
28
29
respectively 0.22 and 0.203, which explains that the maximum temperature during the day
30 (lamps on) of both pavers is almost the same. During the night the seashell pervious concrete
31 has a higher porosity and lower thermal conductivity which makes it less resistant to the
32
33 temperature drop during the night. While pervious concrete based on natural gravel, which is
34 denser, requires more time to release the heat stored in the structure.
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25 Fig. 6. Surface temperature variation of CPCP and SPCP in dry condition.
26
27
28
29 3.4.2. Wet condition
30
31 Fig. 7 shows the variation of the surface temperature in a wet condition of CPCP and SPCP as
32
33 a function of time. During the diurnal periods, the surface temperature of CPCP varies from
34 18.5 °C to 56.8 °C. While the surface temperature of the SPCP varies from 17.5 °C to 48.5 °C.
35
During the nocturnal period, the minimum surface temperature of the CPCP varies from 20.7
36
37 °C for the first day to 25 °C at the end of the experiment. While the minimum surface
38 temperature of the SPCP varies from 17.2 °C to 19.9 °C. As shown in Fig. 7 the maximum
39
40 surface temperature of the SPCP decreases by more than 7 °C compared to the CPCP.
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Fig. 7. Surface temperature variation of CPCP and SPCP in wet condition
27
28
29
30
This decrease in temperature during the day in humid conditions is mainly due to the cooling
31
32 effect of evaporation. The pervious concrete based on seashells has a higher porosity, and larger
33 pore size, the water inside the pores is more exposed to the external moisture so we will have
34
35 more evaporation and due to a higher evaporative flux, we will have a higher cooling effect.
36 The mass variation shows that the evaporation rate of the SPCP was on average (4.81 g/h)
37
during the first three days (see Fig. 8).
38
39
40 This high cooling effect of the SPCP is also due to the high absorption coefficient of the seashell
41 aggregates which improves the absorbing effect of the pervious concrete and therefore more
42 water will be available for evaporation. This high absorption coefficient ensures that more water
43
44 is available close to the surface, which favors evaporation for SPCP.
45
46 SPCP also has a low thermal conductivity compared to CPCP and stores less heat without its
47 structure which makes it colder at night.
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 Fig. 8. SPSP weight change
28
29
30
31 The albedo is another factor that ensures the temperature decrease of the SPCP. As shown in
32 Fig. 9, on the third day the albedo of the SPCP is still lower than that of the CPCP, which
33
34 indicates that the surface was still wet (wet surface, i.e., darker cement color and therefore lower
35 albedo). In the wet state of the SPCP, there will be more evaporation and due to the higher
36
37
evaporative flux, the cooling effect is higher. The rewetting of the surface keeps the surface of
38 the SPCP cool after the fifth day, the SPCP absorbs less solar radiation with a higher albedo
39 and therefore has lower surface temperatures during the day compared to CPCP.
40
41
Consistent with this relationship between albedo and maximum surface temperature, Li et al.
42
43 [32] showed that an increase in pavement albedo can reduce the maximum surface temperature
44 by ~6 ◦C and ~3 ◦C in summer and winter, respectively. In addition, increasing pavement albedo
45
46 by 0.1 can result in a reduction in air temperature by ~0.3 ◦C [34].
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26 Fig. 9. Variation of pavement albedo in wet condition
27
28
29
30
31
4.Conclusions
32
33 In this work, the effect of seashell aggregates on the physical, mechanical, hydraulic and
34 thermal properties of pervious concrete pavers was studied. Control pervious concrete
35 pavements (CPCP) and seashell pervious concrete pavements (SPCP) were made. The study
36
37
focuses on investigating the thermal behavior of the pavement to reduce its surface temperature
38 in dry and wet conditions. The following conclusions can be drawn:
39
40  In this research, the porosity of SPCP was increased by 94% compared to that of CPCP,
41 making it lighter (density of 1584 kg/m 3).
42
43
44  SPCP has a high water permeability due to the presence of an interconnected pore
45 system. The permeability of SPCP was increased by 200% compared to that of CPCP.
46
47
48  Seashell pervious concrete pavers (SPCP) have a compressive strength that is 21% of
49
50 that of natural aggregate pervious concrete pavers CPCP.
51
52  The thermal conductivity of SPCP is 43% lower than that of CPCP, making the
53 maximum surface temperature of SPCP less hot at night.
54
55  CPCP and SPCP have almost the same maximum surface temperature under dry
56
57 conditions during the day (lamps on). While the surface temperature of the SPCP is up
58 to ~5 °C lower than that of the CPCP during the night (lamps off).
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
  The maximum surface temperature of the SPCP is up to 7°C lower than that of the CPCP
1 under wet conditions during the day (lamps on). Whereas, the maximum surface
2
3
temperature of SPCP is up to 4°C lower than that of CPCP during the night (lamps off).
4 The main reason is that the SPCP has a higher porosity, and larger pore size so we will
5 have more evaporation and due to a higher evaporative flux, we will have a higher
6
cooling effect.
7
8
9 With a very high porosity and low mechanical strength, it is necessary to rework the SPCP
10 mix, adding seashell sand to reduce the pores in the SPCP structure, while maintaining the
11 permeability and compressive strength fully meet the requirements imposed by the technical
12
13 specification. Finally, it can be concluded that the use of the SPCP can be an advantageous
14 solution to managing the quantity of stormwater and reducing urban heat islands.
15
16
17
18 Author contributions
19
20 Mohamed Lemine Mohamed Essalem: Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Data
21
22 curation, Writing- Original draft preparation. Khaled Seifeddine : Conceptualization,
23 Methodology, Software Data curation. Sofiane Amziane: Visualization,
24 Investigation. Toufik Cherradi: Supervision. Mohamed Cheikh Teguedy: Writing-
25
26 Reviewing and Editing.
27
28 Funding
29
30 No funding was received for conducting this study
31
32 Competing Interests
33
34 Conflict of interest: The authors have no competing interests to declare that are relevant to
35 the content of this article.
36
37
38
39 Reference
40
41
42
43 [1] C. Wang, Z. H. Wang, K. E. Kaloush, and J. Shacat, “Cool pavements for urban heat island
44 mitigation: A synthetic review,” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, vol. 146.
45 Elsevier Ltd, 01-Aug-2021.
46
47 [2] M. Taleghani, “Outdoor thermal comfort by different heat mitigation strategies-A review,”
48 Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev., vol. 81, pp. 2011–2018, 2018.
49
50 [3] M. Giguère, Mesures de lutte aux îlots de chaleur urbains: revue de littérature. Institut national
51 de santé publique du Québec, 2009.
52
53 [4] O. Cortier, O. Cortier, and O. Cortier, “Quantification des bénéfices des revêtements
54 perméables . Modélisation à l ’ échelle de la structure et du bassin versant To cite this version :
55 HAL Id : tel-02064298 Μοdélisatiοn à l ’ échelle de la structure et du bassin versant Présentée
56 et soutenue pa,” 2019.
57
58 [5] L. Haselbach, M. Boyer, J. T. Kevern, and V. R. Schaefer, “Cyclic heat island impacts on
59 traditional versus pervious concrete pavement systems,” Transp. Res. Rec., vol. 2240, no. 1, pp.
60 107–115, 2011.
61
62
63
64
65
 [6] Y. Qin, Y. He, J. E. Hiller, and G. Mei, “A new water-retaining paver block for reducing runoff
1 and cooling pavement,” J. Clean. Prod., vol. 199, pp. 948–956, 2018.
2
3 [7] Y. Qin and J. E. Hiller, “Water availability near the surface dominates the evaporation of
4 pervious concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 111, pp. 77–84, 2016.
5
6 [8] Y. Qin, “A review on the development of cool pavements to mitigate urban heat island effect,”
7 Renew. Sustain. energy Rev., vol. 52, pp. 445–459, 2015.
8
9 [9] C. Syrrakou and G. F. Pinder, “Experimentally determined evaporation rates in pervious
10 concrete systems,” J. Irrig. Drain. Eng., vol. 140, no. 1, p. 4013003, 2014.
11
12
[10] Y. Qin and J. E. Hiller, “Water availability near the surface dominates the evaporation of
13 pervious concrete,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 111, pp. 77–84, May 2016.
14
[11] W. C. P. Starke, P. Göbel, “Urban evaporation rates for water-permeable pavements,” Water
15
16 Sci. Technol, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 1161–1169, 2010.
17 [12] S. A. Shakrani, A. Ayob, and M. A. A. Rahim, “Applications of waste material in the pervious
18
19 concrete pavement: A review,” AIP Conf. Proc., vol. 1885, no. September 2017, 2017.
20 [13] S. S. Hwang and C. M. Moreno Cortés, “Properties of mortar and pervious concrete with co-
21
utilization of coal fly ash and waste glass powder as partial cement replacements,” Constr.
22
23 Build. Mater., vol. 270, no. xxxx, p. 121415, 2021.
24 [14] B. A. Tayeh et al., “Durability and mechanical properties of seashell partially-replaced
25
26
cement,” J. Build. Eng., vol. 31, p. 101328, Sep. 2020.
27 [15] I. Horiguchi, Y. Mimura, and P. J. M. Monteiro, “Plant-growing performance of pervious
28
concrete containing crushed oyster shell aggregate,” Clean. Mater., vol. 2, p. 100027, Dec.
29
30 2021.
31 [16] D. H. Nguyen, M. Boutouil, N. Sebaibi, F. Baraud, and L. Leleyter, “Durability of pervious
32
33
concrete using crushed seashells,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 135, no. 2017, pp. 137–150,
34 2017.
35
[17] D. H. Nguyen, M. Boutouil, N. Sebaibi, L. Leleyter, and F. Baraud, “Valorization of seashell
36
37 by-products in pervious concrete pavers,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 49, pp. 151–160, 2013.
38 [18] U. G. Eziefula, J. C. Ezeh, and B. I. Eziefula, “Properties of seashell aggregate concrete: A
39
40
review,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 192, pp. 287–300, 2018.
41 [19] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Measuring Bulk Density Values of Powders and Other Bulk
42
Solids as Function of Compressive Stress. 2019.
43
44 [20] ASTM, Standard Test Methods for Density and Specific Gravity (Relative Density) of Plastics
45 by Displacement. 2020.
46
47 [21] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Relative Density (Specific Gravity) and Absorption of
48 Coarse Aggregate. 2016.
49
50 [22] N. Neithalath, M. S. Sumanasooriya, and O. Deo, “Characterizing pore volume, sizes, and
51 connectivity in pervious concretes for permeability prediction,” Mater. Charact., vol. 61, no. 8,
52 pp. 802–813, 2010.
53
54 [23] N. Neithalath, J. Weiss, and J. Olek, “Characterizing enhanced porosity concrete using
55 electrical impedance to predict acoustic and hydraulic performance,” Cem. Concr. Res., vol.
56
36, no. 11, pp. 2074–2085, 2006.
57
58 [24] AFGC-AFREM, “Proceedings of technical meeting AFPC–AFREM, Toulouse, France,” p.
59 238, 1997.
60
61
62
63
64
65
 [25] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Infiltration Rate of In Place Pervious Concrete. 2020.
1
2 [26] AFNOR, Testing Hardened Concrete – Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. 2019.
3
[27] ASTM, Standard Test Method for Steady-State Thermal Transmission Properties by Means of
4
5 the Heat Flow Meter Apparatus. 2021.
6 [28] K. Seifeddine, S. Amziane, and E. Toussaint, “Thermal behavior of pervious concrete in dry
7
conditions,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 345, p. 128300, Aug. 2022.
8
9 [29] J. Shan, Y. Zhang, S. Wu, Z. Lin, L. Li, and Q. Wu, “Pore characteristics of pervious concrete
10 and their influence on permeability attributes,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 327, p. 126874, Apr.
11
12
2022.
13 [30] 2021 Seifeddine et al., “State of the art on the mechanical properties of pervious concrete,”
14
Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 0, no. 0, pp. 1–29, 2021.
15
16 [31] J. Chen, H. Wang, P. Xie, and H. Najm, “Analysis of thermal conductivity of porous concrete
17 using laboratory measurements and microstructure models,” Constr. Build. Mater., vol. 218,
18
19 pp. 90–98, 2019.
20 [32] H. Li, J. Harvey, and A. Kendall, “Field measurement of albedo for different land cover
21
materials and effects on thermal performance,” Build. Environ., vol. 59, pp. 536–546, Jan.
22
23 2013.
24 [33] H. Akbari and H. D. Matthews, “Global cooling updates: Reflective roofs and pavements,”
25
26
Energy Build., vol. 55, pp. 2–6, Dec. 2012.
27 [34] B.-W. G. Mohegh A, Rosado P, Jin L, Millstein D, Levinson R, “Modeling the climate impacts
28
of deploying solar reflective cool pavements in California cities,” J Geophys Res Atmos., vol.
29
30 122, no. 6798, p. 817, 2017.
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65