Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Building Engineering

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jobe

Impact resistance of concrete produced with plain and reinforced

cold-bonded fly ash aggregates
Hasan Yıldırım *, Turan Özturan
Department of Civil Engineering, Boğaziçi University, İstanbul, Turkey

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: In this paper, the impact resistance of concrete produced with cold-bonded fly ash aggregates (FAAs) in partial or
Cold bonding full replacement, by volume, of crushed limestone coarse aggregates was investigated. Fly ash aggregates were
Fiber reinforced fly ash aggregates produced as plain (PFAA), with 0.1% crumb rubber (CRRFAA) and with 0.1% polypropylene fibers (PPFRFAA),
Electron microscopy
by weight, as reinforcement. Nine concretes are produced at w/c of 0.40 by replacing crushed stone coarse
Fly ash aggregate concrete
Impact resistance
aggregate at 4–8 mm, 8–16 mm and 4–16 mm size fractions with fly ash aggregate together with the control
Statistical analysis concrete having a target compressive strength of 50 MPa. While use of different types of FAAs resulted in slight to
substantial decrease of compressive and splitting tensile strengths and impact resistance of concretes, higher
values are obtained in concretes with FAAs replacing 8–16 mm size group of crushed stone coarse aggregate.
Polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber addition into the fly ash pellets increased the ability of the aggregates to
absorb energy and thus the impact resistance of concrete. The polypropylene fibers protruding from the surface
of FAAs might have caused better adherence of the FAAs to the cement paste to result in higher impact resistance.

1. Introduction
Building sustainable and environment-friendly structures and in­
frastructures has been one of the most important challenges in the
construction industry for many years. In this respect, many researchers
have tried to find valuable applications of by-products and waste ma­
terials in the construction industry. For instance, fly ash, which is a by-
product of coal-fired thermal power plants, has been widely investigated
to be utilized as a recycled material. It has been shown that the con­
struction industry has the ability to consume fly ash in various appli­
cations such as subbase and pavement base practices for subgrade
stabilization, construction of backfills and embankments, production of
pozzolanic cement, cement replacement in concrete production, brick
and block manufacturing, and artificial aggregate production [1–7].
The large-scale utilization of fly ash in order to produce fly ash ag­
gregates, which has been practiced in many countries, may reduce the
rapid use of natural aggregates in the construction industry and prevent
the depletion of natural resources [5,8–12]. It also preserves the coun­
trysides, seasides, and riverbeds from being damaged and provides a
remarkable reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by reducing aggre­
gate mining activities and subsequent operations contributing to CO2
emission [5,8,13,14]. Besides, recycling fly ash through aggregate
production decreases the need for landfills or storage lagoons for fly ash
disposal and prevents air and underground water pollution [15–17].
Cold bonding and sintering are the most frequently used methods to
produce fly ash aggregate [4,12,18–27]. Cold bonding, which depends
on the pozzolanic activity of fly ash, is more economical than the
energy-intensive sintering process, but it usually results in lower
strength aggregates [28–30].
Various studies in the literature investigated the mechanical prop­
erties of concrete produced with cold-bonded fly ash aggregate [15,20,
28,31–33]. The use of fly ash aggregates in place of normal weight ag­
gregates in concrete resulted in lower mechanical properties. For
instance, according to the study conducted by Kockal and Ozturan [28],
the use of fly ash aggregate as a full substitute of normal weight coarse
aggregate led to a significant decrease in compressive strength and
splitting tensile strength from 62.9 and 5.1 MPa to 42.3 and 3.7 MPa,
respectively. Similar results were observed by Gesoğlu et al. [32] indi­
cating that compressive and splitting tensile strength of fly ash aggregate
concrete decreased from 40.1 and 3.22 MPa to 29.1 and 2.58 MPa,
respectively, when cold-bonded fly ash aggregate volume in concrete
with w/c ratio of 0.35 increased from 30 to 60% by volume of the total
aggregate in the mixture. However, these compressive and splitting
tensile strength values still conform to the limitation for structural use

* Corresponding author. Boğaziçi Üniversitesi, İnşaat Mühendisliği Bölümü, 34342, Bebek, İstanbul, Turkey.
E-mail addresses: hasan.yildirim@boun.edu.tr (H. Yıldırım), ozturan@boun.edu.tr (T. Özturan).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2021.102875
Received 24 April 2021; Received in revised form 2 June 2021; Accepted 9 June 2021
Available online 13 June 2021
2352-7102/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

regarding ASTM C330 [34]. On the other hand, concrete produced using
fly ash aggregates surface treated with cement-silica fume slurry and
water glass had higher mechanical properties than the concrete pro­
duced using fly ash aggregates without surface treatment [20,31,35].
Gesoğlu et al. [31] showed that the surface treatment of fly ash coarse
aggregates, which were used to cover 45% of the total aggregate volume
in concrete with a w/c ratio of 0.55, with water glass and cement-silica
fume slurry surface treatment increased the compressive and splitting
tensile strength of the concrete from 23.2 MPa to 29.6 and 24.5 MPa,
and 2.16 MPa to 2.42 and 2.20 MPa, respectively. Jayabharath and
Kesavan [36] investigated the impact resistance of concrete and
observed that the impact resistance of concrete produced with conven­
tional aggregates was higher than that of the concrete produced with fly
ash aggregates. Impact resistance of fly ash aggregate concrete, on the
other hand, showed a general trend to increase with an increase in the
cement-to-fly ash ratio of the fly ash aggregate.
Waste tire rubber has also been utilized as recycled material in the
construction industry over the past few decades since the disposal of
waste tires in landfills is a serious environmental issue because waste
rubber is not easily biodegradable, and landfills are limited [37–41].
Besides, another way to dispose waste tires by burning is considered to
be the most hazardous cause of air pollution [42–45]. Therefore, it was
proposed to use waste tires as raw material for bituminous mixtures and
as fuel for cement kilns but under certain precautions to prevent air
pollution [38,46]. Also, waste tires have been used in subgrade stabili­
zation and insulation, construction of road embankment, and repro­
ducing plastic products like drainage materials [37,39,47]. However,
still the current volume of tires in landfills is much more than the con­
sumption of scrap tires in such applications [39]. From this point of
view, it has been recommended to use waste tires in concrete in the form
of crumb rubber as fine aggregate, cement replacement material, and
reinforcing fiber or in the form of tire chips as coarse aggregate [39,
46–55]. Utilizing waste tire rubber in concrete as an aggregate
replacement material is a promising way to reduce the environmental
impact of this waste and avoid the depletion of natural resources [41,
56]. However, it has been reported that while the addition of waste tire
rubber as aggregate into concrete leads to a decrease in strength and
modulus of elasticity [37,40,46,51,57–61], it is generally agreed that
use of rubberized concrete in constructions subjected to impact loading
is advantageous due to a considerable increase in toughness and impact
resistance up to a limited content of waste tire rubber [39,41,62–66]. In
addition to be recommended for use in highway pavements and barriers,
airport runways, bridge decks, and buildings on earthquake zones due to
its high energy absorbing capacity [67–70], rubberized concrete is also
beneficial with its lower density, better sound isolation, and higher
ductility (non-brittle fracture) compared to conventional concrete [56,
71,72].
Concrete is a widely used construction material throughout the
world because of its high strength capacity in compression, durability
performance, and low cost [73]. However, as a quasi-brittle material,
plain concrete exhibits a very low tensile strength, limited ductility, and
weak resistance to cracking, which are seriously limiting its use under
high strain-rate loadings, such as impacts, blasts, and earthquakes [74,
75]. Therefore, to cope with the handicaps of plain concrete under
reducing the disadvantages of using FAAs on the impact resistance of
concrete. Statistical analyses have been carried out for comparing the
variations in terms of fly ash aggregate characteristics which can be
helpful to decide whether the concretes produced are statistically
different from each other and whether there is any statistically signifi­
cant improvement due to the addition of polypropylene fiber and crumb
rubber into the FAAs. The inclusion of rubber particles in the FAAs may
provide an alternative to the applications of utilizing waste tires in
concrete. Besides, adding polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber into the
FAAs might be an alternative way of enhancing strength characteristics
compared to various surface treatments applied to FAAs. Moreover, this
study allows comparing a recycled material (crumb rubber) with a
manufactured product (polypropylene fiber) concerning their contri­
bution to the mentioned mechanical properties of the concrete through
their use in fly ash aggregate production.
2. Experimental study
2.1. Materials
Portland cement (CEM I 42.5 R) with a specific surface of 3910 cm2/
g and a specific gravity of 3.14 was used to produce FAAs and concrete
mixtures. F-type fly ash obtained from Çatalağzı Thermal Power Plant,
Zonguldak, Turkey, with a specific surface of 2880 cm2/g and a specific
gravity of 2.06 was utilized in making FAAs. Chemical compositions and
physical properties of cement and fly ash are shown in Table 1. Fly ash
used in this study conforms to Class F according to ASTM C 618 as
presented in Table 2. Crumb rubber (CR) having a maximum particle
size of 4 mm and polypropylene fibers (PPFs) of 32μ diameter and 12
mm length with a tensile strength of 250 MPa were also used to reinforce
FAAs. Physical properties of PPFs and CR are exhibited in Table 3.
Natural aggregates of river sand, crushed sand (0–4 mm), and crushed
stone (No-II: 8–16 mm and No–I: 4–8 mm) with specific gravities of 2.65,
2.70, and 2.70, respectively, and cold bonded artificial FAAs (8–16 mm
and 4–8 mm) were used in the production of concrete mixtures. A sul­
fonated naphthalene-formaldehyde superplasticizer (SP) was used to
ensure the required fresh concrete workability. Properties of SP are
given in Table 4.
2.2. Production and testing of fly ash aggregates
Cold bonded FAAs were produced through agglomeration process in
the pelletizing disc with a diameter of 40 cm and depth of 15 cm as
shown in Fig. 1 [15]. Plain and reinforced FAAs were produced by
feeding dry fly ash-cement mixtures and dry fly
ash-cement-polypropylene fiber or crumb rubber mixtures, respectively,
into the disc (Fig. 1a). In the following step, water was sprayed on the
powder mixtures at an amount of 23–27% by weight of the dry mixture
Table 1
Physical properties and chemical composition of cement and fly ash (% by
weight).
Oxide (%) Cement Fly Ash

tensile and impact loading, fibers are introduced into the concrete SiO2 20.17 59.00
mixture [74–78]. The addition of polypropylene fibers into the concrete, Al2O3 4.91 19.58
Fe2O3 3.41 7.23
for instance, can dramatically improve the tensile strength and impact
CaO 64.28 0.54
toughness of concrete by increasing the resistance to crack formation MgO 1.18 4.64
and propagation in the cement matrix [79–82]. SO3 2.84 0.69
In this study, a further experimental research was provided on fly ash Na2O 0.13 0.48
aggregate concretes (FAACs) made with plain and fiber reinforced cold K2O 0.96 5.95
Cl− 0.0371 0.0114
bonded FAAs as coarse aggregate. Variations in compressive strength, Loss on Ignition 1.61 0.49
splitting tensile strength and impact resistance were widely examined as Insoluble Residue 0.69 –
the FAAs were used in partial or full replacement of crushed limestone. Free CaO 1.65 –
Polypropylene fibers and crumb rubber were used in making the FAAs, Specific gravity (g/cm3) 3.14 2.06
Specific surface (cm2/g) 3910 2880
which has not been studied before, to reinforce them for the purpose of

2
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Table 2 (Fig. 2) and loading with gradually increasing compressive load.

Chemical properties of fly ash and specification requirements. Crushing strength of the FAAs were determined by Eq. (1) where P (N) is
Properties (%) Fly ash used ASTM C618 (Class-F) the failure load and D (mm) is the distance between loading points
[85–87]. Average crushing strength (MPa) for each type of FAAs was
SiO2+Al2O3+Fe2O3 85.81 70 (min)
MgO 4.64 5 (max) calculated after testing sixty randomly chosen aggregates with an
CaO 0.54 <10 average diameter of 12 mm. Aggregate impact values (AIV,%) of CSt,
SO3 0.69 5 (max) PFAA, CRRFAA and PPFRFAA were also identified in compliance with
Loss on Ignition 0.49 6 (max) BS 812-112 [88] to investigate the correlation of these values with the
impact energy of the concretes produced with the related aggregates.
The average aggregate impact values were obtained by repeating the
Table 3 related test six times for each type of aggregates. The pictures of crushed
Physical properties of PPFs and CR. plain and polypropylene fiber as well as crumb rubber containing pellets
Physical Characteristics PPFs CR are shown in Fig. 3. It is seen that fly ash pellets were formed as a single
Diameter (μm) 32 –
core without a shell formation resulting in increased strength. The ho­
Length (mm) 12 4 (max) mogeneously distributed polypropylene fibers, some reaching out of the
Density (g/cm3) 0.91 0.83 pellet, are observed in Fig. 3b whereas the crumb rubber particles are
Tensile Strength (MPa) 250 – seen on fractured surfaces (Fig. 3c). It may also be observed that plain
Modulus of Elasticity (GPa) 3.5–3.9 –
pellet (PFAA) was fractured by splitting into two pieces in crushing
Fiber Number (Fibers/kg) 110 Million –
strength test (Fig. 3a). The PPFRFAA (Fig. 3b) and CRRFAA (Fig. 3c)
pellets, on the other hand, were crushed into more pieces due to exis­
tence of polypropylene fibers and crumb rubber particles, respectively.
Table 4
Properties of superplasticizer. 2.8*P
fpel = (1)
Properties Superplasticizer used
π*D2
Color Dark Brown
Physical State Liquid 2.3. Design of concrete mixtures
Specific Gravity 1.21
pH Approx. 7.0 The mixture of control concrete, CSt(4–16), was produced with 490
Chloride Content ≤0.1% (BS EN 480–10:2009) kg/m3 No-II and No–I crushed stone (CSt) each, 570 kg/m3 crushed
Alkali Content ≤5% (BS EN 480–12:2005)
sand, 228 kg/m3 natural sand, 450 kg/m3 Portland cement and 180 kg/
m3 water at a w/c of 0.40. The optimum mix proportions of crushed
in the first 10 min of the agglomeration process to start the formation of stone, natural sand, and crushed sand were determined as 55, 13, and
spherical FAAs (Fig. 1b), and then pelletizing was continued for 10 min 32% of the total aggregate volume, respectively, according to the results
more for enlarging and further compaction of the fresh FAAs (Fig. 1c) of the sieve analysis. The control concrete was designed to have a
[20,31,32]. Inclination angle of 43◦ and rotation speed of 45 rpm were compressive strength of 50 MPa. Nine fly ash aggregate concrete mix­
found to be optimum by Baykal and Döven [4] for this size disk to tures were produced by replacing the No-II and No–I crushed stone
pelletize fly ash-lime and fly ash-portland cement mixtures into aggre­ coarse aggregates in the control concrete by FAAs (PFAA, PPFRFAA,
gates with highest possible unit weight and crushing strength. It was also CRRFAA) on volume basis as shown in Table 5. Thus, changes in the
observed that these parameters provide a uniform distribution of fibers amount of ingredients were eliminated to examine the performance of
and crumb rubber in the pellets during aggregate production in this the artificial FAAs in the same mix proportions regarding the density and
study. FAAs were produced with a cement-to-fly ash ratio of 0.1 by mechanical properties of the concrete. Sufficient amount of super­
weight. PPFs and CR were added at 0.1%, by weight, to produce rein­ plasticizer was added to get a slump of 14 ± 2 cm.
forced FAAs. Fresh FAAs were conserved in nylon bags and left for the
final hardening in a curing room with 90 ± 5% RH and a temperature of 2.4. Casting, curing and testing of concrete specimens
20 ± 2 ◦ C for 28 days.
Following the curing period, FAAs were sieved into 8–16 mm and To minimize the slump loss owing to the high water absorption of the
4–8 mm size fractions to be used for replacing the crushed stone coarse FAAs, they were saturated in water for 24 h and then surface dried on
aggregates No-II and No–I, respectively. Water absorption and specific large-scale sieves for 1 h before mixing. Unit weight and slump of fresh
gravity were determined on the bulk of FAAs as well as unit weight concrete were measured with respect to ASTM C138 [89] and ASTM
according to ASTM C127 [83] and ASTM C29 [84], respectively. To C143 [90], respectively. Three cylinder specimens of 100 × 200 mm size
determine whether FAAs are statistically different from each other in were cast for each of the compressive and splitting tensile strength tests
terms of strength capacity, crushing strength test is utilized by simply prformed in regard to ASTM C39 [91] and ASTM C496 [92], respec­
placing individual aggregates one by one between two parallel plates tively. Impact resistance of the concrete specimens was measured by the

Fig. 1. Agglomeration process: a) Dry fly ash - cement mixture, b) Water sprayed and c) Pellets formed.

3
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
Fig. 2. Aggregate crushing strength test equipment.
“repeated impact” or “drop-weight” test as mentioned in ACI 544.2R
[93]. Drop-weight impact test was applied on disks of 63.5 mm thick­
ness, sliced from 150 × 300 mm cylinder specimens by manually
operated compaction hammer (4.54 kg) dropped from a height of 457
mm as illustrated in Fig. 4. A total of 12 disks cut from three cylinder
specimens were tested to determine the average drop-weight impact
energy of the concrete mixtures. Following the concrete casting, speci­
mens were preserved in a laboratory environment for 24 h before
demolding. Then, they were stored in a curing room with 90 ± 5% RH
and a temperature of 20 ± 2 ◦ C for 28 days till testing.
3. Test results and discussions
3.1. Properties of fly ash aggregates
Physical and mechanical properties of FAAs are presented in Table 6.
Unit weights and SSD specific gravities of the FAAs were very close
Fig. 3. Pictures of the crushed pellets: a) PFAA, b) PPFRFAA and c) CRRFAA.
4
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
indicating that the effect of polypropylene fibers and crumb rubber on
the compactness and size of the pellets was not significant. Water ab­
sorption of FAAs in the size range of 8–16 mm varied from 24.1 to 24.5%
which was lower than that of FAAs in 4–8 mm size range, varying from
25.4 to 28.2%. FAAs became denser with fewer and mostly closed pores
when the pellets increased in size during agglomeration, ending with
decreased water absorption, which was also detected by Kockal and
Ozturan [28] for cold-bonded FAAs. Crumb rubber and polypropylene
fiber inclusion increased the crushing strength of the FAAs from 3.53
MPa to 4.06 MPa and 3.79 MPa, respectively. Contribution of the CR
particles and PPFs to the tensile strength of the individual pellets may
have caused increase in the crushing strength of the FAAs. Difference in
the crushing strength of the pellets was most probably due to the dif­
ference in the adherence of the rubber and fibers to the fly ash-cement
matrix of the pellet, rough textured rubber particles giving higher
adherence. On the other hand, it can be asserted that PFAA, CRRFAA
and PPFRFAA were statistically different from each other in terms of
crushing strength values. That is because, at a 95% level of confidence,
there was no overlap between the confidence intervals about the pop­
ulation mean of these FAAs (Table 6).
With reference to AIV, polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber addi­
tion into the pellets also increased the impact resistance of FAAs, how­
ever, the former was more effective than the latter. Considering the
nature of the experiment carried out to find the aggregate impact value
according to the related standard, this can be attributed to the fact that
polypropylene fibers are more capable to hold crushed aggregate pieces
together under impact loads than crumb rubber particles. It may also be
due to the fact that polypropylene fibers are longer and there are more
number of polypropylene fibers in an aggregate than crumb rubber
particles. Besides, it can be claimed that adding crumb rubber and
polypropylene fiber into pellets resulted in different fly ash aggregates
(PFAA, CRRFAA and PPFRFAA) which are also statistically different in
terms of AIV, at a 95% level of confidence, with no overlap between the
confidence intervals about the mean values as seen in Table 6. On the
other hand, there is a big difference between aggregates in favour of CSt
with the AIV of 11 which means that FAAs are disadvantageous in terms
of impact resistance because higher the AIV value mechanically more
flawed the material is, as also observed in literature [94,95].
Crystal morphologies of the FAAs were also examined with reference
to the findings of EDX (energy dispersive X-ray spectroscopy) analyses
and by using ESEM (environmental scanning electron microscope) pic­
tures. As indicated by the previous studies [96–99], C–S–H gel forma­
tions from hydration and/or pozzolanic reaction emerged in the regions
having Ca/Si atomic ratio in the range between 0.8 and 2.1. The regions
of the matrix investigated in this research had a Ca/Si ratio between 0.9
and 1.3 which complies with the range specified in literature. Fig. 5
presents the micrographs of PFAA taken at different magnifications to
clearly show the microstructure of the fly ash aggregate. It is seen that
C–S–H gel particles surrounded the fly ash grains to bind them together.
It was also observed that CH (calcium hydroxide) crystals as hexagonal
thin plates and ettringite (calcium sulfoaluminate) needles were formed
in the voids of the C–S–H matrix and in the interface of C–S–H and fly
ash grains as also reported by Taylor [96], Neville [100] and Mehta and
 H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Monteiro [101].

Slump (cm) 3.2. Fresh concrete properties

13.5
15.5

14.5

15.5
15
16

14

15
14
16
Fresh Concrete Properties

Fly ash aggregate concretes (FAACs) were workable and cohesive

with no evidence of segregation at a slump of 14 ± 2 cm. Table 5
Unit Weight (kg/m3)

demonstrates the properties of fresh concrete mixtures. When FAAs

replaced the crushed stone No–I, No-II and both No–I and No-II coarse
aggregates on volume basis, unit weight of concrete decreased from
2425 kg/m3 to 2220 kg/m3, 2190 kg/m3 and 1975 kg/m3, respectively,
2425
2220
2190
1975
2230
2190
1985
2225
2190
2000
due to the lower specific gravity of the FAAs indicating a reduction of up
to 20%. On the other hand, although it used slightly higher amount of
(kg/m3)

SP, control concrete mixture had the lowest slump owing to the rougher
surface texture and greater angularity of the crushed stone. Difference in
5.4
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5
4.5

the shape and surface texture of crushed limestone and fly ash aggre­
gates shows its effect also on the slump of FAACs in which the highest
(%)
SPa

1.2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

values were observed with full replacement of crushed limestone by

FAA.
290.37 (27.5%)
287.26 (27.5%)
577.63 (55%)

3.3. Hardened concrete properties

PPFRFAA

3.3.1. Compressive strength

–
–
–
–
–
–
–

Compressive strength of concretes decreased from 49.0 MPa for

292.19 (27.5%)
292.19 (27.5%)

control concrete and varied between 46.5 and 38.5 MPa for the FAACs
584.38 (55%)

owing to the higher porosity and lower strength of the FAAs when
CRRFAA

crushed stone coarse aggregate of different size fractions was replaced

with different types of FAAs (Table 7). However, the compressive
–
–
–
–

–
–
–

strength of FAACs still complied with the limitation for structural use
[102]. Gesoğlu et al. [32] measured similar compressive strength values
290.37 (27.5%)
290.37 (27.5%)
580.74 (55%)

between 40.1 and 29.1 MPa at w/c of 0.35 where all coarse aggregates
were replaced by cold-bonded plain FAAs.
Coarse Aggregates (kg/m3)

PFAA

Considering the concretes produced with FAAs and crushed stone

together, higher compressive strength was obtained when coarser part
–

–
–
–
–
–
–

of the crushed stone was replaced by FAAs that can be accounted for the
Crushed Stone

No-II

490
490

490

490

fact that coarser FAAs have lower porosity and so higher strength ca­
–
–

–
–

–
–

pacity. As seen in Fig. 6, CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8), PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt

(4–8), and PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) concretes had higher compressive
No–I

490

490

490

490

strengths at 95, 93, and 89% of CSt(4–16) concrete compared to

–

–
–

–
–

CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16), PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16), and PFAA(4–8)CSt

Crushed Sand

(8–16) concretes at 93, 90, and 84% of CSt(4–16), respectively. Among

the FAACs, on the other hand, higher compressive strength was achieved
Fine Aggregates (kg/m3)

with the FAAs incorporating CR particles that can be attributed to the

570
570
570
570
570
570
570
570
570
570

fact that CRRFAA has the highest crushing strength of all. Fig. 7 shows
the relation between crushing strength of FAAs and compressive
Natural Sand

strength of the related concretes with regard to the aggregate size

fraction. It is seen that increase in crushing strength of the FAAs due to
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
228
228

the addition of PPFs and CR into the fly ash pellets resulted in an in­
crease in compressive strength of the concretes. It should also be noted
Water (kg/m3)

that crushing strength of the FAAs and the compressive strength of the
FAACs were highly correlated regardless of the aggregate size.
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180
180

3.3.2. Splitting tensile strength

The splitting tensile strength of concretes given in Table 8 was
reduced from 4.71 MPa for the control concrete and varied between 4.42
Cement (kg/m3)

and 2.73 MPa when FAAs were utilized in place of CSt coarse aggregate.
Similar trend was also observed by the previous studies when normal
weight coarse aggregate was replaced by cold bonded plain fly ash
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450
450

aggregate [32,95].
Concrete mix proportions.

Concrete mixtures, including both FAAs and CSt coarse aggregate

PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)
PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)
CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)

equally by volume, had slightly lower splitting tensile strength than the
PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)
PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)

Superplasticizer.

control concrete produced fully with CSt coarse aggregate. However,

PPFRFAA(4–16)
Production Plan

higher splitting tensile strength was obtained when coarser part of the
CRRFAA(4–16)

crushed stone was replaced by FAAs that can be attributed to the lower
PFAA(4–16)
CSt(4–16)

porosity and thus higher strength capacity of the coarser FAAs. As

Table 5

exhibited in Fig. 8, PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8), CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8),

and PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) concretes had higher splitting tensile strength
a

5
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Fig. 4. Drop-weight impact test set-up.

at 94, 90, and 83% of CSt(4–16) compared to PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16), are compared with regard to the size fraction of coarse aggregates. This
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16), and PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) concretes at 91, 85, might be attributed not only to the existence of the fibers in FAAs but
and 82% of CSt(4–16), respectively. The use of FAAs as a total substitute also to the extra adherence between PPFRFAA and cement paste that
of CSt coarse aggregate, on the other hand, resulted in a significant delays possible cracking under tensile loading by means of the PPFs
decrease in splitting tensile strength. protruding from the surface of the FAAs. In the literature [73,76,77,79,
Among the FAACs, the ones with FAAs containing crumb rubber had 80,105], it was also reported that polypropylene fiber addition into the
higher splitting tensile strength than those with plain fly ash aggregates concrete ended up with an increase of splitting tensile strength with
when the specimens are compared with reference to the size fraction of various enhancement levels compared to the related control concrete
coarse aggregates. This can be accounted for the higher splitting tensile depending on the fiber content.
strength of crumb rubber reinforced FAAs owing to the adherence of the
rough textured rubber particles with the fly ash-cement matrix of the 3.3.3. Impact energy
pellets. These findings are in agreement with the results obtained by the Average failure impact energy of concrete specimens produced with
previous studies in which utilization of crumb rubber as fine and coarse only crushed stone coarse aggregate was the highest in all production
aggregates up to a limiting replacement ratio by volume increased the series due to the higher aggregate impact value (AIV) of the normal
splitting tensile strength capacity of the concrete [103,104]. weight crushed stone coarse aggregate. As presented in Table 9, the
Concrete series incorporating PPFRFAA, on the other hand, had the overall failure impact energy dropped from 9813 kNmm for the control
highest splitting tensile strength among the FAACs when the specimens concrete to the lowest 3040 kNmm when CSt coarse aggregate was
replaced with different type and size of FAAs. Similar trend was also
Table 6 observed in the literature when normal weight coarse aggregate was
Properties of fly ash aggregates. replaced by cold-bonded plain fly ash aggregate [36]. Considering the
concretes produced with FAAs and crushed stone together, those con­
Properties PFAA CRRFAA PPFRFAA
taining FAAs in the size of 8–16 mm had higher impact energy values
4–8 8–16 4–8 8–16 4–8 8–16
compared to the ones containing FAAs in the size of 4–8 mm which may
Unit Weight, (kg/m3) 1010 990 1030 1000 1020 990 be accounted for the lower porosity of coarser FAAs as mentioned above.
SSD Specific Gravity 1.60 1.60 1.61 1.61 1.60 1.58 Among the FAACs, the ones with FAAs containing crumb rubber had
Water Absorption, % 28.2 24.4 27.9 24.1 25.4 24.5
higher impact energy values than those with plain fly ash aggregate
Aggregate Impact Value (AIV, 51 45 38
%), Mean (PFAA) when the specimens are grouped in relation to the size fraction
Standard Deviation (%) 6.13 4.86 3.74 of coarse aggregates. This was also stated in the literature [39,57,59–66,
Coefficient of Variation, % 12.02 10.80 9.85 106–109] such that introducing rubber particles (crumb or chips) as
95% Confidence Interval
aggregate up to a limiting content enhanced energy absorbing capacity
about the Mean;
Lower bound, % 49.45 43.77 37.05 of concrete. Concrete series containing PPFRFAA, on the other hand, had
Upper bound, % 52.55 46.23 38.95 the highest average failure impact energy values among the concrete
Aggregate Crushing Strength 3.53 4.06 3.79 series with different FAAs when the specimens are grouped with respect
(MPa), Mean to the size fraction of coarse aggregates. To exemplify this manner it may
Standard Deviation (MPa) 0.51 0.54 0.48
be mentioned that average failure impact energy of PPFRFAA(4–16)
Coefficient of Variation, % 14.45 13.30 12.66
95% Confidence Interval type concrete specimens was the highest (4313 kNmm) when the con­
about the Mean; crete specimens incorporating FAAs in the size of 4–16 mm are
Lower bound, MPa 3.40 3.92 3.67 compared to each other. This can be attributed not only to the higher
Upper bound, MPa 3.66 4.20 3.91
AIV of PPFRFAA but also to the extra adherence between PPFRFAA and

6
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Fig. 5. ESEM observations of crystal morphology of PFAA at different magnifications.

Table 7
Test results for compressive strength (MPa).
Production Plan No (n) Strength Mean (x) SD (σ) CoV (σ/x)% 95% Confidence Interval for the Population Mean
Values
Lower Interval, ± Upper
Bound Bound

CSt(4–16) 1 50.88
2 47.54 49.00 1.71 3.49 44.75 4.25 53.25
3 48.58
PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 42.78
2 41.18 41.10 1.72 4.18 36.84 4.26 45.37
3 39.35
PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 41.98
2 43.52 43.69 1.80 4.11 39.22 4.47 48.16
3 45.56
PFAA(4–16) 1 39.43
2 37.46 38.30 1.02 2.65 35.78 2.52 40.83
3 38.02
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 45.88
2 43.53 45.54 1.86 4.09 40.92 4.62 50.16
3 47.21
CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 45.88
2 48.58 46.48 1.87 4.03 41.83 4.65 51.13
3 44.98
CRRFAA(4–16) 1 42.21
2 40.77 41.09 1.00 2.42 38.62 2.47 43.57
3 40.30
PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 46.10
2 42.61 44.23 1.76 3.98 39.86 4.37 48.60
3 43.98
PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 45.62
2 43.56 45.42 1.77 3.89 41.02 4.40 49.82
3 47.08
PPFRFAA(4–16) 1 40.15
2 38.32 39.37 0.94 2.40 37.02 2.34 41.71
3 39.63

SD= Sample Std. Deviation; CoV= Coefficient of Variation.

cement paste that delays possible cracking under impact by means of the fibers in concrete at different volume fractions on impact energy was
PPFs protruding from the surface of the aggregates while this fact does investigated by the earlier studies [74,75,78,81,82,110–113] which
not contribute significantly to the compressive strength contrary to the showed that adding polypropylene fibers also improved the ability of
splitting tensile strength of the concrete. The effect of polypropylene concrete to absorb kinetic energy and so impact resistance of concrete.

7
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Fig. 6. Compressive strength of concrete series.

Fig. 7. Relation between crushing strength values of FAAs and compressive strength of the related FAACs.

Fig. 9 shows the relation between aggregate impact value (AIV) of
FAAs and failure impact energy of the related concretes with respect to
the aggregate size fraction. It is observed that increase in aggregate
impact value of the FAAs due to the addition of PPFs and CR into the fly
ash pellets resulted in an increase in failure impact energy. It is also
demonstrated that AIV of the FAAs and the failure impact energy of the
FAACs were highly correlated regardless of the aggregate size. There
was also a strong correlation between the compressive strength and
impact energy values, which was also observed by the previous studies
[110,111,114], for each group of concretes produced with different type
of FAAs as demonstrated in Fig. 10. The coefficient of determination (R2)
of 0.8682 for the ones having PFFA coarse aggregates was relatively
lower compared to that of 0.9999 and 0.9977 for the other groups of
FAACs containing PFFRFAA and CRRFAA, respectively. This shows the
ability of PPF and CR addition into the FAAs to increase the correlation
between compressive strength and impact energy of the concretes via
contributing to their tensile strength capacity. Considering the relation
between splitting tensile strength and failure impact energy for each
group of FAACs, it is seen, as expected, that there was a high correlation
regardless of the aggregate type (Fig. 11). In literature, it was also
demonstrated that there was a high correlation between splitting tensile
strength and impact resistance of the concretes produced with different
coarse aggregates [115].
On the other hand, Fig. 12 and Fig. 13 show the relation between
compressive strength and splitting tensile strength with the impact en­
ergy values, respectively, for the entire production plan. It is seen that
the correlation between the splitting tensile strength and impact energy
of the concretes (R2 of 0.9296) was higher than the correlation between

8
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Table 8
Test results for splitting tensile strength (MPa).
Production Plan No (n) Strength Mean (x) SD (σ) CoV (σ/x)% 95% Confidence Interval for the Population Mean
Values
Lower Interval, ± Upper
Bound Bound

CSt(4–16) 1 4.86
2 4.53 4.71 0.17 3.55 4.29 0.42 5.13
3 4.74
PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 3.86
2 3.68 3.86 0.19 4.79 3.39 0.47 4.33
3 4.05
PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 4.07
2 3.92 3.90 0.18 4.64 3.45 0.45 4.35
3 3.71
PFAA(4–16) 1 2.81
2 2.75 2.73 0.09 3.36 2.51 0.22 2.95
3 2.63
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 4.17
2 3.81 4.00 0.18 4.52 3.55 0.45 4.45
3 4.02
CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 4.06
2 4.23 4.24 0.19 4.37 3.77 0.47 4.71
3 4.43
CRRFAA(4–16) 1 2.92
2 2.74 2.83 0.09 3.18 2.61 0.22 3.05
3 2.83
PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 1 4.22
2 4.51 4.30 0.18 4.27 3.85 0.45 4.75
3 4.17
PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 1 4.56
2 4.21 4.42 0.19 4.19 3.95 0.47 4.89
3 4.49
PPFRFAA(4–16) 1 2.86
2 2.79 2.87 0.09 2.98 2.65 0.22 3.09
3 2.96

SD= Sample Std. Deviation; CoV= Coefficient of Variation.

Fig. 8. Splitting tensile strength of concrete series.

the compressive strength and impact energy (R2 of 0.8705). This result
complies with the fact that splitting tensile strength is more relevant to
the impact strength of concrete. This is also valid when the concretes are
reinforced with different types of fibers as reported in literature [116].
Fig. 14 demonstrates a comparison of the failure patterns in disk
specimens with and without FAAs. It can be seen that the failure crack
pattern changed from a single diametric crack for the specimens with
crushed stone only (Fig. 14a), with FAAs and crushed stone together
(Fig. 14b) and with PFAA only (Fig. 14c) to three intersected radial
cracks for the specimens with crumb rubber (Fig. 14d) and

9
 H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

polypropylene fiber (Fig. 14e) reinforced FAAs only and usually being
Energy (kNmm) accompanied by a group of narrow cracks with small bits of debris and
Average Impact

dust in the latter which demonstrates the beneficial effects of poly­

propylene fiber addition into the FAAs. The radial cracks that occurred
9750.41
9813.14
5852.62
5896.70
6315.47
6361.25
3019.56
3039.90
6490.10
6537.57
6888.53
6937.69
3733.33
3765.55
7022.46
7073.33
7656.55
7710.81
4270.78
4313.17
on the disk specimens can be attributed to the ability of CR and PPFs in
FAAs to preserve the integrity of disk specimens under impact loading by
interlocking the broken pieces together due to their crack arresting and
95% Confidence Interval for the Population Mean

bridging capacity leading to multi-cracked failure. However, this was

Upper Bound

observed only when CR and PPFs content in the disk specimens

increased with the full replacement of crushed stone by FAAs incorpo­
534.31
537.56
339.39
341.86
365.48
368.11
162.22
163.22
372.96
375.76
395.29
398.06
196.32
198.17
394.54
397.37
429.91
432.98
221.88
224.08
rating CR and PPFs.

3.3.4. Statistical analysis of test results

Interval, ±

Factors such as production process, sampling and testing alongside

55.06
55.23
51.72
52.03
55.06
55.44
13.81
13.81
53.96
54.43
56.71
57.06
12.82
13.09
49.38
49.71
53.58
53.98
11.96
12.08
the nonhomogeneous condition of concrete are prone to increase the
statistical variations in concrete properties. Therefore, the design of
concrete should be based on statistical considerations in terms of reli­
Lower Bound

ability issues. Impact resistance of concrete has mostly been statistically

424.19
427.11
235.95
237.81
255.35
257.22
134.61
135.61
265.04
266.91
281.88
283.94
170.68
171.99
295.79
297.96
322.75
325.02
197.96
199.92
investigated because data from the impact test were remarkably scat­
tered due especially to the nature of the impact process [110–114,
117–120]. Hence, statistical indicators such as standard deviation (SD),
CoV (s/x)%

standard error (SE) and coefficient of variation (CoV) for all test results
were systematically calculated in this study with the 95% confidence
18.08
18.02
28.30
28.25
27.92
27.91
14.64
14.54
26.62
26.66
26.36
26.33
11.00
11.13
22.51
22.50
22.41
22.42
8.97
8.97

interval about the mean, which indicates that 95% probability of true
estimation of population mean is achieved within the range of confi­
SE (s/√n)

dence interval, to analyze the variation of compressive strength, split­

25.02
25.09
23.50
23.64
25.02
25.19

24.52
24.73
25.76
25.92

22.43
22.58
24.34
24.53

ting tensile strength and impact resistance of FAACs and to judge

6.27
6.27

5.83
5.95

5.43
5.49

whether the different fly ash aggregate types have statistically signifi­
cant effect on those properties. Statistical analysis was also made on
SD (s)

86.66
86.92
81.40
81.89
86.66
87.26
21.73
21.73
84.93
85.66
89.25
89.80
20.18
20.60
77.71
78.23
84.33
84.96
18.82
19.01

impact test data for the minimum number of specimens, n, to be tested to

SD= Sample Std. Deviation; SE= Std. Error; CoV= Coefficient of Variation; FC= First Crack; UR= Ultimate Resistance.

keep the error under a certain limit, e, at a specific level of confidence.

Mean (x)

The minimum number of tests can be determined by Eq. (2) as given

479.25
482.33
287.67
289.83
310.42
312.67
148.42
149.42
319.00
321.33
338.58
341.00
183.50
185.08
345.17
347.67
376.33
379.00
209.92
212.00

below [121–123]:
/
n = t2 s2 e2 (2)
623
627
234
237
428
431
165
166
409
412
367
369
198
200
375
377
396
398
233
235
12

where s is the sample standard deviation and t is the value of the Stu­
562
565
216
218
389
391
179
180
292
295
271
273
211
213
386
389
472
476
188
189
11

dent’s t-distribution for a specified level of confidence and relies on the

degree of freedom, which is relevant to the number of specimens tested.
433
437
396
398
281
283
112
113
195
196
436
439
150
151
431
435
441
444
225
227
10

Analyzing the statistical parameters in Tables 7–9, some significant

380
382
358
361
170
171
121
122
382
384
375
377
158
159
215
217
265
267
195
198

findings for the compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and

9

impact resistance of concretes investigated in this research are listed

529
531
341
343
360
362
168
169
172
173
423
426
203
205
416
419
244
246
199
202

below:
8

476
479
257
259
236
238
131
132
423
427
191
192
169
170
249
251
459
463
227
230

1. Concrete mixtures, including both FAAs and CSt coarse aggregate

7

equally by volume, had higher CoV values compared to the control

600
604
382
385
182
183
141
142
271
273
458
462
177
179
304
306
413
416
192
194

concrete produced only with crushed stone as coarse aggregate. That

6

may be attributed to the big difference in strength capacity of FAAs

425
427
271
273
408
411
128
129
372
375
260
263
163
164
262
264
458
461
186
187

and crushed stone which is supposed to cause higher variation in

5

comparison to the use of a single type of coarse aggregate in a con­

Number of Specimen (n)

402
406
159
160
341
344
172
173
344
346
216
218
208
210
440
443
292
294
242
244
4

crete mixture.
2. The use of FAAs as a substitute of all CSt coarse aggregate, on the
508
511
181
182
251
253
156
157
241
243
389
392
189
191
290
292
275
277
204
206
Number of Blows
3

other hand, resulted in a further decrease in CoV making the strength

values statistically more reliable which may be accounted for the
460
463
373
376
370
373
148
149
325
327
291
293
185
186
363
365
425
428
210
212
2

homogeneity in terms of matrix, interface and FAA while the failure

353
356
284
286
309
312
160
161
402
405
386
388
191
193
411
414
376
378
218
220

is mostly based on aggregate strength.

1

3. Within the concretes produced fully with FAAs as coarse aggregate,

Drop-weight impact test results.
Mode

PPFRFAA(4–16) had the lowest CoV which complies with the fact
UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR

UR
FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

FC

that polypropylene fiber containing fly ash aggregates had also the
lowest CoV in terms of aggregate crushing strength and aggregate
PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)

PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)

CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)

impact value compared to the other FAAs as seen in Table 6.

PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16)

PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8)

4. There was a statistically significant difference between control con­

PPFRFAA(4–16)
Production Plan

CRRFAA(4–16)

crete and the concretes produced fully with FAAs as coarse aggre­
PFAA(4–16)

gate. That is because, at 95% level of confidence, there was no

CSt(4–16)

overlap between the confidence intervals for the population mean of

Table 9

these FAACs and that of control concrete.

10
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
Fig. 9. Relation between AIV of FAAs and impact energy values of the related FAACs.
Fig. 10. Relation between compressive strength and failure impact energy values for each group of FAACs.
Statistical indicators for the concrete mixtures corresponding to the
number of blows to first crack (FC) and to failure (UR: ultimate resis­
tance) in the scope of impact energy are presented in Tables 9 and 10.
The standard deviation values for the control concrete and concretes
produced with FAAs and crushed stone together were much higher than
those of concretes produced fully with FAAs as coarse aggregate. A
broad range of standard deviations was also stated in the literature.
Higher values of 770 and 802 blows were received by Song et al. [119]
for high strength steel fiber-reinforced concrete, while Soroushian et al.
[124] announced a lower value of 18 blows for CFRC. Nevertheless, it is
not reasonable to apply the standard deviation to assess or analyze the
impact resistance results, but it is further suitable to apply the CoV. The
CoV is acknowledged as an essential indicator of variability since it
considers both the mean and the standard deviation. As stated by Day
[125], different ACI committees, including ACI 211 (mixture propor­
tioning), ACI 214 (evaluation of test results), and ACI 363 (high strength
concrete), approved the CoV as a measure of variability instead of the
standard deviation. The CoV values obtained in this study for different
concrete mixtures under the drop-weight impact test were generally
11
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
lower than those reported for both plain and fiber-reinforced concrete in
literature. Values of 58.6% and 54.6% were presented by Badr et al.
[120] for PFRC and Soroushian et al. [124] for CFRC, respectively.
Nataraja et al. [117] stated coefficient of variation values of 53.7% and
57.3% for concretes with and without steel fibers, respectively. These
higher values of coefficient of variation compared to those acquired in
this study can be accounted for their lower values of means.
Additionally, the use of FAAs as a total substitute of CSt coarse
aggregate resulted in a decrease in the mentioned statistical indicators,
making the impact energy values statistically more reliable considering
the large variations in drop-weight impact test results. Besides, within
the concretes produced fully with FAAs as coarse aggregate, PPFRFAA
(4–16) had the lowest standard deviation, standard error and coefficient
of variation of 20, 6 and 9 blows, respectively, corresponding to UR as
well as the confidence interval about the mean, ±13 blows, at 95% level
of confidence. The narrower the interval, the more precise is the esti­
mate of true mean of population. Morover, while the 95% confidence
interval about the mean for PFAA(4–16) was 136–164 blows regarding
UR, which indicates that 95% probability of true estimation of
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
Fig. 11. Relation between splitting tensile strength and failure impact energy values for each group of FAACs.
Fig. 12. Relation between compressive strength and failure impact energy
values for all concrete series.
Fig. 13. Relation between splitting tensile strength and failure impact energy
values for all concrete series.
population mean is achieved within the range of 136–164 blows inter­
val, it was 172–199 and 200 to 225 blows for CRRFAA(4–16) and
PPFRFAA(4–16), respectively. These results confirm that reinforcing the
fly ash pellets by 0.1% of crumb rubber (CRRFAA) and polypropylene
fibers (PPFRFAA) by weight gave rise to a statistically significant
12
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
difference between PFAA(4–16), CRRFAA(4–16) and PPFRFAA(4–16) in
terms of impact energy by having no overlaping among the confidence
intervals. That perfectly complies with the relation of the 95% confi­
dence intervals about the means for aggregate impact values of fly ash
aggregates PFAA, CRRFAA and PPFRFAA which had 49.45–52.55%,
43.77–46.23% and 37.05–38.95% intervals, respectively, as seen in
Table 6.
Table 10 shows the minimum number of samples required to be
tested to keep the error under certain limits of 5, 10 and 20%, at 95 and
90% levels of confidence for both FC and UR in the case of impact test.
Concretes including both FAAs and crushed stone coarse aggregate
together required higher number of specimens compared to control
concrete produced only with crushed stone as coarse aggregate. For
instance, number of samples required to keep the error under 10% for
95% level of confidence at UR was found to be at least 16 for CSt(4–16),
whereas, it was 39 for PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) and 35 for CRRFAA(4–8)CSt
(8–16) which were higher than 25 for PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16). The use
of FAAs as a substitute of all CSt coarse aggregate, on the other hand,
gave rise to a decrease in the minimum required number of specimens.
Besides, within the concretes produced fully with FAAs as coarse
aggregate, the minimum number of samples requested for limiting error
is for PPFRFAA(4–16). It can be seen that for PPFRFAA(4–16) impact
resistance at UR, if the error in average measured value is to be kept
under 5%, the minimum number of tests ought to be 11 and 16 at 90%
and 95% levels of confidence, respectively. Furthermore, if three sam­
ples are used to find out the impact resistance, depending on the level of
confidence, the error in the measured value is about 10% for PPFRFAA
(4–16), whereas, it is 20% for PFAA(4–16) which is higher than the error
value of 10–20% for CRRFAA(4–16).
The minimum number of samples required to be tested to keep the
error under a certain limit at a specific level of confidence, in this study,
increased with an increase in the variation of impact resistance of con­
crete. The use of different coarse aggregates together in concrete, for
instance, gave rise to higher variation (CoV) in impact resistance and
thus increased the number of samples required to be tested, which may
be accounted for the difference in aggregate impact values, compared to
the use of a single type of coarse aggregate in concrete. On the other
hand, the use of polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber containing fly
ash aggregates in concrete resulted in lower CoV in impact resistance
and decreased number of samples required to be tested. That may be
attributed to the fact that polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber addi­
tion into the fly ash pellets decreased the CoV of the impact resistance of
FAAs; the former was more effective than the latter.
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875

Fig. 14. Failure patterns: a) CSt(4–16), b) specimens with CSt and FAAs, c) PFAA(4–16), d) CRRFAA(4–16) and e) PPFRFAA(4–16).

Table 10
Number of repetition required to keep the error under a specific limit for 95 and 90% level of confidence.
Production Plan Percentage Error in Average, e

<5 <10 <20

95% 90% 95% 90% 95% 90%

FC UR FC UR FC UR FC UR FC UR FC UR

CSt(4–16) 64 63 43 42 16 16 11 11 4 4 3 3
PFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 156 155 104 103 39 39 26 26 10 10 7 7
PFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 152 151 101 101 38 38 26 26 10 10 7 7
PFAA(4–16) 42 41 28 28 11 11 7 7 3 3 2 2
CRRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 138 138 92 92 35 35 23 23 9 9 6 6
CRRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 135 135 90 90 34 34 23 23 9 9 6 6
CRRFAA(4–16) 24 25 16 16 6 7 4 4 2 2 1 1
PPFRFAA(4–8)CSt(8–16) 99 99 66 66 25 25 17 17 7 7 5 5
PPFRFAA(8–16)CSt(4–8) 98 98 65 65 25 25 17 17 7 7 5 5
PPFRFAA(4–16) 16 16 11 11 4 4 3 3 1 1 1 1

FC= First Crack; UR= Ultimate Resistance.

4. Conclusions difference was not statistically significant at 95% confidence level

Based on the statistical analyses of results of experiments on the use
of polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber particle reinforced FAA in
concrete presented above following conclusions can be drawn.
• FAACs were generally cohesive and workable without segregation
whereas replacement of crushed stone coarse aggregate by FAAs
reduced the density (up to 20%) with compressive strength con­
forming to the limitation for structural use.
• The use of different types of FAAs as a total substitute of CSt coarse
aggregate ended up with a slight to substantial decrease, which was
statistically significant at 95% level of confidence, in compressive
strength, splitting tensile strength and impact resistance compared to
those of control concrete. Higher compressive and splitting tensile
strength and impact resistance were obtained by replacing the 8–16
mm part of crushed stone coarse aggregate with FAAs whereas the
compared to replacement of finer part (4–8 mm).
• The use of polypropylene fiber and crumb rubber in FAA improved
the failure impact energy of the FAACs compared with respect to size
fraction with the highest values in concretes containing PPFRFAAs.
However, the difference was statistically significant only between
PFAA(4–16), CRRFAA(4–16) and PPFRFAA(4–16) containing con­
cretes with no overlap among the confidence intervals. This clearly
shows that reinforcing fly ash aggregates by 0.1% crumb rubber and
polypropylene fibers were significantly effective in improving the
impact resistance of concrete produced with full replacement of
coarse aggregate by FAAs.
• The number of specimens in the impact test required to keep the
error under a certain limit at 90% and 95% level of confidence were
increased by partial replacement of crushed stone by FAAs regardless
of size range as opposed to a decrease being observed in concretes
with full replacement. Besides, polypropylene fibers were more

13
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
effective compared to crumb rubber in decreasing the number of test
specimens.
• The contribution of the polypropylene fiber reinforced fly ash ag­
gregates to the impact energy and less number of specimens required
in impact test is noteworthy due to the fibers in FAAs and protruding
from their surface improving the adherence to the cement paste.
In general, the variation of results in compression, splitting tensile
and impact tests increased with the use of FAAs and crushed stone
together, whereas, it decreased with the full replacement of crushed
stone coarse aggregate by FAAs. Besides, full use of crumb rubber and
polypropylene fiber reinforced fly ash aggregates improved statistical
reliability of test results.
In the light of the findings above, it can be asserted that this study
offers an alternative way to the proposed applications of utilizing waste
tires as crumb rubber in sustainable concrete production. This study also
provides an alternative way to improve the strength of cold bonded
FAAs. It is shown that adding crumb rubber and polypropylene fiber into
the FAAs improved the aggregate crushing strength and aggregate
impact strength values. Thus, the use of crumb rubber and poly­
propylene fiber reinforced FAAs in concrete improved the mechanical
properties compared to the use of plain FAAs. Moreover, it gives a
chance to compare the use of a recycled waste material (crumb rubber)
and a manufactured product (polypropylene fiber) in producing fly ash
aggregates in respect to their performances in enhancing the mechanical
properties of concrete.
Declaration of competing interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial
interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence
the work reported in this paper.
Acknowledgments
This research work was financially aided by Boğaziçi University
Research Fund (Grant no: 15A04D2). The authors would like to
acknowledge Akçansa Cement Industry and Trade Inc. for cement supply
and Boğaziçi Concrete Industry and Trade Inc. for providing natural
aggregates. The authors also acknowledge BASF-YKS Construction
Chemicals for procuring superplasticizer and wish to thank Mr. Ümit
Melep for his assistance during the experiments. The first author
gratefully acknowledges the Scientific and Technological Research
Council of Turkey (TÜBİTAK) for being given a success scholarship
during his Ph.D. education.
References
[1] J.G. Yoo, Y.M. Jo, Finding the optimum binder for fly ash pelletization, Fuel
Process. Technol. 81 (3) (2003) 173–186.
[2] Y.M. Jo, R. Huchison, J.A. Raper, Preparation of ceramic membrane filters, from
waste fly ash, suitable for hot gas cleaning, Waste Manag. Res. 14 (3) (1996)
281–295.
[3] N. Kalra, M.C. Jain, H.C. Joshi, R. Choudhary, R.C. Harit, B.K. Vatsa, S.K. Sharma,
V. Kumar, Fly ash as a soil conditioner and fertilizer, Bioresour. Technol. 64 (3)
(1998) 163–167.
[4] G. Baykal, A.G. Döven, Utilization of fly ash by pelletization process; theory,
application areas and research results, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 30 (1) (2000)
59–77.
[5] U. Bhattacharjee, T.C. Kandpal, Potential of fly ash utilisation in India, Energy 27
(2) (2002) 151–166.
[6] P. Tang, M.V.A. Florea, H.J.H. Brouwers, Employing cold bonded pelletization to
produce lighweight aggregates from incineration fine bottom ash, J. Clean. Prod.
165 (2017) 1371–1384.
[7] P. Tang, H.J.H. Brouwers, The durability and environmental properties of self-
compacting concrete incorporating cold bonded lightweight aggregates produced
from combined industrial solid wastes, Construct. Build. Mater. 167 (2018)
271–285.
[8] O. Kayali, M.N. Haque, B. Zhu, Some characteristics of high strength fiber
reinforced lightweight aggregate concrete, Cement Concr. Compos. 25 (2) (2003)
207–213.
14
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
[9] R. Wasserman, A. Bentur, Effect of lightweight fly ash aggregate microstructure
on the strength of concretes, Cement Concr. Res. 27 (4) (1997) 525–537.
[10] M.H. Zhang, O.E. Gjorv, Characteristics of lightweight aggregates for high-
strength concrete, ACI Mater. J. 88 (2) (1991) 150–158.
[11] M.N. Haque, H. Al-Khaiat, O. Kayali, Long-term strength and durability
parameters of lightweight concrete in hot regime: importance of initial curing,
Build. Environ. 42 (8) (2007) 3086–3092.
[12] C.L. Verma, S.K. Handa, S.K. Jain, R.K. Yadav, Techno-commercial perspective
study for sintered fly ash light-weight aggregates in India, Construct. Build.
Mater. 12 (6) (1998) 341–346.
[13] O. Kayali, Fly ash lightweight aggregates in high performance concrete,
Construct. Build. Mater. 22 (12) (2008) 2393–2399.
[14] R.V. Balendran, F.P. Zhou, A. Nadeem, A.Y.T. Leung, Influence of steel fibres on
strength and ductility of normal and lightweight high strength concrete, Build.
Environ. 37 (12) (2002) 1361–1367.
[15] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Effects of lightweight fly ash aggregate properties on the
behavior of lightweight concretes, J. Hazard Mater. 179 (1–3) (2010) 954–965.
[16] C.W. Babbitt, A.S. Linder, A life cycle inventory of coal used for electricity
production in Florida, J. Clean. Prod. 13 (2005) 903–912.
[17] R. Rasheed, H. Javed, A. Rizwan, F. Sharif, A. Yasar, A.B. Tabinda, S.R. Ahmad,
Y. Wang, Y. Su, Life cycle assessment of a cleaner supercritical coal-fired power
plant, J. Clean. Prod. 279 (2021) 123869.
[18] K.I. Harikrishnan, K. Ramamurthy, Influence of pelletization process on the
properties of fly ash aggregates, Waste Manag. 26 (8) (2006) 846–852.
[19] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Characteristics of lightweight fly ash aggregates
produced with different binders and heat treatments, Cement Concr. Compos. 33
(1) (2011) 61–67.
[20] M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, E. Güneyisi, Effects of fly ash properties on characteristics
of cold-bonded fly ash lightweight aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 21 (9)
(2007) 1869–1878.
[21] R. Manikandan, K. Ramamurthy, Influence of fineness of fly ash on the aggregate
pelletization process, Cement Concr. Compos. 29 (6) (2007) 456–464.
[22] F. Rivera, P. Martinez, J. Castro, M. Lopez, Massive volume fly-ash concrete: a
more sustainable material with fly ash replacing cement and aggregates, Cement
Concr. Compos. 63 (2015) 104–112.
[23] C.H. Lu, J.C. Chen, K.H. Chuang, M.Y. Wey, The different properties of
lightweight aggregates with fly ashes of fluidized-bed and mechanical
incinerators, Construct. Build. Mater. 101 (2015) 380–388.
[24] F. Colangelo, F. Messina, R. Cioffi, Recycling of MSWI fly ash by means of
cementitious double step cold bonding pelletization: Technological assessment
for the production of lightweight artificial aggregates, J. Hazard Mater. 299
(2015) 181–191.
[25] M.S. Nadesan, P. Dinakar, Mix design and properties of fly ash waste lightweight
aggregates in structural lightweight concrete, Case Stud. Construct. Mater. 7
(2017) 336–347.
[26] C. Narattha, A. Chaipanich, Phase characterizations, physical properties and
strength of environment-friendly cold-bonded fly ash lightweight aggregates,
J. Clean. Prod. 171 (2018) 1094–1100.
[27] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Microstructural and mineralogical characterization of
artificially produced pellets for Civil engineering applications, J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
29 (2) (2017), 04016214, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001739.
[28] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Durability of lightweight concretes with lightweight fly
ash aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (3) (2011) 1430–1438.
[29] P. Gomathi, A. Sivakumar, Accelerated curing effects on the mechanical
performance of cold bonded and sintered fly ash aggregate concrete, Construct.
Build. Mater. 77 (2015) 276–287.
[30] F. Colangelo, F. Messina, L.D. Palma, R. Cioffi, Recycling of non-metallic
automative shredder residues and coal fly-ash in cold-bonded aggregates for
sustainable concrete, Composites Part B 116 (2017) 46–52.
[31] M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, E. Güneyisi, Effects of cold-bonded fly ash aggregate
properties on the shrinkage cracking of lightweight concretes, Cement Concr.
Compos. 28 (7) (2006) 598–605.
[32] M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, E. Güneyisi, Shrinkage cracking of lightweight concrete
made with cold-bonded fly ash aggregates, Cement Concr. Res. 34 (7) (2004)
1121–1130.
[33] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Strength and elastic properties of structural lightweight
concretes, Mater. Des. 32 (4) (2011) 2396–2403.
[34] ASTM C330/C330M, Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for
Structural Concrete, ASTM International, United States, 2017.
[35] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoglu, O.A. Azez, H.Ö. Öz, Effect of nano silica on the
workability of self-compacting concretes having untreated and surface treated
lightweight aggregates, Construct. Build. Mater. 115 (2016) 371–380.
[36] P. Jayabharath, G. Kesavan, Study on impact strength of fly ash aggregate
concrete, IOSR J. Mech. Civ. Eng. 14 (3) (2017) 75–82.
[37] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, Properties of high strength concrete containing scrap
tire rubber, J. Clean. Prod. 113 (2016) 86–92.
[38] B.S. Thomas, R.C. Gupta, V.J. Panicker, Recycling of waste tire rubber as
aggregate in concrete: durability-related performance, J. Clean. Prod. 112 (2016)
504–513.
[39] F. Liu, G. Chen, L. Li, Y. Guo, Study of impact performance of rubber reinforced
concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 604–616.
[40] M.C. Copetti, P.M. Borges, J.Z. Squiavon, S.R. Silva, J.J.O. Andrade, Evaluation of
tire rubber surface pre-treatment and silica fume on physical-mechanical
behavior and microstructural properties of concrete, J. Clean. Prod. 256 (2020)
120670.
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
[41] S. Dezhampanah, I. Nikbin, C. Charkhtab, F. Fakhimi, S.M. Bazkiaei, R. Mohebbi,
Environmental performance and durability of concrete incorporating waste tire
rubber and steel fiber subjected to acid attack, J. Clean. Prod. 268 (2020) 122216.
[42] R. Siddique, T.R. Naik, Properties of concrete containing scrap-tire rubber - an
overview, Waste Manag. 24 (6) (2004) 563–569.
[43] P. Sukontasukkul, C. Chaikaew, Properties of concrete pedestrian block mixed
with crumb rubber, Construct. Build. Mater. 20 (7) (2006) 450–457.
[44] M. Gesoğlu, E. Güneyisi, Permeability properties of self-compacting rubberized
concretes, Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 3319–3326.
[45] W.H. Yung, L.C. Yung, L.H. Hua, A study of the durability properties of waste tire
rubber applied to self-compacting concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 41 (2013)
665–672.
[46] E. Güneyisi, M. Gesoğlu, T. Özturan, Properties of rubberized concretes
containing silica fume, Cement Concr. Res. 34 (2004) 2309–2317.
[47] M.M.R. Taha, A.S. El-Dieb, M.A.A. El-Wahab, M.E. Abdel-Hameed, Mechanical,
fracture, and microstructural investigations of rubber concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 20 (10) (2008) 640–649.
[48] K.S. Son, I. Hajirasouliha, K. Pilakoutas, Strength and deformability of waste tyre
rubber-filled reinforced concrete columns, Construct. Build. Mater. 5 (1) (2011)
218–226.
[49] G. Li, M.A. Stubblefield, G. Garrick, J. Eggers, C. Abadie, B. Huang, Development
of waste tire modified concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 34 (12) (2004) 2283–2289.
[50] D.G. Goulias, A.H. Ali, Evaluation of rubber-filled concrete and correlation
between destructive and nondestructive testing results, Cem. Concr. Aggregates
20 (1) (1998) 140–144.
[51] T. Gupta, S. Chaudhary, R.K. Sharma, Mechanical and durability properties of
waste rubber fiber concrete with and without silica fume, J. Clean. Prod. 112
(2016) 702–711.
[52] A. Benazzouk, O. Douzane, K. Mezreb, M. Queneudec, Physico-mechanical
properties of aerated cement composites containing shredded rubber waste,
Cement Concr. Compos. 28 (2006) 650–657.
[53] A.R. Khaloo, M. Dehestani, P. Rahmatabadi, Mechanical properties of concrete
containing a high volume of tire-rubber particles, Waste Manag. 28 (12) (2008)
2472–2482.
[54] A. Siddika, M.A. Al Mamun, R. Alyousef, Y.H.M. Amran, F. Aslani,
H. Alabduljabbar, Properties and utilizations of waste tire rubber in concrete: a
review, Construct. Build. Mater. 224 (2019) 711–731, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2019.07.108.
[55] E.A.H. Alwesabi, B.H.A. Bakar, I.M.H. Alshaikh, H.M. Akil, Experimental
investigation on mechanical properties of plain and rubberised concretes with
steel–polypropylene hybrid fibre, Construct. Build. Mater. 233 (2020)
1171–1194, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117194.
[56] J. Xie, J. Li, Z. Lu, Z. Li, C. Fang, L. Huang, L. Li, Combination effects of rubber
and silica fume on the fracture behaviour of steel-fibre recycled aggregate
concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 203 (2019) 164–173.
[57] Z.K. Khatib, F.M. Bayomy, Rubberized portland cement concrete, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 11 (3) (1999) 206–213.
[58] T.C. Ling, Prediction of density and compressive strength for rubberized concrete
blocks, Construct. Build. Mater. 25 (11) (2011) 4303–4306.
[59] N.N. Eldin, A.B. Senouci, Rubber-tire particles as coarse aggregate, J. Mater. Civ.
Eng. 5 (4) (1993) 478–496.
[60] A.M. Rashad, A comprehensive overview about recycling rubber as fine aggregate
replacement in traditional cementitious materials, Int. J. Sustain. Built Environ. 5
(2016) 46–82, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe.2015.11.003.
[61] C. Xiong, Q. Li, T. Lan, H. Li, W. Long, F. Xing, Sustainable use of recycled carbon
fiber reinforced polymer and crumb rubber in concrete: mechanical properties
and ecological evaluation, J. Clean. Prod. 279 (2021) 123624, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.123624.
[62] B.H. AbdelAleem, M.K. Ismail, A.A.A. Hassan, The combined effect of crumb
rubber and synthetic fibers on impact resistance of self-consolidating concrete,
Construct. Build. Mater. 162 (2018) 816–829.
[63] E. Khalil, M. Abd-Elmohsen, A.M. Anwar, Impact resistance of rubberized self-
compacting concrete, Water Sci. 29 (2015) 45–53, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
wsj.2014.12.002.
[64] M.K. Ismail, A.A.A. Hassan, Impact resistance and mechanical properties of self-
consolidating rubberized concrete reinforced with steel fibers, J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
29 (1) (2017), 04016193, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-
5533.0001731.
[65] A.S. Eisa, M.T. Elshazli, M.T. Nawar, Experimental investigation on the effect of
using crumb rubber and steel fibers on the structural behavior of reinforced
concrete beams, Construct. Build. Mater. 252 (2020) 119078, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.119078.
[66] J. XU, Z. Yao, G. Yang, Q. Han, Research on crumb rubber concrete: from a multi-
scale review, Construct. Build. Mater. 232 (2020) 117282, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117282.
[67] N.I. Fattuhi, L.A. Clark, Cement-based materials containing shredded scrap truck
tyre rubber, Construct. Build. Mater. 10 (4) (1996) 229–236.
[68] I.B. Topcu, N. Avcular, Collision behaviours of rubberized concrete, Cement
Concr. Res. 27 (12) (1997) 1893–1898.
[69] I.B. Topcu, N. Avcular, Analysis of rubberized concrete as a composite material,
Cement Concr. Res. 27 (8) (1997) 1135–1139.
[70] L. Feng, M. Liang-yu, N. Guo-Fang, L. Li-Juan, Fatigue performance of rubber-
modified recycled aggregate concrete (RRAC) for pavement, Construct. Build.
Mater. 95 (2015) 207–217.
15
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
[71] A. Richardson, K. Coventry, V. Edmondson, E. Dias, Crumb rubber used in
concrete to provide freeze–thaw protection (optimal particle size), J. Clean. Prod.
112 (2016) 599–606.
[72] M. Bravo, J. Brito, Concrete made with used tyre aggregate: durability related
performance, J. Clean. Prod. 25 (2012) 42–50.
[73] B. Li, Y. Chi, L. Xu, Y. Shi, C. Li, Experimental investigation on the flexural
behavior of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber reinforced concrete, Construct.
Build. Mater. 191 (2018) 80–94.
[74] R.Z. Al-Rousan, M.A. Alhassan, H. Al-Salman, Impact resistance of polypropylene
fiber reinforced concrete two-way slabs, Struct. Eng. Mech. 62 (3) (2017)
373–380.
[75] Q. Fu, D. Niu, J. Zhang, D. Huang, M. Hong, Impact response of concrete
reinforced with hybrid basalt-polypropylene fibers, Powder Technol. 326 (2018)
411–424.
[76] D. Wang, Y. Ju, H. Shen, L. Xu, Mechanical properties of high performance
concrete reinforced with basalt fiber and polypropylene fiber, Construct. Build.
Mater. 197 (2019) 464–473.
[77] F.M.Z. Hossain, M. Shahjalal, K. Islam, M. Tiznobaik, M.S. Alam, Mechanical
properties of recycled aggregate concrete containing crumb rubber and
polypropylene fiber, Construct. Build. Mater. 225 (2019) 983–996.
[78] H. Mohammadhosseini, A.S.M.A. Awal, J.B.M. Yatim, The impact resistance and
mechanical properties of concrete reinforced with waste polypropylene carpet
fibres, Construct. Build. Mater. 143 (2017) 147–157.
[79] M. Malek, M. Jackowski, W. Lasica, M. Kadela, Characteristics of recycled
polypropylene fibers as an addition to concrete fabrication based on portland
cement, Materials 13 (2020) 1827.
[80] T.W. Ahmed, A.A.M. Ali, R.S. Zidan, Properties of high strength polypropylene
fiber concrete containing recycled aggregate, Construct. Build. Mater. 241 (2020)
118010.
[81] S.R. Naraganti, R.M.R. Pannem, J. Putta, Impact resistance of hybrid fibre
reinforced concrete containing sisal fibres, Ain Shams Eng. J. 10 (2019) 297–305.
[82] D.Y. Yoo, N. Banthia, Impact resistance of fiber-reinforced concrete – a review,
Cement Concr. Compos. 104 (2019) 103389.
[83] ASTM C127, Standard Test Method for Density, Relative Density (Specific
Gravity) and Absorption of Coarse Aggregate, ASTM International, West
Conshohoken, 2012.
[84] ASTM C29/C29M, Standard Test Method for Bulk Density (Unit Weight) and
Voids in Aggregate, ASTM International, West Conshohoken, 2009.
[85] N.U. Kockal, T. Ozturan, Characteristics of lightweight fly ash aggregates
produced with different binders and heat treatments, Cement Concr. Compos. 33
(1) (2011) 61–67.
[86] Y. Li, D. Wu, J. Zhang, L. Chang, Z. Fang, Y. Shi, Measurement and statistics of
single pellet mechanical strength of differently shaped catalysts, Powder Technol.
113 (1–2) (2000) 176–184.
[87] C.R. Cheeseman, A. Makinde, S. Bethanis, Properties of lightweight aggregate
produced by rapid sintering of incinerator bottom ash, Resour. Conserv. Recycl.
43 (2) (2005) 147–162.
[88] BS 812 Part 112 Methods for Determination of Aggregate Impact Value (AIV),
British Standard Institution, London, 1990.
[89] ASTM Standard C138 Standard Test Method for Density (Unit Weight), Yield, and
Air Content (Gravimetric) of Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken,
2012.
[90] ASTM Standard C143 Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement
Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2010.
[91] ASTM C39 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimen, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2012.
[92] ASTM C 496 Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, 2011.
[93] ACI 544.2R-89 Measurement of Properties of Fiber Reinforced Concrete
(Reapproved 2009), American Concrete Institute, Michigan, USA, 1989.
[94] R. Ravichandra, Dr.JK. Dattatreya, S.M. Maheshwarappa, An experimental study
on properties of fly ash aggregate comparing with natural aggregate, J. Civil Eng.
Environ. Technol. 2 (11) (2015) 64–68.
[95] C.V. Siva Rama Prasad, Light weight concrete using fly ash aggregate, Int. J.
Innov. Technol. 5 (3) (2017) 460–463.
[96] H.F.W. Taylor, Cement Chemistry, Academic Press Limited, London, England,
1992.
[97] S. Djaknoun, E. Quedraogo, A.A. Benyahia, Characterization of the behavior of
high performance mortar subjected to high temperatures, Construct. Build. Mater.
28 (2012) 176–178.
[98] E.M. Gartner, K.E. Kurtis, P.J.M. Monteiro, Proposed mechanism of C-S-H growth
tested by soft X-ray microscopy, Cement Concr. Res. 30 (2000) 817–822.
[99] A.H. Akca, N.Ö. Zihnioğlu, High performance concrete under elevated
temperatures, Construct. Build. Mater. 44 (2013) 317–328.
[100] A.M. Neville, Properties of Concrete, Longman Scientific and Technical, New
York, NY, USA, 2011.
[101] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete: Microstructure, Properties, and Materials,
McGraw-Hill Education, New York, USA, 2014.
[102] ACI Committee 213, ACI 213R-14 Guide for Structural Lightweight-Aggregate
Concrete, American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014.
[103] E. Eltayeb, X. Ma, Y. Zhuge, O. Youssf, J.E. Mills, Influence of rubber particles on
the properties of foam concrete, J. Build. Eng. 30 (2020) 101217.
[104] A.M. Mhaya, G.F. Huseien, A.R.Z. Abidin, M. Ismail, Long-term mechanical and
durable properties of waste tires rubber crumbs replaced GBFS modified
concretes, Construct. Build. Mater. 256 (2020) 119505.
H. Yıldırım and T. Özturan
[105] X. Zhou, Y. Zeng, P. Chen, Z. Jiao, W. Zheng, Mechanical properties of basalt and
polypropylene fibre-reinforced alkali-activated slag concrete, Construct. Build.
Mater. 269 (2021) 121284.
[106] I.B. Topçu, The properties of rubberized concretes, Cement Concr. Res. 25 (2)
(1995) 304–310.
[107] E. Ozbay, M. Lachemi, U.K. Sevim, Compressive strength, abrasion resistance and
energy absorption capacity of rubberized concretes with and without slag, Mater.
Struct. 44 (7) (2011) 1297–1307.
[108] T. Gupta, R.K. Sharma, S. Chaudhary, Impact resistance of concrete containing
waste rubber fiber and silica fume, Int. J. Impact Eng. 83 (2015) 76–87.
[109] A.O. Atahan, A.Ö. Yücel, Crumb rubber in concrete: static and dynamic
evaluation, Construct. Build. Mater. 36 (2012) 617–622.
[110] M. Nili, V. Afroughsabet, The effects of silica fume and polypropylene fibers on
the impact resistance and mechanical properties of concrete, Construct. Build.
Mater. 24 (2010) 927–933.
[111] P.S. Song, S. Hwang, B.C. Sheu, Strength properties of nylon- and polypropylene-
fiber-reinforced concretes, Cement Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 1546–1550.
[112] A.M. Alhozaimy, P. Soroushian, F. Mirza, Mechanical properties of polypropylene
fiber reinforced concrete and the effects of pozzolanic materials, Cement Concr.
Res. 18 (1996) 85–92.
[113] P.S. Song, J.C. Wu, S. Hwang, B.C. Sheu, Statistical analysis of impact strength
and stregth reliability of steel-polypropylene hybrid fiber-reinforced concrete,
Construct. Build. Mater. 19 (2005) 1–9.
[114] K.H. Mo, S.P. Yap, U.J. Alengaram, M.Z. Jumaat, C.H. Bu, Impact resistance of
hybrid fibre-reinforced oil palm shell concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 50 (2014)
499–507.
[115] J.J. Li, J.G. Niu, C.J. Wan, B. Jin, Y.L. Yin, Investigation on mechanical properties
and microstructure of high performance polypropylene fiber reinforced
lightweight aggregate concrete, Construct. Build. Mater. 118 (2016) 27–35.
16
Journal of Building Engineering 42 (2021) 102875
[116] M. Mastali, A. Dalvand, A.R. Sattarifard, Z. Abdollahnejad, M. Illikainen,
Characterization and optimization of hardened properties of self-consolidating
concrete incorporating recycled steel, industrial steel, polypropylene and hybrid
fibers, Composites Part B 151 (2018) 186–200.
[117] M.C. Nataraja, N. Dhang, A.P. Gupta, Statistical variations in impact resistance of
steel fiber-reinforced concrete subjected to drop weight test, Cement Concr. Res.
29 (1999) 989–995.
[118] A. Badr, A.F. Ashour, Modified ACI drop-weight impact test for concrete, ACI
Mater. J. 102 (4) (July-August 2005) 249–255.
[119] P.S. Song, J.C. Wu, S. Hwang, B.C. Sheu, Assessment of statistical variations in
impact resistance of high-strength concrete and high-strength steel fiber-
reinforced concrete, Cement Concr. Res. 35 (2005) 393–399.
[120] A. Badr, A.F. Ashour, A.K. Platten, Statistical variations in impact resistance of
polypropylene fibre-reinforced concrete, Int. J. Impact Eng. 32 (2006)
1907–1920.
[121] D.S. Moore, G.P. McCabe, B.A. Craig, Introduction to the Practice of Statistics, W.
H. Freeman and Co., New York, 2009.
[122] R.E. Walpole, R.H. Myers, S.L. Myers, K. Ye, Probability and Statistics for
Engineers and Scientists, Pearson Educational International, Prentice Hall, USA,
2012.
[123] J.E. Freund, B.M. Perles, Statistics: A First Course, Pearson Prentice Hall, USA,
2004.
[124] P. Soroushian, M. Nagi, A.M. Alhozaimy, Statistical variations in the mechanical
properties of carbon fibre reinforced cement composites, ACI Mater. J. 89 (2)
(1992) 131–138.
[125] K.W. Day, Concrete Mix Design, Quality Control and Specification, second ed.,
E&FN Spon, London, 1999.