Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Use of treated domestic wastewater before chlorination

to produce and cure concrete
G. Asadollahfardi ⇑, M. Delnavaz, V. Rashnoiee, N. Ghonabadi
Civil Engineering Department, Kharazmi University, Tehran, Iran

h i g h l i g h t s

 The data indicate the suitability of treated domestic wastewater for producing concrete.
 Using treated wastewater increases the setting time of cement related to using drinking water.
 A good agreement exist between compressive strength of concrete produced with drinking water and treated waste water.
 The compressive strength of concrete, under rapid freezing and thawing decreased about 10% using treated wastewater instead of using drinking water.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Concrete samples with different amounts of cement and superplasticizer admixture produced with both
Received 8 June 2015 drinking water and treated wastewater and cured with treated wastewater before chlorination. The
Received in revised form 26 October 2015 28-day compressive strength of all of the concrete samples was 93–96% of the compressive strength of
Accepted 6 December 2015
the control samples. A 28-day tensile strength of all samples was 96–100% of the tensile strength of
Available online 17 December 2015
the control samples and the setting time was increased by 15 min. Concrete samples produced and cured
with treated wastewater did not have a significant effect on water absorption, slump and surface
Keywords:
electrical resistivity. A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) at the 5% significance level indicated no
Wastewater reuse
Concrete
significant difference between concrete samples produced and cured with treated wastewater and
Water resources control samples at the age of 90 days.
Curing Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction and suspended particles. The untreated wastewater is a danger

Nowadays, the problem of water shortages is one of the most
significant problems in human societies. The most important rea-
sons for the water crisis are increasing population, improvement
of lifestyle, climate change and lack of appropriate water resource
management. In these conditions the treatment and reuse of
wastewater is one of the most important solutions in the develop-
ment of water resources management. It may play an important
role in the water crisis problem [1]. The recent analyses of water
reuse have indicated that the best water reuse projects in terms
of economic feasibility and public acceptance are the ones that
have replaced drinking water with treated wastewater in irrigation
and industrial water. The main benefits of this replacement are the
storage and maintenance of water reservoirs and reducing pollu-
tion [2]. Municipal wastewater is made of 99.9% water and 0.1%
organic and mineral materials that are formed from dissolved
⇑ Corresponding author.
E-mail address: asasdollahfardi@yahoo.com (G. Asadollahfardi).
to public health and the environment. Therefore, wastewater treat-
ment is essential before releasing it into the environment [3]. The
main uses of treated wastewater are in agriculture, urban con-
sumption, industry, environment, recreation, feeding the ground
aquifers and developing drinking water resources.
Concrete is the selected material of the century and plays a sig-
nificant role in civil engineering and is the most consumed mate-
rial after water consumed by people [4]. The concrete industry is
the largest consumer of water. Water is consumed in producing,
curing concrete and washing sand and gravel. Water is also used
for washing concrete mixing trucks.
The quality of mixing water plays an important role in concrete
characteristics. The impurities in the mixing water may affect the
setting time, contraction and the durability of the concrete. Tay
and Yip (1987) indicated that water which is not suitable for drink-
ing can still be used in the concrete mix. They compared concrete
samples using different percentages (25–100%) of reclaimed
wastewater with 100% drinking water. The compressive strengths
at the ages of three months and beyond were similar to the

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.039
0950-0618/Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
254 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261
strengths of concrete made with 100% potable mixing water [5].
Cebeci and Saatci (1989) produced concrete samples using both
treated wastewater and distilled water. Their results indicated that
treated wastewater was indistinguishable from distilled water
when used as mixing water both in the setting time and concrete
strength test [6]. Ghazaly and Ng (1992) indicated that rain water,
river water, and treated wastewater were suitable for use with
cement, but not in the case of raw domestic sewage [7]. Chini
Abdol and Muszynsk (1999) described that type 2 wastewater
(secondary wastewater from washing) had no statistically impor-
tant effect on the properties of the setting time or compressive
strength of the concrete when used as batch water and/or to satu-
rate coarse aggregate in the production of concrete [8]. Sandrolini
and Franzoni (2001) applied concrete wash water in mixing water
for concrete and mortar. Their results indicated that a 28-day com-
pressive strength of most samples was higher than 96% of the ref-
erence concrete samples [9]. Su et al. (2002) used sludge water in
mixer washout operations in a ready-mixed concrete plant to
make concrete. All the examined sludge water met ASTM C94
requirements for mixing water for ready-mixed concrete [10]. Al-
Ghusain and Terro (2003) examined concrete samples which were
made by using four types of water quality, including potable water,
preliminary treated wastewater, secondary treated wastewater,
and tertiary treated wastewater. Their results indicated that using
wastewater for producing fresh concrete increased slump and den-
sity. They also reached the conclusion that using tertiary treated
wastewater at early ages had a higher strength than concrete sam-
ples using potable water [11]. Chatveera et al. (2006) studied the
feasibility by using concrete sludge water in concrete mixtures
and described that concrete sludge water used in concrete mix-
tures had a high alkalinity and total solids content exceeding the
limits of the ASTM C94 standard, leading to a more porous and
weaker matrix. They concluded that when they increased the per-
centage of concrete sludge water in concrete mixtures, dry shrink-
age and weight loss owing to acid attacks were raised while slump
and strength were reduced [12]. Nirmalkumar and Sivakumar
(2008) used textile wastewater to produce concrete samples. The
compressive strength of their samples was acceptable [13]. Chat-
veera and Lertwattanaruk (2009) studied the practicability of using
concrete water from a ready-mixed concrete plant as mixing water
in concrete containing either fly ash as an additive or a super plas-
ticizer admixture based on sulfonated naphthalene–formaldehyde
condensates. Their results described that increasing the total solids
content beyond 5–6% tended to reduce the setting time and com-
pressive strength [14]. Mehrdadi et al. (2009) used the treated
wastewater from primary and secondary sedimentation units and
effluent from the wastewater plant at Shahrak Ghods in Tehran
to produce concrete samples. Their results indicated that the 28-
day compressive strength of all the samples was more than 90%
of the compressive strength of the control samples that satisfied
the ASTM C94 standard [15]. Al-Jabri et al. (2011) tested concrete
samples which were made by mixing wastewater and potable
water. Their results presented that the strength of concrete mix-
tures prepared using wastewater was similar to the strength of
the concrete using potable water [16]. Tsimas and Zervaki (2011)
studied using concrete wash water to produce fresh concrete. Their
results illustrated that concrete wash water was suitable for pro-
ducing fresh concrete samples [17]. Wasserman (2012) studied
the compressive strength of concrete mixed and cured using con-
crete wash water and compared the results with the samples
which were mixed and cured using potable water and the results
were found to be accurate [18]. Nikhil et al. (2014) used three types
of water including drinking water, groundwater and sewage water
to produce concrete samples. Their results indicated that the com-
pressive strength of concrete samples at 28 days using drinking
water was higher than using wastewater [19]. Asadollahfardi
et al. (2015) studied using concrete wash water to produce con-
crete. Their results indicated that concrete wash water is suitable
for producing fresh concrete [20].
The objective of this study was to determine the feasibility of
using treated wastewater before chlorination in wastewater plants
as water for producing and curing concrete.
2. Materials and method
For producing concrete samples we used domestic wastewater treatment efflu-
ent (before chlorination) from the Khoramabad treatment plant in Lorestan pro-
vince in Iran. The treatment plant consists of a series of anaerobic and surface
aerobic lagoons. All methods of measuring the wastewater were based on the APHA
(2005) standard method [21].
One hundred sixty-two concrete cube samples (150 ⁄ 150 ⁄ 150 mm), 9 con-
crete cylindrical samples (150 ⁄ 300 mm) and 9 concrete cube samples
(100 ⁄ 100 ⁄ 100 mm) were made. We produced concrete samples using 2 different
amounts of cement, including 300 and 400 kg of cement per cubic meter and a third
group of samples with 350 kg of cement per cubic meter with a super plasticizer
admixture included. We measured the water absorption of the concrete at 28 days
and the compressive strength at 3, 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90-days on the cube samples
(150 ⁄ 150 ⁄ 150 mm). We also measured the surface electrical resistivity at 90 days
on the concrete cube samples (100 ⁄ 100 ⁄ 100 mm) and also the tensile strength of
the cylindrical samples (150 ⁄ 300 mm) at 28 days.
We used A300, A350 and A400 to label the concrete samples produced and
cured by using drinking water as the control sample. The numbers 300, 350 and
400 indicate the amount of kg of cement per one cubic meter of concrete.
B300, B350 and B400 were used to label the concrete samples produced with
drinking water and cured with treated wastewater.
C300, C350 and C400 were used to label the concrete samples produced and
cured by using treated wastewater.
Table 1 indicates the mixing design used to produce the concrete samples.
The Doroud Cement Factory, Lorestan (Iran) produced the type two Portland
cement which was used for producing the concrete samples. The chemical and
physical properties of the cement were tested according to the ASTM-C150
(2004) standard [22].
The aggregate properties used in producing the concrete in this design include:
1. Coarse 12–19 mm.
2. Fine 0–6 mm.
The sieve analysis test of the gravel and sand was based on the ASTM C136
(2004) standard [22], and the fine-grained aggregate gradation was based on the
ASTM C33 (2004) standard [23]. We used both drinking water and treated wastew-
ater before chlorination for the setting time test and the Vicat experiment according
to the ASTM-C191 (2004) standard [24].
A slump test was performed based on the ASTM C143 (2004) standard [25]. A
compressive strength test was performed on the concrete samples according to
BS1818 (1983) [26]. We applied the BS 188-122 (2011) for water absorption of con-
crete [27]. For the primary durability test, we examined concrete water absorption
at the age of 28 days, according to BS 1881, part 122 (2011) [27]. We also used a
simple non- destructive surface resistivity method according to the FM5-578
(2004) standard [28] instead of a rapid chloride permeability (RCP) to measure
the concrete’s ability and durability to resist chloride ion penetration (ASTM
C1202-129 2012) [29]. Ramazanpour et al. (2011) achieved a high coefficient of
determination (R2 = 0. 89) between the results of rapid chloride permeability
(RCP) and a surface resistivity test for concrete samples in workplaces samples
[30]. The special electrical resistance test was conducted at the age of 90 days using
an electric current resistance device that produced a direct current of 10 Hz fre-
quency. All the blocks are prepared and maintained at the same temperature,
humidity, type of cement, fine aggregate and coarse aggregate conditions in all
tests. ASTM 666/C666M (2015) was used to determine the resistance of concrete
to rapid freezing and thawing [31]. We carried out two tests, including the resis-
tance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing according to ASTM C666/C666M
(2015) and Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) combining with energy-
dispersive X-ray spectroscopy (EDX) on the quality of concrete according to ASTM
C1723-10, 2010 [32].
3. Results and discussion
Table 2 indicates the results of the wastewater characteristics.
According to the ASTM C94 (2004) [33] standard, three physical
and chemical characteristics of water are significant for use in con-
crete production, including sulfate, chloride and total solid. As indi-
cated in Table 2, the treated domestic wastewater used in our
study and the wastewater used by Al-Jabri et al. (2011) both meets
 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261 255

Table 1
The design details of the different types of concrete samples.

Type of samples Water/cement Cement (kg) Free water (kg) Coarse sand (kg) Fine sand (kg) Gravel (kg) Super plasticizer % structure 335
A300, B300, C300 0.6 300 180 797 212 900 –
A350, B350, C350 0.43 350 150 818 214 880 4
A400, B400, C400 0.5 400 200 734 200 780 –

Table 2
The results of the chemical and physical characteristics of the wastewater in our study and that of other researchers.

Parameters Treated wastewater Wastewater, Al-Jabri Tertiary wastewater effluent ASTM C94
effluent in this study et al. (2011) [16] Al-Ghusain and Terro (2003) [11] standard (2004) [33]
Temperature 17 mg/l –
pH 7.7 mg/l 6.94 mg/l 7.3 mg/l –
Turbidity 12 mg/l Nephelometric Turbidity Units (NTU) – –
Sulfate (SO4) 180 mg/l 97.7 mg/l 160 mg/l <3000 mg/l
Nitrate (NO3) 14 mg/l 0.07 mg/l 1.9 mg/l –
Nitrite (NO2) 3.6 mg/l – – –
Chloride 55 mg/l 74.2 mg/l 340 mg/l <1000 mg/l
Total Solid (TS) 200 mg/l – 773 mg/l <50000 mg/l
Total suspended solid (TSS) 30 mg/l – 7 mg/l –
5 days Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BOD5) 30 mg/l – – –
Total Dissolved Solid (TDS) 170 mg/l 254 mg/l 766 mg/l
Chemical Oxygen Demand (COD) 93 mg/l – 29 mg/l

the ASTMC94 standard. The difference between the two treated of Portland cement [32]. Table 4 presents the slump test. As pre-
wastewaters is that the amount of sulfate in our work was larger sented in Table 4, using treated wastewater to produce concrete
than in the wastewater used by Al-Jabri et al. (2011) [16]; however, does not create any difference in the slump value compared to
total solid content in our research was less than in the wastewater drinking water.
used by Al-Jabri et al. (2011) [16] and the chloride content in our Fig. 1 describes the results of Vicat test. As described in Fig. 1,
study was less than in the wastewater used by Al-Jabri et al. using treated wastewater increase the setting time related to using
(2011) [16]. As illustrated in Table 2, the total solid and chloride drinking water; however, it meets the ASTM C191 (2004) standard
in the treated wastewater used by Al-Ghusian and Terro (2003) [24].
was more than in our study; however, the sulfate content in their Fig. 1 consists of two curves including mortars, which were
work was less than in our work. Both the physical and chemical made with treated wastewater and drinking water. Considering
characteristics of the treated wastewater in the two mentioned Fig. 1, the initial setting time for using drinking water was
studies met the ASTM C94 (2004) standard [31]. The nitrate con- 150 min while the setting time for treated wastewater was
tent and COD (93 mg/l) content in our study was higher than in 165 min. Fig. 2 also presents the results of Vicat test using another
the study carried out by Al-Ghusian and Terro (2003). This differ- treated wastewater and drinking water (treated wastewater was
ence may explain that the amount of organic material in our work collected from the Ekbatan wastewater treatment plant in Tehran
was higher than in the two mentioned researchers’ work. Increas- and Tehran drinking water). In the samples produced with drink-
ing the amount of COD in water used to produce concrete can ing water, the initial setting time reached 35 mm at 90 min while
cause a decrease compressive strength (Mehrdadi et al., 2009).
Table 4
Table 3 presents Portland cement characteristics. The cement
The slump test results.
characteristics met ASTM C150 standard (2004) [21]. The most sig-
nificant and plentiful compounds in clinkers are alite (Ca3SiO5 or Water Slump (mm)
C3S) and blite (Ca2SiO4, C2S) which contribute considerably to the A300 110
compressive strength of concrete [32]. The hydration reaction of C300 99
C2S and C3S with water is the main cause the cementing action A400 90
C400 82
B350 117
C350 105

Table 3
The cement characteristics used in this study [% values are mass-based].

Compound Amount Compound Amount Seng me test

(%) (%) 41
40
Chemical analyses
Penetraon (mm)

39
SiO3 21.5 SO3 2.1 38
AL2O3 5.1 Weight losses due to 1.05 37
temperature 36 Treated wastewater
Fe2O3 4.4 Insoluble residual 0.5 35 Drinking water
CaO 63.2 C3S 45.312 34
MgO 1.75 C2S 30.12 33
Na2O 0.2 C3A 10.208 32
30 45 60 75 90 105 120 135 150 165
K2O 0.60 C4AF 14.4
Physical analyses Time (minute)
Autoclave 0.03 Fineness (Blaine test, cm2/g) 3000
expansion Fig. 1. The results of setting time tests using drinking water and treated
wastewater.
256 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261

Seng me test of concrete are 18 mg/l and 70 mg/l, respectively. The tensile
41
40 strength at 28 days for all samples cured with treated wastewater
Penetraon (mm)

39 and produced with treated wastewater was 96–100% of the con-

38
37
36
35
34
33
32
30 45 60 75 90 105
Time (minute)
Fig. 2. The results of setting time tests using drinking water and treated
wastewater.
the corresponding time for the treated wastewater samples was
120 min (Fig. 2). The final setting time using drinking water and
treated wastewater were 180 and 240 min, respectively. The use
of treated wastewater caused an increase in the initial and final
setting time; however, using treated wastewater in concrete sam-
ples did not cause a significant impact, compare with the ASTM
C191 (2004) standard [24]. Increasing the initial and final setting
time using treated wastewater could be owing to impurities in
the treated wastewater. Time setting results in this study were
inconsistent with the results of Cebeci and Saatci (1989) [6], Lee
et al. (2001) [32] and Al-Ghusain and Terro (2003) [11].
Table 5 presents the results of compressive strength tests of the
samples at 7, 14, 28, 56 and 90 days, the tensile strength tests of
the samples at 28 days, water absorption percentage and surface
electrical resistivity.
The results of the 28-days compressive strength testing of the
samples produced and cured with treated wastewater and drinking
water for the 300 and 400 kg/m3 cement without super plasticizer
and the 350 kg/m3 cement with a superplasticizer was 93–96% of
the compressive strength of the control samples that met the ASTM
C94 (2004) standard. The results of the concrete samples produced
by using drinking water and cured by the treated wastewater at
the age of 28 and 90 days were between 94% and 97% of the sam-
ples produced and cured by using drinking water. The results of
curing concrete samples produced by using drinking water and
cured by the treated wastewater are in agreement with the work
of Sarkar et al. (2014) [34]. The BOD and the COD in the treated
wastewater in our study may cause a reduction in the compressive
strength of 6%. Mehrdadi et al. (2009) studied the effect of increas-
ing the BOD and the COD on the compressive strength of concrete
samples produced by using treated wastewater. They indicated
that increasing the amount of the BOD and the COD caused a
decrease in the compressive strength of the concrete samples.
However, at the age of 7 days the decrease in compressive strength
was higher than the compressive strength at the age of 28 days
when compared to the concrete control samples [15]. According
to Mehrdadi et al.’s (2009) experiments, they suggested that the
permissible amounts of the BOD and the COD for the production
crete control samples. No considerable effect was detected in the
Treated wastewater results of slump tests using treated wastewater (Table 4). Using
Drinking water treated wastewater for producing concrete samples increased the
cement setting time by 15 min; however, it satisfies the ASTM
C191 (2004) [24]. The results of water absorption for different con-
120
crete samples using drinking water or treated wastewater were
between 2.1% and 3.1%, which met BS 1881, PART 122 (2011)
[27] and the standard states that water absorption should be
between 2% and 5% (Table 5). The low permeability stops the
migration of liquid and the presence of tiny gel pores have an
important role in the immobilization process and are the critical
factor affecting the high immobilization potential of calcium sili-
cate hydration (Gievgiczny and Krol, 2008) [35]. We used domestic
treated wastewater which did not contain Zinc and copper nitrated
to hinder hydration. The surface electrical resistivity (durability
test) of all concrete samples using drinking water or treated
wastewater was approximately the same. Considering the FM5-
576 standard (2004) [28], the surface electrical resistivity tests of
all concrete samples made with drinking or treated wastewater
were within a very low chloride ion penetration range. However,
adding a super plasticizer admixture to the concrete samples
increased the surface resistivity (Table 5).
Inorganic and organic compounds may interfere with the
hydration of cement. These chemicals affect the pore structure
and final compressive and tensile strength of concrete samples
[36]. The mechanism of interfere of inorganic and organic com-
pounds may retard the cement setting time and the final strength
of concrete samples. Ion charges and size are two factors that may
affect the immobilization process [36]. The immobilizing of organic
pollutants may be grouped into three classes, including (1) direct
immobilization of organic pollutants (2) direct immobilization of
organic pollutants after adsorption (3) immobilization of organic
pollutants by applying oxidizing and reducing agents [36]. How-
ever, because the amounts of BOD, COD, nitrate (which indicate
dissolved organic content), chloride and sulfate (inorganic com-
pounds) in our study were low, ASTM C-94 (2004) standard was
satisfied.
As indicated in Table 6, the compressive strength of concrete
samples, under rapid freezing and thawing, with 300 kg/m3 of
cement which made with treated wastewater at 21 days was
10.11% lower than concrete samples made of drinking water. For
concrete samples with350 kg/m3 of cement without using micro
silica, the compressive strength at 21 days for concrete made with
the treated wastewater was 11.7% lower than concrete samples
made with drinking water.
Figs. 3 and 4 indicate the SEM of concrete samples with 300 kg/
m3 of cement using drinking water and treated wastewater.
Figs. 5 and 6 illustrate the SEM of concrete samples with 350 kg/
m3 of cement using drinking water and treated wastewater.

Table 5
The results of the compressive strength, tensile strength, surface electrical resistivity and water absorption tests.

Compressive strength (kg/cm2) Tensile strength (kg/cm2) Surface resistivity (X cm) Water adsorption (%)
Days 3 7 14 28 56 90 28 90 28
A300 108 189 220 255 286 315 21.6 58 3.0
B300 105 180 214 242 276 304 21 56 3.0
C300 101 178 212 243 274 299 22 61 3.0
A350 171 310 359 417 445 460 28 74 2.1
B350 152 285 325 398 416 432 28 72 2.2
C350 149 270 319 389 409 430 27 78 2.4
A400 131 245 293 331 364 380 24.5 51.5 2.6
B400 122 242 287 317 338 369 24 50 2.7
C400 118 235 286 318 340 372 23.8 56 2.5
 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261 257

Table 6
The results of resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing according to ASTM
C666/C666M (2015) [31].

Types of concrete Weight Density Force Compressive

(g) (g/cm3) (kgf) strength (kg/cm2)
A300 8130 2.4 60,000 267
B300 8100 2.4 54,000 240
A350 (without 7840 2.32 77,000 342
micro silica)
B350 (without 7710 2.28 68,000 302
micro silica)

Fig. 5. The SEM image of concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water.

Fig. 3. The SEM image of concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water.

Fig. 6. The SEM image of concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using treated
wastewater.

Fig. 4. The SEM image of concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using treated
wastewater.
The Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM) images of concrete
sample with 300 and 350 kg/m3 of cement (B300 andB350) which
was made of treated wastewater (Figs. 4 and 6) indicate concrete
forming of Euhedral crystals. The void between crystals was more
than concrete, which was made of drinking water. However, the
SEM images of section of concrete sample (Figs. 3 and 5) with
300 and 350 kg/m3 of cement (A300 and A350) which made of
drinking water illustrates concrete forming of subhedral to
anhedral crystals and more dense and less void than concrete
made with treated wastewater.
Figs. 7 and 8 indicate the results of EDX tests for concrete sam-
ples made with 300 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water and
treated wastewater, respectively. Tables 7 and 8 present the per-
centage of elements of concrete samples at 28 days made with
300 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water and treated wastewater,
respectively. According to EDX results, the amount of sodium, chlo-
ride and sulfur in concrete used the treated wastewater increased
slightly.
258 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261

Fig. 7. The result of an EDX test of concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water.

Fig. 8. The result of an EDX test of concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using treated wastewater.

Table 7 Table 8
Percentages of elements in concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water Percentages of elements in concrete with 300 kg/m3 of cement using treated
(EDX test). wastewater (EDX test).

Element Element Element Confidence Error Element Element Element Confidence Error
number symbol name concentration (%) (%) number symbol name concentration (%) (%)
20 Ca Calcium 18.3 0.5 20 Ca Calcium 12.1 0.7
14 Si Silicon 5.6 1.0 14 Si Silicon 7.7 0.9
8 O Oxygen 72.5 1.1 8 O Oxygen 74.2 1.0
13 Al Aluminum 1.1 3.5 13 Al Aluminium 1.7 2.7
19 K Potassium 0.5 5.2 19 K Potassium 0.7 4.3
26 Fe Iron 0.5 8.8 26 Fe Iron 0.6 8.0
12 Mg Magnesium 0.6 8.3 12 Mg Magnesium 1.2 5.0
16 S Sulfur 0.2 9.3 16 S Sulfur 0.4 6.2
17 Cl Chlorine 0.1 16.4 17 Cl Chlorine 0.2 12.6
11 Na Sodium 0.4 19.3 11 Na Sodium 1.1 8.9

Figs. 9 and 10 indicate the results of EDX tests for concrete sam-
ples made with 350 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water and
treated wastewater, respectively. Tables 9 and 10 present the per-
centage of elements of concrete samples at 28 days made with
350 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water and treated wastewater,
respectively.
Figs. 7–10 indicate that the percentage of sulfur, chlorine and
sodium on concrete samples using treated wastewater increased
related to concrete samples using drinking water.
Tables 11–13 present the results a one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) test which was conducted at a 5% significance level of
compressive strength at 90 days. The concrete samples included
two amounts with 300 and 400 kg/m3 of cement without a super
plasticizer admixture and one with 350 kg/m3 of cement with a
super plasticizer admixture.
A one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) test conducted at a 5%
significance level, indicated no significant difference between
concrete samples produced with treated wastewater before
 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261 259

Fig. 9. The result of an EDX test of concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water.

Fig. 10. The result of an EDX test of concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using treated wastewater.

Table 9 Table 10
Percentages of elements in concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using drinking water Percentages of elements in concrete with 350 kg/m3 of cement using treated
(EDX test). wastewater.

Element Element Element Confidence Error Element Element Element Confidence Error
number symbol name concentration (%) (%) number symbol name concentration (%) (%)
20 Ca Calcium 7.9 0.7 20 Ca Calcium 12.1 0.7
14 Si Silicon 12.9 0.5 14 Si Silicon 7.7 0.9
8 O Oxygen 72.6 0.7 8 O Oxygen 74.2 1.0
13 Al Aluminium 2 1.7 13 Al Aluminium 1.7 2.7
19 K Potassium 0.8 2.7 19 K Potassium 0.7 4.3
26 Fe Iron 0.4 6.6 26 Fe Iron 0.6 8.0
12 Mg Magnesium 0.6 5.9 12 Mg Magnesium 1.2 5.0
16 S Sulfur 0.2 6.6 16 S Sulfur 0.4 6.2
17 Cl Chlorine 0.0 12.6 17 Cl Chlorine 0.2 12.6
11 Na Sodium 1.5 34 11 Na Sodium 1.1 8.9

chlorination at 90 days and control samples at the same age. The
same results of a one way ANOVA statistical test were obtained
from the curing concrete samples with treated wastewater.
Our results of setting time and compressive strength tests of
concrete samples were in agreement with the work of Cebeci
and Saatci (1989) [6], Ghazaly et al. (1992) [7], Lee et al. (2001)
[32], Al-Ghusian and Terro (2003) [11] and Mehrdadi et al.
(2009) [15]. Al-Jabri et al. (2011) used different percentages of
tap water and wastewater to produce concrete samples. They con-
ducted slump tests, compressive strength tests at age of 7 and
28 days and surface water absorption tests. In our study, we tested
slump, setting time, compressive strength at the age of 3, 7, 14, 28,
56 and 90 days, tensile strength, water absorption and surface
resistivity for two types of concrete samples made with treated
wastewater and cured with treated wastewater. Our results were
in good agreement with the results of the Al-Jabri et al. (2011)
study [16]. We also carried out three types of tests, including the
resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and thawing, SEM and
EDX. The results of resistance of concrete to rapid freezing and
thawing indicated that concrete samples made with the treated
wastewater had about 11 percent compressive strength at 21 days
less than concrete samples made with drinking water.
260 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261

Table 11 cured with treated wastewater before chlorination and the con-
Results of the ANOVA test for compressive strength of concrete samples made with trol samples.
300 kg/m3 at 90 days.
7. The results of resistance of concrete samples to rapid freezing
Groups Count Sum Average Variance and thawing indicated that concrete samples using the treated
A300 3 946.9 315.63 37.203 wastewater had about 11 percent compressive strength at
B300 3 913.9 304.63 37.123 21 days less than concrete samples using drinking water.
C400 3 898 299.33 46.333

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit.

References
Between Groups 414.8 2 207.39 5.1564 0.0498 5.14325
Within groups 241.3 6 40.22
[1] I. Mariolakos, Water resources management in the framework of sustainable
Total 656.1 8 development, Desalination 213 (2007) 147–151.
[2] T. Asanoa, J.A. Cotruvob, Groundwater recharge with reclaimed municipal
wastewater: health and regulatory considerations, J. Water Res. 38 (2004)
1941–1951.
Table 12 [3] Metcalf E, Inc., Wastewater Engineering: Treatment, sixth ed., Disposal and
Results of the ANOVA test for compressive strength of concrete samples made with Reused, McGraw-Hill, 2004.
400 kg/m3 at 90 days. [4] P.K. Mehta, P.J.M. Monteiro, Concrete Microstructure Properties and Materials,
fourth ed., McGraw-Hill Professional, 2013, p. 659.
Groups Count Sum Average Variance [5] J.H. Tay, W.K. Yip, Use of reclaimed wastewater for cement mixing, J. Environ.
A400 3 1181 393.6667 74.62333 Eng. 113 (5) (1987) 1150–1160.
B400 3 1098 366.0667 30.01333 [6] O.Z. Cebeci, A.M. Saatchi, Domestic sewage as mixing water in the concrete,
ACI Mater. J. 865 (1989) 503–506.
C400 3 1089 362.9667 23.80333
[7] M.D. Shaaban, B. Ghazaly, Ng. Dan, L. Keong, Effect of impurities in mixing
waters on cement/concrete blocks compressive strength, Paper presented at
Source of SS df MS F P-value F crit. National Seminar on Advances in Environmental Control Technology,
variation Universiti Teknologi Malaysia, Kuala Lumpur, 18–19 August, 1993.
[8] R. Chini Abdol, L.C. Muszynsk, Recycling Wash Water in Ready Mixed Concrete
Between 1713.86 2 856.93 20.01549 0.00222 5.14325 Operation, fifth ed., University of Florida, Gainesville, FL, United States, 1999.
groups code 69BP2, pp. 381–389.
Within groups 256.88 6 42.81333 [9] W. Sandrolini, E. Franzoni, Waste wash water recycling in ready mixed
concrete plants, Cem. Concr. Res. 31 (3) (2001) 485–489.
Total 1970.74 8
[10] N. Su, B. Miao, F.S. Liu, Effect of wash water and underground water on
properties of concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 32 (5) (2002) 777–782.
[11] I. Al-Ghusian, M.J. Terro, Use of treated wastewater for concrete mixing in
Table 13 Kuwait, Kuwait J. Sci. Eng. 30 (1) (2003) 213–228.
Results of the ANOVA test for compressive strength of concrete samples made with [12] B. Chatveera, P. Lertwattanaruk, N. Makul, Effect of sludge water from ready-
350 kg/m3 and a super plasticizer admixture at 90 days. mixed concrete plant on properties and durability of concrete, J. Cem. Concr.
Compos. 28 (5) (2006) 441–450.
Groups Count Sum Average Variance [13] K. Nirmalkumar, V. Sivakumar, Corrosion studies on concrete using treated
and untreated textile effluent and impact of corrosion inhibitor, J. Sust. Dev. 1
A350 3 1387 462.2667 31.41333 (3) (2008) 68–72.
B350 3 1299 432.9667 66.66333 [14] B. Chatveera, P. Lertwattanaruk, Use of ready-mixed concrete plant sludge
C350 3 1293 431 81 water in concrete containing an additive or admixture, J. Environ. Manage. 9
(5) (2009) 1901–1908.
[15] N. Mehrdadi, A. Akbarian, A. Haghollahi, Using domestic treated wastewater
Source of SS df MS F P-value F
for producing and curing concrete, J. Environ. Stud. 35 (50) (2009) 129–136 (in
variation crit.
Farsi).
Between groups 1839.962 2 919.9811 15.41208 0.004326 5.14 [16] K.S. Al-Jabri, A.H. Al-Saidy, R. Taha, A.J. Al-Kemyandi, The effect of using
Within groups 358.1533 6 59.69222 wastewater on the properties of high strength concrete, in: The twelfth East-
Pacific conference engineering and construction, procedia engineering, vol. 14,
Total 2198.116 8 2011, pp. 370-378.
[17] S. Tsimas, M. Zervaki, Reuse of wastewater from ready mixed concrete plants,
Manage. Environ. Qual. Int. J. 221 (2011) 7–17.
[18] B. Wasserman, Wash water with the mix: effects on the compressive strength
of concrete, Int. J. Constr. Ed. Res. 8 (2012) 301–316.
4. Conclusion [19] T.R. Nikhil, R. Sushma, S.M. Gopinath, B.C. Shanthappa, Impact of water quality
on strength properties of concrete, Indian J. Appl. Res. 4 (7) (2014) 197–199.
Considering the results of our experimental work, the following [20] G. Asadollahfardi, M. Asadi, H. Jafari, A. Moradi, R. Asadolllahfardi,
Experimental and statistical studies of using wash water from ready-mix
conclusions can be summarized concrete trucks and a batching plant in the production of fresh concrete,
Constr. Build. Mater. 98 (2015) 305–314.
1. Producing concrete samples using treated wastewater did not [21] APHA Standard Methods for Examination of Water and Wastewater, American
Public-Health Association/American Water Works Association/Water
affect the results of the slump tests significantly when com- Environment Federation, New York, 1992.
pared with samples made with drinking water. [22] ASTM-C150, Standard Specifications for Portland Cements, American Society
2. The use of treated wastewater for producing concrete samples for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.
[23] ASTM C136, Standard Method for Sieve Analysis of Fine and Coarse
increased the setting time; however, the results satisfied the Aggregates, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.
ASTM C191 standard and the BSI 3148. [24] ASTM C191, Standard Test Method for Setting of Hydraulic Cement by Vicat
3. The use of treated wastewater before chlorination satisfied the Needle, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.
[25] ASTM-C143, Standard Test Method for Slump of Hydraulic-Cement Concrete,
requirements of ASTM C-94 standard in concrete production. American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.
4. Using treated wastewater before chlorination satisfied the [26] BSI 1881-108, Testing Concrete Method for Making Test Cubes from Fresh
requirements of ASTM C-192 standard in concrete curing. Concrete, 1983.
[27] BS 1881-122, Testing Concrete Method for Determination of Water
5. Applying treated wastewater before chlorination did not affect
Absorption, 2011.
the results of water absorption and surface resistivity tests of [28] Florida Department of Transportation Florida Method of Test for Concrete
the concrete samples compared with samples made with drink- Resistivity as an Electrical Indicator of its Permeability, Designation: FM 5-578,
ing water. Florida, USA, 2004.
[29] ASTM C1202-129, Standard Test Method for Electrical Indication of Concrete’s
6. The ANOVA test indicated no significance difference between Ability to Resist Chloride Ion Penetration, ASTM International, West
the compressive strength of the concrete samples made and Conshohocken, PA, 2012.
 G. Asadollahfardi et al. / Construction and Building Materials 105 (2016) 253–261
[30] A.A. Ramazanpour, P. Usage, A.R. Pilvar, Comparison the results of using
surface resistivity and rapid chloride permeability (RCP) method for
concretes samples collected in workplaces, in: The 6th National Congress
of Civil Engineering, University of Semnan, Semnan City, Iran, 2011 (in
Farsi).
[31] ASTM C666/C666M, Standard Test Method for Resistance of Concrete to Rapid
Freezing and Thawing, West Conshohhocken, PA, 2015.
[32] ASTM C1723-10, Standard Guide for Examination of Hardened Concrete Using
Scanning Electron Microscopy (SEM), West Conshohhocken, PA, 2010.
[33] ASTM C94, Standard Specification for Ready-Mixed Concrete, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 2004.;
261
BS (1881)-111 Testing Concrete, Method of Normal Curing of Test Specimens
(20 °C Method), 1983.
[34] K. Sarkar, T.M. Miretu, B. Bhattacharjee, Curing of concrete with wastewater
and curing compound effect on the strength and water absorption, Indian
Concr. J. 88 (10) (2014) 87–93.
[35] Z. Giergiczny, A. Krol, Immobilization of heavy metals (Pb, Cu, Cz, Zn, Cd, Mn)
in the mineral additions containing concrete composites, J. Hazard. Mater. 160
(2008) 247–255.
[36] S. Paria, P.K. Yuet, Solidification – Stabilization of Organic and Inorganic
Contaminates using Portland Cement: A Literature Review, The NRC Research
Press, 2006. <http://www.er.nrc.ca> (visited on August 22, 2015).