Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Mechanical and durability properties of epoxy mortar incorporating coal

bottom ash as filler
Muhammad Tahir Lakhiar a, Yu Bai b, Leong Sing Wong c, Suvash Chandra Paul d,
Vivi Anggraini a, Sih Ying Kong a, *
a
Discipline of Civil Engineering, School of Engineering, Monash University Malaysia, 47500 Bandar Sunway, Selangor, Malaysia
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Monash University, Clayton, VIC 3800, Australia
c
College of Graduate Studies, Universiti Tenaga Nasional, Kajang 43000, Malaysia
d
Department of Civil Engineering, International University of Business Agriculture and Technology, Dhaka 1230, Bangladesh

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

Keywords: This paper presented an experimental investigation on epoxy mortar produced using industrial wastes, namely
Epoxy mortar coal bottom ash as filler to replace sand, fly ash and silica fume as micro fillers. Four parameters investigated
Coal bottom ash were: (i) the epoxy resin to filler ratio, (ii) particle size of coal bottom ash, (iii) types of micro filler, and (iv)
Ground coal bottom ash
proportion of micro filler. Experiments were carried out to determine the physical properties, mechanical
Fly ash
Silica fume
properties and shrinkage of epoxy mortar with different proportions of epoxy resin, filler and micro fillers. The
results demonstrated that the epoxy resin to filler ratio significantly impacted the properties of epoxy mortar.
Moreover, the epoxy mortar with ground coal bottom ash showed higher mechanical properties and lower water
absorption and shrinkage than the epoxy mortar with coal bottom ash. Mechanical properties were improved as
the content of micro fillers increased up to 20% in the epoxy mortar. The mechanical strengths of epoxy mortar
with ground coal bottom ash were about 30% lower than epoxy mortar with sand at the same epoxy resin and
micro filler content. However, epoxy mortar with GCBA demonstrated 50% lower shrinkage than epoxy mortar
with sand.

1. Introduction mortar, where a further increase of epoxy resin resulted in a decrease of

Epoxy mortar is a widely used construction material to repair defects
and damages on concrete structures due to its fast curing, high strength,
good bonding, low permeability and excellent chemical resistance.
Furthermore, epoxy concrete and epoxy composites could be a feasible
alternative for industrial flooring, production of railway sleepers [1,2]
and pavement overlays [3]. The high cost of epoxy resin is the main
hindrance in the broad adoption of the epoxy composite compared to
ordinary Portland cement concrete. Therefore, several studies have been
conducted to determine the optimum proportion of epoxy resin. Epoxy
concrete produced using an epoxy matrix with a resin to filler ratio of
60:40 could achieve uniform distribution of aggregates. The optimum
matrix-to-aggregate ratio was determined as 1:1.35 [4]. The mix pro­
portion of 14% epoxy resin content combined with coarse aggregates
ranging from 9.5 to 19 mm was obtained as the optimum design under a
temperature exposure of − 15◦ C using the Taguchi method [5]. The
optimum epoxy resin content of 18% by weight was reported for epoxy
compressive strength [6].
The adoption of wastes as green construction materials has been a
popular research approach due to increased awareness of sustainable
development. Various types of waste materials have been incorporated
into epoxy resin to reduce the demand for natural resources and improve
its mechanical properties. Previous studies included fillers such as fly
ash [7-9], silica fume [8], recycled short milled carbon fibres [10,11],
red mud [12,13], sand washing wastes [14,15], blast furnace slag [16],
recycled crumb rubber particles [3,17] and palm oil fuel ash [18].
Among these waste materials, fly ash and silica fume are the most
popularly used micro fillers because they are inexpensive, non-toxic,
high fineness, low thermal coefficient, readily available, and compat­
ible with other materials in epoxy resin.
Epoxy mortar or concrete comprising micro fillers at the optimum
content demonstrated better strength and durability due to the potential
of fillers enhancing the packing density of the matrix [7,8,14]. The
compressive strength of epoxy concrete with a 12.4% epoxy resin

* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: kong.sih.ying@monash.edu (S.Y. Kong).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.125677
Received 6 July 2021; Received in revised form 25 October 2021; Accepted 10 November 2021
Available online 24 November 2021
0950-0618/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
M.T. Lakhiar et al.
content increased as fly ash, or silica fume content increased up to 13%
[8]. With the sand content at 60% by volume, a combination of 30%
epoxy resin and 10% fly ash achieved the highest compressive strength
[7]. The optimum content of hybrid filler composed of fire retardant
filler, hollow microsphere and fly ash was determined to be in the range
of 30 to 50% for coating sleepers application [1]. It was reported that the
addition of fly ash as filler in epoxy matrix improved its strength and
durability characteristics more than conventional filler because of its
higher fineness [4,16]. Lokuge and Aravinthan [7] developed mix de­
signs of epoxy mortar with epoxy resin and micro fillers content up to
40% and 20% by volume, respectively. It should be noted that the micro
filler was used to replace the content of the epoxy resin [7]. Microwave
curing could reduce shrinkage and expansion of epoxy mortar incor­
porated with sand washing waste as a sand replacement [14]. The
incorporation of filler also improved the stability of epoxy resin against
in-service temperatures up to 80◦ C [19]. It was suggested that partic­
ulate filled epoxy polymers could retain at least 70% of their mechanical
properties after 100 years of service at an annual average temperature of
30◦ C [20].
Coal bottom ash (CBA) is a waste generated by coal power generation
plants but typically disposed of at landfills. CBA generally comprises
angular particles with porous structures collected at the base of the
furnace. The particle size distribution of CBA is comparable to the sand,
of which 90% of CBA particles pass through a 4.75 mm sieve [21].
Extensive research has been conducted to incorporate CBA in concrete
and mortar production as a sand replacement [22-24]. Results showed
that concrete with CBA demonstrated lower compressive strength at an
early age. Higher compressive strength was achieved after 90 days
attributed to continuous hydration and filling pores with CSH gel formed
due to pozzolanic action. Ground coal bottom ash (GCBA) with high
fineness could be used as a pozzolanic binder similar to fly ash [25]. The
ground CBA with high fineness significantly improved the concrete
compressive strength [26]. The use of GCBA as cement replacement in
high strength concrete could reduce heat evolution, and a cement sub­
stitute at 15% by weight with GCBA achieved similar long-term strength
performance as high strength concrete made with only ordinary Port­
land cement.
Previous studies have investigated different types of fillers where
various epoxy resin to filler ratios are proposed for specific applications.
Based on a comprehensive review [7,8,12,14,17], it was found that a
very limited study investigated the effects of CBA as filler for epoxy
mortar. CBA may be used as filler to replace sand for epoxy composites
due to its abundant availability and compatibility with construction
materials. This study was therefore carried out to improve understand­
ing of the properties of epoxy mortar incorporating coal bottom ash as
filler. Epoxy mortar mixtures with different resin to filler ratios, size of
CBA, types and content of micro fillers were prepared. Two types of
micro fillers considered were fly ash and silica fume with a range of up to
20%. Experiments were conducted to determine workability, modulus of
elasticity, shrinkage, compressive strength, splitting tensile strength and
flexural strength of epoxy mortar prepared. The same series of tests were
performed on one mixture of epoxy mortar with sand, and the results
were compared to the results of epoxy mortar with GCBA. The experi­
mental results provided insight into the properties of epoxy mortar
prepared using CBA and GCBA as sand replacement.
2. Materials and methods
Epoxy mortar was prepared by varying the proportion of epoxy resin,
types and content of micro fillers (fly ash and silica fume). Coal bottom
ash and ground coal bottom ash were used as filler to replace sand fully.
A comprehensive experiment program was carried out to determine the
properties of epoxy mortar produced.
2
Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677
2.1. Epoxy resin
Epoxy resin was produced by combining Bisphenol A resin and
Polyamide hardener at a ratio of 2:1. Based on the technical specifica­
tion, the resin and hardener could achieve a viscosity at 25 ◦ C of 12–15
mPa-s and 9–12 mPa-s, respectively. The density of resin was 1.05 g/cm3
while it was 1 g/cm3 for the hardener.
2.2. Fillers and micro fillers
In this study, coal bottom ash (CBA) and ground coal bottom ash
(GCBA) were used as filler to fully replace sand, while fly ash and silica
fume were used as micro fillers to produce epoxy mortar. CBA and fly
ash shown in Fig. 1(a) and (b) were collected from Kapar Energy Ven­
tures coal thermal power plant, Selangor, Malaysia. CBA was sieved
through a 4.75 mm sieve before being used in epoxy mortar production.
GCBA showed in Fig. 1(c), was obtained by grinding raw CBA using a
grinder and then sieved through a 300 µm sieve. A local dealer in
Malaysia supplied the silica fume, as shown in Fig. 1(d).
The sieve analysis and specific gravity of CBA and GCBA were
determined following ASTM D6913 [27] and ASTM D854 [28]. The
surface area and median size of fly ash and silica fume were evaluated
using the Mastersizer laser diffraction equipment. The particle size dis­
tribution results of CBA and GCBA were presented in Fig. 2. The median
particle size (D50) of silica fume and fly ash was 117 µm and 32 µm,
respectively. The measured surface area was 3176 cm2/g for silica fume
and 3487 cm2/g for fly ash. The specific gravity of CBA, GCBA, fly ash
and silica fume was recorded as 2.41, 2.45, 2.37 and 2.32, respectively.
While the bulk density of CBA, GCBA, fly ash, and silica fume was ob­
tained as 960 kg/m3, 1299 kg/m3, 1266 kg/m3 and 1073 kg/m3,
respectively.
The particle microstructures of CBA, GCBA, fly ash and silica fume,
are shown in Fig. 3. Macro-pores could be observed throughout the CBA
particle as shown in Fig. 3(a). The total porosity of CBA was measured
using the mercury intrusion porosimetry technique with the pressure in
the range of 2.68 to 61,000 psia. The total porosity of CBA was about
28%, where the macropores volume was about 86% of the total pore
volume in the CBA particles. Fig. 3(b) shows that GCBA comprised
irregularly shaped particles, while the fly ash particles were spherical
with smooth surface texture, as shown in Fig. 3(c). Fig. 3(d) shows the
agglomeration of silica fume particles where the particles were spheri­
cally shaped with a rough surface texture.
2.3. Mix proportions of epoxy mortar
The selection of an appropriate mix proportion of epoxy resin and
filler is essential to achieve satisfactory mechanical properties. No
design standards are available for mix proportions of epoxy mortar, and
various epoxy resin to filler ratios were investigated in previous studies
[1,6,7]. The parameters investigated in this study were: (i) the ratio of
epoxy resin to fillers, (ii) particle size of CBA, (iii) type of micro filler and
(iv) proportions of micro filler. In this study, micro fillers were used as a
replacement for coal bottom ash or ground coal bottom ash to achieve
high packing density at certain epoxy resin content. Three epoxy resin to
filler ratios investigated were 10:90, 20:80 and 30:70, as shown in
Table 1. The effects of the CBA particle size were studied using CBA with
a maximum size of 4.75 mm and GCBA with a maximum size of 300 μm.
Two types of micro filler, namely fly ash and silica fume were used as
partial filler replacement at the range of 5–20%. The detailed mix pro­
portions are presented in Table 1. The control samples were prepared by
using epoxy resin with Bisphenol A resin and Polyamide hardener at a
ratio of 2:1. The samples were named according to the ratio between
micro-filler to filler. For instance, the “5SF-95CBA” samples were pre­
pared using 5% silica fume (SF) and 95% CBA. It should be noted that
the proportions of micro filler and filler presented in Table 1 were
determined based on the varying epoxy resin content.
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

( a) ( b)

(c) (d)
Fig. 1. (a) CBA, (b) fly ash, (c) GCBA and (d) silica fume.

Fig. 2. Particle size distribution of coal bottom ash (CBA) and ground coal bottom ash (GCBA).

One mixture of epoxy mortar with sand was prepared using 30% epoxy mortar with sand were compared to the epoxy mortar with GCBA
epoxy resin and the fly ash to the sand ratio of 20:80. Sand passing 4.75 20FA-80GCBA at 30% epoxy resin content to evaluate the performance
mm sieve was used for the preparation of epoxy mortar. The results of of epoxy mortar with GCBA.

3
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

mortar was measured immediately after mixing by utilising a mini-

slump cone according to ASTM C230 [29].
Cylinders with 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height were prepared
to measure epoxy mortar’s density and water absorption according to
ASTM C642 [30]. The water absorption test was conducted by
immersing samples in a container filled with tap water at room tem­
perature. The mass of samples was recorded before immersion. The mass
of surface-dry samples was measured after 3, 7 and 14 days immersion to
determine the water absorption. The water absorption test was termi­
nated after 14 days, similar to previous studies [31,32] as it was reported
that water absorption only marginally increased after 14 days [6].
Cubes of 50 × 50 × 50 mm were cast at room temperature. After 24
h, the samples were demoulded and cured at room temperature for two
days. Fig. 4(a) shows four cubes of epoxy mortar at 30% epoxy resin
content with varied SF to CBA ratios of 5:95, 10:90, 15:85 and 20:80.
The compressive strength of epoxy mortar was determined following the
test procedure described in ASTM C109 [33]. The flexural strength was
(a) CBA determined using epoxy mortar prisms of 40 × 40 × 160 mm under
three-point bending following ASTM C293 [34], as shown in Fig. 4(b).
Cylinder samples with 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height were
prepared for the splitting tensile test according to ASTM C496 [35], as
shown in Fig. 4(c). The elastic modulus was determined using cylindrical
samples of 100 mm diameter and 200 mm height. A strain gauge of 20
mm long was attached to the middle of the cylinder to measure the strain
in the loading direction. The elastic modulus was calculated based on
ASTM C469 [36].
The epoxy mortar prisms of 40 × 40 × 160 mm were prepared for
shrinkage test according to BS EN 12617-2 [37]. The epoxy mortar
samples were exposed at room temperature and shrinkage was measured
at 3, 7 and 14 days using the test setup shown in Fig. 4(d). Three samples
(b) GCBA were prepared for all the tests conducted on epoxy mortar samples.

3. Results and discussion

This section describes the density, workability, mechanical proper­

ties, shrinkage and water absorption of epoxy mortar containing CBA,
GCBA, silica fume and fly ash.

3.1. Workability

Fig. 5 shows that the flow diameter of epoxy mortar with 10%, 20%
and 30% epoxy resin was in the range of 105–111 mm, 120–160 mm and
(c) Fly ash 150–190 mm, respectively. The results demonstrated that the flow
diameter increased as the epoxy resin content increased from 10% to
30%. These results showed that epoxy mortar with 10% epoxy resin was
very stiff, whereas epoxy mortar with 20% and 30% epoxy resin were
classified as stiff and moderate. The workability of epoxy mortar sam­
ples with CBA was slightly higher compared to the epoxy mortar with
GCBA. The particle size of GCBA was reduced in comparison to CBA, as
shown in Fig. 2. The finer GCBA particles led to the reduction of
workability due to the increased total surface area of particles.
At the same replacement percentage, the epoxy mortar with silica
fume demonstrated similar workability with the epoxy mortar with fly
ash, indicating that the types of micro filler have a negligible effect on
workability. As the content of micro fillers (silica fume or fly ash)
(d) Silica fume increased from 5% to 20%, the workability reduced, as shown in Fig. 5.
For instance, at 30% epoxy resin content, the workability reduced from
Fig. 3. Particle microstructures of (a) CBA, (b) GCBA, (c) fly ash and (d) sil­ 186 mm (5SF-95CBA) to 165 mm (20SF-80CBA) as the silica fume
ica fume. content increased from 5% to 20%. The reduction of workability as the
percentage of micro filler increased could be attributed to their finer
2.4. Methodology particle size and larger surface area than CBA and GCBA. The reduction
was more obvious for the samples with CBA compared to the samples
Filler and micro fillers were first dry mixed using a mortar mixer. with GCBA. For instance, at the 30% epoxy resin content, the flow
Then, epoxy resin was added, and the mixer rotational speed was set to diameter was reduced by about 30 mm for samples with CBA and 20%
60 ± 5 rpm [18] to produce a uniform mix. The workability of epoxy silica fume (20SF-80CBA) compared to samples with CBA and 5% silica
fume (5SF-95CBA), as shown in Fig. 5. For samples with GCBA at 30%

4
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

Table 1
Mix proportions of epoxy mortar.
Epoxy resin to filler ratio 10% Epoxy 20% Epoxy 30% Epoxy

10:90 20:80 30:70

CBA mixtures
ER CBA FA SF ER CBA FA SF ER CBA FA SF
5SF-95CBA 10 85.5 – 4.5 20 76 – 4 30 66.5 – 3.5
10SF-90CBA 10 81 – 9 20 72 – 8 30 63 – 7
15SF-85CBA 10 76.5 – 13.5 20 68 – 12 30 59.5 – 10.5
20SF-80CBA 10 72 – 18 20 64 – 16 30 56 – 14
5FA-95CBA 10 85.5 4.5 – 20 76 4 – 30 66.5 3.5 –
10FA-90CBA 10 81 9 – 20 72 8 – 30 63 7 –
15FA-85CBA 10 76.5 13.5 – 20 68 12 – 30 59.5 10.5 –
20FA-80CBA 10 72 18 – 20 64 16 – 30 56 14 –

GCBA mixtures
ER GCBA FA SF ER GCBA FA SF ER GCBA FA SF
5SF-95GCBA 10 85.5 – 4.5 20 76 – 4 30 66.5 – 3.5
10SF-90GCBA 10 81 – 9 20 72 – 8 30 63 – 7
15SF-85GCBA 10 76.5 – 13.5 20 68 – 12 30 59.5 – 10.5
20SF-80GCBA 10 72 – 18 20 64 – 16 30 56 – 14
5FA-95GCBA 10 85.5 4.5 – 20 76 4 – 30 66.5 3.5 –
10FA-90GCBA 10 81 9 – 20 72 8 – 30 63 7 –
15FA-85GCBA 10 76.5 13.5 – 20 68 12 – 30 59.5 10.5 –
20FA-80GCBA 10 72 18 – 20 64 16 – 30 56 14 –

Note all the materials are present in volume percentage.

ER: epoxy resin, CBA: coal bottom ash GCBA: ground coal bottom ash, FA: fly ash, SF: silica fume.

epoxy content, the reduction of flow diameter was about 20 mm when
silica fume replacement increased from 5% to 20%.
3.2. Density
The density of epoxy mortar is presented in Fig. 6. It could be seen
that the average density of the control samples was 1040 kg/m3. As the
filler content increased, the density of epoxy mortar increased due to the
higher specific gravity of fillers compared to epoxy resin. For instance,
the density of 5SF-95CBA samples reduced from 1700 kg/m3 to 1400
kg/m3 as the epoxy resin content increased from 10% to 30%. The
highest density recorded was about 1870 kg/m3 by 5FA-95GCBA sam­
ples with 10% epoxy resin content, while the lowest density of about
1300 kg/m3 was recorded by 20FA-80CBA samples with 30% epoxy
resin content.
Overall, the density of epoxy mortar samples with CBA was slightly
lower than the epoxy mortar with GCBA. The reduction in density could
be attributed to the porous structure of CBA increased the air voids in
epoxy mortar. By examining the results of the varying proportions of
micro fillers, it can be observed that the density decreased slightly as the
content of micro filler increased from 5% to 20% for both silica fume and
fly ash. This may be attributed to the slightly lower specific gravity of
silica fume (2.32) and fly ash (2.37) compared to the CBA (2.41) and
GCBA (2.45). These results showed that the density of epoxy mortar was
mainly affected by the ratio of epoxy resin to filler. The types of filler
considered in this study have negligible effects on the density since their
specific gravity was similar.
3.3. Water absorption
Water absorption is an essential factor for the durability of epoxy
mortar. The texture and size of fillers are crucial parameters that in­
fluence water absorption. The porous fillers lead to higher water ab­
sorption, while micro fillers fill the voids of epoxy mortar and reduce the
water absorption. The water absorption results after 3, 7 and 14 days of
exposure are shown in Fig. 7. It could be observed that the average water
absorption of the control samples (epoxy resin) remained almost con­
stant at 0.04% up to 14 days. The water absorption of the control
samples was very low as the epoxy resin was a waterproofing material.
Water absorption of epoxy mortar was higher than the epoxy resin
due to the existence of pores in the epoxy mortar, as shown in Fig. 7.
Macro pores could be identified as irregular shaped dark spots with
different sizes distributed throughout the sample. Ferdous et al. [4]
observed that the porosity of polymer concrete increased as the filler
content increased. Water absorption of epoxy mortar decreased as the
epoxy resin content increased from 10% to 30%. The increase in epoxy
resin content contributed to reduced pores in the epoxy mortar, which
could be observed by comparing Fig. 8(a) and (b) for CBA samples 20SF-
80CBA at 20% and 30% epoxy content. Fig. 8(c) and (d) show reduced
pores as the epoxy resin content increased from 20% to 30% for epoxy
mortar samples with GCBA 20SF-80GCBA. The reduction in water ab­
sorption was more significant in samples with CBA compared to samples
with GCBA as the epoxy resin content increased. The water absorption of
5SF-95CBA samples with 10% epoxy resin was about 0.4%. It reduced to
about 0.25% as the epoxy resin content increased to 30%.
The water absorption of epoxy mortar with CBA was higher than the
epoxy mortar with GCBA. It has been reported that air voids in concrete
could be related to hollow infill particles [38]. The presence of air voids
due to the porous CBA particles may increase water absorption. Fig. 8(a)
and (b) show that CBA epoxy mortar samples (20SF-80CBA) at 20% and
30% epoxy resin content demonstrated a greater number of pores than
the GCBA epoxy mortar samples (20SF-80GCBA) at the same epoxy
content, shown in Fig. 8(c) and (d). It was reported that CBA particles
demonstrated a 24 h water absorption of about 37% [39]. Grinding
could effectively reduce water absorption of CBA particles [25]. It was
also reported that concrete with CBA demonstrated higher water ab­
sorption than concrete with sand as the CBA content increased due to the
porous structures of CBA [40].
As the content of silica fume and fly ash increased in epoxy mortar,
the water absorption reduced. A similar observation was reported by
Singh et al. [12] for epoxy mortar incorporated with fly ash, red mud
and silica fume as sand replacement. The reduction was more significant
in the samples with CBA compared to the samples with GCBA. This could
be attributed to the fine particles of silica fume and fly ash filling the
voids between the epoxy resin and CBA particles. The reduction of water
absorption of epoxy mortar samples incorporated with increased micro
fillers content was in the range of 20–55%, 10–38% and 10–43% at 3, 7
and 14 days, respectively. By comparing the results of different types of
micro fillers, the epoxy mortar with silica fume demonstrated slightly
lower water absorption than the epoxy mortar with fly ash.

5
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

The results also revealed that water absorption of epoxy mortar

increased as the exposure duration increased. The water absorption for
all epoxy mortar samples at 14 days was around 4–5 times higher than
the water absorption at three days. 5SF-95CBA samples recorded the
highest water absorption of 1.6% at 10% epoxy resin content. These
results showed that the increased content of the epoxy resin and micro
fillers (silica fume or fly ash) could reduce water absorption of epoxy
mortar. Water absorption of epoxy mortar with GCBA was significantly
lower than epoxy mortar with CBA. The lowest water absorption of
0.35% at 14 days was recorded by 20SF-80GCBA at 30% epoxy resin
content, which was about 10 times higher than the control samples.

3.4. Compressive strength

(a)
Fig. 9 presents the average compressive strength of the epoxy mortar
containing different proportions of epoxy resin, fillers and micro fillers.
The results showed that the compressive strength of the control samples
(epoxy resin) was 69 MPa. The compressive strength of epoxy mortar
was lower than the epoxy resin, which could be attributed to the reduced
epoxy resin content. The compressive strength of epoxy mortar
increased as the content of epoxy resin increased. From the results of
20FA-80GCBA samples, it could be observed that the compressive
strength increased from 32 MPa to 45 MPa as the epoxy resin content
increased from 10% to 30%. Increased epoxy resin content enhanced the
adhesion bonding between the filler particles, thus contributing to
higher compressive strength.
(b) At the same epoxy resin and micro fillers content, the epoxy mortar
with CBA showed 30–60% lower compressive strength than the epoxy
mortar with GCBA. This could be attributed to the weak structure of
CBA, which mainly comprised of fused coarser ash particles. Previous
studies [22,40] reported that the compressive strength of concrete at
seven days reduced as the percentage of CBA increased due to the weak
structures of CBA compared to sand. Ferdous et al. [1] reported that the
strength of filler was one of the governing parameters for mechanical
properties of the epoxy matrix as the failure was initiated in the fillers
due to the strong bonding of epoxy resin at the resin and filler interface.
GCBA was produced by grinding CBA, which eliminated the weak fusion
between coarser ash particles. This could reduce the risk of failure
initiation in the fillers and contribute to a higher compressive strength of
epoxy mortar. Furthermore, the higher surface area and finer particles of
(c) GCBA led to a higher packing density of epoxy mortar, thus contributed
to higher compressive strength.
By observing the results of different types of micro fillers shown in
Fig. 9, the compressive strength of epoxy mortar increased as the micro
filler content increased from 5% to 20% while the content of epoxy resin
remained constant. These results indicated that micro fillers signifi­
cantly affected the compressive strength of epoxy mortar. It was
observed that compressive strength increased as sand washing waste
was used as filler up to 20 wt% for epoxy mortar with the epoxy resin
content up to 25 wt% [15]. It was also reported that fly ash reduced air
void in the epoxy mortar, and the highest compressive strength was
achieved by incorporating 10% of fly ash to replace epoxy resin [7]. The
epoxy mortar with silica fume showed a lower compressive strength
than the epoxy mortar with fly ash, due to the agglomeration of silica
fume, as shown in Fig. 3(d). Barbuta et al. [8] reported that epoxy
concrete with fly ash demonstrated higher compressive strength than
(d) epoxy concrete with silica fume. The difference increased as the content
of epoxy resin increased.
Fig. 4. (a) mortar cubes for compressive strength test, (b) experimental setup
for flexural tensile test, (c) experimental setup for splitting tensile test and (d) 3.5. Splitting tensile strength
experimental setup for shrinkage test.
Fig. 10 presents the splitting tensile strength of epoxy mortar. The
average splitting tensile strength of the control samples was 12.8 MPa.
The splitting tensile strength of epoxy mortar was lower than the epoxy
resin. The splitting tensile strength increased as the epoxy resin to fillers
ratio increased from 10% to 30%. The increased epoxy resin content

6
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

200

160

Workability (mm)
120

80

40

0 5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA

10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA

15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA
Specimen

10 %epoxy 20 %epoxy 30 %epoxy

Fig. 5. Workability of epoxy mortar.

2000

1800
Densilty (kg/m3)

1600

1400

1200

1000

800
Control

5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA

10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA

15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA

Specimen
10 %epoxy 20 %epoxy 30 %epoxy

Fig. 6. Density of epoxy mortar.

enhanced the adhesion bonding of fillers, leading to higher splitting content increased from 5% to 20%. Similar results were reported by
tensile strength. The trend of results was similar to previous studies [1,4,8] that the incorporation of micro fillers improves the epoxy matrix
[4,41], where increase of filler content decreased the splitting tensile splitting tensile strength. The epoxy mortar with silica fume demon­
strength of the epoxy matrix. strated 3–21% lower splitting tensile strength than the epoxy mortar
Meanwhile, the epoxy mortar with CBA showed 36–62% lower with fly ash. It was reported that for epoxy concrete at a 12.4% epoxy
splitting tensile strength than the epoxy mortar with GCBA. This could resin content, the splitting tensile strength increased as the content of fly
be attributed to the weak porous structure of CBA and this led to failure ash and silica fume increased from 6.4% to 12.8% [8]. The epoxy con­
initiation within CBA. Furthermore, finer particles of GCBA could crete with fly ash demonstrated slightly higher splitting tensile strength
contribute to high packing density and higher strength compared to CBA than epoxy concrete with silica fume.
particles. The highest splitting tensile strength recorded for samples
with CBA was 4.6 MPa by 20FA-80CBA at 30% epoxy resin content. For
samples with GCBA at the same epoxy resin and micro filler content 3.6. Flexural strength
(20FA-80GCBA at 30% epoxy resin), the splitting tensile strength
recorded was 8.2 MPa, about two times higher than the samples with The flexural strength of epoxy mortar with different epoxy resin to
CBA. filler ratios and various types of fillers are depicted in Fig. 11. The
The results showed that both types of micro fillers could improve the average flexural strength of the control samples was 15 MPa. The flex­
splitting tensile strength as the content of micro filler increased. At the ural strength of epoxy mortar was lower than the epoxy resin and it
epoxy resin content of 30%, the splitting tensile strength increased from reduced as the content of epoxy resin decreased. The increased epoxy
3 MPa (5SF-95GCBA) to 7 MPa (20SF-80GCBA) when the silica fume resin content enhanced the adhesion bonding at the interface of epoxy
resin and fillers, thus leading to higher flexural strength [4,41]. The

7
 M.T. Lakhiar et al.

(c)
(b)
(a)

Water absorption (%) Water absorption (%) Water absorption (%)

0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6

0
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5

0.4
0.8
1.2
1.6

0
Control Control Control

5SF-95CBA 5SF-95CBA 5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA 10SF-90CBA 10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA 15SF-85CBA 15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA 20SF-80CBA 20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA 5FA-95CBA 5FA-95CBA

10% epoxy

10% epoxy

10% epoxy
10FA-90CBA 10FA-90CBA 10FA-90CBA

8
15FA-85CBA 15FA-85CBA 15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA 20FA-80CBA 20FA-80CBA

20% epoxy

20% epoxy

20% epoxy
Specimen

Specimen

Specimen
5SF-95GCBA 5SF-95GCBA 5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA 10SF-90GCBA 10SF-90GCBA

30% epoxy
30% epoxy

30% epoxy
15SF-85GCBA 15SF-85GCBA 15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA 20SF-80GCBA 20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA 5FA-95GCBA 5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA 10FA-90GCBA 10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA 15FA-85GCBA 15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA 20FA-80GCBA 20FA-80GCBA

Fig. 7. Water absorption of epoxy mortar after (a) 3 days of exposure, (b) 7 days of exposure, and (c) 14 days of exposure.
Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

flexural strength of epoxy mortar with GCBA was higher compared to

the epoxy mortar with CBA due to the elimination of weak fusion in CBA
particles and finer particles of GCBA. At the same epoxy resin and micro
filler content, the epoxy mortar with CBA achieved flexural strength of
6.2 MPa (20SF-80CBA samples) while it was 9.6 MPa for epoxy mortar
with GCBA (20SF-80GCBA samples) at the epoxy resin content of 30%.
On the other hand, the flexural strength of epoxy mortar improved
with the increased content of micro fillers. Reis [13] reported improved
flexural strength of epoxy polymer mortar with up to 30% of sand
replacement using red mud. Yemam et al. [15] observed improved
flexural strength of epoxy mortar by using sand washing waste as filler
to replace sand content. The percentages of sand washing waste
considered were 10% and 20%, while the epoxy resin content ranged
from 10 wt% to 25 wt%. The trend of results observed in this study was
(a) consistent with the previous studies [13,15] because the micro fillers
were used as a replacement for CBA and GCBA. It is worth noting that an
opposite trend was observed where increasing fly ash content reduced
flexural strength [7]. The reduction of flexural strength was due to
reduced epoxy resin content as fly ash was used as a replacement for
epoxy resin. By comparing the effect of silica fume and fly ash on epoxy
mortar, the results showed that the epoxy mortar with fly ash demon­
strated 3–19% higher flexural strength compared to the epoxy mortar
with silica fume. In general, the results of flexural strength demonstrated
the same trend as splitting tensile strength and compressive strength.

3.7. Modulus of elasticity

The modulus of elasticity for epoxy mortar is presented in Fig. 12.

The control sample showed the highest modulus of elasticity of 39.8
(b) GPa. The modulus of elasticity of epoxy mortar was lower than the
epoxy resin, where the lowest modulus of elasticity of 13.5 GPa was
recorded by the samples 5SF-95CBA at the epoxy resin content of 10%.
The highest modulus of elasticity of 31.6 GPa was recorded by 20FA-
80GCBA samples at the epoxy resin content of 30%. It could be seen
that the epoxy resin content has a significant influence on the modulus
of elasticity, where the increase of epoxy resin content improved the
modulus of elasticity. Similar outcomes have been reported by [15,16].
In contrast, a reduction in the modulus of elasticity was observed for
epoxy mortar with CBA compared to the epoxy mortar with GCBA,
which could be attributed to the weak fusion of CBA particles. The
percentage of reduction ranged from 20% to 35%, depending on the
epoxy resin and micro filler content. It has been reported that the
modulus of elasticity reduced almost linearly with the increase in
replacement levels of sand with coal bottom ash in concrete [40].
(c) It could be observed that the modulus of elasticity increased 40–80%
as the content of micro filler increased from 5% to 20%. Lokuge and
Aravinthan [7] reported an increase of modulus of elasticity as fly ash
content increased up to 20% for the polymer mortar with different types
of resin. By comparing the effects of two types of micro fillers, the epoxy
mortar with silica fume demonstrated a slightly lower modulus of
elasticity than the epoxy mortar with fly ash at the same epoxy resin and
micro filler content. The modulus of elasticity for all epoxy mortar
samples with silica fume was in the range of 11–30 GPa. The modulus of
elasticity for all epoxy mortar samples with fly ash was in the range of
12–31.5 GPa. These results showed that an increase of epoxy resin up to
30% and micro filler up to 20% by volume could increase the modulus of
elasticity of epoxy mortar.

(d)
Fig. 8. Microstructure of epoxy mortar with CBA sample 20SF-80CBA at (a)
20% epoxy resin content (b) 30% epoxy resin content; epoxy mortar with GCBA
sample 20SF-80GCBA at (c) 20% epoxy resin content (d) 20% epoxy
resin content.
3.8. Shrinkage
In this study, the shrinkage of epoxy mortar was recorded at 3, 7 and
14 days. The shrinkage results are shown in Fig. 13. The curing process
of epoxy resin is an exothermic process causing the volume expansion
where the maximum temperature recorded during curing was 75◦ C [1].
Shrinkage was observed as the epoxy resin cooled down. The shrinkage
of epoxy mortar was lower than epoxy resin, which clearly indicated

9
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

70
60

Compressive strength (MPa)

50
40
30
20
10
0

5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA

10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA

15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA
Control

Specimen

10% epoxy 20% epoxy 30% epoxy

Fig. 9. Compressive strength of epoxy mortar tested after three days of curing.

Fig. 10. Splitting tensile strength of epoxy mortar tested after three days of curing.

that fillers improved the dimensional stability of epoxy mortar [14,17]. exposure duration increased up to 14 days. For epoxy mortar samples
It was observed that the maximum temperature reduced as the filler with GCBA at 30% epoxy content, the shrinkage at 14 days was in the
content increased [1]. Thus the epoxy mortar with 10% epoxy resin range of − 0.02 to − 0.027, where the difference was caused by the micro
showed the lowest shrinkage at 3, 7 and 14 days compared to the epoxy filler content. The shrinkage of epoxy mortar with GCBA at 30% epoxy
mortar with higher epoxy resin content using the same type and content content was about four times lower than the epoxy resin at 14 days. For
of filler, as shown in Fig. 13(a), (b) and (c). epoxy mortar with CBA at 30% epoxy content, the shrinkage at 14 days
The epoxy mortar with GCBA showed a lower shrinkage than the was about two times lower than the epoxy resin. The shrinkage of epoxy
epoxy mortar with CBA because finer GCBA particles contributed to the mortar samples produced with GCBA could be classified as very low,
high packing density and low compressibility. It was reported that sand based on the classification of repair materials as the recorded shrinkage
washing waste increased shrinkage of the epoxy mortar due to higher for most of the mixes was less than 0.025% [42]. In contrast, most epoxy
compressibility than sand [14], even though the sand washing waste mortar samples with CBA could be classified as low shrinkage as they
was much finer than sand. Meanwhile, the shrinkage decreased as the recorded shrinkage less than 0.05%.
content of the micro filler increased, which could be attributed to fine
particles of silica fume or fly ash filling the voids between filler particles 4. Comparison between epoxy mortar with GCBA and epoxy
and producing epoxy mortar with a dense microstructure. mortar with sand
It was observed that the control samples recorded average shrinkage
of − 0.06% at three days and increased to − 0.1 at 14 days. These results The experimental results of epoxy mortar with sand consisted of 30%
showed that 60% of shrinkage occurred at three days for the epoxy resin. epoxy resin, and the fly ash to the sand ratio of 20:80 were compared to
The results demonstrated that epoxy mortar shrinkage increased as the the epoxy mortar with GCBA 20FA-80GCBA at 30% epoxy resin content

10
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

16

14

Flexural strength (MPa)

12

10

0
Control

5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA

10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA

15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA
Specimen
10%epoxy 20%epoxy 30%epoxy

Fig. 11. Flexural strength of epoxy mortar tested after three days of curing.

40

30
MOE (GPa)

20

10

0
5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA

10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA

15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA

5FA-95GCBA

10FA-90GCBA

15FA-85GCBA

20FA-80GCBA
Control

Specimen
10% epoxy 20% epoxy 30% epoxy

Fig. 12. Modulus of elasticity of epoxy mortar tested after three days of curing.

in Table 2. It could be observed that the workability of epoxy mortar adopting various types of macro and micro fillers.
with GCBA was 14% lower than epoxy mortar with sand. This could be The shrinkage of epoxy mortar with GCBA was about 49% lower than
attributed to the finer particles of GCBA (passing 300 μm sieve) the epoxy mortar with sand. The shrinkage of epoxy mortar with GCBA
compared to sand (passing 4.75 mm sieve). Fine particles showed higher could be classified as very low, while the epoxy mortar with sand could
surface area, thus increased the resistance to flow and resulted in lower be classified as low [42]. One possible reason for shrinkage reduction
workability. The water absorption of epoxy mortar with GCBA at 14 could be due to the finer particles of GCBA improved the packing density
days was 0.37%, i.e. three times higher than the epoxy mortar with sand. of epoxy mortar. These results showed that epoxy mortar with GCBA
Furthermore, the elastic modulus, compressive strength, splitting might perform better as a repair material than epoxy mortar with sand,
tensile strength and flexural strength of epoxy mortar with GCBA was where the volume stability is critical due to its lower shrinkage.
about 17%, 29%, 26% and 25% lower than the epoxy mortar with sand, Furthermore, the epoxy mortar with GCBA (passing 300 μm) could be
respectively. The decrease in elastic modulus and mechanical strength of used to seal fine cracks in concrete structures compared to the epoxy
epoxy mortar with GCBA could be attributed to the finer size of GCBA mortar with sand (passing 4.75 mm).
than sand, thus demanding a high amount of epoxy resin to develop the
same level of cohesive bonding between the GCBA with the epoxy ma­ 5. Conclusion
trix. Jafari et al. [5] observed that mechanical strengths increased as
aggregates size increased due to the decreased surface area to volume This study investigated the workability, water absorption, shrinkage
ratio of epoxy resin, thus allowed the polymer to completely coat the and mechanical properties of epoxy mortar produced using coal bottom
surface of aggregates. A similar observation was reported by Rao [41], ash as filler to fully replace sand. The parameters investigated include
which examined the strength characteristics of epoxy matrix by the epoxy resin to filler ratio, size of coal bottom ash, types and content

11
 M.T. Lakhiar et al.

(a)

Shrinkage (%)

(c)
Shrinkage (%) Shrinkage (%)

(b)
-0.1

-0.12
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0

-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
-0.12
-0.1
-0.08
-0.06
-0.04
-0.02
0
Control Control Control

5SF-95CBA 5SF-95CBA 5SF-95CBA

10SF-90CBA 10SF-90CBA 10SF-90CBA

15SF-85CBA 15SF-85CBA 15SF-85CBA

20SF-80CBA 20SF-80CBA 20SF-80CBA

5FA-95CBA 5FA-95CBA 5FA-95CBA

10 %epoxy

10 %epoxy
10 %epoxy

10FA-90CBA 10FA-90CBA 10FA-90CBA

15FA-85CBA 15FA-85CBA

12
15FA-85CBA

20FA-80CBA

20 %epoxy
20 %epoxy

20FA-80CBA

20 %epoxy
20FA-80CBA

5SF-95GCBA 5SF-95GCBA 5SF-95GCBA

10SF-90GCBA 10SF-90GCBA 10SF-90GCBA

30 %epoxy

30 %epoxy
30 %epoxy
15SF-85GCBA 15SF-85GCBA 15SF-85GCBA

20SF-80GCBA 20SF-80GCBA
20SF-80GCBA
5FA-95GCBA 5FA-95GCBA
5FA-95GCBA

Fig. 13. Shrinkage of epoxy mortar at (a) 3 days (b) 7 days (c) 14 days.
10FA-90GCBA 10FA-90GCBA
10FA-90GCBA
15FA-85GCBA 15FA-85GCBA
15FA-85GCBA
20FA-80GCBA 20FA-80GCBA
20FA-80GCBA
Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677
M.T. Lakhiar et al. Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677

Table 2 University under Australia-Malaysia Travel Grant Scheme and Faculty-

Properties of epoxy mortar using GCBA and sand as fillers. School Joint PhD Scholarship program.
Properties Epoxy mortar with GCBA Epoxy mortar with
(20FA-80GCBA at 30% epoxy sand References
resin content)

Workability (mm) 148 173
Water absorption at 14 0.37 0.12
days (%)
Compressive strength 45 63
(MPa)
Splitting tensile strength 8.2 11.1
(MPa)
Flexural strength (MPa) 9.6 12.7
Elasticity modulus (GPa) 31.6 37.9
Shrinkage at 14 days (%) − 0.0206 − 0.0405
of micro fillers. The following conclusions could be drawn based on the
experimental results attained:
• An increase of epoxy resin content from 10% to 30% improved the
workability, mechanical properties and reduced water absorption of
epoxy mortar irrespective of coal bottom ash size and types and
amount of micro filler. Shrinkage of epoxy mortar increased as the
epoxy resin content increased.
• Ground coal bottom ash passing a 300 μm sieve demonstrated better
performance as filler in epoxy mortar than coal bottom ash passing
4.75 mm sieve. Epoxy mortar with ground coal bottom ash achieved
higher mechanical strengths, lower water absorption and better
dimensional stability than the epoxy mortar with coal bottom ash.
The workability reduced slightly for epoxy mortar with ground coal
bottom ash than the epoxy mortar with coal bottom.
• The incorporation of 20% micro fillers by volume into epoxy mortar
improved mechanical properties, reduced water absorption and
shrinkage compared to the epoxy mortar with 5% of micro fillers.
Epoxy mortar with fly ash demonstrated slightly better performance
than the epoxy mortar with silica fume.
• Epoxy mortar with ground coal bottom ash demonstrated lower
workability, shrinkage and mechanical strengths compared to the
epoxy mortar with sand at the same epoxy resin and micro filler
content. The water absorption of epoxy mortar with ground coal
bottom ash was higher than epoxy mortar with sand. Epoxy mortar
with GCBA maybe performs better as a repair material than epoxy
mortar with sand, where the volume stability is critical due to its
lower shrinkage.
CRediT authorship contribution statement
Muhammad Tahir Lakhiar: Data curation, Formal analysis, Inves­
tigation, Methodology, Visualization, Writing – original draft. Yu Bai:
Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing –
review & editing. Leong Sing Wong: Investigation, Writing – review &
editing. Suvash Chandra Paul: Investigation, Methodology, Writing –
review & editing. Vivi Anggraini: Investigation, Writing – review &
editing. Sih Ying Kong: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition,
Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Super­
vision, Writing – review & editing.
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.
Acknowledgement
The authors acknowledge financial support provided by Monash
[1] W. Ferdous, A. Manalo, T. Aravinthan, G. Van Erp, Properties of epoxy polymer
concrete matrix: effect of resin-to-filler ratio and determination of optimal mix for
composite railway sleepers, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016) 287–300.
[2] W. Ferdous, A. Manalo, G. Van Erp, T. Aravinthan, K. Ghabraie, Evaluation of an
innovative composite railway sleeper for a narrow-gauge track under static load,
J. Compos. Constr. 22 (2) (2018) 04017050, https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
CC.1943-5614.0000833.
[3] J. Wang, Q. Dai, S. Guo, R. Si, Mechanical and durability performance evaluation
of crumb rubber-modified epoxy polymer concrete overlays, Constr. Build. Mater.
203 (2019) 469–480.
[4] W. Ferdous, A. Manalo, H.S. Wong, R. Abousnina, O.S. AlAjarmeh, Y. Zhuge,
P. Schubel, Optimal design for epoxy polymer concrete based on mechanical
properties and durability aspects, Constr. Build. Mater. 232 (2020) 117229,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117229.
[5] K. Jafari, M. Tabatabaeian, A. Joshaghani, T. Ozbakkaloglu, Optimizing the
mixture design of polymer concrete: an experimental investigation, Constr. Build.
Mater. 167 (2018) 185–196.
[6] W. Maherzi, I. Ennahal, M. Benzerzour, Y. Mammindy-Pajany, N.-E. Abriak, Study
of the polymer mortar based on dredged sediments and epoxy resin: effect of the
sediments on the behavior of the polymer mortar, Powder Technol. 361 (2020)
968–982.
[7] W. Lokuge, T. Aravinthan, Effect of fly ash on the behaviour of polymer concrete
with different types of resin, Mater. Des. 51 (2013) 175–181.
[8] M. Bărbuţă, M. Harja, I. Baran, Comparison of mechanical properties for polymer
concrete with different types of filler, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 22 (7) (2010) 696–701.
[9] J. Hodul, L. Mészárosová, R. Drochytka, A. Struhárová, Polymer repair products
containing fly ash contaminated by denitrification process, Constr. Build. Mater.
267 (2021) 120641, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.120641.
[10] C. Wu, P. Feng, Y. Bai, Y. Lu, Epoxy enhanced by recycled milled carbon fibres in
adhesively-bonded CFRP for structural strengthening, Polymers 6 (1) (2014)
76–92.
[11] S.T. Cholake, G. Moran, B. Joe, Y.u. Bai, R.K. Singh Raman, X.L. Zhao, S. Rizkalla,
S. Bandyopadhyay, Improved Mode I fracture resistance of CFRP composites by
reinforcing epoxy matrix with recycled short milled carbon fibre, Constr. Build.
Mater. 111 (2016) 399–407.
[12] G. Singh, H. Kumar, S. Singh, Performance evaluation-PET resin composite
composed of red mud, fly ash and silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 214 (2019)
527–538.
[13] J.M.L. Reis, Fracture and flexural assessment of red mud in epoxy polymer mortars,
Mater. Struct. 48 (12) (2015) 3929–3936.
[14] B.K. Rajeshwar, D. Molla Yemam, I. Jang, C. Yi, The effects of sand washing waste
and microwave curing on the dimensional stability of epoxy mortar, Constr. Build.
Mater. 250 (2020) 118892, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118892.
[15] D.M. Yemam, B.-J. Kim, J.-Y. Moon, C. Yi, Mechanical properties of epoxy resin
mortar with sand washing waste as filler, Materials (Basel) 10 (3) (2017) 246.
[16] J. Yeon, Deformability of bisphenol A-type epoxy resin-based polymer concrete
with different hardeners and fillers, Appl. Sci. 10 (4) (2020) 1336.
[17] Y. Shen, J. Huang, X. Ma, F. Hao, J. Lv, Experimental study on the free shrinkage of
lightweight polymer concrete incorporating waste rubber powder and ceramsite,
Compos. Struct. 242 (2020) 112152, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
compstruct.2020.112152.
[18] N.H.A. Khalid, M.W. Hussin, J. Mirza, N.F. Ariffin, M.A. Ismail, H.-S. Lee,
A. Mohamed, R.P. Jaya, Palm oil fuel ash as potential green micro-filler in polymer
concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 102 (2016) 950–960.
[19] M.M. Khotbehsara, A. Manalo, T. Aravinthan, K.R. Reddy, W. Ferdous, H. Wong,
A. Nazari, Effect of elevated in-service temperature on the mechanical properties
and microstructure of particulate-filled epoxy polymers, Polym. Degrad. Stab. 170
(2019) 108994, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.polymdegradstab.2019.108994.
[20] M.M. Khotbehsara, A. Manalo, T. Aravinthan, W. Ferdous, K.T.Q. Nguyen, G. Hota,
Ageing of particulate-filled epoxy resin under hygrothermal conditions, Constr.
Build. Mater. 249 (2020) 118846, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
conbuildmat.2020.118846.
[21] M. Singh, 1 – Coal bottom ash, in: R. Siddique, P. Cachim (Eds.), Waste and
Supplementary Cementitious Materials in Concrete, Woodhead Publishing, 2018,
pp. 3–50.
[22] M. Singh, R. Siddique, Compressive strength, drying shrinkage and chemical
resistance of concrete incorporating coal bottom ash as partial or total replacement
of sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 68 (2014) 39–48.
[23] M. Singh, R. Siddique, Effect of coal bottom ash as partial replacement of sand on
workability and strength properties of concrete, J. Cleaner Prod. 112 (2016)
620–630.
[24] R. Rodríguez-Álvaro, B. González-Fonteboa, S. Seara-Paz, E.J. Rey-Bouzón,
Masonry mortars, precast concrete and masonry units using coal bottom ash as a
partial replacement for conventional aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 283 (2021)
122737, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.122737.
[25] A. Abdulmatin, W. Tangchirapat, C. Jaturapitakkul, An investigation of bottom ash
as a pozzolanic material, Constr. Build. Mater. 186 (2018) 155–162.
[26] Ali S. Strength prediction and durability performance of concrete containing coal
bottom ash as supplementary cementitious material under aggressive environment:
Universiti Tun Hussein Onn Malaysia; 2019.

13
M.T. Lakhiar et al.
[27] ASTM D6913/D6913M–17, Standard Test Methods for Particle-Size Distribution
(Gradation) of Soils Using Sieve Analysis, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2017.
[28] ASTM D854–14, Standard Test Methods for Specific Gravity of Soil Solids by Water
Pycnometer, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014.
[29] ASTM C230, Standard Specification for Flow Table for Use in Tests of Hydraulic
Cement, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[30] ASTM C642–13, Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in
Hardened Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013.
[31] G. Guzel, O. Sivrikaya, H. Deveci, The use of colemanite and ulexite as novel fillers
in epoxy composites: influences on thermal and physico-mechanical properties,
Compos. B Eng. 100 (2016) 1–9.
[32] B. Dębska, L. Lichołai, The effect of the type of curing agent on selected properties
of epoxy mortar modified with PET glycolisate, Constr. Build. Mater. 124 (2016)
11–19.
[33] ASTM C109/C109M-21, Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of
Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or [50 mm] Cube Specimens), ASTM
International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2021.
[34] ASTM C293/C293M–16, Standard Test Method for Flexural Strength of Concrete
(Using Simple Beam With Center-Point Loading), ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2016.
[35] ASTM C496–96, Standard Test Method for Splitting Tensile Strength of Cylindrical
Concrete Specimens, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 1996.
14
Construction and Building Materials 315 (2022) 125677
[36] ASTM C469–94, Standard Test Method for Static Modulus of Elasticity and
Poisson’s Ratio of Concrete in Compression, ASTM International, West
Conshohocken, PA, 1994.
[37] B.S. En 12617–4:2002, Products and Systems for the Protection and Repair of
Concrete Structures. Test Methods Determination of Shrinkage and Expansion,
British Standards Institution, London, 2002.
[38] R. Abousnina, A. Manalo, W. Lokuge, Z. Zhang, Effects of light crude oil
contamination on the physical and mechanical properties of geopolymer cement
mortar, Cem. Concr. Compos. 90 (2018) 136–149.
[39] R. Rodríguez-Álvaro, B. González-Fonteboa, S. Seara-Paz, K.M.A. Hossain,
Internally cured high performance concrete with magnesium based expansive
agent using coal bottom ash particles as water reservoirs, Constr. Build. Mater. 251
(2020) 118977, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118977.
[40] M. Singh, R. Siddique, Strength properties and micro-structural properties of
concrete containing coal bottom ash as partial replacement of fine aggregate,
Constr. Build. Mater. 50 (2014) 246–256.
[41] P.V. Chandrasekhara Rao, Effects of matrix modification on mechanical and
durability characteristics of polymer composites through variations in micro fillers,
macro fillers and fibers, Constr. Build. Mater. 235 (2020) 117505, https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.117505.
[42] H. Peter, A.M.V. Emmons, Performance Criteria for Concrete Repair Materials:
Phase I, U.S Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, 1995.