Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) xxx–xxx

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Case Studies in Construction Materials

journal homepa ge: www.elsevier .com/ locate /cscm

Case study

Carbon nano-tube as water reducer in CDOT Class E 12 hrconcrete mix

Malay Mayank Patel, Caroline M. Clevenger*, Moatassem AbdallahDepartment of Civil Engineering, University of Colorado Denver, Campus Box 113, P.O. Box 173364, Denver, Colorado, 80217, United States

A R T I C L E I N F O

Article history:

Received 31 May 2018Received in revised form 2 October 2018Accepted 5 October 2018

Keywords:Carbon nano-tubesAdmixtureConcrete mix designConcrete pavement

* Corresponding author.E-mail addresses: malay.patel@ucdenve

(M. Abdallah).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e002072214-5095/© 2018 The Authors. Publishedlicenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

r.edu (M

by Elsev

A B S T R A C T

To address maintenance and durability issues for concrete pavement, the City and Countyof Denver explored the use of carbon nano-tube admixtures. This research documents thehardened and fresh properties of two mix designs that use carbon nano-tube admixture asa water reducer. The authors performed compressive strength, slump and air-entrainmenttests. Results indicate that the 3 gallon-per-yard (GPY) (14.85 l/m3) mix provides both thehighest slump and the highest compressive strength, while meeting the air-entrainmentspecifications for Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) Class E 12 h Concrete Mix.While additional testing is recommended to evaluate long-term maintenance impacts,initial results are promising and suggest that adoption of a 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix may be aviable alternative for CDOT. The contribution of this research is to document preliminarylaboratory and in-situ testing of carbon nano-tube admixtures in concrete pavement mixdesign.© 2018 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC

BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

1. Introduction

The Street Maintenance Department of City and County of Denver faces numerous maintenance issues involving largecracks in their concrete pavement due primarily to 1) heavy load from running vehicles, 2) the use of de-icing salts likemagnesium chloride (MgCl2), and 3) possible additional effect of freeze-thaw cycles. In fall of 2016, as a potentialmaintenance improvement, the City and County of Denver decided to test the use of carbon nano-tube admixture known as“EdenCrete” as a partial water replacement in their standard mix design because its ability to reduce the permeability ofconcrete. The selected location for the concrete testing using various mix proportions was East Speer Boulevard nearintersection of 6th Avenue and Lincoln Street as shown in Fig. 1. Various tests were conducted to assess the performance andworkability of the “EdenCrete” admixture to inform the decision of whether or not to use this admixture for future concretepavement construction; and if so, what proportion of admixture is the best.

Carbon nano-tubes are sub microscopic cylinders of carbon that are roughly 15�50 nm in diameter and longer than20 mm in length [1]. Carbon nano-tubes are very light with a mass density of �1.6 g/cm�3, and have unusual thermal,electrical and mechanical properties. They are also very strong and can provide 100–300 more tensile strength than varioussteel types and are up to 30 times stronger than kevlar. When used in concrete, Carbon nano-tubes create enhanced bondsbetween cement paste and aggregate, which results in greater compressive strength and pull-out capacity for the concretesince the aggregate may break or fail before the concrete itself [2]. Carbon nano-tube admixture has been tested and

.M. Patel), caroline.clevenger@ucdenver.edu (C.M. Clevenger), moatassem.abdallah@ucdenver.edu

ier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/mailto:malay.patel@ucdenver.edumailto:caroline.clevenger@ucdenver.edumailto:moatassem.abdallah@ucdenver.eduhttps://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00207http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cscm.2018.e00207http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/22145095www.elsevier.com/locate/cscm

Fig. 1. Site location and condition of concrete pavement to be replaced by City and County of Denver Maintenance Department.

2 M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207

approved for use by the Georgia Department of Transportation for construction and maintenance projects in Class 24-Houraccelerated strength concrete mix applications and Class B concrete applications [3].

Concrete mix design specified as CDOT Class E 12 h (referred as “reference mix” for this research), is currently used forpaving streets in Denver, Colorado by the City and County of Denver. This research documents and analyses the impact ofpartially replacing water by liquid-state carbon nano-tube admixture on the City’s reference mix design. Specifically, thisresearch studies the effect of carbon nano-tube admixture on the hardened properties of concrete by performingcompressive strength test and checks the fresh properties of the concrete by performing slump and air-entrainment tests.While cheaper water reducing admixture alternatives may be available, the City and County of Denver was primarilyinterested in testing carbon nano-tube as an admixture to help to reduce road-way maintenance due to its lowerpermeability, reduced shrinkage and increased resistance to freeze-thaw. Two different proportions were tested againstreference mix. 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix describes a mix with 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) of carbon nano-tube admixture replacing 2 GPY(9.9 l/m3) of water in reference mix, and the 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix describes a mix with 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) of carbon nano-tube admixture replacing 3 GYP (14.85 l/m3) of water from reference mix.

2. Literature review

Significant research exists regarding the replacement of various components of concrete mix design [4]. Specifically, allmajor components including cement, coarse aggregate, fine aggregate and water replacements have been studied. Thefollowing is summary of the relevant research on concrete component replacement by suitable materials. Such studiesgenerally focus on evaluating the impact of concrete replacement on the mix’s compressive strength, workability or both.They less frequently address issues related to placement, durability, and maintenance of specific concrete mix designs.

The most highly replaced component of a concrete mix is cement, since it is the most expensive component ofconventional concrete as well as the one with the largest negative environmental impact. Studies to date have focused on theuse of different materials as a cement replacement. The most successful partial replacement of cement is fly ash and is widelyacceptable as major component of green concrete and in variety of concrete structures [5–13]. Attempts have also been madeto partially replace cement with stone waste [14] and the outcomes suggests that despite the reductions in compressivestrength, cost savings are possible up to 20% replacement of cement. A similar trend had been noted for replacement ofcement by ground waste brick [15] and for marble dust and crushed brick [16]. The experiment on marble powder and silicafume as partial replacement for cement mortar shows positive result for increase in compressive strength [17]. Countryspecific studies have also led to interesting results [18]. Finally, detailed study of replacement of cement by ceramic powderhas been performed with emphasis on cost analysis [19].

Aggregate usage is higher than cement in terms of quantity and volume in concrete. Many researchers have focused onpartially replacing fine and coarse aggregates with locally produced industrial wastes. For example, a study on rubber,Jarosite and sandstone aggregates [20] was carried out to utilize locally produced wastes into concrete industry. Partialreplacement of fine and coarse aggregates with e-plastic waste [21] and waste glass [22] produced interesting results forcompressive strength and workability of concrete mix. 30% replacement of sand by quarry dust shows increase incompressive strength and workability of concrete mix [23]. Coarse aggregate can be partially replaced by crushed ceramic

M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207 3

tile which is waste product in ceramic industry possessing very similar physical and non-reactive chemical properties likecoarse aggregate [24].

Water is one of the main components in concrete mix and potable water is needed in abundant quantity for the hydrationprocess. Studies have been performed to use the slurry water to replace fresh water in concrete mixes. Results suggest thatthe use of slurry water yields higher slump with only a minor reduction in compressive strength compared to a significantreduction in use of fresh water [25]. As sea water is available in enormous quantity, researchers have carried out experimentsto replace fresh water by sea water and found that concrete produced and cured using sea water shows higher compressivestrength than fresh water. However, accelerated corrosion of steel members is a drawback [26]. Finally, magnetized waterwith partial replacement of cement by copper slag shows 4–18% of increase in compressive strength and up to 50% increasein workability [27].

Potential replacement materials from existing literature are summarized in Table 1 according to the concrete componentthey replace.

Although significant research has been performed to date on replacement of concrete components, little to no researchexists studying carbon nano-tube mixture as a replacement for water. This research is intended to address this gap bystudying the compressive strength and workability of carbon nano-tube mixture to demonstrate that it is a viable alternativewith possible maintenance and durability benefits.

The practice of using of carbon nano-tubes as an admixture has been explored by the concrete industry since 2011 [28].Initial studies focus on the mechanical properties of carbon nano-tube to insure compatibility with concrete ingredients.Previously, tests were conducted in the laboratory on concrete or mortar samples having carbon nano-tubes in smallquantities and researchers found increases in flexural strength [28–30]. Recent studies and experiments for carbon nano-tubes also show increases in abrasion resistance, flexural strength, tensile strength and compressive strength whereasreduction in permeability and shrinkage, when using carbon nano-tube as an admixture [2].

3. Research methodology

Mix design used for this test is CDOT Class E 12 h mix, which has 4500 PSI (31.03 MPa) as a target mean strength. Mountaincement Type I/II is used in this mix design, which is ordinary Portland cement with moderate sulphate resistance. Table 2shows the details of this mix design.

Total quantity of water for this mix design is 263 lbs (119.3 kg) which is equivalent to 31.5 gallons (119.2 l) of water. For the2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix, 2 gallons of water is replaced from this mix design using carbon nano-tube admixture whichconstitutes approximately 6.35% of total water content in the concrete. For 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix, 3 gallons (11.4 l) of wateris replaced from this mix design using carbon nano-tube admixture which constitutes approximately 9.52% of total watercontent in the concrete. While the precise composition of Edencrete’s carbon nano-tube admixture is proprietary, thecompany provides the following technical data sheet [31]. Slump tests, air entrainment tests were performed in the field,while compressive strength tests were performed on the samples after 7 and 28 days of curing period. Fig. 2 is the flow-chartof the research process.

Table 1Summary from literature review.

Concrete Component Studied Replacement Materials

Cement � Fly Ash [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13]� Ceramic Powder or Ceramic Waste [19,24]� Marble Powder or Marble Dust [16]� Grounded Waste Brick [15]� Iranian Industrial Waste [18]� Silica Fumes [17]� Copper Slag [27]� Grounded Stone Waste [14]

Coarse Aggregate � Rubber [20]� Jarosite [20]� E-plastic Waste [21]� Waste Glass [22]

Fine Aggregate � Sandstone [20]� Ceramic Waste [19,24]� Quarry Dust [14,23]� Marble Dust [16]� Waste Glass Powder [22]

Water � Slurry Water [25]� Magnetized water [27]

Table 2Mix design of CDOT Class E 12 h mix (reference mix).

Material Source Description ASTM Spec. Gravity Oz/cwt Weight (lb)

Course Aggregate Aggregate Industries Aggregate IndustriesMorrison 57/67

C-33 2.64 1690

Sand Aggregate Industries Aggregate IndustriesPlatte Valley Sand

C-33 2.62 1225

Cement Mountain Cement Mountain Cement Type I/II C150 3.15 600Air Entrainer BASF MB-AE 90 C 260 1.00 0.40 0.2Type C BASF Pozzolith NC534 C 494 1.00 30.00 14.7Water Reducer BASF MASTER GLENIUM 7920 ASTM C 1.08 2.2Class F Fly Ash Boral Boral Class F Craig 2.225 150

Water C-94 1.00 263Total 3945

Specified F’c: 4500 PSISpecified Slump: 3.00 To 6.00 In. Designed Unit Weight: 144.0 lbs./cu.ft.Specified Air: 4.00 To 8.00 % Designed W/C + P Ratio: 0.35Designed Air: 5.0 % Designed Volume: 27.45 cu.ft.

4 M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207

The samples for reference mix, 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix and 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix were taken from construction site at 6thAve and Lincoln Street in Denver, Colorado on 11th and 12th of September 2017. Cylinder molds having 400 diameter and 800

height were used to collect the samples. ASTM C-39 Standards were used to test for the compressive strength of cylindricalconcrete specimens. After allowing 24 h of setting time on site, samples were transported to Civil Engineering Laboratory atUniversity of Colorado, Denver. Concrete cylinders were taken out from molds and placed in a water tank in a fullysubmerged position, and maintained for 28 days of curing period. Water temperature was maintained around standard roomtemperature, which was 73.4-degree Fahrenheit (23-degree Celsius). A calibrated universal loading machine was used toobtain the compressive strength of specimen cylinders in “lbs” unit. Cylindrical concrete specimens had 400 (10.16 cm)diameter r = 200 (5.08 cm) and 800 (20.32 cm) height. Thus, obtained results in lbs unit were converted into PSI (pound persquare inch) by load in lbspr2 .

ASTM C-143 procedures were followed to meet the standards and performed in the field for the slump test. ASTM C-173procedures were followed to meet the standards and performed in the field to test air-entrainment.

4. Results and discussion

Table 3 is a summary of the results obtained from the slump, air entrainment, and compressive strength tests as well asthe weight of each concrete specimen tested after 7 day and 28 day curing periods.

Fig. 2. Steps of water reducing mix design study.

Table 3Results for CDOT Class E 12 h Mix with carbon nano-tube replacements.

Water Replacement (GPY) Slump(inches)

AirEntrainment

CuringPeriod(days)

Compressive Strength(PSI)

Average Compressive Strength(PSI)

Weight (lbs)

Reference0(0 %)

6.25(�159 mm)

5% 7 6264(43.18 MPa)

6100(42.06 MPa)

8.49(3.85 kg)

5901(40.69 MPa)

8.42(3.82 kg)

28 6320(43.57 MPa)

6400(44.13 MPa)

8.6(3.9 kg)

6426(44.31 MPa)

8.55(3.87 kg)

6374(43.95 MPa)

8.5(3.86 kg)

2(9.9 l/m3)(6.35 %)

7.75(�197 mm)

6% 7 7369(50.81 MPa)

7300(50.33 MPa)

8.52(3.86 kg)

7224(49.81 MPa)

8.59(3.86 kg)

28 7157(49.35 MPa)

7150(49.30 MPa)

8.6(3.90 kg)

7244(49.95 MPa)

8.6(3.90 kg)

7068(48.73 MPa)

8.6(3.90 kg)

3(14.85 l/m3)(9.52 %)

9.5(�241 mm)

5.5% 7 6356(43.82 MPa)

6650(45.85 MPa)

8.44(3.83 kg)

6886(47.48 MPa)

8.5(3.86 kg)

28 8280(57.09 MPa)

8150(56.19 MPa)

8.6(3.90 kg)

8274(57.05 MPa)

8.6(3.90 kg)

7898(54.45 MPa)

8.65(3.92 kg)

M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207 5

Results as summarized in Table 3 show that entrainment and compressive strength for both the 2 GYP (9.9 l/m3) and 3GYP (14.85 l/m3) mix designs meet or exceed mix design specifications for CDOT Class E 12 h mix (Table 2). Slump test resultsfor both 2 GYP (9.9 l/m3) and 3 GYP (14.85 l/m3) mix designs are outside (greater than) the 3–6 in.(7.62–15.24 cm.) tolerancespecified. However, this is not problematic and these results are further discussed below.

The average compressive strength for CDOT Class E 12 h Mix for reference mix, 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix and 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix samples after both 7 and 28 days of curing is shown in Fig. 3.

Fig. 3 shows that 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix has a 19.9% higher compressive strength than reference mix, whereas 3 GPY(14.85 l/m3) mix has a 8.9% higher compressive strength than reference mix after 7 days of curing. Fig. 3 also shows that the 2GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix has a 12.3% higher compressive strength than reference mix, whereas 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix has a 27.9%higher compressive strength than reference mix after 28 days of curing. Furthermore, after 7 days of curing 2 GPY mix gives10.2% more compressive strength than 3 GPY mix (14.85 l/m3) and 19.9% than reference mix. But, 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mixyields 13.9% more compressive strength after 28 days of curing than 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix and 27.9% more than reference mix.It is important to note, however, that the 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix shows a slight decrease in strength after 7 days compared tothe 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) mix.

Fig. 3. Compressive strengths using carbon nano-tube replacements.

Fig. 4. (28 day) Compressive strength versus Slump.

6 M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207

As previously noted, additional field tests were performed to test the slump of the various mix designs in order to testworkability. Fig. 4 compares slump to 28-day compressive strength.

A higher slump value generally indicates higher workability or flow of the mix, but is typically associated with a reductionin compressive strength. However, as shown in Fig. 4, in the case of water reducer mixes using 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) and 3 GPY

Fig. 5. Field observations of test mixes: Reference mix after five years (left), sample mixes after six months, and one winter (right).

M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207 7

(14.85 l/m3) carbon nano-tube admixture replacements, both the slump and the compressive strength after 28 days of curingare higher than for the reference mix. Such results suggest that using that air –entrainment, slump and are valuable becausethey suggest that using carbon nano-tube as water replacements may have cascading benefits. Namely, increasedcompressive strength, workability and durability. Furthermore, the 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix appears to be a superior productin terms of workability during placement and long-term strength to the 2 GYP (9.9 l/m3) mix. While results for higher ratiocarbon nano-tube (i.e., 4 GYP or 5 GYP mixes) is unknown, one hypothesis includes that higher percentages of carbon nano-tube admixtures in the mix design may continue to retard the curing process (decreasing short-term (7 day) compressivestrengths, and increasing workability), while producing higher long-term (28 day) compressive strengths. Potential reasonsfor such trends may be that nano-tubes work on the nanoscopic level and are non-reactive materials. Finally, carbon nano-tubes are light but strong, potentially decreasing the concrete load. However, since water is required for hydration, furthertesting is recommended to assess what ratio of carbon nano-tube admixture as replacement is the threshold for increasedstrength, while maintaining workability.

As a final preliminary test, the authors performed a visual inspection of the sample mixes in-situ in the field (Fig. 5). Whileit is too early to fully document the durability performance of both mixes, according to visual inspection of the constructiontest-site after one (relatively mild) winter season, no noticeable difference exists between the 2 GPY (9.9 l/m3) and 3 GPY(14.85 l/m3) mix samples, and both installations appear to be in good condition.

The authors hypothesize that due to the tested (i.e. increased workability and compressive strength) and reported (i.e.reduced permeability and shrinkage) properties of carbon nano-tube concrete mix designs, such mixes will be moreresistant to freeze-thaw cycles as well as to regular wear-and-tear of roadway pavement. As such, such mix designs will likelyincrease the concrete’s overall in-situ durability and reduce the need for maintenance and repair when placed in Denver,Colorado and similar climates.

5. Conclusions and future work

While it is too early to fully document the impact of carbon nano-tube admixture on concrete mixes’ durability and in-situroad-way maintenance, based on slump, air-entrainment and compressive strength testing, it is shown that carbon nano-tube is a viable admixture, which meets existing design standards. Furthermore, based on a comparison of test results for 2GPY (9.9 l/m3) and 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix designs, it is recommended for the City and County of Denver to select 3 GPY(14.85 l/m3) mix to address issues of cracking in concrete pavement. 3 GPY (14.85 l/m3) mix gives higher slump and highercompressive strength, which is opposite to usual trends, and, potentially a distinct advantage. Increasing workability mayresult in reductions in construction time and compaction efforts. It may also help to smooth and quickly finish the pavement.Similarly, increased compressive strength may also help to minimize maintenance. In conclusion, carbon nano-tubes appearto have beneficial performance impacts on the standard mix design for road-ways in Denver, Colorado. Although cost data isnot available from the manufacturer of Edencrete at this time, future testing is recommended to perform life-cycle costbenefit analysis for the product to fully test the environmental and economic impacts of the new admixture technology.

Conflicts of interest

None

References

[1] K. Kaneto, M. Tsuruta, G. Sakai, W.Y. Cho, Y. Ando, Electrical conductivities of multi-wall carbon nano tubes, Synth. Met. 103 (1–3) (1999) 2543–2546.[2] EdenCrete1 - Strengths. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.edencrete.com/strengths/. Last accessed 8/18/2018.[3] GDOT OMAT, Georgia Department of Transportation Office of Materials and Testing Qualified Products List- Chemical Admixtures For Concrete Revised

May 3, 2018, (2018) , pp. 1–6. http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Materials/Documents/qpl14.pdf.[4] Malay M. Patel, Ankit J. Patel, Jay H. Patel, Kushagra T. Rawal, Review paper on partial replacement of concrete ingredients, Int. J. Innov. Res. Sci. Technol.

1 (7) (2014) 310–313.[5] C. Berryman, W. Jensen, J. Zhu, Maximization of fly ash in the manufacture of reinforced concrete pipe, Int. J. Construct. Educ. Res. 2 (3) (2006) 209–216,

doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15578770600907248.[6] Gradinaru, C. M. H., Barbuta, M., & Babor, D. (2017). Investigations on a green concrete obtaining through a partial cement replacement by fly ash, 9(3),

207–215.[7] S.C. Kou, C.S. Poon, D. Chan, Influence of fly ash as cement replacement on the properties of recycled aggregate concrete, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 19 (9) (2007)

709–717, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2007)19:9(709).[8] T. Oey, J. Timmons, P. Stutzman, J.W. Bullard, M. Balonis, M. Bauchy, G. Sant, An improved basis for characterizing the suitability of fly ash as a cement

replacement agent, J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 100 (10) (2017) 4785–4800, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jace.14974.[9] _I. Demir, S. Güzelkücük, Ö. Sevim, Effects of sulfate on cement mortar with hybrid pozzolan substitution, Eng. Sci. Technol. Int. J. 21 (3) (2018) 275–283.

[10] Y. Al-Najjar, S. Yesilmen, A.M. Al-Dahawi, M. Sahmaran, G. Yıldırım, M. Lachemi, L. Amleh, Physical and chemical actions of nano-mineral additives onproperties of High-volume fly ash engineered cementitious composites, Mater. J. 113 (06) (2016) 791–801.

[11] S. Yeşilmen, Y. Al-Najjar, M.H. Balav, M. Şahmaran, G. Yıldırım, M. Lachemi, Nano-modification to improve the ductility of cementitious composites,Cem. Concr. Res. 76 (2015) 170–179.

[12] A. Alyousif, M. Lachemi, G. Yildirim, G.H. Aras, M. Sahmaran, Influence of cyclic frost deterioration on water sorptivity of microcracked cementitiouscomposites, J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (4) (2015) 04015159.

[13] A. Al-Dahawi, G. Yıldırım, O. Öztürk, M. Şahmaran, Assessment of self-sensing capability of engineered cementitious composites within the elastic andplastic ranges of cyclic flexural loading, Constr. Build. Mater. 145 (2017) 1–10.

[14] A.N. Patel, J. Pitroda, Stone waste: effective replacement of cement for establishing green concrete, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 2 (5) (2013) 24–27.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0005http://www.edencrete.com/strengths/http://www.dot.ga.gov/PartnerSmart/Materials/Documents/qpl14.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0035http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0070

8 M.M. Patel et al. / Case Studies in Construction Materials xxx (2018) e00207

[15] I. Demir, H. Yaprak, O. Simsek, Performance of cement mortars replaced by ground waste brick in different aggressive conditions, Ceram. Silik. 55 (3)(2011) 268–275.

[16] T. Kavas, A. Olgun, Properties of cement and mortar incorporating marble dust and crushed brick, Ceram. Silik. 52 (1) (2008) 24–28.[17] H.A. Mohamadien, The effect of marble powder and silica fume as partial replacement for cement on mortar, Int. J. Civil Struct. Eng. 3 (2) (2012) 418–

428, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.6088/ijcser.201203013039.[18] M.A. Kharaazi, E. Ganjian, ). Use of iranian industrial waste for cement replacement in low strength concrete and CLSM, 2nd International Conference

on Sustainable Construction Materials and Technologies, (2010) .[19] A.D. Raval, I.N. Patel, J. Pitroda, Eco-efficient concretes: use of ceramic powder As a partial replacement of cement, Int. J. Innov. Technol. Explor. Eng. 32

(2013) 2278–3075.[20] S. Kumar, R.C. Gupta, B.S. Thomas, P. Mehra, Aggregate replacement and its usefulness in cement concrete for sustainable development—A study on

rubber, jarosite and sandstone aggregates, Adv. Intell. Syst. Comput. 493 (2016) 13–25, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-41941-1_2.[21] B.T.A. Manjunath, Partial replacement of E-plastic waste as coarse-aggregate in concrete, Procedia Environ. Sci. 35 (2016) 731–739, doi:http://dx.doi.

org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.079.[22] C. Meyer, N. Egosi, C. Andela, Concrete with waste glass as aggregate, J. Chem. Inf. Model. 53 (9) (2001) 1689–1699, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/

CBO9781107415324.004.[23] Sudhir, et al., Effect of Quarry dust As partial replacement of Sand in concrete, Indian Streams Res. J. 3 (2013) 254–258, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/

2.1.2742.0804 (2013.6.05).[24] H. Siddesha, Experimental studies on the effect of ceramic fine aggregate on the strength properties of concrete, IJAEST 1 (1) (2011) 71–76.[25] A.A. Kadir, S. Shahidan, L.H. Yee, M.I.H. Hassan, M.M.A.B. Abdullah, The effect on slurry water as a fresh water replacement in concrete properties, IOP

Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering 133 (2016), doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1757-899X/133/1/012041.[26] F.A. Olutoge, G.M. Amusan, The effect of sea Water on compressive strewgth of concrete, Int. J. Eng. Sci. Invent. 3 (7) (2014) 23–31.[27] S. Bharath, S. Subraja, P.A. Kumar, Influence of magnetized water on concrete by replacing cement partially with copper slag, J. Chem. Pharm. Sci. 9 (4)

(2016) 2791–2795.[28] Z.S. Metaxa, J.W.T. Seo, M.S. Konsta-Gdoutos, M.C. Hersam, S.P. Shah, Highly concentrated carbon nanotube admixture for nano-fiber reinforced

cementitious materials, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (5) (2012) 612–617, doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2012.01.006.[29] Ali Al-Dahawi, et al., Electrical percolation threshold of cementitious composites possessing self-sensing functionality incorporating different carbon-

based materials, Smart Mater. Struct. 25.10 (2016) 105005.[30] A. Al-Dahawi, O. Öztürk, F. Emami, G. Yıldırım, M. Şahmaran, Effect of mixing methods on the electrical properties of cementitious composites

incorporating different carbon-based materials, Constr. Build. Mater. 104 (2016) 160–168.[31] EdenCrete1 - Technical Data Sheet. (n.d.) http://www.edencrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-TDS-EdenCrete.pdf, Last accessed 10/1/

2018.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0105http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proenv.2016.07.079http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0110http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0115http://dx.doi.org/10.13140/2.1.2742.0804http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0150http://refhub.elsevier.com/S2214-5095(18)30162-1/sbref0150http://www.edencrete.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/2018-TDS-EdenCrete.pdf

Carbon nano-tube as water reducer in CDOT Class E 12 hr concrete mix1 Introduction2 Literature review3 Research methodology4 Results and discussion5 Conclusions and future workConflicts of interestReferences