Journal of Scientific NATARAJA

& Industrial Research

& DAS: CEMENT BASED COMPOSITES WITH TILE WASTE AGGREGATES 385
Vol. 70, May 2011, pp. 385-390

A simplified mix proportioning for cement based composites with

crushed tile waste aggregate
M C Nataraja* and Lelin Das
Department of Civil Engineering, Sri Jayachamarajendra College of Engineering, Mysore 570 006, India

Received 05 January 2011; revised 17 March 2011; accepted 21 March 2011

This study presents a procedure to proportion concrete mixes with tile waste as coarse aggregate. To arrive at water –cement
ratio for matrix strength, generalized Abrams’ law is employed for proportioning and proper utilization of industrial wastes based
on their engineering properties leading to the production of quality concrete through mix design. This also serves as a method for
disposal of industrial tile waste through proper technology management.

Keywords: Construction and demolition wastes, Tile waste, Abram’s law, Law of mixtures, Recycled aggregates

Introduction
In India, large quantity of construction and demolition
(C&D) waste, including substantial amount of used
concrete paving blocks and tiles, is produced in
metropolitan cities every year. C&D wastes are normally
composed of concrete rubble, bricks, blocks and tiles,
sand and dust, timber, plastics, cardboard and paper, and
metals1. Crushed concrete paver blocks, tiles and bricks,
after separation from other C&D waste and sieved, can
be used as a substitute for natural coarse aggregates
(CAs) in concrete or as a sub-base or a base layer in
pavements or in the production of bricks and block1,2.
Amount of CA in concrete also plays a role in controlling
compressive strength (CS) of concrete3 . Recycled
aggregates from coal combustion by products are being
used in construction sectors4. Burks5 observed that many
waste materials cannot be disposed off by incineration.
A state-of - the- art review6 provides a brief description
of marginal materials, their property characterization, and
their potential applications. Gutt & Nixon7 discussed
potential use of a wide spectrum of mining and quarry
wastes in concrete. Crushed tile aggregate (CTA) is
especially proposed for buildings constructed in hot
climates. Elasticity modulus of concrete produced with
CTA rubble was 70% of elasticity modulus of control
concrete8. Both CS and tensile strength of CTA concrete
were higher, but drying shrinkage was lower than control.
Inclination of curve in ascending part of strain deformation
diagrams was smaller and also deformation was higher
compared to normal concrete due to CS9. Khaloo10
observed that CTA was 33% lighter in weight, and
porosity and resistance to abrasion of CTA were smaller
than control. The 28-day relative CS, tensile strength
and flexural strength of CTA concrete were 0.93, 1.02
and 1.15 respectively10.
This study presents a technique for using recycled
aggregates obtained from broken clay tiles (Mangalore
pattern) in non structural concrete.
Experimental Section
Tile waste is not as strong as conventional aggregate.
As such, proportioning of trial mix was carried out as
per comprehensive method11. According to generalized
Abram’s Law12-15, relations for reproportioning mixes
using different water-cement (w/c) ratio are given as
 S  c
  = − 0.2 + 0.6   for
for S0.5 ≥ 30MPa …(1)
 S0.5  w
 S  c 
  = − 0.73 + 0.865   for S0.5 < 30MPa …(2)
 S0.5   w

*Author for correspondence where S0.5, CS at w/c ratio of 0.5; S, CS at any w/c
E- mail: nataraja96@yahoo.com ratio; and c/w, cement to water ratio.
386 J SCI IND RES VOL 70 MAY 2011

Table 1—Characteristics of materials used

Materials Type Properties Test result

Coarse aggregate Waste broken tiles (20 - Specific gravity 2.11
4.75 mm)* Dry rodded density 1130 kg/m3
Water absorption 7.02%
Impact value 52.8%
Granite aggregate (20 - 4.75 Specific gravity 2.60
mm)* Dry rodded density 1530 kg/m3
Water absorption 0.32 %
Impact value 23.8 %
Fine aggregate River sand Specific gravity 2.68
Fineness modulus 2.73

*Fraction 20 mm to 10 mm, 60%; and 10 mm to 4.75 mm, 40%

Table 2—Trial mix details for broken tiles and granite aggregates as coarse aggregates by comprehensive method11

Parameters Broken tile (BT) Granite aggregate(GA)

Concrete
Water/cement (w/c) ratio 0.5 0.5
Water content, kg/m3 190 190
Cement (C), kg/m3 380 380
Fine aggregate (FA), kg/m3 879 788
Coarse aggregate (CA), kg/m3 720 975
Aggregate/cement ratio 4.2 4.63
Mortar mix
W/C ratio 0.5 0.5
FA/C ratio 2.31 2.07

W/C ratio used for trial mix was 0.5 and CA used
was broken tile (BT). Another trial mix with conventional
aggregate was proportioned and formed parallel series
for comparison. CS of these mixes is intended to obtain
response due to synergy between different ingredients
of mixes. Since concrete is regarded as two component
composite system, in addition to concrete strength at
different ages, constituent mortar strength is also
determined for the same w/c ratio with corresponding
fine aggregate (FA)-cement ratio.
Materials
BTs obtained from a local tile industry were crushed
(size, < 20 mm) for use as CAs in concrete. Materials
used include ordinary Portland cement of 43 grade
conforming to IS: 8112-198916 with a 28-day CS of 52
N/mm2. Locally available river sand conforming to IS:
383-197017 was used as FA. CAs passing through 20
mm and retained on 4.75-mm sieve is the fraction used
(Table 1). Potable water was used for mixing and curing.
CONPLAST SP 430 super plasticizing admixture (sp gr,
1.22; and chloride content, nil) used is based on
sulphonated naphthalene polymers and is a brown liquid
instantly dispersible in water.
Casting, Curing and Testing
Casting and curing of specimens were done as per
IS: 516-195918. For same w/c ratio and FA/c ratios as in
trial mixes (Table 2), respective mortar cubes and
concrete cubes were cast simultaneously. For all mixes
considered in this study, 1% superplasticiser (by wt of
cementitious material) was used while mixing and same
was considered in calculation. CS development at w/c
ratio of 0.5 was determined (Table 3) based on average
of 5 samples tested at the age of 7 and 28 days,
respectively: concrete (based on BT), 16, 27; concrete
[based on granite aggregate (GA)], 20, 32; and mortar,
20, 35 MPa. Concrete cubes with BT as CA failed in
aggregate crushing. CS of concrete was 14 MPa for
mortar strength of 20 MPa at 7 days. At 28 days of
curing, CS of concrete was 27 MPa against constituent
mortar strength of 35 MPa at the same age. Normal
failure mode of bond separation was observed in the
case of crushed GA. It was observed that strength of
 NATARAJA & DAS: CEMENT BASED COMPOSITES WITH TILE WASTE AGGREGATES 387

Fig. 1—Bond failure and aggregate fracture during testing of: a) granite aggregate-GA; and b) tile aggregate-TA

Table 3—Trial mix details for broken tiles (25 & 30 MPa) as coarse aggregates
Parameters Broken tiles (25 MPa ) Broken tiles (30 MPa)
Concrete
W/C ratio 0.54 0.45
Water content, kg/m3 204 204
Cement, kg/m3 377 453
Fine aggregate (FA), kg/m3 842 782
Coarse aggregate (CA), kg/m3 720 720
Aggegate/cement ratio 4.14 3.32
Mortar mix
W/C ratio 0.54 0.45
FA/C ratio 2.23 1.72
Compressive strength, N/mm2
W/C ratio 0.54 0.45
Concrete Mortar Concrete Mortar
7 Days 18.00 23.30 22.24 29.67
28 Days 25.10 32.43 29.14 38.15

concrete and that of mortar strength was close both for
7 and 28 days of curing in the case of crushed GA.
Fracture and Failure of Mortars and Concrete
Concrete, being a heterogeneous material, properties
depend on properties and compatibility of individual
components (CAs and mortar). Glaccio et al19 reported
that all CA characteristic effects on concrete intensify
only for aggregate (size > 5 mm). Concrete can attain
strength of mortar matrix, only if strength of CA is higher
than that of matrix. And hence crack propagation will be
across periphery of CA. If strength of cement mortar is
higher than CA fracture strength, due to lower modulus
of deformation of CA than that of matrix, CAs can no
longer transmit applied stress at the same deformation
as that of mortar. Since stress in CA is greater than its
strength, failure is through CA. A weak aggregate
requires higher mortar strength for identical strength
when compared with concrete experiencing bond failure.
Failure around periphery of CAs and across CAs can be
seen from broken cubes for GA (Fig. 1a) and tile
aggregates (TA) (Fig. 1b).
388 J SCI IND RES VOL 70 MAY 2011
Concrete as Composite Material
Once a unit cell model composed of mortar and CA
is assumed, an effort can be directed to find mathematical
relations such that appropriate properties of constituents
can be computed. For limiting case of no bond,
assumption of identical stresses in matrix and CAs is
reasonable, if particles are more rigid than matrix. If
particles are less rigid than matrix, as in the case of weak
aggregate and high mortar matrix strength, bond is of
less significance to composite behavior. CA experiences
deformation of matrix up to its limit CS. For assumption
of a perfect bonding between CA and matrix without
any slippage at interface, strains experienced between
CA, matrix, and concrete are the same. For a unit cell
model, relation involving stress acting on each of the two
phases (matrix, σm and CA, σa) loading and their volume
fractions (matrix, vm and that of CA, va) is
σc = σmvm+ σava
…(3)
for εc= εa=εm; vm + va =1
where σc, σm and σa are CS of concrete, matrix and CA
respectively; vm & va are volume fraction of matrix and
CA respectively; εc, εa, and εm are strains in concrete,
aggregate and matrix respectively.
To advance a generalized approach to proportion
concrete mixes taking into account the characteristic
strength of CA, possibility of using Eq. (3) for following
assessments merits examination: i) From strength data
of concrete, where aggregate fracture has been observed
along with CS of constituent mortar matrix of that
concrete for calculation of characteristic strength of CA;
and ii) Using same law of mixtures with characteristic
strength of CA known, calculation of required CS of
mortar matrix for specific CS of concrete. For
examination of above possibility, experimental data forms
basis in this study.
Results and Discussion
Determination of Aggregate Characteristic Strength
In the case of specimens with BTs as aggregate
since failure has been through crushing of aggregates,
its contribution to strength development need be evaluated.
To determine characteristic strength of aggregate, law
of mixtures, as expressed in Eq. (3), is used. Thus, va =
weight / specific gravity = 720/(2.11 x 1000) = 0.34 and
vm = 1- 0.34 = 0.66.
CAs are crushed for 0.5 w/c ratio. Therefore,
characteristic strength of aggregate of σa is to be found
for the values of σc(0.5) and σm(0.5) as σ a = [σ c -
σmvm]/va = (26.96 - 35×0.66)/ 0.34 = 11.35 Mpa; therefore,
σa = 11.35 MPa.
With this characteristic strength, prediction of 7 day
concrete strength is computed using Eq. (3) as σc
=11.35×0.34 + 20×0.66 = 3.9 + 13.2 = 17.10 MPa as
against 16 MPa experimentally obtained. Here matrix
strength is greater than aggregate strength and hence
iso-strain condition prevails. Concrete strength is lesser
than constituent mortar strength observed by testing of
trial mixes. Under such situation, following two
possibilities merit examination: i) Technical feasibility to
proportioning concrete mixes for concrete strength higher
than characteristic strength of CA; and ii) Due to low
characteristic strength of CA to optimize use of cement
by limiting strength of concrete close to characteristic
strength. Use of such concretes could be for non-
structural purposes. In this study, strengths of structural
concretes examined are 25 MPa and 30 MPa. Low
strength concretes are limited to 10 MPa and 15 MPa
being close to characteristic strength of BT as CA.
Reproportioned Mixes for 25 and 30 MPa
In order to compute combination of ingredients for
25 MPa and 30 MPa concretes with BT as CA, it is
necessary to determine cement mortar matrix strength.
For this, Eq. (3) is used as σm = [σc - σa va ]/ vm=[25-
11.35 x 0.34]/0.66 = 32 Mpa. W/C ratio for this 32MPa
mortar strength is computed using Eq. (1) with reference
to mortar strength of 35MPa at w/c ratio of 0.5 as
 32  c
  = − 0.2 + 0.6   thus, w/c=0.54.
 35  w
Similarly for 30 MPa concrete, mortar strength is
39.5 MPa and corresponding w/c ratio would be 0.45
(Table 3). It has been observed that failure in both cases
is by aggregate crushing. Mortar strengths have been
far higher than characteristic strength of CA to realize
strength contemplated. In order to obtain requisite mortar
strength at calculated w/c ratios, cement contents are
higher. This would lead to uneconomical situation in an
effort to obtain structural strength of concrete. Hence
only technical feasibility of compensating low
characteristic strength of BT as CA is by commensurating
mortar strength. Hence feasibility of obtaining low
strength materials by limiting mortar strength and
 NATARAJA & DAS: CEMENT BASED COMPOSITES WITH TILE WASTE AGGREGATES
Table 4—Trial mix details for broken tiles (10 & 15 MPa) as coarse aggregates
parameters Broken Tiles (10 MPa)
Concrete
W/C ratio 0.78
Water content, kg/m3 204
Cement, kg/m3 262
Fine aggregate (FA), kg/m3 943
Coarse aggregate (CA), kg/m3 720
Aggregate/Cement ratio 6.34
Mortar mix
W/C ratio 0.78
FA/C ratio 3.6
Compressive strength, N/mm2
W/C ratio 0.78
Concrete
7 Days 6.69
28 Days 11.14
consequently controlling cement content is examined for
concrete strengths of 10 and 15MPa.
Reproportioned Mixes for 10 and 15 MPa
In proportions determined for 28 days strength of
concrete with BT for 10 MPa and 15 MPa (Table 4),
since concrete strength is close to characteristic strength
of BT aggregate, distinct failure of concrete by crushing
of aggregate is unlikely to take place. Hence w/c ratios
are directly calculated by Eq. (2). Reference value of
strength at 0.5 w/c ratio corresponds to concrete strength
with BT is 27 MPa. W/C ratio for 10 MPa concrete,
computed by Eq. (2) taking S0.5 strength as 27 MPa, is
found to be 0.78. Similarly for 15 MPa concrete, w/c
ratio would be 0.67. Quantities of ingredients (Table 3)
of above two mixes arrive by following comprehensive
approach11. For w/c ratio of 0.78, failures did not occur
with aggregate crushing, and for w/c ratio of 0.67, failure
was by partial crushing of aggregates. This is in order
since mortar strength for w/c ratio of 0.78 was not very
different from that of characteristic strength of tiles,
whereas in the case of w/c ratio of 0.67, mortar strength
was considerably higher than characteristic strength of
tiles (11.35 MPa).
Stepwise Procedure to Handle Low Strength Coarse Aggregate
Procedure to handle low strength CA is as follows:
i) Fix water cement ratio of 0.5 for trial mix and water
content of mix; ii) For maximum size and gradation of
unconventional CA, obtain specific gravity and bulk
density in saturated surface dry condition (SSD) and
determine fineness modulus of FA; iii) Arrive at
proportions of different constituents by absolute volume
389
Broken Tiles (15 MPa)
0.67
204
304
906
720
5.35
0.67
2.98
0.67
Mortar Concrete Mortar
7.80 9.76 13.10
13.08 16.30 20.23
method of ACI20; iv) Arrive at proportions of constituent
mortar with same water cement ratio and FA/C ratio; v)
Calculate volume fractions of mortar and that of CA,
cast and cure concrete and mortar specimens for different
periods and determine their average CS; vi) Observe
and categorize mode of failure such as predominantly
bond failure or by crushing of aggregate, compare
strength of concrete with that of constituent mortar at
the same age and if failure is by crushing of CA and
strength of mortar is greater than that of concrete strength
then it can be inferred that characteristic strength of CA
is lesser than that of mortar strength; vii) Calculate σa by
use of law of mixtures with known values of vm and va,
and σc and σm from σc = σava + σmvm; viii) To reproportion
concrete mix for strength greater than characteristic
strength of CA, mortar strength has to be higher than
that of concrete strength, hence determine σm, required
to obtain σc, from Eq. (3); ix) To reproportion concrete
with BT for strength closer to characteristic strength of
BT, mortar strengths need not be calculated from linear
law of mixtures, and W/C ratios required are directly
calculated from appropriate equations of generalized
Abrams’ Law14,15; x) To obtain mortar strength, w/c ratio
is calculated from any of Eqs (1) and (2) depending upon
mortar strength greater or lesser than 30 MPa; xi)
Keeping CA content same and for w/c ratio, calculate
reproportion constituents of mix using absolute volume
method20, and for the same w/c ratio and FA cement
ratio calculate constituent mortar specimens are also cast;
xii) Determine CS of concrete and compare value
obtained with that specified; and xiii) Obtaining calculated
mortar strength reinforces the approach resorted to obtain
specified concrete strength.
390 J SCI IND RES VOL 70 MAY 2011
Conclusions
This investigation determines constituent mortar
strength along with that of constituent concrete strength
when unconventional CAs are used. Trial concrete and
mortar mixes are proportioned at w/c ratio of 0.5 to
obtain synergy of all concrete ingredients due to
interfacial bond and/or characteristic strength of CAs.
When strength of mortar is greater than that of concrete
strength, it is likely that failure would be predominantly
by aggregate crushing. For specified strength of
concrete, which is higher than that of characteristic
strength of aggregate, compatible mortar strength is
calculated by linear law of mixtures. To obtain that
mortar strength, w/c ratio is calculated by generalized
Abrams’ Law. BT taken as CAs can be used in place
of conventional aggregates, provided, BT are
proportioned in systematic way, though not for structural
concrete economically. By limiting strength of concrete
close to characteristic strength of BT, it would be possible
to restrict mortar strength to minimize use of cement.
References
1 Poon C S, Kou S C & Lam L, Use of recycled aggregates in
molded concrete bricks and blocks, Construct & Bldg Mater,
16 (2002) 281-289.
2 Poon C S, Yu A T W & Ng L H, On-site sorting of construction
and demolition waste in Hong Kong, Resour, Conserv & Recycl,
32 (2001) 157-172.
3 Bilal E-A, Effect of reducing coarse aggregates on concrete
strength, Construct & Bldg Mater, 20 (2006) 149-157.
4 Baykal G & Doven A G, Utilization of fly ash by pelletization
process; theory, application areas and research results, Resour,
Conserv & Recycl, 30 (2000) 59-77
5 Burks S D, Will concrete be leading building material of the
future? in Proc Amer Concrete Inst, vol 68, (American Concrete
Institute, USA) 1971, 321-326.
6 Ramaswamy S D, Murthy C K & Nagaraj T S, Use of waste
materials and industrial by-products in concrete construction,
in New Concrete Materials, edited by R N Swamy (Blackie and
Son Ltd., UK) 1983, 137-172.
7 Gutt W & Nixon P J, Use of waste materials in concrete Industry,
Materiaux et constructions, 12 (1979) 293-296.
8 Chen H, Yen T & Chen K, Use of building rubbles as recycled
aggregates, Cement & Concrete Res, 33 (2003) 125-132.
9 Mansur M A, Wee T H & Cheran L S, Crushed bricks as coarse
aggregate for concrete, ACI Mater J, 96 (1999) 478-484.
10 Khaloo A R, Crushed tile coarse aggregate concrete, Cement,
Concrete & Aggregates, 17 (1995) 119-125.
11 Nagaraj T S & Zahida Banu, A F, Relative efficacies of different
concrete mix proportioning methods, J Struct Engg, India, 26
(1999) 107-112.
12 Nagaraj T S & Zahida Banu A F, Generalization of Abram’s law,
Cement & Concrete Res J, 26 (1996) 933- 942.
13 Nataraja M C & Nalanda Y, Performance of industrial by-
products in controlled low strength materials (CLSM) waste
management, Int J Integr, Waste Mgmt Sci & Technol, 28 (2008)
1168-1181.
14 Nataraja M C & Nagaraj T S, Exploiting potential use of partially-
deteriorated cement in concrete mixtures, Int J Resour, Conserv
& Recycl, 51 (2007) 355-366.
15 Nataraja M C, Nagaraj T S, Bavanishankar S & Reddy B M R,
Proportioning cement based composites with burnt coal, Int J
Mater & Struct, 40 (2007) 543-552.
16 IS: 8112-1989: Specifications for 43-grade ordinary Portland
cement (Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi) 1989.
17 IS:383-1970: Specifications for coarse and fine aggregates from
natural sources for concrete, (Bureau of Indian Standards, New
Delhi) 1993.
18 IS: 516-1959: Methods of tests for strength of concrete (11th
reprint) (Bureau of Indian Standards, New Delhi) April.1985.
19 Glaccio G, Rocco C, Violini D, Zappitelli J & Zerbino R, High
strength concretes incorporating different coarse aggregates, ACI
Mater J, 89 (1992) 242-246.
20 ACI 211.1-91, Standard practice for selecting proportions for
normal, heavyweight, and mass concrete, ACI Committee 211
(Farmington Hills, MI) 1991.