Structural Performance of Reinforced Concrete Beams Incorporating Cathode-Ray Tube (CRT) Glass Waste

Abstract

The performance of reinforced concrete beams in the presence of cathode-ray tube (CRT) glass waste is examined. Four concrete mixes containing 0%, 10%, 20%, and 30% CRT glass waste as partial replacement of sand were prepared. The compressive and flexural strength as well as the modulus of elasticity of concrete were determined. Reinforced concrete beams with varying amounts of CRT glass were prepared and the three-point bending test was conducted. The load-deflection curve as well as the strain distribution along the depth of the beams were determined. Concrete containing CRT glass showed an increase in compressive strength, flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity especially at 10% replacement level. The load carrying capacity of reinforced concrete beam is higher when 10% of sand is replaced with CRT glass compared to the control beam and the beams with 20% and 30% CRT glass substitution. The failure mode of the reinforced concrete beams is flexural failure, and the failure pattern is similar for all beams. Strain distribution showed a better ductility at control beam where the deflection was higher than the other beams at the same load. Numerical analysis was conducted, and comparison was made with the experimental results. The comparison showed the accuracy of the software used, where the results of maximum load capacity and maximum deflection were very similar, and the difference did not exceed 5%. In addition, the tensile damage generated by the numerical analysis was very similar to that obtained by the experimental study.

Theoretical and Experimental Substantiation of the Efficiency of Combined-Reinforced Glass Fiber Polymer Composite Concrete Elements in Bending

“…(2) The values of the bending moment of beams reinforced with glass-composite and basalt-composite reinforcement do not differ; (3) The values of the limiting bending moment do not change for different classes of concrete but depend on the dimensions of the section of the elements; (4) The ultimate bending moment of 400 mm × 600 mm beams is approximately 50% greater than that of 400 mm × 400 mm beams for each applied reinforcement diameter; (5) When replacing 6 mm reinforcement with 8 mm reinforcement, the ultimate bending moment of the beam increases by 77-82%, while an increase in the diameter of the rods from 8 to 10 mm leads to an increase in the bending moment by 54-58%; (6) An increase in the class of steel reinforcement from A400 to A600 leads to an increase in the ultimate bending moment of beams by 51-55%, from A600 to A800 by 32-35%, from A800 to A1000 by 24-26%; (7) The ultimate bending moment of members reinforced with GCR 800 × 50 and BCR 800 × 50 polymer composite rebar is 130-160% greater than that of members reinforced with A400 class steel rebar, 50-58% greater than with rebar A600, 14-17% more than with A800 rebar and 7-9% less than with A1000 rebar; this difference depends on the diameter of the reinforcement and the dimensions of the section of the element and is about 50%.…”

“…(1) The height of the concrete compression zone of beams reinforced with polymer composite reinforcement exceeds the height of the concrete compression zone of beams with class A1000 steel reinforcement for bar diameters of 6 and 8 mm and is practically comparable to the values of the concrete compression zone of beams with class A1000 steel reinforcement for a diameter of 10 mm; (2) The values of the height of the compressed zone of concrete beams reinforced with glass-composite and basalt-composite reinforcement do not differ; (3) The values of the height of the compressed zone of concrete do not change with different sizes of the section of the elements but depend on the class of concrete used; (4) The compression zone height of B40 concrete is 28-32% less than the compression zone height of B30 concrete for each applied reinforcement diameter; (5) When replacing reinforcement with a diameter of 6 mm for reinforcement of 8 mm, the height of the compressed zone of the beam concrete increases by 125% for polymer composite reinforcement and up to 850% for A600 steel reinforcement, while an increase in the diameter of the rods from 8 to 10 mm leads to an increase in height compressed zone by 70% for PCR and 130% for A400; (6) An increase in the class of steel reinforcement depending on the diameter of the rods from A400 to A600 leads to an increase in the height of the compressed zone from 62% to 73%, from A600 to A800 leads to an increase from 47% to 300%, and from A800 to A1000 leads to an increase from 34% to 94%; (7) The height of the concrete compression zone of elements reinforced with GCR 800 × 50 and BCR 800 × 50 polymer composite rebar is 220-325% greater than that of elements reinforced with A400 class steel rebar, 97-967% greater than with fittings A600, 34-160% more than with fittings A800, and 0-34% more than with fittings A1000; this difference depends on the diameter of the reinforcement and the class of concrete and is about 28-32%.…”

“…The improvement of reinforced concrete bending elements is the most relevant at the present time and has already been considered in many studies, for example, in [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15]. In this case, various improvement methods are used: reinforcement with polymer composite materials [2,5,8,[10][11][12][13]15,16], various fibrous materials [6,9,14], Fe-SMA activation [3], and cathode-ray tubes made of glass waste [7]. The economic aspect was also considered-the cost of reinforced concrete beams largely depends on the brand of reinforcing steel [1].…”

Waste-to-Reuse Foam Glasses Produced from Soda-Lime-Silicate Glass, Cathode Ray Tube Glass, and Aluminium Dross

“…From an economical and environmental point of view, researchers use several waste materials, such as fly ash [30], cathode ray tube (CRT) glass, red mud, mineral wool waste [31,32], flat panel, and tailing waste [33] to produce building material [2,16,21,24,[34][35][36][37][38][39][40]. The amount of CRT glass arising from computer monitors and TV sets increases dramatically due to their replacement by the liquid crystal display (LCD) [41,42].…”

The Use of Crushed Cable Waste as a Substitute of Natural Aggregate in Cement Screed

“…Nevertheless, it is still very important to find other possibilities for the replacement of natural sand with other materials and protect non-renewable resources. Concurrently, the industry is generating a large scale of waste, which is accumulated, because of complicated or no practical use [9,10]. In recent years, various types of slags, rice husks, nutshells, etc., as partial substitution were studied [11,12].…”