j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308

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

Durability of concrete made with granite and marble

as recycle aggregates

Hanifi Binici a,∗ , Tahir Shah b , Orhan Aksogan c , Hasan Kaplan d

a Kahramanmaras Sutcu Imam University, Engineering and Architectural Faculty, Department of Civil Engineering,
Avsar Campus, Kahramanmaras, Turkey
b Centre for Materials Research and Innovation, The University of Bolton, UK
c Cukurova University, Department of Civil Engineering, Adana, Turkey
d Pamukkale University, Department of Civil Engineering, Denizli, Turkey

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

Article history: The ornamental stone industries in Turkey produce vast amount of by-product rock waste
Received 22 August 2007 (marble, granite) that could be used in concrete production suitable for construction pur-
Received in revised form poses. In this work we have highlighted some technical aspects concerning the use of
19 December 2007 these waste materials. Durability of concrete made with granite and marble as coarse
Accepted 29 December 2007 aggregates was studied. River sand and ground blast furnace slag (GBFS) were used as
fine aggregates. The results were compared with those of conventional concretes. Slump,
air content, slump loss and setting time of the fresh concrete were determined. Further-
Keywords: more, the compressive strength, flexural- and splitting-tensile strengths, Young’s modulus
Concrete of elasticity, resistance to abrasion, chloride penetration and sulphate resistance were also
Durability determined. Control mortars were prepared with crushed limestone as coarse aggregates.
Recycle aggregates The influence of coarse and fine aggregates on the strength of the concrete was evalu-
Marble ated. Durability of the concrete made with marble and GBFS was found to be superior
Granite to the control concrete. In the specimens containing marble, granite and GBFS there was
Ground blast furnace slag a much better bonding between the additives and the cement. Furthermore, it might be
claimed that marble, granite and GBFS replacement provided a good condensed matrix.
These results illustrate the prospects of using these waste by-products in the concrete
production.
© 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction The civil engineering construction industry is believed to

In Turkey many residential areas are settled over landfills,
which are basically composed of marble and granite aggre-
gates. Marble and granite aggregates, which are called as
by-products, come from the marble and granite stone indus-
tries (Binici et al., 2007).
be one of the most potential consumers of mineral resources,
thus generating a great amount of solid waste as a by-product
(Saboya et al., 2007).
Many studies evaluating the use of industrial by-products
as aggregate in concrete have been reported. Jepsen et al. (2001)
reported that the use of industrial residual products in making

∗
Corresponding author. Tel.: +90 344 2191278; fax: +90 344 2191052.
E-mail addresses: hbinici@ksu.edu.tr (H. Binici), ths1@bolton.ac.uk (T. Shah), aksogan@cu.edu.tr (O. Aksogan),
hkaplan@pamukkale.edu.tr (H. Kaplan).
0924-0136/$ – see front matter © 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jmatprotec.2007.12.120
300 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308

ened concrete included the compressive strength, flexural-

Table 1 – Content of concrete specimens
and splitting-tensile strengths, Young’s modulus of elastic-
Specimens Coarse aggregates Fine aggregates ity, resistance to abrasion, chloride penetration and sulphate
MC1 Waste marble River sand resistance. Control mortars were prepared with crushed lime-
MC2 Waste marble GBFS stone. The influence of coarse and fine aggregates on the
GC1 Waste granite River sand strength of the concretes was evaluated. The concretes were
GC2 Waste granite GBFS prepared by using two types of coarse aggregates (marble and
C1 Limestone River sand
granite) and two types of fine aggregates (river sand and GBFS).
C2 Limestone GBFS

2. Materials and methods

concrete will lead to sustainable concrete design and greener
environment. There is an urgent need to develop concrete with
non-conventional aggregates for environmental as well as
economic reasons. A review of earlier research (Senthamarai
and Devadas, 2005) shows that industrial and other wastes
were used in concrete-making in order to enhance the proper-
ties of concrete and to reduce cost. In the development of new
technologies cost, durability and environmental friendliness
are becoming increasingly important criteria.
In recent years, the growth in industrial production and the
consequent increase in consumption have led to fast decline
in available natural resources. On the other hand, a high vol-
ume of production has generated a considerable amount of
waste materials which have adverse impact on the environ-
ment (UMTC, 1995; OECD, 1997). Cetin (1997) and Terzi and
Karasahin (2003) reported that quarry aggregates produced
from waste marble during mining and processing wastes
could be used as construction material in low-traffic asphalt
pavement base courses. Aggregates from waste marble may
meet the huge demand for aggregates by the pavement
construction applications (Zorluer, 2003). Furthermore, the
ornamental stone industries, especially the sector devoted
to the fabrication of building products is highly capable of
incorporating and reusing different types of waste materials
(Akbulut and Cahit, 2007).
There are rich marble waste deposits in southern Turkey.
Also, there is a huge amount of disposed ground blast fur-
nace slag (GBFS) waste in Iskenderun in southern Turkey.
This material causes a serious environmental problem. In
this study, an attempt has been made to find out whether
a combined use of marble, granite and GBFS is a suitable
substitute for conventional aggregate. Specimens were pre-
pared using granite and marble as coarse aggregates and river
sand and GBFS as fine aggregates. The results were compared
with those of the control concretes. The investigated prop-
erties of the fresh concrete included the slump, air content,
slump loss and setting time; those determined for the hard-
2.1. Materials
2.1.1. Cement
The specimen groups and their contents are given in Table 1.
Ordinary portland cement (CEM-II) used in this study was
obtained from Adana Cement Plant. The chemical compo-
sitions of the materials used were determined according to
Turkish Standard EN TS 196-2 based on weight percentage and
are given in Table 2.
2.1.2. Super plasticizer
A powder form sulphonated naphthalene–formaldehyde
super plasticizer was used in all the concrete mixtures.
2.1.3. Aggregates
Crushed waste marble and granite with a maximum nominal
size of 19 mm were used as coarse aggregates, while river sand
and GBFS with a maximum size of 4.75 mm were used as fine
aggregates. Two control specimens were made with limestone
as coarse aggregate separately, one with river sand and the
other with GBFS. Both coarse and fine aggregates were sepa-
rated into different size fractions and recombined to a specific
grading as presented in Table 3 and the physical properties
of aggregates are given in Table 4. The properties of aggre-
gates are in conformity with the Turkish Standard for concrete
aggregates TS 706 EN 12620.
2.2. Methods
2.2.1. Mixture proportions
Concrete mixtures were made with crushed marble, granite
and limestone (control specimen). For the marble concrete
(MC), one concrete mixture was made with river sand (MC1)
and another with ground blast furnace slag (MC2). For the
granite concrete (GC), one was made with river sand (GC1)
and another with ground blast furnace slag (GC2). Finally, for

Table 2 – The chemical content of the materials used

Materials Oxides (%)

SiO2 Al2 O3 Fe2 O3 CaO MgO SO3 Na2 O L.I T.A (%) Total (%)

CEM-II 20.9 5.7 3.6 64.9 1.8 0.9 0.3 0.3 0.80 99.2
Marble 14.8 21.9 36.8 6.8 7.3 1.2 9.3 0.2 1.02 98.3
Granite 53.2 14.1 12.3 9.1 8.3 – 1.2 0.3 1.10 99.6
GBFS 35.2 17.1 – 37.2 5.3 0.67 0.35 2.9 0.97 99.7
Crushed limestone 6.4 2.1 0.4 61.1 1.3 0.2 0.4 26.9 0.95 99.7
River sand 57.1 4.2 1.0 9.3 2.4 0.3 0.6 23.6 1.12 99.6
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308 301

Table 3 – Grading of coarse and fine aggregates

Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate

Marble Granite Limestone River sand Ground blast furnace slag

Sieve size Passing Sieve size Passing Sieve size Passing Sieve size Passing Sieve size Passing
(mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%)

19 100 19 100 19 100 4.75 100 4.75 100

12.7 75 12.7 72 12.7 75 2.36 88 2.36 85
9.5 33 9.5 30 9.5 25 1.18 67 1.18 65
4.75 0 4.75 0 4.75 0 0.600 43 0.600 47
0.300 19 0.300 22
0.150 6 0.150 5

All the cylinders and prisms were cast in two layers. Each
Table 4 – The physical properties of aggregates
layer was consolidated using an internal vibrator for the
Aggregate type Specific gravity Water 152 mm × 305 mm cylinders and a vibrating table for the other
(g/cm3 ) absorption (%)
specimens. After casting, all the specimens were covered
Marble coarse aggregates 2.72 1.40 with plastic sheets and water-saturated burlap. The speci-
Granite coarse aggregates 2.65 1.50 mens were then kept in the casting room for 24 h. They were
River sand fine aggregates 2.60 2.40 then demoulded and transferred to the moist-curing room at
GBFS fine aggregates 2.10 8.78
22 ± 2 ◦ C and 100% relative humidity until their testing dates.
Crushed limestone 2.71 2.30

3. Testing of the specimens

the control concretes (C), concrete mixtures were made with
river sand (C1) and GBFS (C2). The formulations of the con-
crete mixtures are given in Table 5. Three specimens were
tested for obtaining every experimental result. For all the mix-
tures, the coarse and fine aggregates were weighed in a dry
room condition. The coarse aggregate was then immersed in
water for 24 h. The excess water was decanted, and the water
retained by the aggregates was determined by the weight dif-
ference. A predetermined amount of water was added to the
fine aggregate that was then allowed to stand for 24 h. A water-
to-cement ratio of 0.4 was used for all specimens.
2.2.2. Preparation and casting of test specimens
All the concrete mixtures were blended for 5 min in a lab-
oratory counter-current mixer. 100 mm × 200 mm cylinders
were used for the determination of compressive strength
(at 7, 28 and 90 days), resistance to chloride penetration,
splitting-tensile strength and Young’s modulus of elastic-
ity. 152 mm × 15 mm × 152 mm mould was filled with mortar.
Then, the setting times of concrete were determined. Four
prisms (76 mm × 102 mm × 406 mm) were cast for the deter-
mination of the flexural strength of the concrete, and three
specimens (150 mm × 150 mm × 50 mm in size) were cast for
the determination of the abrasion resistance of it.
For each mixture, the compressive strength was determined
after 1, 7, 28, 90 and 365 days (three cylinders were tested
at each age); the flexural strength and the splitting-tensile
strength were determined on two specimens at 28 days inter-
vals. These tests were carried out according to the relevant
ASTM standards.
A number of methods to evaluate the chloride penetration
into concrete have been developed and reported in lit-
erature. Chloride penetration depths have been reported
on 100 mm × 200 mm cylindrical specimens after 110
wetting–drying cycles (Yigiter et al., 2007). In another study
silver nitrate (AgNO3 ) solution of 0.3% concentration was
sprayed on broken pieces after splitting. In addition to these
methods, rapid chloride permeability, full immersion and
partial immersion tests have also been reported in the litera-
ture. The full immersion test was performed by Chindaprasirt
et al. (2007). In this study, chloride penetration of concrete
was evaluated using procedures similar to those outlined by
Otsuki et al. (1993) with the exception that 50-mm thick cut
cylinders and 3% sodium chloride (NaCl) solution were used.
In this study, the method described by Meck and
Sirivivatnanon (2003) and Binici (2007) was adopted and tests
were performed after 6 months. Concrete cylinders were

Table 5 – Formulations of various concrete mixtures

Mixture no. Water (kg/m3 ) Cement (kg/m3 ) Fine aggregates (kg/m3 ) Coarse aggregates (kg/m3 ) Super plasticizer (l/m3 )

MC1 120 300 765 1140 2.5

MC2 120 300 740 1140 2.6
GC1 120 300 770 1150 2.7
GC2 120 300 755 1150 2.4
C1 120 300 780 1180 2.1
C2 120 300 745 1180 2.3
302 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308

demoulded after 1 day and cured in water for a period of 26
days and then sliced to 50-mm thick pieces with the 50 mm
ends discarded. The sliced cylinders were left to dry in lab-
oratory condition for 24 h before the application of epoxy
coatings. All specimens were epoxy-coated around the cylin-
drical surface. Once the process was completed the specimens
were left in the laboratory for testing.
Abrasion tests were performed in accordance with Turkish
Standard Specifications TS EN 3262.
The sulphate resistance of concretes was investigated. The
concrete samples were examined in the laboratory by stor-
ing specimens in 10% solutions of sodium sulphate (Na2 SO4) .
The effect of exposure was determined by measuring the com-
pressive strength of the specimens. The Na2 SO4 solutions
were refreshed once a month. Sulphate exposures of mortars
were initiated in curing tanks of lime-saturated water for 28
days. The solutions were replaced once a month with fresh
ones and pH value was kept in the range 6–6.8 during the
complete immersion period. Compressive strength was deter-
mined after 180 and 365 days.The reduction in compressive
strength was calculated as follows:
solution
reduction ratio in compressive strength =
 obtain similar slump values, the specimens made with granite
where  (MPa) is the average compressive strength of three
specimens cured in pure water and  solution (MPa) is the aver-
age compressive strength of three specimens cured in the test
solution.
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Properties of fresh concrete
The properties of the fresh concrete including the slump, air
content, unit weight and setting times are given in Table 6.
The results show that the initial-setting times of the con-
crete ranged from 4 to 8 h and the final-setting time ranged
from 5 h and 25 min to 10 h and 45 min. The setting times
of the control concretes were longer than those of MC and
GC concretes. The use of the marble, granite and GBFS
reduced both the initial- and final-setting times of the con-
crete.
The amount of the super plasticizer in all the concrete
mixtures was adjusted to give a slump of approximately
80–150 mm, and ranged from 2.1 to 2.7 l/m3 of concrete
(Table 5). The parameters that affected the super plasticizer
amount depended on the composition of concretes. In order to

Table 6 – Properties of the fresh concretes

Mixture no. Unit weight (kg/m3 ) Slump (mm) Air content (%) Setting time

Initial Final

MC1-1 2370 112 7.3 4:20 5:48

MC1-2 2377 108 7.1 4:10 5:42
MC1-3 2379 109 6.7 4:15 5:47

MC1 averages 2375 110 7.0 4:15 5:45

MC2-1 2354 98 7.2 4:06 5:34

MC2-2 2351 94 7.0 4:08 5:32
MC2-3 2353 94 7.1 3:90 5:26

MC2 averages 2352 95 7.1 4:00 5:30

GC1-1 2396 105 7.3 4:28 5:46

GC1-2 2394 100 7.2 4:25 5:44
GC1-3 2396 94 7.0 4:22 5:46

GC1 averages 2395 100 7.2 4:25 5:45

GC2-1 2371 85 6.9 4:07 5:28

GC2-2 2365 76 6.7 4:04 5:21
GC2-3 2367 81 7.0 4:03 5:26

GC2 averages 2368 80 6.7 4:05 5:25

C1-1 2400 155 8.8 8:08 10.46

C1-2 2393 145 8.4 7:93 10:42
C1-3 2395 150 8.5 8:00 10:47

C1 averages 2396 150 8.6 8:00 10:45

C2-1 2380 141 8.0 6:44 9:58

C2-2 2378 138 7.8 6:47 9:55
C2-3 2377 142 8 6:45 9:52

C2 averages 2378 140 7.9 6:45 9:55

 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308 303

and GBFS (GC1) required more super plasticizer than specimen
GC2 that was made with granite and river sand. The amount
of super plasticizer required to achieve a similar slump value
in GC series of samples ranged from 2.4 l/m3 (GC2) to 2.7 l/m3
(GC1). This behavior was mainly due to the interaction of GBFS
with marble and granite that resulted in the increase in the
puzzolanic activity in the concretes. Due to very fine GBFS
particles the aggregate–paste interfaces get more condensed
and additional CSH gels develop. This decreases the porosity,
permeability and lime content.
4.2. Slump loss
The results on the slump loss and the stability of the retained
air in the fresh concrete are given in Table 7. There was a signif-
icant loss in both slump and air content with time for all the
concrete mixtures. For example, the air content of the con-
crete specimen MC made with marble and GBFS decreased
from 4.1 to 3.1% after 60 min. Fresh marble and granite waste
coarse aggregate concrete was more cohesive and workable
than conventional concrete. This is mainly due to the lower
water absorption and smooth surface texture of the marble
and granite waste coarse aggregate. The results in Table 7 show
that a decrease in both the air content and slump value of
the concrete was observed for all the specimens that included
GBFS. Thus, the decrease in slump and air content can be
attributed to the activity of GBFS.
4.3. Compressive strength
The compressive strength test results for the concrete are
given in Table 8. The results showed that the use of marble
and GBFS resulted in a significant increase in the compres-
sive strength of the concrete. Upon aging the compressive
strength values of all concrete types increased. However, the
compressive strength value of MC and GC group concretes
was significantly higher than that of control concrete speci-
mens throughout the entire period. Furthermore, the initial
(day 1) compressive strength of the control concrete was
lower than that of the MC and GC group concretes. At 7
days, the compressive strength of the concrete made with
marble approached that of the one made with granite con-
crete. At 28 days, all concrete mixtures had somewhat similar
strengths except for the control concrete samples, which
exhibited much lower strength values. The concrete speci-
mens made with marble and GBFS (MC2) developed higher

Table 7 – Slump loss and stability of the air content of the fresh concretes
Mixture no. Fine aggregate type Immediately after mixing 30 min after the mixing 60 min after the mixing
was completed was completed

Slump Air content Slump Air content Slump Air content

(mm) (%) (mm) (%) (mm) (%)

MC1-1 River sand 112 7.1 77 6.1 63 4.2

MC1-1 River sand 110 6.9 74 5.9 61 4.1
MC1-1 River sand 108 7.0 75 6.0 57 3.9

MC1 averages River sand 110 7.0 75 6.0 60 4.1

MC2-1 GBFS 97 7.1 72 4.1 48 3.1

MC2-2 GBFS 95 7.2 71 4.2 52 3.0
MC2-3 GBFS 94 6.9 68 4.2 50 3.0

MC2 averages GBFS 95 7.1 70 4.2 50 3.1

GC1-1 River sand 105 7.3 68 5.3 51 3.3

GC1-2 River sand 100 7.0 65 5.5 50 3.1
GC1-3 River sand 95 7.2 63 5.5 48 3.2

GC1 averages River sand 100 7.2 65 5.4 50 3.2

GC2-1 GBFS 83 6.8 62 4.1 45 3

GC2-2 GBFS 77 6.6 59 3.9 47 2.8
GC2-3 GBFS 81 6.7 60 4.0 44 2.9

GC2 averages GBFS 80 6.7 60 4.0 45 2.9

C1-1 River sand 152 8.8 108 7.1 86 5.5

C1-2 River sand 148 8.5 110 7.3 84 5.7
C1-3 River sand 150 8.5 113 7.2 83 5.5

C1 averages River sand 150 8.6 110 7.2 85 5.6

C2-1 GBFS 142 8.0 100 6.5 73 5.3

C2-2 GBFS 138 7.8 102 6.4 70 5.3
C2-3 GBFS 140 8 97 6.3 68 5.2

C2 averages GBFS 140 7.9 100 6.4 70 5.3

304 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308

Table 8 – Compressive strength of concretes

Mixture no. Density of hardened concrete (1 day) (kg/m3 ) Compressive strength (MPa)

1-day 7-days 28-days 90-days 365-days

MC1-1 2353 29.1 38.4 44.4 50 57.4

MC1-2 2355 30 37.9 44.6 49 57.1
MC1-3 2357 28.5 38.2 43.9 48.5 58.2

MC1 averages 2355 29.2 38.2 44.3 49.2 57.6

MC2-1 2333 31 41.1 46.6 55.0 62.6

MC2-2 2344 31.1 38.3 47.8 54.2 61.9
MC2-3 2340 29.6 41 47.2 53.1 61.8

MC2 averages 2339 30.1 40.1 47.2 54.1 62.1

GC1-1 2352 29.2 36.8 44.5 50.1 55.9

GC1-2 2344 27.8 35.9 42.8 49.4 56.8
GC1-3 2332 28.1 39.7 43.1 48.5 57.7

GC1 averages 2343 28.4 37.5 43.5 49.3 56.8

GC2-1 2332 30.7 38.3 42.1 49.5 57.8

GC2-2 2328 28.7 40.1 46 51.4 59.6
GC2-3 2315 29.4 37.3 44.1 50.6 60.7

GC2 averages 2325 29.6 38.6 44 50.5 59.4

C1-1 2402 8.5 16.1 26.2 31.5 37.9

C1-2 2381 8.0 16 24.1 33.2 37.5
C1-3 2390 8.6 17.1 25.1 32.3 34.9

C1 averages 2391 8.4 16.4 25.1 32.3 36.8

C2-1 2388 14.1 29.3 33.9 42 48.4

C2-2 2373 13.5 27.8 36.1 43.3 46.3
C2-3 2369 13.6 28 35.7 38.2 46.9

C2 averages 2377 13.7 28.4 35.2 41.2 47.2

compressive strength than the other specimens at all stages of
aging.
The compressive strength varied from 36.8 to 62.1 MPa at
365 days. As far as strength is concerned, the basic trend in the
behavior of marble and granite waste coarse aggregate con-
crete is significantly different from that of the conventional
concrete. However, the results presented in Table 8 clearly
show that the strength development characteristics of the
concretes were affected not only by the coarse aggregates, but
in some cases, also by the fine aggregate types. Specimen MC2
had the highest compressive strength value (62.1 MPa) at 365
days.
The development of relative compressive strength in vari-
ous types of concretes investigated in this study is illustrated
in Fig. 1. The results show that the relative compressive
strength values of the concrete specimens made with marble
and granite in the presence of GBFS were observed to be higher
than those of the control concretes, especially in the early cur-
ing periods. However, after 365 days the relative compressive
strength for all the concrete specimens reached 100% value.
4.4. Flexural- and splitting-tensile strengths and
Young’s modulus of elasticity (E)
The flexural- and splitting-tensile strengths of the various
concrete specimens are given in Table 9. The 28-day flexu-
ral strengths of the control concretes C1 and C2 were 3.9 and
4.3 MPa, respectively. The corresponding strengths of the con-
crete made with marble (MC1 and MC2) were 6.4 and 6.9 MPa,
respectively, and those for the granite (GC1 and GC2) were 6.3
and 6.5 MPa, respectively. There were very significant differ-
ences in the flexural strength values obtained for the control
concrete specimens and the marble and granite aggregate
modified concretes. The values ranged from 3.9 to 6.9 MPa.
However, the differences between the flexural strength val-
ues of the marble and granite concrete specimens were very
small (Table 9).
The 28-day splitting-tensile strength values for all the
marble and granite concretes were approximately 3 MPa
and the values for the control concretes (C1 and C2)
were somewhat lower (2.1 and 2.4 MPa). The above results
show that the use of marble and granite in concrete
improves the flexural- and splitting-tensile strength of
concrete. The splitting-tensile strengths of marble and gran-
ite concretes were higher than that of the conventional
concrete.
Table 9 presents the data on Young’s modulus of elasticity
(E) for all the concretes investigated in this study. The E values
at 28 days for the concrete made with marble (MC1 and MC2)
were 35 and 36.1 GPa, respectively. The corresponding values
for the concrete made with granite (GC1 and GC2) were 33.6
and 35.2 GPa, respectively. The values at 90 days were 38.1 and
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308 305

Fig. 1 – Development of relative compressive strength in various concrete specimens.

39.6 GPa and those for MC1 and MC2 were 36.8 and 38.3 GPa,
respectively. The values at 28 days for the control concretes C1
and C2 were 21.3 and 23.2 GPa, respectively; the correspond-
ing values at 90 days were 29.4 and 31.2 GPa, respectively. The
average values of the modulus of elasticity of marble and gran-
ite concretes were 79% higher than those of the conventional
concrete.
4.5. Abrasion resistance
Fig. 2 presents the results of the abrasion tests carried out on
the concrete specimens. The depth of abrasion of the concrete
ranged from 1.8 to 4.5 mm after 30 min of testing. The lowest
abrasion value observed was that for the concrete made with
marble (MC2), and the highest value was for the control con-

Table 9 – Flexural- and splitting-tensile strengths and Young’s modulus of elasticity of concretes
Mixture no. Flexural strength (MPa) Splitting-tensile strength (MPa) Young’s moduli of elasticity (GPa)

28 days 28 days 28 days 90 days

MC1-1 6.6 3.4 37 37.1

MC1-2 6.2 3.5 33 38.2
MC1-3 6.4 3.1 35.1 39.1

MC1 averages 6.4 3.3 35 38.1

MC2-1 7.2 3.6 35.7 40.6

MC2-2 6.9 3.3 36.4 38.9
MC2-3 6.6 3.4 36.3 39.3

MC2 averages 6.9 3.5 36.1 39.6

GC1-1 6.5 3.3 34.1 37.4

GC1-2 6.1 3.1 33.5 36.2
GC1-3 6.3 3.2 33.4 37

GC1 averages 6.3 3.2 33.6 36.8

GC2-1 6.6 3.5 36.1 38.4

GC2-2 6.2 3.3 35.4 37.6
GC2-3 6.5 3.3 34.3 39.1

GC2 averages 6.5 3.4 35.2 38.3

C1-1 4.1 2.2 22.1 28.9

C1-2 3.8 2.1 21.6 29.2
C1-3 3.9 1.9 20.4 30.2

C1 averages 3.9 2.1 21.3 29.4

C2-1 4.4 2.4 23.3 32.1

C2-2 4.2 2.3 23.3 30.3
C2-3 4.2 2.5 23.1 31.3

C2 averages 4.3 2.4 23.2 31.2

306 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308
Fig. 2 – Concrete mass loss after 30 min of abrasion testing.
crete (C1). The abrasion values appear to be a function of the
compressive strength of the concrete. Concretes with GBFS
exhibited a much higher resistance to abrasion than the con-
trol concrete specimens. This observation is also supported by
a prior study (Binici, 2007). MC concretes on average show 10%
lower abrasion value than GC concretes. On the other hand,
the abrasion values for the conventional concretes were 2.2
times higher than those of MC and GC specimens, at 365 days.
The lower abrasion loss of the concretes with marble and gran-
ite is believed to be the result of a denser pore structure of the
mortar.
4.6. Chloride penetration
Fig. 3 illustrates the resistance of the concrete specimens to
chloride penetration. The results show that the resistance to
chloride penetration was significantly higher for the concretes
incorporating marble, granite and GBFS than for the control
concretes. The concretes made with marble and GBFS (spec-
imen MC2) showed higher resistance to chloride penetration
at 28 days than the others. This indicates that the use of fine
GBFS increases the chloride penetration resistance of the con-
crete. In general, addition of marble and granite with GBFS had
a profound effect on the depth of chloride penetration of the
concretes.
Fig. 3 – Chloride penetration of various concrete specimens.
4.7. Sulphate resistance
The effect of sulphate ions on the compressive strength of con-
crete specimens was determined. The compressive strength
values of various concrete specimens after immersion in the
sodium sulphate solution are given in Table 10. The results
show that the compressive strength of the control concretes
decreases by nearly 50% after 12 months exposure, showing
the significance of Na2 SO4 attack on the concrete. In general
the influence of the sulphate ions on the modified concretes
was significantly lower that that on the control concretes. Fur-
thermore, the concrete sample containing marble waste and
GBFS (MC2) showed the least effect by the action of Na2 SO4 .
Fig. 4 shows the reduction of the relative compressive strength
(the ratio of the compressive strength in Na2 SO4 to the com-
pressive strength in pure water). The results show that the
relative compressive strengths of all concretes decrease with
increasing exposure to Na2 SO4 solutions. For control spec-
imens, the compressive strength reduction was higher in
Na2 SO4 solution than those of MC and GC concretes. Marble
concrete (MC2) exhibited greater Na2 SO4 resistance than all
the others.
It is well known that for a given replacement level
with mineral admixtures (i.e., marble, granite and GBFS),
the durability of concrete is influenced by the reactivity of
the mineral admixtures. More reactive mineral admixtures
result in concrete with higher durability. From Figs. 1–4 and
Tables 7–10, it can be seen that the combination of mar-
ble and GBFS imparts higher durability to the concrete. The
use of marble and GBFS was found to be most effective
in increasing the durability of concrete. This result can be
explained by the improved bonding among the additives,
cement and aggregate, which resulted in a more condensed
matrix.
The hydration rate of cementitious materials in marble
and GBFS is faster than that in control specimen and this
will enhance the durability of concrete (i.e., compressive
and flexure strength, sulphate resistance, etc.). Indeed, it
can be assumed that the reactivity of GBFS is influenced by
its properties such as glass content and chemical compo-
sition. In the specimens containing marble and GBFS there
is a much better bonding between the additives and the
cement.
 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308 307

Table 10 – Compressive strength of specimens immersed in 10% sodium sulphate solution

Mixture no. Compressive strength (MPa)

After 28 days in pure water After 6 months in sulphate solutions After 12 months in sulphate solutions

MC1-1 45.2 37.8 32.7

MC1-2 44.3 39.6 32
MC1-3 43.6 38.5 30.6

MC1 averages 44.3 38.6 31.8

MC2-1 47.1 42.9 35.8

MC2-2 48.2 43.2 35.2
MC2-3 46.3 43 34.3

MC2 averages 47.2 43.1 35.1

GC1-1 42.3 36.1 28.6

GC1-2 40.6 34.2 26.9
GC1-3 41.7 35 27.6

GC1 averages 41.5 35.1 27.7

GC2-1 43.7 38.9 32.1

GC2-2 43.2 39.6 29.7
GC2-3 45.1 40.6 31.3

GC2 averages 44 39.7 31

C1-1 25 17.9 13.4

C1-2 24.2 16.9 13.1
C1-3 26.2 17.5 13.2

C1 averages 25.1 17.4 13.2

C2-1 38.1 29.9 21.6

C2-2 36.2 27.6 22.1
C2-3 37.3 28.5 19.8

C2 averages 37.2 28.7 21.2

Fig. 4 – Loss in relative compressive strength of concretes in sodium sulphate solution.

can be concluded that in order to obtain similar slump val-

5. Conclusions ues, the specimen made with granite and GBFS (GC1) required
more super plasticizer than specimen GC2 that was made with
In this study, the effects of marble and granite waste aggre- granite and river sand. A decrease in both the air content and
gates on the properties of concrete were investigated and it slump value of the concrete was observed for all the speci-
308 j o u r n a l o f m a t e r i a l s p r o c e s s i n g t e c h n o l o g y 2 0 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 299–308
mens that included GBFS. Hence, the decrease in slump and
air content can be attributed to the activity of GBFS.
Compressive strength and abrasion resistance of the con-
crete were strongly influenced by its marble, granite and GBFS
content. Minimum abrasion rate was obtained for marble con-
crete specimens (MC2) while maximum abrasion rate was
obtained for the control concrete specimen, prepared with
GBFS and limestone (C2). Marble aggregate and GBFS-based
concrete specimens (MC2) showed considerably higher resis-
tance to chloride and sulphate attack than all the others.
The results indicate that the addition of marble and gran-
ite into concrete reduces the chloride penetration depths by
about 70%. In the specimens containing marble and GBFS
there is a much better bonding among the additives, cement
and aggregates. Furthermore, it may be said that marble and
GBFS replacement rendered a good condensed matrix. The
increased durability of concrete can be attributed to the glass
content and chemical composition of the GBFS.
The results of this study show that the marble and granite
waste aggregates can be used to improve the mechanical prop-
erties, workability and chemical resistance of the conventional
concrete mixtures. Since marble, granite and GBFS wastes are
available in vast amounts in Turkey, it makes sense from the
economical and environmental viewpoints to use these mate-
rials as aggregates in the production of more durable concrete
mixtures.
references
Akbulut, H., Cahit, G., 2007. Use of aggregates produced from
marble quarry waste in asphalt pavements. Build. Environ. 42,
1921–1930.
Binici, H., 2007. Effect of crushed ceramic and basaltic pumice as
fine aggregates on concrete mortars properties. Constr. Build.
Mater. 21, 1191–1197.
Binici, H., Kaplan, H., Yılmaz, S., 2007. Influence of marble and
limestone dusts as additives on some mechanical properties
of concrete. Sci. Res. Essay 9, 372–379.
Cetin, A., 1997. Assessment of industrial wastes in asphalt
concrete pavement mixtures. M.Sc. Thesis. Department of
Civil Engineering, Natural Science Institute, Anadolu
University, Eskisehir, p. 266 (in Turkish).
Chindaprasirt, P., Chotithanorm, C., Cao, H.T., Sirivivatnanon, V.,
2007. Influence of fly ash fineness on the chloride penetration
of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 21, 356–361.
Jepsen, M.T., Mathiesen, D., Petersen, C., Bager, D., 2001.
Durability of resource saving “Green” type of concrete. In:
Proceedings of the FIB-Symposium on Concrete and
Environment, Berlin, pp. 257–265.
Meck, E., Sirivivatnanon, V., 2003. Field indicator of chloride
penetration depth. Cem. Concr. Res. 33, 1113–1117.
OECD, 1997. Road Transport Research: Recycling Strategies for
Road Works. Organization for Economic Co-operation and
Development (OECD), Paris, France, pp. 140–148.
Otsuki, N., Nagataki, S., Nakashita, K., 1993. Evaluation of AgNO3
solution spray method for measurement of chloride
penetration into hardened cementitious matrix materials.
Constr. Build. Mater. 7, 195–201.
Saboya, F., Xavier, G.C., Alexandre, J., 2007. The use of the powder
marble by-product to enhance the properties of brick ceramic.
Constr. Build. Mater. 21, 1950–1960.
Senthamarai, R.M., Devadas, M.P., 2005. Concrete with ceramic
waste aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 27, 910–913.
Terzi, S., Karasahin, M., 2003. Use of marble dust in the hot mix
asphalt as a filler material. J. Tech. Chamber Civil Eng. Turk.
14, 2903–3022 (in Turkish).
UMTC, 1995. Use of recycled materials and recycled products in
highway construction. University of Massachusetts
Transportation Center Report UMTC-95-1, US, pp. 238–245.
Yigiter, H., Yazici, H., Aydin, S., 2007. Effects of cement type,
water/cement ratio and cement content on sea water
resistance of concrete. Build. Environ. 42, 1770–1776.
Zorluer, I., 2003. Stabilization of soils by waste marble dust. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth National Marble Symposium,
Afyonkarahisar, pp. 297–305 (in Turkish).