Next Article in Journal
Two Novel Vlasov Models for Bending Analysis of Finite-Length Beams Embedded in Elastic Foundations
Previous Article in Journal
Metal-Nails Waste and Steel Slag Aggregate as Alternative and Eco-Friendly Radiation Shielding Composites
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Buildings
Volume 12
Issue 8
10.3390/buildings12081121
buildings-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Influence of Cotton Knitted Fabric Waste Addition on Concrete Properties

by
Bruno Bartulović
*,
Sandra Juradin
,
Dujmo Žižić
and
Matea Galić
Faculty of Civil Engineering, Architecture and Geodesy, University of Split, 21000 Split, Croatia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Buildings 2022, 12(8), 1121; https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081121
Submission received: 20 June 2022 / Revised: 13 July 2022 / Accepted: 26 July 2022 / Published: 29 July 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Building Materials, and Repair & Renovation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Manufacturing cotton knitted fabric apparel generates a substantial amount of production (pre-consumer) waste. One of the ways to alleviate the environmental impact of this is to use the cotton knitted fabric production waste (CKFW) in concrete, which had the simultaneous benefit of reducing the use of virgin aggregate. The aim of this research was to examine the influence of CKFW on concrete properties, and to explore the possible application of this novel material in the construction industry for the production of precast building elements based on its characteristics. An additional goal was to enhance certain properties of concrete and determine the shortcomings of CKFW concrete. A total of 10 mixes were made and tested. CKFW was used at rates of 1.7% and 3.5% of the total mix volume. All mixtures had the same amount of cement, with three mixes having the addition of silica fume. Crushed limestone was used as the aggregate with different aggregate size combinations. Two types of polycarboxylic ether-based superplasticizer were used. The properties of the fresh mix were determined by the slump method. The ultrasonic pulse velocity, dynamic modulus of elasticity, flexural strength and compressive strength were tested on 28-day-old concrete specimens. The σ–δ diagram is also presented in this paper. We learned that the flexural strength of specimens with CKFW addition was increased by up to 38% but the compressive strength was reduced by up to 20% compared to the reference concrete mix. The CKFW mixtures had higher ductility and permeability. Additionally, silica fume had a positive effect on the concretes with a higher percentage of textiles. The percentages of textile waste used in this study affected the density of concrete in a range of 0–2%. Based on the obtained results, we offer recommendations for further tests and possible applications.

1. Introduction

The textile industry produces a high quantity of waste. According to the data presented by Ailenei et al. [1], the global textile industry generates 92 million tons of waste per year. Around 35% of the total waste is generated in the primary processing phase of the raw material [2]. Part of the waste is reused or recycled, especially that from the postproduction stream. However, recycling within textile manufacturing requires logistics and machinery that are not always practicable or available. Furthermore, in each round of recycling, fibers are shortened and degraded and eventually end up in landfills or incinerated, thus polluting the environment [3].
However, it is feasible to utilize an open-loop method of recycling, which can be described as an industrial metabolism [4], in which textile industry waste and byproduct streams are diverted to the construction industry. This topic has become the focus of research and is partially summarized by Rubino et al. [5]. The main goal is to reduce and upcycle textile waste so as to gain a better-performing construction material. Due to the various types of textile waste, numerous approaches are being studied that attempt to integrate different forms of textile waste and byproducts within new composite materials. As they are greatly affected by textile characteristics, composite materials or building elements are chosen and designed to use the positive features of textiles. Different materials and building element prototypes have been developed by researchers: e.g., mortars [6], concretes [7,8], wall cavity infills [9,10], clay bricks [11,12], thermoformed polymer resin panels composite for partitioning or thermo-acoustic insulation [1,13,14,15,16,17], thermal insulation mats with incased textile waste [18,19], gypsum-based insulation panels [20], chipboard composites [21], hydraulic lime composite [22], wall partitions [23,24,25], cement-based panels [26,27,28], concrete-based blocks [11,29,30,31] and polyurethane foam composites [32].
Concrete is one of the most widely available and used building materials, and cotton production amounts to around 25% of fibers produced globally. An investigation conducted by Dobilaite et al. [33] showed that the amount of cutting waste reaches 20–25% of the total quantity of materials used for production. The vast quantity of such waste is the main reason we sought to examine the influence of partial aggregate replacement with CKFW (cotton knitted fabric production waste) cuttings on concrete properties and explore the possible applications of this novel material in the construction industry based on its characteristics, as displayed in the graphical abstract in Figure 1.
The use of textiles in concrete is a well-known research topic, but current studies are mainly focused on the use of fibers and fabrics specifically designed to be used as reinforcements in concrete, i.e., non-crimp fabrics (NCF) [34], and textile-reinforced concrete (TRC) [35]. The design concepts of fabric architectures for cement-based composites are rather complex, taking into consideration a range of parameters such as the geometrical characteristics of the yarn and fabric (yarn orientation, yarn shape, opening of bundle filaments, yarn tightening effects, fabric geometry and density) [36,37,38], the material and fabric tightness [39], the number of fabric layers in the composite [40] and the cement permeability [41]. In general, the reinforcing yarns used in composite materials should be as straight as possible in the reinforcing direction to achieve a high reinforcing efficiency. Rather than perceiving textile fabric waste simply as concrete reinforcement, Aspiras and Manalo state that textile cuttings can be conceived as neither an aggregate nor a reinforcement [28]. Instead, they contribute to the increased volume of the mixture (which is the major function of an aggregate) and the increase in the tensile resistance (which is the major function of a reinforcement) due to their fibrous nature. The interactions between CKFW and Portland cement are multiple and complex, from their chemical interactions and the compatibility of the cellulose fiber and cement matrix to the adhesion and effect of the knit structure itself.
Research conducted by Eldin and El-Tahan on virgin cotton fabric cement reinforcement has confirmed that the tensile and flexural strength depend on the fabric properties, mainly its tensile strength, which in turn depends on the structure of the fabric [40]. The drawbacks of raw cotton fibers are similar to those of other cellulosic or vegetable fibers, the main one being the great variability in their mechanical properties. The quality of natural fibers depends on geographical and climate conditions, soil quality, weathering conditions, extraction methods, the time of harvesting and plant maturity [42]. Cellulosic fibers have significant variations in their chemical compositions, diameter, length and surface roughness, resulting in significant scattering in fiber mechanical properties [43]. Their high moisture absorption [44,45] and lower processing temperatures are also mentioned as disadvantages of natural fibers [42,46].
Furthermore, natural fibers degrade in the alkaline environment of Portland cement [47,48]. The two main mechanisms that cause the degradation of natural fibers within cement-based matrices are alkaline attack and fiber mineralization. In the first mechanism, the degradation of fibers in the cement matrix occurs as a consequence of the dissolving of the lignin and hemicellulose components of the fibers through the alkaline pore water (due to the adsorption of calcium and hydroxyl ions). In the second mechanism, fiber mineralization is caused by the migration of hydration products (calcium hydroxide) onto the fiber wall and into the fiber cell [47,49,50].
Although man-made fibers and fabrics might have better performance, there are certain advantages to cotton and other cellulose fibers that make them interesting, such as their low cost, high strength and low density, renewability, lower energy requirement for production and significantly lower CO2 emissions [35].
Furthermore, some of aforementioned disadvantages inherent to raw vegetable and cotton fibers are addressed by CKFW.
Firstly, cotton lint used for clothing is rated according to the quality of the fiber, and fibers are often blended to homogenize them, decreasing the natural variations in fiber properties. The homogenization process reduces the problem of the great variability in the mechanical properties of natural fibers to some extent. In addition, since the CKFW has been processed and homogenized as a part of the industrial process of cloth making, energy has been saved on treating the virgin fibers.
Secondly, after cotton lint is spun to yarn and knitted, it is scoured and bleached; the most commonly used solutions are sodium hydroxide, hydrogen peroxide and sodium hypochlorite. These procedures and chemicals are similar to those often used to alleviate the effects of the alkaline environment and to increase cellulose fiber–cement composite compatibility and durability, and include alkali treatment of fibers with sodium hydroxide and calcium hydroxide solutions [42,44,50,51].
Furthermore, scouring and bleaching eliminate organic compounds impacting the cement hydration process and bring the cotton composition to 99% cellulose content. High cellulose cotton fibers increase the heat of hydration and seem to act as nucleating agents [46], while raw fibers hinder the hydration process [52,53]. As CKFW has already been scoured or bleached as a part of the industrial process of cloth making, there is a reduction in chemical pollution and energy usage with the added effect of potentially increasing the durability of fibers in the cement composite.
However, it must be noted that scouring and bleaching increase the water retention of fabric and may weaken the bond with the cement matrix [44,54]. Specifically, the effect of subsequent bleaching on Jersey knit causes fabric weight loss and a poorer bursting test performance [55]. Thus, the study of the chemical treatment of CKFW specifically needs further exploration.
This study is a continuation of research on cotton knitted fabric waste (CKFW) from an underwear garment factory [56]. The intent of this research was to study the effect of CKFW on different concrete mixtures through basic standardized test methods so as to provide guidelines for further research. We were looking for the optimal composition of concrete that would be used for the production of prefabricated elements. By including industrial waste, assuming there is no reduction in the quality of concrete, the requirements of industrial metabolism and the circular economy would be met. According to the given references, it is evident that this issue is important. We tested sample concrete mixtures based on Portland cement with different aggregate size distributions, supplementary cementitious materials (silica fume) and plasticizer types. The CKFW was pure cotton post-industrial waste and, in order to simplify its use in preliminary testing, the textile waste was not treated but only washed in tap water, as in [56,57]. Some durability indicators were tested to evaluate the application of this type of concrete in different classes of exposure. Section 3 and Section 4 summarize the findings of this study and give recommendations for further testing and potential applications.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials and Sample Preparation

For the purpose of testing the effect of CKFW on the properties of concrete, a total of 10 concrete mixtures were composed: 3 reference concrete mixtures without the addition of CKFW and 7 mixtures with the addition of textile waste in the amounts of 1.7% and 3.5% of the total volume. The concretes were made with crushed limestone aggregate; 6 were made with 3 fractions, 0/4, 4/8 and 8/16 mm, and 4 with a 0/4 mm fraction. Different aggregate grain sizes were combined to examine the possibility of using this type of concrete to produce prefabricated elements. Cumulative granulometric curves of aggregates are shown in Figure 2.
All mixtures contained the same amount of cement, 350 kg per m3 of concrete; concretes with a higher maximum aggregate grain size used CEM I 42.5 R, and concretes with lower maximum grain size used CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N. Two types of cement were selected for testing in order to assess which cement is more suitable for the production of prefabricated elements. Both cements are declared by the manufacturer as suitable for prefabricated elements. Since each combination of mixtures has its own reference mixture, the number of samples was reduced and it was not necessary to make all combinations of the aggregate used for each cement. The CEM I and CEM II/B-M (S-LL) powder X-ray diffraction (XRPD) pattern and their quantitative and qualitative analyses of cements are shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4. The XRD analysis of CEM I 42.5 R and CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N was made with a system with the following operating conditions: Cu-Ka, 40 kV voltage, 40 mA current and a PIXcel3D Detector with Medipix3 (Malvern Panalytical, Malvern, UK). Based on the XRD pattern, Table 1 gives a comparative analysis of the composition and the specific gravity and surface area according to Blaine.
Two types of polycarboxylic ether-based superplasticizer (PCE) were used: SP1 was used in nine mixtures and SP2 in one mixture. Both were added in an amount of 0.6% by weight of binder. One reference concrete and two CKFW mixtures were made with the addition of silica fume in the amount of 10% by weight of cement. The amount of water in all mixtures was defined by a water-binding factor of 0.5.
The textile waste was provided by a local factory that mainly produces clothing items such as underwear. The obtained CKFW comprised leftover pieces from the cutting process, in which garment components are cut out from the larger fabric surface in a shape needed for sewing of the clothing item. The waste obtained is entirely made out of natural cotton fiber yarn and composed out of two fabric types, Single Jersey and Fine Rib. Both of fabrics are weft knitted (Figure 5). The main characteristics of the fabrics are shown in Table 2. The ratio of fabric types in a batch provided by the manufacturer is unknown.
CKFW typically possesses elasticity due to the knitting style and an irregular cutoff shape with varying surface area, a consequence of the production process. CKFW was additionally cut to about 2 cm × 6–8 cm to homogenize fabric pieces and accommodate easier mixing within concrete. Fabric was cut regardless of the fabric knit pattern. Weft knit predominately stretches and elongates in the course direction, i.e., crosswise. Tensile strength and elongation measurements for Single Jersey and Fine Rib kitted fabric were obtained by Sitotaw and Adamu [58].
The amount of CKFW was selected based on previous tests [56]. Before adding to the mixture, the cloths were saturated in room temperature tap water and drained well in order to be in a water-saturated and surface-dry state. The appearance of the cloths in the mixer when dosing the components is shown in Figure 6a, and in Figure 6b, they are visible in the hardened concrete samples.
Table 3 shows the composition and labels of all mixtures. E marks the reference concrete samples without the addition of cloths; TX represents samples with the addition of textiles. The S marks samples with silica fume, F denotes fine aggregate samples and 1.7 and 3.5 denominate the percentage of textiles in the total volume of concrete.
All solid components were mixed in a laboratory mixer for 1 min; then, water and superplasticizer were added, and everything was mixed for an additional 5 min. After mixing, the consistency was tested by the slump test according to HRN EN 12350-2 [59] (Figure 7).
The samples were poured and compacted using vibrations in cube molds measuring 15 cm and prism molds measuring 10 cm × 10 cm × 50 cm. The samples were stored in a humid chamber for 24 h, then removed from the mold and placed in a pool of water at a temperature of 20 ± 2 °C until day 28, when they were tested.

2.2. Testing of Hardened Concrete Samples

Concrete samples were tested on the 28th day after casting.
The density of hardened concrete samples was determined in accordance with HRN EN 12390-7 [60]. Ultrasonic pulse velocity through the specimens was determined according to HRN EN 12504-4 [61].
The dynamic modulus of elasticity was calculated from the ultrasonic pulse velocity (v) assuming a Poisson’s ratio (µ) of 0.2 and using the hardened concrete density (ρ) according to the Equation (1):
E d i n = v 2 ρ 1 + μ 1 − 2 μ 1 − μ
Compressive strength was tested on cube-shaped samples according to EN 12390-3 [62] with a constant loading rate of 0.50 MPa/s.
The flexural tensile strength was tested using a hydraulic device with a load capacity of 300 kN according to EN 12390-5 [63]. Single concentrated force was applied at the midspan of the prism while simultaneously recording the load and midpoint displacement of samples.
Sorptivity and saturated water absorption were tested on cube specimens according to [64,65]. After curing for 28 days, the specimens were dried at 105 ± 5 °C for 24 h until a constant mass was reached. Then, the specimens were cooled to room temperature to determine the mass M1. The specimens were immersed in water for 24 h until a constant mass M2 was obtained and weighed. The saturated water absorption (Wa) was calculated using the Equation (2):
W a = M 2 − M 1 M 1 × 100 %
where M1 is the mass of an oven-dried sample in air and M2 is the mass of a surface-dry specimen in the air after immersion.
The sorptivity test was carried out according to the ASTM C1585 [64,66]. The samples were first dried in the drying oven at 105 ± 5 °C for 24 h until reaching constant mass M0. Then, the specimens were cooled at room temperature and weighed, and only one surface of the specimen was exposed to water. The cubes rested on small supports in water, so that only <5 mm of the cubes was submerged. The amount of absorbed water was determined at different times, after 0, 2, 4, 8, 15, 30, 45 and 60 min and 4 and 24 h, by weighing the cubes:
Δ W = M t − M 0
where ΔW represents the mass increase (g) in water absorbed by the surface 150 × 150 mm2, and t (h) is the time at which the mass is determined.
Sorptivity in mm/h0.5 can be calculated from the Equation (4):
S = Δ W A t 0.5
where ΔW/A is an increase in mass due to the access of water in mm (1 g of water is equivalent to 1 mm3, so g/mm3 = mm3/mm2 = mm [64]), A is a cross-section of the cube (150 mm × 150 mm) and t is time measured in hours (t = 24 h).
Lower values are preferable.

3. Results and Discussion

Table 4 presents the average values and standard deviation of the measured results obtained from all the mixtures.

3.1. Compressive and Flexural Strength

Figure 8 shows the compressive and flexural strength results relative to the mixture E and Figure 9 shows the relative values of the corresponding reference mixtures: E, TX-1.7 and TX-3.5 with respect to E; E-S, TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5 with respect to E-S and E-F; and TX-F-1.7*, TX-F-1.7 and TX-F-3.5 with respect to E-F. According to the results shown in Figure 8 and Table 4, the reference mixture E achieved the highest strength of 66.4 MPa. Even E-S, the reference mixture with the addition of silica fume and the same maximum grain size, had a lower value compared to E. The reduction in the maximum grain size of the aggregate and the change in the type of cement led to a significant drop in strength—the mixture E-F achieved only 45% of the strength of the mixture E. As shown in Figure 3 and Figure 4 and Table 1, due to the higher C3S content, CEM I achieved higher early strengths compared to CEM II, but since both cements are in the same class, the 28-day strength of concrete did not differ significantly. For a given quantity of cement, the concrete strength is proportional to the maximum size of the aggregate [67,68]; thus, the smaller aggregate size used in F specimens resulted in lower concrete strengths. Group F represents fine-grained concrete, also known as sand concrete. However, if the use of textiles in the production of prefabricated elements is considered, the compressive strengths do not have to achieve high values such as mixture E. For example, Fortes et al. [69] tested concrete blocks with nominal compressive strengths of 16, 24 and 30 MPa. For this reason, it is important to observe the obtained results in relation to the corresponding reference mixtures in this study.
As presented in Figure 8, the compressive strength of CKFW concrete reduced proportionally to the percentage of the CKFW addition. The exception is mixture TX-S-1.7. The CKFW concretes achieved 38–90% of the reference mixture strength E. Closest to the value of reference mixture E is TX1.7, which achieved 90% of the compressive strength of reference mixture E. If the CKFW mixtures are observed in relation to the corresponding reference mixtures (Figure 9), then this reduction in compressive strength is 1–20%. According to Figure 9, CKFW addition had the least effect on the compressive strength in mixtures with silica fume and the mixture with the SP2 superplasticizer.
A similar trend of compressive strength decrease with an increase in waste carpet fiber dosage was observed by Awal and Mohammadhosseini [70], where, for the largest fiber content of 1.25%, they obtained a strength reduction of 21.3% compared to the control mixture. Sadrolodabaee et al. [71] found that the compressive strength decreased significantly with the increase in the textile waste fiber content. Selvaraj and Pryjanka [7] obtained a strength reduction of almost 50% with the addition of 5% textile waste by the weight of cement. In their study, the control mixture scored 63.01 MPa, while the mixture with 5% of textile waste achieved only 32.76 MPa. Mixtures with 1% and 2% textile waste achieved 70.2% and 67.7% strength of the control mixture, respectively [7]. As shown in Table 3, in this study, textile waste replacement of 1.7% and 3.5% of the total volume of the mixture, which corresponds to 1% and 2% of the mass of cement, respectively, produced results in the range from 80% to 99% of the compressive strength of the reference mix. Selvaraj and Pryjanka [7] indicate that there were two reasons for the decrease in compressive strength: the reduction in the cohesiveness and the fact that calcium silicate hydrate (CSH) formation does not occur completely around the aggregate grains. If the added textiles are regarded as a fiber, then, according to [68], the reason for the decrease in strength is the more difficult placement and the increased surface area of the cement mortar in the Interfacial Transition Zone (ITZ).
Anglade et al. [29] concluded that the reduction in compressive strength when polyester textile waste is added is caused by fibers that increase the air bubbles and voids in the concrete. The same was observed by Bartulović et al. [56]. Ali et al. [72] used 25 × 5 mm cuttings and found that the optimal percentage of textile waste in concrete is 0.6%, which increases the compressive strength by 11.7%; however, with the addition of 1% textile waste, compressive strength was reduced by 29.3%. According to Figure 10, the selected amount of textile waste in the mixtures did not affect the failure mode of the hardened concrete.
From Figure 8 and Figure 9, it is observable that CKFW improved the flexural strength of reference concretes, except for the specimens with silica fume, where CKFW failed to increase flexural strength in reference to mix E-S. However, overall, specimens with silica fume achieved higher values than reference mix E. For the larger aggregate grain size samples, the increase was in the range of 19% to 25% in reference to E; for fine-sized aggregate samples, the improvement was in the range of 26% to 38% in reference to E-F, but was lower by 19–41% in comparison to mix E. Selvaraj et al. [7] obtained a greater improvement in flexural strength, but with a larger amount of textile waste. Mixtures from Selveraj and Pryjanka [7], comparable to this research, with 1% and 2% textile waste, increased flexural strength by 9.5% and 21.3%, respectively. As shown in Table 4 and Figure 8 and Figure 9, mixtures TX and TX-S achieved better results in comparison to the aforementioned study [7]. Manishankar and Sathiyaraj [8] tested concretes with textile waste with different textile to cement ratios in regard to cement weight. The authors concluded that textile waste in concrete generally increased the strength of concrete; up to 3% textile waste gave better flexural strength compared to control samples.
The main goal of reinforcing concrete with textiles is to delay the spread of cracks by transferring stress to adjacent sections. From the σ–δ curve in Figure 11, it is clear that the addition of CKFW improved the concrete properties. Selvaraj et al. [7] came to the same conclusion, namely that the inclusion of fabric waste increases the tensile properties of concrete due to the reinforcing effect of the fabric fibers. As shown in Figure 11, the reference mix E broke immediately while the TX specimens continued to carry the load. The same applies to the reference mix E-S and TX-S specimens. However, we failed to observe the same trend for the TX-F specimens, even though they increased the flexural strength.
Even though the fabric distributes evenly in the mix [56], increased CKFW hinders concrete placement due to the anisotropic behavior of the fabric. This confirms that the knitted fabric behaves like a thick fiber in the concrete, helping to increase the flexural strength and ductility of the concrete.

3.2. Dynamic Modulus of Elasticity and Ultra Pulse Velocity

Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the relative results of the dynamic modulus of elasticity and velocity of ultrasound with respect to mixture E and all other reference mixtures. The dynamic modulus of elasticity shows a trend comparable to the compressive strength. All samples had a significantly lower dynamic modulus of elasticity compared to reference sample E (Figure 12). For the TX samples, the reductions in the dynamic modulus of elasticity were 4% and 10%, with other CKFW and reference mixes having 53–37% lower values compared to sample E. The silica fume samples displayed unexpectedly large decreases compared to sample E. However, when compared with their reference mix E-S (Figure 13), TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5 showed a decrease of 6%. For the TX-F samples, there was almost no change in the dynamic modulus of elasticity in comparison to reference mix E-F (1–4%).
The ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) was highest with the reference mixture E and the differences of the other mixtures with respect to E were slightly smaller than with the dynamic modulus of elasticity, ranging from 1% to 28% (Figure 12). The UPV of the CKFW-reinforced mixes in comparison to the respective reference mixes was lower by 0–4% (Figure 13). Table 4 displays the UPV values for all mixes. According to the manual [73], if UPV is higher than 4500 m/s, the concrete quality is rated as excellent. In Table 4, it can be seen that mixes E, TX-1.7 and TX-3.5 were of excellent quality. The mixtures labeled S and F were rated as good, as they have a UPV value above 3500 m/s. In this test, the silica fume mixes also fared poorly compared to the mixes without it. A probable reason is the improper storage of silica fume and its subsequent failure to completely activate in the concrete mixture. The remainder of silica fume that did not undergo the pozzolanic reaction acted as a filler in the concrete. Another problem was observed in silica samples while measuring the entrained air in the fresh concrete. The silica fume mixes (E-S, TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5) contained from 5.9% (TXS-S-3.5) up to 7.2% (TX-S-1.7) entrained air, while E, TX-1.7 and TX-3.5 contained 1.2–2.2%. The entrained air content may explain why there was a 20% UPV decrease compared to reference mixture E and other measured values, because the average accepted value for the UPV in air is 340 m/s. Moreover, a large quantity of entrained air may be the reason why TX-S-1.7 had a worse compression strength than TX-S-3.5, which is in line with the conclusions made by Anglade et al. [29].

3.3. Workability and Density

Figure 14 and Figure 15 show the relative values of slump and density of the tested mixes, and the measured values are displayed in Table 4 and Figure 7. Mixture E-S had a lower slump value and mixture E-F had a higher slump value compared to mixture E (Figure 14). It is clear that the addition of silica fume in mixture E-S lowered the slump due to the specific surface area of the silica fume compared to cement. Since all mixtures had the same water:binder ratio, an increase in the workability of group S could be obtained by considering the k concept, where, for silica fume, k is 2 [74]. According to Table 2 and [75], the slump classes were as follows: mixtures TX-3.5 and TX-S-3.5—S2 (standard); TX-1.7, E-S, TX-S-1.7, TX-F-1.7* and TX-F-3.5—S3 (wet); E, E-F and TX-F-1.7—S4 (very wet). The F group mixtures were plastic and workable and could produce smooth surfaces, which are especially suitable for architectural forms (Figure 7).
Generally, a smaller aggregate size requires a greater water content than is needed for a larger aggregate size of the same stone origin to achieve the same workability. In this case, the workability of concrete E-F was better than the workability of mixture E even though the same amount of water was used (Figure 14). The exception is the mixture TX-F-1.7*, a mixture with another type of superplasticizer. Moreover, as shown in Table 1, the specific surface area of the CEM II cement was larger than the specific surface area of the CEM I cement, which should reduce the workability of the F group. All of the aggregate was supposed to be in a saturated and surface-dry state, but the aggregate in the 0/4 fraction also had significant surface moisture, which led to excess water in the F mixtures. Due to the excess water, the E-F mixture had better workability compared to E. As the amount of water in the F mixtures was greater than was required for the complete hydration of cement, excess water remained free and capillaries and cavities were formed, which can be seen in the cross-section of the sample shown in Figure 16. Moreover, this water part resulted in a further reduction in the strength of F group mixtures compared to the other concretes.
As shown in Table 4 and Figure 15, the workability of the mixes decreased with respect to the amount of textile, with the exception of TX-S-1.7. Since this mixture had a larger amount of entrained air, the amount of paste and thus the workability of the concrete increased. The TX-F-1.7* mix had lower workability than the TX-F-1.7 mix, although they had exactly the same composition and differed only in the type of superplasticizer used. Both superplasticizers were added in the same quantity, 0.6% by weight of binder. However, for the SP2 superplasticizer used in TX-F-1.7*, the recommended dose range is 0.2–0.8%, whereas for the SP1 superplasticizer used in the other nine mixtures, the recommended dose range is 0.6–1.4% by weight of binder. Even though the SP2 was added in an amount closer to the upper recommended limit, it obviously had a weaker effect than the SP1.
Compared to control sample E, the density of the mixtures was reduced by 1–9% (Figure 14). Compared to E, the densities of TX-1.7 and TX-3.5 were reduced by 1% and 2%, respectively. The TX-S-1.7 density reduction was 2% compared to E-S, while for TX-S-3.5, the density reduction was marginal, which may be due to the compaction. For all fine aggregate samples (TX-F), the density reduction was below 1% compared to E-F (Figure 15). The difference between TX-3.5 and TX-1.7 was also marginal. Similar results were obtained by Ali et al. in [72], where the reduction in density depending on the proportion of textile (0–1%) was 0–0.9%. The percentage of textile waste used in this study did not significantly affect the density of the concrete.

3.4. Durability: Saturated Water Absorption, Sorptivity and Gas Permeability

The design and construction of concrete structures require safety and usability throughout the life cycle. Concrete corrosion is basically a diffusion process where the diffusion rate depends on the permeability of the concrete to fluids, which is a more practical measure for estimating the rate of corrosion progression. The permeability of concrete depends on the amount and the characteristics of its pore structure; thus, absorption and sorptivity are recognized as indicators of concrete durability. As shown in Figure 17 and Figure 18, silica fume affected the reduction in the saturated water absorption. Mixtures with silica fume, labeled S, had the same or lower values in comparison to reference mixture E, while mixtures labeled F had more than twice the value (Figure 17). The behavior of F-labeled mixtures can be explained by the aforementioned increase in the number of capillaries in the specimens. Mixtures labeled TX had 28–34% higher absorption in comparison with E. The absorption of mixture TX-S-1.7 was the same as for E, but was 5% higher than E-S, and 19% higher than TX-S-3.5; the increased amount of entrained air also affected the results obtained. The TX-F mixtures had 7% and 13% higher absorption compared to E-F; only TX-F-1.7* with the SP2 superplasticizer had a better result (Figure 18). In addition, according to the Comité Euro-International du Béton [76] and [77], the concrete quality is good if water absorption is less than 3%, average if water absorption is between 3% and 5% and poor if water absorption is higher than 5%. As shown in Table 4, TX-S-3.5 achieved a good quality of concrete; the mixtures E, TX-1.7, TX-3.5, E-S and TX-S-1.7 had average quality; and the F series was of poor quality.
Regarding the sorptivity, a similar trend can be observed as with the results of the saturated water absorption, except that all the results were worse in comparison to the reference mixture E. The S group mixtures had 4–13% higher values compared to E, while mixtures of the F group had 3 to 4 times higher values than reference mixture E (Figure 17). The addition of the textile increased sorptivity, with the exception of mixtures TX-S-3.5 and TX-F-1.7* (Figure 18). The reason for this may be the random distribution of CKFW in the test specimens, which may not have been close to the surface in contact with water.
As in the study by Yang et al. [78], a linear relationship can be established between the measured values of sorptivity and saturated water absorption. Figure 19 shows a very strong positive linear relationship between the results, with R = 0.9812. This shows that one of these measured durability indicators is sufficient to assess the quality of concrete. Figure 20 shows the water absorption (g/cm2) relative to the square root of time (h0.5) diagram.
The values in Figure 20 indicate that water penetration was very slow for TX and TX-S samples. The TX mixtures initially had a higher absorbency than TX-S, but the difference decreased over time. Mixture E had the best results and mixture TX-S-3.5 had almost identical behavior to E. There was an increase in sorptivity for TX-F, which can be explained by the aforementioned increase in the proportion of capillaries in the concrete. Once again, a significant difference in sorptivity was observable between TX-F-1.7 and TX-F-1.7*, highlighting the effect that the plasticizer can have on CKFW mixtures. Samples from Selvaraj et al. [7], which are comparable with TX and TX-S, exhibited water absorption in the range of 2.67–28.74%. They concluded that these values are due to the absorption of water by the cloth itself. In contrast to [7], in this study, mixtures with silica fume achieved better results than the reference mixture without CKFW, but not in relation to mixture E.
Based on the results of water absorption from Table 4 and Figure 20, mixtures with the addition of silica fume were selected for testing the gas permeability according to the RILEM Cembureau method [79,80]. Samples 150 mm in diameter and 50 mm high were made and tested in the Cembureau cell setup (Figure 21a). The samples were tested at three pressure levels: 0.15 MPa, 0.20 MPa and 0.30 MPa. The gas permeability coefficient K is determined from the Equation (5):
K = 2   P a Q   L   μ A P i 2 − P a 2
where L represents the thickness of the specimen (m), A is the cross-section of the specimen (m2), Q is the flow rate at a certain pressure stage measured with a soap bubble flow meter connected to the top surface of the specimen (m3/s), μ is the gas (oxygen) dynamic viscosity at the test temperature (Pas), Pi is the applied test pressure (Pa) and Pa is the atmospheric pressure (Pa).
The coefficient K for the mixture E-S was 1.283 × 10−16 m2, and for the other two mixtures, relative values are given in relation to E-S in Figure 21b. If the gas permeability coefficient K is between 10−18 m2 and 10−16 m2, the quality of the concrete is normal, but if the K is higher than 10−16 m2, the quality of the concrete is considered poor [79]. The K value for the E-S mix was very close to the limit value between normal and poor concrete. According to the results of Figure 21b, the mixtures TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5 achieved higher values of the coefficient K compared to the mixture E-S, which means that the quality of the concrete is considered poor. A mixture with a higher amount of textile has a higher gas permeability compared to the reference mixture E-S. Gas permeability usually refers to the assessment of the performance of concrete in relation to CO2 penetration, i.e., to assess the durability of concrete that will be exposed to the carbonation process. Accordingly, based on the obtained results, the tested mixtures in this form can be used only in dry places or in areas where there is no alternating wetting and drying. The required conditions correspond to exposure classes X0 (no risk of corrosion or attack) and XC1 (permanently dry or permanently wet) according to EN 206, C0 (concrete dry or protected from moisture) according to ACI 318, I (non agressive) according to EHE-08 or 1 (dry) according to NMX C403 and pNMX C155 [80].

3.5. Influence of Textile Quantity on Test Results

Figure 22 and Figure 23 show the results for the same concrete mixtures with different CKFW quantities. In the TX mixtures, the double percentage of CKFW reduces the overall quality of the hardened concrete up to 10%, while the TX-S mixture with 3.5% CKFW had mainly the same or better properties compared to the mixture with a smaller percentage of CKFW. In the TX-F group, a positive effect of the SP2 superplasticizer on the quality of concrete was noticeable, and the increase in the percentage of CKFW reduced the quality of hardened concrete up to a maximum of 8%.
The properties investigated so far suggest the possible application of CKFW in indoor, weather-protected spaces for non-load-bearing partitions, substrates and linings. Existing technologies for the production of such building elements include the casting of fresh mixture into shallow molds for the production of the boards, or deep molds for the production of elements of more complex geometry. Extrusion, pultrusion and compression molding, more technologically demanding processes in which CKFW could affect many variables, were not considered at this stage of the research.
The specifics of this material in the production of slabs in shallow molds require further research. Areas still to be investigated include (a) the thickness of the slabs, which depends on the load, location and method of installation; (b) optimizing of the formats of rectangular, hexagonal and complex geometric patterns; (c) the possibilities of cutting large-format plates; and (d) the design of surface structures by means of relief molds.
When casting into deep molds, it is necessary to additionally examine (a) the wall thickness of the complex element in terms of the embeddability and the prevention of air cavities and excessive segregation; and (b) the installation of prefabricated building elements at the construction site depending on the role and position of the element and the impacts to which it will be exposed during the operation. Slabs of screed would be laid flat on the elastic elements of sound insulation. Single-layer or multi-layer partitions made of blocks of complex geometry would be built on and supported by the building structure, and stiffened in the horizontal direction. In addition to dividing spaces, partitions can play a role in noise protection and fire protection. Wall and ceiling coverings would be mounted on the prepared substructure, with the possible relief structure, in addition to its design role, also functioning as an acoustic diffuser.

4. Conclusions

In this paper, the properties of ten mixtures in fresh and hardened states were examined with the purpose of studying the effects of CKFW addition on concrete properties as a fore step to exploring the possibility of precast element production. Seven mixtures were reinforced with post-industrial cotton knitted fabric waste. The workability of CKFW concrete depended on the percentage of textile waste and the type of superplasticizer and the percentages of textile waste used in this study did not significantly affect the density of the concrete. The compressive strength of the CKFW concrete was reduced proportionally to the percentage of textile waste and the addition of textile waste can increase the flexural strength by up to 38% compared to unreinforced concrete. It was observed that the inclusion of CKFW increased the ductility of concrete with a larger grain size due to the reinforcing effect of the CKFW in the concrete. Silica fume had a positive effect on concretes with a higher percentage of textiles, and, by adding silica fume and a suitable superplasticizer, it is possible to form concrete mixtures with CKFW that have low water absorption. On the other hand, for the tested mixtures, a larger amount of textile in concrete increased the gas permeability of the concrete, meaning the use of such concrete mixes is limited to dry and protected conditions.
Given the obtained results, it is clear that the use of textiles in concrete requires further testing, especially in terms of durability. It is necessary to consider the method of preparation, treatment and the shape of textiles before installation in concrete or other composites. The restriction of the use of this material to dry and protected areas allows the use of other types of binders, so research can be focused on the search for environmentally friendly composites that give a pleasant and healthy indoor climate. In addition to the investigated material properties, it is necessary to pay attention to the technological aspects of production and the architectural aspects of design to determine the applicability of building elements that use CKFW.
Incorporating only a portion of discarded textiles into building elements would reduce the problem of burying the planet with waste, and, if used properly, could also improve the properties of concrete.
Finally, all of these potential building elements must, after the end of the life cycle of the building, offer opportunities for their reuse or safe disposal, in accordance with the overarching themes of industrial metabolism and the circular economy.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.B.; methodology, S.J.; validation B.B., S.J. and D.Ž.; formal analysis, S.J. and M.G.; investigation, B.B., S.J. and D.Ž.; resources, B.B., S.J. and M.G.; data curation, S.J. and M.G.; writing—original draft preparation, S.J.; writing—review and editing, B.B., S.J. and D.Ž.; visualization, B.B., S.J. and D.Ž.; supervision, S.J.; project administration, S.J., fund acquisition B.B. and S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partially supported through projects: KK.01.1.1.02.0027, a project co-financed by the Croatian Government and the European Union through the European Regional Development Fund—The Competitiveness and Cohesion Operational Programme.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ailenei, E.C.; Ionesi, S.D.; Dulgheriu, I.; Loghin, M.C.; Isopescu, D.N.; Maxineasa, S.G.; Baciu, I.-R. New Waste-Based Composite Material for Construction Applications. Materials 2021, 14, 6079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Zamani, B.; Svanström, M.; Peters, G.; Rydberg, T. A Carbon Footprint of Textile Recycling: A Case Study in Sweden. J. Ind. Ecol. 2014, 19, 676–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Sun, X.; Wang, X.; Sun, F.; Tian, M.; Qu, L.; Perry, P.; Owens, H.; Liu, X. Textile Waste Fiber Regeneration via a Green Chemistry Approach: A Molecular Strategy for Sustainable Fashion. Adv. Mater. 2021, 33, 2105174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ayres, R.U. Industrial Metabolism: Theory and Policy. In Industrial Metabolism: Restructuring for Sustainable Development; Ayres, R.U., Simonis, U.E., Eds.; United Nations University Press: Tokyo, Japan, 1994; pp. 23–37. ISBN 92-808-0841-9. [Google Scholar]
  5. Rubino, C.; Liuzzi, S.; Martellotta, F.; Stefanizzi, P. Textile wastes in building sector: A review. Model. Meas. Control B 2018, 87, 172–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Kalkan, Ş.O.; Gündüz, L. A Study on the Usage of Denim Waste as Reinforcement Element in Composite Mortars on Exterior Building Applications. In Proceedings of the 12th International Congress on Advances in Civil Engineering, Istanbul, Turkey, 21–23 September 2016; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  7. Selvaraj, R.; Priyanka, R. Study on Recycled Waste Cloth in Concrete. Int. J. Eng. Res. 2015, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sathiyaraj, S.M.C. Experimental investigation of textile wastes used in concrete. IJSRD 2019, 7, 659–660. [Google Scholar]
  9. Paiva, A.; Varum, H.; Caldeira, F.; Sá, A.; Nascimento, D.; Teixeira, N. Textile subwaste as a thermal insulation building material. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Petroleum and Sustainable Development IPCBEE, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, 28–30 December 2011; Volume 26, pp. 78–82. [Google Scholar]
  10. Briga-Sá, A.; Nascimento, D.; Teixeira, N.; Pinto, J.; Caldeira, F.; Varum, H.; Paiva, A. Textile waste as an alternative thermal insulation building material solution. Constr. Build. Mater. 2013, 38, 155–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Teklehaimanot, M.; Hailay, H.; Tesfaye, T. Manufacturing of Ecofriendly Bricks Using Microdust Cotton Waste. J. Eng. 2021, 2021, 8815965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Agrawal, S.K.; Watile, R.K.; Mohata, P.V.; Makwana, S.C. Utilization of Textile Apparel Waste in Clay Brick. Int. J. Adv. Res. Eng. Technol. 2013, 4, 48–52. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dos Reis, J.M.L. Effect of textile waste on the mechanical properties of polymer concrete. Mater. Res. 2009, 12, 63–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Kamble, Z.; Behera, B.K. Mechanical properties and water absorption characteristics of composites reinforced with cotton fibres recovered from textile waste. J. Eng. Fibers Fabr. 2020, 15, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Ramamoorthy, S.K.; Persson, A.; Skrifvars, M. Reusing textile waste as reinforcements in composites. J. Appl. Polym. Sci. 2014, 131, 40687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Dissanayake, D.; Weerasinghe, D.; Wijesinghe, K.; Kalpage, K. Developing a compression moulded thermal insulation panel using postindustrial textile waste. Waste Manag. 2018, 79, 356–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Aly, N.M.; Seddeq, H.; Elnagar, K.; Hamouda, T. Acoustic and thermal performance of sustainable fiber reinforced thermoplastic composite panels for insulation in buildings. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 40, 102747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Jordeva, S.; Tomovska, E.; Trajković, D.; Zafirova, K. Textile waste as a thermal insulation material. Tekst. J. Text. Cloth. Technol. 2014, 63, 174–178. [Google Scholar]
  19. Zach, J.; Hroudová, J.; Korjenic, A. Environmentally efficient thermal and acoustic insulation based on natural and waste fibers. J. Chem. Technol. Biotechnol. 2016, 91, 2156–2161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Binici, H.; Eken, M.; Dolaz, M.; Aksogan, O.; Kara, M. An environmentally friendly thermal insulation material from sunflower stalk, textile waste and stubble fibres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 51, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Binici, H.; Gemci, R.; Kucukonder, A.; Solak, H.H. Investigating sound insulation, thermal conductivity and radioactivity of chipboards produced with cotton waste, fly ash and barite. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 30, 826–832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Del Mar Barbero-Barrera, M.; Pombo, O.; Navacerrada, M. Textile fibre waste bindered with natural hydraulic lime. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 94, 26–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Aghaee, K.; Foroughi, M. Construction of Lightweight Concrete Partitions Using Textile Waste. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference for Sustainable Design, Engineering and Construction, Fort Worth, TX, USA, 7–9 November 2012; American Society of Civil Engineering: Reston, VA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Aghaee, K.; Foroughi, M. Mechanical Properties of Lightweight Concrete Partition with a Core of Textile Waste. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2013, 2013, 482310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Aghaee, K.; Yazdi, M.A.; Yang, J. Flexural properties of composite gypsum partition panel. Proc. Inst. Civ. Eng.—Eng. Sustain. 2015, 168, 258–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; de la Fuente, A. Characterization of a textile waste nonwoven fabric reinforced cement composite for non-structural building components. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 276, 122179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; de la Fuente, A. A Textile Waste Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composite: Comparison between Short Random Fiber and Textile Reinforcement. Materials 2021, 14, 3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Aspiras, F.F.; Manalo, J.R.I. Utilization of Textile Waste Cuttings as Building Material. J. Mater. Process. Technol. 1995, 1–4, 379–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Anglade, J.; Benavente, E.; Rodríguez, J.; Hinostroza, A. Use of Textile Waste as an Addition in the elaboration of an Ecological Concrete Block. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1054, 012005. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Algin, H.M.; Turgut, P. Cotton and limestone powder wastes as brick material. Constr. Build. Mater. 2008, 22, 1074–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Jayasinghe, I.; Basnayake, B.; Amarathunga, K.; Dissanayake, P. Environmental Conservation Efforts in Developing Textile Waste Incorporated Cement Blocks. Trop. Agric. Res. 2010, 21, 126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Tiuc, A.-E.; Vermeşan, H.; Gabor, T.; Vasile, O. Improved Sound Absorption Properties of Polyurethane Foam Mixed with Textile Waste. Energy Procedia 2016, 85, 559–565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Dobilaite, V.; Mileriene, G.; Juciene, M.; Saceviciene, V. Investigation of current state of pre-consumer textile waste generated at Lithuanian enterprises. Int. J. Cloth. Sci. Technol. 2017, 29, 491–503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Dolatabadi, M.K.; Janetzko, S.; Gries, T. Geometrical and mechanical properties of a non-crimp fabric applicable for textile reinforced concrete. J. Text. Inst. 2013, 105, 711–716. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Peled, A.; Mobasher, B.; Bentur, A. Textile Reinforced Concrete; CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2017; ISBN 9781482282481. [Google Scholar]
  36. Peled, A.; Bentur, A. Reinforcement of cementitious matrices by warp knitted fabrics. Mater. Struct. 1998, 31, 543–550. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Peled, A.; Bentur, A.; Yankelevsky, D. Effects of Woven Fabric Geometry on the Bonding Performance of Cementitious Composites. Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 1998, 7, 20–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peled, A.; Bentur, A. Geometrical characteristics and efficiency of textile fabrics for reinforcing cement composites. Cem. Concr. Res. 2000, 30, 781–790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. El Messiry, M.; Mito, A.-B.; Al-Oufy, A.; El-Tahan, E. Effect of fabric material and tightness on the mechanical properties of fabric–cement composites. Alex. Eng. J. 2014, 53, 795–801. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Eldin, M.M.; El-tahan, E. Performance of cotton woven fabrics structures in reinforcing of cement elements. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Advances in Structural and Geotechnical Engineering, Hurghada, Egypt, 27–30 March 2017; p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peled, A. Cement Penetrability Characteristics in Textile Cement Systems; Technische Universität Dresden: Dresden, Germany, 2017; pp. 99–114. [Google Scholar]
  42. Juradin, S.; Boko, I.; Grubeša, I.N.; Jozić, D.; Mrakovčić, S. Influence of harvesting time and maceration method of Spanish Broom (Spartium junceum L.) fibers on mechanical properties of reinforced cement mortar. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 225, 243–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Yan, L.; Kasal, B.; Huang, L. A review of recent research on the use of cellulosic fibres, their fibre fabric reinforced cementitious, geo-polymer and polymer composites in civil engineering. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 92, 94–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ferreira, S.R.; Silva, F.D.A.; Lima, P.R.L.; Filho, R.D.T. Effect of fiber treatments on the sisal fiber properties and fiber–matrix bond in cement based systems. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 101, 730–740. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ferreira, S.R.; Neto, A.R.S.; Silva, F.D.A.; de Souza, F.G.; Filho, R.D.T. The influence of carboxylated styrene butadiene rubber coating on the mechanical performance of vegetable fibers and on their interface with a cement matrix. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 262, 120770. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ardanuy, M.; Claramunt, J.; García-Hortal, J.A.; Barra, M. Fiber-matrix interactions in cement mortar composites reinforced with cellulosic fibers. Cellulose 2011, 18, 281–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Merta, I.; Poletanovic, B.; Kopecsk, K. Durability of Natural Fibres within Cement-Based Materials—Review. Concr. Struct. 2017, 18, 10–15. [Google Scholar]
  48. Hasan, K.M.F.; Horváth, P.G.; Alpár, T. Lignocellulosic Fiber Cement Compatibility: A State of the Art Review. J. Nat. Fibers 2021, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Filho, R.D.T.; Silva, F.D.A.; Fairbairn, E.; Filho, J.D.A.M. Durability of compression molded sisal fiber reinforced mortar laminates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2409–2420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Filho, R.D.T.; Scrivener, K.; England, G.L.; Ghavami, K. Durability of alkali-sensitive sisal and coconut fibres in cement mortar composites. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2000, 22, 127–143. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Juradin, S.; Boko, I.; Grubeša, I.N.; Jozić, D.; Mrakovčić, S. Influence of different treatment and amount of Spanish broom and hemp fibres on the mechanical properties of reinforced cement mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 273, 121702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Pereira, C.; Jorge, F.C.; Ferreira, J.M.F. Adsorption of Cations from a Cement Suspension onto Lignocellulosic Substrates and its Influence on Cement Setting. J. Wood Chem. Technol. 2005, 25, 231–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Caldeira, F.; Monteiro, H.; Pinto, J.; Varum, H. Recycling Textile Residues into Cement Composites. Environ. Eng. Manag. J. 2018, 17, 1863–1868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Hsieh, Y.-L.; Thompson, J.; Miller, A. Water Wetting and Retention of Cotton Assemblies as Affected by Alkaline and Bleaching Treatments. Text. Res. J. 1996, 66, 456–464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Alam, R.; Islam, R. Pre-post Bleaching Behaviors of Cotton Knits Using Reductive and Oxidative bleaches. Int. J. Polym. Text. Eng. 2020, 7, 42–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Bartulović, B.; Juradin, S.; Žižić, D.; Mrakovčić, S. Possibility of Using Cotton Knitted Fabric Waste in Concrete. IOP Conf. Ser. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2021, 1203, 022074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Juradin, S.; Mihanović, F.; Ostojić-Škomrlj, N.; Rogošić, E. Pervious Concrete Reinforced with Waste Cloth Strips. Sustainability 2022, 14, 2723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Sitotaw, D.B.; Adamu, B.F. Tensile Properties of Single Jersey and 1×1 Rib Knitted Fabrics Made from 100% Cotton and Cotton/Lycra Yarns. J. Eng. 2017, 2017, 4310782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. HRN EN 12350-2:2019; Testing Fresh Concrete-Slump Test. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019.
  60. EN 12390-7:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 7: Density of Hardened Concrete. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019.
  61. HRN EN 12504-4:2021; Testing Concrete in Structures—Part 4: Determination of Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2021.
  62. HRN EN 12390-3:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 3: Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019.
  63. HRN EN 12390-5:2019; Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 5: Flexural Strength of Test Specimens. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2019.
  64. Lakusic, S. Durability characteristics of copper slag concrete with fly ash. J. Croat. Assoc. Civ. Eng. 2017, 69, 1031–1040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Gao, Q.; Ma, Z.; Xiao, J.; Li, F. Effects of Imposed Damage on the Capillary Water Absorption of Recycled Aggregate Concrete. Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2890931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. ASTM C1585−13; Standard Test Method for Measurement of Rate of Absorption of Water by Hydraulic-Cement Concretes. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2013.
  67. Sneka, S.; Nirmala, M.; Dhanalakshm, G. Size Effect of Aggregate in the Mechanical Properties. Int. Res. J. Eng. Technol. 2018, 5, 2093–2096. [Google Scholar]
  68. Ukrainczyk, V. Concrete—Structure, Properties and Technology; Alcor: Zagreb, Croatia, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  69. Fortes, E.S.; Parsekian, G.A.; Camacho, J.S.; Fonseca, F.S. Compressive strength of masonry constructed with high strength concrete blocks. Rev. IBRACON de Estruturas e Mater. 2017, 10, 1273–1319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Awal, A.A.; Mohammadhosseini, H. Green concrete production incorporating waste carpet fiber and palm oil fuel ash. J. Clean. Prod. 2016, 137, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; de la Fuente, A. Mechanical and durability characterization of a new textile waste micro-fiber reinforced cement composite for building applications. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Ali, M.F.; Memon, N.A.; Memon, B.A.; Memon, M.A.; Memon, A.N. The Effect of Textile on Compressive Strength of Concrete. Quaid-E-Awam Univ. Res. J. Eng. Sci. Technol. Nawabshah 2019, 17, 21–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Ultrasonic Pulse Velocity Meter. Available online: https://www.iricen.gov.in/LAB/res/pdf/test-32.pdf (accessed on 20 March 2022).
  74. HRN EN 13263-1:2009; Silica Fume for Concrete—Part 1: Definitions, Requirements and Conformity Criteria. CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2009.
  75. HRN EN 206-1:2006; Concrete—Part 1: Specification, Performance, Production and Conformity (Includes Amendments A1:2004 and A2:2005) (EN 206-1:2000+A1:2004+A2:2005). CSI: Zagreb, Croatia, 2006.
  76. FIB—International Federation for Structural Concrete. Diagnosis and Assessment of Concrete Structures State of Art Report; CEB Bulletin; Euro-International Committee for Concrete: Lausannem, Switzerland, 1989. [Google Scholar]
  77. De Medeiros-Junior, R.A.; Munhoz, G.D.S.; de Medeiros, M.H.F. Correlations between water absorption, electrical resistivity and compressive strength of concrete with different contents of pozzolan. Rev. ALCONPAT 2019, 9, 152–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yang, L.; Gao, D.; Zhang, Y.; Tang, J.; Li, Y. Relationship between sorptivity and capillary coefficient for water absorption of cement-based materials: Theory analysis and experiment. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2019, 6, 190112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. RILEM TC 116-PCD: Permeability of concrete as a criterion of its durability-Tests for gas permeability of concrete. Mater. Struct. 1999, 32, 163–173.
  80. Beushausen, H.; Luco, L.F. (Eds.) Performance-Based Specifications and Control of Concrete Durability; RILEM TC 230-PSC; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2016; ISBN 978-94-017-7309-6. [Google Scholar]
Buildings 12 01121 g001 550
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of textile waste use in the construction industry.
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram of textile waste use in the construction industry.
Buildings 12 01121 g001
Buildings 12 01121 g002 550
Figure 2. Cumulative sieving curves of aggregates.
Figure 2. Cumulative sieving curves of aggregates.
Buildings 12 01121 g002
Buildings 12 01121 g003 550
Figure 3. XRD pattern of the cement CEM I 42.5 R.
Figure 3. XRD pattern of the cement CEM I 42.5 R.
Buildings 12 01121 g003
Buildings 12 01121 g004 550
Figure 4. XRD pattern of the cement CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N.
Figure 4. XRD pattern of the cement CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N.
Buildings 12 01121 g004
Buildings 12 01121 g005 550
Figure 5. Scheme of weft knitted fabric.
Figure 5. Scheme of weft knitted fabric.
Buildings 12 01121 g005
Buildings 12 01121 g006 550
Figure 6. (a) CKFW in the mixer prior to mixing; (b) CKFW in hardened samples TX-3.5.
Figure 6. (a) CKFW in the mixer prior to mixing; (b) CKFW in hardened samples TX-3.5.
Buildings 12 01121 g006
Buildings 12 01121 g007 550
Figure 7. Slump test on samples with the addition of CKFW and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 7. Slump test on samples with the addition of CKFW and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g007
Buildings 12 01121 g008 550
Figure 8. Compressive strength and flexural strength relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 8. Compressive strength and flexural strength relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g008
Buildings 12 01121 g009 550
Figure 9. Compressive strength and flexural strength relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 9. Compressive strength and flexural strength relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g009
Buildings 12 01121 g010 550
Figure 10. Failure mode of cube specimens of mixtures E-S, TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5.
Figure 10. Failure mode of cube specimens of mixtures E-S, TX-S-1.7 and TX-S-3.5.
Buildings 12 01121 g010
Buildings 12 01121 g011 550
Figure 11. σ–δ diagram. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 11. σ–δ diagram. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g011
Buildings 12 01121 g012 550
Figure 12. Dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 12. Dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g012
Buildings 12 01121 g013 550
Figure 13. Dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 13. Dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g013
Buildings 12 01121 g014 550
Figure 14. Slump and density relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 14. Slump and density relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g014
Buildings 12 01121 g015 550
Figure 15. Slump and density relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 15. Slump and density relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g015
Buildings 12 01121 g016 550
Figure 16. Specimen TX-F-1.7 after fracture.
Figure 16. Specimen TX-F-1.7 after fracture.
Buildings 12 01121 g016
Buildings 12 01121 g017 550
Figure 17. Saturated water absorption and sorptivity relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 17. Saturated water absorption and sorptivity relative to mixture E. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g017
Buildings 12 01121 g018 550
Figure 18. Saturated water absorption and sorptivity relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 18. Saturated water absorption and sorptivity relative to reference mixtures E, E-S and E-F. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g018
Buildings 12 01121 g019 550
Figure 19. Relationship between sorptivity and saturated water absorption.
Figure 19. Relationship between sorptivity and saturated water absorption.
Buildings 12 01121 g019
Buildings 12 01121 g020 550
Figure 20. Water absorption–square root of time diagram. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 20. Water absorption–square root of time diagram. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g020
Buildings 12 01121 g021 550
Figure 21. (a) Cembureau cell setup. (b) Gas permeability coefficient according to the RILEM Cembureau method relative to mixture E-S.
Figure 21. (a) Cembureau cell setup. (b) Gas permeability coefficient according to the RILEM Cembureau method relative to mixture E-S.
Buildings 12 01121 g021
Buildings 12 01121 g022 550
Figure 22. Compressive strength, flexural strength, dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity for the same mixes with different CKFW quantity, relative to the mixture with lower CKFW quantity. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 22. Compressive strength, flexural strength, dynamic modulus of elasticity and ultrasonic pulse velocity for the same mixes with different CKFW quantity, relative to the mixture with lower CKFW quantity. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g022
Buildings 12 01121 g023 550
Figure 23. Slump, saturated water absorption, sorptivity and density for the same mixes with different CKFW quantity, relative to the mixture with lower CKFW quantity. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Figure 23. Slump, saturated water absorption, sorptivity and density for the same mixes with different CKFW quantity, relative to the mixture with lower CKFW quantity. The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Buildings 12 01121 g023
Table
Table 1. Mineral composition, specific surface area according to Blaine and specific gravity of CEM I 42.5 R and CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N.
Table 1. Mineral composition, specific surface area according to Blaine and specific gravity of CEM I 42.5 R and CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N.
CementC3SC2SC3AC4AFCa(OH)2CaSO4·2H2OCaCO3Specific Surface Area According to BlaineSpecific Gravity
%%%%%%%cm2/gg/cm3
CEM I 42.5 R76.515.01.54.00.92.2-37853.16
CEM II/B-M (S-LL) 42.5 N59.113.61.32.80.46.616.241103.09
Table
Table 2. Characteristics of Single Jersey and Fine Rib fabric.
Table 2. Characteristics of Single Jersey and Fine Rib fabric.
Single JerseyFine Rib
Raw material composition100% cotton100% cotton
Fineness of yarn (tex; Nm, Ne):
(HRN ISO 7211-5:2003)		20 tex × 1; Nm 50/1; Ne 30/120 tex × 1; Nm 50/1
Mass per unit area, dry (g/m2):
(HRN EN 12127:2003)		154180
Loop density per 10 cm:
(HRN EN 14971:2008)		Wale direction: 150Wale direction: 120
Course direction: 214Course direction: 180
Table
Table 3. The mixture designs and labels for tested mixtures, mass for 1 m3.
Table 3. The mixture designs and labels for tested mixtures, mass for 1 m3.
Constituent MixturesCementw/bCKFWSilica FumeCrushed Limestone
Aggregate		SP1SP2
0/4 mm4/8 mm8/16 mm
kgkgkgkgkgkgkgkg
E3500.5--968.7279.4614.82.1
TX-1.73500.53.8-944.5272.5599.42.1
TX-3.53500.57.7-920.3265.5584.02.1
E-S3500.5-35901.0259.9571.82.3
TX-S-1.73500.53.835877.3253.1556.72.3
TX-S-3.53500.57.735852.2245.8540.82.3
E-F3500.5--1824.0--2.1
TX-F-1.73500.53.8-1785.0--2.1
TX-F-1.7 *3500.53.8-1785.0-- 2.1
TX-F-3.53500.57.7-1737.0--2.1
The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Table
Table 4. Test results of fresh and hardened concrete.
Table 4. Test results of fresh and hardened concrete.
Measured
Values Mixtures		Compressive StrengthFlexural
Strength		Dynamic Modulus of ElasticityUPVSlumpSorptivity × 10−4Saturated
Water
Absorption		Density
MPaMPaGPam/smmmm/h0.5%kg/m3
E66.4 ± 0.217.0 ± 0.0352.6 ± 0.294905.9 ± 14.771706.123.3 ± 0.022428.0 ± 1.93
TX-1.759.5 ± 2.008.5 ± 0.3150.6 ± 3.084839.3 ± 147.851357.044.2 ± 0.152399.8 ± 4.69
TX-3.553.4 ± 1.058.3 ± 0.1647.5 ± 4.074709.0 ± 207.39707.664.4 ± 0.062378.8 ± 19.77
E-S58.7 ± 2.009.1 ± 0.4233.0 ± 0.633986.6 ± 42.241006.923.1 ± 0.112307.3 ± 27.39
TX-S-1.752.8 ± 1.048.8 ± 0.1531.0 ± 0.843908.9 ± 57.571406.903.3 ± 0.132251.5 ± 16.77
TX-S-3.556.5 ± 0.758.5 ± 0.0820.9 ± 0.053870.2 ± 5.20856.402.7 ± 0.032289.7 ± 2.50
E-F30.0 ± 0.744.1 ± 0.3225.7 ± 0.353580.8 ± 11.5922021.827.3 ± 0.202227.3 ± 15.98
TX-F-1.7 *29.6 ± 0.695.7 ± 0.1425.4 ± 0.063563.0 ± 7.4711019.777.2 ± 0.432222.8 ± 8.13
TX-F-1.725.5 ± 0.705.6 ± 0.3625.0 ± 0.453546.1 ± 22.1118022.677.8 ± 0.232210.7 ± 14.00
TX-F-3.525.2 ± 0.215.2 ± 0.0424.6 ± 0.193524.4 ± 1.5915524.598.2 ± 0.072204.4 ± 18.95
The label * marks the sample made with an SP2 superplasticizer.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Bartulović, B.; Juradin, S.; Žižić, D.; Galić, M. Influence of Cotton Knitted Fabric Waste Addition on Concrete Properties. Buildings 2022, 12, 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081121

AMA Style

Bartulović B, Juradin S, Žižić D, Galić M. Influence of Cotton Knitted Fabric Waste Addition on Concrete Properties. Buildings. 2022; 12(8):1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081121

Chicago/Turabian Style

Bartulović, Bruno, Sandra Juradin, Dujmo Žižić, and Matea Galić. 2022. "Influence of Cotton Knitted Fabric Waste Addition on Concrete Properties" Buildings 12, no. 8: 1121. https://doi.org/10.3390/buildings12081121

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop