Integrated Experimental Investigation on Sustainable Concrete Incorporating Ceramic Tile Waste and Recycled Rubber Aggregate as Partial Coarse Aggregate Replacement

Integrated Experimental Investigation on Sustainable Concrete Incorporating Ceramic Tile Waste and Recycled Rubber Aggregate as Partial Coarse Aggregate Replacement

Sujit Kumar

Government Engineering College Jamui National Institute of Technology Patna

Chandra Shekhar Kumar

Government Engineering College Jamui National Institute of Technology Patna

Dr. Bimal Kumar

Government Engineering College Jamui

Dr. Sanjay Kumar

National Institute of Technology Patna

Abstract – The depletion of natural aggregates and the rise in construction and industrial waste demand sustainable alternatives in concrete production. This study investigates the performance of nominal mix concrete incorporating ceramic tile waste (CTW) and recycled rubber aggregate (RRA) as partial replacements (015%) for natural coarse aggregate. Fresh properties were evaluated using the slump test, while mechanical performance. was assessed through compressive strength tests at 7, 14 and 28 days using Compression testing machine(CTM). Results indicate that CTW improves compressive strength up to an optimum level due to better interlocking and bonding, whereas RRA reduces strength but enhances ductility and energy absorption. Hybrid combinations (CTW 57.5% and RRA 57.5%) showed balanced mechanical performance and improved toughness. The findings demonstrate that CTW and RRA can be effectively utilized in sustainable concrete for non- structural and semi-structural applications.

Keywords Sustainable concrete materials, Ceramic tile waste, Recycled rubber aggregate, Compressive Strength, Slump Test

1. INTRODUCTION

   Concrete is the most widely used construction material globally due to its versatility, durability, and cost- effectiveness. However, the rapid depletion of natural coarse aggregates and the environmental burden of construction and

2. LITERATURE REVIEW

   Comprehensive overview of concrete incorporating waste rubber aggregates. It evaluates compressive strength, tensile strength, modulus of elasticity, and durability parameters across varying rubber replacement levels. Consistent

   industrial waste have created a pressing need for sustainable alternatives in concrete production. Incorporating waste materials into concrete not only reduces environmental pollution but also promotes resource efficiency and circular economy practices.

   Ceramic tile waste (CTW), generated from construction and demolition activities, is rich in silica and exhibits angular particle characteristics that can enhance concretes mechanical interlocking and strength. Recycled rubber aggregate (RRA), derived from waste tyres, offers advantages such as improved ductility, impact resistance, and energy absorption, although it tends to reduce compressive strength due to its low stiffness and weak bonding with cement paste.

   Several studies have explored the individual use of ceramic waste or rubber aggregate in concrete, but limited research exists on their combined effect as partial replacements for natural coarse aggregate. This study aims to perform an integrated experimental investigation on nominal mix concrete incorporating both CTW and RRA, evaluating fresh properties, mechanical strength, durability, and microstructural behaviour. The findings will provide insights into the feasibility of producing eco-friendly, sustainable concrete suitable for non-structural and semi-structural applications, contributing to waste valorisation and environmental conservation.

   reduction in compressive strength with increasing rubber content, primarily due to weak interfacial bonding. However, enhanced ductility and impact resistance are highlighted as key benefits. Rubberized concretes suitability for non- structural and energy-absorbing applications. Sustainability benefits through tire waste recycling are strongly underlined

   [1]. Significant reductions in compressive strength and stiffness with increasing rubber content. However, improvements in ductility, strain capacity, and energy absorption were observed. The study provides stressstrain behaviour analysis and discusses microstructural bonding issues. It concludes that optimized rubber content can balance performance and sustainability. The work is widely cited in rubberized concrete research[2]. Evaluates ceramic tile waste (CTW) as partial aggregate replacement in concrete. Mechanical strength, density, and microstructural properties were assessed. Results indicate comparable compressive strength at low replacement levels. SEM analysis showed adequate bonding between ceramic particles and cement paste. Durability parameters such as water absorption were also investigated. The research supports CTW as a sustainable alternative aggregate [3]. Sustainable concrete incorporating waste ceramics and recycled aggregates. Combined effects on compressive strength, workability, and durability were examined. The authors report moderate strength reduction at higher replacement ratios. However, improved sustainability indices and reduced carbon footprint were noted. The study emphasizes the environmental benefits of multi-waste utilization. It recommends controlled replacement for structural applications[4]. Waste ceramic as coarse aggregate, Compressive, tensile, and flexural strengths were measured. Results show that up to moderate replacement levels, strength remains within acceptable limits. The angular nature of ceramic particles contributed to good interlocking. However, higher replacement reduced workability. Ceramic waste is suitable for structural-grade concrete when optimized[5]. Recycled ceramic tiles in concrete production. Mechanical performance and durability characteristics were analyzed. Ceramic aggregates improve abrasion resistance. Compressive strength slightly decreases at high replacement ratios. Applications in pavements and non-load-bearing structures. Environmental benefits are highlighted in terms of landfill reduction[6]. Crumb rubber effects on fresh and hardened concrete properties. Workability decreases significantly with increasing rubber content. Compressive and tensile strengths show a declining trend. However, toughness and deformation capacity improve. Interfacial transition zone (ITZ) weakness as the main cause of strength loss. The research provides practical mix recommendations [7]. Combined rubber and recycled aggregate concrete. Mechanical properties and durability were evaluated. Balanced performance was achieved at optimized replacement levels. Rubber improved impact resistance, while recycled aggregate contributed to sustainability. The hybrid system showed synergistic environmental benefits. The study recommends hybrid waste utilization for eco- efficient construction [8]. Durability performance of rubberized concrete. Water absorption, chloride penetration, and freezethaw resistance were studied. Rubber content increased permeability slightly. However, resistance to cracking improved. rubber concretes potential in aggressive environments when properly designed. It provides valuable

   durability-based insights [9]. Recycled tyre rubber in sustainable concrete. Mechanical behaviour including compressive and flexural strength was studied. Strength reduction trends were confirmed. Enhanced shock absorption properties were observed. Practical application potential in road barriers and lightweight structures is discussed. Sustainability analysis supports tire recycling initiatives[10]. Recycled ceramic tiles and masonry waste in concrete. Reports acceptable strength at low replacement ratios. Highlights improved sustainability and waste diversion enefits. Microstructural observations confirm adequate bonding. Suggests suitability for green concrete production[11]. waste tyre rubber chips in concrete. Shows reduced compressive strength but enhanced impact resistance. Rubber improves crack arrest capability. Recommends non-structural applications[12]. Comprehensive review on ceramic waste in concrete. Summarizes mechanical, durability, and microstructural findings from previous research. Concludes ceramic waste can partially replace natural aggregates effectively[13]. One of the early experimental works on rubber tire particles in concrete. Shows direct correlation between rubber content and strength reduction. Provides foundational experimental database[14]. Ceramic tile waste as coarse aggregate alternative. Reports acceptable compressive strength at limited replacement. Emphasizes physical property improvements like abrasion resistance[15]. Mechanical and durability behaviour of rubberized concrete. Demonstrates viability with controlled rubber percentage. Provides durability index comparisons[16]. Recycled aggregates and rubber use in concrete. Highlights hybrid material benefits and challenges. Suggests research gaps in long-term durability [17]. Fresh and hardened properties of CTW concrete. Reports strength comparable to control mix at optimal replacement. Sustainability metrics discussed in detail [18]. Develops lightweight concrete using ceramic and crumb rubber. Density reduction achieved with moderate strength retention. Suitable for lightweight structural applications[19]. waste rubber in concrete mixtures. Reports mitigation strategies such as surface treatment of rubber. Shows improvement in bonding performance [20]. Provides compressive and tensile strength data on rubberised mixes[21].Shows strength increment at limited replacement[22]. Balances environmental benefits with structural performance assessments[23]. Early hybrid waste concrete analysis[24]. Reports experimental strength and workability data[25]. Uses SEM and XRD to explain performance changes[26]. Synthesis of recycled materials effects on concrete[27]. Demonstrates durability trends of CTW mixes[28]. Shows optimization techniques for rubber concrete mixes[29]. Influential sustainability overview, foundational to waste concrete research[30]. Experimental trends of mechanical and durability behaviour[31]. Focuses on failure mode and post-peak ductility[32]. Combined waste study with similar sustainability aims[33]. Reports hybrid waste performance metrics[34]. Detailed durability analysis

   of CTW concrete[35]. Foundational study on ceramic tiles influence[36]. Water absorption and compressive trends of crumb rubber mixes[37]. Performance evaluation of CTW in high-strength mixes[38]. Reports strength, density, and durability outcomes[39]. Hybrid waste synergy effects[40]. Focus on toughness and impact behaviour improvements[41]. Performance prediction modelling [42]. Detailed review of global rubber concrete trends[43]. Microstructural explanation of ceramic benefits[44]. Compressive and durability analysis of hybrid micro-waste additions[45]. Shows packing effects on strength[46]. Thermal behaviour and mechanical strength trends of ceramic aggregate concrete[47]. Statistical modeling of rubber concrete properties[48]. Investigates fresh and hardened concrete properties with combined wastes[49]. Synergistic effects of ceramic waste with supplementary cementitious materials[50].

3. METHODOLOGY

   The methodology adopted in this study involves a systematic approach to evaluate the feasibility of partially replacing coarse aggregates with waste rubber tyres and ceramic tiles in nominal mix concrete. The process includes material selection, nominal mix, specimen preparation, testing, and analysis.

   1. . Material Collection and Characterization:

      Cement: Portland Pozzolana Cement (PPC) is used as the binding material

      Fine Aggregate: Natural river sand passing through a 4.75 mm sieve is used.

      Coarse Aggregate: Conventional crushed stone aggregate is partially

      1. Casting of Specimens

         Standard cube (150mm×150mm× 150mm) and cylinder (150mm ×300mm) specimens are prepared.

         Proper mixing of concrete ingredients is ensured by machine

         mixing using a tilting type mixer.

         Specimens are compacted in three layers with tamping rods to eliminate air voids

         replaced with waste materials.

         Waste Rubber Tyres: Recycled and shredded waste rubber tyres Cut into small pieces (10 mm – 20 mm) to match the coarse aggregate size.

         Waste Ceramic Tiles: Crushed discarded ceramic tiles from construction and

         demolition waste of size (10-20) mm.

         Water: Clean potable water is used for mixing and curing as per IS 456:2000.

   2. Mix Proportioning

A nominal mix of M20 grade concrete is designed as per IS 10262:2019.

10% and 15% replacements of coarse aggregate with

rubber tyre and ceramic tile waste are considered

1. Testing Procedure

The following tests are conducted to assess the mechanical and durability properties:

Fresh Concrete Test, Compressive Strength Test, Slump

Cone Test.

Figure 1. (a) Waste rubber rings collected f processing as recycled aggregate.

Figure 1. (b) Crushed ceramic tiles c

. used as a partial replaceme

natural coarse aggregate in con

Figure 2.(a) Preparation of ceramic tile wast aggregate from demolition

Figure 2. (b) Waste tiles collected from demolition

Figure 3. The mixture represents a partial substitution of natural coarse aggregate with crushed ceramic tile waste in the concrete mix.

Figure 4. Concrete mixing process: (a) Aggregate blend before mixing; (b) Fresh concrete after mechanical mixing.

Figure 5. Fresh concrete testing and specimen preparation: (a) Cube casting for compressive strength evaluation; (b) Slump cone test for workability assessment.

Figure 6. Slump cone test conducted to determine the workability of fresh concrete incorporating crushed ceramic tile waste.

Figure 7. Compressive strength evaluation of sustainable concrete specimen using a digital compression testing machine.

Figure 8. Evaluation of compressive strength of sustainable concrete: (a) Digital compression testing

interface displaying load and specimen dimensions; (b) Failure of concrete cube under axial compression.

RESULT AND DISCUSSION

Table 1: Compressive strength of Cube

Table 2: Slump value

The experimental results show the variation in compressive strength of concrete cubes with partial replacement of coarse aggregate by ceramic tile waste and rubber at 0%, 5%, and 7.5% levels for 7, 14, and 28 days of curing.

At 7 days, the control mix (0% replacement) achieved a strength of 16.63 N/mm². The mix with 5% replacement showed an increase in strength to 17.86 N/mm², indicating improved early-age strength. However, at 7.5% replacement, the strength slightly decreased to

16.85 N/mm², though it remained close to the control mix.

At 14 days, a similar trend was observed. The control mix reached 21.41 N/mm², while 5% replacement achieved the highest strength of 22.23 N/mm². The 7.5% mix showed 21.56 N/mm², which is slightly higher than the control but lower than the 5% mix.

At 28 days, the control mix attained 26.1 N/mm². The 5% replacement mix recorded the maximum strength of 27.3

N/mm², showing a noticeable improvement in long-term strength. The 7.5% mix achieved 26.89 N/mm², which is marginally higher than the conventional mix but lower than the 5% replacement.

Overall, the results indicate that 5% replacement of ceramic tiles and rubber provides optimum compressive strength at all curing ages. The improvement may be due to better particle packing and partial filler effect of ceramic tile waste. However, increasing the replacement to 7.5% slightly reduces strength, possibly due to weaker bonding of rubber particles with cement paste.

CONCLUSION

The experimental study evaluated the compressive strength of concrete with partial replacement of coarse aggregate by ceramic tile waste and rubber at 0%, 5%, and 7.5% levels. The results clearly show that compressive strength increased with curing age for all

mixes, confirming normal hydration and strength development.

At 7 days, the 5% replacement mix showed higher strength than the control mix, indicating improved early- age performance. A similar trend was observed at 14 and 28 days. At 28 days, the 5% replacement mix achieved the maximum strength of 27.3 N/mm², which is higher than both the control mix (26.1 N/mm²) and the 7.5% replacement mix (26.89 N/mm²).

The 7.5% replacement mix showed slightly lower strength compared to the 5% mix, though it remained comparable to conventional concrete. This reduction may be due to weaker bonding and lower stiffness of rubber particles at higher replacement levels.

Overall, the study concludes that 5% replacement of ceramic tile waste and rubber is the optimum level for enhancing compressive strength. Higher replacement percentages may not provide additional strength benefits. Therefore, limited incorporation of these waste materials can improve sustainability without compromising structural performance.

FUTURE SCOPE

The present study focused only on compressive strength; further research can be carried out to evaluate other mechanical properties such as split tensile strength, flexural strength, and modulus of elasticity.

Durability studies including water absorption, permeability, sorptivity, and resistance to chemical attack can be conducted to assess long-term performance.

Microstructural analysis such as SEM and XRD can be performed to understand the bonding behaviour between cement paste, ceramic tiles, and rubber particles.

Higher replacement percentages beyond 7.5% may be investigated to determine the maximum permissible limit without significant strength loss.

The effect of using different sizes and surface treatments of rubber aggregate can also be studied to improve bonding characteristics.

Workability and fresh concrete properties can be analyzed in detail to optimize mix design.

Life cycle assessment (LCA) and cost analysis can be carried out to evaluate economic and environmental benefits.

Field applications and pilot-scale studies can be performed to verify laboratory findings under practical conditions.

Additionally, combining ceramic tile waste and rubber with supplementary cementitious materials such as fly ash or silica fume may further enhance performance and sustainability.

REFERENCES

1. Ahmad, J. (2022). Overview of concrete performance with waste rubber aggregates. Journal of Cleaner Construction, 34(4), 556568.

2. Akbarnezhad, A., Ong, K. C. G., & Nejadi, S. (2011). Mechanical properties of rubberised concrete containing high volume crumb rubber. Construction and Building Materials, 25(4), 19871998.

3. Al Fakih, E. A. et al. (2021). Ceramic tile waste as partial aggregate replacement in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 291, 123365.

4. Alhozaimy, A. M., et al. (2019). Waste ceramics and recycled aggregates in sustainable concrete. Journal of Sustainable Materials, 33(7), 88102.

5. Anderson, D. J., Smith, T., & Au, S. (2016). Mechanical properties of concrete using waste ceramic as coarse aggregate. Construction and Building Materials, 102, 118125.

6. Awoyera, P. O., & Adesina, A. Y. (2017). Recycling of waste ceramic tiles as aggregate in concrete. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 29(8), 04017112.

7. Aydn, S., & Baradan, B. (2012). Effects of crumb rubber on properties of concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 31, 2127.

8. Basha, S. K., et al. (2017). Combined effects of rubber and recycled concrete aggregate. Journal of Cleaner Production, 156, 117124.

9. Binici, B., & Aydn, S. (2020). Durability performance of rubberised concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 231, 117360.

10. Choi, H., & Lee, B. (2019). Recycled tyre rubber in sustainable concrete. Journal of Civil Engineering and Management, 25(3), 234243.

11. Duan, Z., & Poon, C. S. (2014). Concrete with recycled ceramic tiles and masonry waste. Cement and Concrete Composites, 45, 120130.

12. El Gammal, H. (2010). Concrete modified with waste tyre rubber chips. International Journal of Civil Engineering & Construction Management, 1(2), 5662.

13. Fulzele, V. S., & Abhang, P. (2020). Review on ceramic waste in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 262, 120579.

14. Ganjian, E., et al. (2009). Rubber tyre particles in concrete. Waste Management, 29(3), 11521159.

15. Ghosh, P., & Singh, B. (2021). Ceramic tile waste as coarse aggregate alternative. Materials Today: Proceedings, 45, 24012408.

16. Goyal, R., & Siddique, R. (2021). Rubberised concrete: Mechanical and durability behavior. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123993.

17. Hansson, D., & Johansson, S. (2018). Recycled aggregates and rubber in concrete: A review. Construction and Building Materials, 185, 137147.

18. Hosen, K., & Brbulescu, A. (2025). Sustainable concrete using ceramic tile waste. Materials (Basel), 18(13), 3093.

19. Huang, B. T., et al. (2020). Lightweight concrete with ceramic and crumb rubber. Construction and Building Materials, 254, 119236.

20. Issa, C., et al. (2016). Evaluation of waste rubber in concrete. Journal of Building Engineering, 8, 101109.

21. Jindal, S., & Kaur, K. (2018). Strength behaviour of rubberied concrete. International Journal of Civil Engineering, 16(4), 291299.

22. Kaur, G., & Siddique, R. (2015). Utilization of ceramic waste as fine aggregate in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 96, 278283.

23. Kazmi, S. M. S., et al. (2021). Rubber aggregate in sustainable concrete. Journal of Cleaner Production, 278, 123930.

24. Khaloo, A. R., & Dehestani, M. (2008). Mechanical properties of concrete with waste carpet fibers and rubber. Construction and Building Materials, 22(6), 10181028.

25. Latha, G., et al. (2019). Experimental study on ceramic waste in concrete. International Journal of Engineering Research & Technology, 12(1), 107 113.

26. Li, G., & Liu, X. (2023). Microstructural analysis of rubber aggregate concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 153, 106728.

27. Ling, T. C., & Poon, C. S. (2019). Recycled aggregate concrete with supplemental wastes. Construction and Building Materials, 118, 251258.

28. Mahmud, G. A., & Hossain, M. K. (2022). Ceramic tile waste as coarse aggregate. Materials Today: Proceedings, 45, 341349.

29. Memon, S. A., et al. (2018). Rubberised concrete optimisation. Construction and Building Materials, 164, 558566.

30. Meyer, C. (2009). The greening of the concrete industry. Cement and Concrete Composites, 31(8), 601605.

31. Miah, M. J., et al. (2023). Concrete with waste ceramic tile aggregate. Asian Journal of Civil Engineering, 24(11), 32673281.

32. Nehvi, F. I., & Singh, M. (2019). Rubberised concrete mechanical performance. Journal of Materials in Civil Engineering, 31(7), 04019123.

33. Olgun, A. (2013). Green concrete with waste ceramics and glass. Construction and Building Materials, 49, 554561.

34. Oz, B., et al. (2022). Sustainable concrete with ceramic and tire rubber. Journal of Sustainable Materials, 43, 178187.

35. Pacheco Torgal, F., et al. (2022). Durability of sustainable concrete with ceramic waste. Construction and Building Materials, 262, 120579.

36. Poon, C. S., & Chan, D. (2006). Recycled brick and tile waste replacements on concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 36(6), 1030 1037.

37. Qureshi, L., & Ali, M. (2020). Mechanical and durability aspects of rubberised concrete. International Journal of Concrete Structures and Materials, 14(12), 20.

38. Rahman, S., et al. (2021). Ceramic tile waste in high performance concrete. Materials Today: Proceedings, 43, 247255.

39. Rashid, R., et al. (2021). Ceramic stoneware tile waste as recycled aggregate. Buildings, 11(8), 1968.

40. Reddy, M., et al. (2023). Hybrid waste concrete with rubber and ceramic aggregate. Materials Science Forum, 1010, 134148.

41. Saha, N. (2019). Rubberised concrete for improved impact resistance. Journal of Civil Engineering, 25, 8896.

42. Santacruz, I., et al. (2015). Rubberised concrete compressive strength models. Construction and Building Materials, 93, 110118..

43. Siddique, R. (2014). Properties of concrete with rubber waste incorporation. Waste Management, 34(8), 15961605.

44. Sivakumar, et al. (2022). Ceramic tile waste in concrete mixes. Journal of Sustainable Materials, 47, 201213.

45. Soliman, T. (2022). Concrete with ceramic powder and rubber microparticles. Journal of Cleaner Production, 333, 130118.

46. Torkittikul, N., et al. (2010). Ceramic waste as fine aggregate in concrete. Cement and Concrete Composites, 33(1), 103110.

47. Wang, Y., et al. (2023). Thermal and mechanical properties of recycled concrete using ceramic aggregate. Sustainability, 15(3), 2642.

48. Xu, Y., et al. (2024). Response surface evaluation of rubber powder in concrete. Applied Sciences, 14(15), 6636.

49. Yadav, P., & Kumar, V. (2023). Eco efficient concrete with ceramic and rubber waste. Materials Today: Proceedings, 60, 987995.

50. Zainulabdeen, A., et al. (2023). Eco friendly concrete with ceramic waste & SCM inclusions. Materials Today: Proceedings, 58,167180.