Application of Talc as an Eco-Friendly Additive to Improve the Structural Behavior of Porous Concrete

  • Armin AzadEmail author
  • Sayed-Farhad Mousavi
  • Hojat Karami
  • Saeed Farzin
Research paper


Talc is an eco-friendly material used in various domains. In this study, talc, quartz and lime sand were added for improving the performance of porous concrete. For this, talc/quartz and lime sand were used as substitute with 5–30% and 5–15% of aggregates, respectively. Compressive strength, porosity and permeability of the porous concrete blocks and their draining capacity were the tested characteristics. Results showed that although by increasing the amount of talc, quartz and lime sand, compressive strength was improved, permeability and porosity were reduced. However, despite the significant difference in hardness of talc and quartz, mixtures containing talc had acceptable performance and were close to quartz so that the average compressive strength of talc samples was only 0.4 MPa less than the quartz ones. It was also found that threshold value for the addition of talc to increase the strength of porous concrete was 25% and over this rate makes no difference in resistance and even reduces it. Results also revealed that all mixtures had good performance in drainage of synthetic urban runoff—the least-permeable talc sample drained 40-mm runoff in 69 s. Also, the most impermeable quartz specimen drained the 40-mm runoff in 44 s. Generally, the mentioned results indicated that talc, as an eco-friendly additive, had acceptable performance in improving the properties of porous concrete.


Porous concrete Talc Quartz Urban runoff Flood management 


  1. Abedi Koupai J, Saghaian Nejad S, Mostafazadeh-Fard S, Behfarnia K (2016) Reduction of urban storm-runoff pollution using porous concrete containing iron slag adsorbent. J Environ Eng 142(2):04015072CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. ACI 211 3R-02 (2002) Guide for selecting proportions for no-slump concreteGoogle Scholar
  3. ACI Committee 522 (2006) Pervious concrete. ACI 522R-06 ReportGoogle Scholar
  4. Agar-Ozbek AS, Weerheijm J, Schlangen E, Breugel KV (2013) Investigating porous concrete with improved strength: testing at different scales. Constr Build Mater 41:480–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Al-Shabanat M (2011) Study of the effect of weathering in natural environment on polypropylene and its composites: morphological and mechanical properties. Int J Chem 3(1):129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bhutta MAR, Tsuruta K, Mirza J (2012) Evaluation of high-performance porous concrete properties. Constr Build Mater 31:67–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bhutta MAR, Hasanah N, Farhayu N, Hussin MW, Tahir BMM, Mirza J (2013) Properties of porous concrete from waste crushed concrete (recycled aggregate). Constr Build Mater 47:1243–1248CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cassagnabère F, Mouret M, Le VA (2016) Properties of SCC mixed in hot weather conditions: workability, mechanical and physical aspects. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 40(3):251–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chindaprasirt P, Hatanaka S, Mishima N, Yuasa Y, Chareerat T (2009) Effects of binder strength and aggregate size on the compressive strength and void ratio of porous concrete. Int J Miner Metall Mater 16(6):714–719Google Scholar
  10. Cui X, Zhang J, Huang D, Liu Z, Hou F, Cui S, Wang Z (2017) Experimental study on the relationship between permeability and strength of pervious concrete. J Mater Civ Eng 29(11):04017217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Farahmand K, Lashkari A, Ghalandarzadeh A (2016) Firoozkuh sand: introduction of a benchmark for geomechanical studies. Iran J Sci Technol Trans Civil Eng 40(2):133–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Galet L, Goalard C, Dodds JA (2009) The importance of surface energy in the dispersion behaviour of talc particles in aqueous media. Powder Technol 190(1):242–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Ghafoori N, Dutta S (1995) Development of no-fines concrete pavement applications. J Transp Eng 121(3):283–288CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafia AL, Castillo LA, Barbosa SE (2014) Use of talc as low-cost clarifier for wastewater. Water Sci Technol 69(3):640–646CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haselbach LM, Valavala S, Montes F (2006) Permeability predictions for sand-clogged portland cement pervious concrete pavement systems. J Environ Manage 81(1):42–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hesami S, Ahmadi S, Nematzadeh M (2014) Effects of rice husk ash and fiber on mechanical properties of pervious concrete pavement. Constr Build Mater 53:680–691CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holmes RR, Hart ML, Kevern JT (2017) Heavy metal removal capacity of individual components of permeable reactive concrete. J Contam Hydrol 196:52–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Huang B, Wu H, Shu X, Burdette EG (2010) Laboratory evaluation of permeability and strength of polymer-modified pervious concrete. Constr Build Mater 24(5):818–823CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Karami H, Teymouri E, Mousavi SF, Farzin S (2018) Experimental investigation of the effect of adding LECA and pumice on some physical properties of porous concrete. Eng J 22(1):205–213CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim GM, Jang JG, Khalid HR, Lee HK (2017) Water purification characteristics of pervious concrete fabricated with CSA cement and bottom ash aggregates. Constr Build Mater 136:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kogel JE (2006) Industrial minerals and rocks: commodities, markets, and uses. SMEGoogle Scholar
  22. Lian C, Zhuge Y (2010) Optimum mix design of enhanced permeable concrete–an experimental investigation. Constr Build Mater 24(12):2664–2671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. López-Carrasquillo V, Hwang S (2017) Comparative assessment of pervious concrete mixtures containing fly ash and nanomaterials for compressive strength, physical durability, permeability, water quality performance and production cost. Constr Build Mater 139:148–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Neptune AI, Putman BJ (2010) Effect of aggregate size and gradation on pervious concrete mixtures. ACI Mater J 107(6):627–633Google Scholar
  25. Nnadi EO, Newman AP, Coupe SJ, Mbanaso FU (2015) Stormwater harvesting for irrigation purposes: an investigation of chemical quality of water recycled in pervious pavement system. J Environ Manage 147:246–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ong SK, Wang K, Ling Y, Shi G (2016) Pervious concrete physical characteristics and effectiveness in stormwater pollution reduction. Intrans Project Reports, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa, USAGoogle Scholar
  27. Ossman ME, Mansour MS, Fattah MA, Taha N, Kiros Y (2014) Peanut shells and talc powder for removal of hexavalent chromium from aqueous solutions. Bul Chem Commun 3(3):629–639Google Scholar
  28. Piotrowska E, Forquin P, Malecot Y (2016) Experimental study of static and dynamic behavior of concrete under high confinement: effect of coarse aggregate strength. Mech Mater 92:164–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Sani HA, Ahmad MB, Saleh TA (2016) Synthesis of zinc oxide/talc nanocomposite for enhanced lead adsorption from aqueous solutions. RSC Adv 6(110):108819–108827CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shabalala AN, Ekolu SO, Diop S, Solomon F (2017) Pervious concrete reactive barrier for removal of heavy metals from acid mine drainage—column study. J Hazard Mater 323:641–653CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Shen W, Shan L, Zhang T, Ma H, Cai Z, Shi H (2013) Investigation on polymer–rubber aggregate modified porous concrete. Constr Build Mater 38:667–674CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shu X, Huang B, Wu H, Dong Q, Burdette EG (2011) Performance comparison of laboratory and field produced pervious concrete mixtures. Constr Build Mater 25(8):3187–3192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Subrahmanyam M, Boule P, Kumari VD, Kumar DN, Sancelme M, Rachel A (2008) Pumice stone supported titanium dioxide for removal of pathogen in drinking water and recalcitrant in wastewater. Sol Energy 82(12):1099–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Tennis PD, Leming ML, Akers DJ (2004) Pervious concrete pavements. Portland Cement Association (PCA), Skokie, ILGoogle Scholar
  35. Wiebking HE (2006) Increasing the flexural modulus of rigid PVC at elevated temperatures. J Vinyl Add Tech 12(1):37–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yap SP, Chen PZC, Goh Y, Ibrahim HA, Mo KH, Yuen CW (2018) Characterization of pervious concrete with blended natural aggregate and recycled concrete aggregates. J Clean Prod 181:155–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Zaetang Y, Sata V, Wongsa A, Chindaprasirt P (2016) Properties of pervious concrete containing recycled concrete block aggregate and recycled concrete aggregate. Constr Build Mater 111:15–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zhang R, Kanemaru K, Nakazawa T (2015) Purification of river water quality using precast porous concrete products. J Adv Concr Technol 13(3):163–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Zhang Z, Zhang Y, Yan C, Liu Y (2017) Influence of crushing index on properties of recycled aggregates pervious concrete. Constr Build Mater 135:112–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Shiraz University 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Civil EngineeringSemnan UniversitySemnanIran

Personalised recommendations