Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials

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

Thermal, electrical and mechanical properties of filler-doped polymer

concrete
Vedat Arda Küçük a, Emriye Çınar b, Haluk Korucu a, Barısß Sß imsßek a,⇑, Ali Bilge Güvenç c,
Tayfun Uygunoğlu d, Mehmet Muhtar Kocakerim a
a
Department of Chemical Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Çankırı Karatekin University, 18120 Çankırı, Turkey
b
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Osmaniye Korkut Ata University, 80000 Osmaniye, Turkey
c
Microelectronics, Guidance & Electro-Optics Business Sector, ASELSAN A.Sß., 06750 Ankara, Turkey
d
Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering, Afyon Kocatepe University, 03200 Afyon, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s

Optimum filler doped polymer dosage was determined by Multi-Response Optimization.

BaSO4 doped polypropylene provided 67.11% lower electrical resistance.

BaSO4 doped polypropylene should be preferred for thermally insulated concrete.

Highest water resistance was achieved with the use of talc doped polypropylene.

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

Article history: The use of filler materials in industrial polymers is becoming increasingly widespread in order to over-
Received 1 February 2019 come the disadvantages of polymers loss of strength. This study proposed a methodology to analyze
Received in revised form 19 July 2019 the effect of filler-doped polymers on the concrete features. The results of the study showed that
Accepted 20 July 2019
Barium Sulfate (BaSO4) doped polypropylene added concrete with 30% polymer/cement ratio has
Available online 30 July 2019
51.03% lower thermal conductivity and 147.99% higher 28-day compressive strength than the reference
concrete. It is determined that Calcium Carbonate doped polyethylene (CaPE) and glass fiber doped
Keywords:
polypropylene (GFPP) gave the highest electrical resistance to the concrete.
Compressive strength
Filler doped polymer concrete
Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Multi-response optimization
Thermal conductivity
Electrical resistivity

1. Introduction preparation of these polymer composites [7] to improve toughness,

Polypropylene [1], polyethylene and polystyrene [2] are popular
thermoplastics that can be mass produced and have vast amount of
applications in construction, buildings, automotive, electricity due
to their exceptional properties such as low density, good stiffness
and good chemical resistance [3,4]. Besides their extraordinary
features, these polymers have some disadvantages such as high
thermal expansion, low resistance to ultraviolet radiation and high
compressive strength loss when used in concrete mixtures [5]. In
order to overcome these deficiencies, several composites based
on these polymers are developed [6]. Inorganic solid salts (talc,
calcite etc.) are the most commonly used filler material in the
⇑ Corresponding author.
ß imsßek).
E-mail address: barissimsek@karatekin.edu.tr (B. S
stiffness, dimensional consistency and cost effectiveness [8,9].
Industrial polymers can be used in mortar and concrete mix-
tures as synthetic aggregates to partially or totally replace tradi-
tional aggregates [10]. Polyurethane, polycarbonate, polybutylene
terephthalate [10], polyester resin [11], polystyrene [12], rubber
[13], polyvinyl chloride [14], polyethylene terephthalate, dimethyl
terephthalate, polyethylene naphthalene, thermoplastic elas-
tomers, polypropylene [15] can be given as examples for the poly-
mers preferred by the researchers as synthetic aggregates in
literature. Additionally, some inorganic materials like barium sul-
fate [16], clay [17] and, graphene oxide [18] have been investigated
as candidate alternative aggregates in order to increase mechanical
strength, replace traditional aggregates or reduce cement content.
Although, using polymers as synthetic aggregates reduces tradi-
tional aggregate demand, it deteriorates the mechanical properties

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.256
0950-0618/Ó 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199 189

of concrete, in particular compressive strength. In order to address 3. Methodology

this issue, polymer composites are mostly used in mortar prepara-
tion rather than pure polymers. With this approach, not only the In this study, a ‘‘full factorial design” based 8-step methodology
thermal properties of concrete (good thermal insulation) can be was used (Fig. 1). The effects of filler doped polymers on the con-
improved, but also desired level of compressive strength of stan- crete characteristics were determined by statistical experimental
dard concrete can be achieved. design methods. Analysis of variance and ‘‘desirability function
Talc and calcium carbonate (CaCO3) are the most commonly approach” was used to determine the applicability of the resulting
used filler dopant materials for polymer matrix forming. Talc and concrete. Finally, the performance of the filler doped polymer
calcium carbonate are doped into the common thermoplastics concrete is compared to the performance of the undoped polymer
(mostly to the polypropylene) for improving hardness [19], flexural concrete [22].
strength, dimensional consistency [6] and electrical resistance [20] The properties of filler doped polymer concrete (FIPOCRETE)
properties. Glass fibers are also commonly used in polypropylene can be given as 28 days electrical resistance, 3, 7 and 28 days
as filler dopant. Although, using glass fiber doped polypropylene thermal conductivity, 28 day compressive strength, 28 day water
in concrete matrix decreases slump and pressure strength, it does absorption percentage and slump. These are the common
not have any effect on splitting resistance of the concrete [21]. characteristics of concrete composite and have been studied in
There are very few studies in the literature that have investi- detail in the literature. When electrical resistance is considered;
gated the effects of filler doped polymers on the properties of high electrical resistance is preferred [23] for corrosion resistance
concrete. [24] and low electrical resistance is preferred [25] for structural
This study has two main purposes. The first one is to under- monitoring purposes. The electrical resistivity of the filled doped
stand the effects of filler-doped composites on the properties of polymer concrete composite was measured at room temperature
concrete and reduce the usage of traditional aggregates. The sec- with two probes under direct current (DC) and calculated using
ond objective is to determine the reusability of disposed plastics formula (1) [26]:
in concrete production.
In order to do that, the effects of calcium carbonate doped poly- RS
q¼ ð1Þ
ethylene polymer and talc, glass fiber and barium sulfate doped L
polypropylene on electrical, thermal and mechanical properties
of concrete were investigated using experimental design methods where, ‘‘q” is electrical resistivity (ohm*m), ‘‘L” is the distance
and the results were compared to that of undoped polymer intro- between electrodes (m), ‘‘S” is area of the electrodes (m2) and R is
duced concrete mortars. resistance of the sample (ohm) [26].
Concrete with low thermal conductivity is preferred for energy
saving [15,27,28], while concrete with high thermal conductivity is
2. Materials
preferred for production of self-sensing concrete [29] and electro-
In all the experiments, CEM IV/B (P) 32.5 R class cement (manufactured by magnetic shielding concrete [30]. In this study, the thermal con-
OYAK Bolu Cement Plant) was used as binder. Chemical composition of the cement ductivity was measured as 3, 7 and 28 days in order to
can be seen in Table 1. Super plasticizer (BASF MasterGleniumÒ) was used in all investigate the deviation in thermal conductivity of the FIPOCRETE
experiments in order to homogeneously disperse cement particles through the mix- according to time. The thermal conductivity of FIPOCRETE was
ture. Physical properties of the filler doped polymers provided by the manufacturer
can be seen in Table 2.
measured using Decagon KD2-Pro thermal properties analyzer in
compliance with ASTM D 5334 standard [31,32].
Table 1 The 28-day compressive strength of FIPOCRETE was measured
Chemical composition of binder cement. using-Test UTC-4720 compression test device in compliance with
Chemical analysis Percentage by mass (%) European Norm EN 12390/3 [33]. Slump flow and the water
CaO 62.86 absorption rate of FIPOCRETE were measured in compliance with
SiO2 18.91 the related European Norms EN 12350-2 [34] and EN 12390-7
Al2O3 4.93 [35], respectively. Cube shaped samples of concrete of size
Fe2O3 3.54 100  100  100 mm were prepared for concrete tests (Fig. 2).
SO3 2.81
Seven properties (responses) of hardened and fresh concrete
MgO 1.83
K2O 0.85 were selected as quality criteria. Detailed list of tests targets and
Na2O 0.44 the weights are given in Table 3.
Cl 0.0075 Two factors affecting the properties of FIPOCRETE were selected
Loss of ignition 2.56
such that for calcium carbonate doped polymers (CAFIPO), type of

Table 2
The properties of filler doped polymers.

Properties Calcium doped polymers Filler doped polypropylene Method

CaPE CaPS CaPP GFPP TaPP BaPP
Melt flow index (g/10 min) 0.5 1.7 7.0 4.9 13.0 3.9 ISO1133
Density (g/cm3) 1.72 1.80 1.64 1.20 1.15 1.70 ISO1183
Tensile stress at break (MPa) N/A N/A 80 90 32.0 15 ISO527
Tensile modulus (MPa) N/A N/A N/A 7100 3950 3200 ISO527
Elongation at break (%) N/A N/A 65 3.5 8.0 130 ISO527
Hardness (Shore D) N/A N/A 77 76 68 66 ISO868
Ash content (%) 65.0 65.0 65.0 32 31 60 ISO3451
Moisture content (%) <0.01 <0.01 <0.02 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 ISO787/2
Flexural stress (MPa) N/A N/A N/A 110 45 30 ISO178
Flexural modulus (%) N/A N/A N/A 4505 4060 2400 ISO178
Granule spacing (mm) <4 mm <4 mm <4 mm <4 mm <4 mm <4 mm N/A
Pellet shaping Granule Spherical Cylindrical Granule Cylindrical Granule N/A
190 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199
1. OBJECT
2. CRITERIA
3. FACTORS & LEVELS
4. PERFORMING THE
EXPERIMENT
5. FULL FACTORIAL
DESIGN
6. OPTIMIZATON
7. VALIDATION
8. FILLER DOPED PP vs PP
Fig. 1. Performed framework.
Fig. 2. a) Compressive strength test apparatus and b) Thermal conductivity test of FIPOCRETE samples.
calcium carbonate doped polymers (A) and content of calcium car-
bonate doped polymer (B) were defined as factors with three levels
and for filler doped polymer (FIDOPO), type of filler doped into the
polypropylene (X1) and content of filler doped into the polymer
(X2) were defined as factors with three levels (Table 4).
A laboratory type mechanical mixer of 5 L capacity was used for
preparing FIPOCRETE. Mixing was completed approximately in
4 min. In order to achieve a better mixture, cement, filled polymers
and two-third of the required water were mixed thoroughly. Then
superplasticizer was added to the mixture with remaining water.
Desirability function and full factorial design methods were used
for the implementation of the experiments.
Full factorial design method enables it to investigate one way
and two way interaction effects. Experimental runs of full factorial
design were carried out according to Appendices A-Table A1
(columns 2–3). Mixture details are given in Table A1, columns
4–7. Results of the experiments are given in Appendices
A-Table A2 and A3 for calcium doped polymers and filler doped
polypropylene, respectively.
• Determination of the filler doped polymer
effect on concrete
• Electrical, thermal, mechanical and
workability properties
• Selecting the filler doped polymers
• Determine test conditions
• Calcium doped polymer
• Filler doped polypropylene
• Desirability function approach
• Optimum levels
• Validation of optimum levels
• Comparison of the filler doped
polypropylene vs undoped polypropylene
4. Results and discussion
4.1. Variance analysis
Results of analysis on factor effects [22] and related p-values
given in Table 5 demonstrate that the type of doped polymers
are effective on electrical resistance (p-values are 0.001 and
0.000) CaPE and GFPP type polymers show higher electrical resis-
tivity, while CaPP and BaPP type polymers show lower electrical
resistivity (Fig. 3a and b).
3 day and 7 day thermal conductivity values show that calcium-
doped polymers are effective on thermal conductivity It was deter-
mined that CaPP type polymer is the most effective polymer on
thermal conductivity of concrete (Fig. 4a and b).
All levels (bounds) of types of polymers and content of poly-
mers factors have similar effect on the 28 day thermal conductivity
of concrete (Table 5). According to the result of analysis on 28-day
thermal conductivity values, it was determined that CaPP and
especially BaPP type the polymers are the most effective types to
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199 191

Table 3
Quality criteria of FIPOCRETE.

Abbr. Definition of the test Test was applied on Target Weightsa Normalized weights
R1 Electrical resistivity (ohm*m) at 28-day Hardened concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
R2 Thermal conductivity (W/m*K) at 3-day Hardened concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
R3 Thermal conductivity (W/m*K) at 7-day Hardened concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
R4 Thermal conductivity (W/m*K) at 28-day Hardened concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
R5 Compressive strength (MPa) at 28-day Hardened concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
R6 Water absorption rate (%) Hardened concrete Smaller is better 1 0.142857
R7 Slump flow (cm) Fresh concrete Larger is better 1 0.142857
Total 7 1
a
Identical weight has assigned to all criteria.

Table 4
Factors and their levels for FIPOCRETE.

Code Filled Polymer Type Factors Definition of the factor Bounds

First Second Third
CAFIPO Calcium carbonate doped polymers A Type of calcium doped polymers CaPE CaPS CaPP
B Calcium doped polymer contenta (%) 10 20 30
FIDOPO Filler doped polymers X1 Type of filler doped polypropylene GFPP TaPP BaPP
X2 Filler doped polymer contenta (%) 10 20 30
a
Defined for one hundred kilograms cement.

Table 5
Effects of factors for responses.

Source R1 R2 R3 R4
Term T (Effect) p-value T (Effect) p-value T (Effect) p-value T (Effect) p-value
A 4.33 0.001* 4.15 0.001* 3.34 0.005* 5.34 0.000*
B 0.54 0.596 2.07 0.058 0.62 0.548 3.03 0.009*
A*B 0.79 0.441 0.31 0.764 0.75 0.464 0.52 0.613
X1 5.27 0.000* 0.86 0.402 1.41 0.179 2.41 0.030*
X2 0.60 0.561 0.08 0.938 1.07 0.303 1.81 0.092*
X1*X2 1.45 0.168 1.89 0.079 1.07 0.304 3.39 0.004*
Source R5 R6 R7 N/A
Term T (Effect) p-value T (Effect) p-value T (Effect) p-value N/A N/A
A 0.62 0.547 0.06 0.954 1.12 0.280 N/A N/A
B 0.87 0.401 3.78 0.002* 3.60 0.003* N/A N/A
A*B 2.48 0.026* 1.44 0.172 1.38 0.190 N/A N/A
X1 3.36 0.005* 1.02 0.325 0.74 0.474 N/A N/A
X2 0.37 0.719 8.98 0.000* 2.94 0.011* N/A N/A
X1*X2 0.41 0.690 1.50 0.156 0.54 0.597 N/A N/A
*
Significant at 95% confidence level (p-value < 5/100); positive sign of T-value denotes the synergistic effect and negative sign denotes antagonistic effect.

A B X1 X2
550 325
Mean for R1 (ohm*m)
Mean for R1 (ohm*m)

500 300
450 275
400 250
350 225
300 200
250 175

200 150
CaPE CaPS CaPP 10 20 30 GFPP TaPP BaPP 10 20 30
Type Percentage (%) Type Percentage (%)

Fig. 3. Main effect plots for electrical resistance R1 (ohm*m) a) calcium doped polymer, b) filler doped polypropylene.

decrease the thermal conductivity of concrete (Fig. 5a and b). Highest improvement in compressive strength was achieved
Additionally, it was also determined that type of the polymer dope with BaPP type polymer (Fig. 6a and 6b). Results of the analysis
is effective (p-value 0.005) on the compressive strength of concrete on water absorption percentage and slump value shows that poly-
(Table 5). mer content has higher effect on these criteria than polymer type.
192 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199

A B X1 X2
0.78 0.75

Mean for R3 (W/m*K)

Mean for R2 (W/m*K)
0.76
0.74 0.70
0.72
0.65
0.70
0.68
0.60
0.66
0.64 0.55
0.62
0.60 0.50
CaPE CaPS CaPP 10 20 30 GFPP TaPP BaPP 10 20 30
Type Percentage (%) Type Percentage (%)

Fig. 4. Main effect plots for thermal conductivity (W/m*K) a) calcium doped polymer, 3-days thermal conductivity, b) filler doped polypropylene 7-days thermal
conductivity.

A B X1 X2
0.70 0.55
Mean for R4 (W/m*K)

Mean for R4 (W/m*K)

0.50
0.65
0.45

0.40
0.60
0.35

0.55 0.30

0.25
CaPE CaPS CaPP 10 20 30 GFPP TaPP BaPP 10 20 30
Type Percentage (%) Type Percentage (%)

Fig. 5. Main effect plots for 28-days thermal conductivity (W/m*K) a) calcium doped polymer, b) filler doped polypropylene.

A B X1 X2
17 29
Mean for R5 (MPa)

28
Mean for R5 (MPa)

16 27
26
15
25
14 24
23
13 22
21
12 20
CaPE CaPS CaPP 10 20 30 GFPP TaPP BaPP 10 20 30
Type Percentage (%) Type Percentage (%)

Fig. 6. Main effect plots for 28-days compressive strength (MPa) a) calcium filled polymer, b) filler doped polypropylene.

Table 6
Mix design for comparison.

Exp. No. Factors (per unit of volume)

Cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Polymer (kg/m3) SP (kg/m3) Weight (kg/m3)
REF 400 157.0 0.0 4.00 1556.71
PP30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1280.00
CaPP30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1462.20
GFPP30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1531.40
TaPP30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1562.20
BaPP30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1536.25
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199 193

Fig. 7. Surface plots for calcium doped polymer in uncoded values, (a) electrical resistance (ohm*m) (b) 28-days thermal conductivity (W/m*K) and (c) 28-days compressive
strength (MPa).

Fig. 8. Surface plots for filler doped polypropylene in uncoded values, (a) electrical resistance (ohm*m) (b) 28-days thermal conductivity (W/m*K) and (c) 28-days
compressive strength (MPa).

Fig. 9. Optimizations plot for a. for calcium doped polymer and b. filler doped polypropylene.

Water absorption percentage and slump value was decreased as
the content of doped polymer in the concrete increased (Table 5).
4.2. Doped polypropylene vs. polypropylene
The performance of doped polypropylene in concrete was com-
pared with undoped (pure) polypropylene. In order to determine
the effects of doped polymers on the concrete performance, sepa-
rate concrete composites with both doped and undoped
polypropylene were prepared at same polymer/concrete ratio
(%30 by mass). Details of mixture design are given in Table 6.
The results of the experiments and, increase/decrease rates
compared to the undoped polypropylene concrete composite are
summarized in Appendices A-Table A4. Doped polypropylene;
194 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199

Fig. 10. SEM images a) CaPE, b) CaPS and c) CaPP.

shows lower electrical resistance, higher thermal conductivity, with the reference concrete. In addition, compared to reference
lower water absorption as well as significantly higher mechanical concrete, doped polymers admixtures have reduced the percentage
strength compared to undoped polypropylene. of water absorption of concrete composites in contrast to
When doped polypropylene is compared to polypropylene, it polypropylene admixture. The lowest the water absorption rate
can be seen that GFPP caused the least electrical resistance is 18.33% is achieved with TaPP admixture (Appendices A-
loss (53.22%) while BaPP caused the least thermal resistance Table A4).
loss (17.96%). With TaPP, much higher compressive strength
(209.42%) and lower water absorption rate (20.60%) were obtained
4.3. Optimum design
compared to polypropylene (Appendices A-Table A4).
When the properties of the doped polypropylene concrete com-
In full factorial design approach, three-dimensional plots are
posite and the properties of the reference concrete are compared, it
used to predict the connection of responses and factors and to
was observed that the doped polymers resulted in lower electrical
determine the ‘‘decision point” required for desirability function.
resistance whereas the undoped polypropylene concrete compos-
The ‘‘decision point” of the plot has saddle shape for all responses
ite caused 59.7% higher electrical resistivity. When the 28 days
[22]. The response surface graphs were plotted for two factors
thermal conductivity value is analyzed, it is determined that the
while the third factor was held constant at the middle level (Figs. 7
thermal conductivity of the concrete with undoped polypropylene
and 8).
was 58.48% lower than the reference concrete and thermal conduc-
The desirability function makes it possible to integrate all
tivity of the concrete with BaPP 51.03% lower than the reference
responses under a single function and to obtain ‘‘optimum results”
concrete. However in terms of 28 day compressive strength 30%
with maximizing this function. The responses with different scales
polypropylene admixture caused 12.56% loss in comparison with
can be examined together at the same time and the many
the reference concrete, whereas 30% TaPP admixture has a
responses can be easily transformed into a single function to per-
170.55% improvement in comparison with the reference concrete
form multi-response optimization. Another advantage of the
and the BaPP admixture has a 148% improvement in comparison
method is that it can be easily applied with Minitab software. In
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199
order to make it possible to do a multiple-response optimization
using full factorial design, in this study, full factorial design is
combined with desirability function approach (Appendices B)
[36–39].
Individual desirability values, the overall desirability D and pre-
dicted value were also calculated using MINITABÒ version 17
(Appendices B-Table B1). The factors obtained at the saddle points
of R1, R2, R3, R4, R5, R6 and R7 (each responses have equal weight)
were calculated as 108.48 kg CaPE and 101.4 kg GFPP as given in
optimization plot a and b (Fig. 9) [22,36–39].
After the determination of optimum levels, validation experi-
ments were carried out. Validation experiments were statistically
compared with the results of predicted optimum levels using
paired t-test (Appendices C-Table C1). The accuracy of the results
verifies the validity of the models [22].
For 108.48 kg CaPE usage in concrete composite, 6.19%
improvement in electrical resistance, 17.9% improvement in
thermal conductivity and 44.49% improvement in 28-day compres-
sive strength were achieved compared to control samples. On the
other hand, 2.96% decrease in water absorption rate was observed.
For 101.4 kg GFPP usage in concrete composite, 35.99% improve-
ment in 28-day thermal conductivity, 83.83% improvement in
28-day compressive strength and 17.84% improvement in water
Fig. 11. SEM images a) GFPP, b) TaPP and c) BaPP.
195
absorption rate were achieved. On the other hand, 56.09% decrease
in electrical resistance was observed.
4.4. Morphological analysis
SEM images of the interfaces of polymer and cement paste were
taken for all doped polymer types (Figs. 10 and 11, Blue Square).
It was seen that the doped polymers form a compact structure
with the cement paste and the filler polymer is attached to the
concrete.
Leaf-like C-S-H (Calcium-Silicate-Hydrate) gels are seen in all
doped polymer concretes at 5.0KX (5000X) magnifications. The
presence of leaf-like C-S-H gels in all SEM images is an indication
that hydration process of the cement was successful and that con-
crete will gradually gain strength in the future. Another interesting
point is that there are no cracks at the polymer structure and there
is no separation from cement paste, structural cracks within the
polymer and separation from cement paste can easily be seen in
the images of undoped polymer added concrete (Figs. 10 and 11).
There results can be interpreted as the reason for compressive
strength improvement in doped polymer added concrete compos-
ites. It should be also noted that no voids were observed in the SEM
images of GFPP and BaPP concrete composites [11,15,40].
196 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199

5. Conclusions Combination of talc doped polypropylene reinforced concrete

Several properties of concrete with doped polymers were inves-
tigated using full factorial design method. The results of modified
concrete having different polymer concentrations were compared
with those values of the control concrete samples.
Results show that introducing doped polymers into concrete
has significant effects on the thermal, electrical and mechanical
properties of concrete such as electrical resistance, thermal con-
ductivity, water resistance and compressive strength which define
the final application of the concrete.
Barium Sulfate (BaSO4) doped polypropylene reinforced con-
crete with its lower thermal conductivity which is a desired prop-
erty for lowering energy consumption and higher compressive
strength which is suitable for carrying heavier loads can be a good
candidate for multistory building construction for both household
and business purposes. Barium Sulfate doped polypropylene with
its lower electrical resistance was proposed for several applications
such as; de-icing system of highway bridge deck platform and air-
port runways, cathodic protection systems for steel rebar rein-
forcement in concrete structures, self-sensing for smart
structures and structural health monitoring systems. It has also
good potentials to be used in grounding systems.
with its higher water resistance and GFPP doped polymer concrete
with its higher electrical resistance can be used for dams, power
plants and sewer systems. Additionally, calcium carbonate doped
polymer with its lower electrical resistance can be used for electri-
cal grounding purposes in the buildings.
The given improvements on thermal, electrical and mechanical
properties of concrete achieved in this study demonstrate that
application specific concrete can be designed by optimizing the
dopant type and mixture ratios by using the proposed multi-
response experimental optimization methodology.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing finan-
cial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared
to influence the work reported in this paper.
A Appendices
A: Experimental details and results
Tables A1–A4

Table A1
Details of the mixtures and experimental design.

Ex. No. Factors (per unit of volume) Weight (kg/m3)

A B,% Cement (kg/m3) Water (kg/m3) Polymer (kg/m3) SP (kg/m3)
REF N/A N/A 400 157.0 0.00 4.00 1556.71
C1 CaPE 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1477.62
C2 CaPE 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1422.74
C3 CaPE 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1394.23
C4 CaPS 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1421.59
C5 CaPS 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1394.68
C6 CaPS 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1431.82
C7 CaPP 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1533.02
C8 CaPP 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1567.33
C9 CaPP 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1462.20
X1 X2, % Cement content Water content Polymer content SP content
P1 GFPP 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1513.23
P2 GFPP 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1534.51
P3 GFPP 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1531.40
P4 TaPP 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1535.05
P5 TaPP 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1542.63
P6 TaPP 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1562.20
P7 BaPP 10 400 157.0 40.0 4.00 1505.26
P8 BaPP 20 400 157.0 80.0 4.00 1523.89
P9 BaPP 30 400 157.0 120.0 4.00 1536.25

Table A2
Experimental results for calcium doped polymer concrete.

Exp. No. R1 (ohm*m) R2 (W/m*K) R3 (W/m*K) R4 (W/m*K) R5 (MPa) R6 (%) R7 (cm)

REF 488 0.613 0.631 0.778 9.71 22.70 18
Replicate 1 C1 334 0.752 0.717 0.697 19.98 23.57 14
C2 710 0.833 0.795 0.753 18.35 21.01 13
C3 486 0.728 0.635 0.595 11.37 20.06 10
C4 337 0.722 0.593 0.684 10.13 24.68 13
C5 308 0.499 0.872 0.573 14.34 22.77 13
C6 237 0.592 0.569 0.580 12.74 18.34 11
C7 236 0.620 0.506 0.560 16.51 22.67 13
C8 214 0.656 0.555 0.540 11.74 19.78 11
C9 264 0.551 0.534 0.494 17.26 23.45 9
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199 197

Table A2 (continued)

Exp. No. R1 (ohm*m) R2 (W/m*K) R3 (W/m*K) R4 (W/m*K) R5 (MPa) R6 (%) R7 (cm)

Replicate 2 C1 349 0.779 0.743 0.701 20.54 23.13 13
C2 746 0.831 0.809 0.767 19.56 21.10 12
C3 521 0.719 0.636 0.597 9.31 20.36 8
C4 329 0.712 0.614 0.678 8.67 25.14 14
C5 385 0.573 0.878 0.499 15.88 22.36 12
C6 248 0.581 0.580 0.605 11.56 18.56 13
C7 231 0.631 0.501 0.564 15.09 22.21 11
C8 222 0.647 0.555 0.544 12.78 19.61 10
C9 273 0.557 0.502 0.496 18.44 21.21 11

Table A3
Experimental results for filler doped polypropylene concrete.

Exp. No. R1(ohm*m) R2 (W/m*K) R3 (W/m*K) R4 (W/m*K) R5 (MPa) R6 (%) R7 (cm)

REF 488 0.613 0.631 0.778 9.71 22.70 18
Replicate 1 P1 223 0.530 0.558 0.541 21.21 22.73 16
P2 349 0.554 0.574 0.536 25.29 21.36 14
P3 359 0.568 0.673 0.536 16.78 19.91 9
P4 356 0.380 0.379 0.365 23.16 21.84 12
P5 242 0.558 0.552 0.504 26.84 20.05 11
P6 196 0.553 0.587 0.538 25.95 18.55 10
P7 176 0.621 0.652 0.590 25.71 23.72 15
P8 170 0.476 0.422 0.515 35.51 21.21 12
P9 178 0.438 0.484 0.362 25.37 19.61 10
Replicate 2 P1 294 0.580 0.595 0.554 20.98 22.52 14
P2 338 0.535 0.546 0.548 22.96 21.16 13
P3 370 0.544 0.542 0.548 17.11 19.38 10
P4 348 0.365 0.402 0.340 22.67 21.55 8
P5 220 0.598 0.579 0.507 25.07 20.94 9
P6 191 0.577 0.580 0.545 26.58 18.53 9
P7 148 0.628 0.501 0.540 26.05 23.94 13
P8 163 0.516 0.555 0.521 36.42 21.77 11
P9 143 0.403 0.502 0.399 22.79 19.21 10

Table A4
Comparison study with doped polymer.

Exp. No Exp. Code. R1 (ohm*m) R2 (W/m*K) R3 (W/m*K) R4 (W/m*K) R5 (MPa) R6 (%) R7 (cm)
0 REF 488.0 0.613 0.631 0.778 9.71 22.70 18
1 PP30 779.2 0.307 0.329 0.323 8.49 23.35 12
C9 CaPP30 268.5 0.554 0.518 0.495 17.85 22.33 10
P3 GFPP30 364.5 0.556 0.607 0.542 16.95 19.65 10
P6 TaPP30 193.5 0.565 0.583 0.541 26.27 18.54 10
P9 BaPP30 160.5 0.421 0.493 0.381 24.08 19.41 10
According to PP30 Increase or decrease rate1 65.54a 80.46b 57.45 53.25 110.25 4.37 16.7
Increase or decrease rate2 53.22 81.11 84.50 67.80 99.65 15.85 16.7
Increase or decrease rate3 75.17 84.04 77.20 67.49 209.42 20.60 16.7
Increase or decrease rate4 79.40 37.13 49.85 17.96 183.63 16.87 16.7
According to REF Increase or decrease rate5 59.67 49.92 47.86 58.48 12.56 2.86 –33.3
Increase or decrease rate6 44.98 9.62 17.91 36.38 83.83 1.63 44.4
Increase or decrease rate7 25.31 9.30 3.80 30.33 74.56 13.44 44.4
Increase or decrease rate8 60.35 7.83 7.61 30.46 170.55 18.33 44.4
Increase or decrease rate9 67.11 31.32 21.87 51.03 147.99 14.5 44.4
1
For CaPP30,
2
for GFPP30,
3
for TaPP30
4
for BaPP30 according to PP30
5
For PP30,
6
For CaPP30,
7
For GFPP30,
8
For TaPP30 and
9
For BaPP30according to REF
a

268:5779:2 
 100 ¼ 65:54,
b

0:5540:307
779:2  
0:554  100 ¼ 80:46.
198 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199

Table B1
The optimum responses.

Response Description Levels Stationary point Weight Composite desirability Predicted value Optimal D
Lower Target Upper
R1 Electrical resistivity 214 600 746 Saddle 1a 1b 0.15778a 534.91a 0.6054a
(ohm*m) 143 200 370 0.97490b 198.57b 0.7778b
28-days
R2 Thermal conductivity 0.50 0.7 0.83 Saddle 1a 1b 0.82196a 0.7237a
(W/m*K) 0.36 0.5 0.63 0.99583b 0.5005b
3-days
R3 Thermal conductivity 0.45 0.5 0.88 Saddle 1a 1b 0.94232a 0.7103a
(W/m*K) 0.38 0.5 0.67 0.83533b 0.5285b
10-days
R4 Thermal conductivity 0.49 0.5 0.77 Saddle 1a 1b 0.72477a 0.6460a
(W/m*K) 0.36 0.4 0.59 0.59284b 0.4774b
28-days
R5 Compressive strength 8.67 15 20.54 Saddle 1a 1b 0.61282a 12.5492a
(MPa) 16.78 30 36.42 0.74282b 26.6001b
28 days
R6 Water absorption 18.33 20 25.14 Saddle 1a 1b 1.0000a 20.0a
(%) 18.53 20 23.94 0.98463b 20.0606b
R5 Slump flow 8 13 14 Saddle 1a 1b 0.54885a 10.7442a
(cm) 8 13 16 0.48994b 10.4497b
a
Setting the same weight for calcium filled polymer.
b
Setting the same weight for material filled polypropylene.

B: Full factorial design based desirability function approach After the desirability functions are obtained for each of the
responses, their geometric mean is calculated and a single collec-
The desirability function can be described as an index for mul- tive desirability function (D) can be achieved for all of them.
tiple responses ranging from 0 to 1. Where, 1 indicates that opti-
mum values have been determined. Calculation of desirability D ¼ ðd1  d2  d3  dn Þ
1=n
ð2Þ
function is made for each Yi belonging to di and then, the geometric
mean of these particular functions is calculated. Thus a single col-
d1, d2, d3, dn are desirability values of responses and n denotes the
lective desirability function (D) is obtained. Ti states, Li and Ui state
number of total responses. Desirability function (with ‘‘nominal the
target value, limit inferior and superior respectively. S and t are the
best” approach) could be defined for the responses according to
weights demonstrating the importance of responses on target
response surface plots. Bounds determined (lower, upper and desir-
value and on the total desirability role.
able) for the responses are given in Table B1.
8
> 0 ^i ðxÞ < Li
y
>
<h is
^i ðxÞLi
^i Þ ¼
d i ðy y
^i ðxÞ < T i
Li 6 y ð1Þ C: Validation of the optimum levels
>
>
T i Li
:
1 ^ i ð xÞ > T i
y
Table C1

Table C1
T-test results for the verification of the results.

No Response Predicted values Result of validation experiment Difference (d) Standard deviation t-test Statisticsà T6;0.025 (tn-1,a/2)
Mean,d
1 R1 534.91a 518.2a 16.71a 2.3326a 6.3929a *
0.97a 2.447a
198.57b 214.3b 15.73b 2.7151b 5.7705b -1.24b
*
2.447a
2 R2 0.7237a 0.704a 0.0197a
0.5005b 0.554b 0.0535b
3 R3 0.7103a 0.729a 0.0187a
0.5285b 0.511b 0.0175b
4 R4 0.6460a 0.638a 0.008a
0.4774b 0.498b 0.0206b
5 R5 12.5492a 14.03a 1.48a
26.6001b 28.15b 1.5499b
6 R6 20.0a 18.65a 1.55a
20.0606b 21.18b 1.1194b
7 R7 10.7442a 11a 0.26a
10.4497b 11b 0.5503b
Total n=7
a
: Setting the same weight for all responses (CAFIPO).
b
: Setting the same weight for all responses (FIDOPO) (d) = Predicted values – Verification experiment.
*
Null p
hypothesis
ffiffi H0 = There is no significant difference between the two means. Since 0.97 < 2.447 and 1.24 > 2.447, null hypothesis would not reject.
à
t ¼ dSd n.
 V.A. Küçük et al. / Construction and Building Materials 226 (2019) 188–199
Appendix B. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2019.07.256.
References
[1] H. Jmal, N. Bahlouli, C. Wagner-Kocher, D. Leray, F. Ruch, J.-N. Munsch, M.
Nardin, Influence of the grade on the variability of the mechanical properties of
polypropylene waste, Waste Manage. 75 (2018) 160–173.
[2] M. Tanniru, R.D.K. Misra, On enhanced impact strength of calcium carbonate-
reinforced high-density polyethylene composites, Mater. Sci. Eng., A 405
(2005) 178–193.
[3] N.G. Karsli, A. Aytac, Effects of maleated polypropylene on the morphology,
thermal and mechanical properties of short carbon fiber reinforced
polypropylene composites, Mater. Des. 32 (2011) 4069–4073.
[4] F.Z. El Mechtali, H. Essabir, S. Nekhlaoui, M.O. Bensalah, M. Jawaid, R. Bouhfid,
A. Qaiss, Mechanical and thermal properties of polypropylene reinforced with
almond shells particles: impact of chemical treatments, J. Bionic Eng. 12 (2015)
483–494.
[5] Y.D. Zhu, G.C. Allen, P.G. Jones, J.M. Adams, D.I. Gittins, P.J. Heard, D.R. Skuse,
Dispersion characterisation of CaCO3 particles in PP/CaCO3 composites,
Compos. A Appl. Sci. Manuf. 60 (2014) 38–43.
[6] F. Ashenai Ghasemi, I. Ghasemi, S. Menbari, M. Ayaz, A. Ashori, Optimization of
mechanical properties of polypropylene/talc/graphene composites using
response surface methodology, Polym. Test. 53 (2016) 283–292.
[7] F. Ke, X. Jiang, H. Xu, J. Ji, Y. Su, Ternary nano-CaCO3/poly(ethylene
terephthalate) fiber/polypropylene composites: increased impact strength
and reinforcing mechanism, Compos. Sci. Technol. 72 (2012) 574–579.
[8] S. Karamipour, H. Ebadi-Dehaghani, D. Ashouri, S. Mousavian, Effect of nano-
CaCO3 on rheological and dynamic mechanical properties of polypropylene:
experiments and models, Polym. Test. 30 (2011) 110–117.
[9] B. Sß imsßek, T. Uygunoğlu, Examination of the effects of CaCO3 reinforced and
unreinforced polypropylenes which is substituted with a fine aggregate on
traditional concrete properties, Pamukkale Univ Muh Bilim Derg 24 (7) (2018)
1338–1342.
ß . Barısß, U. Tayfun, A full factorialbased desirability function approach to
[10] S
investigate optimal mixture ratio of polymer concrete, Polym. Compos. 39 (9)
(2018) 3199–3211.
[11] B. S ß imsßek, T. Uygunoğlu, Thermal, electrical, mechanical and fluidity
properties of polyester-reinforced concrete composites, Sādhanā 43 (2018) 57.
[12] M. Fathi, A. Yousefipour, E. Hematpoury Farokhy, Mechanical and physical
properties of expanded polystyrene structural concretes containing Micro-
silica and Nano-silica, Constr. Build. Mater. 136 (2017) 590–597.
[13] K. Jafari, V. Toufigh, Experimental and analytical evaluation of rubberized
polymer concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 155 (2017) 495–510.
[14] N. Haghighatnejad, S.Y. Mousavi, S.J. Khaleghi, A. Tabarsa, S. Yousefi, Properties
of recycled PVC aggregate concrete under different curing conditions, Constr.
Build. Mater. 126 (2016) 943–950.
[15] B. Sßimsßek, T. Uygunoğlu, Multi-response optimization of polymer blended
concrete: a TOPSIS based Taguchi application, Constr. Build. Mater. 117 (2016)
251–262.
[16] A. Zezulová, T. Staněk, T. Opravil, The influence of barium sulphate and barium
carbonate on the portland cement, Procedia Eng. 151 (2016) 42–49.
[17] M.C.S. Nepomuceno, L.A. Pereira-de-Oliveira, S.F. Pereira, Mix design of
structural lightweight self-compacting concrete incorporating coarse
lightweight expanded clay aggregates, Constr. Build. Mater. 166 (2018)
373–385.
[18] S. Bai, L. Jiang, N. Xu, M. Jin, S. Jiang, Enhancement of mechanical and electrical
properties of graphene/cement composite due to improved dispersion of
graphene by addition of silica fume, Constr. Build. Mater. 164 (2018) 433–441.
[19] K. Yang, Q. Yang, G. Li, Y. Sun, D. Feng, Mechanical properties and
morphologies of polypropylene with different sizes of calcium carbonate
particles, Polym. Compos. 27 (2006) 443–450.
199
[20] T. Thenepalli, A.Y. Jun, C. Han, C. Ramakrishna, J.W. Ahn, A strategy of
precipitated calcium carbonate (CaCO3) fillers for enhancing the mechanical
properties of polypropylene polymers, Korean J. Chem. Eng. 32 (2015)
1009–1022.
[21] A. Dehghan, K. Peterson, A. Shvarzman, Recycled glass fiber reinforced polymer
additions to Portland cement concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 146 (2017) 238–
250.
_ E.H. Sßimsßek, A RSM-based multi-response optimization
[22] B. Sßimsßek, Y.T. Iç,
application for determining optimal mix proportions of standard ready-mixed
concrete, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 41 (2016) 1435–1450.
[23] A. Lübeck, A.L.G. Gastaldini, D.S. Barin, H.C. Siqueira, Compressive strength and
electrical properties of concrete with white Portland cement and blast-furnace
slag, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 392–399.
[24] N. Singh, S.P. Singh, Carbonation and electrical resistance of self compacting
concrete made with recycled concrete aggregates and metakaolin, Constr.
Build. Mater. 121 (2016) 400–409.
[25] A.S. El-Dieb, M.A. El-Ghareeb, M.A.H. Abdel-Rahman, E.S.A. Nasr,
Multifunctional electrically conductive concrete using different fillers, J.
Build. Eng. 15 (2018) 61–69.
[26] H. Wang, J. Yang, H. Liao, X. Chen, Electrical and mechanical properties of
asphalt concrete containing conductive fibers and fillers, Constr. Build. Mater.
122 (2016) 184–190.
[27] J.-S. Chou, N.-T. Ngo, Smart grid data analytics framework for increasing
energy savings in residential buildings, Automat. Constr. 72 (Part 3) (2016)
247–257.
[28] A. Allouhi, Y. El Fouih, T. Kousksou, A. Jamil, Y. Zeraouli, Y. Mourad, Energy
consumption and efficiency in buildings: current status and future trends, J.
Cleaner Prod. 109 (2015) 118–130.
[29] G. Faneca, I. Segura, J.M. Torrents, A. Aguado, Development of conductive
cementitious materials using recycled carbon fibres, Cem. Concr. Compos. 92
(2018) 135–144.
[30] D. Micheli, A. Vricella, R. Pastore, A. Delfini, R. Bueno Morles, M. Marchetti, F.
Santoni, L. Bastianelli, F. Moglie, V. Mariani Primiani, V. Corinaldesi, A. Mazzoli,
J. Donnini, Electromagnetic properties of carbon nanotube reinforced concrete
composites for frequency selective shielding structures, Constr. Build. Mater.
131 (2017) 267–277.
[31] A. D5334-14, Standard Test Method for Determination of Thermal
Conductivity of Soil and Soft Rock by Thermal Needle Probe Procedure,
ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014, p. 8.
[32] I. Asadi, P. Shafigh, Z.F.B. Abu Hassan, N.B. Mahyuddin, Thermal conductivity of
concrete – a review, J. Build. Eng. 20 (2018) 81–93.
[33] T.S. Institute, Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 3, Compressive Strength of Test
Specimens, in, Ankara, 2010, pp. 21.
[34] T.S. Institute, Testing fresh concrete–Part 5, Flow table test., in, Ankara, 2010,
pp. 9.
[35] T.S. Institute, Testing Hardened Concrete—Part 7, Density of Hardened
Concrete, in, Ankara, 2010, pp. 12.
[36] Ö.B. Ceran, B. Sßimsßek, S. Doruk, T. Uygunoğlu, O.N. S ß ara, Effects of dispersed
and powdered silver nanoparticles on the mechanical, thermal, electrical and
durability properties of cementitious composites, Constr. Build. Mater. 222
(2019) 152–167.
[37] L. Mesa, Y. Martínez, E. Barrio, E. González, Desirability function for
optimization of Dilute Acid pretreatment of sugarcane straw for ethanol
production and preliminary economic analysis based in three fermentation
configurations, Appl. Energy 198 (2017) 299–311.
_ E.H. S
[38] B. Sß imsßek, Y. Tansel Iç, ß imsßek, A full factorial design based desirability
function approach for optimization of properties of C 40/50 concrete class,
Math. Comput. Appl. 18 (2013) 330.
[39] S. Das, S. Mishra, Box-Behnken statistical design to optimize preparation of
activated carbon from Limonia acidissima shell with desirability approach, J.
Environ. Chem. Eng. 5 (2017) 588–600.
[40] B. Sß imsßek, T. Uygunoğlu, H. Korucu, M.M. Kocakerim, Analysis of the effects of
dioctyl terephthalate obtained from polyethylene terephthalate wastes on
concrete mortar: a response surface methodology based desirability function
approach application, J. Cleaner Prod. 170 (2018) 437–445.