| Literature DB >> 28774151 |
Francisca Guadalupe Cabrera-Covarrubias1, José Manuel Gómez-Soberón2, Jorge Luis Almaral-Sánchez3, Susana Paola Arredondo-Rea4, María Consolación Gómez-Soberón5, Ramón Corral-Higuera6.
Abstract
The difficult current environmental situation, caused by construction industry residues containing ceramic materials, could be improved by using these materials as recycled aggregates in mortars, with their processing causing a reduction in their use in landfill, contributing to recycling and also minimizing the consumption of virgin materials. Although some research is currently being carried out into recycled mortars, little is known about their stress-strain (σ-ε); therefore, this work will provide the experimental results obtained from recycled mortars with recycled ceramic aggregates (with contents of 0%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50% and 100%), such as the density and compression strength, as well as the σ-ε curves representative of their behavior. The values obtained from the analytical process of the results in order to finally obtain, through numerical analysis, the equations to predict their behavior (related to their recycled content) are those of: σ (elastic ranges and failure maximum), ε (elastic ranges and failure maximum), and Resilience and Toughness. At the end of the investigation, it is established that mortars with recycled ceramic aggregate contents of up to 20% could be assimilated just like mortars with the usual aggregates, and the obtained prediction equations could be used in cases of similar applications.Entities:
Keywords: ceramic wastes; mortar; numerical simulation; recycled aggregates; stress-strain behavior
Year: 2016 PMID: 28774151 PMCID: PMC5456969 DOI: 10.3390/ma9121029
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1σ-ε curve diagram.
Figure 2XRD diffractogram for the CA and UA studied.
Physical properties of aggregates.
| Property 1 | CA | UA |
|---|---|---|
| Without adjusted granulometric profiles | ||
| 1182.0 | 1735.1 | |
| 1399.1 | 1860.8 | |
| Void content (%) | 35.3 | 32.9 |
| With adjusted granulometric profiles | ||
| 1820.9 | 2581.6 | |
| 2155.4 | 2623.6 | |
| Water absorption coefficient (%) | 18.4 | 1.6 |
| Fineness modulus materials | 2.8 | 2.4 |
| Particles < 75 µm (sieve No. 200) (%) | 8.2 | 2.9 |
1 According to ASTM (C128 [34], C136 [35] and C117 [36]).
Characteristic and proportions of the mixtures.
| Materials (g) | Classification and Proportions of the Mixtures | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UM | RCM10 | RCM20 | RCM30 | RCM50 | RCM100 | ||
| Water | 334 | 390 | 355 | 373 | 397 | 476 | |
| Cement | 400 | 433 | 381 | 372 | 348 | 323 | |
| UA 1 | <sieve No. 30 | 800 | 780 | 610 | 521 | 348 | 0 |
| >sieve No. 30 | 800 | 780 | 610 | 521 | 348 | 0 | |
| CA 1 | <sieve No. 30 | 0 | 69 | 122 | 179 | 278 | 517 |
| >sieve No. 30 | 0 | 104 | 183 | 268 | 417 | 775 | |
1 Dry condition.
Figure 3(a) General configuration of the experimental arrangement; (b) detail of LSC; and (c) idealized scheme from set.
Figure 4Curve σ-ε resulting from a test.
Density in hardened state of the RCM.
| Study Variables | ρ (g/cm3) |
|---|---|
| UM | 1.950 |
| RCM10 | 1.948 |
| RCM20 | 1.894 |
| RCM30 | 1.864 |
| RCM50 | 1.798 |
| RCM100 | 1.529 |
Figure 5Compressive strength of the RCM at 90 days of age.
Properties of σ-ε of the RCM.
| Study Variables | fm (MPa) | 0.40 fm (MPa) | εelastic (mm/mm) | εmax. (mm/mm) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UATM | 28.77 ± 2.28 | 11.51 ± 0.91 | 26252 ± 41 | 0.024 ± 1.8 × 10−4 | 0.003 ± 2.53 × 10−4 | 0.0004 ± 2.18 × 10−5 | 0.0014 ± 2.03 × 10−5 | 23619 ± 1004 |
| CRM10 | 30.58 ± 1.12 | 12.23 ± 0.45 | 26514 ± 53 | 0.029 ± 1.77 × 10−3 | 0.003 ± 7.29 × 10−5 | 0.0005 ± 6.46 × 10−6 | 0.0016 ± 6.53 × 10−5 | 21710 ± 520 |
| CRM20 | 30.95 ± 1.44 | 12.38 ± 0.58 | 26251 ± 31 | 0.035 ± 7 × 10−4 | 0.003 ± 1.4 × 10−4 | 0.0005 ± 2 × 10−5 | 0.0018 ± 3.1 × 10−5 | 20249 ± 542 |
| CRM30 | 30.10 ± 0.99 | 12.04 ± 0.40 | 24064 ± 6 | 0.025 ± 1.97 × 10−4 | 0.003 ± 8.92 × 10−5 | 0.0005 ± 1.45 × 10−5 | 0.0016 ± 3.46 × 10−5 | 21107 ± 304 |
| CRM50 | 26.76 ± 2.48 | 10.71 ± 0.99 | 21731 ± 25 | 0.022 ± 5 × 10−4 | 0.003 ± 1 × 10−4 | 0.0005 ± 2.98 × 10−5 | 0.0015 ± 2.06 × 10−6 | 18940 ± 745 |
| CRM100 | 20.56 ± 0.34 | 8.23 ± 0.14 | 14194 ± 30 | 0.010 ± 8 × 10−4 | 0.002 ± 1.5 × 10−4 | 0.0005 ± 3 × 10−5 | 0.0012 ± 2 × 10−5 | 15891 ± 643 |
Figure 6(a) UM (0% of CA); and (b) RCM10 (10% of CA).
Figure 7SEM of: (a) RCM50 (50% of CA); and (b) RCM100 (100% of CA).
Figure 8Microanalysis of components by mapping in SEM of the majority compounds: (a) RCM50; and (b) RCM100.
Figure 9σ-ε curves of the RCM.
Figure 10Graphs of the different properties of the RCM vs. RF: (a) RF vs. fm and 0.4 fm; and (b) RF vs. E and E; (c) RF vs. T and U; (d) RF vs. εmax. and εelastic.
CC values for application in PEr equations of the RCM.
| Study Variables | Corrector Coefficient ( | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| εelastic | ||||
| UM | 0.9817 | 0.9380 | 1.0086 | 0.6651 |
| RCM10 | 0.9915 | 0.9553 | 1.0572 | 0.8075 |
| RCM20 | 0.9817 | 0.9734 | 1.0855 | 0.9880 |
| RCM30 | 0.8999 | 1.0380 | 1.0716 | 0.7127 |
| RCM50 | 0.8126 | 0.9910 | 1.0291 | 0.6129 |
| RCM100 | 0.5308 | 1.1043 | 0.7480 | 0.2968 |
Figure 11E prediction equation for RCM confronted with real experimental data, and reported in other investigations.
Values of the experimental properties and those determined through simulation.
| Study Variables | εelastic (mm/mm) | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Expt. | Simul. | Expt. | Simul. | Expt. | Simul. | Expt. | Simul. | |
| UM | 26,252 | 25,771 | 0.0004 | 0.0004 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.024 | 0.018 |
| RCM10 | 26,515 | 26,334 | 0.0005 | 0.0004 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.029 | 0.025 |
| RCM20 | 26,251 | 25,493 | 0.0005 | 0.0004 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.035 | 0.035 |
| RCM30 | 24,065 | 22,578 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.003 | 0.003 | 0.025 | 0.020 |
| RCM50 | 21,731 | 18,127 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.003 | 0.002 | 0.022 | 0.015 |
| RCM100 | 14,194 | 8883 | 0.0005 | 0.0005 | 0.002 | 0.002 | 0.010 | 0.004 |
Values of the constants for each of the curves.
| Application | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 ≤ XX% ≤ 50 | 16,337 | 0.893 | 0.242 | −0.704 | 1.253 | |
| XX% = 100% | 16,337 | 1.245 | 0.253 | −0.704 | 1.242 | |
| 0 ≤ XX% ≤ 100 | 13,113 | 1.179 | 0.253 | −0.704 | 1.242 |
Values CC for the different percentages of CA.
| XX% | Corrector Coefficient ( | |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 1.7739 | 1.0962 |
| 10 | 1.8005 | 1.1126 |
| 20 | 1.7788 | 1.0992 |
| 30 | 1.6677 | 1.0306 |
| 50 | 1.5276 | 0.9440 |
| 100 | 0.7174 | 0.7174 |
Figure 12Curve σ-ε simulated for the RCM: (a) up to σelastic; and (b) up to σmax.