| Literature DB >> 30577620 |
Andrés Juan-Valdés1, Julia García-González2, Desirée Rodríguez-Robles3, Manuel Ignacio Guerra-Romero4, Fernando López Gayarre5, Nele De Belie6, Julia M Morán-Del Pozo7.
Abstract
This research aimed to prove the feasibility of producing two types of precast elements widely used in construction, such as curbstones and paving blocks, using recycled concrete made with a 50% substitution of the natural gravel by recycled mixed aggregates with a significant ceramic content (>30%). In order to prove the quality of such mass concrete recycled precast elements, two different mixes were used: the first one was a conventional concrete mix provided by Prefabricados de Hormigón Pavimentos Páramo S.L., one of the collaborating companies in this study, and the other was a mixture in which wt 50% of the natural coarse aggregates were substituted for recycled mixed aggregates ceramic (RMAc). This recycled aggregate is a heterogeneous mixture of unbound aggregates, concrete, ceramic, etc., used as a secondary recycled aggregate and commonly produced in a lot of recycling plants in many European countries. This material was supplied by Tecnología y Reciclado S.L., the other collaborating company. Both mixtures were representative in order to establish the comparative behavior between them, taking into account that smaller percentages of replacement of the natural with recycled aggregates will also produce good results. This percentage of substitution represents a high saving of natural resources (gravel) and maintains a balanced behavior of the recycled concrete, so this new material can be considered to be a viable and reliable option for precast mass concrete paving elements. The characterization of the recycled precast elements, covering mechanical, microstructural, and durability properties, showed mostly similar behavior when compared to the analogous industrially-produced pieces made with conventional concrete.Entities:
Keywords: mechanical, microstructural, and durability characterization; precast paving elements; recycled concrete; recycled mixed ceramic aggregates
Year: 2018 PMID: 30577620 PMCID: PMC6337561 DOI: 10.3390/ma12010024
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Particle size distribution of the fine aggregates used in the study, including limits according to EHE-08 (Spanish standard for concrete).
Figure 2Particle size distribution of the coarse aggregates: natural (gravel) and recycled (RMAc).
Physical and mechanical properties of RMAc.
| Properties | Test Result | Limit Value | Standard Applied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Maximum particle size (mm) | 20 | - | EHE-08 (2008); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Minimum particle size (mm) | 4 | 4 | EHE-08 (2008); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| D/d ratio | 5.0 | ≥1.4 | EHE-08 (2008); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Granulometric modulus | 7.67 | - | UNE 7295 (1976) |
| Content of particles < 4 mm (%) | 5.03 | 5 | EHE-08 (2008) |
| Undersize particle content (%) Sieve d | 5.03 | ≤10 (EHE-08) | EHE-08 (2008); UNE 146121 (2000); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Oversize particle content (%) Sieve 2D | 0 | 0 | EHE-08 (2008); UNE 146121 (2000); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Oversize particle content (%) Sieve D | 2.21 | <10 | EHE-08 (2008); UNE 146121 (2000); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Fines content (%) | 0.04 | ≤1.5 (EHE-08) | EHE-08 (2008); UNE 146121 (2000); EN 933-1 (2012) |
| Sand equivalent (SE4 or SE) | 38.10 | >70–75 (1) | EHE-08 (2008); EN 933-8 (2012) |
| Apparent density (Mg/m3) | 2.53 | - | EN 1097-6 (2014) |
| After oven-drying density (Mg/m3) | 2.08 | - | EN 1097-6 (2014) |
| Saturate surface density (Mg/m3) | 2.26 | - | EN 1097-6 (2014) |
| Water absorption (%) | 8.53 | ≤7 | EHE-08 (2008); EN 1097-6 (2014) |
| Flakiness index (%) | 14.75 | ≤35 | EHE-08 (2008); EN 933-3 (2012) |
| Los Angeles coefficient (%) | 40.99 | ≤40–50 (2) | EHE-08 (2008); EN 1097-2 (2010) |
Notes: (1) The Spanish standard for concrete (EHE-08) allows the use of aggregates with sand equivalent minor to 70 for construction works in environments type X0, XC1, XC2, XC3, and XC4. The value increases up to 75 for all other cases. (2) It is possible to produce mass or reinforced concrete with a characteristic compressive strength fck ≤ 30 MPa using coarse aggregates with LA coefficients between 40 and 50, if specific studies endorse their use without detriment to concrete performance.
Non-floating components of the recycled aggregates.
| Components of Recycled Mixed Ceramic Aggregates (RMAc) | Percentage (wt %) |
|---|---|
| Unbound aggregates (natural aggregates without cement mortar attached) | 44.11 |
| Ceramics (bricks, tiles, stoneware and sanitary ware…) | 33.56 |
| Concrete and mortar (natural aggregates with cement mortar attached) | 17.51 |
| Asphalt | 0.44 |
| Glass | 0.75 |
| Gypsum | 3.47 |
| Other impurities (wood, paper, metals, plastic…) | 0.16 |
| Total | 100 |
Mix proportions per cubic metre of recycled concrete (RC) and control concrete (CC).
| Dosification Per Cubic Meter | RC | CC |
|---|---|---|
| Total effective w/c ratio (-) | 0.50 | 0.50 |
| Water (L) | 155.21 | 155.21 |
| Cement (kg) | 312.50 | 312.50 |
| Sand 0/4 mm (kg) | 96.98 | 96.98 |
| Sand 0/5 mm (kg) | 441.81 | 441.81 |
| Gravel 4/10 mm (kg) | 242.46 | 484.92 |
| Gravel 6/12 mm (kg) | 80.82 | 161.64 |
| Recycled mixed ceramic aggregate 4/20 mm (kg) | 323.28 | - |
Figure 3(a) General appearance and cross-sectional dimensions (mm) of the recycled curbstone. (b) General appearance of the recycled paving blocks.
Figure 4Characteristic compressive strength at 28 days (MPa) for recycled concrete (RC) and control concrete (CC).
Figure 5Mechanical characterization of the conventional (CC) and recycled (RC) curb units, where the dashed and dotted lines represent the Class 1 and 2 thresholds respectively.
Figure 6Mechanical characterization of the conventional (CC) and recycled (RC) paving blocks. The dashed and dotted lines represent the failure load and the splitting tensile strength thresholds.
Figure 7(A) Scanning electron microscope image of recycled concrete. (B) Scanning electron microscope image of conventional concrete.
Figure 8Elemental maps of recycled concrete: (A) Base image. (B) Elemental mapping for aluminium (magenta). (C) Elemental mapping for silicon (yellow).
Figure 9SEM image of recycled concrete, showing the cement hydration products.
Figure 10Pore size distribution of conventional and recycled concrete sample at 28 days.
Figure 11Cumulative mass loss of recycled aggregate concrete samples versus freeze–thaw cycles.
Figure 12Electrical resistivity of the samples, control concrete (CC) and recycled concrete (RC).