| Literature DB >> 30974784 |
Francisca Perez-Garcia1, Maria Eugenia Parron-Rubio2, Jose Manuel Garcia-Manrique3, Maria Dolores Rubio-Cintas4.
Abstract
This paper is part of a research line focused on the reduction of the use of cement in the industry. In this work, the study of work methodologies for the manufacture of green cementitious grout mixtures is studied. Grout is widely used in construction and it requires an important use of raw materials. On the other hand, the steel industry faces the problem of the growing generation of slag wastes due to the increase in steel manufacturing. The green grout aims to achieve the dual objective of reducing the demand for cement and improve the slag waste valorization. Slag is not introduced as an aggregate but through the direct replacement of cement and no additives. The research seeks a product where we can use steel slag intensively, guaranteeing minimum resistance and workability. Results with substitutions between a 25% to 50% and water/cement ratio of 1 are presented. In particular, the suitability of different slags (two Ladle Furnace Slag (LFS) and one Blast Furnace Slag (GGBS)) in the quality of the final product are analyzed. The feasibility of replacing cement with slag and the importance of the origin and pretreatment are highlighted.Entities:
Keywords: cement; cementitious grout; circular economy; green grout; slag substitution; valorization
Year: 2019 PMID: 30974784 PMCID: PMC6479546 DOI: 10.3390/ma12071166
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Schematic water–cement ratio (W/C) depending on the application.
Cement and slag chemical composition (data provided by the supplying company).
| Slag Origin/Chemical Composition | SiO2 | Al2O3 | CaO | Fe2O3 | MgO | Na2O | K2O |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| % | % | % | % | % | % | % | |
| Cement | 20–22 | 4–10 | 55.62 | 4 | 2 | 0.3 | 0.3 |
| Slag GGBS (S1) | 35.9 | 11.2 | 40 | 0.3 | 7.7 | 0.2 | 0.4 |
| Slag LFS 1 (S2) | 22.28 | 9.37 | 56.94 | 0.84 | 7.37 | 0 | - |
| Slag LFS 2 (S3) | 15.85 | 16.53 | 57.56 | 0.83 | 7.7 | - | - |
Cementitious grout mixtures composition.
| Mix Denomination | Slag | Substitution |
|---|---|---|
| S0 | - | 0% |
| S1_30 | GGBS | 30% |
| S1_40 | GGBS | 40% |
| S1_50 | GGBS | 50% |
| S2_30 | LFS 1 | 30% |
| S2_40 | LFS 1 | 40% |
| S2_50 | LFS 1 | 50% |
| S3_30 | LFS 2 | 30% |
| S3_40 | LFS 2 | 40% |
| S3_50 | LFS 2 | 50% |
Figure 2Exudation tests.
Figure 3Flow cone test results.
Flexural strength results.
| Mixes | 7 | 28 | 90 | % Strength Gain at 90 Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S0 | 2.45 | 3.36 | 3.92 | - |
| S1_30 | 1.80 | 2.65 | 4.07 | 3.8% |
| S1_40 | 1.70 | 3.28 | 4.28 | 9.18% |
| S1_50 | 1.65 | 3.46 | 4.63 | 18.1% |
| S2_30 | 1.44 | 2.90 | 4.29 | 9.4% |
| S2_40 | 1.70 | 3.5 | 3.69 | −5.9% |
| S2_50 | 1.35 | 2.61 | 3.60 | −8.2% |
| S3_30 | 1.17 | 2.39 | 2.21 | −43.6% |
| S3_40 | 0.88 | 1.83 | 1.46 | −62.8% |
| S3_50 | 0.51 | 1.16 | 1.29 | −67.1% |
Figure 4Results of flexural strength test (MR)(MPa).
Figure 5Flexural strength evolution (MR/MRS0).
Compressive strength results.
| Mixes | 7 | 28 | 90 | % Strength Gain at 90 Days |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| S0 | 6.29 | 8.89 | 12.52 | - |
| S1_30 | 4.40 | 6.98 | 13.25 | 5.8% |
| S1_40 | 4.38 | 8.66 | 14.97 | 19.6% |
| S1_50 | 4.50 | 11.41 | 16.90 | 35.0% |
| S2_30 | 3.20 | 6.41 | 9.27 | −26.0% |
| S2_40 | 3.98 | 8.08 | 9.09 | −27.4% |
| S2_50 | 3.15 | 6.27 | 7.34 | −41.4% |
| S3_30 | 2.23 | 4.42 | 4.42 | −64.7% |
| S3_40 | 1.65 | 3.33 | 3.17 | −74.7% |
| S3_50 | 1.02 | 2.05 | 1.98 | −84.2% |
Figure 6Results of compressive strength test (Rs)(MPa).
Figure 7Compressive strength evolution (Rs/Rs(S0)).
Figure 8Exudation test.