| Literature DB >> 31060268 |
Afonso Rangel Garcez de Azevedo1, Markssuel Teixeira Marvila2, Laimara da Silva Barroso3, Euzébio Bernabé Zanelato4, Jonas Alexandre5, Gustavo de Castro Xavier6, Sergio Neves Monteiro7.
Abstract
Civil construction is one of the most resource-consuming sectors in the world. For this reason, the last years have witnessed the study of reusing industrial residues in building materials. The ornamental stone processing industry has a considerable environmental liability related to residue generation during the cutting stages of granite blocks. The objective of this work is to analyze the viability of incorporating granite residues, up to 100%, to substitute sand in coating mortars for building construction. Mortars without residue, as control, and incorporated with 20, 40, 60, 80, and 100% of granite residue were subjected to consistency tests, incorporated air and water retention together with the rheological characterization using the squeeze-flow and the dropping-ball methods. The results show that mortars with 40% granite residues presented greater plastic deformation, helping their applicability by also presenting improved technological properties in the fresh state.Entities:
Keywords: granite residue; mortar; rheological
Year: 2019 PMID: 31060268 PMCID: PMC6539767 DOI: 10.3390/ma12091449
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Compositions of mortars studied.
| Replacement Levels (%) | Cement | Hydrated Lime | Granite Residue (g) | Sand (g) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 0.00 | 1361.00 |
| 20 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 272.20 | 1088.80 |
| 40 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 544.40 | 816.60 |
| 60 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 816.60 | 544.40 |
| 80 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 1,088.80 | 272.20 |
| 100 | 200.00 | 94.09 | 1,361.00 | 0.00 |
Figure 1Exemplification of the rheology test by squeeze–flow. (a) Molded Sample and (b) compression in progress.
Figure 2Typical profile of a force x displacement curve of a squeeze–flow test with displacement control. Source: Azevedo et al. [17].
Figure 3Exemplification of the rheology test by dropping-ball.
Figure 4Result of the physical characterization of the fine aggregate (sand) and the granite residue.
Figure 5Morphological analysis of the granite residue by scanning electron microscopy (SEM).
Chemical composition of the granite residue (%).
| SiO2 | Al2O3 | Fe2O3 | K2O | TiO2 | SO3 | CaO | Na2O | BaO | Others | LF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 63.23 | 15.34 | 3.53 | 5.34 | 1.13 | 1.52 | 3.34 | 3.04 | 0.34 | 3.19 | 1.34 |
LF = Loss to fire.
Leaching test conditions and results for the granite residue.
| Chemical Element | Leaching Allowed (mg/L) | Leaching Obtained for Granite Residue (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|
| Ag | 5.000 | 0.0004 |
| Cd | 0.500 | 0.15 |
| Cr | 5.000 | 0.45 |
| Pb | 5.000 | 2.34 |
| Ba | 100.00 | - |
Result of the solubilization test of the granite residue.
| Chemical Element | Granite Residue (mg/L) | Maximum Solubility Allowed by the Brazilian Standard (mg/L) |
|---|---|---|
| Ag | <0.004 | 0.050 |
| Cd | <0.001 | 0.005 |
| Cr | <0.020 | 0.050 |
| Pb | <0.065 | 0.050 |
| Ba | <0.010 | 1.000 |
| Al | 0.130 | 0.200 |
| Cu | <0.010 | 1.000 |
| Fe | 0.025 | 0.300 |
| Mn | <0.010 | 0.100 |
| Zn | <0.003 | 5.000 |
| Na | 33.900 | 200.000 |
| Chlorides | 9.570 | 250.000 |
| Toughness | 18.500 | 500.000 |
| Sulfates | 10.450 | 400.000 |
Result of the amount of standard water in each mortar, through the consistency test.
| Replacement (%) | Consistency Index (mm) | Amount of Water Added (g) |
|---|---|---|
| 0 | 262.00 | 345.00 |
| 20 | 261.00 | 348.00 |
| 40 | 259.00 | 352.00 |
| 60 | 263.00 | 355.00 |
| 80 | 260.00 | 360.00 |
| 100 | 258.00 | 361.00 |
Figure 6Result of the incorporated air content (%) in the evaluated mortars.
Figure 7Result of water retention (%) of evaluated mortars.
Figure 8Result of the load x displacement curve at different mortar replacement levels.
Figure 9Penetration index results obtained by dropping-ball for mortars evaluated.