| Literature DB >> 35407967 |
Antonio López-Uceda1, Enrique Fernández-Ledesma2, José Ramón Jiménez2, José María Fernández-Rodríguez3.
Abstract
One way to contribute to sustainability in the construction sector is through the incorporation of construction by-products from their own activities. This work intends to extend the possibilities for enhancement of these by-products through the incorporation of four different ones, as fillers, in mortar production. The influence of these incorporations in mortar production was compared with a reference mortar with siliceous filler in its fresh state; workability, entrained air content and fresh density, and in its hardened state; capillary water absorption, water vapour permeability and shrinkage (up to 91 days); and adhesive, compressive, and flexural strength; the last two were studied over time (up to 180 days). Despite the reduction in compressive strength, both in the short and long term, there was a gain in adhesive strength when the construction by-products were incorporated. Regarding the physical properties and durability studied, no relevant differences were found with respect to the reference mortar. According to the European Specifications, these mortars could be used as regular or coloured rendering and plastering mortars, and masonry mortars, and these findings promote the circular economy in the construction sector.Entities:
Keywords: ceramic filler; construction by-products; granite filler; recovery filler; siliceous filler; sustainable mortars
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407967 PMCID: PMC9000632 DOI: 10.3390/ma15072636
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Filler properties and mixture names.
| Characterization Test Methods | Siliceous | Ceramic | Granite | Mixed | Recovery |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Specific gravity (UNE 80103:2013) (Mg/m3) | 2.61 | 2.52 | 2.45 | 2.20 | 2.69 |
| Bulk density (1097-3:1999) (Mg/m3) | 0.74 | 0.95 | 0.50 | 0.52 | 1.33 |
| Chloride (UNE-EN 1744-1:2010) (%) | 0.01 | 0.02 | 0.03 | 0.01 | 0.01 |
| Acid Soluble sulphates (UNE-EN 1744-1:2010) (SO3%) | <0.01 | 0.98 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Total sulphurs (UNE-EN1744-1:2010) (SO3%) | <0.01 | 0.98 | <0.01 | <0.01 | <0.01 |
| Sieve size (mm) | |||||
| 0.25 (% passing) | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 | 100 |
| 0.125 (% passing) | 100 | 100 | 97.35 | 99.49 | 75.91 |
| 0.063 (% passing) | 87.33 | 73.81 | 27.58 | 81.36 | 44.94 |
| Mortar mixture names | M-SF (ref) | M-CF | M-GF | M-MF | M-RF |
Mineralogical analysis of fillers.
| Mineral Relative Abundance (*) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mineral Phases | SF | CF | GF | MF | RF |
| Albite Na(Si3Al)O8 | - | ** | *** | - | - |
| Calcite CaCO3 | - | ** | - | * | - |
| Dolomite CaMg(CO3)2 | - | - | - | - | ****** |
| Illite KAl2Si3AlO20(OH)2 | - | - | - | - | - |
| Quartz (SiO2) | ****** | **** | ***** | ***** | - |
| Sanidine (Na,K)(Si3Al)O8 | - | *** | - | - | - |
| Gypsum CaSO4·2H2O | - | * | - | - | - |
| Biotite K(Mg,Fe)3 AlSi3O10(OH,F)2 | - | - | **** | * | - |
| Microcline KAlSi3O8 | - | - | ** | - | - |
| Cristobalite SiO2 | - | - | - | ** | - |
Footnote: The greater number of asterisks (*), the more relative abundance is found in the mineralogical phase; from *, almost negligible, to ******, the exclusive mineralogical phase observed.
Leached concentrations of fillers (mg/kg) and acceptance criteria (WAC, EU Council Decision 2003/33/EC).
| Criteria EU LD 2003/33/EC (L/S = 10) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elements | SF | CF | GF | MF | RF | Inert | Non-Hazardous | Hazardous |
| Cr | n.d. | 0.344 | n.d. | 0.006 | n.d. | 0.5 | 10 | 70 |
| Ni | n.d. | 0.026 | n.d. | 0.040 | 0.004 | 0.4 | 10 | 40 |
| Cu | n.d. | 0.039 | n.d. | 0.862 | n.d. | 2 | 50 | 100 |
| Zn | n.d. | 0.010 | n.d. | 0.016 | 0.011 | 4 | 50 | 200 |
| As | 0.018 | 0.030 | 0.014 | 0.043 | 0.003 | 0.5 | 2 | 25 |
| Se | 0.003 | 0.042 | n.d. | 0.034 | n.d. | 0.1 | 0.5 | 7 |
| Mo | n.d. | 0.088 | 0.565 (1) | 0.052 | 0.020 | 0.5 | 10 | 30 |
| Cd | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.04 | 1 | 5 |
| Sb | n.d. | 0.035 | 0.006 | 0.489 (1) | 0.024 | 0.06 | 0.7 | 5 |
| Ba | 3.746 | 0.498 | 0.010 | 0.833 | 0.272 | 20 | 100 | 300 |
| Hg | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.122 (1) | n.d. | 0.01 | 0.2 | 2 |
| Pb | n.d. | n.d. | n.d. | 0.000 | n.d. | 0.5 | 10 | 50 |
| C (µS/cm) | 28.75 | 785 | 129.8 | 118.2 | 40.4 | |||
| Ta (°C) | 25.7 | 25.9 | 28.1 | 28.3 | 28.1 | |||
| pH | 9.05 | 9.51 | 9.05 | 9.02 | 9.41 | |||
(1) Exceeds the inert waste limit; n.d. non detected.
Tests performed to study the properties of the mortars produced.
| Test Methods | Standards |
|---|---|
| Workable life | UNE-EN 1015-9:2000 |
| Entrained air content | UNE-EN 1015-7:1999 |
| Density in fresh state | UNE-EN 1015-7:1999 |
| Density in hardened mortar | UNE-EN 1015-10:2000 |
| Adhesive strength | UNE-EN 1015-12:2016 |
| Compressive strength | UNE-EN 1015-11:2000 |
| Flexural strength | UNE-EN 1015-11:2000 |
| Capillary water absorption | UNE-EN 1015-18:2003 |
| Water vapour permeability | UNE-EN 1015-19:1999 |
| Shrinkage | UNE 83831:2010 EX |
Properties in fresh state of the mortar mixes produced.
| Test Methods | M-SF | M-CF | M-GF | M-MF | M-RF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Workable life (min) | 206.5 (2.5) | 179.8 (15.6) | 152.3 (24.0) | 92.3 (6.9) | 192.5 (5.5) |
| Fresh density (g/cm3) | 1.95 (0.02) | 1.87 (0.01) | 1.82 (0.03) | 1.77 (0.02) | 1.94 (0.01) |
| Entrained air content (%) | 7.80 (0.70) | 6.80 (1.70) | 5.20 (2.10) | 2.70 (0.70) | 8.00 (3.10) |
Standard deviation in brackets.
Figure 1Correlation between fresh density in mortars and specific gravity of the fillers used in mortars.
Some properties in hardened mortar mixes.
| Test Methods | M-SF | M-CF | M-GF | M-MF | M-RF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hardened density | 1.76 (0.02) | 1.67 (0.01) | 1.80 (0.01) | 1.72 (0.01) | 1.71 (0.02) |
| Capillary water absorption (Kg/(m2·min0.5)) | 1.01 (0.04) | 1.03 (0.02) | 1.08 (0.03) | 0.79 (0.03) | 1.24 (0.06) |
| Water vapour permeability (10−11 kg/m·s·Pa) | 1.11 (0.11) | 1.01 (0.17) | 0.85 (0.04) | 0.72 (0.03) | 0.9 (0.10) |
Standard deviation in brackets.
Figure 2Shrinkage of mortars over time.
Figure 3Compressive strength of mortars over time.
Figure 4Flexural strength of mortars over time.
Figure 5Correlation between flexural strength and compressive strength.