4.7 Article

Environmental impact and quality assessment of using eggshell powder incorporated in lightweight foamed concrete

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 244, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2020.118341

Keywords

Lightweight foamed concrete; Eggshell powder; Partial cement replacement material; Quality performance; Life cycle assessment

Funding

  1. Universiti Tunku Abdul Rahman

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper is aimed to investigate the effects of eggshell powder (ESP), as partial replacement material of cement, on quality performance of lightweight foamed concrete (LFC) with density of 1300 kg/m(3) in terms of initial surface absorption, sorptivity, water absorption, ultrasonic pulse velocity, and compressive strength; and meanwhile evaluate environmental impact of said replacement by performing life cycle analysis (LCA). Different eggshell powder lightweight foamed concrete were developed by replacing 0%, 2.5%, 5%, 7.5%, and 10% of cement with eggshell powder. A water to cement ratio of 0.58 was adopted to study the engineering properties of the eggshell powder lightweight foamed concrete for various ages of 7, 28 and 90 days. The laboratory results show that the incorporation of eggshell powder has decrease initial surface absorption, sorptivity, and water absorption of the lightweight foamed concrete. Besides, incorporation of eggshell powder has increase compressive strength and ultrasonic pulse velocity (UPV) of the lightweight foamed concrete as well, and the optimal replacement level is found at 7.5% based on compressive strength results. Moreover, the life cycle assessment result shows reductions of 6.6% to 9.9% in various environmental loads and impacts such as climate change, acidification, fossil fuel, eutrophication, photochemical oxidation, and ozone layer depletion. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available