4.7 Article

Environmental protection based sustainable development by utilization of granite waste in Reactive Powder Concrete

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 266, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.121973

关键词

Sustainable development; Environmental protection; Granite wastes; Reactive powder concrete; Compressive and flexural strength; Workability; Water absorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Stone cutting processes generate waste in large volumes that are often buried and cause polluting the environment. Aside from preventing environmental degradation, using of these wastes for different applications, including in the concrete industry, helps reduce the depletion of mineral resources, offering an excellent opportunity for sustainable development. The present study is an investigation into the use of stone cutting waste in the production of Reactive Powder Concrete (RPC). For this purpose, ninety RPC mix designs, with three water-to-binder ratios (w/B = 0.14, 0.17, and 0.2), three silica-fume-to-binder ratios (SF/B = 0.15, 0.2, and 0.25), two binder (cement thorn silica fume) contents (1200 and 1500 kg/m(3)), and five replacement ratios of silica sand by granite waste (GW/Agg = 0, 10, 20, 30, and 40%) were prepared. Superplasticizer content was adjusted in the concrete mixes to achieve a 200 mm spreading diameter in the mini-slump test. Compressive strength, flexural strength, and water absorption tests were conducted on specimens of all concrete mixes. The results were suggestive of improvements in the mechanical properties of the concrete by incorporating up to 30% granite waste in the RPC to the replace silica sand. At GW/Agg = 30%, the compressive and flexural strengths were enhanced by 78 and 60%, while reducing the water absorption of the concrete by 75%. The results also show that by making 1 m(3) of RPC with GW/Agg = 30%, 120-300 kg of granite production wastes can be used up. (C) 2020 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据