4.7 Article

Performance of sustainable concrete containing granite cutting waste

期刊

JOURNAL OF CLEANER PRODUCTION
卷 119, 期 -, 页码 86-98

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2016.02.008

关键词

Concrete; Granite cutting waste; Strength; Permeability; SEM; XRD

资金

  1. CDOS, India
  2. MRC, MNIT Jaipur

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Industrial by products such as granite cutting waste (GCW) are suspected to have a detrimental effect on environment. This paper emphasizes on a sustainable way of getting rid of GCW by using it as a partial replacement of natural fine aggregate (river sand) in conventional concrete. In this paper, strength and durability behaviour of concrete containing GCW is examined so as to determine its viability in concrete production. Concrete was prepared with GCW in 4 different proportions i.e. 10%, 20%, 30%, and 50% and various tests such as compressive strength, flexural strength, abrasion resistance and permeability test were performed and the experimental values were compared with the control mix. Microstructural studies of control mix (CM) and mixes with different percentages of GCW were also performed using SEM and XRD techniques to identify effect of incorporating GCW on performance of concrete with respect to C-S-H gel, silica and other hydration products, which has not been investigated in the past. Microstructural investigation helps in understanding the variation in strength of concrete with different percentages of GCW. Test results, SEM and XRD analysis of concrete mixes indicates that optimum replacement percentage of fine aggregate with GCW is about 30% as the performance of concrete is significantly improved at this replacement level. Hence, GCW can be used as a partial substitute of river sand and thereby reducing cost of concrete production. Optimal replacement of sand by GCW can open up new avenues in sustainable construction techniques and reduce the detrimental effect on environment due to waste disposal. (C) 2016 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