4.7 Article

Efficiency of waste marble powder in controlling alkali-silica reaction of concrete: A sustainable approach

期刊

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
卷 154, 期 -, 页码 590-599

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.08.002

关键词

Waste marble powder; Building material; Alkali silica reaction; Microscopic examination; Eco-efficient

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Recycling of wastes in building materials is gaining a lot of attention worldwide. This not only conserves natural resources but also enhances the properties of existing building materials leading to economical and environment friendly construction. The main aim of this study was to explore the efficiency of waste marble powder (WMP) in controlling alkali silica reactivity (ASR) of concrete. For this purpose, WMP was obtained from a marble industry. To initiate the ASR phenomena, reactive aggregate was used in the study. Mortar bar specimens prepared with WMP as cement replacement material at 10%, 20%, 30% and 40% replacement levels (by cement weight) were evaluated in the standard ASTM C1260 test method. Compressive strength and thermal analysis tests were performed to investigate the effect of WMP on strength development of concrete. Results of compressive strength and thermal analysis showed improved strength after 10% of cement replacement with WMP. Moreover, 28% and 50% reduction in mortar bar expansion was observed after replacing 10% and 40% of cement with WMP, respectively. Scanning electron microscopic images also showed no signs of ASR cracking for mortar bars incorporating WMP. However, presence of cracks due to ASR was observed in control specimens. Furthermore, energy disperse X-ray spectroscopy (EDS) showed that amount of alkalies reduced after replacing cement with WMP, leading to overcome ASR expansion. Therefore, based on the results WMP can be effectively used to control ASR expansion leading to durable, sustainable and economical construction. (C) 2017 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