ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the possibility of using Soda-lime Silicate and Borosilicate glass waste as an effective additives for improving the properties of cement-based cementitious materials with obvious advantages both from environmental and economic viewpoints after the ultimate strength (after 28 days of curing). Results show that the incorporation of various compositions (wt) of waste glass powder (2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, 15%, 17.5% and 20%) increases the compressive strength by nearly 46%, while higher amounts have the opposite results. When waste glass particles are ball-milled to micro size powder, it is expected to undergo pozzolanic reactions with cement hydrates, forming secondary Calcium Silicate Hydrate. The research work looked at the chemical analysis using X-Ray fluorescence (XRF) technique and found some differences in the chemical composition of soda-lime silicate and borosilicate waste glass. The major oxides detected were combined proportion of SiO2, Al2O3, and Fe2O3with percentage value of 73.202%, 72.998%, 0.411%, 0.201%, and 0.223%, 0.112% respectively.Workability was determined by slump test method the control had slump of 55 mm, the samples that contains 5% of waste glass powder had 47mm slump less than the control thereby reduces the slump value. The slump test correlates with the compacting factor, since the value of control mixes higher. It means that it is more workable than other mixes, however none of the mixes fall below the acceptable value for structural work. Control had 0.92 and all other mixes were 0.85. TheSetting time of the specimens that contains waste glass powder was also determined and found that it delayed initial and final setting time, and the effect increases as the percentage replacement of cement with waste glass powder increases,The microstructural characterization was also carried out using Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) and X‐Ray Diffraction (XRD) to characterize the concrete samples. It was found that the morphology of concrete samples with
xx
waste glass powder (10%) was denser than the control sample (0%). Also, XRD results indicated that the intensity of the peaks, in particular of portlandite, is significantly reduced in the 10% waste glass sample than the control (10% of portlandite in the control, 2% of portlandite in 10% waste glass replacement). Various compositions of the samples (Control 0%, 2.5%, 5.0%, 7.5%, 10%, 12.5%, 15%, 17.5% and 20%) of concrete cube, cylinder and beam samples were prepared and tested for strength at 7, 14 and 28 days of curing. The compressive strength test results of the control and the 10% waste glass replacement were 20.95 N/mm2, 16.44N/mm2 for 7, 26.52 N/mm2, 24.14 N/mm2 14, and 31.38 N/mm2, 28.82 N/mm2 28 days respectively. The tensile strength test results of the control and the 10% waste glass replacement were 2.08 N/mm2, 1.65N/mm2 for 7, 2.65N/mm2 , 2.41 N/mm2 14, and 3.13N/mm2, 2.89N/mm2 28 days respectively.The flexural strength test results of the control and the 10% waste glass replacement were 3.96 N/mm2, 3.17N/mm2 for 7, 4.95N/mm2, 4.58 N/mm2 14, and 5.87N/mm2, 5.27N/mm2 28 days respectively.It can be concluded that all the samples can be used for structural purposes, this is because all the samples (except for 2.5% replacement which had 23.12 N/mm2) which was less than the maximum strength specified by ASTM 24.2 N/mm2 at 28 days.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Cover Page………………………………………………………………………………… i
Fly Leaf…………………………………………………………………………………… ii
Title Page…………………………………………………………………………………… iii
Declaration………………………………………………………………………………… iv
Certification……….……………………………………………………………………….. v
Dedication…………………………………………………………………………………. vi
Acknowledgement………………………………………………………………………… vii
Table of Contents……………..…………………………………………………………… viii
List of Tables ……………..………………………………………………………………. xiv
List of Figures ……………..………………………………………………………………. xv
List of Plates……………..………………………………………………………………… xvi
List of Abbreviations ……..……………………………………………………………… xvii
List of Appendix……………..………………………………………………………….…. xviii
Abstract……………..……………………………………………………………………… xx
1.0 INTRODUCTION………………………………………………..…………………….…1
1.1 Background of the study……………………………………………………………….…1
1.2 Statement of Research Problem…………………………………………………………..7
viii
1.3 Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………..8
1.4 Aim and Objectives of the Research…………………………………………………….9
1.5 Scope and Limitation………………………………………………………………… ……..9
2.0 LITERATURE REVIEW…………………………………………………….…….…..….10
2.1 Concrete………………………………………………………………….…………………10
2.1.1 Composition of concrete.……………………………………………….………………..…10
2.1.2 Chemical composition of Cement……………………………………………….……..……10
2.2 Aggregates………………………………………………………………….………………….12
2.2.1.In accordance with size…………………………………………………………………….12
2.3 FreshConcrete…………………………………………………………………………….13
2.3.1 Workability…………………………………………………………………………………13
2.3.2 Factors affecting workability……………………………………………………………….14
2.3.3Measurement of workability ……………………………………………………………….14
2.3.4 Slump test……………………………………………………………….…………………15
2.3.5 Compaction factor………………………………………………………………………….16
2.3.6 Uniformity and stability………………………………………………………………..…..17
2.3.7 Segregation…………………………………………………………………………..…….18
2.3.8 Bleeding…………………………………………………………………………….……….18
ix
2.3.9Setting time of concrete……………………………………………………………………19
2.3.10 Rheology…………………………………………………………………………………..19
2.4 Properties of Hardened Concrete…………………………………………..…………….20
2.4.1 Curing…………………………………………………………………………….…….….20
2.4.2 Importance of curing to concrete…………………………………………………………..21
2.4.3 Strength……………………………………………………………………………………..21
2.4.4 Compressive strength test …………………………………………………………………22
2.4.5 Tensile strength test………………………………………………………………………..22
2.4.6 Split cylinder test……………………………………………………………………………23
2.4.7 Flexural strength test……………………………………………………………………….23
2.4.8 Density………………………………………………………………………………..……24
2.5 Concrete Durability…………………………………………………………………….…..24
2.5.1 Water as an agent of deterioration………………………………………………………….25
2.5.2 Forms in which water exist in concrete…………………………………………….……….26
2.5.3 Capillarity water……………………………………………………………………………26
2.5.4 Adsorbed water…………………………………………………………………………….27
2.5.5 Interlayer water…………………………………………………………………………….27
2.5.6Chemically combined water……………………………………………………………….27
2.5.7 Concrete porosity………………………………………………………………………….27
2.5.8 The gel pores………………………………………………………………………………28
2.5.9 Transitional pores (diameter 10–100 nm) …………………………………………………28
2.5.10 Capillary pores……………………………………………………………………………29
x
2.5.11 Macropores (diameter > 1000 nm) ………………………………………………………29
2.6Causes of Deterioration of Concrete…………………………..……………………….….30
2.6.1 Internal causes………………………………………………………………………..……30
2.6.2 The external causes……………………………………………………………….………..30
2.6.3 Physical deterioration…………………………………………………………………..…30
2.6.4 Chemical deterioration……………………………………………………………………34
2.6.5 Sulphate Attack…………………………………………………………………………….35
2.6.6 Damage mechanisms due to sulphate attack……………………………………………….36
2.6.7 Magnesium Sulphate………………………………………………………..……….……..38
2.6.8 Methods of Controlling Sulphate Effects on Concrete………………..……………………38
2.7Pozzolana…………….……………………………………………………………………….39
2.7.1 Types of pozzolana………………………………………………………………………….39
3.0MATERIALS AND METHODS……….………………………………………….…..….41
3.1 Materials……………………………….………………………………………….…..……41
3.1.1Cement………………………………………………………………………………………41
3.1.2 Borosilicate glass and soda-lime silicate glass waste………………………………………41
3.1.3Fine Aggregate……………………………………………………………………………..42
3.1.4 Coarse Aggregate…………………………………………………………………….…….42
3.1.5 Water………………………………………………………………………………………42
3.2 Experimental Programme…………………………………………………………………..42
3.2.1Preliminary investigation…………………………………………………………………..42
3.2.2 Production of concrete samples…………………………………………………………….45
xi
3.2.3 Testing of fresh concrete specimens…………………………………………….…………46
3.2.4 Testing of hardened concrete specimens…………………………………………..………..49
4.0 RESULTS……………………………………………………………….…….………..…..52
4.1 Presentation of Results…………………………………………………………….…….52
4.2.1 Particle size distribution of aggregates (fine)………………..…………………….….…..53
4.2.2Specific gravity, aggregate moisture content, absorption capacity and bulk density……………………………………………………………………………………………..55
4.2.4 Chemical properties of cement, soda-lime silicate and borosilicate waste glass……..……56
4.3 Presentation of Results for Tests on Fresh Concrete Specimens……….……………….57
4.3.1 Setting time of cement pastes………………………………………………………………57
4.3.2. Slump test…………………..……………………………………………………………..59
4.3.3 Compacting factor test…………………………………………………………………….60
4.4 Presentation of Results of Tests Conducted on Hardened Concrete…………..……….61
4.4.1 Compressive strength of samples……………………………………………….….….….61
4.4.2 Tensile strength test of samples ………………….…………………………….………….62
4.4.3 Flexural strength test of samples…………………………………………………………63
xii
4.4.4 Water absorption capacity test …………………………………………………………….64
4.4.5 Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) analysis …………………….…………………………..65
4.4.6 X-ray diffractomatory (XRD) analysis…………………….………………………………………69
5.0 DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………….…….………..73
5.1 Hydration Reaction of SiO2 and Ca(OH)2………………………………………………..73
5.2 Discussions on the Physical properties of the Materials…………………………………73
5.3 Discussions on the Chemical Properties of Cement, Soda-lime silicate Glass and
Borosilicate Glass………………………………………………………………………75
5.4 Discussions on the Fresh Concrete Properties of the Specimens……………………….75
5.5 Discussions on the Mechanical Properties of the Hardened Concrete………………….77
5.6 Discussions on the Durability Properties of the Hardened Concrete……………………80
5.7 Discussions on the Microstructural Characterization of the Concrete Samples……….81
6.0 SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS…………………………84
6.1 Summary and Conclusion………………………………………………………………………………….84
6.2 Recommendation……………………………………………………………………………………………….86
xiii
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………..…..……….87
APPENDICES …………………………………………………………………………..………97
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1.1 Background of the Study Polymer blend is a mixture of at least two polymers or copolymers. Polymer blends are physical mixtures of two or more polymers with/without any chemical bonding between them. The objective of polymer blending is a practical one of achieving commercially viable products through either unique properties or lower cost than some other means might provide. Property of polymer blends is superior to those of component homopolymers. Blending technology also provides attractive opportunities for reuse and recycling of polymer wastes(Alexander,et al.,2016). Inorganic polymers in this class constitute the majorcomponents of soil, mountains and sand, and they are also employed as abrasives and cutting materials (diamond, silicon carbide) fibres (fibrous glass, asbestos, boron fibres), coatings, flame retardants,building and construction materials (window glass, stone, Portland cement, brick and tiles), andlubricants and catalysts (zinc oxide, nickel oxide, carbonblack, silica gel,aluminium silicate, and clays) (Rahimi, 2004).Inorganic and organometallic polymers represent a rapidlygrowing field of chemical research and already have many applications and any classification is necessarily somewhat arbitrary. For simplicity and convenient a classification is used here which may be far from perfect. In the following, we will focus on four main classes of inorganic polymers which are: wholly inorganic polymers, inorganic-organic polymers, organometallic polymers, and hybrid organic-inorganicpolymers (Rahimi, 2004).
2
“Geopolymer” is the term often used to refer to a class of alumina-silica based inorganic materials which are processed like a polymer that undergoes polycondensation at low temperatures, but resembles ceramics in the resulting structure and high temperature resistant properties (Radford, et al.,2009). The minerals that constitute this material are readily available. The name “geopolymer” was coined in 1978 during research efforts focused on the development of fire-resistant, non-toxic materials to be used in building structures (Mackenzie, 2003). This material evolved into a mineral-based binder for use as a high strength industrial cement with significantly shorter cure times than traditional Portland cements (Radford, et al.,2009). More recently there has been interest in utilizing the high-temperature resistant properties of this material and its very low density to replace heavier metallic components in high-temperature applications. It has been shown that geopolymers represent a competitivealternative to Portland cement and they are beginning to be widely used in diverse applications. Geopolymer is a term used to describe inorganic polymers based on aluminosilicatesand produced by synthesizing pozzolaniccompounds or aluminosilicate source materials with highly alkaline solutions (Duxson, et al., 2007). The ability to vary the Si/Al molar ratio, and therefore the structure and the physicochemical properties of the polymers, broadens the range of possible applications of these materials. However, most of the studies are limited to the use of certain mineral fines such as metakaolin, silica fume, fly ash or slag (Pacheco, 2008). All thesematerials share the ability to provide silica and aluminum to the reactional environment that is necessary for the polymerization reaction (Cyr, et al.,2012).
3
Glass in general is a highly transparent material formed by melting a mixture of materials such as silica, soda ash, and CaCO3 at high temperatures followed by cooling during which solidification occurs without crystallization. Glass is widely used in our lives through manufactured products such as sheet glass, bottles, glassware, and vacuum tubing. Glass has been indispensable to man‟s life due to such properties as pliability to take any shape with ease, bright surface, resistance to abrasion, safety and durability. The utility ranges of the glass increase the amount of the waste glass (WG) (Jagmeet and Rajindervir, 2016). Solid wastes are substances and masses resulted by the various human activities that have to be dumped (Adeniyi, 2014). Wastes exist in different forms: municipal waste (including household and commercial waste), industrial waste (including manufacturing), hazardous waste, construction and demolition waste, mining waste, waste from electrical and electronic equipment (glasses), biodegradable municipal waste, packaging waste, and agricultural waste. Solid wastes can be solid, liquid, and semi-solid or containerized gaseous material. Also, there are various sources of waste: residential, industrial, commercial, institutional, construction and demolition waste; municipal services manufacturing process, agriculture etc(Adeniyi, 2014). This waste is composed of sand, stone, gravel, tiles, ceramic, marble, glass, aluminum, wood, plastic, paper, paints, plumbing pipes, electric parts and asbestos, and other materials (Adeniyi, 2014).
According to Sadiqu, et al.,(2016) as of 2005, the total global waste glass production estimate was 130 Mt, in which the European Union, China and USA produced
4
approximately 33 Mt, 32 Mt and 20 Mt, respectively being non-biodegradable in nature (Sadiqu, et al.,2016). Soda-lime glass is transparent, easily formed and most suitable for window. It has a high thermal expansion and poor resistance to heat (500- 600 °C), while Borosilicate glasses stand heat expansion much better than window glass and use for chemical glassware, cooking glass, car head lamps, etc. Borosilicate glasses have as main constituent‟s silica and boron oxide. They have fairly low coefficients of thermal expansion of 3.25×10–6/°C as compared to about 9×10−6/°C for a typical soda-lime glass (Jagmeet and Rajindervir, 2016). Pozzolan is an additive used in concrete to improve its quality, for example, reduces the temperature rise during initial hydration, and improves the strength development and durability of concrete materials (Rungrawee, and Boonchai, 2015). Several types of pozzolan are widely used, such as natural pozzolan, fly ash, blast furnace slag, and silica fume (microsilica). Many studies have shown that waste glass has potential for use in building material, for example, as an aggregate replacement, a filler in concrete, or a cement replacement. Specifically, finely ground glass powder (particle size of less than 38 μm) has potential for use as pozzolan, and glass powder has more reactive silica than fly ash, which is the most commonly used pozzolan in Thailand.
In addition, glass powder tends to improve the compressive strength more if it was more finely ground (Rungrawee, and Boonchai, 2015). Being amorphous and having relatively
5
high silicon and calcium contents, glass is pozzolanic or even cementitious especially when the fineness of glass powder is much greater than that of Portland cement (Kara, et al.,2016). Many researchers have beenundertaken on the use of glass waste as partial replacement of cement, or fine aggregate in the production of concrete, it was reported by some authors that glass waste improves properties of concrete when it is grounded to a fines of less than 100μm, and pulverized glass waste could eliminate the risk of Aggregate Silicate Reaction (ASR). When waste glass is milled down to micro size particles, it is expected to undergo pozzolanic reactions with cement hydrates, forming secondary calcium silicate hydrate (C–S–H) (Sadiqul, et al.,2016). Kara, et al., (2016) conducted research on the performance of soda lime as partial replacement of cement and concluded that 20% replacement level gave higher strength than the control at later curing age, Rungraweeand Boonchai (2015) conducted research on the partial replacement of cement with sodalime glass and reported using 10% or 20% glass powder reduced the workability of fresh concrete and accelerated its setting time. However, concrete containing 10% finely ground glass powder exhibited greater compressive strength and improved resistance to the penetration of chloride ions than normal concrete and concrete containing fly ash at the same replacement level.
Concrete with 10% glass powder also had lower shrinkage than normal concrete and concrete containing fly ash but higher shrinkage than concrete with 10% silica
6
fume.Ramprashath and Chellakavitha, (2015) conducted research on the utilization of borosilicate glass powder as partial replacement of cement and concluded that beyond 20% replacement, compressive strength starts decreasing. Chirag and Ashok (2015) conducted research on suitability of crushed waste glass particles as partial replacement of fine aggregates on concrete properties and reported that the waste glass can effectively be used as a fine aggregate replacement (up to 40%) without substantial change in strength whereas the tensile strength will decrease with increasing waste glass content. Nurhayat, et al.,(2011) conducted research on utilization of waste glass as partial replacement of sand and reported that 10% replacement gave highest compressive and flexural strength than all other blended samples. The use of finely divided glass powder as a cement replacement material has yielded positive results (Vijayakumaret al., 2013). There still exist the need to determine if addition of borosilicate and soda-lime silicate glass powder at different proportions will improve the properties of concrete when used as partial replacement of cement because it remained anun explored area of research. The unfavorable properties of concrete include a relatively weak tensile strength as compared to its compressive strength and the ability to form cracks in unpredictable areas (Abdullah, 2007).
Cyr, et al., (2012) conducted research on properties of inorganic polymer (geopolymer) mortars made of glass cullet and reported that the finest glass particles systematically led to the best performances in terms of compressive strength and durability: lower loss of strength and leaching of alkalis when conserved in water. However, coarser particles can
7
be used for some applications where only a few MPa are sufficient and durability is not a concern, for instance in a dry environment. 1.2Statement of Research Problem As of 2005, the total global waste glass production estimate was 130 Mt, in which the European Union, China and USA produced approximately 33 Mt, 32 Mt and20 Mt, respectively. Beingnon-biodegradable in nature, glass disposal as landfill hasenvironmental impacts and also could be expensive (Sadiqulet al.,2016).Normally glass does not harm the environment in any way because it does not give off pollutants, but it can harm humans as well as animals, if not dealt carefully and it is less friendly to environment because it is non-biodegradable (Mane and Mane, 2012). The amount of waste glass produced has gradually increased over the recent years due to an ever growing use of glass products. Most waste glass has and is being dumped into landfill sites. The land filling of waste glass is undesirable because waste glass is non-biodegradable which makes them environmentally less friendly (Iqbal, et al.,2013). According toKara, et al.,(2015) notwithstanding the glass waste recycling infrastructure still suffers from the lack of an adequate network of local recycling companies, therefore there exist the need to device and improvise methods and means of recycling glass waste, this is one of the vital area this research work focused on.
8
1.3 Significance of the Study Glass is an inert material which could be recycled and used many times without changing its chemical property (Vijayakumaret al., 2013). Glass is amorphous material with high silica content, thus making it potentially pozzolanic when particle size is less than 75μm (Vijayakumaret al., 2013). Fine glass particles can exhibit pozzolanic reactivity, thereby improving the microstructure of paste and the strength and durability of concrete in the long term, the amorphous silica content in the glass would dissolve in an alkaline environment such as due to OH- ions in the pore solution of cement paste. Thereafter, it could react with calcium hydroxide (CH) to form secondary calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H), a process known as pozzolanic reaction (Qingkeet al., 2014). CH + S + H → C-S-H 1.1
The use of waste products in concrete not only makes it economical, but also helps in reducing disposal problems. Reuse of bulky wastes is considered the best environmental alternative for solving the problem of disposal (Yvonne, 2016). This study attempted to overcome the problem of glass waste that is generated from construction and demolition activities and other human activities, in order to reduce the quantity of un-recycled glass
9
waste, it has been suggested to partially replace cement with waste glass powder and reduce problems associated with cement manufacture. 1.4 Aim and Objectives of the Research The aim of this study is to determine the addition of borosilicate and soda-lime silicate waste glass to improve the properties of concrete and their suitability in concrete production. The objectives of this study is to:
i. obtain samples anddetermine the physicaland chemical properties of cement, soda-lime silicate and borosilicate waste glass
ii. prepare and determine the fresh properties of concrete test samples
iii. determine the strength properties, durability propertiesand microstructural characterizationof hardened concrete samples
1.5 Scope and Limitations
Soda-lime silicate and borosilicate waste glasses, ordinary Portland cement etc. were used to determine Slump and Compacting factors of the fresh properties of concrete samples, the properties of hardened concrete that were determine include strength properties (compressive strength, tensile strength and flexural strength test), the durability property was assessed with water absorption, other properties such as sorptivity, shrinkage test and fire resistance tests were not determined.
10
IF YOU CAN'T FIND YOUR TOPIC, CLICK HERE TO HIRE A WRITER»
