construction material from construction and demolition debris and lime

an

Vsvolod A. Mymrin , Kirill P. Alekseev , Rodrigo E. Catai , Ronaldo L.S. Izzo , Juliana L. Rose ,

TFPR), Curitiba, Brazilscow, Russia

uctionder maay washods ceh econo

in mind that was also found nothing similar in the world literature. There

1. Introduction

Since then, among construction waste, a large amount of modernconstruction and demolition debris (CDD) has appeared. Thesematerials include aggregates, such as bricks, concrete, plaster,ceramics, glass, asphalt, tiles, gypsum wallboard, wood, metals,

different types of plastics, etc. CDD is being produced in enormousdifferent organicetals, etc.)sociationllion tons

is generated annually, where 2545% of the waste goeslandlls, which thus contributes to reduced life and incenvironmental impacts across the country. Rodrigues et al. [2]estimated that CDD represents approximately 31% of all waste pro-duced in the European Union. Poon et al. [3] stated that in HongKong in 1998, the daily CDD generation CDD was approximately32,710 tons.

Many researchers have shown that CDD is polluting the environ-ment, not onlymechanically but also chemically. Tolaymat et al. [4]

Corresponding author at: Federal Technological University of Parana, St.Deputado Heitor de Alencar Furtado, 4900, Campus Curitiba, CEP: 81280-340Ecoville, Paran, Brazil. Tel.: +55 (41) 3279 4518.

E-mail address: [email protected] (V.A. Mymrin).

Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 207213

Contents lists availab

Construction and B

evThe construction industry is one of the oldest known industries,and since the early days of mankind, construction was performedby hand, creating a large amount of mineral debris as a byproduct.

quantities and often with signicant amounts ofand inorganic pollutants (oily materials, heavy m

The Construction & Demolition Recycling Asestimates [1] that in the USA, more than 325 mihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.01.0540950-0618/ 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved..(CDRA)of CDDto USreasedAccepted 10 January 2015Available online 23 January 2015

Keywords:Construction/demolition debrisLime production wasteRecyclingEnvironmental degradationCompositesMechanical propertiesX-ray diffraction (XRD)Solgel processes

were studies on the parameters of chemical and mineralogy compositions of initial components and nalproduct, axial resistance strength, water resistance and water absorption. The LPW was characterized bya high excess of CaCO3. The medium compression resistance of the samples, cured in air conditions during3 days is 4.0 MPa, on the 60th day arrived to 13.4 MPa and to 17.1 MPa on the 365th day. The XRD andSEM studies explain the growth of the samples resistance by the transformation of the initial mineralmixture into carbonates of calcium, carbonates of magnesium, between other carbonates, which led tothe growth of amorphous and crystalline new formations. The main advantage expected from thesematerials is the environmental conservation they afford, represented by the use of CDD and LPW.

2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Received 15 July 2014Received in revised form 9 January 2015

duction waste (LPW). Beyoresidues generated, havinga Technological Federal University of Paran (UbMoscow State University, Vorobievy Gory, Mo

h i g h l i g h t s

New construction material from constr Lime production waste was used as bin Uniaxial resistance strength on the 3 d Established by XRD, SEM and EDS met Utilization of industrial wastes has hig

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:and demolition debris.terial.4.0 MPa, on the 60th day 15.3 MPa.ramics production.mical and environment efciency.

a b s t r a c t

It was developed a construction material from construction and demolition debris (CDD) and lime pro-nd it is a viable solution for the utilization of the large amount of lime outputAndr Nagalli a, Cezar A. Romano aConstruction material from constructionproduction wastes

a, b

journal homepage: www.elsd demolition debris and lime

a a a

le at ScienceDirect

uilding Materials

ier .com/locate /conbui ldmat

2. Materials, methods and test sample preparation

The CDD and LPW samples were obtained from companies in the metropolitanregion of Curitiba, Brazil. The CDD was dried at 100 C for 24 h and was sievedthrough a 1.18-mm sieve. After homogenization of both wastes with different per-centage compositions (Table 1), the wastes were hydrated at a dened percentageof water and set aside for 40 min before being compacted. After compacting with aloading of 10 MPa, the test samples (TSs) were stored in open air.

The raw materials (CDD and LPW) and TSs were characterized by various com-plementary methods. To determine a chemical composition it was used Spectrom-eter of X-Rays Fluorescence Philips/Panalytical model PW2400. Samplespreparation for XRF method included the following operations: drying, milling, con-

tions of raw and nal materials were done by X-Rays Diffractometer Philips,

interpreted with software Super-Q for interpretation XPert High Score, database

analyses through laser micro-mass analyzer LAMMA-1000, model X-ACT; solubility

The values of all mechanical properties and standard deviations were obtainedas an average of 10 TS measurements.

4 75 25

Building Materials 79 (2015) 207213found that among samples from CDD recycling facilities in Florida,11 contained elevated leachable heavy metal concentrations in theground, particularly arsenic and lead. Jang and Townsend [5] alsofound a process of gypsum dissolution of wallboard and that sulfateleaching from CDD drywall particles CDD in ne soil was impactingthe environment. Additionally, using a leaching method, Engelsen[6] identied increased contents of only the major components ofCDD Al, Ca, Fe, Mg, Si and SO4.

The most common and viable solution for disposing of CDD is toincorporate it into the base and sub-base of road construction [7].

Arulrajah et al. [8] compared the properties of CDD bricks withthe properties of crushed brick blends for the Australian pavementsub-base system. Acchar et al. [9] conrmed that approximately50% of CDD can be incorporated into red ceramics, such as brickand tiles without a decrease in their quality. Bricks with CDD inclu-sions were also developed by Dondi [10]. In the opinion of Jonhet al. [11] and Mymrin [12], CDD can be used as the primary com-ponent (up to 85% by weight) in composites with many otherindustrial and municipal wastes to produce various constructionmaterials, such as solid bricks and hollow bricks, building blocks,road and aireld bases, etc.

According to [13], to implement these methods on an industrialscale in the USA, the amount of CDD could correspond to morethan 30% of the initially applied materials, which would thus avoidthe accumulation of these wastes in the environment.

The binder material used in the present research was lime pro-duction waste (LPW), which is poorly burnt carbonate for quick-lime production that occurs when the sufcient temperaturecould not be reached during the combustion process; thus, LPWcan also be formed as a result of quicklime storage in unsuitableconditions (without sufcient insulation air and humidity).

LPW can also be used for different purposes. Bhatty et al. [14]used LPW as raw material for Portland cement industries; Hansen[15] recycled concrete aggregates in combination with y ash toproduce new concrete. Correa and Mymrin [16] used LPW as a bin-der for rejected concrete. Mymrin [12] used LPW as a binder formany types of industrial wastes: phosphor-gypsum, pulp frompaper production, sludge from wastewater treatment plants, woodand coal ash, iron slag, asbestos tiles, porcelain, waste from naturalrocks, etc. Al-Sayed [17] and Do et al. [18] found that using LPWincreases the physical and chemical properties of asphalt mixes.Arce et al. [19] used LPW to reduce waste generated during thepainting process. Al-Khaja et al. [20] studied the use of LPW in var-ious mineral aggregate mortar mixtures. Bulewicz et al. [21]reached over 70% desulfurization of ue gases from a coal-burningpower plant that used LPW in the oven. Kumar [22] and Marinko-vic and Kostic-Pulek [23] used LPW as rawmaterial to manufacturebricks.

Even this brief review of the literature shows that the develop-ment of methods to dispose of CDD has been conducted manyyears ago and in many directions. However, despite this, the factremains that the amount of non-recyclable CDD continues to growin all countries. Therefore, there remains a need to develop moreattractive, more efcient methods and to create compositions thatmore efciently use CDD, which could solve the environmentalproblem of how to recycle CDD.

Therefore the objectives of this research are the following: todevelop new construction material from CDD and LPWwith prede-termined mechanical properties that are better than those estab-lished by Brazilian standards. Only two industrial wastes, CDDand LPW are used as raw material in an extremely simple produc-tion process, which is economically and technologically attractive.The second objective is to investigate the physicochemical pro-

208 V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction andcesses of these materials structure formation to predict the behav-ior of the material during its service in structures.3. Calculations

The water resistance coefcient (CWR) was determined from theaxial resistance strength of the TSs on the 28th and 90th day,which were saturated after a total immersion in water for 24 h(RSAT), and the strength of the dry TSs (RD) following the standardin [24], was calculated using the following equation:

CWR RSAT=RD 1Water absorption coefcient (CWA) tests were also performed

on the 28th and 90th day of curing following the standard in[25], which uses the equation:

CWA MSAT MD=MD 100 2

where MSAT = the mass of the test specimen saturated after totalimmersion in water for 24 h. MD = the mass of the test specimen.

Table 1Substantial compositions of TSs under study.

N Compositions, wt.%

CDD LPW

1 90 102 85 153 80 20and lixiviation of metals from liquid extracts by method of atomic absorptionspectrometry (AAS) on Perkin Elmer 4100 spectrometer; granulometric composi-tion by laser diffraction particle size distribution analysis on Granulometer CILAS1064, Brazil; mechanical resistance by three-point exural strength (FS) on EMICuniversal testing machine. Water absorption coefcient by immersion was deter-mined on Instrutherm BD 200 according to NBR 13818/1997. Linear shrinkage ofTSs was determined with digital caliper of DIGIMESS. Were controlled also thechanges of apparent specic gravity after TSs at different ages. Bulk density mea-surements were performed; the carbonates weight content was determined by acalcimeter via the weight method.PDF-2. Morphological structures by scanning electron microscopy (SEM) on FEIQuanta 200 LV; wet samples of raw materials were dried in a vacuum unit. Driedsamples of raw materials and TSs were glued by conductive adhesive to the sam-ples holder, were sputtered by layer of gold and examined in SEM with acceleratingvoltage 50 kV. Chemical micro analyses were executed by method of energy disper-sive spectroscopy (EDS) on Oxford (Penta FET-Precision) X-ACT and by micro-massmodel PW1830, Generator Settings 40 kV, 30 mA with monochromatic wavelengthkCu-Ka, at 2h range of 270, step size (2h) 0.02, scan step time 0.5 s. Results werefection the compressed tablet confection the compressed tablet with organic wax,assay loss on ignition at 1000 C for semi-quantitative analysis. Results interpreta-tions were realized by Software Super-Q. These studies of mineralogical composi-5 70 30

4. Results and discussion

4.1. Raw materials characterization

and the storage length and its conditions. Typically, LPW is used

requirements of class C (>4.0 MPa) and continued to increase untilreaching 12.917.1 MPa on the 365th day.

The lowest strength at all stages of the hardening was exhibitedby TSs with an LPW content of 10% (composition 1), and thus, the

CaO 11.54 48.4148.41MgO 1.37 25.18SiO2 67.02 1.89Fe2O3 3.85 0.23Al2O3 6.30 0.19K2O 0.67 0SO3 0.58 0Na2O 0.29 0P2O5 0.11 0C.L. 7.57 24.07CO2 0.13 9.02CaCO3 0.33 20.50

C.L. calcination loss.

Fig. 1. X-rays diffractogram pattern of CDD under study.

Fig. 2. X-rays diffractogram pattern of LPW used.

V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction and Buifor acid soil neutralization or sent to industrial waste dumps.Interpreting the CDD diffractograms patterns (Fig. 1) shows that

the primary components of CDD are quartz SiO2, calcite CaCO3 andalbite ((Na, Ca)(Si, Al)4O8).

The main components of the LPW under study (Fig. 2) are thefollowing minerals: quicklime CaO, periclase MgO, portlanditeCa(OH)2, dolomite CaMg(CO3)2, magnesite MgCO3 and quartz SiO2.

4.2. Mechanical properties

The mechanical properties of the TSs and their changes duringhydration were tested after 3, 7, 14, 28, 60, 90, 180 and 365 dayswith the following methods: the axial resistance strength, waterresistance strength, water absorption capacity and TSs dilatation.

The axial resistance strength (Fig. 3) was measured for 10 TSs ofeach composition. The standard deviation values of the axial resis-tance strength of the obtained experimental data never exceeded7% of the average means.

According to [27], the axial resistance of massive sintered bricksis classied in the following way: class A < 2.5 MPa; class B2.5 < 4.0 MPa; class C > 4.0 MPa. According to the 15.270-2 NBRstandard (2005), the axial resistance of ceramics blocks must bebetween 1.5 and 2.5 MPa for class 15 and between 2.5 and4.5 MPa for class 25.

The hardening process of all compositions increases constantlyuntil reaching 5.117.1 MPa after 365 days as the LPW contentincreases. However, already by the third day, compositions 35could be classied as class B materials with resistant values of2.5 < 4.0 MPa. On the seventh day, the strength values of all com-positions, except for composition 1, signicantly exceeded the

Table 2Granulometric composition of CDD.

Sieve (mm) versus the content of fractions (%)The particle size distribution of the CDD was obtained by siev-ing the material; the average result of the two samples of bothmaterials show (Table 2) that only 7.23% of the particle diameterswere greater than 0.6 mm. The primary part of the CDD (76.45%)contains particle diameters of less than 0.6 mm, and only 15.91%of the particle diameters were less than 0.149 mm. According tothe Brazilian classication [25], such sand is categorized as smallsand.

The chemical compositions of the raw materials (Table 3) deter-mined by XRF analysis showed that most of the CDD containedSiO2 (67.02%), CaO (11.54%), Al2O3 (6.30%), Fe2O3 (3.85%) andMgO (1.37%). The rather high value of calcinations loss (7.57%) isexplained by the presence of carbonates, sulfur and hydrated min-erals in the concrete and plaster.

The LPW contained 73.59% of CaO and MgO with an extremelyhigh (24.07%) calcinations loss (CL). The CO2 recalculation of 9.02%,which was measured by a calcimeter, compared with that of calcite(CaCO3) shows the presence of extremely large amounts (20.50%)of under-red material, which is much greater (12%) than that per-mitted by the Brazilian standards [26]. This is the reason why thisproduct cannot be sold as construction material and must be clas-sied as industrial lime production waste (LPW). The CaCO3 valuescan be higher and depend of the roast duration and temperatureSieve (mm) 0.6 0.42 0.297 0.149 0.075

th d

210 V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 207213be possible to choose compositions 24 for industrial applicationbecause the difference in strength between the samples is small,particularly when compared with the requirements of the afore-mentioned standards.

The values of the axial resistance of water-saturated TSs of com-positions 25 on the 28th curing day were between 5.8 and8.3 MPa with CWR values between 0.78 and 0.89 on the 90th day(Table 4).

The values increased until reaching 7.013.0 MPa with CWR val-ues between 0.81 and 0.90. Such an increase in the water resis-tance parameters of the TSs between the 28th and 90th dayindicates that the structure of the materials improved. The highestCWR from both tests (0.89% and 0.90%) was obtained with compo-sition 5.

The CWA values (Table 5) also increased as the LPW contentincreased though decreased with curing time between the 28thand 90th day. The values varied between 7.14% and 8.43% on the28th day and decreased until 6.327.91% on the 90th day. There-fore, the highest CWA values from both tests (8.43% and 7.91%) wereobtained with composition 5 with LPW content of 30%.

This fact can be explained by two reasons: the decreasing timeof the non-hydrated quicklime quantity and the increasing densityof the TSs densities. According to the Brazilian standards [25], theaverage CWA of plain hollow concrete masonry blocks with light-

Fig. 3. Changes in the axial resistance strengweight aggregates should be at most 13%.The shrinkage values of the TSs of all compositions on the

rst day varied between 0.87% and 1.34% as the LPW contentincreased, followed by essentially linearly decreasing until 0.571.17% on the 90th day and essentially remained unchanged untilthe 365th day.

Table 4Water resistance of developed materials at the 28th and 90th days.

N Compositions, wt.% Statistic parameters Paramete

28

CDD LPW RD

1 90 10 Average 3.5Deviations 0.3




5 70 30 Average 9.3Deviations 0.54.3. Physicochemical processes of structure formation

Interpreting the X-ray diffractograms patterns of a material atdifferent ages with numerous mineral components is difcultbecause their peaks coincide. Therefore, it is possible to discussonly a few of the minerals peaks that are free or almost free ofsuch coincidence and those in which their intensities changed dur-ing curing. Such changes in crystalline peaks intensities are practi-cally invisible to the eyes and can be evaluated only by percentchanges of a diffractograms peak list.

By comparing two diffractogram patterns of the initial mixtureand after 365 days of hardening of composition 5 (Fig. 4A and B),the absence of new peaks is clear on the 2h scale. Interpretingthese curves allows it to be known that on the 7th day of hydrationin open air, the peaks of the lime CaO and portlandite Ca(OH)2became lower than the detection limit of the XRDmethod (approx-imately 5%), and therefore, their peaks disappeared from the dif-fractogram. However, the intensity of the peaks of such mineralsas tobermorite Ca5Si6O16(OH)2, calcite Ca(CO)3, dolomiteCaMg(CO3)2 and magnesite MgCO3 increased signicantly. Theseminerals also appeared on the diffractogram patterns of the initialmixture as the inevitable components of concretes and plasters ofCDD, though not in large quantities.

The increase in the peaks intensities is particularly visible

uring hydration of TSs from CDD and LPW.when comparing the maximum meanings of both intensity scales(1600 and 3800). An increase in the intensity of the peaks indicatesan increase in the amount of these minerals and the improvementof their crystal structures. These changes can help explain theincrease in the mechanical properties of the material during thehydration process.

rs of water resistance at different times (days)

90

RSAT CW RD RSAT CW

2.6 0.75 4.3 3.3 0.770.2 0.03 0.3 0.2 0.055.8 0.78 8.9 7.0 0.810.4 0.05 0.6 0.5 0.066.6 0.82 12.4 10.3 0.830.4 0.05 0.7 0.6 0.047.3 0.84 12.3 10.7 0.870.6 0.07 0.8 0.5 0.038.3 0.89 14.4 13.0 0.900.4 0.05 0.7 0.5 0.02

Another important explanation is the increasing amount of newamorphous formations in the pore space of the material. Thisincrease is clearly visible when comparing the height of the back-ground lines above the zero line of the XRD graphs by taking into

Mehta and Monteiro [29] reached a similar conclusion based ona new colloidal CSH formation of Portland cement.

After hydration of the dry mixture during the rst 3 days, thereis an increase of up to 7.17% in the free water content, followed bya signicant decrease in this percentage from the 3rd to 180th dayand until 1.97% is reached on the 365th day. Bonded water showsan increase of up to 2.34% after hydration, which gradually declinesbetween day 3 and 180 with a new increase of 1.49% after365 days. In amorphous solgel substances, from the beginning(dry mixture) up to 180 days, this content decreased to 2.52% inweight; however, there is a lack of coherence in the results ofthe different hydration stages. This result can be explained onlyby partial crystallization of new amorphous formations in allstages of material strengthening, particularly after 365 days. Fromthe dry mixture up to 365 days of hydration, the quantity of CO2 indifferent forms of carbonates (amorphous and various crystallinecarbonates minerals) increase from 1.98% to 4.16%, i.e., an increaseof 2.18% in weight. The results indicate that the quantity of allforms of carbonates during hydration in the recalculation in theform of CaCO3 increased by 4.95%. The slight difference betweenthe CO2 content of the dry mixture (1.98%) and that from theoret-

Table 5Water absorption of developed materials at the 28th and 90th days.

N Compositions(w.%)

Statistic parameters Water absorption (wt.%) afterhydration (days)

CDD LPW 28 90

1 90 10 Average 7.14 6.32Deviations 0.56 0.49





V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 207213 211account the maximum line intensity of each scale. The consider-ably higher background noise (hum) in the XRD graph of Fig. 4Bcompared with that in Fig. 4A indicates a signicantly greateramount of amorphous material in the TSs on the 365th day com-pared with that of the initial mixture. This amount accumulatesin the pores due the surfaces of the solid particles dissolving inhighly alkaline uid solutions (pH = 12 or greater). This processoccurs due to the solgel transformation and solidication of thenumerous stages of gel syneresis. As a result, the non-reactednuclei of particles are glued together by hardened layers ofstone-like gel. The total inuence of the carbonate crystals andgel layers between them could explain the increase in the mechan-ical properties of the TSs, particularly their strengthening to7.9 MPa after 7 days, 13.4 MPa after 60 days and 17.1 MPa after365 days.

Mymrin et al. [28] observed a similar effect of clayey soils beingstrengthened by ferrous slag. The TSs attained strength of 50 MPa,and the X-ray diffractograms patterns revealed no new crystalstructures. After using a number of research methods, Mymrincame to the conclusion that the only explanation for such resis-tance was solgel strengthening of new amorphous formations.A Dry initial mixture

B On the 365th da

Fig. 4. Comparison of the X-rays diffractogram patterns of comical calculations (30% of initial 9.02% CO2 content in the LPW,Table 1) can be explained by different sensibilities of thermo andchemical analyses methods.

In this study, SEM analyses (Fig. 5) were used to study the fol-lowing samples separately: CDD, LPW, and composition 5 fromTable 1 after 3, 60, 180 and 365 days of hydration. All CDD particles(Fig. 5A) exhibited widely varying sizes and morphologies, whichwere separated and did not have any type of binder between them.The LPW (Fig. 5B) appears as clay balls, which also exhibit differentcongurations. A different view (Fig. 5C) shows the mixture on the3rd day of homogenization, hydration and pressing. There areclearly visible bridges between the new formations that separatelarge particles of the CDD and are responsible for the samplesstrength increasing until reaching 4 MPa. On the 60th day(Fig. 5D), the new formations appear like elds with several poresbetween them, and the strength has doubled. On the 180th day(Fig. 5E), even larger particles of the initial components are nowinvisible because of the rather thick cover layer of the new forma-tions over the particles.

It appears that the materials under study also contain a largeamount of new amorphous formations, which are binding

of CDD and LPW. y of hydration.

position 5 before (A) and after 365 days (B) of hydration.

BuiA x 50 20 m B x 3.000

212 V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction andaggregates of CDD and LPW. Mehta and Monteiro [29] came tosimilar a conclusion after studying a new CSH colloid formationof Portland cement. The most conclusive evidence in such caseswas also obtained using scanning electron microscopy (SEM).

Finally, on the 365th day, several crystal-like forms appeared(Fig. 5F). However, a comparison of the EDS analyses results(Table 6) of the same crystal-like corps shows such a large differ-ence between the chemical compositions of points 1 and 2 orbetween points 3 and 4, which is impossible for a crystal body. Thisresult indicates that all of these crystal-like new corps are in reality,only new amorphous formations. Most likely, the new carbonate

D x 1,000 10 m E x 1,000

Fig. 5. SEM imagines of initial components (A CDD and B LPW) and TSs of composi365 days). In F are shown also the areas and points of EDS analyses (Table 6).

Table 6Micro-chemical analyses results of crystal-like new formations and surface areas by EDS m

Spectrum Compositions, wt.%

C Mg Si S

Area 1 34.68 7.08 23.42 0.42Area 2 25.34 15.38 21.65 0.21Point 1 15.56 2.88 7.52 9.38Point 2 12.81 9.64 35.29 11.82Point 3 49.87 7.24 9.83 5.03Point 4 31.08 0.39 11.18 0.97

Fig. 6. LAMMA laser micro-mass analysis of new form 5 m C x 1,000 10 m

lding Materials 79 (2015) 207213formations found by the XRD method (Fig. 4) have smaller dimen-sions and could be more visible with larger magnications.

The dates in Table 6 also demonstrate a great heterogeneity, notonly of different points but also of different areas of new forma-tions (areas 1 and 2).

The results of Laser micro-mass analysis using a LAMMA-1000 (Fig. 6) are similar to the results of the EDS analysis. Allthe isotopes spectra obtained for chemical compositions of thenearest points of new formations for the TS of composition 5 onthe 365th day show dissimilar combinations and quantities of iso-topes (intensity of LAMMA peaks).

10 m F x 2,000 10 m

+1 2+

+3 4+ Area 1

Area 2

tion 5 at different ages of hydration (C 3 days, D 60 days, E 180 days, and F

ethod.

Ca Na Fe Al Total

31.99 1.20 1.21 100.026.75 1.69 8.98 100.044.28 3.14 5.17 12.07 100.028.76 0.35 0.38 0.95 100.023.03 2.18 2.82 100.040.70 14.51 1.17 100.0

ations of composition 5 at the 365-th curing day.

5. Conclusions

(1) This work provides experimental conrmation of the possi-bility of obtaining new construction material using differentcompositions of CDD and LPW as raw materials.

(2) All of the different material compositions were shown topossess sufcient axial compressive strength, which is com-patible with the criteria of Brazilian standards. However, thebest mechanical property was obtained with the composi-tion containing 30% LPW and 70% CDD waste. The mediumcompression resistance of the samples, which were curedin air conditions for 3 days, was 4.0 MPa; on the 60th day

the research objectives. Nevertheless, the use of industrial

[4] Tolaymat TTT, Leo K, Jambeck J. Heavy metals in recovered nes fromconstruction and demolition debris recycling facilities in Florida. Sci TotEnviron 2004;332(13):111. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.

[5] Jang YC, Townsend T. Sulfate leaching from recovered construction anddemolition debris nes. Adv Environ Res 2001;5(I3):20317. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1093-0191(00)00056-3.

[6] Engelsen CJ, Sloot HA, Wibetoe G, Petkovic G, Stoltenberg-Hansson E, Lund W.Release of major elements from recycled concrete aggregates and geochemicalmodeling. Cem Concr Res 2009;39(5):44659. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.02.001.

[7] Bennert T, Papp WJ, Maher A, Gucunski N. Utilization of construction anddemolition debris under trafc-type loading in base. J Transport Res Board2000;1714:339.

[8] Arulrajah A, Piratheepan J, Bo MW, Sivakugan N. Geotechnical characteristicsof recycled crushed brick blends for pavement sub-base applications. Can

V.A. Mymrin et al. / Construction and Building Materials 79 (2015) 207213 213Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Environmental Technology Laboratory(LTA), the Laboratory of Biomass Energy, the Laboratory of Miner-alogical Analysis (LAMIR) of the Federal University of Paran UFPR, and lial of BOSCH in Curitiba, Brazil for the SEM and EDSanalysis conducted in this research work.

References

[1] CDRA Construction & Demolition Recycling Association. http://www.cdrecycling.org/.

[2] Rodrigues F, Carvalho MT, Evangelista L, Brito J. Physicalchemical andmineralogical characterization of ne aggregates from construction anddemolition waste recycling plants. J Clean Prod 2013;52:43845. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1016/j.jclepro.

[3] Poon CS, Ann TW Yu, Ng LH. On-site sorting of construction and demolitionwaste in Hong Kong. Resour Conserv Recycl 2001;32(2):15772. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0921-3449(01)00052-0.wastes as free-of-charge raw materials would undoubtedlyreduce the price of civil construction.

(5) The most important result of these research ndings may bethe benets they represent for the environment in view ofthe aforementioned vast volume of CDD and LPW wastesand the real possibility of substantially reducing their exist-ing waste dumps and environment pollution.and 180th day, the compression resistance was 13.4 MPaand to 15.3 MPa, respectively.

(3) The XRD and SEM analyses indicated that the hydration ofthe initial compositions led to the complete transformationof lime (CaO) and portlandite (Ca(OH)2) into different solgel and crystalline forms of carbonate, such as calcite(CaCO3) and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2). The synthesis of thesenew formations may explain the increasing mechanicalstrength of the sample mixtures of CDD and LPW.

(4) A calculation of the economical efciency was not amongGeotech J 2012;49(7):796811.[9] Acchar W, Silva JE, Melo-Castanho SRH, Segades AM. Properties of clay-based

ceramics added with construction and demolition waste. In: EPD congress 138th annual meeting & exhibition, TMS 2009, San Francisco, USA; 2009. p.90710.

[10] Dondi M, Marsigli M, Fabbri B. Recycling of industrial and urban wastes inbrick production: a review (Part 2). Tile Brick Int 1997;13(4):3029.

[11] John VM, Agopyan V. Reciclagem de resduos na construo. Departamento deEngenharia de Construo Civil, Escola Politcnica da USP (PCC USP); 2001.

[12] Mymrin VA. Industrial and municipal wastes utilization as economical andenvironment efcient raw materials; 2012. Available at: http://paginapessoal.utfpr.edu.br/mymrinev.

[13] Bianchini G, Marochino E, Tassinari R, Vaccaro C. Recycling of construction anddemolition waste materials: a chemical-mineralogical appraisal. WasteManage 2005;25:14959.

[14] Bhatty JI, Gajda J. Alternative materials. World Cem 2004;35(12):418.[15] Mymrin V, Correa SM. New construction material from concrete production

and demolition wastes and lime production waste. Constr Build Mater2007;21:57882.

[16] Hansen TC. Recycled concrete aggregate and y ash produce concrete withoutstrength cement. Cem Concr Res 1990;20(3):3556.

[17] Al-Sayed MH, Madany IM, Al-Khaja WA, Darwish AA. Properties of asphalticpaving mixes containing hydrated lime waste. Waste Manage Res2004;10:18394.

[18] Do HS, Muna PH, Keun RS. A study on engineering characteristics of asphaltconcrete using ller with recycled waste lime. Waste Manage 2007;28:1919.

[19] Arce R, Galn B, Coz A, Andrs A, Viguri JR. Stabilization/solidication of analkyd paint waste by carbonation of waste-lime based formulations. J HazardMater 2009;177:42836.

[20] Al-Khaja WA, Madany IM, Al-Sayed MH, Darwish AA. The mechanical anddrying shrinkage properties of cement mortars containing carbide lime waste.Resour Conserv Recycl 2003;6:17990.

[21] Bulewicz EM, Jurysa C, Kandefer S. Flue gas desulphurization using lime waste,studies in environmental. Stud Environ Sci 2008;23:58995.

[22] Kumar S. A perspective study on y ash-lime-gypsum bricks and hollow blocksfor low cost housing development. Constr Build Mater 2002;16(8):51925.

[23] Marinkovic S, Kostic-Pulek A. Examination of the system y ash-lime-calcinedgypsum-water. J Phys Chem Solids 2007;68:11215.

[24] GOST 9479-84. Natural stone blocks for facing productsmanufacture. Moscow: Technical Standard, Ministry of Building MaterialsIndustry; 1985.

[25] NBR 8492. Soil-cement brick dimensional analysis, compressive strengthdetermination and water absorption test method. Rio de Janeiro; 2012.

[26] NBR 6453. Quick lime for civil construction requirements to quick lime ofcivil construction requirements; 2003 (in Portuguese).

[27] NBR 7170. Ceramic solid brick for masonry specication. Rio de Janeiro;1983. p. 4.

[28] Mymrin VA, Ponte HA, Ponte MJJJ. Structure formation of slag-soil constructionmaterials. Mater Struct 2005;38(275):10713.

[29] Mehta PK, Monteiro PJM. Estrutura, propriedades e materiais. So Paulo: PINI;1994.

Construction material from construction and demolition debris and lime production wastes1 Introduction2 Materials, methods and test sample preparation3 Calculations4 Results and discussion4.1 Raw materials characterization4.2 Mechanical properties4.3 Physicochemical processes of structure formation

5 ConclusionsAcknowledgementsReferences

construction material from construction and demolition debris and lime

Documents