Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T06:52:29.275Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Performance of cement mortar with waste ground clay brick

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 March 2018

Mohammed Si-Ahmed ,
Said Kenai  and
Elhem Ghorbel
Mohammed Si-Ahmed
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, University Saad Dahleb- Blida1, Algeria
Said Kenai*
Affiliation:
Civil Engineering Department, University Saad Dahleb- Blida1, Algeria
Elhem Ghorbel
Affiliation:
Laboratory L2MGC, University of Cergy Pontoise, France
*
*(Email: [email protected])
Get access

Abstract

An effective way to reduce the impact of cement production on the environment is to use supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) as a partial substitution to cement. In addition to the reduction in cost and energy saving, the use of SCM in cement for the manufacture of mortar and concrete offers technical advantages. In this paper, cement was partially substituted by fines obtained from crushed recycled bricks recovered from a brick plant. The level of substitution was either 0%, 5%, 10% or 15% by weight of cement. The results show that cement substitution by brick fines resulted in a slight loss of workability with the increase of the substitution rate. Substitutions rates of 5% and 10% produced at long-term comparable strength as control mortars. The differential thermal analysis (DTA) and thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) results show cement hydration improved significantly with different rates of substitutions at 28 and 180 days of age.

Keywords

thermogravimetric analysis (TGA)infrastructurerecyclingsustainability
Type
Articles
Information
MRS Advances , Volume 3 , Issue 34-35: African Materials Research Society 2017 , 2018 , pp. 2041 - 2050
Copyright
Copyright © Materials Research Society 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Si-Ahmed, M., Belakrouf, A., Kenai, S., Int. J. of Civil, Env., Struct., Constr. and Archit. Eng., 71(11), 1010–1013 (2012).Google Scholar
Si-Ahmed, M., Kenai, S., Ghorbel, E., 31st University Meetings of the AUGC, ENS Cachan, France, 2013. (augc2013.ens-cachan.fr).Google Scholar
Navrátilová, E., and Rovnaníková, P., Constr. Build. Mater., 120, 530–539 (2016).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gameiro, A., Santos Silva, A., Veiga, R., Velosa, A., Thermochim, Acta, 535, 36–41 (2012).Google Scholar
Payá, J., Monzó, J., Borrachero, M.V., Mellado, A., Ordoñez, L.M., Cem. Concr. Res.., 31(2), 227–231 (2001).Google Scholar
Bektas, F., Wang, K., Ceylan, H., Constr. Build. Mater., 23, 1909–1914, (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gonçalves, J.P., Tavares, L.M., Toledo Filho, R.D., Fairbairn, E.M.R., Constr. Build. Mater., 23, 1971–1979, (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O’Farrell, M., Wild, S., Sabir, B.B., Cem. Concr. Res.., 30, 757–765, (2000).Google Scholar
Ramezanianpour, A.M., and Hooton, R. D., Constr. Build. Mater., 113, 359–368, (2016).Google Scholar
Kenai, S., Soboyejo, W., Soboyejo, A., Materi. and Manuf., 19(5), 949–961, (2004).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Irassar, E.F., Cem. and Concr. Res.., 39(3), 241–254, (2009).Google Scholar
Menadi, B., Kenai, S., Khatib, J., Aı¨t-Mokhtar, A., Constr. Build. Mater., 23, 625–633 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bentz, D., Cem. and Concr. Comp., 28(2), 124–129, (2006).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bektas, F., Wang, K., Ceylan, H., Constr. Build. Mater., 23, 1909–1914 (2009).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tennis, P., Thomas, M., Weiss, W., Portland Cement Association, 2011. SN3148.Google Scholar
Guemmadi, Z., Houari, H., Resheidat, M., Toumi, B., Int. Conf. on Constr. and Build. Tech., Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2008, pp. 307–318.Google Scholar
Craeye, B., De Schutter, G., Desmet, B., Vantomme, J., Heirman, G., Vandewalle, L., Kadri, E., Cem. Concr. Res.., 40(6), 908–913 (2010).Google Scholar
Lin, F., and Meyer, C., Cem. and Concr. Res.., 39(4), 255–265, (2009).Google Scholar
Ramezanianpour, A.M., and Hooton, R.D., Cem. and Concr. Comp., 51, 1–13 (2014).CrossRefGoogle Scholar