Alternative Supplementary Cementitious Materials

  • Konstantin Sobolev
  • Marina Kozhukhova
  • Kosmas Sideris
  • Esperanza Menéndez
  • Manu Santhanam
Chapter
Part of the RILEM State-of-the-Art Reports book series (RILEM State Art Reports, volume 25)

Abstract

The use of supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) has become a major trend in concrete technology with effective utilization of industrial by-products (IBP) such as fly ash, ground granulated blast furnace slag and silica fume. Many types of industrial by-products (IBP) such as fly ash, silica fume, rice husk ash and waste glass are becoming the predominant source of mineral components with pozzolanic properties required to improve the performance of portland cement based materials. The availability of decent quality SCM has almost reached its limits and cannot offset the need for higher volumes of concrete required by developing markets. The use of alternative supplementary cementitious materials, including off-spec products and less-investigated by-products can be a viable alternative. However, there are many obstacles and limitations which hinder the utilization of such products. These are related to the lack of long-term results related to strength and durability, the potential variability in terms of composition and the presence of undesirable substances including heavy metals. These limitations dictate the need for higher production control and product consistency. This report presents the state of the art experience with utilization of modern technologies and potential SCM such as steel slag, pulverized bottom ash, sugarcane bagasse ash, waste glass and low-grade silica fume. Certainly, the current economic conditions make recycling feasible for only a limited number of by-products. Waste materials can be used only when they can be collected, processed, and reused at a cost the same or less than natural raw materials. To increase the rates of recycling, cement and concrete manufacturers need a uniform supply of quality waste; this would require better sorting and also the development of waste identification technology. On the other hand, it is also evident that innovative technologies capable of tolerating multiple contaminants are needed to boost the recycling of industrial by-products and waste beyond the current limits.

Keywords

Cement Concrete By-product Steel slag Bottom ash Sugarcane bagasse ash Waste glass Silica fume Waste Recycling Supplementary cementitious materials 

References

  1. Altun IA, Yilmaz I (2002) Study on steel furnace slags with high MgO as additive in Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 32:1247–1249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Akinmusuru JO (1991) Potential beneficial uses of steel slag wastes for civil engineering purposes. Resour Conserv Recy 5:73–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. American Coal Ash Association (ACAA) (2006) Coal combustion product (CCP) production and use. Aurora, CO: American Coal Ash Association; 2007Google Scholar
  4. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) (2012) C618-12a, Standard specification for coal fly ash and raw or calcined natural pozzolan for use in concreteGoogle Scholar
  5. Americans Continue to Recycle More Than One in Three Glass Containers, October 27, 1999, Glass Packaging Institute, www.gpi.org/98rate.htm
  6. Anagnostopoulos N, Sideris KK, Georgiadis A (2009) Mechanical characteristics of self-compacting concretes with different filler materials, exposed to elevated temperatures. Mater Struct 42(10):1393–1405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Anastasiou E, Papayianni I, Papachristoforou M (2014) Behavior of self-compacting concrete containing ladle furnace slag and steel fiber reinforcement. Mater Des 59:454–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Apotheker S (1989) Glass processing: the link between collection and manufacture. Resour Recycl 7:38Google Scholar
  9. Aras A, Albayrak M, Arikan M, Sobolev K (2007) Evaluation of selected kaolins as raw materials for the Turkish cement and concrete industry. Clay Miner 42(2):233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Argiz C (2013) Study of the use of bottom ash of the coal power plants as addiction of Portland cements. Comparative analysis with the fly ash. Ph.D. dissertation, ETSICCP (UPM), Madrid, Spain, 2014Google Scholar
  11. Argiz C, Menéndez E, Sanjuán MA (2013) Effect of mixes made of coal bottom ash and fly ash on the mechanical strength and porosity of Portland cement. Mat Const 63(309):49–64.  https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2013.03911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Argiz C, Menéndez E, Moragues A, Sanjuán MA (2014) Recent advances in coal bottom ash use as a new common Portland cement constituent. Struct Eng Int 4:503–508CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Arikan M, Sobolev K, Ertün T, Yeğinobali A, Turker P (2009) Properties of blended cements with thermally activated kaolin. Constr Build Mater 23(1):62–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Asokan P, Saxena M, Asolekar SR (2005) Coal combustion residues-environmental implications and recycling potentials. Resour Conserv Recycl 43:239–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. ASTM C1202-12 (2012) Standard test method for electrical indication of concrete’s ability to resist chloride ion penetration. West Conshohocken, United States: Annual book of ASTM standardsGoogle Scholar
  16. Availability of Mining Wastes and Their Potential for Use as a Highway Material-Executive Summary (1977) Publication No. FHWA-RD-78-28, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C., September 1977Google Scholar
  17. Azom (2012) Recycling EAF slag waste in commercial products. http://www.azom.com/article.aspx?ArticleID=1067
  18. Bahurudeen A, Santhanam Manu (2015) Influence of different processing methods on the pozzolanic performance of sugarcane bagasse ash. Cem Concr Compos 56:32–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Bahurudeen A, Marckson AV, Arun Kishore, Santhanam M (2014) Development of sugarcane bagasse ash based Portland pozzolana cement and evaluation of compatibility with superplasticizers. Constr Build Mater 68:465–475Google Scholar
  20. Bahurudeen A, Kanraj D, Gokul Dev V, Santhanam M (2015) Performance evaluation of sugarcane bagasse ash blended cement in concrete. Cem Concr Compos 59:77–88Google Scholar
  21. Bahurudeen A, Wani K, Basit M, Santhanam M (2016) Assesment of pozzolanic performance of sugarcane bagasse ash. ASCE J Mater Civ Eng 28(2)Google Scholar
  22. Bai Y, Bashaer PA (2003) Influence of furnace bottom ash on properties of concrete. In: Proceedings of the institution of civil engineers. Structures and Buildings, 156(1):85–92Google Scholar
  23. Batrakov VG, Kaprielov SS, Sheinfeld AV (1992) Influence of different types of silica fume having varying silica content on the microstructure and properties of concrete. ACI/CANMET Conference, Turkey, pp 943–963Google Scholar
  24. Bin Q, Wu X, Tang M (1992) High strength alkali steel–iron slag binder. In: Proceedings of the 9th international congress on the chemistry of cement, vol 3. New Delhi, India, pp 291–297Google Scholar
  25. Cement Concrete & Aggregates Australia (CCAA) (2008) Use of recycled aggregates in constructionGoogle Scholar
  26. Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States (1992) Update, executive summary. Report No. EPA/530-S92-019, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  27. Cheriaf M, Rocha JC, Pera J (1999) Pozzolanic properties of pulverized coal combustion bottom ash. Cem Conc Res 29:1387–1391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Chinese Academy of Building Materials (1985) Physical testing methods for cements, 3rd edn. Chinese Construction Press, BeijingGoogle Scholar
  29. Churcill VE, Amirkhanian SN (1999) Coal ash utilization in asphalt concrete mixtures. J Mater Civ Eng 11(4):295–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Chusilp N, Chai J, Kraiwood K (2009) Utilization of bagasse ash as a pozzolanic material in concrete. Constr Build Mater 23(11):3352–3358CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Clean Washington Center (1993) Using recycled glass as a construction aggregate, a summary of the glass feedstock evaluation project, SeattleGoogle Scholar
  32. Collins RJ, Ciesielski SK (1993) Recycling and use of waste materials and byproducts in highway construction, vol 1 and 2, p 12Google Scholar
  33. Comrie DC (1988) New hope for toxic waste, the world & I. Wash Times 3(8):177–178Google Scholar
  34. Comrie DC, Davidovits J (1988a) Waste containment technology for management of uranium mill tailings. Paper, 117th annual meeting of the society of mining engineers, USA, PhoenixGoogle Scholar
  35. Comrie DC, Davidovits J (1988b) Long term durability of hazardous toxic and nuclear waste disposals. Geopolymer ‘88, first European conference on soft mineralogy, vol 1. Compiegne, France, pp 125–134Google Scholar
  36. Cordeiro GC, Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EM (2008) Pozzolanic activity and filler effect of sugar cane bagasse ash in Portland cement and lime mortars. Cement Concr Compos 30(5):410–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Cordeiro GC, Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EM (2009a) Effect of calcination temperature on the pozzolanic activity of sugar cane bagasse ash. Constr Build Mater 23:3301–3303CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Cordeiro GC, Filho RD, Tavares LM, Fairbairn EM (2009b) Ultrafine grinding of sugar cane bagasse ash for application as pozzolanic admixture in concrete. Cem Concr Res 39:110–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Da Silveira NO, Silva MVAM, Agrizzi EJ, De Lana MF (2005) ACERITA—steel slag with reduced expansion potential. In: Proceedings of the 4th European slag conference: slag products-providing solutions for global construction and other markets. Oulu, Finland: Euroslag Publication No. 3; 20–21 June 2005, pp 145–57Google Scholar
  40. Damtoft JS, Lukasik J, Herfort D, Sorrentino D, Gartner EM (2008) Sustainable development and climate change initiatives. Cem Concr Res 38(2):115–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Davidovits J (1994) Geopolymers: inorganic polymeric new materials. J Mater Educ 16:91–139Google Scholar
  42. Davidovits J, Comrie DC, Paterson JH, Ritcey DJ (1990) Geopolymeric concretes for environmental application. Concr Int 12(7):30–40Google Scholar
  43. Day DE, Schaffer R (1975) Glasphalt paving handbook. In: Malisch WR, Day DE, Wixson BG (ed) Use of Domestic Waste Glass for Urban Paving: Summary Report, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, University of Missouri-Rolla, p 53 (EPA-670/2-75-053)Google Scholar
  44. Deneele D, de Larrard F, Rayssac E, Reynard J (2005) Control of basic oxygen steel slag swelling by mixing with inert material. In: Proceedings of the 4th European slag conference: slag products-providing solutions for global construction and other markets. Oulu, Finland: Euroslag Publication No. 3; 20–21 June 2005, 187–198Google Scholar
  45. Dewey G et al (1993) Municipal waste combustor ash as an aggregate substitute in bituminous mixture. In: Symposium proceedings recovery and effective reuse of discarded materials and byproducts for construction of highway facilities, October 1993Google Scholar
  46. DIN 1048-Part 5 (2004) Testing of hardened concrete, German StandardsGoogle Scholar
  47. Dole LR (1989) In situ immobilization: a major trend, symposium innovative waste management technologies, division of environmental chemistry. Am Chem Soc 29(1):135–137Google Scholar
  48. Durability Index Testing Procedure Manual. South Africa, 2009Google Scholar
  49. Dyer TD, Dhir RK (2001) Chemical reactions of glass cullet used as cement component. J Mater Civ Eng 13(6):412–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. ECOBA (2003) NCAB_workshop_Nov 23/24 2005. http://coal-ash.co.il/sadna/Presentation_Feuerborn.pdf
  51. ECOBA (2009) Production and utilisation of CCPs in 2009 in Europe. http://www.ecoba.org
  52. Emery JJ (1982) Slag utilization in pavement construction. In: Hotaling WW (ed) Extending aggregate resources. ASTM STP 774, pp 95–118Google Scholar
  53. EN 196-1 (2005) Methods of testing cement—Part 1: determination of strengthGoogle Scholar
  54. Engineering and Environmental Aspects of Recycled Materials for Highway Construction (1993) Volume I: final report. FHWA Contract No. DTFH61-92-C00060, Federal Highway Administration, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  55. Flores I, Sobolev K, Torres LM, Valdez PL, Zarazua E, Cuellar EL (2010) Performance of cement systems with nano- SiO2 particles produced using sol-gel method. Transp Res Rec 2141:10–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Frias M, Ernesto V, Holmer S (2011) Brazilian sugar cane bagasse ashes from the cogeneration industry as active pozzolans for cement manufacture. Cem Concr Compos 33:490–496CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Ganesan K, Rajagopal M, Thangavel K (2007) Evaluation of bagasse ash as supplementary cementitious material. Cem Concr Compos 29:515–524Google Scholar
  58. “Glasphalt” May Pave the Way for Worldwide Aviation in the 21st Century, March 1, 2003. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1997/11/971110064723.htm
  59. Geiger G (1994) Environmental and energy issues in the glass industry. Am Ceram Soc Bull 73(2):32–37MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  60. Georgiadis NS, Anagnostopoulos N, Sideris KK (2007) Mechanical characteristics of self-compacting concretes produced with different filler materials. In: de Schutter G, Boel V (eds) Proceedings of the 5th international RILEM symposium on self compacting concrete, Ghent, Belgium, 3–5 Sept 2007, pp 611–618Google Scholar
  61. GL-93-3 (1994) Glass feedstock evaluation project: engineering suitability evaluation. evaluation of cullet as a construction aggregate. Clean Washington CenterGoogle Scholar
  62. Glukhovsky VD, Rostovskaja GS, Rumyna GV (1980) High strength slag-alkaline cements. In: 7th international congress on the chemistry of cement, vol 3, pp 164–168Google Scholar
  63. Gokmenoglu Z, Sobolev K (2002) Solid waste-cement composite construction materials. In: Creating the future—second FAE international symposium, Lefke, Cyprus, pp. 153–158Google Scholar
  64. Hanehara S, Tomosawa F, Kobayakawa M, Hwang K (2001) Effects of water/powder ratio, mixing ratio of fly ash, and curing temperature on pozzolanic reaction of fly ash in cement paste. Cem Concr Res 31:31–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Heidrich C (2002) Slag—not a dirty word, Geopolymers 2002, MelbourneGoogle Scholar
  66. Hewlett P (2004) Lea’s chemistry of cement and concrete. Elsevier Science & Technology Books, January 2004Google Scholar
  67. Idir R, Cyr M, Tagnit-Hamou A (2010) Use of fine glass as ASR inhibitor in glass aggregate mortars. Constr Build Mater 24:1309–1312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Izquierdo M, Querol X (2012) Leaching behaviour of elements from coal combustion fly ash: an overview. Int J Coal Geol 94:54–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Jaturapitakkul C, Cheerarot R (2003) Development of bottom ash as pozzolanic material. J Mater Civ Eng 15(1):48–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Juckes LM (2003) The volume stability of modern steelmaking slags. Miner Process Extr Metall 112(3):177–197Google Scholar
  71. Khatib JM, Sohl HS, Sohl HS, Chileshe N (2012) Glass powder utilisation in concrete production. Eur J Appl Sci. 4(4):173–176Google Scholar
  72. Khmiri A, Samet B, Chaabouni M (2012) A cross mixture design to optimize the formulation of a ground waste glass blended cement. Constr Build Mater 28(1):680–686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Kruger RA (1990) The chemistry of fly ash and the pozzolanic reaction. Chem SA:301–303Google Scholar
  74. Kumarappan N (2013) Partial replacement cement in concrete using waste glass. Int J Eng Res Technol (IJERT) 2(10):1880–1883Google Scholar
  75. Kurama H, Kaya M (2008) Usage of coal combustion bottom ash in concrete mixture. Constr Build Mater 22:1922–1928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Leshchinsky A (2004) Slag sand in ready-mixed concrete. Concrete 38(3):38–39Google Scholar
  77. Luxán MP, Sotolongo R, Dorrego F, Herrero E (2000) Characteristics of the slags produced in the fusion of scrap steel by electric arc furnace. Cem Concr Res 30:517–519Google Scholar
  78. Making Concrete with Glass—Now Possible (13 May 2002) Ref: 2002/90. http://www.dbce.csiro.au/news/viewpress.cfm/109
  79. Malhotra VM (1998) High- performance high-volume fly ash concrete, high performance high-strength concrete: material properties, structural behavior and field application, Perth, Australia, pp 97–122Google Scholar
  80. Manso JM, Losanez M, Polanco JA, Gonzalez JJ (2005) Ladle furnace slag in construction. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 17(5):513–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Mayer P (2000) Technology meets the challenge of cullet processing. Glass Ind., 2Google Scholar
  82. Mehta PK, Polivka M (1976) Use of highly active pozzolans for reducing expansion in concrete containing reacting aggregates, living with marginal aggregates. ASTM STP 597:25–35Google Scholar
  83. Menéndez E, de Frutos J (2011) Equivalences between electrical measurement and X-ray diffraction in the formation of crystalline phases of the cement pastes. Bol Soc Esp Cer Vid 50:225–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Menéndez E, Álvaro AM, Argiz C, Parra JL, Moragues A (2013) Characterization of bottom ashes from coal pulverized power plants to determine its potential feasibility. Bol Soc Esp Cer Vid 52(6):296–304.  https://doi.org/10.3989/cyv.372013 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Menéndez E, Álvaro AM, Hernández MT, Parra JL (2014a) New methodology for assessing the environmental burden of cement mortars with partial replacement of coal bottom ash and fly ash. J Env Man 133(1):275–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Menéndez E, Álvaro AM, Andrade C (2014b) Evolution of hydration of cements with coal bottom and fly ash by non-destructive techniques and porosimetry. In: Proceedings of the international conference on durability of building materials and components. Sao Paulo, Brasil, 2–5 Sept 2014Google Scholar
  87. Menéndez E, de Frutos J, Álvaro AM (2014c) Application of the electrical characterization to study the phases of hydrated cement with addictions of ashes from the power plants. Bol Soc Esp Cer Vid 53(1):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Menéndez E, Argiz C, Moragues A, Sanjuan MA (2015a) Coal bottom ash studies as new cement constituents. In: Proceedings of the international conference on cement and concrete science and technology. Beijing, China, 13–16 Oct 2015Google Scholar
  89. Menéndez E, Argiz C, Sanjuan MA, Ruiz SE (2015b) Durable behaviour of cements with bottom ash and fly ash. In: International conference on sustainable structural concrete. La Plata, Argentina, 15–18 Sept 2015Google Scholar
  90. Meyer C (2003) Glass concrete. Concr Int 25(6):55–58Google Scholar
  91. Miller RH, Collins RJ (1976) Waste materials as potential replacements for highway aggregates. NCHRP-166, Transaction of the Research BoardGoogle Scholar
  92. Montakarntiwong K, Chusilp N, Tangchirapat W, Jaturapitakkul C (2013) Strength and heat evolution of concretes containing bagasse ash from thermal power plants in sugar industry. Mater Design 49:414–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Motz H, Geiseler J (2001) Products of steel slags an opportunity to save natural resources. Waste Manag 21(3):285–293CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. Muhmood L, Vitta S, Venkateswaran D (2009) Cementitious and pozzolanic behavior of electric arc furnace steel slags. Cem Concr Res 39:102–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Municipal Solid Waste Generation, Recycling, and Disposal in the United States: Facts and Figures for 2012Google Scholar
  96. Naik TR, Kraus RN (1999) Use of glass cullet as aggregates in flowable concrete with fly ash, CBU (CBU-1999-03)Google Scholar
  97. Nash PT, Jayawickrama P et al (1995) Use of glass cullet in roadway construction, FHWA-TCEQ (0-1331)Google Scholar
  98. National Research Council - Strategic Highway Research Program, Eliminating or Minimizing Alkali-Silica Reactivity, May 1993 (SHRP-C-343)Google Scholar
  99. Papayianni I, Anastasiou E (2006) Optimization of LFS for use as a supplementary cementing material, In: Konsta-Gdoutos MS (ed) Measuring, monitoring and modeling concrete properties, Alexandroupoli, Greece, pp 411–417Google Scholar
  100. Papayianni I, Anastasiou E (2010) Production of high strength concrete using high volume of industrial by-products. Constr Build Mater 24:1412–1417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Papayianni I, Anastasiou E (2012) Effect of granulometry on cementitious properties of ladle furnace slag. Cement Concr Compos 34:400–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. Pasetto M (1993) Cement stabilization of urban solid waste slags and ashes in road base and subbase layers. In: Symposium proceedings—recovery and effective reuse of discarded materials and byproducts for construction of highway facilities, October 1993Google Scholar
  103. Pera J, Coutaz L, Ambroise J, Chababbet M (1997) Use of incinerator bottom ash in concrete. Cem Concr Res 27(1):1–5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Purdon AO (1940) The action of alkalis on blast furnace slag. J Soc Chem Ind 59:191–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Quero VGJ, Martinez FML, Garcia PM, Tiburcio CG, Nava JCG (2013) Influence of sugar-cane bagasse ash and fly ash on the rheological behaviour of cement pastes and mortars. Constr Build Mater 40:691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Ramachandran VS (1995a) Concrete admixtures handbook, 2nd edn. Noyes Publications, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  107. Ramachandran VS, Feldman RF, Beaudoin JJ (1981) Concrete science: treatise on current research. Heyden & Son Ltd, LondonGoogle Scholar
  108. Ramirez T (1992) Steel slag aggregate in bituminous mixtures-final report, Pennsylvania Department of TransportationGoogle Scholar
  109. Ramme BW, Lingle JW, Naik TR (1998) Coal combustion products utilization in Wisconsin—an environmental approach. In: Proceedings of the three-day CANMET/ACI International Symposium on Sustainable Development of the Cement and Concrete Industry. Ottawa, Canada, 21–23 Oct, pp 349–383Google Scholar
  110. Recycled Glass in Portland Cement Concrete (March 1, 2003) http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/gbp4-0501.htm
  111. Roads and Bridges (1992) Fly ash sets standard for recycled material use. pp 50–56Google Scholar
  112. Robinson HL (2000) The utilization of blastfurnace and steel making slags as aggregates for construction. In: Proceedings of the 11th extractive industry geology conference 2000, 36th forum on the geology of industrial minerals, industrial minerals and extractive industry geology, The Geological Society of London, pp 327–330Google Scholar
  113. Rodriguez D (1995) Application of differential grinding for fine cullet production and contaminant removal. Ceram Eng Sci Proc 16(2):96–100Google Scholar
  114. Rodriguez A, Manso JM, Aragon A, Gonzalez JJ (2009) Strength and workability of masonry mortars manufactured with ladle furnace slag. Resour Conserv Recy 53:645–651CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Royak SM, Royak GS (1983) Special cements, 2nd edn. Moscow, Stroyizdat, pp 88–109Google Scholar
  116. Sanjuan MA, Menéndez E (2010) Experimental analysis of pozzolanic properties of pulverized coal combustion bottom ash. In: Proceedings of the international congress on the chemistry of cement, Madrid, Spain, 3–8 JulyGoogle Scholar
  117. Sanjuán MA, Zaragoza A (2013) Chinese standards about specifications of cements. Cemento y Hormigón 957:8–17Google Scholar
  118. Sanjuan MA, Menéndez E, Argiz C, Moragues A (2016) Coal bottom ash feasibility study to be a new Portland cement constituent. In: International RILEM conference materials systems and structures in civil engineering, Lyngby, Denmark, 22–24 AugGoogle Scholar
  119. Sanjuan MA, Argiz C, Menéndez E, Moragues A (2016) Alkali-aggregates reaction resistance of mortars with bottom ash from coal power stations. Rehabend. Burgos, Spain, May 24–27 2016Google Scholar
  120. Saylak D et al (1993) Applications for FGD byproduct gypsum. In: Symposium proceedings recovery and effective reuse of discarded materials and byproducts for construction of highway facilities, October 1993Google Scholar
  121. Schoenberger H (2001) Final draft: best available techniques reference document on the production of iron and steel. Publications of EC: European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IPTS, European IPPC BureauGoogle Scholar
  122. Schroeder Robin L (1994) The use of recycled materials in highway construction. Publ Roads 58(2):32–41Google Scholar
  123. Scrivener KL, Kirkpatrick RJ (2008) Innovation in use and research on cementitious material. Cem Concr Res 38:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. Shao Y, Lefort T, Moras S, Rodriguez D (1998) Waste glass: a possible pozzolanic material for concrete. In: International Symposium on Sustainable Development of the Cement and Concrete Industry, CANMET/ACI, Ottawa, 1998, pp 317–326Google Scholar
  125. Shayan A, Xu A (2006) Performance of glass powder as a pozzolanic material in concrete: a field trial on concrete slabs. Cem Concr Res J 36:457–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. Shi C (2004) Steel slag—its production, processing and cementitious properties. J Mater Civ Eng ASCE 16(3):230–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  127. Shi C, Hu S (2003) Cementitious properties of ladle slag fines under autoclave curing conditions. Cem Concr Res 33:1851–1856CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  128. Shin CJ, Sonntag V (1994) Using recycled glass as construction aggregate, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council (No. 1437)Google Scholar
  129. SIA 162/1-E (2003) Non-Destructive Site Air-Permeability Test. Concrete Construction – Complementary Specifications. Swiss Standard MethodGoogle Scholar
  130. Siddique R (2010) Utilization of coal combustion by-products in sustainable construction materials. Resour Conserv Recycl 54(12):1060–1066CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  131. Sideris KK (2014) Long term durability properties of self-compacting concrete mixtures produced with ladle furnace slag. Internal report of the laboratory of building materials, Democritus University of Thrace, p 75 (in Greek)Google Scholar
  132. Singh NB, Singh VD, Rai S (2000) Hydration of bagasse ash-blended Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 30:1485–1488CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  133. Sobolev K (1993) High- strength concrete with low cement factor. PhD dissertation, Chemical Admixtures Lab, Research Institute of Concrete and Reinforced Concrete, Moscow, RussiaGoogle Scholar
  134. Sobolev K (2003a) Effect of complex admixtures on cement properties and the development of a test procedure for the evaluation of high-strength cements. Adv Cem Res 15(1):67–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  135. Sobolev K (2003b) Sustainable development of the cement industry and blended cements to meet ecological challenges. Sci World J 3:308–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  136. Sobolev K (2003) Recycling of waste glass in eco-cement. The American Ceramic Society, pp 9501–9507Google Scholar
  137. Sobolev K (2004) The development of a new method for the proportioning of high-performance concrete mixtures. Cem Concr Compos 26(7):901–907CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  138. Sobolev K (2005) Mechano-chemical modification of cement with high volumes of blast furnace slag. Cement Concr Compos 27(7–8):848–853CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  139. Sobolev K, Arikan M (2002) High-volume mineral additive ECO-cement. Am Ceram Soc Bull 81(1):39–43Google Scholar
  140. Sobolev K, Soboleva S (1999) High performance cement: solution for next millennium. Mater Technol 14(4):191–193Google Scholar
  141. Sobolev K, Yeginobali A (2005) The development of high-strength mortars with improved thermal and acid resistance. Cem Concr Res 35(3):578–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  142. Sobolev K, Türker P, Yeginobali A, Erdogan B (2004) Microstructure and properties of eco-cement containing waste glass. In: International Conference on Sustainable Waste Management and Recycling: Challenges and Opportunities, UKGoogle Scholar
  143. Sobolev K, Türker P, Soboleva S, Iscioglu G (2007) Utilization of waste glass in eco-cement: properties and microstructural observations. Waste Manag 27(7):971–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  144. Sobolev K, Moini M, Muzenski S, Pradoto R, Kozhukhova M, Flores-Vivian I, Cramer S, Pham L, Faheem A (2015) Laboratory study of optimized concrete pavement mixtures, Report WHRP 0092-13-04. http://wisconsindot.gov/documents2/research/13-04-final-report.pdf
  145. Somna R, Jaturapitakkul C, Rattanachu P, Chalee W (2012) Effect of ground bagasse ash on mechanical and durability properties of recycled aggregate concrete. Mater Des 36:597–603CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  146. Stewart G (1986) Cullet and glass container manufacture. Resource Recycling, 2Google Scholar
  147. Swamy RN (1986) Cement replacement materials. Surrey University Press, SurreyGoogle Scholar
  148. Tang M (1973) An investigation on mineral composition of steel slag for cement production. Research Rep., Nanjing Institute of Chemical Technology, Nanjing, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  149. The Statistics Portal. U.S. glass and glass product manufacturing gross output from 1998 to 2014. http://www.statista.com/statistics/194278/us-glass-manufacturing-gross-output-since-1998/
  150. Togawa K et al (1992) Study on the effects of blast- furnace slag on properties of no-slump concrete mixtures. In: Proceedings of the fourth international conference on fly ash, silica fume, slag and natural pozzolans in concrete, Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  151. Tossavainen M, Engstrom F, Yang Q, Menad N, Lidstrom Larsson M, Bjorkman B (2007a) Characteristics of steel slag under different cooling conditions. Waste Manage 27:1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  152. Tsakiridis PE, Papadimitriou GD, Tsivilis S, Koroneos C (2008) Utilization of steel slag for Portland cement clinker production. J Hazard Mater 152(2):805–811Google Scholar
  153. Typical Contaminants in Recycled Glass (1 March, 2003) http://www.cwc.org/gl_bp/gbp1-0201.htm
  154. U.S. Department of Energy (2002) Glass industry of the future—energy and environmental profile of the U.S. Glass Industry, pp 1–23Google Scholar
  155. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) Markets for recovered glass, pp 1–15 (EPA-530-SW-90-071A)Google Scholar
  156. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (2002) Characterization of municipal solid waste in the United States: 2000 Update, pp 7–41Google Scholar
  157. User Guidelines for By-products and Secondary Use Materials in Pavement Construction, FHWA-RD-97-148 (2008)Google Scholar
  158. Van Jaarsveld JGS, Van Deventer JSJ, Lorenzen L (1995) Factors affecting the immobilization of metals in geopolymerised fly ash. Research report, Department of Chemical Engineering, University of Stellenbosch, South AfricaGoogle Scholar
  159. Gunalaan V, Kanapathy SG (2013) Performance of using waste glass powder in concrete as replacement of cement. Am J Eng Res (AJER). 2(12):175–181Google Scholar
  160. Ward CR, French D (2006) Determination of glass content and estimation of glass composition in fly ash using quantitative X-ray diffractometry. Fuel 85(16):2268–2277. Special Issue: The 2005 World of Coal Ash ConferenceGoogle Scholar
  161. Wintenborn JL, Green JJ (1998) Steelmaking slag: a safe and valuable product. The steel slag coalitionGoogle Scholar
  162. Wu Xuequan, Hong Zhu, Xinkai Hou, Husen Li (1999) Study on steel slag and fly ash composite Portland cement. Cem Concr Res 29(7):1103–1106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  163. Xie Z, Xiang W, Xi Y (2003) ASR potentials of glass aggregates in water-glass activated fly ash and portland cement mortars. J Mater Civil Eng. 15(1):67–74Google Scholar
  164. Yildirim IZ, Prezzi M (2011) Chemical, mineralogical, and morphological properties of steel slag. Advances in civil engineering-special issue of the use of recyclable materials in sustainable civil engineering applications (RMSCE), vol 2011, Article ID 463638, 13 p, 2011Google Scholar

Additional Literature

  1. Fily-Paré I, Jolin M (2013) The use of recycled glass in shotcrete. In: Proceedings in the International Conference Shotcrete Fall, pp 14–69Google Scholar
  2. Khan SU, Nuruddin MF, Ayub T, Shafiq N (2014) Effects of different mineral admixtures on the properties of fresh concrete. Sci World J 2014 (2014), Article ID 986567, 11 p. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/986567
  3. Pascual AB, Tognonvi MT, Tagnit-Hamou A (2014) Waste glass powder-based alkali-activated mortar IJRET. Int J Res Eng Technol 3(13):2321–7308Google Scholar
  4. Chapter 3 Fly Ash, Slag, Silica Fume, and Natural Pozzolans Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures EB001Google Scholar
  5. Jones EE, Murrie SJ (1980) Utilization of steel plant slag products in Australia. Excerpt from a paper presented at the 1st Process Technology Conference, Washington D.C.Google Scholar
  6. Proctor DM, Fehling KA, Shay EC, Wittenborn JL, Green JJ, Avent C, Bigham RD, Connolly M, Lee B, Shepker TO, Zak MA (2000) Recycled materials in European highway environments: uses, technologies, and policies. FHWA-PL-00-025. Physical and Chemical Characteristics of Blast Furnace, Basic Oxygen Furnace, and Electric Arc Furnace Steel Industry Slags. Environmental Science & Technology. 34(8):1576–1582Google Scholar
  7. Recycled Materials in European Highway Environments: Uses, Technologies, and Policies, FHWA-PL-00-025, 2000Google Scholar
  8. Proctor DM, Fehling KA, Shay EC, Wittenborn JL, Green JJ, Avent C, Bigham RD, Connolly M, Lee B, Shepker TO, Zak MA (2000b) Physical and chemical characteristics of blast furnace, basic oxygen furnace, and electric arc furnace steel industry slags. Environ Sci Technol 34(8):1576–1582CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Soil Screening Guidance: Technical Background Document; EPA/ 540/R-95/128; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; Hazardous Site Control Division; U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, 1996Google Scholar
  10. McCarthy DF (1993) Essentials of soil mechanics and foundations, 4th edn. Regents/Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, p 54Google Scholar
  11. EPA TCLP: Toxicity Characteristic Leaching ProcedureGoogle Scholar
  12. ASTM C151/ C151 M - 09 “Standard Test Method for Autoclave Expansion of Hydraulic Cement”Google Scholar
  13. EN 1744-1:2009, “Tests for chemical properties of aggregates: chemical analysis.”Google Scholar
  14. Barra M, Ramonich EV, Munoz MA (2001) Stabilization of soils with steel slag and cement for application in rural and low traffic roads. In: Proceedings of the beneficial use of recycled materials in transportation application. RMCR University of Durham, Arlington, Va., Nov. 13–15, pp 423–432Google Scholar
  15. Geiseler J (1996) Use of steelworks slag in Europe. Waste Manag 16(1–3):59–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Murphy JN, Meadowcroft TR, Barr PV (1997) Enhancement of the cementitious properties of steelmaking slag. Can Metall Q 36(5):315–331CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Nicolae M, Vîlciu I, Zǎman F (2007) X-ray diffraction analysis of steel slag and blast furnace slag viewing their use for road construction. UPB Scientific Bulletin Series B 69(2):99–108Google Scholar
  18. Qian GR, Sun DD, Tay JH, Lai ZY (2002) Hydrothermal reaction of autoclave stability of Mg bearing RO phase in steel slag. Br Ceram Trans 101(4):159–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Reddy AS, Pradhan RK, Chandra S (2006) Utilization of basic oxygen furnace (BOF) slag in the production of a hydraulic cement binder. Int J Miner Process 79(2):98–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tossavainen M, Engstrom F, Yang Q, Menad N, Larsson ML, Bjorkman B (2007b) Characteristics of steel slag under different cooling conditions. Waste Manag 27(10):1335–1344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Wachsmuth F, Geiseler J, Fix W, Koch K, Schwerdtfeger K (1981) Contribution to the structure of BOF-slags and its influence on their volume stability. Can Metall Q 20(3):279–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Pascoe RD, Barley RW, Child PR (2001) Autogenous grinding of glass cullet in a stirred mill. In: Dhir RK, Limbachiya MC, Dyer TD (ed) Recycling and reuse of glass cullet. Thomas Telford Ltd., London, pp 15–29Google Scholar
  23. Evaluation of Crushed Recycled Glass as a Filtration Medium in Slow Rate Sand Filtration, Clean Washington Center, 1995Google Scholar
  24. Marikunte S, Shah SP (1993) Engineering of cement based composites. In: Proceedings of the international RILEM workshop—concrete technology: new trends, industrial applications. E&FN Spon, London, pp 83–102Google Scholar
  25. Shah SP (1993) Recent trends in the science and technology of concrete. In: Proceedings of the international RILEM workshop—concrete technology: new trends, industrial applications. E&FN Spon, London, pp 1–18Google Scholar
  26. Batrakov VG (1990) Modified concrete. Stroyizdat, Moscow, pp 6–37 (in Russian)Google Scholar
  27. Ramachandran VS (1995b) Concrete admixtures handbook. Noyes Publications, New JerseyGoogle Scholar
  28. Malhotra VM (1998) High- performance high- volume fly ash concrete. In: Rangan BV, Patnaik AK (ed) Proceedings of the international conference on high performance high- strength concrete: material properties, structural behavior and field application, Curtin University, Perth, 1998, pp 97–122Google Scholar
  29. Sobolev K, Soboleva S (1998) Complex admixture and method of cement based materials production. International PCT Application PCT/TR98/00008, Vienna (WO98/54108)Google Scholar
  30. Al-Manaseer AA, Aquino EB, Kumbardi H (1999) Properties of concrete containing ultimax rapid-setting hydraulic cements. ACI Mater J 96(5):529–535Google Scholar
  31. European Committee for Standardization. European Standard Specification for Cement, European Standard, 1994, EN 197-1Google Scholar
  32. TSE. Rilem - Cembureau Standard Sand, TSE, Ankara, 1989, TS 819Google Scholar
  33. European Committee for Standardization (1994) Test method for determining compressive strength of cement mortar. European Standard, 1994, EN 196Google Scholar
  34. American Society for Testing and Materials. Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in or 50-mm Cube Specimens), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1999, ASTM C109Google Scholar
  35. American Society for Testing and Materials. Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using Portions of Prisms Broken in Flexure), Annual Book of ASTM Standards, 1999, ASTM C349Google Scholar
  36. Argiz C, Menéndez E, Sanjuán MA (2013) Effect of mixes made of coal bottom ash and fly ash on the mechanical strength and porosity of Portland cement. Mat. Const. 63(309):49–64.  https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2013.03911 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. EN 196 – 6, 2010. Methods of testing cement - Part 6: Determination of finenessGoogle Scholar
  38. Vom Berg W, Feuerborn HJ (2007) Produkte aus der kohleverbrennung in Europa – wertvolle robstoffe für die bauindustrieGoogle Scholar
  39. ETSICCP (UPM) (2014) Study of the use of bottom ash of the coal power plants as addiction of Portland cements. Comparative analysis with the fly ash, Ph.D. Dissertation, Madrid, SpainGoogle Scholar
  40. Menéndez E, Frutos Jd, Andrade C (2009) Analysis non-destructive of the degradation state in mortars under frost-thawing cycles. Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Cerámica y Vidrio. 48(5):223–230Google Scholar
  41. EN 196 – 5, 2011, Methods of testing cement. Part 5: Pozzolanicity test for pozzolanic cementGoogle Scholar
  42. AASHTO Standards: M 147 Materials for Aggregate and Soil-Aggregate Subbase, Base and SurfaceGoogle Scholar
  43. U.S. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States: 1990 Update, June 1990, (USEPA 1990) pp 12, 15Google Scholar
  44. W.S. Department of Commerce, U.S. Industrial Outlook 1990Google Scholar
  45. Predicasts, Inc., Predicasts’ Basebook, 1989, p 500Google Scholar
  46. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1987 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series: Glass ProductsGoogle Scholar
  47. US. EPA, Characterization of Municipal Solid Waste in the United States, 1960 to 2000 (update 1988), March 30,1988, pp 21, 22Google Scholar
  48. U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, 1987 Census of Manufactures, Industry Series: Glass Products. Data from the 1987 Census of Manufactures do not contain revised estimates of cullet use, since a large fraction of the total had to be estimatedGoogle Scholar
  49. California Division of Recycling, Biannual Report on Redemption and Recycling Rates: July 1, 1988 to December 31, 1988, pp 5, 8Google Scholar
  50. Darlene Snow and Ballina Edwards, Glass Recycling: Opportunities and Constraints, August 1985Google Scholar
  51. Nash PT, Jayawickrama PW, Tock RW, Senadheera SP, Viswanathan K, Woolverton B (1995) Use of recycled glass cullet in roadway construction—Final Report. Final Report 1331-2F, College of Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, Texas, August 1995Google Scholar
  52. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Residential Collection of Household End-of-Life Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Pilot Collection Project (EPA-901-R-98-002), prepared by Northeast Resource Recovery Association for the Common-Sense Initiative – Computer and Electronics Sector, Region I, Boston, MA, February 1998Google Scholar
  53. US Environmental Protection Agency, San Jose Computer Collection and Recycling Pilot: Draft, prepared by Vista Environmental for the Common-Sense Initiative—Computer and Electronics Sector, Region IX, San Francisco, CA, February 1998Google Scholar
  54. Union County Utilities Authority, Union County Demanufacturing Program - Semi-Annual Report, Union County, NJ, October 1, 1997-March 31, 1998Google Scholar
  55. Bureau of the Census, Census of Population and Housing, 1990, Washington, DC, 1992Google Scholar
  56. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Household Hazardous Waste Management: A Manual for One-Day Community Collection Programs (EPA-530-R-92-026), prepared by the Waste Watch Center for the Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, August 1993Google Scholar
  57. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Full Cost Accounting for Municipal Solid Waste Management: A Handbook (EPA 530-R-95-041), Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, September 1997Google Scholar
  58. European Commission, Recovery of Waste from Electrical and Electronic Equipment: Economic and Environmental Impacts (AEAT/2004 Issue 1), prepared by AEA Technology for the European Commission DGXI, Oxfordshire, UK, July 1997Google Scholar
  59. Inc Keep America Beautiful (1994) The Role of recycling in integrated solid waste management to the year 2000. prepared by Franklin Associates, Stamford, CTGoogle Scholar
  60. Dana Duxbury & Associates, Proceedings of the Fifth National Conference on Household Hazardous Waste Management, Andover, MA, November, 1990Google Scholar
  61. Veldhuizen H, Sippel B (1994) Mining discarded electronics. Industry and Environment, vol 17, No. 3, United Nations Environment Program, July–Sept 1994Google Scholar
  62. Woods R (1994) Handling difficult materials. Waste AgeGoogle Scholar
  63. Cutter Information Corp., “Europe Moves Toward Integrated Product Policy”, Product Stewardship Advisor, September 4, 1998Google Scholar
  64. Paddock T (1989) The costs and benefits of household hazardous waste collection programs. Academy of Natural SciencesGoogle Scholar
  65. Major Constraints on Glass Waste Recovery and RecyclingGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© RILEM 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Konstantin Sobolev
    • 1
  • Marina Kozhukhova
    • 1
    • 2
  • Kosmas Sideris
    • 3
  • Esperanza Menéndez
    • 4
  • Manu Santhanam
    • 5
  1. 1.Advanced and Nano Cement Laboratory, Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Institute of Architecture and Construction, Belgorod State Technological University named after V.G. ShukhovBelgorodRussia
  3. 3.Laboratory of Building Materials, Department of Civil EngineeringDemocritus University of ThraceXanthiGreece
  4. 4.Technical Unit of Physical-Chemical TestsInstitute Eduardo Torroja of Construction Science (IETcc-CSIC)MadridSpain
  5. 5.Department of Civil EngineeringIndian Institute of Technology MadrasChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations