Next Article in Journal
Modeling Dynamic Recrystallization Behavior in a Novel HIPed P/M Superalloy during High-Temperature Deformation
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Sediments from the River Drava and Their Potential for Further Use in the Building Sector
Previous Article in Journal
An Accuracy Comparison of Micromechanics Models of Particulate Composites against Microstructure-Free Finite Element Modeling
Previous Article in Special Issue
Green Deal and Circular Economy of Bottom Ash Waste Management in Building Industry—Alkali (NaOH) Pre-Treatment
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Materials
Volume 15
Issue 11
10.3390/ma15114029
materials-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Compressive and Thermal Properties of Non-Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Industrial Byproduct Aggregates

by
Ilenia Farina
1,2,*,
Ivan Moccia
2,
Cinzia Salzano
2,
Narinder Singh
3,
Payam Sadrolodabaee
4 and
Francesco Colangelo
1,2
1
INSTM Research Unit, University Parthenope of Naples, Centro Direzionale, Is. C4, 80143 Naples, Italy
2
Department of Engineering, University Parthenope of Naples, Centro Direzionale, Is. C4, 80143 Naples, Italy
3
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Salerno, 84084 Fisciano, Italy
4
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Polytechnic University of Catalonia-BarcelonaTECH, 08034 Barcelona, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Materials 2022, 15(11), 4029; https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15114029
Submission received: 12 April 2022 / Revised: 1 June 2022 / Accepted: 3 June 2022 / Published: 6 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Industrial Symbiosis and Development of New Materials or Products in Building Sector)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
This study aimed to investigate the recycling opportunities for industrial byproducts and their contribution to innovative concrete manufacturing processes. The attention was mainly focused on municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSWI-FA) and its employment, after a washing pre-treatment, as the main component in artificially manufactured aggregates containing cement and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) in different percentages. The produced aggregates were used to produce lightweight concrete (LWC) containing both artificial aggregates only and artificial aggregates mixed with a relatively small percentage of recycled polyethylene terephthalate (PET) in the sand form. Thereby, the possibility of producing concrete with good mechanical properties and enhanced thermal properties was investigated through effective PET reuse with beneficial impacts on the thermal insulation of structures. Based on the obtained results, the samples containing artificial aggregates had lower compressive strength (up to 30%) but better thermal performance (up to 25%) with respect to the reference sample made from natural aggregates. Moreover, substituting 10% of recycled aggregates with PET led to a greater reduction in resistance while improving the thermal conductivity. This type of concrete could improve the economic and environmental aspects by incorporating industrial wastes—mainly fly ash—thereby lowering the use of cement, which would lead to a reduction in CO2 emissions.

1. Introduction

The building sector is one of the leading consumers of energy and natural resources, in addition to being one of the main contributors to CO2 emissions [1]. Therefore, producing more environmentally friendly materials obtained with sustainable processes by implementing the circular economy principles could be an interesting proposition, especially for concrete and cementitious materials [2]. In this context, there have been several recent studies in the literature regarding the use of waste and recycled materials in concrete as artificial aggregates [3,4,5,6] or fibers [7,8,9,10]; however, more novel and advanced solutions will still be needed to promote industrial symbiosis.
The amount of municipal solid waste (MSW) in the world is increasing day by day, and it is estimated to be roughly 3.4 billion tonnes by 2050 [11], which poses a serious problem for safe and efficient disposal [12]. One of the typical treatments applied to MSW is incineration, which significantly reduces the amount and volume of this kind of waste [13]. However, the residues of municipal solid waste incineration (MSWI), namely, fly ash (FA), need further treatment prior to landfilling because they contain contaminant elements [14]. Several studies have recently been conducted to investigate the possibilities of using industrial waste from MSWI in building materials as a treatment to immobilize the contaminant elements [15,16]. The outcomes have permitted us to conclude that fly ash (FA) is suitable for several applications in the construction sector [17,18,19]. MSWI-FA use in the production of lightweight concrete blocks is one of the most effective methods for reducing environmental impacts [20,21,22,23].
Considering that the global aggregate production surpasses 40 billion tonnes annually [24], using recycled and artificial aggregates as a replacement for natural ones is considered among the most effective strategies for more sustainable concrete. In this regard, several studies have already investigated the incorporation of industrial byproducts (specifically, fly ash from coal plants) [25,26,27], as well as the construction and demolition wastes (CDWs) [28,29,30,31,32], as lightweight aggregates (LWAs) in concrete. Lightweight artificial pellets from byproducts are typically produced and hardened through sintering (the most common method, but it is energy intensive), autoclaving, or cold-bonding processes [33,34].
Lightweight concretes have a lower density than conventional concretes, thanks to a system of voids in the matrix that replace natural aggregates in part or completely with LWA [35]. The latter has a lower average density than that of normal aggregates [36,37,38], and the corresponding concrete is identified as “concrete with light aggregates” or simply “light concrete” [39]. However, the open porosity and water absorption of the recycled aggregates are typically higher than those of the natural ones, which may lead to adverse impacts on the strength, drying shrinkage, and durability of the manufactured concrete [40,41]. Thus, some methods, including CO2 curing (accelerated carbonation) of recycled aggregates or the addition of pozzolanic micropowders, can offset the mentioned drawbacks and enhance the physical and mechanical characteristics of the artificial aggregates [42,43].
The use of lightweight concrete allows for excellent performance in terms of fire resistance and reduced weight for the structure, along with saving costs [44,45]. For this reason, they are often employed in the renovation or construction of elevations or buildings in seismic areas [46]. The employment of lightweight concrete also leads to economic benefits because of the decreased permanent loads on the structure [47]. The reduced weight of the structure also allows one to build on the less load-bearing ground without resorting to the complex and expensive foundations, while, above all, guaranteeing the same pressures transmitted to the ground to build buildings with a greater vertical development [48,49,50]. Lightweight concrete has a higher ductility than that of ordinary concrete, which is required for anti-seismic structures; the greater the ductility of the material, the greater the capacity to dissipate energy before collapsing [51,52].
In recent years, there has also been a significant increase in the use of lightweight concrete blocks to improve thermal insulation [53]. It has been observed that lightweight concrete (LWC) is a good material for the thermal insulation of structures [54]. In order to obtain buildings with good thermal insulation performance, the addition of plastic materials to concrete has been taken into consideration [55]. Among all of the plastic materials, polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is one of the main recycled materials used to perform thermal insulation in buildings [56]. Many authors have already investigated the suitability of plastic waste in cement and/or concrete [57,58]. It is clear that the use of this type of waste in the construction field may represent an effective solution for reducing the environmental impact of plastics and, thus, to contribute to the development of an increasingly sustainable building industry.
Using recycled PET waste as an aggregate in Portland cement concrete/mortar in addition to geopolymer ones was recently studied. For instance, Akçaözoǧlu et al. [59] investigated the replacement of PET with conventional aggregates in the range of 30–60% in Portland cement concrete, while in another study [60], the usage of more than 60% PET in alkali-activated mortars was evaluated. All of these research works concluded that the compressive and flexural strengths of the concrete were reduced by the addition of PET waste, which was mainly due to the weak adherence between PET granules and the paste. Moreover, the addition of PET caused a rise in the porosity of the mixtures due to its low density. Nonetheless, it was reported that a small substitution of PET (5%) marginally decreased the compressive and split tensile strengths (around 2%) [61], which indicated that the reduction in strength happened proportionally to the addition of PET [62]. Further, adding 75% PET could increase the workability of the concrete by 100% with respect to the normal concrete due to its spherical and smooth shape.
While some types of LWAs, mainly from CDW, have already become standardized according to EN13055 [63] and ASTM C330M-C332M [64,65,66], further research is still needed on LWAs produced through more novel processes, such as cold-bound or recycling products, including PET waste, to identify the projected applications [67]. Generally, LWAs can be used both in lightweight structural concretes and non-structural ones—such as in masonry or insulation—based on the final properties of the produced concrete. According to ASTM C330M [64], concrete with 100% LWAs may be used in structural-oriented applications if the 28-day compressive and splitting tensile strengths are at least 17.0 and 2.0 Mpa, respectively, and the density is not higher than 1600 Kg/m3. Nonetheless, there are still uncertainties about the quality of recycled aggregated concretes, and thus, the majority of standards and specifications recommend replacing up to 30% of recycled aggregates in structural elements [40].
In view of what was mentioned above, further studies are still needed to promote the use of recycled aggregates obtained from wastes and byproducts with a higher percentage in cementitious products. While the majority of studies in the literature focus on the use of recycled aggregates from CDW and/or energy-intensive sintered and pulverized ashes/slags, in this study, the concrete includes artificial LWAs from the cold-bonding technique; PET sand was produced, and its mechanical and thermal properties were characterized. To this end, in the first part of this research work, washed MSWI fly ash (FA) was used together with GGBFS to replace cement in a properly evaluated mix design in order to perform a cold-bonding granulation process and obtain recycled aggregates. A further granulation process was carried out on the produced aggregates to improve the stabilization/solidification process, as described in depth in [68]. The latter was used as a complete replacement in concrete samples in order to evaluate their properties by comparing them to those of a standard concrete sample. In addition, a further substitution of aggregates was made by using recycled PET. Thus, the aim of this study is to optimize the waste addition in terms of the physical, mechanical, and thermal performance of the resulting concrete in light of the synergistic actions of both industrial pelletized byproducts and plastic materials.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Materials

2.1.1. Lightweight Artificial Aggregates

The chemical compositions of the main materials, including municipal solid waste incineration fly ash (MSWI-FA), ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS), marble sludge (MS), and cement (CEM II/A-L 42.5R), used to perform the cold bonding granulation process are gathered in Table 1. The FA was washed before usage, as described in [69], to reduce the amounts of unfavorable metals. The artificial aggregates were produced by using a disk granulator device through the cold-bond process described in [1], with the amounts shown in Table 2.
The produced single lightweight artificial aggregates (S-LWAs) (Figure 1) underwent 28 days of curing in a wet environment by means of a manual nebulizer to avoid dehydration and the subsequent breakout of the external surface. Half of the S-LWAs were used to perform a double-step cold-bonding granulation with the mix design reported in Table 3 for the production of double lightweight artificial aggregates (D-LWAs). As can be seen in Figure 1, the produced cold-bonded aggregates had a more rounded shape than an angular shape, which might have enhanced the workability while worsening the adherence with the mortar [40].
Table 4 gathered the physical properties of the manufactured aggregates, including their density, open porosity (OP), and water absorption capacity (WAC). The values belong to the three different diameter size fractions considered and represent the properties of the average diameter size for each diameter fraction. Likewise, Table 5 shows the properties of the natural aggregates used to produce the reference sample.
As can be observed in Table 4, the Mix 1 granules containing 80% FA had a lower density on average, but a higher porosity and WAC with respect to the granules with less FA. A similar trend was observed by Ding et al. [70], where the increase in the amount of industrial waste in the cold-bonded aggregates from 60% to 90% decreased the density by 12% while increasing the WAC by 7%. In comparison with the recycled aggregates produced from CDW, according to Gomes et al. [42], the density of the cold-bonded aggregates produced in the present study was, on average, lower, whereas the WAC was higher. Nonetheless, the sintered coal FA pellets produced by Ramamurthy et al. [33] and Yang et al. [71] demonstrated higher WAC values, which were in the ranges of 15–22% and 21–33%, respectively. Further, the density of the granules produced from four types of sintered MSWI-FA by Mangialardi [72] was reported to be in the range of 2.17–2.5 g/cm3, which was higher than that in the present study, and they were considered to be normal-weight aggregates.

2.1.2. Polyethylene Terephthalate

Polyethylene terephthalate (PET) is a member of the polyester family of polymers; it is mainly a thermoplastic resin made of phthalates [73]. Plastic waste causes major challenges and the development of issues due to the increasing requirement for plastic every day, the development of plastic companies, and the few available areas for disposal [74]. Unfortunately, PET recycling is lower than its actual usage; therefore, discovering innovative methods for maximum recycling of this material has become crucial. PET sand with a particle size of less than 6 mm and a bulk density of 300 kg/m3 was provided by the company Vedelago Recycling Center Ltd. (Treviso, Italy).

2.2. Methods

2.2.1. Concrete Sample Manufacturing

Recycled aggregates with single- and double-step granulation processes were produced, and the mechanical and thermal properties of concrete containing such aggregates were investigated. Several samples of cubic concrete with a side of 10 cm were manufactured. Complete substitution of aggregates was performed to manufacture three concrete mixtures using single lightweight aggregates (S-LWA samples) and three samples using double lightweight aggregates (D-LWA samples). Each mixture was cast in a set of 3 conventional concrete specimen molds. The percentage distribution of the aggregates was about 25% of 4–8 mm (fine) aggregates, 50% of 8–16 mm (medium) aggregates, and 25% of 16–20 mm (coarse) aggregates.
In order to obtain improved thermal properties, six further concrete mixtures were manufactured in the same way as the above-mentioned specimens, where 10% of the medium-diameter aggregates by volume were replaced with an equivalent quantity of PET (S-LWA+PET and D-LWA+PET). The 10% substitution was selected based on the results of a previous study [75]. Finally, a reference sample (REF) from a natural aggregate (NA) was manufactured for comparison. For the three REF specimens, the NA distribution was about 25% sand, 50% medium aggregate, and 25% coarse aggregate with the properties gathered in Table 5. Table 6 summarizes the component percentages of the manufactured concrete samples: S-LWC and D-LWC refer to concrete samples containing 100% single and double lightweight aggregates, respectively, while S-LWC+PET and D-LWC+PET refer to samples containing 10% PET as a fine aggregate. Finally, REF refers to the reference sample with 100% natural aggregates.
All of the sample sets were cast in cubic steel molds (10 cm × 10 cm × 10 cm) and then covered with cellophane film. After 24 h, they were removed from the molds and cured for 28 days at room temperature. Figure 2 shows some of the samples produced.

2.2.2. Compressive Strength of Concrete Samples

Compressive strength is the ability of a material or structure to carry loads on its surface without any cracks or deflections. The tested sample, usually in the form of a cube, prism, or cylinder, is compressed between the plates of a compression-testing machine by a gradually applied load. While the vertical direction shortens, the horizontal one expands, and cracks occur increasingly until the sample fails. The compressive strength of the examined cubic samples after 28 days of curing was determined according to UNI EN 12390-3 [76] with a Controls MCC8 hydraulic console with a 2000 kN capacity, as shown in Figure 3a.

2.2.3. Thermal Conductivity of Concrete Samples

The thermal conductivity of the concrete samples was evaluated using an ISOMET 2114 portable thermal characterization analyzer (Figure 4), which was able to perform a relatively rapid test to evaluate the thermal characteristics thanks to a surface probe by means of a modified transient pulse method. This steady-state method, which is based on ASTM D5930 [77], was similarly used and reported in other studies [78]. The thermal conductivity coefficient was measured on a dried sample in a room-temperature environment with a relative humidity of about 50%. When the concrete specimen was in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding environment, the heat flow was generated by applying a heat impulse. Cube specimens with a side length of 100 mm were used to test the thermal properties. In order to exclude the effect of surface heterogeneity on the test results, the probe was placed in the center of the specimen’s surface. Two opposite surfaces of each sample were used for the test, and each surface was tested three times.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Compressive Strength

The mean results of the compressive test evaluated for each mixture (three cubic specimens) are summarized in Table 7. As can be observed, the compressive strength of the concrete specimens with single-step artificial aggregates (S-LWC) produced with Mix1, Mix2, and Mix3 decreased by 42.13%, 36,64%, and 39.94%, respectively, compared to that of the REF sample. A similar trend was recorded for the D-LWC aggregates, with a decrease of 38.83% for Mix1, 31.54% for Mix2, and 34.23% for Mix3 compared to the NA concretes. According to the outcomes obtained, the highest percentage of FA used in the mixture resulted in the lowest compressive strength values, while the best values for the compressive strength were recorded for S-LWC Mix2 and D-LWC Mix2 with 75% FA. In other words, the concrete samples containing Mix1 aggregates that had 80% FA, which had the lowest density among the aggregates (see Table 2), led to the lowest concrete densities and, consequently, the lowest compressive strengths. A similar effect of aggregate density on the compressive strength of concrete was observed by Chen et al. [79] in a study on synthetic lightweight aggregate concretes from reservoir sediments. Baykal et al. [80] reported that concrete containing lightweight aggregates produced with cold-bonded coal FA had, on average, 30–40% lower compressive strength at 28 days than that of the reference sample; thus, the concrete could be proper for non-structural and semi-structural applications. Moreover, Kazemi et al. [81] reported that the incorporation of recycled aggregates from CDW caused a great reduction (up to 35%) in the compressive strength of the reference sample, which was consistent with the present study. Further, by reviewing several studies, Salgado and Silva [40] concluded that the compressive resistance of concrete was reduced as the ratio of recycled aggregates increased. Nonetheless, the sustainability and environmental impacts were enhanced by increasing the percentage of recycled aggregates in the concrete [30].
As can be observed in Figure 5, the strengths recorded for the concrete specimens with 10% PET replacement showed significant reductions of 59.81% for S-LWC+PET Mix1, 53.70% for S-LWC+PET Mix2, and 62.90% for S-LWC+PET Mix3 compared to the REF concretes. The same samples also showed reductions in compressive strength values of 30.54%, 26.93%, and 38.22% for Mix1, Mix2, and Mix3, respectively, compared to the S-LWC samples. In comparison to the NA concretes, there were significant reductions of 43.68% for the D-LWC+PET Mix1 concrete with a 10% PET volumetric replacement ratio, 46.98% for D-LWC+PET Mix2, and 48.60% for D-LWC+PET Mix3. Comparing the compressive strength values obtained for D-LWC+PET to the those of the respective concrete specimens without the addition of PET, resistance reductions of 7.93%, 22.56%, and 21.85% were recorded for D-LWC+PET Mix1, D-LWC+PET Mix2, and D-LWC+PET Mix3, respectively.
The decreased values of the compressive strength for the concretes with a 10% PET volumetric replacement ratio were mainly due to the shape and flexibility of the PET flakes [82], as well as their low density. The addition of PET granules in the mixtures led to increased porosity, as well as a weak bond between the inorganic matrix and the organic PET granules [61], which resulted in lower compressive strength values, as similarly reported in other studies [83,84]. Colangelo et al. [85] observed that increasing the percentage of recycled plastic materials (polyolefins) as aggregates in concrete resulted in lower density, higher porosity, and, consequently, worsening of the mechanical performance. As can be observed in Figure 3, a deeper crack under compression appeared in the specimen that included PET due to the ineffective bond at the interfacial transition zone between the matrix and the aggregate. In fact, hydrophobic waste polymer aggregates could have an adverse influence on the hydration rate and could limit mechanical development [86].
As most of the lightweight aggregate concrete samples had a 28-day compressive strength of less than 17 Mpa; according to the American Concrete Institute (ACI) [87], they can be considered for non-structural applications. Only samples of double-layer aggregates without PET and S-LWC Mix2 had the minimum resistance required to be considered for structural applications. Further, based on ASTM C330M [64], the density of lightweight structural concrete should be less than 1600 kg/m3; thus only D-LWC Mix1 met both requirements of strength and density to be considered as lightweight structural concrete.

3.2. Thermal Conductivity

The results of the thermal conductivity test are summarized in Table 7 and Figure 6. As can be seen, the thermal conductivity of the natural aggregate concrete sample was about 1.0 W/mK, and this was an expected value according to the UNI EN 10351 standard [88]. The comparison of the thermal conductivity values between the artificial aggregate concretes and the reference concrete highlighted that the use of recycled aggregates led to average reductions of conductivity of about 27% for the S-LWC1, 25% for the S-LWC2, and 22% for the S-LWC3 samples. Similar reductions of 22%, 26%, and 25% were recorded for the D-LWC1, D-LWC2, and D-LWC3 samples compared to the reference samples. In particular, the increase in FA content entailed a reduction in the thermal conductivity in the S-LWC Mix1 sample, which was related to the lower density of FA with respect to cement, resulting in more insulative concrete samples than conventional concrete, as also reported in [89]. As can be seen in Table 7, the density of the concrete for Mix1 decreased by more than 20% with respect to the REF sample, while for Mix2 and Mix3, this reduction was limited to 10%. The incorporation of the light aggregates resulted in a lowering of the density and unit weight of the concrete [75], which led to a decrease in thermal conductivity, as similarly reported in other studies [34,59].
Moreover, the addition of PET to the mixtures containing single- and double-step aggregates resulted in a further conductivity reduction compared to the control samples. It can be noted that the 10% addition of PET in the S-LWC+PET samples showed reductions of 33%, 32%, and 34% compared to the decreases of 32%, 31%, and 34% obtained for the D-LWC+PET samples with respect to the reference sample. In fact, the addition of PET increased the porosity of the material, thereby lowering density, and the porous cementitious materials had a lower thermal conductivity and sound absorption coefficient, as reported in other recent studies [78,90,91]. The density of the samples containing PET was reduced up to 15% on average in comparison with their counterparts without PET; see Table 7.
Considering both the mechanical and thermal behaviors, the best mixture was provided by the double-step pelletized D-LWC Mix2 concrete, which exhibited higher resistance and lower thermal conductivity with respect to D-LWC Mix1 and D-LWC Mix3. In fact, Mix2 containing double-step pelletized aggregates without PET addition could improve the thermal conductivity of the conventional concrete by 26%, while the compressive strength was still satisfactory (19.06 MPa). The differences between the aforementioned mixes were minimal in the case of PET addition (D-Mix2-PET and D-Mix3-PET samples), which surely provided a beneficial effect to both mixes by further reducing the overall thermal conductivity of the concrete samples. In this case, the best overall thermal conductivity attained was 34% less than that of conventional concrete. This outcome and the fact that the addition of PET reduced the compressive strength of the two samples, bringing them to similar values (14.76 and 14.31 MPa, respectively), were considered. Thus, the mix designs with low PET content (10%) were considered to enhance the thermal properties while preserving the mechanical characteristics of the produced concrete as much as possible. However, PET would not properly bind to cement, reducing the compressive strength of the manufactured concrete, i.e., all of the PET samples had resistances lower than 16 Mpa and were, therefore, considered as non-structural concrete.

4. Conclusions

The incorporation of recycled aggregates in construction products leads to less exploitation of natural aggregates and resources, as well as a reduction in the amount of waste disposed of in landfills. In this study, artificial aggregates made from industrial wastes—municipal solid waste incineration fly ash, slag, and marble sludge—were used to produce lightweight concrete (LWC) that could be oriented toward non-structural applications. A compression test on the LWC samples showed that the concrete had limited compressive strength and, on the other hand, a lower thermal conductivity when incorporating polyethylene terephthalate (PET) compared to that of its PET-free counterpart.
Specifically, the following conclusions are drawn from the results:
  • Using artificial recycled aggregates with a 100% substitution resulted in a decrease of more than 30% in compressive resistance with respect to the reference sample (REF), which was composed of 100% natural aggregates. Moreover, adding 10% PET to the mixture resulted in an additional average 22% reduction in compressive resistance.
  • The majority of the lightweight concrete samples had compressive resistances below 17 MPa, making them suitable for non-structural applications.
  • The addition of PET could improve the thermal conductivity of the samples, on average, by 10% and 33% for the PET-free and REF samples, respectively. Thus, adding PET led to lower mechanical properties while improving the thermal properties due to an increase in the trapped air and porosity. The amount of PET could be increased for possible specific application in which a lower thermal conductivity and a lower strength are needed, such as in concrete panels for façade cladding or partition walls.
  • The lightweight concrete sample composed of the double-step aggregates (with the mix design of 75% fly ash) without PET demonstrated the optimal performance when considering both thermal and compressive behaviors.
Therefore, using this type of artificial aggregate as a component of lightweight concrete can immobilize hazardous industrial waste (fly ash from municipal solid waste incineration) and promote a circular economy trend in the construction and building material industry. Future studies could employ CO2 curing in the production of this kind of aggregate, as well as the manufacturing of concrete samples with distinct replacement ratios of recycled aggregates.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, I.F. and F.C.; Data curation, C.S.; Investigation, I.M.; Supervision, I.F., F.C.; Validation, N.S. and P.S.; Writing—original draft, I.F. and I.M.; Writing—review & editing, I.F., N.S. and P.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Italian Ministry of University and Research for the support through the PRIN 2020 grant number 2020WEFKX5 and the APC was funded by Ilenia Farina.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available upon request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Petrillo, A.; Colangelo, F.; Farina, I.; Travaglioni, M.; Salzano, C.; Cioffi, R. Multi-criteria analysis for Life Cycle Assessment and Life Cycle Costing of lightweight artificial aggregates from industrial waste by double-step cold bonding palletization. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 351, 131395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; De La Fuente, A. A Textile Waste Fiber-Reinforced Cement Composite: Comparison between Short Random Fiber and Textile Reinforcement. Materials 2021, 14, 3742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Tang, Y.; Feng, W.; Chen, Z.; Nong, Y.; Guan, S.; Sun, J. Fracture behavior of a sustainable material: Recycled concrete with waste crumb rubber subjected to elevated temperatures. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yunchao, T.; Zheng, C.; Wanhui, F.; Yumei, N.; Cong, L.; Jieming, C. Combined effects of nano-silica and silica fume on the mechanical behavior of recycled aggregate concrete. Nanotechnol. Rev. 2021, 10, 819–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Ferraro, A.; Colangelo, F.; Farina, I.; Race, M.; Cioffi, R.; Cheeseman, C.; Fabbricino, M. Cold-bonding process for treatment and reuse of waste materials: Technical designs and applications of pelletized products. Crit. Rev. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2020, 51, 2197–2231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Colangelo, F.; Forcina, A.; Farina, I.; Petrillo, A. Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) of Different Kinds of Concrete Containing Waste for Sustainable Construction. Buildings 2018, 8, 70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; De La Fuente, A. Characterization of a textile waste nonwoven fabric reinforced cement composite for non-structural building components. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 276, 122179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; De La Fuente, A. Mechanical and durability characterization of a new textile waste micro-fiber reinforced cement composite for building applications. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Spadea, S.; Farina, I.; Carrafiello, A.; Fraternali, F. Recycled nylon fibers as cement mortar reinforcement. Constr. Build. Mater. 2015, 80, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Hosseini, S.M.A.; Ardunay, M.; Claramunt, J.; De La Fuente, A. A New Sustainability Assessment Method for Façade Cladding Panels: A Case Study of Fiber/Textile Reinforced Cement Sheets; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 809–819. [Google Scholar]
  11. Dou, X.; Ren, F.; Nguyen, M.Q.; Ahamed, A.; Yin, K.; Chan, W.P.; Chang, V.W.C. Review of MSWI bottom ash utilization from perspectives of collective characterization, treatment and existing application. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2017, 79, 24–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Dontriros, S.; Likitlersuang, S.; Janjaroen, D. Mechanisms of chloride and sulfate removal from municipal-solid-waste-incineration fly ash (MSWI FA): Effect of acid-base solutions. Waste Manag. 2020, 101, 44–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Magnanelli, E.; Tranås, O.L.; Carlsson, P.; Mosby, J.; Becidan, M. Dynamic modeling of municipal solid waste incineration. Energy 2020, 209, 118426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Quina, M.J.; Bordado, J.M.; Quinta-Ferreira, R.M. Recycling of air pollution control residues from municipal solid waste incineration into lightweight aggregates. Waste Manag. 2014, 34, 430–438. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  15. Fan, Y.; Li, S.; Li, Y.; Liang, H.; Tang, M.; Huang, K.; Zhu, L. Recycling of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash in foam ceramic materials for exterior building walls. J. Build. Eng. 2021, 44, 103427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Zhang, Y.; Wang, L.; Chen, L.; Ma, B.; Zhang, Y.; Ni, W.; Tsang, D.C. Treatment of municipal solid waste incineration fly ash: State-of-the-art technologies and future perspectives. J. Hazard. Mater. 2021, 411, 125132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Tian, W.; Wang, M.; Liu, Y.; Wang, W. Ohmic heating curing of high content fly ash blended cement-based composites towards sustainable green construction materials used in severe cold region. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 276, 123300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Sandanayake, M.; Gunasekara, C.; Law, D.; Zhang, G.; Setunge, S.; Wanijuru, D. Sustainable criterion selection framework for green building materials—An optimisation based study of fly-ash Geopolymer concrete. Sustain. Mater. Technol. 2020, 25, e00178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Gholampour, A.; Zheng, J.; Ozbakkaloglu, T. Development of waste-based concretes containing foundry sand, recycled fine aggregate, ground granulated blast furnace slag and fly ash. Constr. Build. Mater. 2021, 267, 121004. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Zhou, H.; Brooks, A.L. Thermal and mechanical properties of structural lightweight concrete containing lightweight aggregates and fly-ash cenospheres. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 198, 512–526. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Ersan, Y.C.; Gulcimen, S.; Imis, T.N.; Saygin, O.; Uzal, N. Life cycle assessment of lightweight concrete containing recycled plastics and fly ash. Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 2020, 26, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Majhi, R.K.; Patel, S.K.; Nayak, A.N.; Majhi, R.K.; Patel, S.K.; Nayak, A.N. Advances in Concrete Construction. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2021, 12, 257. [Google Scholar]
  23. Dabbaghi, F.; Tanhadoust, A.; Nehdi, M.L.; Nasrollahpour, S.; Dehestani, M.; Yousefpour, H. Life cycle assessment multi-objective optimization and deep belief network model for sustainable lightweight aggregate concrete. J. Clean. Prod. 2021, 318, 128554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Tam, V.W.Y.; Soomro, M.; Evangelista, A.C.J. A review of recycled aggregate in concrete applications (2000–2017). Constr. Build. Mater. 2018, 172, 272–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ducman, V.; Radeka, M. Alkali Activated Green Building Materials—Selected Case Study of Alkali Activated Aggregate. Ceram. Mod. Technol. 2019, 1, 173–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Frankovič, A.; Bosiljkov, V.B.; Ducman, V. Lightweight aggregates made from fly ash using the cold-bond process and their use in lightweight concrete. Mater. Tehnol. 2017, 51, 267–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Rudić, O.; Ducman, V.; Malešev, M.; Radonjanin, V.; Draganić, S.; Šupić, S.; Radeka, M. Aggregates Obtained by Alkali Activation of Fly Ash: The Effect of Granulation, Pelletization Methods and Curing Regimes. Materials 2019, 12, 776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Moccia, I.; Farina, I.; Salzano, C.; Ruggiero, M.; Petrillo, A.; Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R. Environmental Assessment of Concretes Containing Construction and Demolition Waste. Key Eng. Mater. 2022, 913, 131–135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Braga, M.; De Brito, J.; Veiga, R. Incorporation of fine concrete aggregates in mortars. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 36, 960–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Colangelo, F.; Petrillo, A.; Farina, I. Comparative environmental evaluation of recycled aggregates from construction and demolition wastes in Italy. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 798, 149250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kim, J.; Grabiec, A.M.; Ubysz, A. An Experimental Study on Structural Concrete Containing Recycled Aggregates and Powder from Construction and Demolition Waste. Materials 2022, 15, 2458. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Piccinali, A.; Diotti, A.; Plizzari, G.; Sorlini, S. Impact of Recycled Aggregate on the Mechanical and Environmental Properties of Concrete: A Review. Materials 2022, 15, 1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Ramamurthy, K.; Harikrishnan, K.I. Influence of binders on properties of sintered fly ash aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2006, 28, 33–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Nor, A.M.; Yahya, Z.; Abdullah MM, A.B.; Razak, R.A.; Ekaputri, J.J.; Faris, M.A.; Hamzah, H.N. A Review on the Manufacturing of Lightweight Aggregates Using Industrial By-Product. MATEC Web Conf. 2016, 78, 01067. [Google Scholar]
  35. Ducman, V.; Mirtič, B. Lightweight Aggregate Processed from Waste Materials. Adv. Sci. Technol. 2011, 68, 75–83. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mo, K.H.; Alengaram, U.J.; Jumaat, M.Z. Bond properties of lightweight concrete—A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2016, 112, 478–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Mousa, A.; Mahgoub, M.; Hussein, M. Lightweight concrete in America: Presence and challenges. Sustain. Prod. Consum. 2018, 15, 131–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Huang, H.; Yuan, Y.; Zhang, W.; Liu, B.; Viani, A.; Mácov, P. Microstructure investigation of the interface between lightweight concrete and normal-weight concrete. Mater. Today Commun. 2019, 21, 100640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Hedjazi, S. Compressive strength of lightweight concrete. In Compressive Strength of Concrete; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  40. Salgado, F.D.; Silva, F.D. Recycled aggregates from construction and demolition waste towards an application on structural concrete: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2022, 52, 104452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Zhang, H.; Wang, Y.; Lehman, D.E.; Geng, Y.; Kuder, K. Time-dependent drying shrinkage model for concrete with coarse and fine recycled aggregate. Cem. Concr. Compos. 2020, 105, 103426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gomes, R.I.; Farinha, C.B.; Veiga, R.; De Brito, J.; Faria, P.; Bastos, D. CO2 sequestration by construction and demolition waste aggregates and effect on mortars and concrete performance—An overview. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2021, 152, 111668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Waseem, S.A. An Investigation of Mechanical and Durability Properties of Carbonated Recycled Aggregate Concrete. J. Inst. Eng. Ser. A 2022, 103, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Swamynadh, V.; Muthumani, K. Properties of structural lightweight concrete containing treated oil palm shell as coarse aggregate. Asian J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 19, 673–678. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Ibrahim, M.; Ahmad, A.; Barry, M.S.; Alhems, L.M.; Suhoothi, A.C.M. Durability of Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Expanded Perlite Aggregate. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2020, 14, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Vandanapu, S.N.; Krishnamurthy, M. Seismic Performance of Lightweight Concrete Structures. Adv. Civ. Eng. 2018, 2018, 2105784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Jafari, S.; Mahini, S.S. Lightweight concrete design using gene expression programing. Constr. Build. Mater. 2017, 139, 93–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Elango, K.S.; Sanfeer, J.; Gopi, R.; Shalini, A.; Saravanakumar, R.; Prabhu, L. Properties of light weight concrete—A state of the art review. Mater. Today Proc. 2021, 46, 4059–4062. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Upasiri, I.R.; Konthesingha, K.M.C.; Poologanathan, K.; Nanayakkara, S.M.A.; Nagaratnam, B. Review on Fire Performance of Cellular Lightweight Concrete. Lect. Notes Civ. Eng. 2020, 44, 470–478. [Google Scholar]
  50. Yang, Y.; Chen, B.; Zeng, W.; Li, Y.; Chen, Q.; Guo, W.; Wang, H.; Chen, Y. Utilization of Completely Recycled Fine Aggregate for Preparation of Lightweight Concrete Partition Panels. Int. J. Concr. Struct. Mater. 2021, 15, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Ahmmad, R.; Jumaat, M.Z.; Bahri, S.; Islam, A.B.M.S. Ductility performance of lightweight concrete element containing massive palm shell clinker. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 63, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Shafigh, P.; Mahmud, H.B.; Jumaat, M.Z. Oil palm shell lightweight concrete as a ductile material. Mater. Des. 2012, 36, 650–654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Shahedan, N.F.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Mahmed, N.; Kusbiantoro, A.; Binhussain, M.; Zailan, S.N. Review on thermal insulation performance in various type of concrete. AIP Conf. Proc. 2017, 1835, 020046. [Google Scholar]
  54. Asadi, I.; Shafigh, P.; Hassan, Z.F.B.A.; Mahyuddin, N.B. Thermal conductivity of concrete—A review. J. Build. Eng. 2018, 20, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Sargam, Y.; Wang, K.; Alleman, J.E. Effects of Modern Concrete Materials on Thermal Conductivity. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 2020, 32, 04020058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Almeshal, I.; Tayeh, B.A.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohamed, A.M. Eco-friendly concrete containing recycled plastic as partial replacement for sand. J. Mater. Res. Technol. 2020, 9, 4631–4643. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. De Silva, S.; Prasanthan, T. Application of Recycled PET Fibers for Concrete Floors. Eng. J. Inst. Eng. Sri Lanka 2019, 52, 21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Bui, N.K.; Satomi, T.; Takahashi, H. Recycling woven plastic sack waste and PET bottle waste as fiber in recycled aggregate concrete: An experimental study. Waste Manag. 2018, 78, 79–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Akçaözoǧlu, S.; Akçaözoǧlu, K.; Atiş, C.D. Thermal conductivity, compressive strength and ultrasonic wave velocity of cementitious composite containing waste PET lightweight aggregate (WPLA). Compos. Part B Eng. 2013, 45, 721–726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Akçaözoǧlu, S.; Ulu, C. Recycling of waste PET granules as aggregate in alkali-activated blast furnace slag/metakaolin blends. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 58, 31–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Frigione, M. Recycling of PET bottles as fine aggregate in concrete. Waste Manag. 2010, 30, 1101–1106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Choi, Y.W.; Moon, D.J.; Kim, Y.J.; Lachemi, M. Characteristics of mortar and concrete containing fine aggregate manufactured from recycled waste polyethylene terephthalate bottles. Constr. Build. Mater. 2009, 23, 2829–2835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. UNI EN 13055: 2016; Lightweight Aggregates. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2016.
  64. ASTM C330/C330M; Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Structural Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2009.
  65. ASTM C331/C331M; Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Concrete Masonry Units. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  66. ASTM C332; Standard Specification for Lightweight Aggregates for Insulating Concrete. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  67. Thienel, K.C.; Haller, T.; Beuntner, N. Lightweight Concrete—From Basics to Innovations. Materials 2020, 13, 1120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Colangelo, F.; Messina, F.; Cioffi, R. Recycling of MSWI fly ash by means of cementitious double step cold bonding pelletization: Technological assessment for the production of lightweight artificial aggregates. J. Hazard. Mater. 2015, 299, 181–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Ferraro, A.; Farina, I.; Race, M.; Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R.; Fabbricino, M. Pre-treatments of MSWI fly-ashes: A comprehensive review to determine optimal conditions for their reuse and/or environmentally sustainable disposal. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2019, 18, 453–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Ding, C.; Sun, T.; Shui, Z.; Xie, Y.; Ye, Z. Physical properties, strength, and impurities stability of phosphogypsum-based cold-bonded aggregates. Constr. Build. Mater. 2022, 331, 127307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Yang, C.C.; Huang, R. Approximate Strength of Lightweight Aggregate Using Micromechanics Method. Adv. Cem. Based Mater. 1998, 7, 133–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Mangialardi, T. Sintering of MSW fly ash for reuse as a concrete aggregate. J. Hazard. Mater. 2001, 87, 225–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Chowdhury, S.; Maniar, A.; Suganya, O. Polyethylene Terephthalate (PET) Waste as Building Solution. Int. J. Chem. Environ. Biol. Sci. (IJCEBS) 2013, 1. ISSN 2320–4087. [Google Scholar]
  74. Malagavelli, V. Effect of non bio degradable waste in Concrete slabs. Int. J. Comput. Civ. Struct. Eng. 2020, 1, 449–457. [Google Scholar]
  75. Colangelo, F.; Farina, I. Lightweight concrete with polyolefins as aggregates. In Use of Recycled Plastics in Eco-efficient Concrete; Woodhead Publishing: Sawston, UK, 2019; pp. 167–187. [Google Scholar]
  76. UNI EN 12390-3. Testing Hardened Concrete—Compressive Strength of Test Specimens. 2019. Available online: https://store.uni.com/ (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  77. ASTM D5930; Standard Test Method for Thermal Conductivity by Means of a Transient Line-Source Technique. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2017.
  78. Sadrolodabaee, P.; Hosseini, S.A.; Claramunt, J.; Ardanuy, M.; Haurie, L.; Lacasta, A.M.; De La Fuente, A. Experimental characterization of comfort performance parameters and multi-criteria sustainability assessment of recycled textile-reinforced cement facade cladding. J. Clean. Prod. 2022, 356, 131900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Chen, H.J.; Der Yang, M.; Tang, C.W.; Wang, S.Y. Producing synthetic lightweight aggregates from reservoir sediments. Constr. Build. Mater. 2012, 28, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Baykal, G.; Döven, A.G. Utilization of fly ash by pelletization process; theory, application areas and research results. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 2000, 30, 59–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Kazmi, S.M.S.; Munir, M.J.; Wu, Y.F.; Patnaikuni, I.; Zhou, Y.; Xing, F. Effect of recycled aggregate treatment techniques on the durability of concrete: A comparative evaluation. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 264, 120284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Saikia, N.; De Brito, J. Mechanical properties and abrasion behaviour of concrete containing shredded PET bottle waste as a partial substitution of natural aggregate. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 52, 236–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Almeshal, I.; Tayeh, B.A.; Alyousef, R.; Alabduljabbar, H.; Mohamed, A.M.; Alaskar, A. Use of recycled plastic as fine aggregate in cementitious composites: A review. Constr. Build. Mater. 2020, 253, 119146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Dawood, A.O.; L-Khazraji, H.A.; Falih, R.S. Physical and mechanical properties of concrete containing PET wastes as a partial replacement for fine aggregates. Case Stud. Constr. Mater. 2021, 14, e00482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Colangelo, F.; Cioffi, R.; Liguori, B.; Iucolano, F. Recycled polyolefins waste as aggregates for lightweight concrete. Compos. Part B Eng. 2016, 106, 234–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Liguori, B.; Iucolano, F.; Capasso, I.; Lavorgna, M.; Verdolotti, L. The effect of recycled plastic aggregate on chemico-physical and functional properties of composite mortars. Mater. Des. 2014, 57, 578–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. ACI Committee 213R-14. Guide for Structural Lightweight-Aggregate Concrete; American Concrete Institute: Farmington Hills, MI, USA, 2014; p. 53. [Google Scholar]
  88. UNI 10351: 2021. Building Materials—Thermohygrometric Properties. Available online: https://store.uni.com/ (accessed on 6 March 2022).
  89. Bentz, D.; Peltz, M.A.; Durán-Herrera, A.; Valdez, P.; Juárez, C.A. Thermal properties of high-volume fly ash mortars and concretes. J. Biuld. Phys. 2010, 34, 263–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Quintaliani, C.; Merli, F.; Fiorini, C.V.; Corradi, M.; Speranzini, E.; Buratti, C. Vegetal Fiber Additives in Mortars: Experimental Characterization of Thermal and Acoustic Properties. Sustainability 2022, 14, 1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Tie, T.S.; Mo, K.H.; Putra, A.; Loo, S.C.; Alengaram, U.J.; Ling, T.C. Sound absorption performance of modified concrete: A review. J. Build. Eng. 2020, 30, 101219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Materials 15 04029 g001 550
Figure 1. Single lightweight artificial aggregates (S-LWAs) and double lightweight artificial aggregates (D-LWAs).
Figure 1. Single lightweight artificial aggregates (S-LWAs) and double lightweight artificial aggregates (D-LWAs).
Materials 15 04029 g001
Materials 15 04029 g002 550
Figure 2. Lightweight concretes: (a) single lightweight concrete; (b) single lightweight concrete with PET; (c) double lightweight concrete; (d) double lightweight concrete with PET.
Figure 2. Lightweight concretes: (a) single lightweight concrete; (b) single lightweight concrete with PET; (c) double lightweight concrete; (d) double lightweight concrete with PET.
Materials 15 04029 g002
Materials 15 04029 g003 550
Figure 3. Experimental setup of the compressive test: (a) initiation of the test; (b) failure mode of D-LWC Mix2; (c) failure mode of D-LWC+PET Mix2.
Figure 3. Experimental setup of the compressive test: (a) initiation of the test; (b) failure mode of D-LWC Mix2; (c) failure mode of D-LWC+PET Mix2.
Materials 15 04029 g003
Materials 15 04029 g004 550
Figure 4. Experimental setup of the thermal conductivity test.
Figure 4. Experimental setup of the thermal conductivity test.
Materials 15 04029 g004
Materials 15 04029 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of concrete density on the compressive strength.
Figure 5. Effect of concrete density on the compressive strength.
Materials 15 04029 g005
Materials 15 04029 g006 550
Figure 6. Effect of concrete density on the thermal conductivity.
Figure 6. Effect of concrete density on the thermal conductivity.
Materials 15 04029 g006
Table
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the materials used for the production of aggregates (wt %).
Table 1. Chemical compositions of the materials used for the production of aggregates (wt %).
Mix DesignMSWI-FAWashed FAGGBFSMSCement
Fe2O31.431.390.31.353.41
CaO24.6942.9743.951.9267.16
CO10.4620.50-22.74-
SiO25.016.2535.714.1616.65
Al2O32.114.4311.24.564.21
SO37.879.07--5.34
MgO1.282.326.51.211.71
SnO2---2.20-
Na2O14.574.840.80.86-
K2O7.201.87-1.021.54
TiO20.640.770.51--
ClO23.294.40---
ZnO1.451.19---
Table
Table 2. Mix design used for cold-bonding granulation.
Table 2. Mix design used for cold-bonding granulation.
Mix DesignFA
(%)		GGBFS (%)Cement (%)
Mix 180515
Mix 2751015
Mix 3701515
Table
Table 3. Mix design used for the double-step cold-bonding granulation.
Table 3. Mix design used for the double-step cold-bonding granulation.
Mix DesignMS
(%)		GGBFS (%)Cement (%)
602515
Table
Table 4. Physical properties of the manufactured aggregates.
Table 4. Physical properties of the manufactured aggregates.
S-LWAD-LWA
Particle SizeDensity
[g/cm3]		OP
[%]		WAC [%]Density
[g/cm3]		OP
[%]		WAC [%]
Mix 14–8 mm1.9817.6810.681.8015.779.41
8–16 mm1.8119.0712.061.6710.015.74
16–20 mm1.5422.3714.071.9410.476.13
Mix 24–8 mm2.147.663.941.8510.885.79
8–16 mm1.896.333.311.7310.175.44
16–20 mm1.605.803.181.577.343.79
Mix 34–8 mm2.294.862.511.838.794.73
8–16 mm1.994.492.411.896.923.75
16–20 mm1.832.531.391.775.102.70
Table
Table 5. Physical properties of the natural aggregates.
Table 5. Physical properties of the natural aggregates.
Particle SizeDensity [g/cm3]WAC [%]
Fine2.452.15
Medium2.701.65
Course2.851.35
Table
Table 6. Mix design for a concrete sample. (Note: S-LWC: single lightweight concrete; D-LWC: double lightweight concrete; S-LWC+PET: single lightweight concrete with 10% addition of PET; D-LWC+PET: double lightweight concrete with 10% addition of PET; REF: reference sample with natural aggregates).
Table 6. Mix design for a concrete sample. (Note: S-LWC: single lightweight concrete; D-LWC: double lightweight concrete; S-LWC+PET: single lightweight concrete with 10% addition of PET; D-LWC+PET: double lightweight concrete with 10% addition of PET; REF: reference sample with natural aggregates).
PET
(cm3)		S-LWA (cm3)D-LWA (cm3)NA (cm3)Cement (cm3)Water (cm3)
S-LWC-1200--230120
D-LWC--1200-230120
S-LWC+PET1201080--230120
D-LWC+PET120-1080-230120
REF---1200230120
Table
Table 7. Average density, compressive strength, and thermal conductivity of the tested concrete samples.
Table 7. Average density, compressive strength, and thermal conductivity of the tested concrete samples.
MixturesBulk Density
(kg/m3)		Compressive Strength (MPa)CoV of Compressive Strength (%)Thermal Conductivity (W/mK)
REF192127.8431.00
S-LWC Mix1153016.11 150.73
S-LWC Mix2177017.64 140.75
S-LWC Mix3172016.72 70.78
D-LWC Mix1150517.03 60.78
D-LWC Mix2171019.0610.74
D-LWC Mix3172018.3170.75
S-LWC+PET Mix1132511.19 120.67
S-LWC+PET Mix2155012.8970.68
S-LWC+PET Mix3170510.3330.66
D-LWC+PET Mix1146015.68 120.68
D-LWC+PET Mix2145014.7620.69
D-LWC+PET Mix3150514.31 130.66
Note: CoV stands for coefficient of variance.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Farina, I.; Moccia, I.; Salzano, C.; Singh, N.; Sadrolodabaee, P.; Colangelo, F. Compressive and Thermal Properties of Non-Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Industrial Byproduct Aggregates. Materials 2022, 15, 4029. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15114029

AMA Style

Farina I, Moccia I, Salzano C, Singh N, Sadrolodabaee P, Colangelo F. Compressive and Thermal Properties of Non-Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Industrial Byproduct Aggregates. Materials. 2022; 15(11):4029. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15114029

Chicago/Turabian Style

Farina, Ilenia, Ivan Moccia, Cinzia Salzano, Narinder Singh, Payam Sadrolodabaee, and Francesco Colangelo. 2022. "Compressive and Thermal Properties of Non-Structural Lightweight Concrete Containing Industrial Byproduct Aggregates" Materials 15, no. 11: 4029. https://doi.org/10.3390/ma15114029

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop