Lime-Stabilized Solid-Waste Blends as Alternative Building Blocks in Construction

James, Jijo; Gobinathan, Ayyapakam Ranganathan; Balaji, Adhimoolam Kannan; Ashwin, Saravanan; Aravind, Chinnathurai

Lime-Stabilized Solid-Waste Blends as Alternative Building Blocks in Construction

Architecture, Civil Engineering, Environment

Volume 16 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)

By:

Jijo James, Ayyapakam Ranganathan Gobinathan, Adhimoolam Kannan Balaji, Saravanan Ashwin and Chinnathurai Aravind

Open Access

|Jul 2023

Figures & Tables

Materials Used (a) Lime (b) PG (c) SS (d) FA

Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX12

Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX11

Strength of Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks LFSPX21

Strength of Optimal Lime Stabilized Solid Waste Blocks

Variation of Strength with Lime Content for Different FA/SS Ratios

Comparison of the Present Work With Earlier Studies (1Mashifana et al. [43], 2James et al. [25], 3Pai et al. [44])

Strength of Lime-Stabilized Solid Waste Mortar Blocks

Chemical Composition of PG [20], FA (C) [21], SS [22] and Lime [23]

Compounds	Composition (%)
Compounds	PG	FA (C)	SS	Lime
SiO₂	1.64	40	13.81	4.73
Al₂O₃	1.82^*	17	2.53	0.38
Fe₂O₃		6	28.93⁺	0.08
CaO	32.0	24	36.96	81.05
MgO	0.40	5	7.46	3.22
SO₃	43.6	3	DNR	2.33

Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Total Blend (%)

Notation	Lime	FA	SS	PG	Compressive Strength (MPa)
LFSP212	1.96	29.41	58.82	9.81	2.54
LFSP412	3.85	28.85	57.69	9.61	2.12
LFSP612	5.66	28.30	56.60	9.44	1.05
LFSP211	1.96	44.12	44.12	9.80	0.84
LFSP411	3.85	43.27	43.27	9.61	2.64
LFSP611	5.66	42.45	42.45	9.44	2.18
LFSP221	1.96	58.82	29.41	9.81	3.63
LFSP421	3.85	57.69	28.85	9.61	3.94
LFSP621	5.66	56.60	28.30	9.4	4.06
LFSP212M	0.49	7.35	14.71	2.45	0.37
LFSP412M	0.96	7.21	14.42	2.41	0.43
LFSP612M	1.42	7.08	14.15	2.35	0.57
LFSP211M	0.49	11.03	11.03	2.45	0.45
LFSP411M	0.96	10.82	10.82	2.40	1.05
LFSP611M	1.42	10.61	10.61	2.36	0.51
LFSP221M	0.49	14.71	7.35	2.45	0.49
LFSP421M	0.96	14.42	7.21	2.41	0.41
LFSP621M	1.42	14.15	7.08	2.35	1.18

Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Present and Three Earlier Studies (%)

Study	Notation	Lime	FA	SS	PG	MgO Content (SS)
Present Study	LFSP411	3.85	43.27	43.27	9.62	7.46
Present Study	LFSP621	5.66	56.60	28.30	9.43	7.46
Mashifana et al. [43]	LFSP1212*	23.33	46.67	10	20	3.53
Mashifana et al. [43]	LFSP1213*	20	40	10	30	3.53
James et al. [25]	LFP11P	3.85	48.08	-	48.08	-
James et al. [25]	LFP31P	4.76	71.43	-	23.81	-
Pai et al. [44]	LFS1314*	5.5	16.5	78	-	0.23
Pai et al. [44]	LFS1316*	5.0	15.0	80	-	0.23

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acee-2023-0018 | Journal eISSN: 2720-6947 | Journal ISSN: 1899-0142

Journal RSS Feed

Language: English

Page range: 89 - 99

Submitted on: Jan 31, 2022

Accepted on: Feb 21, 2023

Published on: Jul 20, 2023

Published by: Silesian University of Technology

In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services

Publication frequency: 4 times per year

Keywords:

Blocks,

Flyash,

Lime,

Phosphogypsum,

Steel Slag,

Valorization

Related subjects:

Architecture and design,

Architecture,

Architects, buildings

© 2023 Jijo James, Ayyapakam Ranganathan Gobinathan, Adhimoolam Kannan Balaji, Saravanan Ashwin, Chinnathurai Aravind, published by Silesian University of Technology
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 License.

Previous article Volume 16 (2023): Issue 2 (June 2023)Next article

Lime-Stabilized Solid-Waste Blends as Alternative Building Blocks in Construction

Figures & Tables

Figure 1.

Figure 2.

Figure 3.

Figure 4.

Figure 5.

Figure 6.

Figure 7.

Figure 8.

Figure 9.

Chemical Composition of PG [20], FA (C) [21], SS [22] and Lime [23]

Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Total Blend (%)

Proportions of Various Solid Wastes in the Present and Three Earlier Studies (%)

Paradigm

My account