Beneficial use of marine dredged materials as a fine aggregate in ready-mixed concrete: Turkey example

Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Construction and Building Materials journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/conbuildmat

Beneficial use of marine dredged materials as a fine aggregate in ready-mixed concrete: Turkey example Pembe Ozer-Erdogan a,⇑, H. Merve Basar a, Ibrahim Erden b, Leyla Tolun a a b

_ Environment and Cleaner Production Institute, TÜBITAK Marmara Research Center, Gebze, 41470 Kocaeli, Turkey Department of Chemistry, Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Yildiz Technical University, Esenler, 34220 Istanbul, Turkey

h i g h l i g h t s
Beneficial use of dredged material (DM) in ready-mixed concrete (RMC).
Utilization of DMs as partial substitution with fine aggregate (silica sand).
Replacement of silica sand with DM (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%).
Effect of DM on RMC’s mechanical/durability, leaching, micro-structural properties.
DMs can be beneficially used to fabricate high quality RMC.

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 5 January 2016 Received in revised form 13 June 2016 Accepted 30 July 2016 Available online 5 August 2016 Keywords: Beneficial use Dredged material Fine aggregate Ready-mixed concrete

a b s t r a c t This study describes the potential beneficial use of untreated and treated marine dredged material (DM) in ready-mix concrete (RMC) as a fine aggregate. DMs collected from four Turkish ports/harbours were characterized, assessed according to the National Legislation and transformed into one composite DM. Silica sand was replaced with untreated- and treated-composite-DM (COMP-U/COMP-T) at five ratios (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, 100%), respectively. Mechanical, durability, leaching, mineralogical/micro-structural properties of DM-based-RMCs were analysed. Concretes having 50% COMP-U and 100% COMP-T met the minimum requirement for C25/30 class RMC. Marine DM can be beneficially used in RMC production; however, DM pre-treatment should be applied. Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction In Turkey, about 3 million m3 of marine dredged material (DM) is excavated annually as a result of routine dredging activities _ Abbreviations: DM, dredged material; DIPTAR, Marine Dredging Applications and Environmental Management of Dredged Materials Project; RMC, ready-mixed concrete; ERMCO, European Ready Mixed Concrete Organization; LWA, lightweight _ aggregate; TÜBITAK MAM, The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Turkey Marmara Research Centre; PCB, polychlorinated biphenyl; TS, Turkish standard; SM, standard methods; ADDDY, The Regulation on the Landfilling of Waste; AYY, The Waste Management Regulation; ICP-OES, Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy; DOC, Dissolved Organic Carbon; TOC, Total Organic Carbon; BTEX, Benzene, Toluene, Ethyl benzene, Xylene; TDS, Total Dissolved Solids; LOI, loss on ignition; USCS, Unified Soil Classification System; PI, Plasticity Index; LL, Liquid Limit; PL, Plastic Limit; COMP-U, untreated-compositeDM; COMP-T, treated-composite-DM; w/c, water/cement; SE, sand equivalent; MB, methylene blue; ASR, alkali-silica reactivity; XRD, X-ray Diffractometer; XRF, X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometer; SEM, Scanning Electron Microscope; EDS, Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy. ⇑ Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (P. Ozer-Erdogan). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.07.144 0950-0618/Ó 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

carried out at ports, marinas and fishery harbours, and these DMs are dumped at sea in its current situation. However, the uncontrolled discharge into the sea can lead to negative impacts with physical, chemical and/or biological risks on aquatic ecosystems [1,2]. It is obvious that dumping at sea should be considered as last alternative in DM management together with upland disposal which requires high cost, large spaces and long-term monitoring [1,3,4]. Due to the ongoing annual dredging operations, the minimization of DM quantities is not applicable as the most prioritized option [1]; thus, beneficial use alternative becomes the most appropriate one. Beneficial use is a process utilizing DM as a raw material to obtain productive material and provides environmental, economic and social advantages [1]. According to Waste Framework Directive (2008/98/EC), DM is classified as a waste with the waste codes of 17 05 05⁄ (polluted sediments) and 17 05 06 (other sediments) [2]. Due to the exhaustion of natural resources and tendency of other countries’ to provide sustainable development approach, the beneficial use of DM has accepted prevalently in different application areas such as land

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

improvement/reclamation, beach nourishment, coastal protection, landfill daily cover/liner, capping material, environmental enhancement involving wetland creation/enhancement, sediment cell maintenance, manufactured topsoil, construction fill materials, bricks, ceramics, cement, blocks, tiles, lightweight aggregates, road sub-base [3–18]. There are many examples of beneficial use for DMs over the world, while there is no noteworthy beneficial use studies of DMs carried out in Turkey, yet. This study is performed in the content of ongoing national project named ‘‘(111G036) Marine Dredging Applications and Environmental Management of Dredged _ Materials (DIPTAR)” started on 1st October 2013 in order to develop sustainable environmental management of DMs across Turkey for the first time considering dumping at sea, upland disposal and beneficial use. Moreover, supplying sufficient data and knowledge for The Ministry of Environment and Urbanization in the preparation of the National Framework for DM management is also objected [19]. It is obvious that some European countries like Italy has qualified DM as a by-product and; thus, managed it as non-waste (Ministerial Decree no. 161/2012-paragraph 3.5) [20]. The term by-product is new for Turkey which is introduced into force by new Turkish Waste Management Regulation in 2015 [21]. The beneficial use of DM as by-product is also on the agenda of Ministry of Environment and Urbanization for Turkey in the context of new (draft) National Legal Framework which will come into force at the end of 2016 about the environmental management of DM. The aggregates used in concrete production, are obtained from natural sources such as quarries or alluvial rivers. Nowadays, taking into account danger of extinction of natural resources and damage to the environment in the process of supplying natural aggregates, optimization of the usage of aggregate resources and investigation on alternative aggregate sources should be considered [22,23]. With the increase of demand for raw materials in construction industry, DM has a potential to be used in the construction industry as an alternative material regarding environmental and economic issues [23]. Utilization of ready-mixed concrete (RMC) combined with modern construction techniques is crucial for daily life, organized urbanization and strong buildings. RMC industry was firstly appeared in Germany in 1903 while RMC was produced firstly in 1993 in Turkey [24]. According to the statistics of the European

691

Ready Mixed Concrete Organization (ERMCO), 65 million metric tons of RMC were produced in Turkey in 2013 and it was corresponding to 27.8% of the total production of RMC in Europe [25]. In addition, maximum production of RMC was observed in Turkey among European countries in 2013. 1.1. Literature review Beneficial use of DMs in the construction applications as a fine or coarse aggregate in concrete production have been studied by several researchers [10,11,15–17]. The suitability of DMs in the production of harbour pavement has been investigated by Limeira et al. [10,26]. They have indicated that DMs used in the production of harbour pavement has achieved compressive strength criteria for harbour pavement required by the Spanish Standard [10,26]. Junakova et al. [27] focused on reuse of coarse grained DMs (0– 4 mm) in place of natural aggregate and fine grained DMs in place of cement. Results of this study showed that concrete made from coarse grained DMs with 20% substitution is suitable as raw material [27]. Liu et al. [14] have focused on chloride salt content of dredged marine sand for the production of reinforced-concrete. Said et al. [11] aimed to utilize DMs from Rades Harbour for the fabrication of paving block as a partial substitution of silica sand. They have concluded that DMs can be evaluated as fine aggregate in the production of paving blocks and optimum substitution ratio for DM should be 19% [11]. Chen et al. [28] used DMs from the Shihmen Reservoir (Taiwan) to obtain artificial lightweight aggregate (LWA). Based on the results, the properties of the concrete produced with LWA have achieved the criteria for structural concrete [28]. However, beneficial use applications of DMs are very insufficient in Turkey where DMs are dumped at sea as stated previously. This study is the first attempt for the beneficial use of DM as a fine aggregate in the production of RMC in Turkey. By the way, it has a paramount importance to guide and encourage other national beneficial use studies. 1.2. Research significance The aim of this study is to investigate the beneficial use of untreated and treated marine DMs as an alternative fine aggregate in the production of RMC in terms of technical and environmental

Fig. 1. Four sampling locations of the study with the whole thirteen locations of DIPTAR Project and the pie charts showing the grain size distributions.

692

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

view and to show the importance of DM treatment process in RMC production. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Materials 2.1.1. Dredged materials _ DM samples were dredged from Istanbul Ambarlı Port (DM-1), _ _ Container Mersin Erdemli Fishery Harbour (DM-2), Izmir PETKIM Port (DM-3), and Samsun Port (DM-4) with bucket ladder dredger, excavator, bucket ladder dredger and backhoe dredger, respectively. These sampling locations are situated in the shores of Turkey; Marmara Sea, Mediterranean Sea, Aegean Sea and Black Sea and given in Fig. 1 with the whole thirteen sampling locations of DIPTAR Project and the related pie charts showing the grain size distribution for each location. It is found that Turkey’s average particle size distribution of DMs for these thirteen locations is mainly composed of sand (62.38%) with some contents of silt-clay (28.92%) as well as gravel (8.69%). The reason for the selection and mixing of DM-1, DM-2, DM-3, and DM-4 as one composite sample in this study is to reflect the Turkey’s average grain size distribution regardless of the fact that four sampling locations are far from each other and economic aspect is also ignored. 1 m3 DM sample was taken from each study site at a sampling _ depth of 2–16 m from water and transferred by trucks to TÜBITAK Marmara Research Center (MAM) laboratories and stored in hermetic containers of 30 dm3 in volume at the laboratory conditions.

2.1.1.1. Leaching properties of DMs. Except remediation purposes for the substantial contamination, waste materials generated from dredging operations would usually be classified as nonhazardous and categorized as 17 05 06 (dredging spoil other than 17 05 05) according to the chemical criteria of the European Waste Catalogue [29,30]. The leachability potentials of DMs were obtained according to the TS EN 12457-4 leaching test and illustrated in Table 1 with the limit values stated in ‘‘The Regulation on the Landfilling of Waste (ADDDY)-Appendix 2: The acceptance criteria of the landfilling of waste” [31]. As it could be seen in Table 1, the leaching test results of Cl, SO2 4 , Total Dissolved Solids (TDS), Cr and Sb of DM samples were identified above the limits of Class III (Inert waste) landfilling criteria. DMs extracted from marine environment can have high conductivity due to Cl, SO2 4 and TDS contents [32]. Heavy metal contents determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Optical Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-OES) after acid digestion are also reported in Table 1 with their risk phrases and hazards. All DM samples have low contents of heavy metals that do not cause any environmental risk when considering the related ‘‘Waste Management Regulation (AYY)-Appendix 3B hazardous waste threshold limits” [21,33]. 2.1.1.2. Preparation of composite-DMs as a fine aggregate. In the production of C25/30 strength class RMC, which is the most commonly used concrete in Turkey, two different types of DMs were used: untreated and treated DMs, respectively. They were subjected to different pre-treatment procedures before the

Table 1 Leachabilities and heavy metal contents of DMs together with ‘‘ADDDY-Appendix 2” and ‘‘AYY-Appendix 3B” quality criteria. Parameters

DM-1

DM-2

DM-3

DM-4

ADDDY-Appendix 2 limits

Methods

Inert Waste (Class III)

Nonhazardous Waste (Class II)

Hazardous Waste (Class I)

Leachate (L/S = 10 L/kg) As (mg/l) Ba (mg/l) Cd (mg/l) Cr (mg/l) Cu (mg/l) Hg (mg/l) Mo (mg/l) Ni (mg/l) Pb (mg/l) Sb (mg/l) Se (mg/l) Zn (mg/l) Cl (mg/l) F (mg/l) SO2 4 (mg/l) DOC (mg/l) TDS (mg/l) Phenol (mg/l)

0.013 0.047 <0.0001 <0.001 0.0084 <0.00013 0.0059 0.0017 0.0011 0.0025 0.0027 <0.005 600.6 0.2 102.9 <0.5 1204 <0.07

0.00274 0.018 0.00006 0.00026 0.00771 <0.00013 0.00696 0.00502 0.00075 0.00075 0.00109 0.00678 1001 0.97 155.36 1.5 2006 <0.07

0.0287 0.0508 <0.00005 0.00096 0.0149 <0.00013 0.0374 0.0082 0.0012 0.00293 0.00106 0.0155 950 0.67 186 2.14 2040 <0.07

0.0118 0.0505 0.0001 0.0882 0.0311 <0.00013 0.0202 0.0116 0.017 0.00611 <0.001 0.0419 704.8 0.34 94.73 4.1 1559 <0.07

0.05 2 0.004 0.05 0.2 0.001 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.006 0.01 0.4 80 1 100 50 400 0.1

0.2 10 0.1 1 5 0.02 1 1 1 0.07 0.05 5 1500 15 2000 80 6000 –

2.5 30 0.5 7 10 0.2 3 4 5 0.5 0.7 20 2500 50 5000 100 10,000 –

EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A SM-3112 EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A EPA 6020A SM-4110B SM-4110B SM-4110B SM-5310B SM-2540C SM-5530D

Solid matrix TOC (mg/kg) BTEX (mg/kg) PCBs (mg/kg) Hydrocarbons (mg/kg) LOI (%)

<1884 <0.5 <0.1 79.3 <2.3

<1884 <0.5 0.49 <65 4.11

2318 <0.5 <0.1 <65 4.72

9078 <0.5 <0.1 162 4.19

30,000 6 1 500 –

50,000 – – – –

60,000 – – – 10%

SM-5310B EPA 8015C ISO 10382 BS EN 14039 TS EN 12879

Hazards

Risk phrase(s)

AYY-Appendix 3B limits

Methods

Pb (mg/kg)

11.8

5.64

13

35.4

H5, H6, H10, H14

1000 (0.1%)

ISO 11885

Cd (mg/kg)

<0.1

0.1

0,43

0.17

1000 (0.1%)

ISO 11885

Cr (mg/kg) Cu (mg/kg) Ni (mg/kg) Zn (mg/kg) Hg (mg/kg) As (mg/kg)

85 15.2 37.3 42 0.3 7.90

905 17.4 687 34.8 <0.01 8.43

140 23 132 128 2,33 347.00

111 46 55 77 0.09 12.80

H6, H7, H10, H11, H14 H3A, H7, H14 H3A, H4, H14 H7, H13, H14 H3A, H14 H6, H10, H14 H6, H14

R: 33, 61, 62, 20/22, 26/27/28, R50/53 R: 26, 45, 62, 63, 68, 48/23/25, 50/53 R: 11, 40, 52 R: 11, 52, 36/37/38 R: 40, 43, 48/23, 52/53 R: 15, 17, 50/53 R: 26, 61, 48/23, 50/53 R: 23/25, 50/53

10,000 (1%) 20,000 (20%) 10,000 (1%) 2500 (0.25%) 1000 (0.1%) 2500 (0.25%)

ISO 11885 ISO 11885 ISO 11885 ISO 11885 EPA 7473 ISO 11885

Heavy metals

693

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704 Table 2 Preliminary physico-chemical, mineralogical and geotechnical properties of silica sand, untreated and treated DMs. Parameter Particle size (mm) 4 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.063 Fineness modulus %

Particle density (kg/m3) Water absorption (%) Geotechnical properties Liquid Limit (LL) % Plastic Limit (PL) % Plasticity Index (PI) % Group symbol Unified Soil Classification System (USCS) Class

Silica sand

Untreated DM-1

Untreated DM-2

Untreated DM-3

Untreated DM-4

Treated DM-1

Treated DM-2

Treated DM-3

Treated DM-4

Method

98.9 78.83 52.19 36.75 28.96 19.67 18.85 3.15

100 98.58 90.04 75 63 34 19.57 3.61

100 100 98.63 94.97 79.18 26.77 9.84 3.0

100 95 64 51 48 40 34.47 2.98

%passing 100 98.48 83.27 70.34 59.51 39.16 32.70 3.51

(w) 100 100 97.45 90.94 78.87 24.43 0.66 2.92

100 100 99.05 96.51 83.17 22.30 1.43 3.01

100 91.39 45.05 21.88 11.88 4.75 0.40 1.75

100 100 94.58 88.97 84.11 35.89 2.62 3.04

TS EN 933-1:2012

2632

2643

2535

2465

2505

2326

2326

2083

2339

1.5

4.7

3.2

16.6

5.4

2.8

2.6

15.6

3.1

NP NP NP SM Silty sand

NP NP NP SM Silty sand

NP NP NP SP-SM Poorly graded sand with silt

80 26 54 SC Clayey sand

NP NP NP SM Silty sand

NP NP NP SP Poorly graded clean sand

NP NP NP SP Poorly graded clean sand

NP NP NP SP Poorly graded clean sand

NP NP NP SP Poorly graded clean sand

TS 1900-1/ T2:2015

40.4

28.9

1.1

29.1 1.1

47.5 1.8

40.8 2.0

7.5

31.7 0.7

In-house method XRD

12.8

4.7

11.0 12.8

16.3

3.5

1.4

15.6 4.9

6.1

29.7 13.5

15.3 28.2

61.1 0.9

30.1 11.6 5.1

25.5 16.0

11.2 36.3

50.1 5.6

24.6 29.7

2.1 1.5

4.5

2.7 1.2

1.3 1.1

3.9

4.3

Mineralogical composition Quartz, SiO2 97.5 Zeolite Y, SiO2 – Kristobalite, SiO2 – Illite, (K,H3O) 0.7 Al2Si3AlO10(OH)2 Feldspar 1.3 0.2 Calcite, CaCO3 Almandine, – Fe3Al2(SiO4)3 – Anhydrite, CaSO4 Hematite, Fe2O3 0.2 Potassium Magn. Cl, – KMgCl3 – Magnesioferrite, MgFe2O4 – Forsterite, Mg2SiO4 Enstatite, MgSiO3 – Potassium Chlorate, K – (ClO4) – Diopside, CaMg(SiO3)2 Lizordite, – Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 – Calcium Iron Oxide Chloride, CaFeClO2 – Augite, Ca(MgFe)Si2O6 Gismandine, – CaAl2Si2O8.4H2O Lime, CaO – 0.1 Anatase, TiO2 Chemical composition Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl K2O CaO TiO2 Cr2O3 MnO2 Fe2O3 Rb NiO SrO ZrO2 ZnO BaO WO2

0.068 0.156 1.887 97.379 – 0.016 – 0.164 0.062 0.090 0.022 – 0.137 – 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.001 – –

3.3

TS 706 EN 12620 + A1:2009 TS EN 1097-6:2013

1.6

6.2

1.9

2.6 2.7 1.0

4.5 9.8

1.6

2.2 5.5

1.5 0.9

4.1

5.1

4.9 1.2 1.714 2.525 15.099 61.926 0.196 0.928 0.907 2.633 9.560 0.631 0.082 3.557 0.008

0.785 20.634 5.754 34.870 0.091 0.763 1.752 0.428 27.100 0.273 0.159 0.139 7.088

1.503 4.006 18.335 53.242 0.306 1.268 1.919 2.302 8.930 1.197 0.049 0.203 6.451 0.008

1.525 5.285 14.406 47.315 0.216 2.850 1.238 2.113 17.547 0.776 0.064 0.153 6.438 0.007

1.695 1.213 12.868 69.123 0.139 0.296 0.041 2.427 9.564 0.357

0.053

0.047

0.044 0.025

0.138 0.027 0.001

0.096 0.030

0.166

0.001

0.156

0.065 1.984 0.007

0.356 20.658 5.500 36.495 0.141 0.444 0.112 0.330 28.291 0.275 0.130 0.145 6.955 0.138 0.029 0.004

1.021 3.457 17.166 54.059 0.317 0.591 0.203 2.568 11.595 1.278 0.198 7.171 0.007 0.100 0.047

0.015 0.110 0.063

0.223

1.369 5.072 13.075 50.849 0.182 1.265 0.102 1.880 19.623 0.680 0.052 0.148 5.633

0.059 0.012

In-house method XRF

694

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

preparation of composite-DMs. Untreated DMs were sieved with 3 mm sieve and dried in an oven at 105 °C, while treated DMs were subjected to sieving (3 mm), washing (desalination) (with a DMto-water weight ratio of 1:5), dewatering by filter-press, drying at 105 °C and sieving (63 lm) steps to improve the quality of DMs. Preliminary physico-chemical, mineralogical and geotechnical properties were identified separately for aggregates of silica sand, untreated and treated DMs and are presented in Table 2. The grading distributions of the aggregates are defined by: Silica Sand (natural) is 0/4 mm; Untreated DM-1 is 0/1 mm; Untreated DM-2 is 0/0.5 mm; Untreated DM-3 is 0/2 mm; Untreated DM-4 is 0/1 mm; Treated DM-1 is 0/0.5 mm; Treated DM-2 is 0/0.5 mm; Treated DM-3 is 0/2 mm; Treated DM-4 is 0/1 mm. As it can be seen, DM aggregates are much finer than the silica sand whether they are untreated or treated. This is responsible from higher water absorption values of untreated and treated DMs compared to silica sand. It is obvious that the existence of fines in aggregates can cause some detrimental effects on concrete due to their higher surface area and the water demand of concrete specimens can increase [34], Quantitative phase analysis results of aggregates determined using Rietveld technique with XRD diffractometer indicate that Feldspar (silt) and Illite (clay) minerals are generally dominant in untreated DM samples which have a capable of increasing water/cement (w/c) ratio and reducing the strength of the mortars [35]. Furthermore, it is seen that Quartz (sand) is the primary component of both untreated and treated DM-1 and DM-2, while Feldspar (silt) is the dominant component of both untreated and treated DM-3 and DM-4. According to the chemical compositions of untreated and treated DMs determined by X-ray Fluorescence Spectrometry (XRF), the main oxide components are SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO for DM-1, SiO2, CaO and MgO for DM-2, SiO2, Al2O3 and CaO for DM-3 and SiO2, CaO and Al2O3 for DM-4, respectively. On the other hand, when considering the Unified Soil Classification System (USCS), all treated DMs are classified as poorly graded sand (SP) while untreated DMs are identified as silty sand (SM), poorly graded sand with silt (SP-SM) and clayey sand (SC). These results are consistent with mineralogical compositions of related aggregates. Besides, it is found that all untreated and treated DM samples are non-plastic except untreated DM-3 which has a Plasticity Index (PI) of 54% (very high plasticity). For the determination of the mixture ratios of treated and untreated DM samples in order to produce untreated-compositeDM (COMP-U) and treated-composite-DM (COMP-U), C25/30 strength class of RMC specimens were prepared using DM-1, DM-2, DM-3, and DM-4 in replacement of silica sand (100%), separately. Comparison of individual fresh and hardened concrete properties prepared with untreated and treated DMs are given in Table 3. w/c ratios of concretes containing treated DMs are lower than the w/c ratios of concretes including untreated DMs due to the presence of fines in untreated samples. Unit weights of fresh concretes having treated DMs are higher than the unit weights

including untreated ones. It is observed that compressive strengths of concretes having treated DM-1 and DM-2 (37.6 MPa and 39.7 MPa) are higher than the control one (36.3 MPa) at 28-day while the compressive strengths of concretes having treated DM3 and DM-4 (26.8 MPa and 35.3 MPa) are lower. The same trend is valid for the concretes having untreated DMs. Furthermore, concretes having high water absorption ratio have lower strengths. It is clear that fresh and hardened properties of concretes having treated DMs are much better than the concretes including untreated DMs. At the very beginning of the study, it is decided to mix four DM samples at equal ratios (25% by weight for each DM sample) in order to reflect the Turkey’s average grading size distribution. However, when considering the results of mentioned design and fresh/hardened concrete parameters, composite-DM mixtures were prepared according to the following compositions with some alterations rather than expected: COMP-U having untreated DMs of 40% DM-1, 40% DM-2, 10% DM-3 and 10% DM4, and COMP-T having treated DMs of 40% DM-1, 40% DM-2, 10% DM-3 and 10% DM-4 by weight, respectively. 2.1.1.3. Aggregate properties of composite DMs. Due to the utilization of composite DMs as partial replacement of silica sand in RMC production, aggregate properties of silica sand, COMP-U and COMP-T mixtures were determined in accordance with TS 706 EN 12620 + A1:2009 specifications and the results are illustrated in Table 4. According to the analysis results, COMP-T met the required criteria of the Standard for fine aggregates except Chloride concentration. Total content of Chloride (Cl) ion in all aggregates should not exceed 0.01% regarding TS EN 1744-1:2013. Although silica sand and COMP-T have higher Cl- concentrations than Standard’s limit value, the final Cl- content of total aggregates in concrete specimens will be lower than 0.01%; however, Cl concentration of COMP-U cannot achieve this limit as a fine aggregate. Besides, due to being the second most abundant anion in sea after Cl, high concentration of SO2 4 ion in COMP-U can be expected. Even though acid-soluble SO2 4 content of COMP-U (0.26%) is under the limit value of 0.8% according to TS 13515:2014 for aggregates, it is higher than silica sand’s acid-soluble SO2 4 content (0.025%). Cl and SO2 4 can lead to detrimental effects on concrete structures such as reinforcement corrosion and micro cracks formation, respectively [36–40]. Hence, untreated DMs require pre-treatment process to lessen the contents of Cl, SO2 4 and fines before being utilized as a fine aggregate in the production of RMC. Furthermore, low methylene blue (MB) values confirmed the low clay activities (A) of COMP-U and COMP-T which are 0.5 and 0.0 (COMP-U has PI of 5% and 10.7% clay by weight while COMP-T is non-plastic, PI = 0), respectively. Clays with A < 0.75 are inactive [41]. On the other hand, COMP-U and COMP-T are potentially reactive in terms of alkali-silica reactivity (ASR) which may cause deleterious internal expansion in concrete structure, map cracks can be occurred; thus, concrete’s durability can be reduced [42,43]. Average expansion

Table 3 Comparison of fresh/hardened concrete properties prepared with untreated and treated DMs. Parameters

Fresh concrete properties Unit weight (kg/m3) w/c ratio Hardened concrete properties Compressive strength (3-day) (MPa) Compressive strength (7-day) (MPa) Compressive strength (28-day) (MPa) Splitting strength (28-day) (MPa) Water absorption (%) Density (kg/m3)

Control

DM-1

DM-2

DM-3

DM-4

Untreated

Treated

Untreated

Treated

Untreated

Treated

Untreated

Treated

2410 0.734

2298 0.814

2376 0.711

2371 0.714

2393 0.696

2239 1.085

2311 0.919

2336 0.831

2434 0.775

19.3 27.4 36.3 3.0 4.59 2289

13.9 21.2 28.6 2.5 6.58 2232

16.0 29.1 37.6 2.9 4.25 2285

14.9 28.0 35.0 2.9 5.30 2267

19.4 32.3 39.7 3.1 3.69 2292

7.0 10.6 13.9 1.1 10.62 2030

12.1 21.8 26.8 1.3 6.79 2221

12.3 18.6 25.2 1.8 6.98 2185

14.8 27.6 35.3 2.1 5.45 2273

695

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704 Table 4 Comparison of aggregate properties according to the TS 706 EN 12620 + A1:2009. Parameter

Silica sand (Control)

COMP-U

COMP-T

Method

Aggregate type

Fine aggregate

Fine aggregate

Fine aggregate

TS 706 EN 12620 + A1: 2009

0–4 (d/D = 0/4) %passing (w) 100 100 98.9 78.83 52.19 36.75 28.96 19.67 18.85 GF85 18.85 88.57

0–4 (d/D = 0/4)

0–4 (d/D = 0/4)

TS 706 EN 12620 + A1: 2009

100 100 100 98.7 95.24 89.1 77.9 36.2 22.0 GF85 19.30 30

100 100 100 99.28 95.51 89.71 78.26 19.86 5.65 GF85 6.17 31

0.09

1.8

0.6

TS EN 933-9:2013

2675 0.7 1385 0.02–0.03 No reactive silica minerals

2548 4.6 1222 0.060 Potentially reactive

2494 4.0 1264 0.045 Potentially reactive

TS EN 1097-6:2013

Aver. Expansion rate (%) of ASR 1st to 3rd day 4th to 7th day 8th to 14th day

0.02 0.05 0.08

0.08 0.13 0.19

0.06 0.10 0.17

C) Chemical properties Water-soluble chloride ions (%) Acid-soluble sulfate (w%) Total sulfide (w%) Acid-soluble sulfide (w%) Presence of humus Fulvo acid content Lightweight contaminants (%)

0.07 0.025 0.05 0.03 ND ND 0.2

0.36 0.26 0.20 0.15 ND ND 2.19

0.02 0.07 0.07 0.09 ND ND 1.40

Mineralogical composition (%) Quartz, SiO2 Zeolite Y, SiO2 Kristobalite, SiO2 Illite, (K,H3O)Al2Si3AlO10(OH)2 Feldspar Calcite, CaCO3 Almandine, Fe3Al2(SiO4)3 Anhydrite, CaSO4 Hematite, Fe2O3 Potassium Magn. Cl, KMgCl3 Magnesioferrite, MgFe2O4 Forsterite, Mg2SiO4 Enstatite, MgSiO3 Potassium Chlorate, K(ClO4) Diopside, CaMg(SiO3)2 Lizordite, Mg3Si2O5(OH)4 Calcium Iron Oxide Chloride, CaFeClO2 Augite, Ca(MgFe)Si2O6 Gismandine, CaAl2Si2O8.4H2O Lime, CaO Anatase, TiO2

97.5 – – 0.7 1.3 0.2 – – 0.2 – – – – – – – – – – – 0.1

30.5 0.1 1.2 9.9 26.6 18.6 0.6 0.3 2.7 0.9 0.8 0.9 0.3 0.1 1.8 3.8 0.9 – – – –

37.4 1.5 1.7 3.1 22.1 26.2 – – 1.6 – 0.7 1.2 – – – – – 3.6 0.5 0.3 –

Chemical composition (%) Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl K2O CaO TiO2 Cr2O3

0.068 0.156 1.887 97.379 – 0.016 – 0.164 0.062 0.090 0.022

1.401 5.894 14.894 50.484 0.248 1.935 1.438 2.045 14.389 0.796 0.056

1.169 5.298 14.289 52.213 0.253 0.862 0.267 2.096 16.029 0.885 0.031

A) Geometrical properties Aggregate size (mm)

Particle size distribution (grading)

Particle size (mm) 8 5.6 4 2 1 0.5 0.250 0.125 0.0638 Category

Fines content. % Fines quality-sand equivalent (SE) % Fines quality-g methylene blue (MB)/100 g sand B) Physical properties Particle density (kg/m3) Water absorption (%) Loose bulk density (kg/m3) Drying shrinkage (%) Alkali-silica reactivity (ASR)

TS EN 933-1: 2012 (EN)

TS EN 933-1: 2012 (EN) TS EN 933-8:2012 + A1: 2015

TS EN 1097-3:1999 TS EN 1367-4:2015

ASTM C1260:2014

TS EN 1744-1:2013

In-house method XRD

In-house method XRF

(continued on next page)

696

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

Table 4 (continued) Parameter

Silica sand (Control)

COMP-U

COMP-T

MnO2 Fe2O3 Rb NiO SrO ZrO2 ZnO BaO WO2

– 0.137 – 0.003 0.002 0.010 0.001 – –

0.167 6.068 0.006 0.012 0.069 0.011 0.005 0.075 0.007

0.170 6.172 0.005 0.012 0.084 0.029 0.002 0.124 0.004

2.1.3. Aggregates Silica sand having a maximum size of 3 mm and stone dust with a maximum size of 5 mm were used as fine aggregates. In addition, two different aggregates having sizes of 4–11.2 mm and 11.2– 22.4 mm were used as coarse aggregates. Granulometries and physical properties of fine and coarse aggregates are summarized in Table 5.

Table 5 Granulometries and physical properties of fine and coarse aggregates. Particle size (mm)

22.4 16 11.2 8 5.6 4 2 1 0.5 0.25 0.125 0.063 Aggregate size (mm) Category Fines category Particle density (kg/m3) Water absorption (%) Resistance to abrasion Resistance to freeze-thaw

Passing (%) Silica sand

Stone dust

Coarse aggregate 1

Coarse aggregate 2

– – – – – 98.90 78.83 52.19 36.75 28.96 19.67 18.85 0–4 (A) GF85 f22 2632 1.5 – –

– – – – – 97.71 70.01 46.00 34.56 22.49 16.52 14.49 0–4 (B) GF85 f16 2632 2.0 – –

– – 90.20 58.37 30.56 11.03 5.23 4.00 – – – – 4–11.2 GC85/20 f1.5 2620 0.9 LA30 MS18

95.53 47.84 3.95 2.92 – – – – – – – – 11.2–22.4 GC85/20 f1.5 2643 0.4 LA30 MS18

Method

2.1.4. Super plasticizer Commercially available super plasticizer (CHRYSO Fluid ARG 2177 GB) was used in RMC mixtures.

2.2. Experimental studies

rate values for each day of three mortar bars in several durations for silica sand, COMP-U and COMP-T are also given in Table 4 in accordance with ASTM C1260-14. When considering 14 days period, average expansion rates are obtained as 0.08%, 0.017% and 0.09% for samples silica sand, COMP-U and COMP-T, respectively. However, optimization of mix composition of concrete specimens can be applicable to demonstrate effectiveness in controlling ASRrelated durability [44,45].

2.1.2. Cement CEM I 42.5R type Portland cement conforming to TS EN 197-1:2012 was used in all concretes.

2.2.1. Concrete specimens composition C25/30 strength class of RMC specimens were prepared using COMP-U and COMP-T in place of silica sand (control) with 0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% substitution ratios, respectively. Concrete mix proportions are presented in Table 6 together with the mass percentages of COMP-U and COMP-T in comparison to the mass percentages of fine aggregates. Initially, all ingredients were mixed in concrete mixer, and cast into the 15  15  15 cm sized cubic molds. Then, they were released at room temperature for setting. After 24 h, concrete cubes were de-molded, and transferred into the water curing tank at 20 °C. 2.2.2. Fresh concrete properties Slump (TS EN 12350-2:2010), unit weight (TS EN 123506:2010), temperature, air content properties and w/c ratios were determined for all fresh concretes under investigation. Standard slump value of S4 class (16–21 mm) as described in TS EN 206:2014 was selected to have the same consistency among concrete specimens.

Table 6 Concrete mix proportions. Specimens

RMC-0

RMC-1

RMC-2

RMC-3

RMC-4

RMC-5

RMC-6

RMC-7

RMC-8

Cement (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate 1 (kg/m3) Coarse aggregate 2 (kg/m3) Stone dust (kg/m3) Silica sand (kg/m3) COMP-U (kg/m3) COMP-T (kg/m3) Substitution rate (%) (COMP/Silica Sand) Substitution rate (%) (COMP/Fine aggregates) Water (kg/m3) w/c ratio Super plasticizer (kg/m3) Setting time (h) Slump (cm) Fresh concrete T (°C) Fresh concrete air content (%) Fresh concrete unit weight (kg/m3)

280 519 523 611 181 0 0 0 0 191.8 0.692 3.64 6.30 15 17 2.2 2430

280 519 523 611 135.75 45.25 0 25 5.7 204.4 0.730 3.64 7.10 15 16.5 2.2 2378

280 519 523 611 90.5 90.5 0 50 11.4 212.4 0.758 3.64 7.75 15 16.5 2.2 2367

280 519 523 611 45.25 135.75 0 75 17.1 216.4 0.773 3.64 8.33 15 16.5 2.2 2355

280 519 523 611 0 181 0 100 22.8 224.4 0.801 3.64 9 15 16.5 2.2 2344

280 519 523 611 135.75 0 45.25 25 5.7 198 0.707 3.64 6.83 15 17 2.3 2423

280 519 523 611 90.5 0 90.5 50 11.4 198.4 0.708 3.64 7.33 15 17 2.2 2419

280 519 523 611 45.25 0 135.75 75 17.1 198.8 0.710 3.64 7.66 15 17 2.3 2416

280 519 523 611 0 0 181 100 22.8 199.2 0.712 3.64 8.16 15 17 2.2 2410

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

2.2.3. Hardened concrete properties Mechanical properties of all concrete mixtures under investigation were determined by compressive strength (TS EN 123903:2010), tensile splitting strength (TS EN 12390-6:2010), modulus of elasticity (TS 500:2000) tests. 2000 kN capacity automatic compression testing machine (Elektron Lab, Turkey) was used for strength tests with a loading rate of 10 kN/s. Concrete specimens were exposed to 3, 7, and 28 days of curing periods, respectively. In addition, water absorption ratios (TS EN 480-11:2008) and densities (TS EN 12390-7:2010) of the concretes were also identified. Each of the test parameters for concrete specimens was obtained by the average of three measurements and the analysis results were compared with those of the control concrete. On the other hand, water permeability (TS EN 12390-8:2010) and volume of permeable voids (ASTM C642-13 [46]) of concrete specimens of concern were identified after 28 days of moist curing period on cubic specimens of 15 cm in order to determine the durability properties of concretes over time.

2.2.4. Leaching characteristics of concrete specimens The leachability potentials of control concrete and concretes showing optimum RMC performance were evaluated according to limit values stated in ‘‘ADDDY-Appendix 2: The acceptance criteria of the landfilling of waste” limit values [31].

2.2.5. Mineralogical and micro-structural properties of concrete specimens For the determination of mineralogical and micro-structural properties, concrete specimens were cured in water during 28 days and dried in oven at 105 °C for 24 h. Qualitative phasemineralogical analysis of the concrete samples were performed by Shimadzu XRD-2 6000 model XRD Diffractometer, using Cu ka radiation (k = 1.5405 Å). Chemical compositions of the concrete samples were identified by Philips PW-2404 XRF. Micro-structural properties of concrete specimens were scanned via JEOL 6335F Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM). In addition, semi-quantitative micro-analytical characteristics were determined chemically by using Oxford Instruments Electron Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS).

697

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Fresh concrete characteristics Fresh concrete properties are given in Table 6. There are no remarkable differences in fresh concrete properties between control concrete and concretes having composite DMs. However, unit weights of concrete mixtures decreased slightly with the increase in substitution ratio of composite DMs. This result stems from lower specific gravity of untreated and treated DMs compared to silica sand. Fine particles (clay, silt, impurities etc.) available especially in untreated DMs can decrease the fluidity of fresh concrete and increase the water requirement [47]; thus, increase in substitution ratio of DMs can cause an increase in the w/c ratio of concrete specimens. According to Table 6, untreated DMs had higher percentages of Illite and Feldspar minerals compared to the treated DMs. Similarly, COMP-U was composed of higher percentages of Illite and Feldspar minerals, totally. In general, aggregate containing these kinds of minerals attributed to presence of clay and silt leading to increase in water requirement; thus, w/c ratio for concrete [45]. It is clear that w/c ratio of the concretes produced using COMP-U was higher than that of concretes produced employing COMP-T. On the other hand setting times of concretes with COMP-U were higher than the setting times of concretes including COMP-T and control concrete, that’s why chlorides exist in COMPU samples retard the time of set [45]. Besides, fine particles (clay, silt) found in untreated and/or treated DMs prevent adherence by reacting with cement; thus, causing a delay in cement hydration and setting time [48]. It is obvious that the ratios of DMs and setting times were inversely related with each other. 3.2. Hardened characteristics of concretes 3.2.1. Mechanical characteristics of concretes 3.2.1.1. Compressive strength and elasticity modulus. Compressive strength test results of 3, 7, and 28 days cured concretes are given in Fig. 2 with standard deviations. Control concrete had the highest compressive strength (38.05 MPa) at all ages and the compressive strength values of entire concrete specimens were increased with curing period, as expected. Moreover, the addition of COMP-U in

Fig. 2. Compressive strength values of concrete specimens.

698

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

place of silica sand caused to reduction in compressive strengths of concretes (except RMC-1 and RMC-2) because of the existence of fine particles in COMP-U (thus increasing w/c ratio). However, introducing COMP-T as partial replacement of silica sand do not cause any significant change in compressive strength values of concrete specimens (due to similar w/c ratio). The results also demonstrated that all the concretes except RMC-4 satisfied the required 30 MPa compressive strength at 28 days of curing for C25/30 class RMC for this study and the results are also consistent with Limeira et al. [26] and Singh et al. [49]. Therefore, RMC-2 and RMC-8 concrete specimens prepared by 50% COMP-U and 100% COMP-T are the mix proportions which get the minimum requirement with the higher percentage of DM material. Modulus of elasticity for concrete specimens were calculated via empirical formula according to TS 500:2000 presented below:

qffiffiffiffiffiffiffi Ecj ¼ 3; 250 f ckj þ 14; 000 MPa Ecj states modulus of elasticity of the concrete specimens, and fckj indicates compressive strengths. Modulus of elasticity test results for all concrete specimens at all ages are given in Table 7 Table 7 Modulus of elasticity results of concrete specimens according to the curing periods. Specimens

COMP-U%

RMC-0 RMC-1 RMC-2 RMC-3 RMC-4

0 25 50 75 100

Modulus of elasticity, (GPa) 3 days

7 days

28 days

27.8 27.7 26.9 26.8 26.4

31.6 31.1 30.2 29.6 29.2

33.8 33.4 32.2 31.9 31.5

(1.2) (1.6) (1.7) (1.6) (1.4)

(1.1) (1.0) (1.1) (0.9) (1.3)

(0.8) (1.5) (1.4) (1.5) (1.7)

Specimens

COMP-T%

3 days

7 days

28 days

RMC-5 RMC-6 RMC-7 RMC-8

25 50 75 100

27.6 27.3 27.0 26.7

31.2 30.5 30.0 29.6

33.8 33.6 33.5 33.1

(1.3) (1.8) (1.3) (1.7)

(0.9) (1.6) (0.9) (1.7)

(1.1) (1.5) (0.8) (1.1)

with standard deviations within parenthesis. It is obvious that the modulus of elasticity depends more on coarse aggregates than the fine aggregates [50,51]; however, elasticity modulus values of concrete specimens showed similar behaviour with compressive strengths although same ratios of coarse aggregates were used in all specimens. Concretes including angular aggregates tend to have a higher elastic modulus than those having more irregular shapes [52]. This irregularity in particle shapes for the untreated DM samples rather than silica sand can be clearly seen in Fig. 3. Decrease in elasticity modulus is proportional to the COMP-U and COMP-T replacement ratio. Similar elasticity modulus results were obtained by [23,26]. 3.2.1.2. Tensile splitting strength. Behaviour of concretes in terms of tensile splitting strengths and compressive strengths are related to each other [47]. Tensile splitting strengths had a tendency to decrease with the increase of DMs content (and increase of w/c ratio) in both COMP-U and COMP-T containing concretes compared to conventional concrete at 28 days. Fig. 4 illustrates the tensile splitting strength test results for all concrete specimens. Identical tensile splitting strength results were demonstrated by Limeira et al. [23] in their research. 3.2.2. Physical characteristics of concretes 3.2.2.1. Density. Densities of 28-day cured concretes obtained by all substitution rates achieved the range (2000–2600 kg/m3) required for normal RMC. However, increase in composite DM quantities caused to reduction in concrete densities due to higher finer particle contents of the composite DMs. Some geometrical properties such as grading size distribution, fines content, relative specific surface are related with the water requirement of concrete specimens (thus w/c ratio in order to obtain the same slump value) which also influence the density of the specimens [53,54]. Densities of concretes having 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% COMP-U as substitution of silica sand are 2297; 2275; 2270; 2265 and

Fig. 3. SEM images of silica sand and untreated DM samples.

Fig. 4. Tensile splitting strength values of concrete specimens.

699

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

Fig. 5. Effect of COMP-U and COMP-T on water absorption ratio.

2257 kg/m3; while for concretes having COMP-T in the same compositions are 2297; 2293; 2287; 2283 and 2277 kg/m3. 3.2.2.2. Water absorption. According to TS 2824 EN 1338/AC: 2009, water absorption ratio of concrete paving block on the ground floor should be 66% by weight; thus, RMC products can also be evaluated by considering this limit [47]. The water absorption ratio test results of 28-day cured concretes given in Fig. 5 indicated that increase in DMs content in concrete mixtures led to higher water absorption ratio compared to control one (RMC-0). This result was compatible with the aggregate test results of COMP-U and Table 8 Durability properties of concrete specimens. Concrete

Volume of permeable voids (%)

Water penetration depth (cm)

RMC-0 RMC-2 RMC-8

9.56 12.05 10.87

2.5 4.2 3.4

COMP-T which had higher water absorption ratios compared to silica sand. Furthermore, the variation of grading distribution has an influence on the porosity and water absorption as well as the high w/c ratio of the specimens RMC-3 and RMC-4 as stated for compressive strength. On the other hand, water absorption ratios for all concrete specimens except RMC-3 and RMC-4 satisfied the criteria (6%) given in the related standard above. Hence, it can be concluded that the concretes of RMC-2 and RMC-8 are the mix proportions which get the minimum requirement with their percentage of DM material.

3.2.3. Durability characteristics of concretes Durability properties for concrete specimens of RMC-0 (control), RMC-2 and RMC-8 are illustrated in Table 8 in terms of volume of permeable voids (%) and water penetration depth under pressure (cm). The results at the age of 90 days indicate that the concrete RMC-2 had the highest volume of permeable voids and water penetration depth under pressure while RMC-0 reached the lowest volume of permeable voids and water penetrability.

Table 9 Leachabilities of concrete specimens (Control mix, RMC-2 and RMC-8). Parameters

Control mix

RMC-2

RMC-8

Inert Waste Class III

Nonhazardous Waste Class II

Hazardous Waste Class I

Leachate (L/S = 10 L/kg) As (mg/l) Ba (mg/l) Cd (mg/l) Cr (mg/l) Cu (mg/l) Hg (mg/l) Mo (mg/l) Ni (mg/l) Pb (mg/l) Sb (mg/l) Se (lg/l) Zn (mg/l) Cl (mg/l) F (mg/l) SO2 4 (mg/l) DOC (mg/l) TDS (mg/l) Phenol (mg/l)

<0.0005 0.00251 <0.05 0.0408 0.007 <0.00013 <0.0005 0.0011 0.001 <0.0002 <0.001 <0.005 1.33 0.23 7.54 5.31 <14.3 <0.07

<0.0005 0.217 <0.05 0.0438 0.006 <0.00013 <0.0005 0.001 0.0007 0.00035 <0.001 0.008 10.34 0.26 6.76 5.5 <14.3 <0.07

0.00096 0.543 0.06 0.0415 0.0107 <0.00013 <0.0005 0.00194 0.0014 0.00042 0.0011 0.01095 0.74 0.30 4.78 10.9 <14.3 <0.07

0.05 2 4 0.05 0.2 0.001 0.05 0.04 0.05 0.006 0.01 0.4 80 1 100 50 400 0.1

0.2 10 100 1 5 0.02 1 1 1 0.07 0.05 5 1500 15 2000 80 6000 –

2.5 30 500 7 10 0.2 3 4 5 0.5 0.7 20 2500 50 5000 100 10,000 –

Solid matrix TOC (mg/kg) BTEX (mg/kg) PCBs (mg/kg) Hydrocarbons (mg/kg) LOI (%)

21,566 <0.1 <0.5 <65 3.28

13,168 <0.1 <0.5 <65 2.77

<1884 <0.1 <0.5 <65 <2.3

30,000 (3%) 6 1 500 –

50,000 (5%) – – – –

60,000 (6%) – – – 100,000 (10%)

700

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

With increasing w/c ratio, water permeability and permeable voids volume increase. The results are also in agreement with Kim et al. [55]. 3.3. Environmental effects The leachabilities of the solidified specimens are presented in Table 9. Analysis results indicated that all concentration values for concrete specimens were under the Class III limits (Inert waste) Table 10 Chemical compositions of concrete specimens (Control mix, RMC-2 and RMC-8).

Fig. 6. XRD patterns of (a) Control mix, (b) RMC-2, (c) RMC-8.

Constituent

Control mix (%)

RMC-2 (%)

RMC-8 (%)

Na2O MgO Al2O3 SiO2 P2O5 SO3 Cl K2O CaO TiO2 MnO2 Fe2O3 SrO ZrO2

ND 2.951 4.665 13.988 0.258 1.510 0.047 0.731 75.259 0.285 0.170 0.012 0.115 0.007

0.198 3.095 5.714 16.768 0.264 1.437 0.094 0.915 67.752 0.309 0.161 3.184 0.099 0.009

ND 9.598 5.517 17.563 0.091 1.037 ND 0.779 62.171 0.308 0.256 2.605 0.074 ND

Fig. 7. SEM images/EDS spectra of Control (RMC-0) concrete

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

according to the ADDDY-Appendix 2; thus, it is observed that the produced concrete materials do not have any potential risk for the environment. 3.4. Mineralogical and micro-structural assessment XRD patterns of concrete specimens; i.e. RMC-0 (Control mix), RMC-2, and RMC-8 demonstrated in Fig. 6 showed the existence of various minerals, such as the normal concrete components (Quartz, Calcite, Dolomite, Illite), mineral binder (Gypsum), and Ankerite (for RMC-2 and RMC-8). Calcite (CaCO3) was dominant mineral in all concretes, followed by Quartz (SiO2), Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) and Illite ((K,H3O)Al2Si3AlO10(OH)2). It is seen that mineralogical compositions of RMC-0 and RMC-2 are more similar rather than RMC-8 in a qualitative aspect. This is probably due to the lower substitution ratio of composite DM sample exist in RMC-2 structure than those of RMC-8. However, there is a small difference between XRD patterns of RMC-0 concrete and concretes having composite DM samples in terms of Ankerite peak. It is thought that Ankerite ((Ca(Fe,Mg,Mn)CO3)2) mineral almost results from composite DM sample, which has more intense peak in RMC8 rather than RMC-2 because of replacement rate. Besides, it is clear that the formation of Ankerite caused an increase in MgO

701

and Fe2O3 levels of RMC-2 and RMC-8 [56]. Additional Dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) peaks found in XRD pattern of RMC-8 concrete is also in agreement with the chemical composition of RMC-8 (higher levels of MgO in the XRF analysis were observed in RMC-8 than RMC-2). On the other hand, Calcite (CaCO3) peak intensities are inversely related with the chemical compositions of RMC-2 and RMC-8 in terms of CaO although COMP-T has higher CaO ratios than COMP-U observed by XRF analysis. Besides, the sharp peaks in XRD patterns indicate the crystalline nature of minerals found in concretes. Chemical compositions of the concrete specimens obtained by XRF technique are also illustrated in Table 10. It is observed that chemical compositions of RMC-0 and RMC-2 are also more similar rather than RMC-8 (since replacement ratio is lower in RMC-2). SEM photographs of concrete specimens (RMC-0, RMC-2 and RMC-8) with EDS spectra collected at three different locations for each concrete specimen are shown in Figs. 7–9, respectively. SEM images/EDS spectra of RMC-0, RMC-2 and RMC-8 confirmed the mineralogical compositions of these concretes obtained by XRD. Considering the qualitative, quantitative and morphological test results of control mix (RMC-0), RMC-2 and RMC-8, it is observed that no substantial differences were determined between concrete specimens.

Fig. 8. SEM images/EDS spectra of RMC-2 concrete.

702

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

Fig. 9. SEM images/EDS spectra of RMC-8 concrete.

4. Conclusion The following conclusions are stated from this study:
DMs can be identified as ‘‘nonhazardous waste” and categorized as 17 05 06 (dredging spoil instead of 17 05 05).
According to ‘‘ADDDY-Appendix 2: The acceptance criteria of the landfilling of waste”, the leaching test results of Cl, SO2 4 , TDS, Cr and Sb of DM samples were identified above the limits of Class III (Inert waste) landfilling criteria.
DMs have low contents of heavy metals that do not cause any environmental risk.
Comparing the fresh/hardened concrete properties of individual untreated and treated DMs, it is seen that performances of concretes having treated DM-1 and DM-2 are much better than those of treated DM-3 and DM-4; same is valid for concretes including untreated DMs. Therefore, composite-DMs were prepared as follows: COMP-U (COMPT) having untreated (treated) DMs of 40% DM-1, 40% DM2, 10% DM-3 and 10% DM-4, that is, somewhat different than expected in order to reflect the Turkey’s grading size distribution by mixing all four DM samples in equal ratios by weight.
COMP-T having treated-composite-DMs showed almost similar aggregate properties as silica sand according to TS 706 EN 12620 + A1:2009 Standard.


The strength characteristics of the entire concrete specimens increased with age and it is observed that RMC-2 and RMC-8 prepared by 50% COMP-U and 100% are the mix proportions which get the minimum requirement with the higher percentage of DM material. Introducing untreated and treated DM into concrete mixtures caused a decrease in strength properties, elasticity modulus and density values and increase in w/c ratio, setting time and water absorption ratios.
It is observed that mechanical and physical performances of concretes containing COMP-T samples were much better than concretes having COMP-U in all replacement ratios. This result is also consistent with the research done by [57]. Therefore, untreated DM should be pre-treated to lessen Cl and SO2 4 contents and remove fine particles before being utilized in concrete mixture as a fine aggregate.
The higher w/c ratio, the higher water permeability and permeable voids volume when considering the durability properties of RMC-0, RMC-2 and RMC-8.
The leachabilities of the concrete specimens showed that the entire eluate concentrations of RMC-2 and RMC-8 were under the Class III limits (inert waste) according to the ADDDYAppendix 2.
It is seen that mineralogical and chemical compositions of RMC0 and RMC-2 are more similar rather than RMC-8, probably due to the lower substitution ratio of composite DM sample exist in RMC-2 than those of RMC-8.

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704


SEM images/EDS spectra of RMC-0, RMC-2 and RMC-8 confirmed the mineralogical compositions of these concretes obtained by XRD.
The outcomes of this study demonstrated that DM can be efficiently used as partial replacement of silica sand (fine aggregate) in the production of high quality RMC with no adverse mechanical, physical, environmental, mineralogical and microstructural impacts in case of pre-treatment; however, further investigation on additional durability tests should be assessed.
Furthermore, large-scale studies should be carried out for each DM sample separately (especially for DM-1 and DM-2 showing better performances in laboratory-scale studies) in order to observe whether DM affects the RMC production process as a fine aggregate. Besides, it should be remembered that DM from different ports/harbours can show various characteristics and supply of consistency in aggregate quality is so crucial in order to cover the request of RMC sector continuously.
On the other hand, untreated DMs require pre-treatment process to lessen the contents of Cl, SO2 4 and fines before being utilized as a fine aggregate in the production of RMC. The design and setup of mobile and/or permanent DM washing-sieving plants for Turkey should be assessed in the vicinities of harbours/ports where intensive dredging operations are carried out. Conflict of interest The authors have declared no conflict of interest. Acknowledgment _ This work is financially supported by the TÜBITAK 1007 Pro_ gramme [DIPTAR, Project No. 111G036]. The authors wish to thank Ministries of Environment and Urbanization, and Transport, Maritime Affairs and Communications, and Ayhanlar Beton A.S ß. for their supports. References [1] C. Sheehan, J. Harrington, Management of dredge material in the Republic of Ireland – a review, Waste Manage. 32 (2012) 1031–1044, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wasman.2011.11.014. [2] European Parliament and Council, Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on waste and repealing certain directives (Waste framework), LexUriServ. Do. (2008) 3–30. 2008/98/ EC.; 32008L0098. [3] L. Beach, P.R. Krause, A.E. Toxicologist, K.A. Mcdonnell, A. Geologist, H.L. Associates, The Beneficial Reuse of Dredged Material for Upland Disposal Prepared for, Harding Lawson Assoc., 2000. [4] V. Cappuyns, V. Deweirt, S. Rousseau, Dredged sediments as a resource for brick production: possibilities and barriers from a consumers’ perspective, Waste Manage. 38 (2015) 372–380, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wasman.2014. 12.025. [5] V. Dubois, N.E. Abriak, R. Zentar, G. Ballivy, The use of marine sediments as a pavement base material, Waste Manage. 29 (2009) 774–782, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.wasman.2008.05.004. [6] J.P. Murphy, J.D. Riordan, J. Harrington, C. Sheehan, Construction and demolition waste and dredge material as landfill liner in Ireland, Geophys. Res. Abstr. 10 (2008). EGU2008-A-11749, EGU General Assembly. [7] C. Sheehan, J. Harrington, J.D. Murphy, An environmental and economic assessment of topsoil production from dredge material, Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55 (2010) 209–220, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.resconrec.2010.09.011. [8] D.J. Yozzo, P. Wilber, R.J. Will, Beneficial use of dredged material for habitat creation, enhancement, and restoration in New York-New Jersey Harbor, J. Environ. Manage. 73 (2004) 39–52, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.jenvman.2004.05.008. [9] K. Reine, D. Clarke, G. Ray, C. Dickerson, Fishery resource utilization of a restored estuarine borrow pit: a beneficial use of dredged material case study, Mar. Pollut. Bull. 73 (2013) 115–128, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.marpolbul. 2013.05.031. [10] J. Limeira, M. Etxeberria, L. Agulló, D. Molina, Mechanical and durability properties of concrete made with dredged marine sand, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 4165–4174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.04.053.

703

[11] I. Said, A. Missaoui, Z. Lafhaj, Reuse of Tunisian marine sediments in paving blocks: factory scale experiment, J. Clean. Prod. 102 (2015) 66–77, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.04.138. [12] G. Kang, T. Tsuchida, A.M.R.G. Athapaththu, Engineering behavior of cementtreated marine dredged clay during early and later stages of curing, Eng. Geol. 209 (2016) 163–174, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enggeo.2016.05.008. [13] F. Kazi Aoual-Benslafa, D. Kerdal, B. Mekerta, A. Semcha, The use of dredged sediments as sand in the mortars for tunnel lining and for environmental protection, Arab. J. Sci. Eng. 39 (2014) 2483–2493, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/ s13369-013-0805-9. [14] W. Liu, H. Cui, Z. Dong, F. Xing, H. Zhang, T.Y. Lo, Carbonation of concrete made with dredged marine sand and its effect on chloride binding, Constr. Build. Mater. 120 (2016) 1–9, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.05.011. [15] S. Marmin, J. Dauvin, P. Lesueur, Ocean&coastal management collaborative approach for the management of harbour-dredged sediment in the Bay of Seine (France), Ocean Coast. Manage. 102 (2014) 328–339, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ocecoaman.2014.10.012. [16] M. Aziz, E. Ghorbel, M. Bibi, The possibility of using dredging sludge in manufacturing cements: optimization of heat treatment cycle and ratio replacement, Constr. Build. Mater. 106 (2016) 330–341, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.12.128. [17] S. Cantré, F. Saathoff, Investigation of dredged materials in combination with geosynthetics used in dike construction, Procedia Eng. 57 (2013) 213–221, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2013.04.030. [18] C. Mchergui, M. Aubert, B. Buatois, M. Akpa-Vinceslas, E. Langlois, C. Bertolone, et al., Use of dredged sediments for soil creation in the Seine estuary (France): importance of a soil functioning survey to assess the success of wetland restoration in floodplains, Ecol. Eng. 71 (2014) 628–638, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.ecoleng.2014.07.064. [19] Marine Dredging Applications and Environmental Management of Dredged _ _ Materials (DIPTAR), 4th Progress Report, Project No: 111G036, TÜBITAK KAMAG 1007 Project, April 2016, Gebze, Kocaeli, Turkey. [20] F. Peres, A. Kiniger, C. Lops, Dredged Sediments Management in Italy: Legal Aspects, IADC-International Association of Dredging Companies, Agosto, 2013 (Italien). [21] Anonymous, The Waste Management Regulation, Official Gazette no.: 29314, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Ankara, Turkey, 2015 (In Turkish). [22] C.-L. Hwang, L.A.-T. Bui, K.-L. Lin, C.-T. Lo, Manufacture and performance of lightweight aggregate from municipal solid waste incinerator fly ash and reservoir sediment for self-consolidating lightweight concrete, Cem. Concr. Compos. 34 (2012) 1159–1166, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp. 2012.07.004. [23] J. Limeira, L. Agulló, M. Etxeberria, Dredged marine sand as construction material, Eur. J. Environ. Civ. Eng. 16 (2012) 906–918, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1080/19648189.2012.676376. [24] B.E. Demiryürek, Ready-Mixed Concrete Sector in Turkey and Development in Sector (In Turkish) MSc Thesis, Istanbul Technical University, Istanbul, 2007. [25] ERMCO, Ready-mixed concrete industry statistics-Year 2013, (2014). [26] J. Limeira, L. Agullo, M. Etxeberria, Dredged marine sand in concrete: an experimental section of a harbor pavement, Constr. Build. Mater. 24 (2010) 863–870, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.12.011. [27] N. Junakova, J. Junak, M. Balintova, Reservoir sediment as a secondary raw material in concrete production, Clean Technol. Environ. Policy 17 (2015) 1161–1169, http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10098-015-0943-8. [28] H.-J. Chen, M.-D. Yang, C.-W. Tang, S.-Y. Wang, Producing synthetic lightweight aggregates from reservoir sediments, Constr. Build. Mater. 28 (2012) 387–394, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2011.08.051. [29] H. Kothe, P. De Boer, Dutch-German Exchange (DGE) on Dredged Material-Part 1: Dredged Material and Legislation, Technical Report, 2003. [30] S.T. Casper, Regulatory frameworks for sediment management, Sediment Manag. River Basin Scale, vol. 4 (2008) 55–81. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S1872-1990(08)80005-0. [31] Anonymous, The Regulation on the Landfilling of Waste, Official Gazette no.: 27533, Ministry of Environment and Urbanization, Ankara, Turkey, 2010 (In Turkish). [32] J.W. Lloyd, J.A. Heathcote, Natural Inorganic Hydrochemistry in Relation to Groundwater, Clarendon Press, Oxford, England, 1985. [33] E. Court, G. Bower, Environment Agency. Hazardous waste: Interpretation of the definition and classification of hazardous waste. Technical Guidance WM2, UK, 2011. http://www.aber.ac.uk/en/media/departmental/healthsafetyenvironment/haz_substances_wm2_2011.pdf. [34] A.K.H. Kwan, P.L. Ng, K.Y. Huen, Effects of fines content on packing density of fine aggregate in concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 61 (2014) 270–277, http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.03.022. [35] A. Tugrul, S. Hasdemir, M. Yilmaz, The effect of feldspar, mica and clay minerals on compressive strength of mortar, in: G. Lollino, A. Manconi, F. Guzzetti, M. Culshaw, P. Bobrowsky, F. Luino (Eds.), Engineering Geology for Society and Territory-vol. 5, 93–98, 2014. [36] W.P.S. Dias, G.A.P.S.N. Seneviratne, S.M.A. Nanayakkara, Offshore sand for reinforced concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 22 (2008) 1377–1384, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2007.04.006. [37] H. Yin, Y. Li, H. Lv, Q. Gao, Durability of sea-sand containing concrete: effects of chloride ion penetration, Min. Sci. Technol. 21 (2011) 123–127, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.mstc.2010.07.003. [38] D.-G. Kim, M.-S. Cho, J.-S. Lee, The effects of chloride on durability of concrete mixed with sea sand, US-China Ed. Rev. 3 (5) (2013) 325–331.

704

P. Ozer-Erdogan et al. / Construction and Building Materials 124 (2016) 690–704

[39] E. Rozière, A. Loukili, R. El Hachem, F. Grondin, Durability of concrete exposed to leaching and external sulphate attacks, Cem. Concr. Res. 39 (2009) 1188– 1198, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2009.07.021. [40] J. Prasad, D.K. Jain, A.K. Ahuja, Factors influencing the sulphate resistance of cement concrete and mortar, Asian J. Civ. Eng. (Building Housing) 7 (2006) 259–268. C. Dioxide. [41] B.M. Das, Geotechnical Engineering Handbook, J Ross Publishing, 2009. [42] ASTM C1260-14, Standard Test Method for Potential Alkali Reactivity of Aggregates (Mortar-Bar), ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2014. [43] B.R. Murlidhar, E.T. Mohamad, D.J. Armaghani, Potential alkali silica reactivity of various rock types in an aggregate granite quarry, Measurement 81 (2016) 221–231, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.measurement.2015.12.022. [44] M.R. Penacho, Paulo, Brito, Jorge de, Veiga, Physico-mechanical and performance characterization of mortars incorporrating waste aggregate, Cem. Concr. Compos. 50 (2014) 47–59. [45] S.H. Kosmatka, B. Kerkhoff, W.C. Panarese, Design and Control of Concrete Mixtures, 2003. doi: 2001007603. [46] ASTM C642-13, Standard Test Method for Density, Absorption, and Voids in Hardened Concrete, ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2013. [47] H.M. Basar, N. Deveci Aksoy, The effect of waste foundry sand (WFS) as partial replacement of sand on the mechanical, leaching and micro-structural characteristics of ready-mixed concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 35 (2012) 508–515, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2012.04.078. [48] H. Özbebek, H., Açık, Effect of methylene blue test and sand equivalance test _ results on concrete performance and concrete costwise (Ince agregalarda yapılan metilen mavisi ve kum esßdeg˘erlig˘i deney sonuçlarının beton özelliklerine ve maliyetine etkisi) In Turkish, (2012) 84–92. [49] S.B. Singh, P. Munjal, N. Thammishetti, Role of water/cement ratio on strength development of cement mortar, J. Build. Eng. 4 (2015) 94–100, http://dx.doi. org/10.1016/j.jobe.2015.09.003.

[50] H. Beshr, A. Almusallam, M. Maslehuddin, Effect of coarse aggregate quality on the mechanical properties of high strength concrete, Constr. Build. Mater. 17 (2003) 97–103, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0950-0618(02)00097-1. [51] F.P. Zhou, F.D. Lydon, B.I.G. Barr, W. College, C.F. Iyf, Effect of coarse aggregate on elastic modulus and compressive strength of high performance concrete, Cem. Concr. Res. 25 (1) (1995) 177–186. [52] C.G. Rocco, M. Elices, Effect of aggregate shape on the mechanical properties of a simple concrete, Eng. Fract. Mech. 76 (2009) 286–298, http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.engfracmech.2008.10.010. [53] V.G. Haach, G. Vasconcelos, P.B. Lourenço, Influence of aggregates grading and water/cement ratio in workability and hardened properties of mortars, Constr. Build. Mater. 25 (2011) 2980–2987, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat. 2010.11.011. [54] M. Westerholm, J. Silfwerbrand, E. Forssberg, Influence of fine aggregate characteristics on the rheological properties of mortars, Cem. Concr. Compos. 30 (2008) 274–282, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2007. 08.008. [55] Y. Kim, K. Lee, J. Bang, S. Kwon, Effect of w/c ratio on durability and porosity in cement mortar with constant cement amount, Adv. Mater. Sci. Eng. 2014 (2014), http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2014/273460. [56] R.N. Lieberman, Y. Anker, O. Font, X. Querol, Y. Mastai, Y. Knop, H. Cohen, Potential of hazardous waste encapsulation in concrete compound combination with coal ash and quarry fine additives, Environ. Sci. Technol. 49 (2015) 14146–14155, http://dx.doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.5b03858. [57] K. Millrath, S. Kozlova, S. Shimanovich, C. Meyer, Beneficial Use of Dredge Material, Progress Report, Columbia University, New York, 2001.