| Revisión | https://doi.org/10.21041/ra.v12i2.522 |
Marble residues in construction materials: a review of the use of marble powder in mortars, concrete, and bricks
Residuos de mármol en materiales para la construcción: una revisión del uso del polvo de mármol en morteros, concretos y ladrillos Resíduos de mármore em materiais de construção: uma revisão do uso do pó de mármore em argamassas, concreto e tijolos
Armando Nicolás
Moreno1
*
,
César
Ponce Palafox2
,
Elia Martha
Múzquiz-Ramos1
,
Felipe
Avalos Belmontes1
1 Facultad de Ciencias Químicas Unidad Saltillo, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Blvd. V. Carranza y José Cárdenas Valdés, C.P. 25280, Saltillo, México.
2 Escuela de Arquitectura Unidad Torreón, Universidad Autónoma de Coahuila, Carretera Torreón - Matamoros km. 7.5. Ejido El Águila. Ciudad Universitaria. C.P. 27087. Torreón, Coahuila, México.
*Contact author: nicolas.moreno@uadec.edu.mx
Reception: November 17, 2020.
Acceptance: April 19, 2022.
Publication: May 01, 2022.
| Cite as:Moreno, A., Ponce P., Múzquiz, E., Avalos, F., (2022), “Marble residues in construction materials: a review of the use of marble powder in mortars, concrete, and bricks”, Revista ALCONPAT, 12(2), pp. 162 –183, DOI: https://doi.org/10.21041/ra.v12i2.522 |
Abstract
The objective of this work is to make a review of the results carried out using marble powder as a substitute for cement, sand, or fine aggregate in concrete, mortar, and bricks. Research carried out in various parts of the world with different experimental procedures was reviewed. It is concluded that marble powder can be used as a partial substitute for cement or fine aggregate (up to 15%, depending on the material to be replaced) without affecting the compressive strength of the samples or pieces regardless of their shape. Therefore, marble powder not only helps to reduce the pollution it generates but also to reduce its use as sand and powder, contributing to sustainable development.
Keywords:
marble powder,
brick,
mortar,
concrete,
cement.
1. Introduction
The Marble is a metamorphic rock composed of carbonates. In commercial terms, the word marble does not have a petrological meaning sometimes, the term is applied to rocks such as tuff, serpentine, and granite, although it often refers to calcareous rocks such as recrystallized limestone, dolomite, marble, onyx, and travertine (Coordinación General de Minería, 2014).
According to data from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) in 2018, Mexico is one of the world's largest producers of various non-metallic minerals. In 2019, the Directorate General of Mines (DGM) reported an increase of 4,663 million pesos from 2017 to 2018 in the national production of non-metallic minerals, which represents an increase of 23.9% (Servicio Geológico Mexicano, 2019).
China, India, and other countries, including Mexico, are the leading producers of dimensional rock. Dimensional rock includes a wide variety of rocks, including granite, limestone, and marble.
The marble production process begins with the extraction of the rock by mechanical means (saws), breaking large blocks, which will later be divided into smaller sizes for sale. This process is known as lamination.
The lamination process consists of cutting the block of rock to obtain slabs of 2 to 3 cm thick and is performed using saws with diamond inlays; then, the obtained slab is subjected to polishing to roughen the rough parts of the rock and polishing by means of abrasives and water. Once the polishing is finished, the plates are subjected to cuts to be sized according to the client's needs. Similarly, to meet the client's requirements, the product is subjected to a process of beveling, drying, or waxing. Finally, the product is packaged and shipped for national or international commercialization. (Coordinación General de Minería, 2014).
One ton of marble stone processed by vertical and horizontal cutting for block production and lamination produces 35% to 45% spillage or slurry of unused materials (Singh, et al., 2017).
This waste slurry, especially after drying, causes environmental hazards such as dust contamination, which occupies agricultural land and other nearby areas, rendering them infertile. (Singh, et al., 2017). In 2017, the world production of marble was 2,352,614 tons. (Servicio Geológico Mexicano, 2019), so, 941,045 tons of waste were generated, considering 40% of the processed product.
Due to the great problem generated by marble powder (waste disposal, contamination by calcium oxide (CaO), which is absorbed by the soil, causing it to become infertile), scientific research has been carried out for its application in the construction sector, either as a substitute for cement in mortars or concrete or also as a block or brick manufacturing applicable to construction systems in various parts of the world.
This paper reviews the work done using marble powder as a substitute for cement, sand, or fine aggregate in concrete, mortar, and bricks, with the purpose of reporting the ways in which it can substitute cement or fine aggregate to manufacture non-structural bricks, among other contributions.
2. Marble powder as an input in the construction industry
This section evaluates the use of marble powder as an input in construction. An exhaustive review of published articles is conducted, and the results of each study on the application of marble powder in cement, mortar, concrete, and bricks are presented in a concise and detailed manner.
2.1 Marble powder as a partial cement substitute.
Marble powder has a high content of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), which can be added to Portland cement-based mortars and concretes to increase the service life, functioning as a pore filler. (Singh, et al., 2017).
Other authors, on the contrary, think that the partial substitution of CaCO3 produces chemical modifications, which result in changes in the mechanical and physical properties of the cement. (Tobón & Kazes Gómez, 2008).
Additions of between 3 and 5% of marble powder have been made to Portland cement pastes, and no changes in their mechanical behavior have been observed.
El-Sayed, Farag, Kandeel, Younes, and Yousef (2016) replaced 3, 4, and 5 wt% of the cement with marble powder, observing that, due to the high presence of calcium carbonate, it did not affect the properties of the cement. With the hardened cement pastes, compression tests were performed at ages of 1, 3, 7, 7, 14, and 28 days; it was observed that the strengths increased proportionally to the age of curing from 1 to 28 days, as shown in Figure 1.
| Figure 1. Compressive strength of hardened Portland cement pastes incorporating 3%(M3), 4% (M4), and 5%(M5) marble powder residues versus curing time. (El-Sayed, et al., 2016) | ||||
It was shown that the specimen with 5% (M5) of marble powder, at 28 days of curing, obtained the same compressive strength as the control specimen of ordinary Portland cement without additions.
The other samples of 3 and 4 % cement substitution by marble powder have a lower compressive strength compared to M5 and M0.
With this, the use of marble powder in the cement industry becomes feasible due to the economic and ecological benefits that the use of a waste product represents.
Singh et al. (2017) mention that marble powder has a high content of Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3), and this helps to increase the service life of cement-based pastes and concretes, while Tobon & Kazes Gome (2008) mention the opposite. El-Sayed, Farag, Kandeel, Younes, and Yousef (2016), show that substituting marble powder for cement in small quantities does not affect the compressive strength.
These studies show that the compressive strength of the specimens is not affected when a maximum of 5% of marble powder is replaced by cement. It is observed in the test result graphs that the increase in strength is similar in the specimens with and without marble powder.
2.2 Marble powder and its application in mortars.
Portland cement-based mortars are among the most widely used composite materials in the construction industry, and cement is the construction material that generates the most CO2 pollution to the environment in its manufacturing process. For this reason, researchers have carried out experimental studies by partially replacing cement with marble powder to reduce its use. Corinaldesi, Moriconi, and Naik (2010) replaced 10% of the cement with marble powder from a reference sample and, in a second option, replaced 10% of the fine aggregate of the mortar (sand), as shown in Table 1. From each mixture, 3 bars of 40 x 40 x 160 mm were manufactured, from which cubes of 40 mm per side were obtained to perform compression tests at 3, 7, 28, and 56 days of curing.
Table 1. Mortar proportions (Corinaldesi, et al., 2010)
Mix
Ref
10% Cement
10% Sand
A/C
0.61
0.68
0.59
Water (kg/m3)
275
276
266
Cement (kg/m3)
450
405
450
Sand (kg/m3)
1350
1350
1215
Marble powder (kg/m3)
0
45
135
The results obtained are shown in Figure 2. It can be observed that the mixture with 10% cement replaced by marble powder showed a reduction in compressive strength. However, the marble powder used as a replacement for 10% sand obtained higher strength than the mixture with the replacement of marble powder by cement.
| Figure 2. Compressive strength versus curing time for mortars with partial substitution of marble powder by cement and sand. (Corinaldesi, et al., 2010) | ||||
Li G. L. et al. (2019, propose the substitution with marble powder in two options for cement-based mortar. The first proposal is the partial substitution of cement in the mixture, without altering the water-cement ratio (w/c), and a second one in which a part of the cement and the water required for the manufacture of the mortar is replaced, changing the w/c ratio.
First, for each mortar mix, the volume of paste (volume of water, cement, expressed as a percentage of mortar volume) plus the volume of marble powder (expressed as a percentage of mortar volume) was set at 60%.
The marble powder was adjusted to 0, 5, 10, 10, 15, and 20 % and the respective paste volume was set to 60, 55, 50, 50, 45, and 40, to sum each of the mixes the 60 % set previously. The volume of fine aggregate was set at 40% of the total volume of the mortar (Figure 3). For the second proposal, the marble powder replaced 0, 5, 10, 10, 15, and 20% of the volume of cement, which was set at 100, 95, 90, 85, and 80%
It is important to emphasize that the volume of water in the mixture remains constant. (Figure 4). With each of the mixes, 3 cubes of 100 mm per side were made, and after 28 days of curing, compressive strength tests were carried out.
| Figure 3. Cement replacement method (Li, et al., 2019) | ||||
| Figure 4. Paste replacement method (Li, et al., 2019) | ||||
The tests showed that in the mortar with paste replacement (cement and water) with a w/c ratio of 0.40 and increasing the volume of marble powder from 0% to 20% increased the cube strength from 607.75 to 730.12 kg/cm², in the w/c ratio of 0.55 increased the compressive strength from 402.79 to 543.51 kg/cm².
In mortar mixes where only the cement was partially replaced with marble powder from 0 to 5% and with a w/c ratio of 0.40, the cube strength increased from 607.75 to 610.81 kg/cm², and increasing the volume of marble powder from 0% to 20% showed a decrease in compressive strength from 607.5 to 488.44 kg/cm².
In the same case, but with a w/c ratio of 0.55, and replacing 0 to 10% of the cement with marble powder, the strength increased from 402.79 to 411.97 kg/cm², and with the replacement of 0% to 20% the cube strength decreased from 402.79 to 344.66 kg/cm². In the work done by Yamanel et al. (2019), they made mortars replacing 0, 5, 10, 10, 15, and 20 % of cement with marble powder and manufactured 40 x 40 x 160 mm prisms, cured for 28 days, before performing mechanical and durability tests on the samples (Table 2).
| Table 1. Mortar. Mix proportions. (Yamanel, et al., 2019) | ||||||||||||||
| Sample | Cement g | Marble powder g | Sand g | Water g | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M-0 | 450 | 0 | 1350 | 225 | ||||||||||
| M-5 | 427.5 | 22.5 | 1350 | 225 | ||||||||||
| M-10 | 405 | 45 | 1350 | 225 | ||||||||||
| M-15 | 382.5 | 67.5 | 1350 | 225 | ||||||||||
| M-20 | 360 | 90 | 1350 | 225 | ||||||||||
At 28 days of curing, the compressive strength of the affected mixes at 5, 10, 15, and 20% is lower than that of the mix without cement substitution.
At 90 days of curing, the mix with a 5% replacement of marble powder to cement increased the compressive strength even more than the mix without marble powder (Figure 5).
| Figure 5. Compressive strength of mortars. (Yamanel, et al., 2019) | ||||
Toubal Seghir, N., et al. (2019) manufactured mortars with 3:1 sand-cement ratios and replaced at levels of 0%, 5%, 10%, and 15% of the weight of cement in the mortar with marble powder. A water/cement ratio of 0.5 (constant) was maintained. Compressive strength tests were performed with 50 mm cubes of the manufactured mortars, and were tested at 3, 7, 28, and 65 days. The samples were cured in open air, this study gave the following results: All samples up to 15% substitution obtained a lower compressive strength than the sample without marble powder; this decrease is attributed to the lack of curing, which caused voids and cracks within the samples, as well as a reduction in density of the samples.
Corinaldesi, Moriconi and Naik (2010) show that substituting marble powder for cement affects the compressive strength, and when marble powder is substituted for sand, it is not affected. Li G. L.et all (2010) show that increasing the substitution of marble powder for cement decreases the compressive strength and when the substitution is less, the strength is maintained or increased. Toubal Seghir, N et al. (2019) shows that to have good results in compressive strength, it is necessary to have a good curing of the specimens.
When marble powder is replaced by cement in mortars, in most cases, there is a decrease in compressive strength, especially at water/cement ratios lower than 0.5. When the water/cement ratio increases, the compressive strength of the samples also increases. Another important factor in the strength of the samples is curing; it is mentioned that when the samples are not cured, the strength at early ages is low.
2.3 Concrete with marble powder.
2.3.1 Marble powder as a partial substitute for fine aggregate in concrete.
The application of marble powder in concrete has also been sought, either as a partial substitute for cement or as a fine aggregate, without impairing compressive strength.
In 2010, Santos, Villegas, and Betancourt proposed the partial substitution of fine aggregate in concrete and the use of marble powder.
The proposal they made was the partial replacement of sand by marble powder in a 10 in 10 range, from 0-80 %, keeping fixed the w/c ratio, the weight of cement, and the weight of coarse aggregate, as shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Concrete dosages (Santos, et al., 2012)
Material
Control
M10
M20
M30
M40
M50
M60
M70
M80
Sand
kg/m3
793
714
634
555
476
397
317
238
159
Marble powder
kg/m3
0
79
159
238
317
397
476
555
634
Gravel
kg/m3
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
1044
Water
kg/m3
228
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
Cement
kg/m3
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
325
a/c
kg/m3
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
0.7
From the compressive strength tests applied to the above dosages at 7 and 28 days of curing, the following results were obtained and are shown in Figure 6.
Figure 6.
Compressive strength results from concretes with marble powder. (Santos, et al., 2012)
As the percentage of sand substitution by marble powder increases, the compressive strength decreases. Such loss of strength is like the percentage of marble powder, i.e., the M40 dosage has 40% less compressive strength compared to the control (Santos et al., 2012).
Hebnoub H. et al. (2011) partially substituted in proportions of 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% marble powder for the fine aggregate; manufactured concrete cylinders and were cured and tested according to European Union (EU) standards. The samples were tested at 2, 14, 28, and 90 days of curing to determine their compressive strength. The results found by the authors reflected that the compressive strength at the 25, 5,0, and 75% substitution rates offered higher strength than the control sample; the 100% substitution at ages 14 and 28 days presented lower strength than the sample without marble powder, but at the age of 90 days, the strength practically equaled the original sample.
Rahangdale, S. & Qureshi, S. (2018) conducted a study comparing the properties of a traditional concrete with one made with supplementary materials (fly ash for cement; stone and marble powder in partial replacement of fine aggregate).
Fourteen samples were manufactured, in the first three samples (1, 2, and 3), 35% of cement was replaced by fly ash, and 30% of the fine aggregate was replaced by stone and marble powder, in quantities of 20% - 10%, 15% - 15% and 10% - 20% respectively; the compressive strengths were lower than those recorded for the control concrete sample (35.58 N/mm²) varying at 28 days the strengths of 28.05, 28.87 and 30.35 N/mm².
In samples 4, 5, and 6, the amount of fly ash was maintained, but the amounts of stone and marble powder was increased to 40% as follows: 30-10%, 20-20%, 10-30%, obtaining the following strengths at 28 days: 27.25, 25.65 and 26.65 N/mm². From these results, it can be observed that the decrease shown in the compressive strength of series 1, 2 and 3 is maintained.
In samples 7, 8, and 9, the fly ash was reduced to 25%, and the substitution of fine aggregates in the same amount as in samples 1, 2, and 3 returned to 30%; the strengths recorded were 29.75, 32.04, and 35.45 N/mm², being higher than the previous ones but still below the original sample. In the following three samples (10, 11 and 12) the fly ash is maintained, at 25% and the percentage of substitution of the fine aggregate changes to 40% as in samples, 4, 5 and 6, the results obtained were 30.29, 31.54 and 29.87 N/mm², and once again it is observed that the compressive strengths decrease.
In sample 13, the fly ash was considered in a percentage of 22.5%, and in the fine aggregate 30% (10% marble stone and 20% marble powder). At 28 days, the compressive strength recorded was 35.49 N/mm², which is the highest of the samples analyzed, practically equal to the compressive strength of the control sample.
In the last sample (14), the fly ash replaced 20% of the cement, and in the 30% fine aggregate (10% marble stone and 20% marble powder) at 28 days, the registered resistance was 38.87 N/mm, increasing the compressive strength by 0.75%, being practically the same resistance as the reference sample.
Thus, with the dosages of sample 14, the use of cement is minimized; therefore, the authors recommend the use of supplementary materials to solve environmental problems and advance the sustainability of the development of the construction industry.
Verma, M., Kaushal, N. & Sharma, A. (2019) substituted fine aggregate in the manufacture of concrete in proportions of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25% and 30% by marble powder, and performed compression tests at 7 and 28 days of age. The results obtained in the sample without modifications were 19.10 and 24.73 N/mm² at 7 and 28 days, respectively.
In the 5% sample, an increase of 20.36 and 27.40 N/mm² was observed in 7 and 28 days, respectively. Similarly, in the 10% sample, an increase in resistance of 20.51 and 29.92 N/mm² was observed in 7 and 28 days, respectively.
From the samples with 15% to 30%, the compressive strengths showed a decrease with respect to
the original sample with decreases at 7 days from 15.85 to 12.14 N/mm² and at 28 days from 24.44 to 18.07 N/mm², so it is determined that a partial substitution of the fine aggregate by up to 10% of marble powder generates a higher compressive strength.
In Giza, Egypt, Mostafa Shaaban (2020) carried out a study where he substituted in shotcrete percentages of 5, 10, 15, 15, 20, 25 and up to 30% of sand partially with marble powder. At seven days of age the samples tested for compressive strength with the partial substitution of 5% obtained a lower value than the sample without marble powder.
Samples from 10% presented an increase in compressive strength at 28 days of age (from 5% to 30%), due to the fineness of the marble powder that performs a filling effect in the concrete. It was also determined that the adhesion of the shotcrete increases proportionally to the greater substitution of marble powder for sand.
Ince, C. et al. (2020) used marble powder in pozzolanic concrete; the concrete was prepared with 20% silica fume replacing cement, and marble powder in fine aggregate replacement proportions of 10% and 20%, 15 cm diameter cylinders with a height of 30 cm were manufactured. The study lasted 1 year, and all the samples were cured under water. The compressive strength results show that the substitution of 20% silica fume increased the long-term compressive strength, this increase in strength is attributed to the pozzolanic activity of silica fume. As for the substitution of marble powder in the fine aggregate, the 20% substitution presents a slight decrease in compressive strength than that shown by the 10% substitution compared to the control sample without substitution. Both the 10% and 20% samples show an increase in compressive strength.
Santos, Villegas, and Betancourt (2010) and Rahangdale, S. & Qureshi, S. (2018) found that the higher the amount of marble powder the lower the compressive strength. Hebnoub, H., et al. (2011) and Verma, M., Kaushal, N. & Sharma, A. (2019) show that more marble powder can be substituted without affecting the strength. Ince, C., et al. (2020) results show that the substitution of marble powder up to 20% in pozzolanic concrete can have an increase in compressive strength.
According to the authors of this section, it is mentioned that substituting marble powder for fine
aggregate up to 10% does not affect the compressive strength since it does not increase or decrease when the substitution of marble powder for fine aggregate in concrete is increased. If the strength was to decrease considerably, it could be attributed to the fact that the marble powder up to 10% helps to cover pores that the fine aggregate can not do, and when it is greater than 10%, there is a lack of aggregate to help give strength to the concrete.
2.3.2 Marble powder as a partial substitute for cement in concrete.
High performance concretes have also been tested, in a study by Talah, Kharchi, and Chaid (2015). They developed two study mixes, the first as reference concrete (RC) and a second high performance concrete mix with marble powder (HPCMP) to which 15% of cement was replaced by marble powder. The dosages used are shown in Table 4.
| Table 4. Mix proportions and properties of concrete. (Talah, et al., 2015) | ||||||||||||||
| Mix | Ratio a/c | Cement kg/m3 | Marble powder kg/m3 | Water kg/m3 | Sand kg/m3 | Gravel 3/8 kg/m3 | Gravel 8/16 kg/m3 | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RC | 0.5 | 400 | 0 | 200 | 788 | 163 | 886 | |||||||
| HPCMP | 0.5 | 340 | 60 | 200 | 788 | 163 | 886 | |||||||
The compressive strengths of each mix were evaluated on 160 x 320 mm cylinders at 7, 28, 90, 180, and 365 days of age. All samples were compacted using a vibrating table after demolding, the samples were divided into two equal groups and cured in the following conditions: in the first curing condition, the samples were immersed in water until the test age, while, in the second curing condition, they were immersed in aggressive water (5% CaCl2 ) until the test age.
Figure 7 shows the compressive strength results of the mixes, according to the curing condition and age of the concrete.
Figure 7.
Evolution of compressive strength at different ages. (Talah, et al., 2015)
The result indicates that there was a systematic gain in compressive strength with marble powder content. It was observed that the ratio between the compressive strength of specimens subjected to water curing and those cured under aggressive conditions the reference concrete deviated up to 29%. However, this ratio for concretes containing marble powder is within a range of 3%, depending mainly on the marble powder content and test age. This implies that reference concretes are more sensitive to aggressive media than concrete with marble powder. (Talah et al., 2015).
In 2017 Singh, Srivastava, and Bhunia, performed tests on concretes by substituting 0, 10, 15, 15, 20, and 25% of the cement with marble powder, also experimenting with 3 w/c ratios 0.35, 0.4, and 0.45. The dosage of the concretes is shown in Table 5.
Ghorbani S. et al. (2018) proportionally replaced Portland cement type II with 0%, 5%, 10%, and 20% of marble powder, granite powder, or combination of both. The samples were subjected to curing and analyzed at 7 and 28 days of age. In the samples with marble powder and granite powder as a partial cement substitute, the compressive strength was not significantly affected, both at 7 days and 28 days. In the samples where only marble powder was substituted, the samples with 5 to 15% substitution showed an improvement in compressive strength, but not the 20% substitution, which showed a decrease in compressive strength of 0.94 and 0.96 times in both the marble powder and granite powder mixtures; in the samples where granite powder was substituted for cement, the 10% sample offered a higher strength between the ranges of 1.14 and 1.09 times of the sample without any substitution. The authors determined that the increase in compressive strength presented in this study is due to the improvement in the density of the samples due to the filling of their pores. Finally, as the age of curing increases, the loss of compressive strength decreases.
Mostafa Shaaban (2020) partially substituted cement for marble powder in the mix for the manufacture of shotcrete, in proportions of 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, up to 30%. The results obtained reported that the use of marble powder in any of the substitution proportions presented a decrease in compressive strength; in the samples with 5% substitution at early ages (7 days) presented a decrease in compressive strength of 5.4% in relation to the original sample, and at 28 days, a decrease that reached 23.4% in the samples with 30% marble powder substitution.
Babouri L. et al. (2020) used marble powder as a partial substitute for ordinary portland cement in the manufacture of concrete; the substitution percentages used were 5%, 10%, 15%, and 20%, and performed compressive strength tests at 2, 7, 14, and 28 days cured.
The samples with 5%, 10%, and 15% presented lower compressive strength results than the original sample without marble powder, but the sample with 5% marble powder, from day 2 to day 28 of the last test, showed an increase in strength, this increase in compressive strength is attributed to the fact that the marble powder reduces porosity, which is reflected in a sample with fewer voids, and, therefore, more resistant.
Table 5. Concrete mix proportions (Singh, Srivastava y Bhunia, 2017)
Ratio a/c
Mix
Cement kg/m3
Marble powder %
Marble powder kg/m3
Coarse aggregate kg/m3
Fine aggregate kg/m3
Water kg/m3
0.35
Control
422
0
0
1278
689
148
M10
379.8
10
42.2
1278
689
148
M15
358.7
15
63.3
1278
689
148
M20
337.6
20
84.4
1278
689
148
M25
316.5
25
105.5
1278
689
148
0.4
Control
394
0
0
1257.2
707.2
158
M10
354.6
10
39.4
1257.2
707.2
158
M15
334.9
15
59.1
1257.2
707.2
158
M20
315.2
20
78.8
1257.2
707.2
158
M25
295.5
25
98.5
1257.2
707.2
158
0.45
Control
351
0
0
1183
858
158
M10
315.9
10
35.1
1183
858
158
M15
298.35
15
52.65
1183
858
158
M20
280.8
20
70.2
1183
858
158
M25
263.25
25
87.75
1183
858
158
The results of the compressive strength tests show an increase in strength in the mixes with 10% and 15% replacement with marble powder. This increase can be attributed to the fact that the marble powder helps to form denser mixes with less porosity. The mixes with 20 and 25% replacement percentages show a decrease in compressive strength, possibly due to the lack of cementitious material in the concrete.
The samples with a w/c ratio of 0.35 showed an increase in strength in the sample with 15% replacement (Figure 8). Similarly, at the same percentage of replacement but at the w/c ratio of 0.40, there is also an increase in compressive strength (Figure 9).
For the w/c ratio of 0.45, the compressive strength decreased compared to w/c ratios of 0.35 and 0.40 (Figure 10).
Figure 8.
Compressive strength of concrete specimens with w/c ratio 0.35.
Figure 9.
Compressive strength of concrete specimens with w/c ratio 0.40.
Figure 10.
Compressive strength of concrete samples with w/c ratio 0.45.
Another research experimented with replacement of cement with marble waste at 0, 5, 10, and 20% and determined that the use of marble powder in concrete in the range of 10-15% increases the compressive strength. (Khodabakhshian, et al., 2018).
Wang, Y. et al. (2022) manufactured concrete by replacing cement with marble powder in proportions of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, and 25%, in samples of 150 mm cubes, performing compressive strength tests at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days of age, obtaining the following results: the control sample presented strengths of 23.8, 29.8, 33.1 and 35.0 MPa at 3, 7, 14 and 28 days respectively, the 5% samples at 3 days obtained a lower compressive strength than the original sample, the sample with 10% marble powder from 3 to 14 days, as well as the 5% sample, had a lower strength, but at 28 days it was 35.4 MPa, increasing by 1.14% with respect to the original sample. The other substitutions (15%, 20%, and 25%) showed up to 21.14% (28 days) lower compressive strength than the sample without marble powder.
Talah, Kharchi, and Chaid (2015) found that one can substitute marble powder for cement and have a gain in compressive strength if one has vibration to remove air in the fabrication of specimens. Ghorbani, S. et al. (2018), Mostafa Shaaban (2020), Babouri, L., et al., (Khodabakhshian, et al., 2018), and Wang, Y., et al. (2022) found that the range of substitution of marble powder for cement so that the compressive strength is not affected is 0 to 10 %.
From this section, it can be concluded that up to 10% of marble powder can be substituted for cement so that the compressive strength of the concrete is not affected. According to the test results, the compressive strength is affected when the marble powder substitution is greater than 10%.
2.4 Marble powder, concrete, mortar, and superplasticizers
Water-reducing additives (plasticizers) and high-range water-reducing additives (superplasticizers) contribute to increase durability and provide a reduction in the amount of water of at least 5%, decreasing the w/c ratio, and superplasticizers, at least 12%, and up to 40%.
Corinaldesi, Moriconi, and Naik (2010), in a reference sample, substituted 10% cement with marble powder and, in a second option, substituted 10% sand; in addition, an acrylic-based superplasticizer additive was added at a proportion of 0.5% of the weight of the cement, as shown in Table 6.
Three cubes obtained from 40 x 40 x 160 mm bars of each mixture were manufactured for compression tests at 3, 7, 28, and 56 days of curing.
| Table 6. Proportions of mortar with superplasticizer. | ||||||||||||||
| Mix | Ref | 10% Cement | 10% Sand | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A/C | 0.48 | 0.49 | 0.53 | |||||||||||
| Water (kg/m3) | 220 | 200 | 240 | |||||||||||
| Cement (kg/m3) | 450 | 405 | 450 | |||||||||||
| Sand (kg/m3) | 1350 | 1350 | 1215 | |||||||||||
| Marble powder (kg/m3) | 0 | 45 | 135 | |||||||||||
| Superplasticizer additive (kg/m3) | 2.25 | 2.02 | 2.25 | |||||||||||
Both samples reported higher compressive strength at early ages. At 28 days of age, the reference sample obtained higher strength; however, the use of the plasticizer provided an increase in compressive strength compared to the study carried out without the additive. (Figures 2 and 11).
| Figure 11. Compressive strength in relation to curing time in mortars with superplasticizer admixture. | ||||
In summary, when a superplasticizer is used in concrete, an increase in compressive strength is achieved. It can be said that marble powder can be substituted for cement in an amount greater than 10%, and a superplasticizer is applied to compensate for the resistance.
2.5 Previous experimental studies to elaborate bricks with marble powder.
Santos, Villegas, and Betancourt (2012) conducted a study proposing a series of dosages having marble powder as a base, the amount of cement in the samples varied, and the amount of water did not change (Table 7).
| Table 7. Results of bricks based on marble powder. (Santos, et al., 2012) | ||||||||||||||
| Sample No. | Cement % | Water (c+RM) % | Resistance (kg/cm2) | Absorption % | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 8 | 15 | 45.83 | 17 | ||||||||||
| 2 | 11 | 15 | 81.56 | 16 | ||||||||||
| 3 | 14 | 15 | 82.76 | 18 | ||||||||||
Cylinders of 15 cm in height and 7.5 cm in diameter were manufactured, as well as 5 cm cubes. They concluded that the shape of the bricks did not affect the results.
The results show that there is a significant influence on strength with an increase from 8 to 11% cement, but at a percentage higher than 11%, there is no increase in strength.
The results show that the absorption did not change as a function of the amount of cement.
Morales-Olán et al. (2015) propose the fabrication of a block of 14 x 20 x 40 cm section made with marble powder, tepezil, cement, and water. The dosage is shown in Table 8. The mixtures were compacted by vibration and pressing and were dried in the sun for 48 hours.
The results obtained in the water absorption test show that sample 1 absorbs less water than sample 2. As for the compressive strength tests, sample 1 performs better than sample 2, as shown in Table 9.
With the results presented, sample 1 complies with the necessary characteristics indicated in NMXC-441-ONNCCE-2013 to work as a construction material for non-structural use.
Another study carried out to produce bricks with marble powder was conducted by Nevárez and Rangel (2014). Table 10 shows the dosage used for the production of reference bricks, cured in the traditional way and saturated in water. Tables 11 and 12 report the results of the brick compression tests, with two options of cement quantity, 12 and 15%.
A preload of 100 kg/cm² was applied to all samples during the mold filling process for one minute, but the author does not explain the preloading process in his paper.
For the case of 12% cement in the samples, it is concluded that the highest compressive strength occurs at early ages, i.e., at the age of 7 days, while for the age of 14 and 28 days, the strength decreases compared to 7 days, but the magnitude is maintained between 14 and 28 days. For the case of 15% cement, the compressive strength decreases compared to the12% samples at the age of 7 days, but at the ages of 14 and 28 days, it increases, which indicates that for the amount of cement in small percentages, the strength increases at early ages and the higher percentages increase the strength at advanced ages.
Betancourt et al. (2015) elaborated a brick with Portland Cement Compound type I, drinking water, river sand, and marble powder in order to observe the behavior of different proportions and shapes of the samples, cubes of 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 cm, cylinders of 7.5 diameter and 15 cm high and tablets of 5 x 10 cm; the results of the compression tests are presented in Tables 13, 14 and 15 respectively.
Tables 13, 14, and 15 show the compressive strength results of cubes, cylinders, and tablets manufactured with marble powder in its highest percentage. The tables show the percentages of cement, sand, and water only, and the percentage that is missing to reach 100% in each piece is what corresponds to the marble powder.
The elements with a higher amount of cement showed better results in compression. The shape of the element does not significantly influence the results. With respect to the results in Table 15, it is observed that, by adding sand and compressing the sample, the compressive strength increases (Betancourt Chávez et al., 2015).
For the above dosages, it was considered that, of the weight of marble powder to be used, the percentages of cement, lime, sand, and water were used as indicated in tables 13, 14, and 15.
Moreno et al. (2020) manufactured bricks with a mixture based on marble powder, cement, water, and river sand (AR), they made 4 more mixtures, taking as a basis the dosage shown in Table 16.
In the first mix, river sand was added; in the second mix, 100% of the river sand was replaced by crushed limestone sand (AT); in the third mix, 100% of the river sand was replaced by silica sand (S); in the next mix, 66% of the river sand was replaced by silica sand (SR); in the last mix, 66% of the river sand was replaced by silica sand (RS); and the rest of the aggregate was replaced by silica sand (RS). The compression results at 28 days of curing, according to each mix, are shown in Figure 12.
With the results presented, the AT mix performed better in compression (Figure 12) but does not have sufficient strength to work as a structural brick according to NMX-C-404-ONNCCE-2012. In Pakistan, Khan et al (2021) analyzed the performance of clay brick with partial substitution of marble powder at percentages of 0%, 5%, 10%, 15%, 20%, 25%, and 30%.
Three different brick factories in the region participated in the study; the results obtained were similar in each of the participating companies. They performed efflorescence, thermal conductivity, compressive strength, porosity, absorption, and density tests.
The density of the bricks in the original sample without marble powder was 1.55 g/cm³ and decreased as the percentage of substitution increased until it reached 30%, with a density of 1.27 g/cm³. The samples did not show efflorescence. The porosity of the samples also increased according to the percentage of marble powder substitution, from 12.6% to 52.71%, this due to the release of Carbon Dioxide (CO2 ), in addition, the Calcium Oxide (CaO), being expandable, causes porosity in the sample, therefore, it is also reflected an increase in the absorption of the samples from 18% to 36%. Given the increase in porosity in the bricks, the compressive strength is also affected considerably, decreasing the compressive strength from 18.06 MPa to 4.83 MPa. Khan et al. (2021) comment that Turkish and European standards indicate that a clay brick should have a minimum strength of 7 MPa, so a substitution of up to 20% marble powder for clay meets the compressive strength standard for brick. Due to the increased porosity of the bricks, the thermal conductivity decreased from 0.99 to 0.86 W/mK, and it is concluded that with this result, the pieces would work as thermal insulation.
Santos, Villegas, Betancourt (2012) and Khan et al. (2021) found good results in the compressive strength of bricks at low marble powder substitution contents and at higher percentages, the strength decreases, Morales-Olán et al (2015) show results where marble powder is combined with Tepezil, and it is shown that the higher the marble powder substitution, the higher the strength. Nevárez and Rangel (2014) have high compressive strengths in their bricks as long as there is a preload in the manufacture of the bricks, Betancourt et al. (2015) found that the compressive strength of the samples is proportional to the amount of cement, i.e., the more cement, the higher the strength. Moreno et al. (2020) in their research, used different types of sand, resulting in the best performance of limestone sand.
As a conclusion of this section, it is determined that marble powder bricks can be used as non-structural elements and as thermal insulation.
3. Conclusions
As a conclusion of this review, it can be mentioned that marble powder can be used in construction either to replace cement, to replace fine aggregate, or to manufacture non-structural bricks. It is a topic with a lot of potential where good results can be obtained if the research is deepened.
Marble powder as a partial substitute for cement in proportions no greater than 10-15% is shown to maintain or offer an increase in compressive strength in mortars, concrete, and brick manufacturing.
The addition of superplasticizers showed an increase in compressive strength in conventional concrete mixes, and the partial substitution of marble powder to cement does not affect the compressive strength in this condition.
Marble powder as the main agent for brick making, supplemented with sand and cement, is feasible for non-structural use in residential masonry construction.
On the other hand, reducing the amount of cement used in concrete and mortars projects a cost reduction because the difference in commercial value with respect to marble powder is greater in cement. This implies that using marble powder in the manufacture of bricks reduces the cost of the pieces.
The energy required in cement production is about 1.18 GJ/ton. Therefore, replacing 15% of cement substitution with marble powder reduces energy consumption by almost 1.05%.
With the reduction of cement content, the carbon footprint would show a reduction, so its use would show a positive impact on the environment.
For the manufacture of bricks, it is observed that if a compaction of the material is used in the manufacturing process, a higher compressive strength is achieved, it is also concluded that using crushed sand instead of river sand helps the strength of the pieces.
In the case of concrete, it has been proven that the loss of strength is proportional to the increase of marble powder substitution. It was shown that the maximum percentage of marble powder substitution by cement is 10 %, so that the resistance is not affected.
For the application of marble powder in mortars, it is concluded that it is similar to the application of marble powder in concrete or bricks, i.e., the compressive strength with low percentages of marble powder is not affected.
Based on the above, it is possible to continue studying the application of marble powder in mortars, concrete, and brick manufacturing. In the manufacture of bricks, it is only necessary to find the right dosage so that the pieces can be used as structural. To achieve this, it is necessary to continue studying this topic and find the right dosage and aggregates.
References
Khodabakhshian, A., de Brito, J., Ghalehnovi, M., Shamsabadi, E. A. (2018), Mechanical, environmental and economic performance of structural concrete containing silica fume and marble industry waste powder. Construction and Building Materials, Volume 169, Pages 237-251, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.02.192.
Talah, A., Kharchi, F., Chaid, R. (2015), Influence of Marble Powder on High Performance Concrete Behavior, Procedia Engineering, Volume 114, Pages 685-690, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proeng.2015.08.010
Betancourt Chávez, J. R., Lizárraga Mendiola, L. G., Narayanasamy, R., Olguín Coca, F. J., Sáenz López, A. (2015), Revisión sobre el uso de residuos de mármol, para elaborar materiales para la construcción. Revista de Arquitectura e Ingeniería, 9(3), 1-12, https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193943013004
Coordinación General de Minería (2014). Perfil del Mercado del Mármol. Ciudad de México: Dirección Generla del Desarrollo Minero.
Ferraz, D. F. (2016), Aditivos reductores de agua para concreto premezclado. Construcción y Tecnología en Concreto. http://www.revistacyt.com.mx/pdf/mayo2016/experto.pdf
Ghorbani, S., Tahi, I., Tavakkolizadeh, M., Davodi, A., de Brito, J. (2018), Improving corrosion resistance of Steel rebars in concrete with marble and granite waste dust as partial cement replacement, Construction, and Building Materials, Vol. 185 Pages: 110-119, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.066.
El-Sayed, H. A., Farag, A. B., Kandeel, A. M., Younes, A. A., Yousef, M. M. (2018), Characteristics of the marble processing powder waste at Shaq El-Thoaban industrial area, Egypt, and its suitability for cement manufacture, HBRC Journal, 14:2, 171-179, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hbrcj.2016.06.002
Hebhoub, H., Aoun, H., Belachia, M., Houari, H., Ghorbel, E. (2011), Use of waste marble aggregates in concrete. Construction and Building Materials, Vol. 25, No. 3, Pages: 1167-1171, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2010.09.037
Ince, C., Hamza, A., Derogar, S., Ball, R. (2020), Utilization of waste marble dust for improved durability and cost efficiency of pozzolanic concrete, Journal of Cleaner Production, vol. 270, 122-213. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2020.122213
Khan, Z., Gul, A., Ali Shah, S. A., Qazi, S., Wahab, N., Badshah, E., Naqash, T., Shahzada, K. (2021). Utilization of Marble Wastes in Clay Bricks: A Step towards Lightweight Energy Efficient Construction Materials. Civil Engineering Journal, Vol. 7, No. 09, September, 2021, Pages 1488-1500, https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2021-03091738
Li, L. G., Huang, Z. H., Tan, Y. P., Kwan, A. K. H., Chen, H. Y. (2019), Recycling of marble dust as paste replacement for improving strength, microstructure and eco-friendliness of mortar, Journal of Cleaner Production, Volume 210, Pages 55-65, ISSN 0959-6526, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.10.332.
Singh, M., Srivastava, A., Bhunia, D. (2017), An investigation on effect of partial replacement of cement by waste marble slurry, Construction and Building Materials, Volume 134, Pages 471-488, ISSN 0950-0618, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.12.155.
Singh, M., Choudhary, K., Srivastava, A., Sangwan, K. S., Bhunia, D. (2017), A study on environmental and economic impacts of using waste marble powder in concrete, Journal of Building Engineering, Volume 13, Pages 87-95, ISSN 2352-7102, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jobe.2017.07.009.
Morales-Olán , G., et. al. (2015), Desarrollo de un bloque de construcción a base de desecho de corte generado por la industria marmolera. Revista Congreso Nacional de Ingeniería y Tecnologías para el Desarrollo Sustentable, pp. 80-83.
Moreno Juárez, A. N., Ponce Palafox, C., López Montelongo, A. M., Cárdenas Díaz, O. E. (2020), Aplicación del polvo de mármol para fabricar ladrillo estructural con dimensiones tradicionales en la Comarca Lagunera utilizados en muros de vivienda. Revista de Arquitectura e Ingeniería, 14(1),1-10. https://www.redalyc.org/articulo.oa?id=193962633006
Nevarez, C., Rangel, L. (2014),
Estudio experimental realizado para elaborar ladrillos con residuos de mármol (polvo). Tesis Licenciatura, Gómez Palacio, Dgo.: Universidad Juárez de Estado de Durango UJED.
Babouri, L., Biskri, Y., Khadraoui, F., El Mendili, Y. (2020), Mechanical performance and corrosion resistance of reinforced concrete with marble waste, European Journal of Environmental and Civil Engineering, https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2020.1838952" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1080/19648189.2020.1838952
Rahangdale, S., Qureshi, S. (2019), Study of Compressive Strength of Cemento Concrete with Stone and Marble Dust, International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR) ISSN: 2319-7064, Vol. 8, No. 1, January 2019, https://www.ijsr.net/archive/v8i1/ART20194592.pdf
Sánchez Pérez, C. J., Castillejo Cans, M. A. (2018), Caracterización geomecánica de rocas dimensionables: casos faja dolomitica y esquistos verdes, yacimiento de canteras tacarigua, C.A. Jornadas de Investigación. Encuentro Académico Industrial. Facultad de ingeniería UCV (JIFI2018). http://www.ing.ucv.ve/jifi2018/documentos/cienciastierra/CT-017.pdf
Santos, A., Villegas, N., Betancourt, J. (2012), Residuo de mármol como insumo en la construcción civil: diagnóstico de la Comarca Lagunera. Revista de la construcción, 11(2), 17-26. https://dx.doi.org/10.4067/S0718-915X2012000200003
Shaaban, M. (2020), The Effects of Marble Dust on the Rheological and Mechanical Properties of Shotcrete, Engineering, Tehcnology & Applied Science Research, Vol. 10, No. 5, pp. 6334-6348. https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/3c8f/4b16c8512037e6c97aed1b14d29efb89646d.pdf?_ga=2.66500078.1376494727.1650224112-2140534152.1650224112
Servicio Geológico Mexicano (2019). Anuario Estadístico de la Minería Mexicana, 2018. Ciudad de México: Secretaría de Economía. PUBLICACIÓN NO. 48. https://www.gob.mx/cms/uploads/attachment/file/683099/Anuario_2018_Edicion_2019.pdf
Tobón, J., Gomez, R. (2008). Desempeño del cemento pórtland adicionado con calizas de diferentes grados de pureza. Dyna. vol.75 no.156 Medellín Sep./Dic. 2008. http://www.scielo.org.co/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S0012-73532008000300017
Toubal Seghir, N., Mellas, M., Sadowski, Ł., Krolicka, A., Żak, A., Ostrowski, K. (2019), The Utilization of Waste Marble Dust as a Cement Replacement in Air-Cured Mortar. Sustainability, 11 (8), 22-15. https://doi.org/10.3390/su11082215
Corinaldesi, V., Moriconi, G., Naik, T. R. (2010), Characterization of marble powder for its use in mortar and concrete, Construction and Building Materials,Volume 24, Issue 1, Pages 113-117, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2009.08.013.
Verma, M., Kaushal, N., Assistant, A. (2019). Waste marble Powder/Dust.
Wang, Y., Xiao, J., Zhang, J., Duan, Z. (2022), Mechanical Behavior of Concrete Prepared with Waste Marble Powder. Sustainability 14, 41-70. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14074170
Yamanel, K., Durak, U., İlkentapar, S., Atabey, İsmail İsa, Karahan, O., Duran, C. (2019), Influence of waste marble powder as a replacement of cement on the properties of mortar. Revista de la Construcción. 18(2), 290-300. https://doi.org/10.7764/RDLC.18.2.290
Table 8. Composition in percentage of materials in the evaluated mixtures.
Material
M1 %
M2 %
Marble Waste
55
35
Tepezil
31
51
Cement
6
6
Water
8
8
Table 9. Percentage of water absorption and compressive strength of samples.
Sample No.
Water absorption %
Resistance (kg/cm2)
1
19.43 ± 5.55
38.40 ± 1.84
2
23.91 ± 0.25
21.46 ± 3.25
Table 10. Dosages that passed the compressive strength test.
Component
Mixing at 12% cement
Mixing at 15 % cement
Marble powder
10 kg
10 kg
Cement
1.2 kg
1.5 kg
Sand
2 kg
2 kg
Water
2 l
2 l
Table 11. Result compressive strength of brick samples at 7, 14, or 28 days of curing 15% cement. (Nevarez & Rangel, 2014)
Sample No.
7 days of curing (kg/cm2)
14 days of curing (kg/cm2)
28 days of curing (kg/cm2)
1
122.7
89.12
89.99
2
138.5
Witness
Witness
3
140.7
119.29
Witness
4
136.6
86.05
87.47
5
144.3
Witness
88
6
129.9
86.46
88.96
7
109.7
88
87.88
8
149.9
86.79
88.57
9
130.9
86.61
86.2
10
100.4
87.79
86.16
Table 12. Compressive strength results with 12% cement. (Nevarez & Rangel, 2014)
No. Dyas
Compressive strength (kg/cm2)
7 days
107
14 days
107.15
28 days
95.55
Table 13. Compressive strength in cubes of 5 x 5 x 5 x 5 cm elaborated with marble powder base. (Betancourt Chávez, et al., 2015)
Mix #
Cement %
Lime %
Water %
Compressive strength kg/cm2
1
25
0
20
76.6
2
22.5
2.5
20
60
3
20
5
20
52
Table 14. Compressive strength, in cylindrical elements of 7.5 x 15 cm elaborated with marble powder base. (Betancourt Chávez, et al., 2015)
Mix #
Cement %
Lime %
Water %
Compressive strength kg/cm2
1
25
0
20
67.90
2
22.5
2.5
20
56.24
3
20
5
20
48.00
Table 15. Compressive strength of 5 x 10 cm tablets with marble powder and sand base material, pressed at 70 kg/cm². (Betancourt Chávez, et al., 2015)
Sample
Cement %
Sand %
Water %
Compressive strength kg/cm2
1
8
0
20
28
2
10
20
20
76
3
10
30
20
90
Table 16. Dosage of marble brick with river sand (AR). (Moreno Juárez, et al., 2020)
Material
Quantity
Marble powder
15 kg
Cement
2.25 kg
River sand
3 kg
Water
7 l
Figure 12.
Compressive strength of test specimens. (Moreno Juárez, et al., 2020)