Technical Note

Strength and Stiffness of Ground Waste

Glass–Carbide Lime Blends
Nilo Cesar Consoli 1; Mariana da Silva Carretta 2; Helena Batista Leon 3;
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Hugo Carlos Scheuermann Filho 4; and Lennon Ferreira Tomasi 5

Abstract: Waste from soda–lime glass is a solid waste usually available near urban centers. This study examines the potential use of such a
material as a construction component. Finely ground waste glass mixed with carbide lime might be able to act as a hydraulic cement and could
be shaped into blocks and used as an alternative to masonry blocks or bricks. It also could be applied in stabilized rammed wall construction,
as well as in beds of pipelines and spread footings. When in alkaline environments, pozzolanic reactions occur between silicates in amorphous
phases (present in ground waste glass) and Ca2þ (found in lime). This technical note establishes the effects of carbide lime content and dry
density on the properties (i.e., strength and stiffness) of compacted ground waste glass–carbide lime mixes. More specifically, it quantifies the
unconfined compressive strength (qu ) and the shear modulus at small strains (G0 ) of ground waste glass mixed with carbide lime as a function
of the porosity/lime index. Results show that qu varies from about 2.1 to 4.7 MPa and G0 from about 3,600 to 8,500 MPa, depending on
curing time, porosity, and amount of carbide lime. Tobermorite, a calcium silicate hydrate mineral, was detected as the key crystalline phase
shaped by the cured ground glass–carbide lime blends after 28 days of curing. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002862. © 2019
American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Waste glass; Carbide lime; Ground glass; Shear modulus; Strength; Porosity/lime index.

Introduction collected materials. Around 47% of glass containers were collected

Soda–lime glass represents more than 85% of the total amount of
glass annually produced worldwide because it is the main constitu-
ent of glass containers and similar items (Mohajerani et al. 2017;
Schmitz et al. 2011). In this sense, it is a major source of waste in
urban centers. Thus, the recycling of this material remains an im-
portant alternative for waste reduction, preventing further depletion
of natural resources and reducing emissions of greenhouse gases.
Brazil manufactures about 1 million tons of glass packaging
every year (Bicca Neto 2015). Glass containers are used for bev-
erages, food products, medicines, perfumes, cosmetics, and other
items, and more than half of such production is used for bottles and
jars. In this country, all glass-made products account for an average
of 3% of urban waste in weight. In selective collection programs
(present in most cities in Brazil), glass represents about 9% of the
1
Professor of Civil Engineering, Graduate Program in Civil Engineer-
ing, Federal Univ. of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul
90035-190, Brazil (corresponding author). Email: consoli@ufrgs.br
2
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal Univ.
of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 90035-190, Brazil.
Email: marianacarretta@gmail.com
3
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal Univ.
of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 90035-190, Brazil.
Email: helenableon@gmail.com
4
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal Univ.
of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 90035-190, Brazil.
Email: hugocsf@gmail.com
5
Ph.D. Student, Graduate Program in Civil Engineering, Federal Univ.
of Rio Grande do Sul, Porto Alegre, Rio Grande do Sul 90035-190, Brazil.
Email: lennontomasi@hotmail.com
Note. This manuscript was submitted on October 16, 2018; approved on
April 11, 2019; published online on July 25, 2019. Discussion period open
until December 25, 2019; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This technical note is part of the Journal of Materials in
Civil Engineering, © ASCE, ISSN 0899-1561.
in 2011 in Brazil, totaling 470 thousand tons=year. However, a sig-
nificant amount of glass waste is still disposed of in landfills.
In Germany, the recycling rate in 2010 was 87%, corresponding
to 2.6 million tons. In Switzerland the rate was 95% and in the
United States 40% (Bicca Neto 2015).
Ground soda–lime glass waste is an exceptional source of amor-
phous silica (Pattengil and Shutt 1973; Metwally 2007; Galvão
et al. 2015; Rangaraju et al. 2016). Amorphous silica reactivity in
an alkaline environment [e.g., CaðOHÞ2 , NaOH] allows for the de-
velopment of pozzolanic reactions. Such reactions produce stable
products with binding assets (Saldanha et al. 2016).
The use of waste glass, typically obtained from the recycling of
container glass, in portland cement concrete has been widely inves-
tigated both as a crushed granular aggregate material and in a finely
ground form as a cement replacement material (Mohajerani et al.
2017). Indeed, waste glass as a coarse or fine aggregate adds value,
and it can replace expensive materials, such as granite and marble
in concrete (Park and Lee 2004; Chen et al. 2006; Kuruppu and
Chandratilake 2012; Ganiron 2013; Malik et al. 2013; Abdallah
and Fan 2014). In this context, a study showed that glass waste
can replace up to 10% of coarse aggregate (Srivastana et al. 2014).
However, replacing up to 25% of large aggregate sizes and mixing
with natural aggregates has been reported to produce concretes
with a strength of 20 MPa (Olofinnade et al. 2017). Milled glass
fiber waste has also been employed as a substitute of portland ce-
ment, providing superior durability and strength than control mix-
tures (Rangaraju et al. 2016). A 20% replacement of cement with
waste glass powder in concrete was found to be an optimal content
from mechanical, economic, and environmental viewpoints (Islam
et al. 2017). Despite the existing work on the use of waste glass in
concrete, a study on compacted ground waste glass–carbide lime
blends has not yet been performed.
To assess the potential of using ground waste glass–lime blends,
physical, chemical, and mineralogical characterizations of the glass

© ASCE 06019010-1 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010

 is necessary. Strength tests are also usually employed when exam-
ining the influence of several variables (e.g., porosity of the blend,
curing time). A logical dosage procedure for pozzolan–lime that
considers the porosity/lime index to be a proper parameter to assess
the strength of potentially pozzolanic waste–lime mixes was
created (Consoli et al. 2014). No research has yet examined the
applicability of the porosity/lime index (φ=Liv ) in calculating un-
confined compressive strength (qu ) and shear modulus at small
strains (G0 ) of compacted ground waste glass–lime mixes. This re-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
all material obtained. Only material passing through the 0.212-mm
sieve was considered suitable for sample preparation. Fig. 1 shows
the prepared material. The ground glass was mainly angular with
several distinct shapes. Ground waste glass grains’ specific gravity
is 2.46. Through standard Proctor compaction effort tests [ASTM
D698 (ASTM 2012)] the maximum dry unit weight was deter-
mined as 15.0 kN=m3 and the optimum moisture content as 13%.
The other physical properties and the grain size distribution are
shown in Table 1 and Fig. 2, respectively. According to ASTM

search studies the relationship between φ=Liv and G0 and qu for
compacted ground waste glass–lime mixes to determine the straight
relationship between them.
There is a lack of research on this topic: Do ordinarily employed
amounts of lime and compaction energy produce the required
strength? Are there single relationships for compacted ground
waste glass–carbide lime mixes relating G0 and qu with φ=Liv ?
Are there relationships for the compacted ground waste glass–
carbide lime mixes connecting G0 =qu with φ=Liv ? How does
curing time affect such relationships?
D2487 (ASTM 2017), the prepared material can be classified as
silt with sand (ML). The chemical analysis by X-ray fluorescence
(XRF) stated that the GWG is mainly composed of SiO2 (75.0%),
CaO (17.3%), Al2 O3 (2.6%), Fe2 O3 (1.8%), Na2 O (1.5%), and
K2 O (1.2%). The X-ray diffraction pattern (Fig. 3) is typical of an
amorphous material, as no prominent peaks were identified. By
employing the degree of crystallinity method (Kern et al. 2012),
it was determined that the amount of amorphous material was more
than 99%. This structure type contributes to enhance the reactivity
of the GWG as a pozzolanic material (Tashima et al. 2014; Rêgo
et al. 2004; Galvão et al. 2015).

Experimental Materials

Ground waste glass (GWG) from colorless domestic waste bottles

(soda–lime glass) was pulverized in a ball mill. The grinding pro-
cess was standardized, lasting for 1 h, and was followed by sieving

Fig. 2. Grain size distribution of studied ground waste glass.

Fig. 1. Ground waste glass.

Table 1. Physical properties of the ground glass sample

Property Value
Plastic index (%) Nonplastic
Specific gravity of the grains 2.46
Fine sand 29
(0.075 mm < diameter < 0.425 mm) (%)
Silt (0.002 mm < diameter < 0.075 mm) (%) 71
Clay (diameter < 0.002 mm) (%) —
Mean particle diameter, D50 (mm) 0.035
Maximum dry unit weight for standard proctor 15.0
compaction effort (kN=m3 ) (ASTM D698)
Optimum moisture content for standard 13
proctor compaction effort (%) (ASTM D698)
Unified Soil Classification System class ML (silt with sand)
(ASTM D2487) Fig. 3. X-ray diffractometry of studied ground waste glass.

© ASCE 06019010-2 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010

 Carbide lime was used throughout this investigation. It is the
by-product of the production of acetylene gas and is generated
in a plant near Porto Alegre (Southern Brazil). It is mainly com-
posed of calcium and possesses a large amount of free calcium
hydroxide (81%). Carbide lime grains’ specific gravity is 2.12.
A detailed characterization of the lime was performed by Saldanha
et al. (2018).
Distilled water was employed for the characterization pro-
cesses, during the molding of specimens, and throughout mechani-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
extremes of each specimen, transducers were attached by using
coupler gel. For these tests, specimens were molded with three dif-
ferent dry densities (15, 14, and 13 kN=m3 ), three distinct hydrated
lime contents (5%, 8%, and 11%), and an approximately 13%
moisture content, and cured for 7 and 28 days.
X-Ray Diffractometry Tests
X-ray diffraction tests of ground glass–lime compacted blends

cal tests. were performed by using a D-5000 X-ray diffractometer (Siemens,

Methods
Molding and Curing Specimens
Cylindrical specimens 50 mm in diameter and 100 mm in height
were employed for strength and stiffness tests. The target dry unit
weight for each specimen was defined by dividing the weight of the
dry compacted ground waste glass plus hydrated lime mix by the
total volume of the specimen (ASTM 2009). As exhibited in Eq. (1)
(Consoli et al. 2011), porosity (φ) is a function of the dry unit
weight (γ d ) of the ground waste glass and carbide lime content (L).
Each substance (i.e., ground waste glass and carbide lime) had
a unit weight of solids (γ SGG and γ SL ), which must be entered to
determine porosity
 
L 
γd 1 100
φ ¼ 100 − 100 þ ð1Þ
1 þ 100
L γ SGG γ SL
Once the ground glass and hydrated lime were weighed, they
were blended until the mix attained visual uniformity. The ground
waste glass–hydrated lime blends were supplemented with a
moisture content of 13% (i.e., the optimum moisture content for
standard Proctor compaction effort; Table 1), and mixing was re-
sumed until a homogenous paste was produced. Each blend’s
lime content was determined based on its individual mass of
dry ground glass. The proportions in weight (lime∶ground glass)
for the mixtures were 1∶20.0 (specimens with 5% L); 1∶12.5
(specimens with 8% L) and 1∶9.1 (specimens with 11% L). Each
specimen was statically compacted in three strata by using cylin-
drical molds. When removed from the molds, each was weighed
and measured for diameter and height (with precisions of 0.01 g
and 0.1 mm, respectively). They were cured in a humid room
at 23°C  2°C with a relative moisture of about 95% (ASTM
2013).
Munich, Germany) equipped with a copper fixed anode tube, work-
ing with 40 kV and 40 mA. The angular array analyzed ranges from
5° to 75° 2θ with 0.05° per 1-s step. Aside from the ground waste
glass in a powder form, the specimens tested were molded with a
dry unit weight of 14 kN=m3 , 11% carbide lime, and 13% moisture
content. Curing periods equal to 7 and 28 days were established for
these tests.
Results
Previous studies by Consoli et al. (2009, 2011, 2014, 2017) have
shown that pozzolan–lime, soil–pozzolan–lime, and soil–lime
blends’ strength and stiffness are controlled by two variables
[porosity of the blend (φ) and volumetric lime content (Liv ) and,
more specifically, by their ratio (φ=Liv )]. During the aforemen-
tioned authors’ research, it was found that it was possible to apply
a power of 0.11 to the parameter Liv for a good adjustment of the
data. That adjustment was necessary because the variation of the
porosity affects the mechanical behavior more than the variation
of the volumetric lime content. The current study expands upon
the previous ones by showing that the porosity/lime index is
also an appropriate parameter to evaluate the specific relationships
of strength and stiffness for pozzolanic material such as ground
glass–lime mixtures.
Influence of the Porosity/Lime Index on q u
Fig. 4 shows qu as a function of φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 [stated as porosity (φ)
divided by the volumetric lime content (Liv ), the latter expressed

Unconfined Compression Tests

NBR 12041 (ABNT 2012) was the standard used for compression
tests. To reduce specimen suction, all specimens were kept under-
water for a total of 24 h prior to testing. (Consoli et al. 2011). Spec-
imens were molded with a moisture content of 13%; dry densities
of 15 kN=m3 (maximum dry unit weight for standard Proctor com-
paction effort; Table 1), 14 kN=m3 , and 13 kN=m3 ; hydrated lime
contents of 5%, 8%, and 11% [determined following international
(Mitchell 1981) and Brazilian experiences (Consoli et al. 2009,
2011, 2014; Saldanha and Consoli 2016)]; and cured for 7 and
28 days.

Pulse Velocity Tests and Ultrasonic Elastic Parameters

Fig. 4. Variation of unconfined compressive strength (qu ) with ad-
Following ASTM D2845, the elastic parameters of the hydrated
justed porosity/lime index for ground glass–lime compacted blends
lime–treated ground glass as tiny deformations were acquired
at 7 and 28 days of curing.
through ultrasonic pulse velocity tests (ASTM 2008). At the

© ASCE 06019010-3 J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010


as a percentage of lime volume to the total volume of the ground
glass–lime mixes (Consoli et al. 2014) for the curing periods
studied (7 and 28 days)]. Fig. 4 indicates that the porosity/lime in-
dex is helpful in normalizing strength results for ground glass–
hydrated lime mixtures. Fair correlations [R2 ¼ 0.80 and 0.79 from
Eqs. (2) and (3), for 7 and 28 days of curing, respectively]
exist between φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 and qu of the ground glass–hydrated lime
mixtures studied
 −1.80
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
φ G0 =qu can be determined as a function of φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 [Eqs. (6) and
qu ðMPaÞ ¼ 1.77 × 103 ð2Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
 −1.80
φ
3 
qu ðMPaÞ ¼2.72 × 10 ð3Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
The capability of the porosity/lime index to normalize the
strength of cement treated soils has been shown by Consoli et al.
(2009, 2014). These studies indicated that the rates of change of
strength with porosity (φ) and the inverse of volumetric lime con-
tent (1=Liv ) are not generally the same. Thus, the application of a
power, usually 0.11 to Liv (Consoli et al. 2014; Saldanha and
Consoli 2016), is required for the rates of φ and 1=Liv to be com-
patible. An increase of approximately 25% in the unconfined
compressive strength (qu ) is created by increasing the curing time
from 7 to 28 days.
Influence of the Porosity/Lime Index on Initial Shear
Modulus (G 0 )
A similar analysis was performed for G0 (Fig. 5). Results showed
that φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 correlated well with G0 for compacted ground
glass–hydrated lime mixes (Fig. 5). Good correlations (R2 ¼ 0.92
and 0.90, respectively, for 7 and 28 days of curing) were detected
between φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 and G0 of the compacted ground glass–
hydrated lime mixtures considered, reflecting 7 days [Eq. (4)]
and 28 days [Eq. (5)] of curing. Yet, an increase of only 7% in
the initial shear modulus (G0 ) was found because of the increase
in curing time from 7 to 28 days
Fig. 5. Initial shear modulus (G0 ) versus adjusted porosity/lime index
for ground glass–lime compacted blends at 7 and 28 days of curing.
© ASCE 06019010-4
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010
 −3.10
φ
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 4.47 × 108 ð4Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
 −3.10
φ
G0 ðMPaÞ ¼ 4.79 × 108 ð5Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
Relationship of G 0 =q u versus Porosity/Lime Index
For compacted ground glass–carbide lime blends, a relationship for
(7) for 7 and 28 days of curing, respectively; Fig. 6] when assem-
bling the optimum fitting curves of the unconfined compressive
strength (qu ) and initial shear modulus (G0 ) with the adjusted
porosity/lime index φ=ðLiv Þ0.11
−1.10
φ
G0 =qu ¼ 8.48 × 104 ð6Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
 −1.10
4 φ
G0 =qu ¼ 12.20 × 10 ð7Þ
ðLiv Þ0.11
G0 =qu has also a direct relationship with ½φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 −1.10 for
both curing periods studied, and only a scalar differs (accounting
for the differences in curing period), as shown in Eqs. (6) and (7).
X-Ray Diffractometry of Ground Glass–Hydrated Lime
Mixture
Fig. 7 presents the X-ray diffractometry of the ground glass–lime
compacted blends examined for the two previously established cur-
ing periods (i.e., 7 and 28 days). The diffraction pattern of the
ground waste glass is also shown for comparison. The results from
the specimen cured for 7 days revealed, as expected, the presence of
nonreacted calcium hydroxide [CaðOHÞ2 ], as denoted by the por-
tlandite peaks. No evidence of a crystalline binding compound was
found at this stage, although cementitious materials existed in a gel
form and/or with a poorly crystalline structure (Diamond et al.
1964; Hou et al. 2015). In this sense, the tested specimens would
have disaggregated when immersed in water if no binder had been
formed during the 7 days.
On the other hand, the portlandite peaks disappeared in the
X-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern for the longer curing period. This
may indicate its consumption in the reactions with the silicates
Fig. 6. G0 =qu versus adjusted porosity/lime index for ground glass–
lime compacted blends at 7 and 28 days of curing.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Fig. 7. X-ray diffractometry of ground glass–lime compacted blends.
present in the ground glass waste, which resulted in the formation
of binders, such as calcium silicate hydrate (C─S─H). Indeed,
a prominent peak that corresponded to tobermorite [Ca5 Si6 O18 ],
a calcium silicate hydrate mineral, was found close to 28°. This
is in accordance with the literature that states that the crystalline
phase of the C─S─H resembles the structure of the tobermorite
mineral (Eades and Grim 1960; Diamond et al. 1964; Snell 1975;
Kirkpatrick et al. 1997; Puertas et al. 2011). The increments veri-
fied in the strength and stiffness of the tested specimens, observed
between the curing periods, can be explained by the emergence
and development of C─S─H binding phases (with crystalline and
noncrystalline structure).
Further Analysis
Compressive strengths of around 5 MPa do not necessarily have to
be considered low. The reuse of ground glass–carbide lime blends
for application in sidewalk pavers, masonry blocks, improved
layers for foundations, concrete pipes, among others, is possible for
this strength range.
Some alternatives may be adopted if higher strengths are
desired. These can take the form of the adoption of higher lime
content in the mixture, higher compaction energy, longer grinding
time of the glass, or the use of catalysts (e.g., increase in curing
temperature or additions of salts).
The use of higher lime content can provide a greater amount of
calcium hydroxide to the mixture, allowing more pozzolanic
reactions.
Compaction provides better packing of the blend and, conse-
quently, causing a greater number of contacts between the particles,
would contribute to an increase in strength and stiffness.
The milling of the glass for a longer period would result in a
material with smaller grain sizes and larger specific surface area.
Such characteristics would lead to a higher reactivity of the mix-
tures with the calcium hydroxide from lime (Consoli et al. 2017).
The use of catalysts, such as higher curing temperatures and
salts additions, would contribute to the acceleration of pozzolanic
reactions and a higher strength and stiffness gain. The acceleration
of the reactions is an advantage because reactions with lime take
longer to develop when compared to portland cement mixture
reactions (Saldanha et al. 2016; Saldanha and Consoli 2016).
The proposed approaches would allow the engineer to choose
the amount of lime and the compaction effort appropriate to
© ASCE 06019010-5
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010
provide a mixture that meets the project requirements at the
optimum cost. The porosity/lime index can also be useful in the
field/industrial control of pozzolan–lime manufactured products.
Once a poor compaction has been identified, it can accounted for
in the design.
Concluding Remarks
The following remarks can be made based on the results presented
in this paper:
• Finely ground waste glass-carbide lime (both wastes) may be
used as hydraulic cement, and can be potentially applied as a
mortar for blocks such as stones, bricks, and concrete masonry
units. It can also be applied for stabilized rammed wall construc-
tion, as well as in beds of pipelines, and spread footings;
• Unconfined compressive strength (qu ) and initial shear modulus
(G0 ) of compacted ground waste glass-lime blends have a good
relationship with the porosity/lime index [φ=ðLiv Þ0.11 ]. This re-
lationship and the exponent 0.11 are compatible with previous
studies on other fine-grained materials (e.g., coal fly ash) mixed
with lime (e.g., Saldanha and Consoli 2016; Consoli et al. 2017)
but for the first time it was shown to be useful for the materials
studied herein;
• The increments in strength and stiffness, due to the increase in
the curing period, can be explained by the formation and devel-
opment of calcium silicate hydrate binder compounds. This is
stated by the XRD results previously presented.
• Tobermorite [Ca5 Si6 O18 ] is the key crystalline phase of C─S─H
formed in the ground waste glass-carbide lime blends after
28 days of curing.
Acknowledgments
The authors desire to express their gratitude to Edital 12/2014
FAPERGS/CNPq–PRONEX (Project No. 16/2551-0000469-2),
CNPq (INCT-REAGEO, Universal and Produtividade em Pesquisa)
and CAPES–PROEX for funding the research group.
Notation
The following symbols are used in this paper:
D50 = mean particle diameter;
GG = ground glass;
G0 = initial shear modulus;
L = lime content (expressed in relation to mass of dry
crushed glass);
Liv = volumetric lime content (expressed in relation to total
specimen volume);
qu = unconfined compressive strength;
R2 = coefficient of determination;
φ = porosity;
φ=Liv = porosity/lime index;
γ d = dry unit weight; and
γ s = unit weight of solids.
References
Abdallah, S., and M. Fan. 2014. “Characteristics of concrete with waste
glass as fine aggregate replacement.” Int. J. Web Eng. Technol. 2 (6):
11–17.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
 ABNT (Brazilian Association of Technical Standards). 2012. Portland
cement—Determination of unconfined compressive strength. NBR
12041. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: ABNT.
ASTM. 2008. Standard test method for laboratory determination of
pulse velocities and ultrasonic elastic constants of rock. ASTM D2845.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2009. Standard test methods for laboratory determination
of density (unit weight) of soil specimens. ASTM D7263. West
Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2012. Standard test methods for laboratory compaction character-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by UFRGS - Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul on 08/05/20. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
istics of soil using standard effort (600 kN-m=m3 ). ASTM D698.
West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2013. Standard specification for mixing rooms, moist cabinets,
moist rooms, and water storage tanks used in the testing of hydraulic
cements and concretes. ASTM C511. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
ASTM. 2017. Standard classification of soils for engineering purposes.
ASTM D2487. West Conshohocken, PA: ASTM.
Bicca Neto, V. 2015. Commitment business for recycling: Review.
Brasilia, Brazil: Coca Cola Company.
Chen, C. H., R. Huang, and C. C. Yang. 2006. “Waste E-glass particles used
cementitious mixtures.” Cem. Concr. Res. 36 (3): 449–456. https://doi
.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2005.12.010.
Consoli, N. C., A. Dalla Rosa, and R. B. Saldanha. 2011. “Variables gov-
erning strength of compacted soil–fly ash–lime mixtures.” J. Mater.
Civ. Eng. 23 (4): 432–440. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943
-5533.0000186.
Consoli, N. C., T. M. De Paula, M. S. Bortolotto, L. M. Barros, F. Pereira,
and M. M. Rocha. 2017. “Coal fly ash–carbide lime admixtures as
an alternative to concrete masonry blocks: Influence of ash ground.”
J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 29 (2): 04016224. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)
MT.1943-5533.0001747.
Consoli, N. C., L. S. Lopes, Jr., and K. S. Heineck. 2009. “Key parameters
for the strength control of lime stabilized soils.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng.
21 (5): 210216. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0899-1561(2009)21:
5(210).
Consoli, N. C., C. G. Rocha, and R. B. Saldanha. 2014. “Coal fly ash–
carbide lime bricks: An environment friendly building product.” Constr.
Build. Mater. 69: 301–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014
.07.067.
Diamond, S., J. L. White, and W. L. Dolch. 1964. “Transformation of clay
minerals by calcium hydroxide attack.” In Proc., 12th National Conf. on
Clay and Clay Minerals, 359–378. New York: Pergamon Press.
Eades, J. L., and R. E. Grim. 1960. “Reactions of hydrated lime with
pure clay minerals in soil stabilization.” Highway Res. Board Bull.
262: 51–63.
Galvão, A. C. P., A. C. M. Farias, and J. U. L. Mendes. 2015. “Charac-
terization of waste of soda-lime glass generated from lapping process
to reuse as filler in composite materials as thermal insulation.”
Cerâmica 61 (359): 367–373. https://doi.org/10.1590/0366-69132015
613591987.
Ganiron, T. U., Jr. 2013. “Use of recycled glass bottles as fine aggregates in
concrete mixture.” Int. J. Adv. Sci. Technol. 61: 17–28. https://doi.org
/10.14257/ijast.2013.61.03.
Hou, D., Z. Li, and H. Ma. 2015. “Morphology of calcium silicate hydrate
(C─S─H) gel: A molecular dynamic study.” Adv. Cem. Res. 27 (3):
135–146. https://doi.org/10.1680/adcr.13.00079.
Islam, G. M. S., M. H. Rahman, and N. Kazi. 2017. “Waste glass powder as
partial replacement of cement for sustainable concrete practice.” Int. J.
Sustainable Built Environ. 6 (1): 37–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijsbe
.2016.10.005.
Kern, A., I. C. Madsen, and N. V. Y. Scarlett. 2012. Quantifying amorphous
phases. New York: Springer.
Kirkpatrick, R. K., J. L. Yarger, P. F. McMillan, P. Yu, and X. Cong. 1997.
“Raman spectroscopy of C─S─H, tobermorite, and jennite.” Adv. Cem.
Based Mater. 5 (3–4): 93–99. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1065-7355(97)
00001-1.
Kuruppu, G., and R. Chandratilake. 2012. “Use of recycle glass as a
coarse aggregate in concrete.” In Proc., World Construction Conf.
© ASCE 06019010-6
J. Mater. Civ. Eng., 2019, 31(10): 06019010
2012—Global Challenges in Construction Industry, 221–228.
Moratuwa, Sri Lanka: Univ. of Moratuwa.
Malik, M. I., M. Bashir, S. Amad, T. Tariq, and U. Chowhary. 2013. “Study
of concrete involving use of waste glass as partial replacement of fine
aggregates.” IOSR J. Eng. 3 (7): 8–13.
Metwally, I. M. 2007. “Investigations on the performance of concrete made
with blended finely milled waste glass.” Adv. Struct. Eng. 10 (1): 47–53.
https://doi.org/10.1260/136943307780150823.
Mitchell, J. K. 1981. “Soil improvement—State-of-the-art report.” In Proc.,
10th Int. Conf. on Soil Mechanics and Foundation Engineering,
509–565. Rotterdam, Netherlands: International Society of Soil
Mechanics and Foundation Engineering, Balkema.
Mohajerani, A., J. Vajna, T. H. H. Cheung, H. Kurmus, A. Arulrajah, and
S. Horpibulsuk. 2017. “Practical recycling applications of crushed
waste glass in construction materials: A review.” Constr. Build. Mater.
156: 443–467. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.09.005.
Olofinnade, O. M., A. N. Ede, and J. M. Ndambuki. 2017. “Sustainable
green environment through utilization of waste soda-lime glass for
production of concrete.” J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 8 (4): 1139–1152.
Park, S., and B. Lee. 2004. “Studies on expansion properties in mortar con-
taining waste glass and fibers.” Cem. Concr. Res. 34 (7): 1145–1152.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cemconres.2003.12.005.
Pattengil, M., and T. Shutt. 1973. “Use of ground glass as pozzolan.”
In Proc., Symp. on Utilization of Waste Glass in Secondary Products.
Albuquerque, NM: Univ. of New Mexico.
Puertas, F., M. Palacios, H. Manzano, J. S. Dolado, A. Rico, and
J. Rodriguez. 2011. “A model for the C─A─S─H gel formed in alkali-
activated slag cements.” J. Eur. Ceram. Soc. 31 (12): 2043–2056.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeurceramsoc.2011.04.036.
Rangaraju, P. R., H. Rashidian-Dezfouli, G. Nameni, and G. Q. Amekuedi.
2016. “Properties and performance of ground glass fiber as a pozzolan
in portland cement concrete.” In Proc., 2016 Int. Concrete Sustain-
ability Conf. Washington, DC: National Ready Mixed Concrete
Association.
Rêgo, J. H. S., A. Nepomuceno, N. P. Hasparyk, and F. L. Vieira. 2004.
“Assessment of the pozzolanic reaction of crystalline and amorphous
rice husk-ashes (RHA).” In Proc., Int. RILEM Conf. on the Use of
Recycled Materials in Buildings and Structures, edited by E. Vázquez,
C. F. Hendriks, and G. M. T. Janssen, 715–723. Barcelona, Spain:
RILEM.
Saldanha, R. B., and N. C. Consoli. 2016. “Accelerated mix design of lime
stabilized materials.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 28 (3): 06015012. https://doi
.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0001437.
Saldanha, R. B., J. E. C. Mallmann, and N. C. Consoli. 2016. “Salts accel-
erating strength increase of coal fly ash-carbide lime compacted
blends.” Géotech. Lett. 6 (1): 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1680/jgele.15
.00111.
Saldanha, R. B., H. C. Scheuermann Filho, J. E. C. Mallmann, N. C.
Consoli, and K. R. Reddy. 2018. “Physical-mineralogical-chemical
characterization of carbide lime: An environment-friendly chemical
additive for soil stabilization.” J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 30 (6): 06018004.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)MT.1943-5533.0002283.
Schmitz, A., J. Kaminski, B. M. Scalet, and A. Soria. 2011. “Energy con-
sumption and CO2 emissions of the European glass industry.” Energy
Policy 39 (1): 142–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2010.09.022.
Snell, D. S. 1975. “Review of synthesis and properties of tobermorite,
CSH(I), and CSH gel.” J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 58 (7–8): 292–295. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1151-2916.1975.tb11478.x.
Srivastana, V., S. P. Gautam, V. C. Agarwal, and P. K. Metha. 2014. “Glass
wastes as coarse aggregate in concrete.” J. Environ. Nanotechnol. 3 (1):
67–71. https://doi.org/10.13074/jent.2013.12.132059.
Tashima, M. M., L. Soriano, M. V. Borrachero, J. L. Akasaki, and J. Payá.
2014. “New method to assess the pozzolanic reactivity of mineral
admixtures by means of pH and electrical conductivity measurements
in lime:pozzolan suspensions.” Materiales de Construcción 64 (316):
e032. https://doi.org/10.3989/mc.2014.00914.
J. Mater. Civ. Eng.