Environmentally Friendly Masonry Mortar Blended with Fly Ash, Corn Cob Ash or Ceramic Waste Powder

Abstract

Implementing a circular approach through waste valorization in mortar production with environmentally efficient mix design is a viable pathway for relieving the ecological burden of greenhouse gas emissions, resource depletion and waste management. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the feasibility of using fly ash (FA), corn cob ash (CCA), and ceramic waste powder (CWP) as supplementary cementitious materials (SCM) in cement–lime masonry mortars. As part of an extensive experimental study, twelve mortar mixtures were made: three reference and nine blended, with mixing ratios of 1:1:5, 1:0.7:4.2, and 1:1:4 ((cement + SCM)/lime/sand), by volume. The examined properties include workability, compressive and flexural strengths, dry bulk density, capillary water absorption, adhesive bond strength, and water vapor permeability. The compressive and flexural strengths of tested mortars were notably impaired, with reductions of up to 60%, while the capillary water absorption coefficient rose by 100% compared to the reference values. The adhesive bond strength of some blended mortars exceeded the strength of the reference mortars. Nevertheless, all blended mortars fulfilled the requirements for general-purpose mortars, while the majority met the criteria for structural masonry applications. In addition, a performance-based index and weighting triangle were used for the comparison and ranking of all analyzed mortar mixtures. The findings of this study may herald a novel use of FA, CCA, and CWP as more eco-friendly binding materials in contemporary construction leading to the reduction in the process’s carbon footprint, the improvement in cost efficiency, and the mitigation of the detrimental environmental impact of waste disposal.

Recycling of Egyptian Shammi Corn Stalks for Maintaining Sustainable Cement Industry: Scoring on Sustainable Development Goals

“…In this matrix, the number of targets achieved per goal was identified and then divided by the total number of targets for the same goal. References [67][68][69] are cited in the supplementary materials.…”