Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- −
- Naturally occurring materials that do not require processing, such as pumice, foamed lava, volcanic tuff and porous limestone.
- −
- Materials that occur naturally and require further processing, such as expanded clay, slate and vermiculite;
- −
- Industrial by-products and wastes such as sintered fly ash, expanded or foamed blast furnace slag or expanded blast furnace slag and hematite [3].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Material Glacial Clay
2.2. Analytical Methods Used in the Research
2.3. Characteristics of the Grinding and Screening Technology Station
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Characteristics of Glacial Clay
3.1.1. Grain Distribution Analysis
3.1.2. X-ray Analysis
3.1.3. XRF Analysis
3.2. Production of Aggregates
3.3. Sinterability Analysis
- −
- Stage I—the initial sintering phase—observed when the temperature of the material is about 0.25 of the melting point. In this stage, no shrinkage is observed, and the original layering in the aluminosilicates remains intact. This process is characterized by the removal of the rest of the unbound water, the content of which is still a few %.
- −
- Stage II—the intermediate phase—occurs when the temperature of the material is 0.25–0.75 of the melting point, at which point the onset of shrinkage, grain growth and material thickening can be observed. In the second firing period, also known as the dehydration period, which includes a further increase in temperature to about 600 °C, chemically bound water is released. At the same time, the decomposition of organic matter takes place during the dehydration process, and the decomposition of chemical compounds and minerals also begins.
- −
- Stage III—the final phase—the end of the compaction phase, the transformation of open pores into closed pores and their partial disappearance, with the grains continuing to expand. This stage, known as the vitrification period, is characterized by major changes in the mineralogical composition of the mass.
- −
- release of hygroscopic water from clay minerals and water from silica-clay gels,
- −
- oxidation of organic admixtures,
- −
- release of constitutional water, i.e., dehydration of clay minerals,
- −
- reactions in solid phases,
- −
- liquid phase reactions and formation of glassy alloy,
- −
- formation of new crystalline phases,
- −
- decarbonation and sulfur-removal reactions.
3.4. Analysis of Selected Properties of Burnt Aggregates
3.4.1. Evaluation of Soluble Compounds Based on Conductivity and pH
3.4.2. Bulk Density, Apparent Density and Cavernosity Tests on Samples
3.4.3. Abrasion Resistance of the Aggregate
3.4.4. Water Absorption, Total Retention, Water Release Kinetics
3.4.5. Optical and Scanning Microscopic Analysis
4. Conclusions
- Glacial clay, which has not been used to date, is well suited for the production of lightweight aggregates that are designed for “green roofs”.
- The laboratory machines used in the presented technological system with the use of a unique patented screening unit made it possible to produce aggregates with flat grains in narrow fractions.
- The control of the crusher outlet gap enables the production of 2–8 and 8–16 mm aggregates in varying proportions and the minimization of <2 mm fractions. The highest yields, ranging from approximately 43% to 47%, were obtained for the 2–8 mm fraction. For the 8–16 mm fraction, the outcrop ranged from about 21% to over 25%, and for the 0–2 mm fraction, it was up to 12%. From the point of view of the use of aggregate for green roofs, dusty fractions (below 2 mm) should be eliminated as far as possible.
- The aggregate has an apparent density of approx. 2.00 g/cm3, which is close to the standard limit, but due to the special shape of the aggregate has a very low bulk density of 0.82 g/cm3 on average. The aggregate made from clayey-clay raw material has a high water absorption rate of approximately 40% and the highest cavity density of ~68% compared to other aggregates.
- There are three conditions that a substrate must fulfil to ensure adequate moisture management: effective water absorption and retention; easy drainage; and high void coefficient (air volume)—cavernosity. The produced aggregate meets all these conditions.
- A high and sufficiently developed porosity, and thus water absorption, was achieved by suitable sintering, while in further studies, the authors would like to focus on the use of additives that improve the formation of winding channels important for water retention.
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- EN 13055:2016; Lightweight Aggregates, European Standard. iTeh Standards: Etobicoke, ON, Canada, 2016.
- Sims, I.; Lay, J.; Ferrari, J. Concrete Aggregates. In Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 15th ed.; Hewlett, P.C., Liska, M., Eds.; Butterworth-Heinemann: Oxford, UK, 2019; pp. 699–778. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kumar, P.S.; Babu, M.J.R.K.; Kumar, K.S. Experimental Study on Lightweight Aggregate. Int. J. Civ. Eng. Res. 2010, 1, 65–74. [Google Scholar]
- Hao, D.L.C.; Razak, R.A.; Kheimi, M.; Yahya, Z.; Abdullah, M.M.A.B.; Nergis, D.D.B.; Fansuri, H.; Ediati, R.; Mohamed, R.; Abdullah, A. Artificial Lightweight Aggregates Made from Pozzolanic Material: A Review on the Method, Physical and Mechanical Properties, Thermal and Microstructure. Materials 2022, 15, 3929. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alqahtani, F.K.; Zafar, I. Characterization of processed lightweight aggregate and its effect on physical properties of concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 2019, 230, 116992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Franus, M.; Barnat-Hunek, D.; Wdowin, M. Utilization of sewage sludge in the manufacture of lightweight aggregate. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2015, 188, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Williams, N.S.; Rayner, J.P.; Raynor, K.J. Green roofs for a wide brown land: Opportunities and barriers for rooftop greening in Australia. Urban For. Urban Green. 2010, 9, 245–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bates, A.J.; Sadler, J.P.; Greswell, R.B.; Mackay, R. Effects of recycled aggregate growth substrate on green roof vegetation development: A six year experiment. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2015, 135, 22–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kanechi, M.; Fujiwara, S.; Shintani, N.; Suzuki, T.; Uno, Y. Performance of herbaceous Evolvulus pilosus on urban green roof in relation to substrate and irrigation. Urban For. Urban Green. 2013, 13, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molineux, C.J.; Fentiman, C.H.; Gange, A.C. Characterising alternative recycled waste materials for use as green roof growing media in the U.K. Ecol. Eng. 2009, 35, 1507–1513. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molineux, C.J.; Gange, A.C.; Connop, S.P.; Newport, D.J. Using recycled aggregates in green roof substrates for plant diversity. Ecol. Eng. 2015, 82, 596–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bisceglie, F.; Gigante, E.; Bergonzoni, M. Utilization of waste Autoclaved Aerated Concrete as lighting material in the structure of a green roof. Constr. Build. Mater. 2014, 69, 351–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mickovski, S.B.; Buss, K.; McKenzie, B.M.; Sökmener, B. Laboratory study on the potential use of recycled inert construction waste material in the substrate mix for extensive green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 706–714. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graceson, A.; Hare, M.; Hall, N.; Monaghan, J. Use of inorganic substrates and composted green waste in growing media for green roofs. Biosyst. Eng. 2014, 124, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagase, A.; Dunnett, N.; Choi, M.-S. Investigation of weed phenology in an establishing semi-extensive green roof. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 58, 156–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Eksi, M.; Rowe, D.B. Green roof substrates: Effect of recycled crushed porcelain and foamed glass on plant growth and water retention. Urban For. Urban Green. 2016, 20, 81–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, M.; Wang, C.; Bai, Y.; Xu, G. Effects of sintering temperature on the characteristics of lightweight aggregate made from sewage sludge and river sediment. J. Alloys Compd. 2018, 748, 522–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Farías, R.D.; García, C.M.; Palomino, T.C.; Arellano, M.M. Effects of Wastes from the Brewing Industry in Lightweight Aggregates Manufactured with Clay for Green Roofs. Materials 2017, 10, 527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romali, N.S.; Ardzu, F.A.B.; Suzany, M.N. The potential of coconut waste as green roof materials to improve stormwater runoff. Water Sci. Technol. 2023, 87, 1515–1528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solano, L.; Ristvey, A.G.; Lea-Cox, J.D.; Cohan, S.M. Sequestering zinc from recycled crumb rubber in extensive green roof media. Ecol. Eng. 2012, 47, 284–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pérez, G.; Vila, A.; Rincón, L.; Solé, C.; Cabeza, L.F. Use of rubber crumbs as drainage layer in green roofs as potential energy improvement material. Appl. Energy 2011, 97, 347–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vali, K.; Murugan, S. Influence of industrial by-products in artificial lightweight aggregate concrete: An Environmental Benefit Approach. Ecol. Environ. Conserv. 2020, 26, S233–S241. [Google Scholar]
- Vali, K.S.; Murugan, B. Effect of different binders on cold-bonded artificial lightweight aggregate properties. Adv. Concr. Constr. 2020, 9, 183–193. [Google Scholar]
- Agrawal, Y.; Gupta, T.; Sharma, R.; Panwar, N.L.; Siddique, S. A Comprehensive Review on the Performance of Structural Lightweight Aggregate Concrete for Sustainable Construction. Constr. Mater. 2021, 1, 39–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- White, I.; Alarcon, A. Planning Policy, Sustainable drainage and surface water management: A case study of greater manchester. Built Environ. 2009, 35, 516–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liu, R.; Coffman, R. Lightweight Aggregate Made from Dredged Material in Green Roof Construction for Stormwater Man-agement. Materials 2016, 9, 611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kazemi, M.; Courard, L.; Attia, S. Water permeability, water retention capacity, and thermal resistance of green roof layers made with recycled and artificial aggregates. J. Affect. Disord. 2023, 227, 109776. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vijayaraghavan, K. Green roofs: A critical review on the role of components, benefits, limitations and trends. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2016, 57, 740–752. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouldboukhitine, S.-E.; Belarbi, R. Experimental characterization of green roof components. Energy Procedia 2015, 78, 1183–1188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stovin, V.; Poë, S.; Berretta, C. A modelling study of long term green roof retention performance. J. Environ. Manag. 2013, 131, 206–215. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Szota, C.; Fletcher, T.D.; Desbois, C.; Rayner, J.P.; Williams, N.S.G.; Farrell, C. Laboratory tests of substrate physical properties may not represent the retention capacity of green roof in situ. Water 2017, 9, 920. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Graceson, A.; Hare, M.; Monaghan, J.; Hall, N. The water retention capabilities of growing media for green roofs. Ecol. Eng. 2013, 61, 328–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coma, J.; Pérez, G.; Castell, A.; Solé, C.; Cabeza, L.F. Green roofs as passive system for energy savings in buildings during the cooling period: Use of rubber crumbs as drainage layer. Energy Effic. 2014, 7, 841–849. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nagase, A.; Dunnett, N. The relationship between percentage of organic matter in substrate and plant growth in extensive green roofs. Landsc. Urban Plan. 2011, 103, 230–236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarke, B.G. The engineering properties of glacial tills. Geotech. Res. 2018, 5, 262–277. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Evans, D.J.A.; Phillips, E.R.; Hiemstra, J.F.; Auton, C.A. Subglacial till: Formation, sedimentary characteristics and classification. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2006, 78, 115–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gawenda, T. Wibracyjny Przesiewacz Wielopokładowy. Patent No. PL 231748 B1, 12 June 2018. [Google Scholar]
- Available online: https://www.pgi.gov.pl/en/1242-surowce/surowce/skalne/14064-sand-and-gravel-natural-aggregates.html (accessed on 15 July 2022).
- Gawenda, T. Production Methods for Regular Aggregates and Innovative Developments in Poland. Minerals 2021, 11, 1429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- PN-EN 933-3:2012; Investigations of Geometrical Properties of Aggregates—Part 3: Determination of the Particle Shape by Means of the Flakiness Index. Polski Komitet Normalizacyjny: Warszawa, Poland, 2012.
- Arsenovic, M.; Pezo, L.; Radojevic, Z.; Stankovic, S. Serbian heavy clays behavior: Application in rough ceramics. Chem. Ind. 2013, 67, 811–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McCarthy, G.J.; Johansen, D.M.; Steinwand, S.J.; Thedchanamoorthy, A. X-ray diffraction analysis of fly ash. Advances in X-ray Analysis. Adv. X-ray Anal. 1987, 31, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasić, M.V.; Radovanović, L.; Pezo, L.; Radojević, Z. Raw kaolinitic-illitic clays as high-mechanical-performance hydraulically pressed refractories. J. Therm. Anal. Calorim. 2022, 148, 1783–1803. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vasić, M.V.; Jantunen, H.; Mijatović, N.; Nelo, M.; Velasco, P.M. Influence of coal ashes on fired clay brick quality: Random forest regression and artificial neural networks modeling. J. Clean. Prod. 2023, 407, 137153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lis, J.; Pampuch, R. Spiekanie Wydaw. Akademii Górniczo-Hutniczej im; Stanisława Staszica: Kraków, Poland, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Boccaccini, A.R.; Hamann, B. Review In Situ high-temperature optical microscopy. J. Mater. Sci. 1999, 34, 5419–5436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kang SJ, L. Sintering, Densification, Grain Growth & Microstructure; Elsevier: Oxford, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Kuang, X.; Carotenuto, G.; Nicolais, L. A Review of ceramic sintering and suggestions on reducing sintering temperatures. Adv. Perform. Mater. 1997, 4, 257–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kłosek-Wawrzyn, E.; Małolepszy, J.; Murzyn, P. Sintering behavior of kaolin with calcite. Procedia Eng. 2013, 57, 572–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zawrah, M.F.; Badr, H.A.; Khattab, R.M. Recycling and Utilization of some Waste Clays for Production of Sintered Ceramic Bodies. Silicon 2020, 12, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stempkowska, A.; Gawenda, T.; Staszewska, M. Lightweight alternative aggregate. Characteristic, parameters, application pos-sibilities. Krus. Miner. 2024, 7, 175–189. [Google Scholar]
- Karczmarczyk, A.; Baryła, A.; Kożuchowski, P. Design and Development of Low P-Emission Substrate for the Protection of Urban Water Bodies Collecting Green Roof Runoff. Sustainability 2017, 9, 1795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wong, G.K.; Jim, C. Quantitative hydrologic performance of extensive green roof under humid-tropical rainfall regime. Ecol. Eng. 2014, 70, 366–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ouldboukhitine, S.-E.; Belarbi, R.; Djedjig, R. Characterization of green roof components: Measurements of thermal and hydrological properties. Build. Environ. 2012, 56, 78–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miller, C. Moisture management in green roofs. In Proceedings of the First North American Green Roof Infrastructure Conference, Awards and Trade Show: Greening Rooftops for Sustainable Communities, Chicago, IL, USA, 29–30 May 2003; pp. 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Latshaw, K.; Fitzgerald, J.; Sutton, R. Analysis of Green Roof Growing Media Porosity. Rev. Undergrad. Res. Agric. Life Sci. 2009, 4, 2. [Google Scholar]
Sieve [mm] | Yield [%] | Total | Yield [%] | Total | Yield [%] | Total | Yield [%] | Total |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Sample 4 | |||||
0.02 | 28.24 | 28.24 | 93.98 | 93.98 | 72.03 | 72.03 | 89.88 | 89.88 |
0.04 | 9.05 | 37.29 | 5.32 | 99.30 | 23.04 | 95.07 | 7.98 | 97.86 |
0.063 | 17.73 | 55.02 | 0.56 | 99.86 | 4.66 | 99.73 | 0.70 | 98.56 |
0.071 | 18.26 | 73.28 | 0.05 | 99.91 | 0.13 | 99.86 | 0.01 | 98.57 |
0.1 | 24.94 | 98.22 | 0.08 | 99.99 | 0.11 | 99.97 | 0.07 | 98.64 |
0.25 | 1.77 | 99.99 | 0.01 | 100 | 0.03 | 100 | 0.33 | 98.97 |
0.315 | 0.01 | 100 | - | 100 | - | 100 | 1.03 | 100 |
Mineral | Chemical Formula | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Sample 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Composition [% wt.] | |||||
Quartz | SiO2 | 31.3 | 29.9 | 31.9 | 29.0 |
Calcite | CaCO3 | 30.3 | 33.8 | 33.3 | 32.0 |
Dolomite | CaMg(CO3)2 | 8.7 | 7.3 | 8.4 | 10.0 |
Albite | Na[AlSi3O8] | 6.6 | 5.5 | 6.4 | 7.0 |
Orthoclase/Microcline | K[AlSi3O8] | 7.2 | 6.6 | 7.6 | 8.0 |
Vermicullite | (Mg, Fe, Al)3(Al, Si)4O10 (OH)2·4H2O | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.4 | - |
Illite/Kaolinite | Al4[Si4O10](OH)8 | 14.1 | 15.6 | 12.2 | 14.0 |
Oxide | Sample 1 | Sample 2 | Sample 3 | Sample 4 |
---|---|---|---|---|
Content of Oxide [% wt.] | ||||
MgO | 3.66 | 3.46 | 3.63 | 3.49 |
Al2O3 | 10.72 | 11.55 | 10.98 | 11.29 |
SiO2 | 53.41 | 53.50 | 55.27 | 54.45 |
K2O | 2.83 | 2.91 | 2.75 | 2.90 |
CaO | 19.65 | 19.30 | 21.02 | 19.78 |
TiO2 | 1.16 | 1.12 | 0.99 | 1.07 |
MnO | 0.44 | 0.50 | 0.39 | 0.46 |
Fe2O3 | 8.03 | 7.60 | 4.88 | 6.49 |
ZrO2 | 0.11 | 0.07 | 0.08 | 0.08 |
Number | Sintering | Softening | Spreading |
---|---|---|---|
Specific Temperatures [°C] | |||
Sample 1 | 1160 | 1180 | 1208 |
Sample 2 | 1160 | 1185 | 1208 |
Sample 3 | 1169 | 1190 | 1202 |
Sample 4 | 1158 | 1190 | 1208 |
Sample | Conductivity [μS] | ||
Day 1 | Day 3 | Day 7 | |
1 | 165 | 179 | 284 |
2 | 145 | 176 | 159 |
3 | 167 | 189 | 183 |
4 | 156 | 176 | 210 |
Sample | pH [-] | ||
Day 1 | Day 3 | Day 7 | |
1 | 8.01 | 8.34 | 8.45 |
2 | 8.24 | 8.21 | 8.32 |
3 | 8.14 | 8.23 | 8.27 |
4 | 8.29 | 8.09 | 8.14 |
Type of Aggregate | Cavernosity [%] | Apparent Density [g/cm3] | Bulk Density [g/cm3] | |
---|---|---|---|---|
Burnt aggregate, flat grains | Sample 1 | 71.4 | 1.99 | 0.72 |
Sample 2 | 68.3 | 1.91 | 0.81 | |
Sample 3 | 67.9 | 1.85 | 0.85 | |
Sample 4 | 69.0 | 2.04 | 0.88 | |
Kiryu (Japan), regular grains | 52.2 | 1.61 | 0.84 | |
Akadama (Japan), regular grains | 60.0 | 1.93 | 0.78 | |
Shale (Poland), flat grains | 55.3 | 1.81 | 0.89 | |
LECA (Poland), regular grains | 54.4 | 1.22 | 0.43 |
Type of Aggregate | Total Absorbability [%] | Retention Capacity [g/cm3] | |
---|---|---|---|
Burnt aggregate, flat grains | Sample 1 | 42.2 | 35.0 |
Sample 2 | 40.0 | 32.6 | |
Sample 3 | 39.5 | 34.2 | |
Sample 4 | 41.2 | 36.5 | |
Kiryu (Japan), regular grains | 30.1 | 30.0 | |
Akadama (Japan), regular grains | 30.6 | 28.2 | |
Shale (Poland), flat grains | 21.4 | 17.6 | |
LECA (Poland), regular grains | 10–45 | 19.0 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Stempkowska, A.; Gawenda, T. Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design. Sustainability 2024, 16, 5512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135512
Stempkowska A, Gawenda T. Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design. Sustainability. 2024; 16(13):5512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135512
Chicago/Turabian StyleStempkowska, Agata, and Tomasz Gawenda. 2024. "Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design" Sustainability 16, no. 13: 5512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135512
APA StyleStempkowska, A., & Gawenda, T. (2024). Improved Artificial Aggregates for Use in Green Roof Design. Sustainability, 16(13), 5512. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16135512