The American University in Cairo School of Sciences and Engineering
by user
Comments
Transcript
The American University in Cairo School of Sciences and Engineering
The American University in Cairo School of Sciences and Engineering APPROACHING INDUSTRIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM FOR SHAQ AL-THU`BAN MARBLE AND GRANITE INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER A Thesis Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Environmental Engineering By Rania Ahmed Hamza Sayed Eid B.Sc. Construction Engineering Under the supervision of Dr. Salah El-Haggar Professor and Chair of Mechanical Engineering Department, AUC Dr. Safwan Khedr Professor of construction Engineering, AUC January/2011 The American University in Cairo APPROACHING INDUSTRIAL AND ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM FOR SHAQ AL-THU`BAN MARBLE AND GRANITE INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER A Thesis Submitted by Rania Ahmed Hamza Sayed Eid to Department of . . . . Month/year in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science has been approved by Dr. . . . . . Thesis Committee Chair / Adviser ________________________ Affiliation ___________________________________________ Dr. . . . . . Thesis Committee Chair / Adviser ________________________ Affiliation ____________________________________________ Dr. . . . . . Thesis Committee Reader / examiner _______________________ Affiliation ____________________________________________ Dr. . . . . . Thesis Committee Reader / examiner _______________________ Affiliation ____________________________________________ _________________ _______ ___________ ____ Department Chair/ Date Dean Date Program Director ii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank all those who helped me by advice, guidance, contribution, technical and informational support, and criticism in order to bring this research work up to this level. There were many people who were involved in this research work from various areas. From AUC, first and foremost, my advisors, Dr. Salah El-Haggar and Dr. Safwan Khedr, who had a major contribution and significance in this research. Their JXLGDQFHLGHDVDQGVXJJHVWLRQVKDYHEHHQLQYDOXDEOHWKURXJKRXWP\PDVWHU¶VWKHVLV and study. They provided me with unlimited support and were very generous with their time and devotion to this project. From the Construction Engineering Department; Dr. Ezzat Fahmy, and Dr. Khaled Nassar, who guided me in testing and evaluating the performance of concrete bricks; Mr. Mamdouh Kamel and concrete and soil labs team, Mr. Ragab El Dawey, Mr. Fares Metwaley, Mr. Khaled Fadl and Mr. Haytham Talaat, who assisted me in manufacturing and testing of concrete brick samples. From the mechanical Engineering Department; waste management lab, Mr. Mohamed Said, Mr. Ahmed, and Mr. Mohamed, who assisted me in preparing the molds and manufacturing composite marble samples. From materials lab, Eng. Hanady Hussien, and Mr. Hussien, for helping me in preparing and polishing of samples. From ceramics lab, Mr. Essam, who helped me in conducting abrasion tests on bricks.From he workshop, Eng. Khaled Fadel, Mr. Saaed, Mr. Sobhi, and Mr. Magdy, who helped me in preparing the molds, and polishing of samples. University colleagues, Eng. Hanadi Hussein, and Eng. Youmna Ali, for their active support throughout the research period. iii From Jameel Science and Technology Research Center (STRC), I would like to thank Eng. Rami, for his assistance in chemical analysis of waste material. Various external industrial and governmental organizations were also involved in implementing the experimental setup of this research work; Mr. Ahmed Samy, Chairman of Technology & innovation Council. Dr. Mahmoud EL-Garf, Vice chairman of Technology & innovation Council, Dr. Hanan Al-Hadary, Head of Clean production center, Technology & innovation Council, Eng. Mohamed AL-Awam, Project Development Engineer of Technology & innovation Council, Eng. Mohamed Kamal Head of Building Materials Technology Center, Eng. Mohamed Hussen, QC manager of Building Materials Technology Center, for technical and informational support and guidance. Mr. Fayez Saif, Lab. Manager of Building Materials Technology Center, and Ms. Moshera Roshdy, Assistant Lab Manager of Building Materials Technology Center for their assistance in conducting of experimental tests on composite marble. From Cemex, Eng. Fikry Kissouni, Commercial Vice President of Cemex, and Dr. Aly Hanafy, Quality Assurance Director, Cemex, for their technical support in manufacturing and testing cement. I would like to thank all my family members; my husband, Eng. Ahmed Okasha, My mother, Mrs. Zakeya El-Memey, My Father, Mr. Ahmed Hamza, and my brothers, Eng. Mostafa, and Mohamed. They have provided me with invaluable and unlimited support that this work would not have been possible without their help. iv ABSTRACT Marble and granite industry has grown significantly in the last decades with the privatization trend in the early 1990s, and the flourishing construction industry in Egypt. Accordingly, the amount of mining and processing waste has increased. Stone waste is generally a highly polluting waste due to both its highly alkaline nature, and its manufacturing and processing techniques, which impose a health threat to the surroundings. Shaq Al-Thu`ban industrial cluster, the largest marble and granite industrial cluster in Egypt is imposing an alarming threat to the surrounding communities, Zahraa ElMaadi, and the ecology of the neighboring Wadi Degla protectorate. This thesis proposes both industrial, through recycling-reuse, and environmental, through a structured Eco-industrial Cluster (EIC), reform for Shaq Al-Thu`ban. Recycled products are composite marble, with waste content up to 84%, concrete bricks, with waste content up to 40%, and cement, with waste of 5% added to the clinker. The recycled products are tested for chemical, physical, and mechanical properties according to the requirements of the American Standards for Testing materials (ASTM), and/or Europian Standards (EN), and/or the Egyptian Code. The results are assessed according to the specifications of one or all of the above mentioned standards. The test results revealed that the recycled products have chemical, physical and mechanical properties that qualify them for use in the building sector. The environmental reform proposed encompasses the concepts of industrial ecology, and especially its application ± eco-industrial cluster along with the techniques of v cleaner production, and the new regulations required to promote industrial ecology for all industrial areas such as a modified version of extended producer responsibility (EPR). vi TABLE OF CONTENTS ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ........................................................................................................ iii ABSTRACT............................................................................................................................... v LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................................................. xii LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................. xvi LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .................................................................................................. xx CHAPTER ONE ........................................................................................................................ 1 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1 1.1. BACKGROUND......................................................................................................... 1 1.1.1. CLASSES OF NATURAL STONE ............................................................................ 1 1.1.2. COMPOSITION OF NATURAL STONE ................................................................. 1 1.1.3. NATURAL STONE IN EGYPT ................................................................................. 2 1.1.4. NATURAL STONE CONTRIBUTION TO THE EGYPTIAN ECONOMY ............ 3 1.1.5. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE FACTORIES ......... 4 1.1.6. CONCENTRATION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE INDUSTRY IN SHAQ ALTHU`BAN ................................................................................................................................. 5 1.1.7. SHAQ AL - THU`BAN SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT .................................. 6 1.1.7.1. ZAHRAA EL-MAADI ............................................................................................... 6 1.1.7.2. WADI DEGLA PROTECTORATE ........................................................................... 8 OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................... 8 APPROACHES TO WADI DEGLA PROTECTORATE .......................................... 9 1.1.8. LEGISLATIONS ...................................................................................................... 10 1.1.9. MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF MARBLE AND GRANITE .......................... 11 1.1.10. WASTE QUANTIFICATION .................................................................................. 13 1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT ....................................................................................... 20 vii 1.3. OBJECTIVE ............................................................................................................. 21 1.4. SCOPE OF WORK ................................................................................................... 21 1.5. APPROACH ............................................................................................................. 21 CHAPTER TWO ..................................................................................................................... 22 LIERATURE REVIEW ........................................................................................................... 22 2.1. WASTE GROUPS .................................................................................................... 22 2.1.1. MARBLE PIECES .................................................................................................... 22 2.1.2. MARBLE PARTICLES ............................................................................................ 22 2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ................................................................................ 23 2.3. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................ 26 2.3.1. ATTERBERG LIMITS ............................................................................................. 26 2.3.2. GRAIN SIZE ............................................................................................................. 26 2.3.3. SPECIFIC GRAVITY ............................................................................................... 27 2.3.4. SURFACE AREA ..................................................................................................... 28 2.3.5. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 28 2.3.6. THERMAL ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 30 2.3.7. WASTEWATER ....................................................................................................... 30 2.3.7.1. WASTEWATER RECYCLING ............................................................................... 31 2.4. UTILIZATION ASPECTS ....................................................................................... 32 2.4.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE........................................................................................... 32 2.4.2. CEMENT INDUSTRY ............................................................................................. 34 2.4.3. CONCRETE .............................................................................................................. 36 2.4.3.1 STONE WASTE AGGREGATE REPLACING SANDSTONE AGGREGATE .... 36 2.4.3.2 SLURRY WASTE REPLACING FINE AGGREGATE .......................................... 36 2.4.3.3 SLURRY WASTE PARTIALLY REPLACING CEMENT .................................... 40 2.4.3.4 CEMENT BRICKS ................................................................................................... 40 viii 2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM ............................................................................... 41 2.5.1. REGULATIONS ....................................................................................................... 41 2.5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) ........................................... 43 2.5.3. CLEANER PRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 44 2.5.4. INDUSTRISL ECOLOGY ....................................................................................... 45 2.5.5. ECO-INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER ............................................................................... 46 2.5.5.1. CHAMPION AND THE ROLE OF TRUST ............................................................ 48 2.5.6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM .................................................. 48 2.5.7. EXAMPLES OF CLUSTERS ................................................................................... 49 2.5.7.1. CARRARA CLUSTER, ITALY ............................................................................... 49 2.5.7.2. VERONA CLUSTER, ITALY ................................................................................. 50 2.5.7.3. RAWALPINDI/ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN ........................................................... 52 CHAPTER THREE ................................................................................................................. 55 RESEARCH APPROACH ...................................................................................................... 55 3.1. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM ................................................... 55 3.1.1. WASTECHARACTARIZATION ............................................................................ 55 3.1.1.1. ATTERBERG LIMITS ............................................................................................. 55 3.1.1.2. GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES ....................................................................................... 56 3.1.1.3. SPECIFIC GRAVITY, DENSITY, AND WATER ABSORPTION ........................ 56 3.1.1.4. BULK DENSITY (UNIT WEIGHT) ........................................................................ 56 3.1.1.5. ABRASION RESISTANCE ..................................................................................... 57 3.1.1.6. SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA ................................................................................... 57 3.1.1.7. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 57 3.1.2. RECYCLED PRODUCTS ........................................................................................ 57 3.1.2.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE........................................................................................... 59 COMPOSITION ....................................................................................................... 59 ix TESTING .................................................................................................................. 60 DENSITY AND POROSITY.................................................................................... 60 WATER ABSORPTION........................................................................................... 60 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ................................................................................. 60 FLEXURAL STRENGTH ........................................................................................ 60 RUPTURE ENERGY ............................................................................................... 61 3.1.2.2. CONCRETE BRICKS .............................................................................................. 66 MIXING, POURING, AND CURING ..................................................................... 66 TESTING .................................................................................................................. 66 COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ................................................................................. 66 MOISTURE CONTENT AND ABSORPTION ....................................................... 66 DURABILITY .......................................................................................................... 67 - CYCLES OF HEATING AND COOLING .............................................................. 67 - Cycles of immersion in salt solution and heating...................................................... 67 ABRASION RESISTANCE ..................................................................................... 68 3.1.2.3. USE IN MANUFACTURING CEMENT................................................................. 76 CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 76 PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL ANALYSIS ..................................................... 76 3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM ............................................................................... 76 CHAPTER FOUR.................................................................................................................... 81 ANALYSIS OF RESULTS, AND DISCUSSION .................................................................. 81 4.1. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION ............................................................................ 81 4.1.1. ATTERBERG LIMITS ............................................................................................. 81 4.1.2. GRAIN SIZE ............................................................................................................. 81 4.1.3. SPECIFIC GRAVITY, DENSITY, AND ABSORPTION ....................................... 82 4.1.4. BULK DENSITY (UNIT WEIGHT): ....................................................................... 82 x 4.1.5. ABRASION RESISTANCE ..................................................................................... 83 4.1.6. SURFACE AREA ..................................................................................................... 83 4.1.7. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 86 4.2. RECYCLED PRODUCTS ........................................................................................ 92 4.2.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE........................................................................................... 92 4.2.1.1. DENSITY AND POROSITY.................................................................................... 92 4.2.1.2. WATER ABSORPTION........................................................................................... 92 4.2.1.3. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH ................................................................................. 92 4.2.1.4. FLEXURAL STRENGTH ........................................................................................ 94 4.2.1.5. RUPTURE ENERGY ............................................................................................... 95 4.2.2. CONCRETE BRICKS ............................................................................................ 103 4.2.3. USE IN MANUFACTURING CEMENT............................................................... 142 4.2.3.1. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS ....................................................................................... 143 4.2.3.2. PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL ANALYSIS ................................................... 144 CHAPTER FIVE ................................................................................................................... 150 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 150 5.1. CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................... 150 5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................................................ 151 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 153 xi LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Map of Shaq Al-Thu`ban and the surroundings ......................................................... 7 Figure 2: Marble Production Process ...................................................................................... 12 Figure 3: Stone blocks ............................................................................................................. 14 Figure 4: Carrying the blocks for cutting ................................................................................. 15 Figure 5: Cutting blocks with gang blades under water showers............................................. 15 Figure 6: Sedimentation pits .................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7: Granite slurry left to dry on ground .......................................................................... 16 Figure 8: Hills of dried granite slurry ...................................................................................... 16 Figure 9: Hills of dried marble slurry ...................................................................................... 16 Figure 10: Layout view of hills of dried slurry and scrap waste .............................................. 17 Figure 11: Disposal of slurry waste at Wadi Degla Protectorate buffer zone .......................... 17 Figure 12: Cutting saw with water shower .............................................................................. 18 Figure 13: Hills of cutting waste .............................................................................................. 18 Figure 14: Polishing slabs ........................................................................................................ 19 Figure 15: Environmental reform structure (Source: El-Haggar, 2007) .................................. 43 Figure 16: Laboratory experimental program ......................................................................... 58 Figure 17: Mixed coarse aggregate (C) of Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size = 12.5 mm. .. 61 Figure 18: Mixed marble pieces of coarse sand size (A) ......................................................... 61 Figure 19: Mixed marble pieces of fine sand size (B) ............................................................. 61 Figure 20: Granite slurry powder ............................................................................................. 62 Figure 21: Marble slurry powder ............................................................................................. 62 Figure 22: Mixing, pouring in molds, and compaction by vibration ....................................... 62 Figure 23: Sample before sawing into 5 cm cubes .................................................................. 62 Figure 24: Cubes for density, porosity, absorption, and compressive strength determination tests .......................................................................................................................................... 63 xii Figure 25: Rupture energy determination sample .................................................................... 63 Figure 26: Polished surface of composite marble cube ........................................................... 63 Figure 27: Flexural strength determination samples ................................................................ 63 Figure 28: Open porosity determination test for cubes ............................................................ 64 Figure 29: Compression test for cubes..................................................................................... 64 Figure 30: Flexural strength test .............................................................................................. 65 Figure 31: Rupture energy determination for tiles ................................................................... 65 Figure 32: M 30mix consistency.............................................................................................. 68 Figure 33: M 40 mix consistency............................................................................................. 68 Figure 34: G20 mix consistency .............................................................................................. 69 Figure 35: G30 mix consistency .............................................................................................. 69 Figure 36: Control mix consistency ......................................................................................... 69 Figure 37: Mix M 30 after compaction (by vibration) ............................................................. 69 Figure 38: Mix M 40 after compaction (by vibration) ............................................................. 70 Figure 39: Control after compaction ........................................................................................ 70 Figure 40: M 30 sample at 7 days ............................................................................................ 70 Figure 41: control brick ........................................................................................................... 70 Figure 42: G20 brick ................................................................................................................ 71 Figure 43: M10 modified brick ................................................................................................ 71 Figure 44: G10 modified brick ................................................................................................ 71 Figure 45: Zero samples after 7 days ....................................................................................... 71 Figure 46: Compression test for M 30 sample at 7 days .......................................................... 72 Figure 47: M 10 sample after compression test ....................................................................... 72 Figure 48: M 30 sample after compression test ....................................................................... 72 Figure 49: Control specimen after compression test (7days) ................................................... 73 Figure 50: M 40 sample after compression test (7days) .......................................................... 73 Figure 51: G30 modified after compression test (28 days) ...................................................... 73 xiii Figure 52: samples after cycles of heating and cooling ........................................................... 74 Figure 53: samples after salt cycles ......................................................................................... 74 Figure 54: abrasion resistance test ........................................................................................... 74 Figure 55: Schematic diagram of Shaq Al-Thu`ban EIC ......................................................... 80 Figure 56: Mixed coarse aggregate grain size distribution ...................................................... 84 Figure 57: Coarse sand (A) grain size distribution .................................................................. 84 Figure 58: Fine sand (B) grain size distribution ...................................................................... 84 Figure 59: 30%A + 70% B grain size distribution ................................................................... 85 Figure 60: Grain size analysis - hydrometer-for marble slurry ................................................ 85 Figure 61: Grain size analysis - hydrometer-for granite slurry ................................................ 85 Figure 62: Compressive and flexural strength of composite marble at different polyester content.................................................................................................................................... 102 Figure 63: Flexural strength of composite slurry marble at different polyester content ........ 102 Figure 64: Rupture energy of composite marble at different polyester content..................... 102 Figure 65: Rupture energy of composite slurry marble at different polyester content .......... 103 Figure 66: Compressive strength for marble slurry samples ................................................. 138 Figure 67: Compressive strength for granite slurry samples ................................................. 139 Figure 68: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control at 7 days ............................................................................................................... 139 Figure 69: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control at 28 days ............................................................................................................. 139 Figure 70: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry compared with the control after heating and cooling cycles ................................................................................ 140 Figure 71: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry compared with the control after salt solution cycles ............................................................................................ 140 Figure 72: Compressive strength for marble slurry samples with modified (decreased) cement content.................................................................................................................................... 140 xiv Figure 73: Compressive strength for granite slurry samples with modified (decreased) cement content.................................................................................................................................... 141 Figure 74: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after 7 days ........................................................................................................... 141 Figure 75: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after 28 days ......................................................................................................... 141 Figure 76: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after heating and cooling cycles........................................................................... 142 Figure 77: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after salt solution cycles....................................................................................... 142 Figure 78: Compressive strength of cement samples after 2 days ......................................... 148 Figure 79: Compressive strength of cement samples after 7 days ......................................... 148 Figure 80: Compressive strength of cement samples after 28 days ....................................... 148 Figure 81: Compressive strength of cement samples after 60 days ....................................... 149 Figure 82: Compressive strength of cement samples after 90 days ....................................... 149 xv LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Worldwide stone production (stone, 2004)................................................................ 14 Table 2: Amount of waste in percentage (Pareek, 2003) ......................................................... 14 Table 3: Compasrison between limestone and marble slurry for use in cement industry (Source: Sharma, 2003) ........................................................................................................... 36 Table 4: Composite marble mix design ................................................................................... 59 Table 5: Mix design for brick samples..................................................................................... 75 Table 6: Specific gravity of marble and granite slurry particles .............................................. 83 Table 7: Specific gravity of marble and granite pieces ............................................................ 83 Table 8: Chemical analysis of marble gang saw sample.......................................................... 86 Table 9: Chemical analysis of granite gang saw sample.......................................................... 87 Table 10: Chemical analysis of granite multi disk sample ...................................................... 87 Table 11: Chemical analysis of granite powder by EDS, and SEM ........................................ 88 Table 12: Chemical analysis of marble powder by EDS, and SEM ........................................ 88 Table 13: Chemical analysis of coarse aggregate, red grain, by EDS, and SEM .................... 89 Table 14: Chemical analysis of coarse aggregate, black grain, by EDS, and SEM ................. 89 Table 15: Chemical analysis of coarse sand (A) by EDS, and SEM ....................................... 90 Table 16: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), black grains, by EDS, and SEM ..................... 90 Table 17: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), green grains, by EDS, and SEM ..................... 91 Table 18: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), red grains, by EDS, and SEM ......................... 91 Table 19: Apparent density and open porosity for composite marble ..................................... 93 Table 20: Apparent density and open porosity for composite marble slurry ........................... 94 Table 21: Water absorption of composite marble .................................................................... 95 Table 22: Water absorption of composite marble slurry.......................................................... 96 Table 23: Compressive strength of composite marble ............................................................. 97 Table 24: Flexural strength of composite marble .................................................................... 98 xvi Table 25: Flexural strength of composite slurry marble .......................................................... 99 Table 26: Rupture energy of composite marble ..................................................................... 100 Table 27: Rupture energy of composite slurry marble........................................................... 101 Table 28: Summary of composite marble test results ............................................................ 101 Table 29: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks control samples ........................ 104 Table 30: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks control samples ............................................................................................................................................... 105 Table 31: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks zero slurry samples .................. 106 Table 32: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks zero slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 107 Table 33: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% marble slurry samples ...... 108 Table 34: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% marble slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 109 Table 35: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 20% marble slurry samples ...... 110 Table 36: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 20% marble slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 111 Table 37: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% marble slurry samples ...... 112 Table 38: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% marble slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 113 Table 39: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 40% marble slurry samplesTable 40: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 40% marble slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 114 Table 41: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% granite slurry samples ...... 116 Table 42: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% granite slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 117 Table 43: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 20% granite slurry samples ...... 118 xvii Table 44: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 20% granite slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 119 Table 45: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% granite slurry samples ...... 120 Table 46: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% granite slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 121 Table 47: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 40% granite slurry samples ...... 122 Table 48: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 40% granite slurry samples ........................................................................................................................ 123 Table 49: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% modified marble slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 124 Table 50: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% modified marble slurry samples ............................................................................................................ 125 Table 51: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% modified marble slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 126 Table 52: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% modified marble slurry samples ............................................................................................................ 127 Table 53: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% modified granite slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 128 Table 54: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% modified granite slurry samples ............................................................................................................ 129 Table 55: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% modified granite slurry samples................................................................................................................................... 130 Table 56: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% modified granite slurry samples ............................................................................................................ 131 Table 57: Summary table for mechanical and physical properties of bricks ......................... 132 Table 58: Abrasion resistance for bricks subjected to pedestrian and light traffic ................ 136 Table 59: Abrasion resistance of control bricks..................................................................... 137 xviii Table 60: Abrasion resistance of M10 bricks ........................................................................ 137 Table 61: Abrasion resistance of G10 bricks ......................................................................... 138 Table 62: Chemical analysis of raw material and cement manufactured ............................... 145 Table 63: Physical analysis of cement ................................................................................... 146 Table 64: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 2 days ............................... 146 Table 65: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 7 days ............................... 146 Table 66: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 28 days ............................. 147 Table 67: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 60 days ............................. 147 Table 68: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 90 days ............................. 147 Table 69: Summary table for comprissve strength of cement................................................ 148 xix LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS C: control sample CM Polyx: composite marble samples of a matrix of waste aggregates, slurry powder and polyester resin, and x is weight percentage of polyester resin (14, 16, 18, and 20) CMS Polyx: composite marble slurry sample of a matrix of slurry powder and polyester resin, and x is weight percentage of polyester resin (30, 35, and 40) CP: Cleaner Production EBIC: Environmentally Balanced Industrial Complex EEAA: Egyptian Environmental Affairs Agency EGSMA: Egyptian General Survey and Measurement Authority EIA: Environmental Impact Assessment EIC: Eco-Industrial Cluster EIP: Eco-Industrial Park EMS: Environmental Management System Gx: brick sample with granite slurry powder addition and x is weight percentage of slurry incorporation (10, 20, 30, and 40) Gx mod: modified brick sample with granite slurry powder addition and reduced cement content, and x is slurry powder wt% (10 and 30) xx MSEA: Ministry of State for Environmental Affairs EPR: Extended Producer Responsibility IE: Industrial Ecology MD: Ministerial Decree MTI: Ministry of Trade and Industry MTPA: Million Tons per Annum Mx: brick sample with marble slurry powder addition and x is weight percentage of slurry incorporation (10, 20, 30, and 40) Mx mod: modified brick sample with marble slurry powder addition and reduced cement content, and x is slurry powder wt% (10 and 30) OD: Oven Dry PMD: Prime Ministerial Decree SSD: Saturated Surface Dry xxi CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION 1.1. BACKGROUND 1.1.1. CLASSES OF NATURAL STONE Dimension stones industry is one of the oldest and largest industries worldwide. Stone has played a significant role in human endeavors since earliest recorded history and its use has evolved since ancient time. In terms of stone nature, the dimension stones VHFWRU EDVLFDOO\ FRQVLVWV RI WZR PDLQ FODVVHV RI URFNV ³&DOFDUHRXV PDWHULDO´ RU ³0DUEOH´ FRPSULVLQJ WKH ZKROH FODVV RI FDUERQDWH URFNV DPHQDEOH WR VDZLQJ DQG polishing, DQG ³6LOLFHRXV PDWHULDO´ RU ³*UDQLWH´ LQFOXGLQJ WKH ZKROH VHW RI HUXSWLYH rocks having granular structure and poly-mineral composition, irrespective of the content of quartz. While tKHVHWZRFODVVHVUHSUHVHQWWKHODUJHPDMRULW\RIµGLPHQVLRQ stoneV¶ WKH RWKHU PDWHULDOV VXFK DV VODWH DQG OLPHVWRQH KDYe a much limited importance in terms of quantity and value of production and trade (Ciccu et al., 2005). 1.1.2. COMPOSITION OF NATURAL STONE In terms of composition, marble is a metamorphic rock composed mainly of calcite or dolomite, or a combination of these two carbonate minerals, formed from limestone by heat and pressure in the earth's crust. These forces cause the limestone to change in texture and make-up. This process is called ³re-crystallization´. The impurities present in the limestone during re-crystallization give marble wide variety of colors. The purest calcite marble is white, while marble containing hematite has a reddish color. Marble that has limonite is yellow, and marble with serpentine is green. Marble 1 consist of soluble residue (0.89 percent), Fe2O3 (0.28 percent), CaCO3 (97.74 percent), MgCO3 (1.22 percent), phosphoric acid (0.04 percent), along with impurities: SiO2, Fe2O3, limonite, manganese, Al2O3, and FeS2 (pyrite) (Minerals Zone, 2005). Granite, a hard natural igneous rock having visible crystalline texture, is formed essentially of quartz and orthoclase or microcline. It is formed from volcanic lava. The principal constituents of granite are feldspar, quartz and biotite. However, the percentage composition of each varies and accordingly imparts different color and texture to the final product. The percentage composition of feldspar varies between 65 and 90 percent, of quartz can extend from 10 to 60 percent and the biotite range is between 10 and 15 percent. Granite consists of silica (SiO2), 70 to 77 percent; alumina (Al2O3), 11 to 14 percent; potassium oxide (P2O5), 3 to 5 percent; soda (Na2O3), 3 to 5 percent; lime, 1 percent; iron (Fe2O3), 1 to 3 percent, magnesia (MgO), 0.5 to 1 percent; titina, less than 1 percent (0.38 percent); and water (H2O), 0.03 percent (Granite Sandstone). The specific gravity of marble usually ranges from 2.4 to 2.7, while granite has generally a higher specific gravity ranging from 2.6 to 2.7 (Average specific gravity of various rock types). 1.1.3. NATURAL STONE IN EGYPT Nature has gifted Egypt with large deposits of high quality marble and granite. Since 2700 B.C., the ancient Egyptians used granite to build their important temples and buildings. According to Strategic Study on the Egyptian Marble and Granite Sector that was prepared in August, 2005 by Ciccu et al., in 2005, world Stone production reached the peak of some 75 million tons (or 820 million m2 equivalent), net of quarry waste. The official production figures of Egypt are remarkable; yet, the real production is considerably higher than the level indicated by the official statistics and 2 maybe beyond the levels estimated in the course of the study as indicated by Ciccu et al. (2005). The most likely estimations based on the information retrieved through local assessment attributed to Egypt: a quarry production of about 3.2 million tons and over 25 different types of Egyptian marble and granite in 2004. This indicates that the country lies among the top 8 world producers of raw material. The average annual rate of increase has reached 8.8% since 2002. Concerning quarry production and raw export, Egypt is ranked the fourth respectively with a share of 4.3% and 6.6% of total world market of marble and granite. However, in terms of total processed materials delivered abroad, the role of Egypt is less vivid, representing a 3.7% share of international export and only 1.5% of world consumption. Total export from Egypt, according to the local review evaluation, can be estimated at 1.5 million tons per year: 0.9 million tons as raw materials and 0.6 as processed products. This means that Egypt can be considered the seventh exporter in the world, in terms of volume, after China, India, Italy, Spain, Turkey and Brazil (Ciccu et al., 2005). 1.1.4. NATURAL STONE CONTRIBUTION TO THE EGYPTIAN ECONOMY The contribution of the natural stone industry to the Egyptian economy has grown tremendously over the past decades and especially post 1990s. According to Mr. Ibrahim Ghali, a dealer of several Italian companies for marble processing and a distributor of this machinery all over Egypt, there are around 500 big enterprises in this industry and at least 3000 workshops (as cited in Kandil and Selim, 2006). According to Eng. Medhat Mostafa, President of Sinai International Marble Company and Vice President of the Association of Marble and Granite producers, capital investments in marble and granite quarries and factories have reached LE 5 billion and more than half a million persons work in this sector as labor force (Kandil & Selim, 2006). 3 According to Ciccu et al. (2005), this sector suddenly gained importance and the government issued several directives to regulate and activate the associated industry. One of the most important regulations was the directive issued from the Vice President of Egypt (No. 38 for the year 1962) to transfer all authorities related to marble and granite quarrying from EGSMA to the different governorates, while the EGSMA would be responsible for planning and conducting technical research and technical audits. The purpose of this directive was to help the decentralization of the decision taking related to dimension stone activity in Egypt. The first time when (J\SW¶V )LYH <HDU 3lan included projects related to the exploitation of ornamental stones was in the 1960/1965 plan. According to Kandil and Selim (2006), with the privatization trend in the early 1990s, investors started to be interested in the marble and granite industry that was flourishing with high profit margins and which seemed to have good potential for growth. Moreover, the cost of quarrying was not high due to the use of relatively cheap technology and relatively cheap labor (mostly unskilled). 1.1.5. REGIONAL DISTRIBUTION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE FACTORIES Results of interviews with experts in the industry confirm the regional distribution of factories across Egypt; however, according to Mr. Ibrahim Ghaly, half of all marble producers are concentrated in Cairo. It is often the case that the work is being processed in Cairo, but is then transported all over the country, possibly to governorates that lie near to the quarry. This is a consequence of the fact that the demand is mainly initiated with head offices of the different businesses located in Cairo and hence suppliers are concentrated in Cairo as well. The city of Cairo can be described as the centre and main market for marble trading in Egypt. This results in high costs in terms of transportation overhead due to the lack of adequate regional 4 industry planning (as cited in Kandil & Selim, 2006). Moreover, according to several marble factory owners interviewed, factories cannot be located besides the quarries as quarries are usually located in remote areas. Accordingly, if factories are located right besides the quarries, this will compel several requirements that are not feasible. Namely, the supplies of water and electricity are insufficient as well as the needed infrastructure to ensure a minimal level of living standards for the workers. On the other hand, transportation of the finished product is much more complicated and risky, as the processed marble is very fragile while solid raw marble stone can be transported without concerns of fragility (Kandil & Selim, 2006). The unavailability of space for such an industry was highlighted by Ciccu et al. (2005) indicating that one of the main problems in Egypt is the unavailability of ³RSWLPXPOD\-RXW´IRUSURFHVVLQJPDUEOHDQGJUDQLWH7KHDYDLODEOHSURFHVVLQJOLQHV are too crowded and ill managed. Infrastructures are poorly developed and often inadequate; only recently the big cluster of Shaq Al-Thu`ban near Cairo has been provided with electrical energy from public network while it is still waiting for the connection to an industrial water delivery system and for the creation of common waste disposal facilities. 1.1.6. CONCENTRATION OF MARBLE AND GRANITE INDUSTRY IN SHAQ AL- THU`BAN According to Ghaly, Egypt has currently about operating 500 factories in this industry. Four hundred factories or about 70% of the industry is located in Shaq Al ± Thu`ban, which is located in Katameyya near Maadi suburb of Cairo. It has an area of approximately 1000 acres. The remaining 100 factories are scattered all over Egypt, primarily in the main cities or the capital of the governorates (Kandil and Selim, 2006). However, according to Nadia Youssef, a journalist in Al Ahram (2005), the 5 total area of Shaq Al ± Thu`ban was estimated at 400 feddans, where 235 factories and 300 workshops were operating offering 75 thousand direct and indirect job opportunities. Shaq Al ± Thu`ban comes in the third place worldwide regarding the production of high quality marble The total investment in this place is around 6 billion EGP (equivalent to 970 Million USD) (Istituto nazonake per Commercio Estero, 2003). 1.1.7. SHAQ AL - THU`BAN SURROUNDING ENVIRONMENT Shaq Al - Thu`ban industrial cluster hosts one of the most polluting industries. It poses the most imminent hazard to residents of neighboring communities: Wadi Degla protectorate and Zahraa El- Maadi residential area. Fig. (1) shows a map of Shaq Al-Thu`ban and the violations taking place, where the buffer zone as well as the protectorate lands have been used by the industrial cluster for industry related purposes. 1.1.7.1. ZAHRAA EL-MAADI $FFRUGLQJWRWKHUHSRUW³*RPKRULDW6KDT$O- 7KXCEDQ´RUWKH5HSXEOLFRI6KDT$OThu`ban that was issued by Moltaka Al-hewar for development and human right (2007), the pollution at the area of Shak Al-Thu`ban is not only at the cluster area but it extends to Zahraa El-Maadi, which lies bottom hill west of Shaq Al - Thu`ban, as well. The labor assured that factories owners insist on throwing scraps and marble powder mixed with the cooling water (slurry) at the rear of the factories in the direction of Zahraa El- Maadi as the slurry solidifies when it dries allowing for the H[SDQGLQJ WKH IDFWRU\ ODQG HVSHFLDOO\ ZLWK DXWKRULW\¶V ODFN RI VXSHUYLVLRQ FRQWURO and/or intervention. 6 Cluster Zahraa Al-Maadi 7 Figure 1: Map of Shaq Al-Thu`ban and the surroundings (source: Marble and Quary Technology Center, MTI) Buffer zone Wadi Degla 1.1.7.2. x WADI DEGLA PROTECTORATE OVERVIEW Wadi Degla is situated at the western edge of the Eastern desert. It is a thirtýkilometer long and onétóthree kilometers wide. Wadi Degla constitutes a unique resource for its geological and natural history. According to Halim (1999) and Mikhail (n.d), some of the most ancient rock formations in Egypt, including igneous and metamorphic, are found in the Wadi. During the Eocene era, 50 to 60 million years ago, the Mediterranean Sea covered the area, leaving it with a rich array of marine fossils. The canyon itself began to form during the Pleistocene Period, about 10,000 years ago. 3RROVRIZDWHUFROOHFWHGRQWKH:DGL¶VQHZO\IRUPHGSODQHV DQG JLDQW FDVFDGLQJ ZDWHUIDOOV HYHQWXDOO\ GXJ LQWR WKH FDQ\RQ¶V ZDOOV :LQWHU¶V meager rainfall, which fluctuates around 30 millimeters annually, still percolates today through 10 to 15 meter deep limestone caves and grottoes, providing both shelter and sustenance for the WDGL¶V YDULHW\ RI DQLPDO VSHFLHV 7KH Wadi supports seventy five species of plants and a relatively large number animal species. The animals include the remains of a once larger population of the Nubian ibex, which according to Mikhail (n.d.) GHSHQGV RQ WKH :DGL¶V SRROV RI ZDWHU DQG D YDULHW\ RI vegetation for its survival. There is in addition to the ibex the handsome dorcas gazelle which can survive feeding only on the water found in plants. Both the dorcas gazelle and the Nubian ibex are endangered species. The Cairo spiny mouse is usually IRXQGLQWKH:DGL¶VFOLIIZDOOVDQGIHHGVRQSODQWVDQGVHHGV,WVSUHGDWRUWKHUHGIox, is more adept and eats food from the campers. :DGL 'HJOD¶V FDYHV DUH KRPH WR D variety of bat species. The lesser mouséWDLOHG EDW OLYHV LQ WKH :DGL¶V WHQ FDYHV Adapted to desert́life, these bats can close their nostrils to keep out dust and their 8 kidneys can handle reduced water intake. Official estimates of EEAA count approximately 20 species of reptiles, among them lizards, snakes, and tortoises. Perhaps the kind that needs the most attention is the endangered Egyptian tortoise, the smallest tortoise in the northern hemisphere. The protectorate itself functions as a habitat for as many as 18 species of birds. Examples are the whitécrowned black ZKHDWHDUDQGWKHPRXUQLQJZKHDWHDUERWKRIZKLFKQHVWLQWKHFUHYLFHVRIWKH:DGL¶V walls and sing a loud song that echoes throughout the valley (Mikhail n.d.). Egypt lies on the route of millions of birds that migrate between Eurasia and Africa. The government has created Important Bird Areas (IBA) as refuges for such birds. Of a total of 34 IBAs, 15 are located in the natural protectorates. Wadi Degla itself is a stopping place for the insect́HDWLQJ 5XSSHOO¶V ZDUEOHU WKH RQO\ ZDUEOHU LQ (J\SW with a black throat (as cited in Elmusa et al., 2007). x APPROACHES TO WADI DEGLA PROTECTORATE Wadi Degla can be approached from two sides, representing practically and symbolically two contrasting aspects of its management. One entrance leads directly to the canyon itself and the second to its banks. The first entrance is controlled by a toll booth, where a fee is collected by professional and informative workers employed by the EEAA. Next to the welĺkept protectorate offices, hangs a large sign listing ³5XOHV IRU WKH5HVSRQVLEOH 9LVLWRU´ LQ $UDELF DQG WUDQVODWHG WR (QJOLVK $PRQJ WKH regulations are requests not to play loud music, leave trash behind, stray from the designated areas nor to collect or remove anything from the protectorate. Appropriately, these rules rightfully consider noise pollution, litter and the general SUHVHUYDWLRQ RI WKH DUHD¶V QDWXUDO DHVWKHWics. No rangers, however, could be seen inside monitoring compliance (Elmusa et al., 2007). 9 Marble and granite factories and workshops lie on the western side of the Wadi. Entry from this side takes the visitor to the top of the canyon and offers a radically different experience. To get there one must drive through a street lined on both sides with marble factories, packed close to each other like shacks in a shantytown. The street is part of a much larger marble factory area, Shaq AĺThu`ban. Fine dust and sediment fly through the air as a byproduct of processing of stones. The rare tree that could be spotted is showered with dust. Hundreds of workers congregate outside the factories using the ground as their trash can. The interest of the owners of these factories and workshops is solely economic. They may not even be aware of the significance of the protectorate or that they might be contributing to its demise. They do not live in the protectorate, nor do they earn a living from its resources like, for example, many forest dwellers do. Their economic interest is tied only to the location of the factories (Elmusa et al., 2007). 1.1.8. LEGISLATIONS According to AĺAhram 2006, and AĺAkhbar 2006, , many of the factories were established before the Wadi was declared a protectorate, but a cooperation protocol, signed by the MTI and MSEA, offered a lease of 198 acres inside the buffer zone of WKHSURWHFWRUDWHIURP&DLUR¶VJRYHUQRUDWHWRWKH marble industry. AĺAkhbar (2006) reported that the protocol approved the FRQVWUXFWLRQRI³HQYLURQPHQWDOO\-IULHQGO\´ marble factories. The lease, which is set to expire in 2036, was granted at a subsidized rate of LE 1.00 per square meter (equivalent to $0.18 per m2, using 2008 US$/LE exchange rate). Officials claim that the protocol has been approved because the marble industry is an exemplary business of great significance to the development of (J\SW¶VHFRQRP\(as cited in Elmusa et al., 2007). It is worth mentioning, however, 10 according to Al-Masry Al-Youm (2006) that the governorate of Cairo offered a lease of 158 thousand meters, with 1000 meters for each plot, in Shaq Al - Thu`ban for investment where the surveying authorities assured that these lands are part of Wadi degla protectorate and should never be offered for investment. Moreover, it was reported that Cairo Governorate and the Ministry of Environment agreed, after more than 10 meetings, upon expanding the investment in Shaq Al-Thu`ban beside Wadi Degla provided that the governorate of Cairo is to build a fence separating Shaq AlThu`ban and the protectorate, and that the ministry of environment consent is a must for issuing the permits for factories establishment. Director General of Protectorates, Wahid Hamid (2006)FODLPHGWKDWWKHIDFWRULHVWKDW³H[LVW within the protectorate are not in a highlýsensitive area and therefore do not threaten the HQYLURQPHQW´ +H denied full knowledge of the said protocol and stated that if there was ever a specific threat to protected areas, the MSEA together with the EEAA would stop these activities immediately. His agency, however, has not done an environmental impact assessment to back his contention (as cited in Elmusa et al., 2007). However, according to the report of Habi for environment protection that was sent to Al Hewar Al Motamaden, it seems that the rapid construction of marble factories in the premises of the protectorate and on its land is done intentionally so as to force the governorate to accept the current status (as cited in Hagras, 2006). 1.1.9. MANUFACTURING PROCESS OF MARBLE AND GRANITE In order to establish an understanding of the waste generated from marble and granite, the general process should be introduced. The production of marble passes through several stages. According to Kandil and Selim (2006), the main stages are demonstrated in Fig. (2). The process starts with exploration followed by extraction, 11 lifting and transportation, arrival to the factory and inventory management, then processing which includes cutting of the blocks and polishing, and finally cutting into slabs for distribution. Figure 2: Marble Production Process (Source: Kandil & Selim, 2006) Since Shaq Al - Thu`ban area is only concerned with the processing of marble and granite, the mining waste is not considered in our discussion. The processing stage is explained in details. According to Kandil and Selim (2006), as well as the site visits, when an order is placed, the raw stone block (fig.3) is transported to the factory, as shown in fig. (4), to be cut as demanded either into tiles or slabs of various thicknesses (usually 2 cm or 4 cm). Stone-cutting is a lengthy process that can take more than 12 hours of operation. The cutting is done with diamond blades. A significant quantity of fresh water is used mainly for the cooling of cutting blades and to catch the dust formed during cutting as shown in fig.(5). Water is showered on blades while stone blocks are cut into sheets of varying thickness. The water cools the 12 blades and absorbs marble dust produced during the cutting operation. The amount of wastewater from this operation is very large. It is not recycled as the water so highly alkaline that, if re-used, it can dim the slabs to be polished. In large factories, where the blocks are cut into slabs, the cooling water is stored in pits until the suspended particles settle (sedimentation tanks), as shown in fig.(6), then the slurry is collected in trucks and disposed of on the ground and left to dry (figures7 to 11). This water carries large amounts of stone powder. Eventually, the sludge dries in the sun and its particles become airborne. This causes air pollution problems for the surrounding area. Small workshops cut the slabs into smaller tiles using smaller cutting blades as shown in fig (12). Another solid waste generated by the marble and granite units is the cutting waste (fig.13), which results from cutting slabs into the required dimensions. After the stone has been cut to the specific dimensions, the slabs are finished either by polishing or texturing, as requested. The polishing operation is fully automated with the use of powdered abrasives that keep on scrubbing the surface of the marble until it becomes smooth and shiny. Water showers are essential to prevent overheating of the blades, as shown in fig. (14) (Kandil & Selim, 2006). 1.1.10. WASTE QUANTIFICATION Actual figures about the quantity of waste produced in Egypt from the marble and granite industry are inaccessible since it is not calculated or monitored by the government or any other party. However, according to Celik (1996), marble waste during block production at the quarries is equal to 40-60% (as cited in Celik & Sabah, 2008). According to El-Haggar (2007), the total waste generated from the entire mining process, through the manufacturing process, and ending at the finished 13 product is in the range of 50-60% of the rock, which is still a very high percentage. For each marble or granite slab of 20mm produced, 5 mm is crushed into powder during the cutting process. This powder flows along with the water forming marble slurry. In other words, 20% marble/granite produced results in powder in the form of slurry. However, the study conducted by Ciccu et al. (2005) indicated a global percentage of waste as high as seventy percent. The ratio between the waste at various stages and the product is detailed in table (1). In the processing stage only, the waste exceeds 40% compared to a gross quarrying material of 205%. Pareek (2003) has estimated the amount of waste in Rajasthan through the whole process from extraction until the polishing phase as shown in table (2). Table 1: Worldwide stone production (stone, 2004) Process/ product Gross quarrying Quarry waste Gross production Processing waste Net production 000 tons 153,750 78,750 75,000 30,750 44,250 000 m3 57,000 29,200 27,800 11,400 16,400 % 205 105 100 41 59 Table 2: Amount of waste in percentage (Pareek, 2003) Process/ Marble Mine product Production Waste Quantity 30% 50% % Processing Polishing Waste Waste 15% 05% Figure 3: Stone blocks 14 Total Waste 70% Mined out Reserves 100% Figure 4: Carrying the blocks for cutting Figure 5: Cutting blocks with gang blades under water showers Figure 6: Sedimentation pits 15 Figure 7: Granite slurry left to dry on ground Figure 8: Hills of dried granite slurry Figure 9: Hills of dried marble slurry 16 Figure 10: Layout view of hills of dried slurry and scrap waste Figure 11: Disposal of slurry waste at Wadi Degla Protectorate buffer zone 17 Figure 12: Cutting saw with water shower Figure 13: Hills of cutting waste 18 Figure 14: Polishing slabs The waste generated in the processing stage can be as low as 39% in 300 x 20mm x free length floor tile production and as high as 53% in 305 x 305 x 10mm tile production per 1 m3. In other words, as the thickness of the product increases, the portion of waste is reduced (as cited in Celik & Sabah, 2008). Thus, the minimum amount of waste estimated throughout the process of marble and granite production is 40%. The processing waste contributes with a 20% of the total waste. In an attempt to quantify the total amount of waste generated in Egypt from this industry based on a production of 3.2 million tons and a forty percent waste, at least, one can find that 1.28 million tons of waste is left. In the processing stage only the waste is twenty percent, thus accounting to 640,000 tons of waste. In the area of Shaq Al - Thu`ban only, where seventy percent of the industry is situated, we can simply find 448,000 tons of waste per year in the processing stage only. This is, of course, a tremendous amount that threatens the area and the surrounding ones. 19 1.2. PROBLEM STATEMENT Marble industry is one of the most environmentally unfriendly industries. It estimated that 20 to 50% of marble blocks are converted into powder when they are sawed. Negligence of basic health and safety precautions aggravate the adverse impacts on the heath and the environment. For example in Egypt, the workers may neglect to wear masks while operating on the stone; the impact on their health has yet to be assessed. Prodigious amounts of water - which is transported by water tankers - are used as coolant, again producing both noise and air pollution in the process of transportation. Cutting the stones produces heat, slurry, rock fragments, and dust. The wastes arHGXPSHGRQWKH:DGL¶VURDGV and the adjacent land and the dust is airborne by the wind and scrap is scattered. The marble slurry could lead in the long run to water clogging of the soil, to increasing soil alkalinity, and to disruption of photosynthesis and transpiration. The net effect is a reduction of soil fertility and plant productivity. Many animal species in the Wadi are exclusively herbivores. Even if those plants did not die out, their internal chemistry will have been altered and their nutritional value poisoned by gases emitted by the industry. The interdependence of the parts of the ecosystem does not seem to be greatly emphasized in environmental public policy. It should also be realized that animal health, like human health, can be adversely impacted by inferior environment quality. Finally, by blanketing plants and surfaces, slurry and dust compromise the DHVWKHWLFDSSHDORIWKH:DGL¶VVFHQHU\ In light of the above, one can find that Shaq Al-Thu`ban industrial cluster poses a threat to the surrounding environment for being a polluting industry with a huge quantity of waste. 20 1.3. OBJECTIVE The objective of this work is to investigate possible uses of marble and granite waste in a proposal for transformation of Shaq Al-Thu`ban from a polluting industrial cluster to an environmental friendly cluster (eco-industrial cluster) and to reach a community of zero waste. 1.4. SCOPE OF WORK In this thesis, the focus is on the factories and workshops in the area of "Shaq Al Thu`ban" in Katameyya. The study will involve the technical and environmental YLDELOLW\RIXVLQJWKHLQGXVWU\¶VE\-products, marble and granite slurry, and scraps of various sizes; those represent no or low value sizes. 1.5. APPROACH The approach to transform Shaq Al-Thu`ban to a zero waste community is through structuring an environmental and industrial reform that incorporates the concepts of Industrial Ecology (IE), and especially its application ± Eco Industrial Cluster (EIC) along with the Cleaner Production (CP) techniques with the necessary experimental verification on the quality of recycled products. New regulations is to be investigated to encourage promoting balanced ecology for all industrial areas including marble and granite industrial cluster such as a modified version of EPR. All aspects need to be incorporated within a structured EMS according to ISO 14001. 21 CHAPTER TWO LIERATURE REVIEW 2.1. WASTE GROUPS Marble waste, generated by quarries and processing activities, is divided by size into two main groups: particles and pieces. 2.1.1. MARBLE PIECES The types of marble waste pieces include slope rubble, flat stone and Palladian. Slope rubbles are very small quarrying waste, with uneven dimensions. This rubble is of low commercial value and is usually disposed of in areas around the quarry. Flat stones are cut with diamond discs from the bottoms and sides of the marble blocks from which no slabs can be produced. Flat stones or bulk stone masses are usually crushed to small aggregates by the use of mechanical crushers, and ultimately used in tiles Palladian is the amorphous remains left after cutting smooth marble slabs. Palladian or polished scraps are normally 2-4 cm thickness. According to El-Haggar (2007), the marble pieces (scraps) represent nearly 10-15%. These are usually dumped into landfills without partcular precautions. 2.1.2. MARBLE PARTICLES Slurry is the main byproduct generated in the manufacturing process of marble and granite. This is due to the fact that slurry is generated at almost all stages of the process. The equipment used in processing activities requires the use of large 22 amounts of water, for cooling, lubrication and cleaning. The largest amount of waste is generated at the cutting stage. When one m3 marble block is cut into 2 cm thick slabs using a blade of thickness 5mm, the fine particle waste is around 25%. The waste percentage increases with 1 cm thick products and decreases with 3 cm products reaching 50% (Celik & Sabah 2008; Monteiro et al., 2004; Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). The waste in the form of powder is removed in a mixture of water and other residual materials such as metallic dust and lime used as abrasive and lubricant, respectively. These cakes or sludge have moisture content around 35% -45% (Delgado et al., 2006; Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). 2.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There are five major areas in which the environment is impacted by marble and granite waste that is generated from extraction and processing work as indicated by Celik and Sabah (2008). These are: topography alteration, land occupation, surface and subterranean water degradation, air pollution, and visual pollution. Visual pollution and topographical changes are related to quarrying activities. Visual pollution is that from the piling up of fragments generated at the quarrying sites. Topographical changes and disruptions take place in small areas during marble quarrying operations and these areas can be rearranged by field improvement works at a later stage. Therefore, the environmental effect is not permanent as long as no explosives are used during quarrying that produce radioactive materials. Beside the environmental problems, excavation and disposal of such large quantity of waste cost about 25% - 30% of the total cost of production (Agarwal, 2003). However, the pilling effect of marble scraps (especially in processing areas) can have adverse environmental effects as highlighted by El-Haggar(2007), where the scraps 23 contain slurry and can negatively affect the soil, water and air; consume space, form hills of scrap that can house harmful animals like snakes and rats; and are not self degrading materials. Although Celik and Sabah (2008) assure that marble waste, in general, includes nonradioactive by-products, and thus it does not induce climate changes, it does destroy plant life. This observation was contradicted by Delgado et al. (2006) as they adopt the idea that marble waste cannot be considered inert (i.e. reactive). They based their conclusion upon the conventional leaching tests (DIN 38414 or EN 12457), where these tests confirm that the fines are alkaline materials producing high pH wastes (pH around 12). The weathering of the worn steel grit and blades used in processing granite transfer some quantities of toxic metals like Chromium. This endangers the quality of surface and ground waters nearby. Marbles usually contain the chemical compounds CaO, MgO, SiO2, Al2O3, Fe2O3, Na2O, TiO2 and P2O5. During the cutting process, chemical compounds release no gases that contribute to global warming and climate changes as water can be used in the cutting process to capture dust. The fine particles can cause more pollution than other forms of marble waste unless stored properly in sedimentation tanks, and further utilized. The fine particles can be easily dispersed after losing humidity, under some atmospheric conditions, such as wind and rain. The white dust particles usually contain CaCO3 and thus can cause visual pollution. Clay and soils have a high cation exchange capacity and can absorb high proportion of heavy metals and cations, such as Ca, Mg, K and Na; yet soils are not as effective as marble and granite fine particles in holding pollutants like Cl (as cited in Celik & Sabah, 2008). The particle size of the 24 slurry is less than 80 ȝm; it is later consolidated as a result of accumulation. The waste in the water does not completely sink to the ground, and much of it remains on the surface. As the water on the surface evaporates, the liquid wastes solidify. Meanwhile, relatively wet marble waste, which is subjected to rain and snow, will carried with seepage down into the ground over time. Thus having adequate waste marble storage fields fulfills an important function to prevent storage of waste in inappropriate areas and prevent visual pollution in the region (Celik & Sabah, 2008). Thus, the marble slurry generated during the processing of marble causes the following environmental damage: - The heaps of slurry remain scattered all round the industrial sector spoil the aesthetics of the entire region, subsequently tourism and industrial potential of the area is adversely affected ( Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003) - Dry slurry diffuses in the atmosphere causing air pollution and possible pollution to nearby water (El-Haggar, 2007). - The porosity and permeability for the topsoil is reduced tremendously and in due course of time it results in water logging problems at the surface and thereby prohibits water infiltration. When and where this happens, the ground water level would be adversely affected and it has gone down to deeper levels (Pareek, 2003). - The waste dumped dries out and the fine marble dust suspends in the air and is slowly spread out through wind to the nearby area. It settles down on crops and vegetation. The fine marble dust reduces the fertility of the soil by increasing its alkalinity prohibiting any vegetation, thus severely threatening the ecology of the marble clusters (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003; Pareek, 2003). 25 - The high pH of the dry slurry makes it a corrosive material that is harmful to the lungs and may cause eye sores (El-Haggar, 2007; Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). - It may corrode nearby machinery (El-Haggar, 2007). 2.3. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION In order to recycle marble and granite waste, these material needs to be characterized both physically and chemically. Marble and granite powder, which resulted from drying of the stone slurry, is characterized for the following parameters: 2.3.1. ATTERBERG LIMITS Typically, marble and granite powder is non-plastic material (Saboya et al., 2007; Menezes et al., 2005; Monteiro et al., 2004) 2.3.2. GRAIN SIZE For marble powder, the grain size varies from few microns (silt size) to above 300 microns (fine sand size). Saboya et al. (2007) found out that 86 wt% are of silt size and 14% are of fine sand size, indicating that this material can be classified as a siltclay-like material, with 90 wt RI WKH SDUWLFOHV DUH RI JUDLQ VL]H OHVV WKDQ ȝP. However Rizzo et al. (2008) indicated a large size distribution with finer material, as the samples ranges from clay size to very fine sand, with 90 wt% of the samples are of JUDLQ VL]H OHVV WKDQ ȝP - ȝP YDULRXV VDPSOHV IURP GLIIHUHQW ORFDWLRQV IRU processing stone), yet the major fraction being represented by very fine and fine silt in agreement with Saboya et al. (2007). Corinaldesi et al. (2010) indicated that 50 wt% of the SDUWLFOHVKDGDGLDPHWHUORZHUWKDQȝPDQG wt% particles had a diameter ORZHUWKDQȝPZKLFKWRDJUHDWH[WHQWILWVLQWKHUDQJHSURYLGHGE\5L]]RHWDO 26 (2008); finer material. On the contrary, Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) and Kumar et al. (2003) indicated a wider gradation of particle from very fine (few microns) to a coarser material around 300 microns (fine sand), with 90% of the sample of grain size less than 193 ȝP -205.8 ȝPDQGRIWKHVDPSOHLVRIJUDLQVL]HOHVVWKDQ ȝP to 43.1ȝP (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). As for granite, it agrees to a great extent with the grain size suggested for marble, as Menezes et al. (2005) indicated that 80 to 89 wt% of particles are of diameter lower WKDQȝPDQGIURPWRRIWKHSDUWLFOHVDUHZLWKHTXLYDOHQWGLDPHWHUORZHUWKDQ ȝPZLWKDKLJKHUIUDFWLRQRIILQHSDUWLFOHVHTXLYDOHQWGLDPHWHUȝP It is worth mentioning, however, that the granite shows a larger size distribution than marble, thus the results found by Vijayalakshmi et al. (2003) and Kumar et al. (2003) indicate a mix of stone waste (granite and marble), verified with the high content of silica in the chemical analysis of the samples as detailed hereafter. 2.3.3. SPECIFIC GRAVITY The bulk density of stone slurry ranges from 1.3-1.5 g/cm3 (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). It can be as low as 0.9 g/cm3 (Kumar et al., 2003). The specific gravity of marble powder is about 2.73 as indicated by Rizzo et al. (2008), and Almeida et al. (2007). However, this can increase to about 2.77 (Saboya et al., 2007), 2.83-2.87 (Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003), and 2.7 to 3 (Kumar et al., 2003) which is higher than what is expected for purely calcite materials (2.72); that is due to the presence of iron powder abrasive mud used for sawing the rock blocks (Saboya et al., 2007). Corinaldesi et al. (2010) found out much lower specific gravity of 2.55. 27 The specific gravity of granite powder ranges from 2.55 to 2.75 (Torres et al, 2009; Menezes et al., 2005). It can be as high as 2.77 as indicated by Torres et al. (2009) due to the presence of iron particles in the granite slurry. It worth mentioning that the slurry powder varies depending on the cutting and processing operations, where slurry produced by gang saws operations, deployed in large units, contains iron grit and lime. Slurry from cutting and polishing operations in small and medium scale units does not contain iron grit and lime (Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Council, 2003). 2.3.4. SURFACE AREA The specific surface area for ornamental stone powder ranges between 1.0 to 2.5m2 /g (as cited in Menezes et al., 2005), which is confirmed by Saboya et al. (2007), 1.28m2/g and Corinaldesi et al. (2010), 1.5 m2/g . However, the specific surface area can provide values as high as 6 to 11 m2 /g, compared to those related to primary kaolin (3.3 ± 19.8 m2 /g) (Menezes et al., 2005). On the contrary, Almeida et al. (2007) found out a much lower surface area of 7128 cm2/g. comparing these results to those of cement (260-430 m2/kg) (ASTM C 150/C 150M ± 09), the ornamental stone slurry shows much finer material than that of Portland cement. The high surface area of ornamental stone powder should confer more cohesiveness to mortars and concrete (Corinaldesi et al., 2010). 2.3.5. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Marble powder has calcium oxide as the major component (> 49%) with loss by ignition (LOI) around 40%. This is due to the dissociation of CaCO3 and dolomite (CaMg(CO3)2) that partially transform themselves into Carbon Dioxide gas (CO2) at 28 temperatures higher than 750 Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). o C (Saboya et al., 2007; Rizzo et al., 2008; Other components like SiO2 (< 5%), MgO (< 3%), Fe2O3 (< 2%), Na2O (< 0.05%), K2O (< 0.1%) can be found in small amounts (Saboya et al., 2007; Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). On the contrary, granite shows SiO2 as the major component ranging from (60 to 90%), and levels of Al2O3 ranging from (6 to 14%), Fe2O3 (0 to 6.5%), and CaO (0 to 6%). Traces of Na2O (0 to 3.4%) and K2O (0 to 3.6%) are also found (Menezes et al., 2005; Monteiro et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2009). As discussed earlier, some materials show mixed properties (marble, granite, and/or other stones), which is verified through the chemical analysis, where Kumar et al. (2003) and Agarwal (2003) indicated a presence of silica in marble slurry with percentages ranging from (15-30 % wt.) and Alumina with percentages (1-2% wt.), yet lower percentages of Calcium Oxide (20-40%), and some samples showed elevated portions of Magnesium oxide (20-30%) (Kumar et al., 2003). The chemical analysis that reveals mixed properties can indicate a stone mix. In addition, Agarwal (2003) highlighted the difference in chemical analysis between slurry produce during the cutting stage (cutting slurry) and polish slurry, where the former shows higher portions of CaO (41%) than the latter (26%), while the content of SiO2 is higher in polish slurry (65%) than cutting slurry (20%). Theoretically speaking, waste from different processes can be separated but practically, it is only possible to separate waste of different stones (i.e. marble or granite). 29 2.3.6. THERMAL ANALYSIS For the marble powder, an endothermic peak takes place at 797.6 oC due to the Calcium Carbonate (CaCO3) decomposition in Calcium Oxide resulting in a loss of mass around 40% (Saboya et al., 2007). However, Rizzo et al. (2008) indicated that an endothermic peak occurs at 900 oC. Granite shows much lower level of LOI (6 ± 7%) at the temperatures of decomposition of calcite (above 750 oC) (Menezes et al., 2005). This can decrease to less than 2% (Monteiro et al., 2004; Torres et al., 2009). 2.3.7. WASTEWATER Nasserdine et al. (2007) indicated that stone cutting firms discharge waters with TSS concentration of about 120,000 mg/l that causes high maintenance costs on sewer pipes and open channels for several kilometers downstream. During wet weather events, large volumes of fine stone solids are re-suspended and deposited on the downstream agricultural lands, causing soil contamination and reducing soil quality as well as aquifers used for drinking water supply. As highlighted by Celik and Sabah (2008), this is affected by factors such as dispersion, adsorption and chemical conversions, which depend on the flow rate of underground water. Celik and Sabah (2008) conducted a study on slurry and wastewater samples taken from the Susuz Bogazi waste storage field in the Afyon region in Turkey. They found out the wastewater sample (TSS = 34,800 mg/l) has a high probability to leak into ground water, and the leaked wastewater depends on the distance it has traveled to reach groundwater resources. In this respect, while the amount of Ca in liquid marble waste at the waste storage area was 5317 mg/l, it did not exceed 17.48 mg/l in 30 groundwater. Samples from wells 4 km far from waste field indicate a considerable increase in the anion and cation amount in the past 30 years, where the amounts of calcium and magnesium have increased more than three times. As for chlorine, as an important indicator of water quality, it has increased tremendously (6-10 times more). 2.3.7.1. WASTEWATER RECYCLING A major problem is the slurry that has very high water content. The marble powder in such a form makes it very difficult and expensive to handle, whether in transportation from site or during utilization. Nasserdine et al. (2007) proposed an innovative wastewater recycling system in Hebron Industrial area in the West Bank. Projects were performed that incorporates recycling facilities including raw wastewater pumping, a vertical clarifier, some form of polymer addition facilities, filter press to treat the slurry generated by the vertical clarifier. The results showed that all the participating firms achieved 100% elimination of discharges to the environment. Furthermore, the daily water use was consistently reduced by 30% through dewatering the stone slurry to more than 75% solids, while optimization of the water recycling processes further reduced daily water use by an additional 15%. In addition, the improvement in the effluent quality (turbidity) ranged between 44% and 99%. The technical achievements included reducing water consumption, and reducing the equipment replacement costs. Based on interviews with each of the participating firms, the usage life of diamond saw blade is extended by about 30% since clean recycle water is used in production. Based on the capital investment (approximately $57,000) invested at each of the stone cutting firms, the simple payback period is 3 years for large firms, 5 years for medium size firms, and 8 years for small firms. 31 2.4. UTILIZATION ASPECTS Utilization of Marble and granite waste in producing functional and cheap materials that, at the same time, have an aesthetic appeal is the goal. Various experiments have been made to incorporate marble and granite waste. Recycled products found in literature that can be incorporated in Shaq AL-Thu`ban and suit the Egyptian market are highlighted. 2.4.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE Agglomerate marble or composite marble or cultured marble is the designation for products that bind pieces of natural marble together with specially formulated polyester resin. This process allows the reconstruction of large recycled marble blocks, similar to the ones extracted from quarries, both in quality and visual aspects, which can be processed as natural stone (Almeida et al., 2007). A research was conducted to partially substitute calcium carbonate for marble slurry with an amount reached 6% of the total compounds, revealed a technical viability to adopt this procedure (as cited in Almeida et al., 2007). Whereas, Kumar et al. (2003) indicated that up to 50% marble slurry powder can be used in a polymer composite marble to produce bath tubs, kitchen sinks, shower trays, wash basins, along with cost saving up to 30% compared to conventional ones. Agglomerate marble is an Italian contribution, widely known as compound stone, where 84-91% by overall weight is stone aggregates. The technology involves compaction by vibro-compression under vacuum of a mixture formed by stone aggregate and binding paste. In this system, first composite marble blocks of various sizes such as 308x122x88 cm or 186x125x87-88cm are manufactured by compaction. 32 Later, these blocks are sawn into slabs in various thicknesses (9m, 14mm, 20mm, 30mm, etc.). For producing tiles in sizes, the slabs are sawn in desired sizes, honed chamfered, polished, dried and cleaned to give a finished products. The product can be given various color options by adding various pigments. The product is claimed to have outstanding geo-mechanical properties such as high compressive strength, low water absorption, mechanical resistance, resistance to chemical agents, heavy density, etc., which are compatible to natural stone (Agarwal, 2003). Various experiments have been conducted to examine the properties of composite marble. Borsellino et al. (2008) investigated the effects of marble powder concentration and type of resin on the performance of marble composite structures. The test studied an incorporation of powder ratio of 60%, 70% and 80%, and two resin types: epoxy and polyester. The sample tiles were of size 200x100x10 mm molded in a wood mould after a heterogeneous mixing of powder/resin and kept in rotation until full cure of the matrix to avoid depositing of marble powder . Static flexural tests, stress-strain tests were conducted on the specimens. The 60% powder sample with an epoxy resin showed higher properties than the monolithic marble in terms of stress (25 MPa), impact strength (0.27 J/cm2), percentage of water absorption (0.16%) and stain resistance for various substances; coca cola, coffee, detergent, lemon, oil, wine, butter, ketchup and mayonnaise (no alteration on the surface after 2 hrs. treatment). It can be concluded that the results of the tests are highly dependent upon the resin properties and amount. Polymer composite marble was also prepared in Regional Research Laboratory (RRL), Bhopal in central India. The results are in great conformity with the results obtained by Borsellino et al. (2008) except for compressive strength, where the former 33 showed much higher values. Polymer composite marble of RRL was tested for density (1.96 g/cm2), moisture content (0.2-0.4%), modulus of rupture (21-26 MPa), tensile strength (23-25 MPa), compressive strength (77-96 MPa), and water absorption at 2 hrs. (0.15-0.40%). Tests also proved that the polymer composite marble is fire retardant, showed no change in dimensions when exposed to boiling water, chemically inactive (as cited in Vijayalakshmi et al., 2003). 2.4.2. CEMENT INDUSTRY The Limestone as such does not possess hydraulic constituents in sufficient amount and as such development of strength cannot take place through reaction with water. It has to undergo certain reaction and absorption. Calcination of limestone produces hydraulic lime. During process of calcinations, the oxides of silicon, aluminum and iron present in situ reacts with lime and produces stable compounds of silicates/aluminates. These are the same that are present in Portland cement. These oxides compounds are hydraulic in nature, react with water and become hard (Agarwal, 2003). Studies showed that there is a technical viability to incorporate massive quantities of stone slurry as a raw material in the production of clinker without previous complex treatments. Almeida et al. (2007) indicated that the Portuguese cement industry pioneered in this regard, where the cement industry in Portugal consumes 3.5% of the total limestone raw material needed by the national cement industry from natural stone slurry. Nevertheless, the solution has not yet been generally adopted in spite of the technical viability. 34 Sharma (2003) demonstrated the viability of incorporating marble slurry as a replacement of limestone in the cement process in Abu Road town of Sirohi District in Rajasthan. Cement plant requires 1.4-1.6 tons of limestone for production of one ton of clinker. The production capacity of cement plants situated in Rajasthan is about 18.5 MTPA (approximately 27.5 MTPA limestone is consumed per annum. As per an estimate about 2.5 MTPA marble stone is processed in Rajasthan. Marble slurry is generated at 150-200 kg/ton (15 to 20 %) of stone processed. The total generation of marble slurry works out to be about 0.375 ± 0.5 MTPA (more than 2 % of limestone required by the cement plants in Rajasthan). Sharma (2003) produced a comparison of marble slurry and limestone laboratory analysis as detailed in table (3). It is worth mentioning, however, that there are some constraints in the use of marble slurry as indicated by Sharma (2003). These constraints are the high moisture content of the marble slurry (above 8%), which would pose a problem in feeding; the high content of magnesium (above 2.5%), which creates high linear expansion; the fineness of marble slurry, which is very high compared to the lime stone used; the grain size of marble above 150 micron, which poses problem in poor compatibility during calcinations and results into increase of fines generation in product and requires mineralizer (additional cost); beside the unavailability of organized space for storage of slurry and the transportation cost from the generation point to the user plant. Yet, these constraints can be solved through establishing a stock yard for marble slurry to control the disposal from the central point, dewatering arrangement at the generation point before shifting to the central yard, free transportation from waste generating units to the slurry plants (Sharma, 2003). 35 Table 3: Compasrison between limestone and marble slurry for use in cement industry (Source: Sharma, 2003) Parameter (%) SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 CaO MgO Na2O K 2O SO3 Moisture Grain Size, micron Limestone 12. 6±0.2 3.5±0.1 1.9±0.1 42.7±0.2 1.4±0.05 0.2±0.05 0.45±0.05 0.2±0.05 0.5 80-90 Marble slurry 3.33±0.2 0.55±0.1 0.54±0.1 49.11±0.2 5.0±0.05 0.15±0.05 0.03±0.05 0.43±0.05 12-18 180 2.4.3. CONCRETE 2.4.3.1 STONE WASTE AGGREGATE REPLACING SANDSTONE AGGREGATE Stone pieces resulting from the cutting process are of good quality stone with chemical and physical properties confirming its use in cement concrete to produce value added products (Kumar et al., 2003). Studies were carried out by Civil Engineering Department of Kota Engineering College in Rajasthan on utilization of Kotah Stone aggregate in cement concrete in replacement of sandstone aggregate. The mix design was 1:1.5:3 cement to fine aggregate to coarse aggregates respectively. Results showed that Kotah stone waste aggregate can be used to make cement concrete and the loss in compressive strength when compared to cement concrete (sandstone) is only 15.7% after 60 days, where the average compressive strength of the sandstone mix and the Kotah stone were 28.97 MPa, 24.41 MPa respectively (Agarwal, 2003). 2.4.3.2 SLURRY WASTE REPLACING FINE AGGREGATE Marble slurry use in concrete works reveals enhanced properties. Almeida et al. (2007) found out that when 5% of the initial sand content was replaced by stone 36 slurry, 10.3% higher compressive strength after 7 days, and 7.1% higher compressive strength after 28 days were detected, when compared to concrete mixture without slurry addition. This increase is related to the micro-filling ability of slurry, thus promoting effective packing and larger dispersion of cement particles, and accelerated formation of hydrated compounds, resulting in a significant improvement of compressive strength at earlier ages (7 days). However, higher percentages (10%, 15% and 20%) showed reduction of compressive strength in the compressive strength ranging from 3.6% to 10.6% at 7 days of age, and from 6.7% to 8.9% at 28 days of age (when compared to mixture with zero slurry). This was explained to be due to the low water/cement ratio that the available space for accommodating hydrated products was insufficient, thus inhibiting chemical reactions. For mixtures with stone slurry higher than 20%, significant reduction in the compressive strength was observed, where the micro-filler effect did not prevail, instead a rather inappropriate grading caused lower results. For 100 % substitution of fine aggregates with stone slurry, the results were significantly reduced to 40.9% less for 28 days and 50.1% less for 7 days, which indicates that full substitution of fine aggregate with stone slurry is not reliable when compressive strength is a critical aspect to take in consideration. It is worth mentioning that the benefits obtained in compressive strength due to the micro-filling effect induced by stone slurry particles was further important regarding the splitting tensile strength tests, where 14.3% increase was detected for mixture with 5% slurry. For higher percentages of incorporation of stone slurry, negative results were obtained for splitting tensile strength; however, the tests showed that the splitting tensile strength is less sensitive to high content of slurry particles than compressive strength, where full substitution resulted in 28.6% reduction relative to 0% mixture. As for the modulus of elasticity, test results were in accordance with the other mechanical 37 properties, where the 5% mixture showed better behavior (6.2%) than the 0% mixture, and the higher the slurry incorporation, the more prominent the negative effect regarding the modulus of elasticity. This was attributed to the lower value of modulus of elasticity for cement paste (half) compared to aggregates, as when incorporating the very fine particles of slurry, the paste could be considered as increased, thus reducing the modulus of elasticity of the entire mixture. On the contrary, Binici et al. (2007) indicated that the improvement in the properties of concrete mixtures is further improved at 15% substitution of fine aggregate for marble slurry. Samples with 5%, 10%, and 15% substitution were tested where the 15% sample showed the highest compressive strength at 28, 90, and 360 days (40, 50, and 60 MPa respectively) as compared to the control specimens (0% slurry) with compressive strength values of 28, 32, and 35 MPa respectively. It is interesting to note that the reported average compressive strength for samples with 15% slurry was 12% and 20% higher than samples with 5% and 10% slurry respectively at 28days, 8% higher at 90 days, and 5% and 8 % higher at 360 days respectively. It was observed that the relative strength values of all specimens (including the control specimen) were almost equal at early ages, while the relative strengths of marble slurry samples were higher after 28 days. Marble slurry samples showed an obvious increase in sulfate resistance of concrete. Research studies reported that both natural and artificial pozzolans can contribute to increasing chemical resistance (as cited in Binici et al., 2007). The compressive strengths at 12 months of sulfate attack for samples with slurry were greater than those obtained with normal aggregate concretes, and increasing the additive (slurry) content caused significant increases in sulfate resistance. The compressive strength of samples after 28 days of exposure to tap water 35.2 MPa for control specimen, 56.3 MPa for 5% slurry, 58.6 MPa for 10% slurry, 38 and 60.7 for 15% slurry. Values were reduced to 15.1 MPa (58% reduction), 41MPa (28% reduction), 48.4MPa (18% reduction, and 52 MPa (15% reduction) after 12 months of sulfate exposure. As for abrasion resistance, results showed that specimens with slurry additives exhibit better abrasion resistance (15% slurry enhanced the abrasion ratio to 52%, 45%, and 42% at 28, 90, and 360 days respectively as compared to 100% for 0% slurry at all ages at 60 min of abrasion). This can be expressed to the fact that dusts replacement allowed a good interfacial condensed matrix. It is also worth mentioning that replacing sand with limestone dust did not enhance the abrasion resistance as that of marble dust, on the contrary, a 15% limestone dusts showed less abrasion resistance than the 10% limestone samples, indicating that both the dust type and the amount of dust have a noticeable effect on abrasion resistance of concrete, and that the grain size distribution of aggregate is an important feature in this process. As for water penetration, marble slurry additive of 15% considerably decreased the depth of penetration (from 13 mm in the control specimen to 4 mm at 15% slurry. This is attributed to the dense interface between the aggregates and the cement base caused by adherent ability of the slurry that combines with concrete elements to form more dense and homogenous forms of concrete, giving less porous structures. Higher amounts of sand substitution for slurry was adopted by Misra and Mathur (2003), as the mechanical properties of concrete works up to 40% substitution of fine aggregates for slurry were enhanced [19% (from 27 to 32.2 MPa) and 49% (40.2 MPa) increase in the compressive strength at 7 days for 20% and 40% slurry respectively, and 11% (from 36.3 to 40.3 MPa) and 26% (45.7 MPa) increase at 20% and 40% slurry respectively at 28 days). The gain was also revealed in the flexural strength, but much less prominent (<5%; from 4 to 4.19 MPa). Nevertheless, the 39 workability of the concrete mix decreased significantly, which necessitates the use of higher w/c ratio to maintain the same slump. The w/c ratio has increased from 0.53 to 0.55 when 40% slurry particles were substituted for sand in the mix for keeping the slump 25mm. Other mechanical properties related to durability, [abrasion resistance (0.21% loss at 0% replacement and 0.187 % loss at 40% replacement), water soaking, freezing and thawing, sulphate attack and heating-cooling] were also improved at 40% slurry substitution for sand. 2.4.3.3 SLURRY WASTE PARTIALLY REPLACING CEMENT Kota Engineering College investigated the effect of replacing cement by slurry waste with percentages of 15, 30, and 45. In addition, tests were also performed with kotah stone replacing sand stone in a mix with ratio 1:1.5:3. The compressive strength of the control mixtures of sandstone only, and kotah stone only were 28.97 and 24.41 MPa respectively, while 15%, 30%, and 45% slurry replacement caused a drop in compressive strength to 23.9, 27.22 and 10.36 MPa respectively. Results showed that stone slurry can be used in cement concrete with slurry replacement of cement up to 30%, with loss in compressive strength of only 6%, yet a cost saving of over 21% (Agarwal, 2003). 2.4.3.4 CEMENT BRICKS The properties of concrete bricks with stone waste fully replacing the fine and coarse aggregates were tested by Kumar et al. (2003). Coarse aggregates and fine aggregates were replaced by marble waste of various sizes with slurry incorporation of 20%. The compressive strength at 21 days was 5.8 N/mm2, which is acceptable for non-load bearing bricks, according to the Egyptian Code (minimum of 2.5 N/mm2) 40 2.5. ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM The idea of a reform was first introduced in Alexandria Declaration in March 2004 in Bibliotheca Alexandrina. The reform included a political, economic, social and cultural reform (Arab Academy, 2004). It did not include an environmental one. This issue raised a lot of criticism from the people concerned with the environment. They called for an Environmental Reform and set a structure for such a reform. El-Haggar (2007) introduced the main elements of this reform in the pyramid shown in fig. (15). The reform starts with setting regulations and enforcing them and ends with protecting the environment and saving our natural resources or simply, in a more practical terms, compliance. To reach compliance, the concepts of cleaner production and Industrial Ecology need to be applied and integrated in an Environmental Management System for existing industries and evaluated via an environmental impact assessment for new industries. 2.5.1. REGULATIONS The reform starts with regulations or laws. Without laws and more importantly enforcing them, the environment cannot be protected. The Egyptian law and its articles address many environmental issues that apply to the area of Shaq Al Thu`ban and the nearby protectorate. The laws include: (1) Law 4/1994, the Environmental Protection Law and PMD 338, 1995, the Executive Regulations of Law No. 4, which protects the environment in Egypt cover many areas of environmental protection, (2) Law 93/1962, which regulates the discharge of wastewater into public sewer networks, 41 (3) Law 380/1975, which identifies requirements for the establishment of industrial and commercial facilities, (4) Law 38/1967, which regulates the collection and disposal of solid wastes, (5) MD 134/1968, which implements Law 38/1967, and provides the specifications for dumping sites, (6) Law 48/1967, which requires employers to inform their employees that they are dealing with hazardous waste, (7) Law 137/1981, which sets the requirements for labor safety and health in workplaces, (8) Law 4/1994, which sets the requirements for handling and management of hazardous waste, (9) Law 102/1983, which controls natural protected areas, (10) PMD 47/1999 and 3057/1999, which establishes natural reserves in Wadi Degla, Helwan, (11) Law 68/1956, which sets guidelines for the activities of mines and quarries, and (12) Law 46/1958, which regulates the work in mines and quarries (Japan International Cooperation Agency, 2002). $ ³QDWXUDO SURWHFWRUDWH´ DFFRUGLQJ WR (J\SWLDQ ODZ DUWLFOH RI (J\SWLan law 102/³LVGHILQHGDVDQ\DUHDRIODQGRUFRDVWDORULQODQGZDWHUFKDUDFWHUL]HGE\ flora, fauna, and natural features having cultural, scientific, touristic, or aesthetic value´as cited in Elmusa et al., 2007). The government has on paper the legal and organizational instruments for a sustainable management of the Wadi. The tools include Law No. 102/1983 and Law No. 4/1994, in addition to the 1992 National Environmental Action Plan. However, it seems that the economic power surpasses the environmental one that the MSEA and the MTI jointly permitted the establishment of 42 QHZPDUEOHIDFWRULHVLQWKH:DGL¶VEXIIHU]RQH$O Ahram 2006; Al Akhbar 2006; Al Masry Al Youm 2006). Elmusa et al. (2007) holds EEAA, which was set up by the government in 1982 as an arm of MSEA, responsible for the poor management of the protectorate. $QLQWHUQDWLRQDOFRQIHUHQFHLQRQ³3URWHFWHG$UHDVDQG6XVWDLQDEOH 'HYHORSPHQW´ ZDV KROG DQG WKH GDWH ZDV VHOHFWHG WR FRLQFLGH ZLWK WKH WK anniversary of the Biodiversity Convention at the Earth Summit in Rio in 1992 and the 20th anniversary of Law No. 102 (Elmusa et al., 2007) Figure 15: Environmental reform structure (Source: El-Haggar, 2007) 2.5.2. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT (EIA) After passing the law for the environment (Law 4) in 1994, the EEAA was given the authority to implement the law. One of policies formulated by the EEAA is that new developments or expansions are required to carry out an EIA before construction. The main objective for carrying out an EIA for new developments or project is to support rather than prevent the development activities in Egypt. Identifying the negative and positive impact of the project can lead to preventing the negatives and maximize the positive which leads to sustainable development. According to Law no. 4/94, a license is issued by the competent administrative authorities or the licensing agencies (CAA) 43 for the new developments. Executive regulation of the law (338/1995) identifies the procedures that must be followed to develop EIA. EEAA developed guidelines to identify the project upon main principles such as; the type of activity, exploitation of natural resources, location of the project and type of energy used (Fawzi & AbulAzm, 2008). The Wadi itself in no way could provide an economic substitute for the factories, uniqueness and the value of the Wadi necessitates at least to perform EIA for the marble factories that were licensed or built in the buffer zone after the area was declared a protectorate. If the factories are not relocated, those factories must be made environmentally clean. The technology exists for doing this, and the slurry and the scraps could be recycled in an economically profitable manner rather than merely dumped. In addition, the marble industry must clean up its operations, not only for the sake of the protectorate, but also for the sake of the workers and the adjacent population. It is a fact that health also carries economic value. Pollution avoidance through nońcostly technology additives is possible; therefore, CP is required for a successful environmental and industrial reform. 2.5.3. CLEANER PRODUCTION Cleaner production is a preventive approach that encompasses eco-efficiency, waste minimization, pollution prevention, and industrial metabolism. Among many objectives, CP seeks to minimize the use of hazardous and non-hazardous materials as well as optimize their reuse and recycling as indicated by Graedel and HowardGrenville (as cited in Ashton, Luque, & Ehrenfeld, 2002). CP attempts to use the materials of the manufacturing process in a more efficient way by reducing the 44 amount of inputs needed and the amount of undesirable outputs. CP can also seek to minimize the risk to and improve human capital through worker hygiene and safety programs. As indicated by Ashton, Luque, and Ehrenfeld (2002), the capital investment required to apply CP is often paid back by minimizing energy consumption and lowering material and handling costs. By doing this, the CP approach becomes both an environmental and a production strategy. Technology for cleaner processing is available that could even be economically beneficial. It involves the installation of filter presses. The filter presses separate water from the slurry, thus reducing the cost of transportation of this material. At the same time, the water could be recycled, not a bad economic concept in a wateŕscarce region. Further, experience in India in Udaipur and Rajsamand Districts of Rajasthan indicates that wastes from stone cutting do not have to remain wastes. They could be deployed to manufacture bricks that are stronger and more durable than those made of clay, as well as other types of construction materials: roof and floor tiles, sand substitute in concrete mixes, backfill for retaining walls, and road pavements. Recycling may eliminate or at least mitigate the often invoked ecologýeconomy tradéoff (Elmusa et al., 2007). 2.5.4. INDUSTRISL ECOLOGY Where CP deals with individual units, IE encompasses the whole image. A global picture of Shaq Al - Thu`ban cluster needs to be addressed through IE. The direct approach for application of IE is EIP. As mentioned by Cohen-5RVHQWKDO³(,3VDUHDQH[DPSOHRI deliberate attempts to apply the principles of ,(LQDVSHFLILFORFDWLRQ´. He emphasizes the geographical perspective such that the EIP is concerned with connections between 45 firmVDFURVVVSDFHE\VWDWLQJWKDW³eco-industrial development provides an alternative WKDWFHOHEUDWHVWKHSRVVLELOLW\RISODFH¶¶DVFLWHGLQ*LEEV'HXWz, 2007). The basic LGHDRIDQ(,3LVWKDWEXVLQHVVHVRULQGXVWULHVDJJORPHUDWHVRWKDWDQLQGXVWU\¶VZDVWH is a raw material for the other; it is a complementary business. However, to have such a waste exchange network, different industries need to be situated together. This is not always the case. 2.5.5. ECO-INDUSTRIAL CLUSTER As highlighted by Lowe (2005), there are serious limits to company to company exchanges where the plants located together are clustered by industry and may generate very similar waste or by-products. Thus the cluster of companies will find UHODWLYHO\IHZZD\VWRXVHHDFKRWKHU¶VVHFRQGDU\SURGXFWRXWSXWV7KLVLVWKHFDVHLQ Shaq Al - Thu`ban, where the entire region is manufacturing marble and granite, so no RQH¶V ZDVWH LV XVHIXO IRU WKH other. Therefore, Lowe (2005) emphasized the importance of maintaining a more systematic definition of EIP, in which the exchange of waste between firms is only one of many possible features of an EIP. The focus became on improving the economic performance of the participating companies while minimizing their environmental impacts. An EIP also seeks benefits for neighboring communities such that the net impact of its development is positive (as cited in Lowe (2005). This definition is not only widely accepted but it also offers the solution for many industrial clusters that share the same type of business, as the case in concern ±Shaq Al-Thu`ban 7KLV GHILQLWLRQ LQFRUSRUDWHV ³(FR-,QGXVWULDO &OXVWHUV´ Michael Porter defines the Eco-Industrial Clusters DV ³JHRJUDSKLF FRQFHQWUDWLRQV RI LQWHUFRQQHFWHG FRPSDQLHVDQGLQVWLWXWLRQVLQDSDUWLFXODUILHOG´DVFLWHGLQBaas & Boons, 2004). 46 Industries tend to cluster as global competition can be fostered with local elements of competitive advantage according to the Cluster Competitiveness Group, S.A. (2002). The easy access to specialized suppliers, services and human resources along with information spillovers, flexibility and fast change reaction due to extreme specialization and imitation facilitate faster innovation adoption and thus booster completion both locally and internationally. Cluster-based economic development strategies take advantage of clusters efficiency, flow of information, economies of scale and innovation potential Another problem highlighted by Lowe (2005) is creating the waste network or, in other words, the negotiations to reach the deal. Firms do not have the time to negotiate the transactions. Sometimes the cost of reaching a deal may be higher than the value of the material or energy required. Moreover, this definition offers many strategies to implement EIP other than waste exchange. As mentioned by Lowe (2005), these include: site development so that natural resources are preserved, utilizing natural water treatment and storage, designing and constructing of infrastructure and buildings that follow high performance resource efficiency standards, utilizing renewable energy and materials, and recruiting companies committed to high resource efficiency and low pollution, implementing a good management system that supports the financial, environmental, and social success of EIP companies, and having a strong linkage to surrounding communities through economic development, social and environmental programs. These issues cannot be negotiated except through networks that emerge out of trust from inter-personal relations. 47 2.5.5.1. CHAMPION AND THE ROLE OF TRUST 7UXVW GHYHORSV ³HPEHGGHGQHVV´ ZKLFK UHVXOWV IURP HDUOLHU SRVLWLYH H[SHULHQFHV LQ ZKLFK LQWHUDFWLRQ OHG WR PXWXDOO\ SURILWDEOH JURZWK ³2YHUWLPH WKURXJK FRQWLQXDO contracting, and re-contracting, formal and informal deal-making and support during times of economic stress and uncertainty, this trust deepens and firms develop strong SUHIHUHQFHV WR WUDQVDFW ZLWK ILUPV RU LQGLYLGXDOV RI NQRZQ UHSXWDWLRQ´ DV FLWHG LQ Hewes & Lyons, 2008, p. 1331). To create such humanistic connections, an embedded leader or ³FKDPSLRQ´ is needed. The champion is usually an environmental advocate, an invested partner, external, to avoid conflict of interest, or a local government official who is selected on the basis of his/her reputation to develop the EIP. His/her commitment to his/her town extends to its environmental protection and economic viability. The champion needs to be embedded locally within the community, live and work in it, and engage in the promotion of inter firm exchanges. The Champion, through connections and relationships of trust, bring key people: steering committee citizens, business representatives, governmental officials, and HQYLURQPHQWDO DGYRFDWH WRJHWKHUFUHDWLQJ ³HPEHGGHGQHVV´ RU SHUVRQDO UHODWLRQVKLSV and networks, rather than generalized economic morality. The construction of this social relationship is the key in generating trust and discouraging malfeasance during formal and informal inter-and intra- firm economic interaction (as cited in Hewes & Lyons, 2008). Thus, the Champion can be considered to be the key element for the establishment and success of an EIP. 2.5.6. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM EMS or ISO 14001 is the basic management system for an existing industry in order to apply CP techniques and convert all types of wastes into products or prevent the 48 waste generation at the source. Nothing will be implemented without a good management system. ISO 14001 is well-recognized management system for industrial and non-industrial activities, as ISO's 14000 EMS is different from environmental compliance systems, which are oriented towards discovering environmental noncompliance. An EMS looks at the whole manufacturing process and seeks to identify potential environmental impacts, and minimize the extent of these impacts in a cost-effective way (Hourahan, 1996). ISO 14001 EMSs are based on continuous improvement cycle in that they encourage organizations to continually improve their environmental management practices. Continual improvement processes benefit organizations by embedding environmental considerations deep within the firm so that they become an integral element of the business strategy. Although achieving ISO 14001 certification requires a significant commitment of resources, and whereas the organization incurs the cost of certification, the potential environmental benefits associated with reducing pollution can be enjoyed by society at large. Moreover, organizations that certify to ISO 14001 may be able to enhance their environmental image and confer external legitimacy. They also may be able to use ISO 14001 to increase their internal efficiencies and create competitive (Darnall, 2006). Together, the voluntary nature, commitment of resources and potential societal and economic benefits of certification create at least the appearance that ISO 14001±certified facilities are trying to be socially responsible. 2.5.7. EXAMPLES OF CLUSTERS 2.5.7.1. CARRARA CLUSTER, ITALY Italy has remained a leading country in the dimensional stone business for centuries, where the most extensive quarrying of marble in the world takes place. The most 49 important centers of this industry Carrara, massa and Seravezza (as cited in Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). According to Cluster Competitiveness Group (2002), the main marble processing cluster is Carrara. It is the largest cluster for marble and well renowned for its quality quarrying and processing. It was initially created around the availability of natural resources of the famous white Carrara marble. Although this marble is still extracted, nowadays the competitive edge for Carrara is in servicing specialized requirements in the decoration and building industry. Marble and other stones from all over the world are bought in large quantities by large warehouses and processed to meet standard or tailor made measures, shapes and finishes. Processing is often subcontracted to specialized workshops that have specific machinery and skills. There is always a main contractor that controls design and quality specifications and is in constant contact with the client, architects, etc. Another relevant fact is that the existence of the cluster has helped develop the world leading machinery industry to process marble. The cluster structure has been adapted to these new requirements. 2.5.7.2. VERONA CLUSTER, ITALY Though not the largest, Verona Marble cluster is one of the most organized marble clusters in Italy. The Veronese quarries, according to the encyclopedia of Arts and Industries, compiled by Pareto and Sacheir in 1880, come after Apuan Alps in importance. Even in that period, Veronese marbles were known and appreciated abroad, as in Vienna where they were widely used for monumental buildings. Nowadays, there is still a certain amount of quarrying in Veronese territory, but the marble working industry has developed more. Verona is known as the most important centers of marble and, on a national scale, is in the second place for the exportation of stone products (Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). The cluster employs almost 5% (7,000 50 workers) of the whole marble industry of Italy and represents 3% (550 enterprises) of the enterprises. It almost exports 13% and imports almost 2% of the country stone international trade in spite of having extraction sites according to the association of Veronese marble operators (asmave). There are almost 20-25 machinery and tool manufacturers and suppliers in the region, which strengthens their position as a quality processor in the world. 7KH PDUEOH ]RQHLQ WKH 9HURQD¶V SURYLQFH LV ILUVW LQ Italy for the quantity of imported raw material. The work of transformation or processing is extended to every field, from the most automated production chain operation to the skillful artisan level, to the artistic sculpture. In a unique and small setting is concentrated a total of so many different professional skills and talents which allows them to process marble for every purpose and need. The favorable geographical position of Verona, the excellent ramification of roads, the shipping methods by container enable them the shipment to European countries and to the well equipped ports for the export by sea to all continents. Different bodies like Association of Veronese Marble Workers, Association of Small and Medium %XVLQHVVHV7KH%XVLQHVVPHQ¶V$VVRFLDWLRQRIWKH3URYLQFHRI9HURQDWKH Consorzio Val di Pan, Produttori Rosso Verona, Consorzio la Pietra, Progetto Marmo Consorzia Marmisti del veneto, Verona Chamber of Commerce, the town of Dolce have always taken interests to develop the marble industry of this cluster. VIDEOMARMOTECA (multi-purpose center that offers information, consulting and promotion services to stone industry) and CENTROPROVE (testing lab) are few of the success stories, which this cluster holds. Moreover, the Verona Marble cluster is characterized by its focus on environmental impact of quarrying which is the driver for innovation (Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). 51 2.5.7.3. RAWALPINDI/ISLAMABAD, PAKISTAN Pakistan is one of the countries where large quantities of stone quarrying take place. Marble and granite is the sixth largest mineral extracted in Pakistan with known reserves of marble of 160 million tons, and 2 billion M.T. of granite. At present, quarry operations in Pakistan are of conditions similar to that in Egypt. All over the country, stone is quarried randomly using simple drilling and dynamite splitting techniques. These techniques are employed with limited knowledge of quarrying. Explosives are used irrationally, creating major waste and poor quality rough blocks. The obtained products are small, medium and large irregular blocks in the shape of ³SRWDWRHV´$ERXWRIWKHPDWHULDOLVZDVWHGDWWKHTXDUU\DQGDQRWKHUGXULQJ IDEULFDWLRQ 7KH EDVLF TXDUU\ PHQWDOLW\ LQ 3DNLVWDQ LV ³KLW DQG WDNH´ The irregular blocks produced are difficult to handle and create problems in lifting, transportation, storage, and fabrication (Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). One of the major clusters in Pakistan is situated in Rawalpindi/Islamabad region. First investment in Rawalpindi/Islamabad Region came in 1960s when two industries one in I-9 Islamabad and one in Rawalpindi Cantt started their operations as full processors. The stone was sourced from North-West Frontier Province (NWFP) in aaloo shape (blasted) and was converted into slabs and tiles, which were then forwarded to various cities all over the country. In 1979, an Association for all marble industry of Pakistan was formed. At present, it is comprised of 8 founding members, all from Islamabad/Rawalpindi region. There are about 180-220 enterprises related to Marble industry in this region. The geographical spread of the units can be sketched as 40% are operating in the areas of I-9 Markaz, I-9/1 and I-9/3; and Rawalpindi Cantt while 20% are spread over Tarnol, Sangjani, and other areas of Rawalpindi city. 52 Major processes include loading/unloading, handling & storing, cutting & sizing, and finishing/polishing of marble blocks into slabs, tiles, and other handicrafts. More than 2000 labor is associated with this industry. Most of the labor has education level below primary. Gang saw operators (large units) and (H.V) horizontal and vertical cutters (medium units) are procuring raw stone in the form of large blocks (8 tones), small blocks (5-7 tones) and Boulders (2 tones). 20-30% of the raw material is coming in the form of these blocks to this region. The larger the block, the higher price it gets. Prices also vary with the color and type of the stone. Other 70-80% of raw material is coming in the shape of semi finished slabs, and thick tiles. These are directly procured by enterprises with single small cutters and few medium enterprises. Many prominent entrepreneurs have stated that the cluster has started shifting from full processing to a single cutter cluster and if such situation prevails, the industry will soon convert to show rooms only. Average annual production of the cluster is around 150,000-200,000 square feet per day 80% of which can be attributed to tiles, the rest sells in the shape of slabs and handicrafts. Major final products are tile (12 inch * 12 inch * 0.5 inch), counter tops, stairs, etc (Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). The waste management in Rawalpindi/Islamabad region is far below the environmentally acceptable level. There are two types of byproducts of marble processing. During marble processing 30% of the stone, in case of unprocessed stone, goes to scrap because of being in smaller size and/or irregular shape. This is then sold to chip manufacturers. In case of semi processed slab the scarp level reduces to 2-5%. The other waste material is slurry. It is basically the water containing marble powder. The water is reused till it gets thick enough (70% water ± 30% marble powder) to be insoluble for marble powder. It can be safely estimated that 1 ton of marble stone 53 processed in Gang-Saw or a vertical/horizontal cutter produces almost 1 ton of slurry (70% water). Single cutters though have lesser slurry waste. This waste is initially stored at the slumps/storage tanks and then is thrown out with the help of trolley tractors. There is no designated place for this waste and can become an environmental issue for the industry. However, research to investigate the weight reduction of slurry thrown out from the factories is one of the issues in the business plan. A dedicated area for this slurry for better environment is studied. According to an Indian research this slurry waste can be used to manufacture slurry bricks which will then come as a commercial alternate for red brick (Mehdi & Chaudhry, 2006). 54 CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH APPROACH The approach to transform Shaq Al-Thu`ban to a zero waste community is through structuring an environmental and industrial reform that incorporates the concept of EIC. Low or no value waste of various sizes (slurry powder of marble and granite collected from sedimentation pits, and scraps, crushed into various sizes, from factories at Shaq Al-7KX¶EDQ are characterized for physical and chemical properties. These materials are utilized as raw materials in composite marble, concrete bricks, and cement production. The necessary experimental testing of these products is performed for quality of recycled products according to ASTM, and/or Egyptian code, and/or European standards. New regulations are to be investigated to encourage promoting balanced ecology for Shaq Al-7KX¶EDQ$OODVSHFWVQHHGWREHLQcorporated within a structured EMS according to ISO 14001. 3.1. LABORATORY EXPERIMENTAL PROGRAM The laboratory experimental program includes testing of the raw material, waste characterization and utilizing these materials in added-value products, along with the necessary testing for the quality of the new products. A flow chart of the experimental program is highlighted in fig. (16). 3.1.1. 3.1.1.1. WASTECHARACTARIZATION ATTERBERG LIMITS The plasticity of marble and granite particles (powder resulting from slurry), along with shrinkage limits was determined according to ASTM D 4318-00: Liquid limit 55 and plastic limit, and ASTM D427-98: Shrinkage factors of soils by the mercury method. 3.1.1.2. x GRAIN SIZE ANALYSES Marble and granite (material mixture) pieces grain size was determined by sieve analysis according to ASTM C136-01 x Marble particles and granite particles grain sizes were determined by wet sieving (hydrometer) according to ASTM D 422-63 3.1.1.3. x SPECIFIC GRAVITY, DENSITY, AND WATER ABSORPTION Density, relative density (specific gravity), and water absorption of marble and granite mixture pieces of diameter greater than 4.75 mm was determined according to ASTM C127-07: Density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of coarse aggregate x Specific gravity of Marble and granite mixture pieces of diameters less than 4.75 mm was determined according to ASTM C128-07a: Density, relative density (specific gravity), and absorption of fine aggregate. x Specific gravity of Marble and granite mixture particles of diameters less than 75 µm was determined according to ASTM D 854-00: specific gravity of soils 3.1.1.4. BULK DENSITY (UNIT WEIGHT) Dry- rodded unit weight of marble and granite mixtures pieces of diameter greater than 4.75 mm is determined according to ASTM C29/C29M-09: 75 Bulk Density (unit weight) and voids in aggregate. 56 3.1.1.5. ABRASION RESISTANCE Abrasion resistance of marble and granite mixture pieces is determined according to ASTM C131-96: resistance to degradation of small size coarse aggregate by abrasion and impact in Los Angeles machine. 3.1.1.6. SPECIFIC SURFACE AREA The surface area of marble particles and granite particles is determined by Blaine test according to ASTM C204-07: fineness of hydraulic cement by air permeability apparatus. 3.1.1.7. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Chemical analysis of all waste material is determined by Energy Dispersive Spectroscopy (EDS), INCAx sight by OXFORD instruments, and WD- XRF Spectrometer, PANalytical 2005. Microscopic pictures are captured using SCANNING ELECTRON MICROSCOPY (SEM), LEO SURPA55. 3.1.2. RECYCLED PRODUCTS Products are produced and tested at the American University in Cairo (AUC) Labs; Assiut Cement Company (Cemex) labs; and Marble and Quarries Technology Center, MTI. 57 Bulk Density Chemical analysis Surface area Abrasion resistance Samples Sample preparation and Testing at AUC 58 Blank 5% 5% 5% 5% limestone Marble Granite Mud Samples Cement Sample preparation & Testing at AUC Moisture Comp. content & Durability strength absorp. Testing Sample preparation & Testing at CEMEX Chemical Physical & analysis mech. analysis M10 M20 M30 M40 M10 mod. M30 mod Testing G10 G20 G30 G40 G10.Mod G30mod Samples Concrete bricks Recycled Products Investigation Figure 16: Laboratory experimental program x Sampling at AUC x Testing at Marble & Quarries Tech. Center, MTI Density & Water Comp. Flexural Rupture porosity absorp. strength strength energy Testing Control Zero Composite marble Poly14 Poly16 Poly18 Poly20 Poly30 Poly35 Poly40 Grain size analysis Atterberglimits Specific gravity, density,& absorption Waste Charatarization Laboratory Experimental Program 3.1.2.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE x COMPOSITION The composite marble matrix is composed of marble or granite slurry (SL), coarse (A) and fine (B) sand bond by a polyester resin. The crushed marble and granite particles and pieces used are shown in figures (18-21) are mixed with polyester resin, along with its hardener and accelerator. Mixing, pouring, compaction and curing are shown in figure (22). The percentages of the composite mix are detailed in table (4), where Composite Marble (CM) samples are composed of waste aggregates and slurry bonded with polyester in various percentages (14, 16, 18, and 20 wt. %), to reach the optimum value. Composite Marble Slurry (CMS) samples, of slurry powder and resin, are also tested with slurry content of 60, 65, and 70 wt. %, with 40, 35, and 30% resin respectively. Setting time of samples is 15-25 minutes at room temperature (22-25 °C). Table 4: Composite marble mix design Sample code CM CMS Resin (wt%) SL (wt%) Fine sand (wt%) Coarse sand (wt%) Total (wt%) Poly.14 14.89 20.00 21.28 20.00 21.28 40.00 42.55 94.00 100.00 Poly.16 16.67 20.00 20.83 20.00 20.83 40.00 41.67 96.00 100.00 Poly.18 18.37 20.00 20.41 20.00 20.41 40.00 40.82 98.00 100.00 Poly.20 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 20.00 40.00 40.00 100.00 100.00 Poly.30 30 70 - - 100 Poly.35 35 65 - - 100 Poly.40 40 60 - - 100 59 x TESTING Samples after drying are removed from molds, sawed, if necessary, into the required dimensions. Samples are shown in figures (23-27). Physical and mechanical properties of samples are determined through density and porosity, water absorption, compressive strength, flexural strength, and rupture energy determination, as detailed in figures (28-31). DENSITY AND POROSITY Real density and porosity of composite marble is tested according to EN 1936:1999, as shown in fig. (28). Six 50mm cubes are tested for each mix design. WATER ABSORPTION Water absorption at atmospheric pressure of composite marble is tested according to EN 13755:200, as shown in fig. (28). Six 50mm cubes are tested for each mix design. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Compressive strength of composite marble is tested according to EN 1926:1999, as shown in fig. (29). Six 50mm cubes are tested for each mix design. FLEXURAL STRENGTH Flexural strength of composite marble under concentrated load is tested according to EN 12372:1999, as shown in fig. (30). Ten specimens of dimensions 150mm * 75mm * 25 mm are tested for each mix design. 60 RUPTURE ENERGY Rupture energy of composite marble is tested according to EN 14758:2004, as shown in fig. (31). Six specimens of dimensions 200mm * 200mm * 30 mm are tested for each mix design. Figure 17: Mixed coarse aggregate (C) of Nominal Maximum Aggregate Size = 12.5 mm. Figure 18: Mixed marble pieces of coarse sand size (A) Figure 19: Mixed marble pieces of fine sand size (B) 61 Figure 20: Granite slurry powder Figure 21: Marble slurry powder Figure 22: Mixing, pouring in molds, and compaction by vibration Figure 23: Sample before sawing into 5 cm cubes 62 Figure 24: Cubes for density, porosity, absorption, and compressive strength determination tests Figure 25: Rupture energy determination sample Figure 26: Polished surface of composite marble cube Figure 27: Flexural strength determination samples 63 Figure 28: Open porosity determination test for cubes Figure 29: Compression test for cubes 64 Figure 30: Flexural strength test Figure 31: Rupture energy determination for tiles 65 3.1.2.2. CONCRETE BRICKS x MIXING, POURING, AND CURING The concrete bricks are composed of cement, slurry additions, marble and granite mixed pieces of various sizes: fine sand (B), and coarse aggregate (C) of maximum nominal aggregate size of 12.5 mm. the aggregate used are shown figures (17-21). The bricks are poured in molds of inner dimensions of 250 mm length, 120 mm width and 60 mm height in agreement with the brick dimensions specified by the Egyptian code for masonry works. The bricks are compacted by vibration. They are left in the mold for 18-24 hours to set and then cured for 28 days. The mix designs of bricks are shown in table (5). The mix consistency before and after setting, and testing for the various mix proportions are shown in figures (32-54). x TESTING COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Compressive strength test is performed according to ASTM C140: sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related units, and the Egyptian code for masonry works. It is performed at 7 days and at 28 days. MOISTURE CONTENT AND ABSORPTION Moisture content and absorption of brick samples is performed according to ASTM C140: sampling and testing concrete masonry units and related units. Three bricks from each mix design are tested after 28 days of curing. 66 DURABILITY Durability tests are performed on three bricks (each test) from each mix design and tested after 28 days of curing. Bricks are tested for temperature variations through subjecting the samples to successive cycles of heating and cooling. In addition, bricks are tested for withstanding severe environmental conditions such as salt exposure, through subjecting the samples to successive cycles of saturated salt (Sodium Chloride) solution immersion followed by heating. - CYCLES OF HEATING AND COOLING The procedure for this test is as follows: 1. The bricks, after 28 days, are weighed, and dimensions are measured. 2. The bricks are subjected to heat, at 110 ºC for 24 ±2 hrs. 3. The specimens are, then, left to cool to reach room temperature, from 3 ± 4 hrs. 4. Steps 2 and 3 are repeated for 7 days. 5. All specimens are weighed and measured for dimensions 6. Finally, the bricks are tested for compressive strength and dimensional stability. - Cycles of immersion in salt solution and heating The procedure for this test is as follows: 1. The bricks, after 28 days, are weighed, and dimensions are measured. 2. Specimens are subjected to heat, at 110 ºC for 48 ±2 hrs. 3. The specimens are, then, left to cool to reach room temperature, from 3 ± 4 hrs. 4. specimens are weighed 67 5. The bricks are immersed in a fully saturated salt solution (sodium chloride), for 24 ±2 hrs. 6. The specimens are subjected to heat at 110 ºC for 24 ±2 hrs. 7. steps 2,3 and 5 are repeated for 7 days 8. Finally, the bricks are weighed; dimensions are measured and tested for compressive strength and dimensional stability. x ABRASION RESISTANCE Abrasion resistance is performed on specimens sawed from the bricks, of dimensions 50mm* 50mm* 25 mm, after 28 days of curing, according to ASTM C241/C241M-09: abrasion resistance of stone subjected to foot traffic. Deviation: using Carborandum 80, instead of Alundum 60. Bricks abrasion resistance is compared to ASTM C902-09: standard specification for pedestrian and light traffic paving brick Figure 32: M 30mix consistency Figure 33: M 40 mix consistency 68 Figure 34: G20 mix consistency Figure 35: G30 mix consistency Figure 36: Control mix consistency Figure 37: Mix M 30 after compaction (by vibration) 69 Figure 38: Mix M 40 after compaction (by vibration) Figure 39: Control after compaction Figure 40: M 30 sample at 7 days Figure 41: control brick 70 Figure 42: G20 brick Figure 43: M10 modified brick Figure 44: G10 modified brick Figure 45: Zero samples after 7 days 71 Figure 46: Compression test for M 30 sample at 7 days Figure 47: M 10 sample after compression test Figure 48: M 30 sample after compression test 72 Figure 49: Control specimen after compression test (7days) Figure 50: M 40 sample after compression test (7days) Figure 51: G30 modified after compression test (28 days) 73 Figure 52: samples after cycles of heating and cooling Figure 53: samples after salt cycles Figure 54: abrasion resistance test 74 wt kg/m3 % Absorp 10 220.5 20 440.9 27.2 120.1 7.9 173.6 1.73 3.0 10 209.8 30 629.4 27.2 171.5 6.8 141.6 1.73 2.4 10 204.4 40 817.6 23.3 190.1 5.6 115.0 1.73 2.0 G20 G30 G40 3.9 2.9 3.9 2.9 M10 mod. 6.7 161.3 10.4 250.9 23.25 58.33 9.3 225.8 1.7 M30 mod. 6.7 156.3 31.1 729.2 23.25 169.53 7.0 164.6 1.7 68.3 9.3 225.8 1.7 G10 mod. 6.7 161.3 10.4 250.9 27.2 G30 mod. 6.7 156.3 31.1 729.2 27.2 198.6 7.0 164.6 1.7 5.5 6.7 8.3 7.8 75 16.3 383.3 2.04 7.8 21.8 526.9 2.04 10.8 16.3 383.3 2.0 21.8 526.9 2.0 10.8 13.1 268.3 2.0 15.8 330.5 2.0 18.4 405.1 2.0 9.9 10 232.1 10 232.1 27.2 G10 21.0 487.3 2.0 10.0 204.4 40.0 817.6 23.3 190.1 5.63 115.0 1.73 2.0 13.13 268.3 2.04 5.5 M40 63.2 9.0 208.9 1.73 3.6 10.0 209.8 30.0 629.4 23.3 146.3 6.75 141.6 1.73 2.4 15.75 330.5 2.04 6.7 M30 9.00 211.2 1.73 3.7 21.00 492.7 2.04 10.1 800 wt% kg/m 3 54.0 9.00 208.9 1.73 3.6 21.00 487.3 2.04 9.9 0.0 3 wt% kg/m Absorp 10.0 220.5 20.0 440.9 23.3 102.5 7.88 173.6 1.73 3.0 18.38 405.1 2.04 8.3 23.3 - wt kg/m3 % Fine aggregates Fine agg. B M20 0.0 3 wt% kg/m Absorp. Fine agg. A 10.0 232.1 10.0 232.1 23.3 10.0 234.6 0.0 300 wt wt kg/m3 kg/m3 % % Slurry M10 0 Control Mix ID Cement Table 5: Mix design for brick samples 23.4 31.1 23.4 31.1 18.8 22.5 26.3 30.0 18.8 22.5 26.3 30.0 30.0 7.2 8.9 7.2 8.9 547.9 38.9 911.8 1.1 10.3 752.7 51.9 1254.5 1.1 14.2 547.9 38.9 911.8 1.1 10.3 752.7 51.9 1254.5 1.1 14.2 383.3 31.3 638.8 1.1 472.1 37.5 786.8 1.1 578.7 43.8 964.5 1.1 10.9 696.2 50.0 1160.0 1.1 13.1 383.3 31.3 638.8 1.1 472.1 37.5 786.8 1.1 578.7 43.8 964.5 1.1 10.9 696.2 50.0 1160.3 1.1 13.1 703.9 50.0 1173.1 1.1 13.3 1000 Total Absorp. % kg/m3 wt% wt% kg/m3 wt% kg/m3 Coarse agg. 219.6 97.2 190.5 87.2 204.8 189.5 142.3 89.9 204.8 164.4 124.7 80.6 27.0 kg/m 3 Total absorp. 0.6 93.8 0.6 96.8 0.6 93.8 0.6 96.8 0.6 122.6 0.6 125.9 0.6 132.3 0.6 139.2 0.6 122.6 0.6 125.9 0.6 132.3 0.6 139.2 0.6 140.8 0.6 180 w/c kg/m3 Water 3.1.2.3. USE IN MANUFACTURING CEMENT x CHEMICAL ANALYSIS The chemical analysis of raw material and cement is performed and compared to ASTM C 150: Standard Specification for Portland Cement for Type I and EN 197 and ES 4756 for cement CEM I 32.5 N. x PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL ANALYSIS The physical analysis of cement and the mechanical properties (compressive strength) is performed and compared to EN 197 and ES 4756 for cement CEM I 32.5 N. Samples are produced in prisms of dimensions 40mm * 160 mm cut into cubes of 40mm. 3.2. ENVIRONMENTAL REFORM Since 1970s, environmentalists, like Nelson Nemerow, professor of Environmental Engineering at University of Miami, Florida, have advocated charging industry a price for using up our environmental resources, increasing the unit price as the resource diminished. But, the unit prices for resources have risen to such levels that even this is becoming prohibitive. At one time it was necessary for industrial plants to treat its waste when it violated criteria established by the government. Even then, industries resisted compliance in order to avoid costs that would jeopardize profits. Today, industries consent to waste treatment in order to preserve environmental TXDOLW\IRUDOOXVHUVDQGVXUURXQGLQJSODQWV³6ORZO\EXWVXUHO\WKHLQGXVWU\ZRUOGwide is acceptLQJ ZDVWH WUHDWPHQW DV DQ LQWHJUDO SDUW RI WKH SURGXFWLRQ FRVWV´ 76 (Nemerow, 1995). However, treatment of waste can eliminate partially or completely, all environmental damage costs, but a decision must be made as to what degree of treatment is required to arrive at the optimum outcome and damage cost control. 7KHUHIRUH WUHDWPHQW FDQ QHYHU EH WKH RSWLPXP VROXWLRQ :H PXVW DLP IRU ³=HUR 3ROOXWLRQ´DVLQGLFDWHGE\1HPHURZ The zero pollution strategy proposed by Nemerow (1995) includes recovery and reuse within the same plant to minimize waste to the greatest degree possible, recovery and sale of waste to other manufactures outside the industrial plant, and bringing the waste producer and user together in one industrial complex so that the wastes of one serve as the raw materials of the other. Nemerow, in 1977, referred to this strategy as environmentally Balanced Industrial Complexes (EBICs). It must be mentioned, however, that unless there is a demand for recycled materials in quantities generated and for the types and qualities available, recycling costs may equal or exceed the original value of the materials. However, it should be born in mind that, we must include the elimination of environmental damage as a negative cost of recycling (Nemerow , 1995). The EBIC proposed by Nemerow (1995) can be considered the first dream in its early planning phase. The more realistic approach is the Eco-Industrial Cluster (EIC). In Shaq Al-Thu`ban, an EIC can be the approach for the environmental and the industrial reform. The general guidelines for the EIC are as follows: x A policy statement - D VWDWHPHQW RI WKH RUJDQL]DWLRQ¶V FRPPLWPHQW WR WKH environment, must be set clearly, and communicated to each member of the cluster 77 x The significance of environmental impact of the waste produced must be identified and understood by each member of the cluster, and each member in the cluster should be educated with the idea of extended producer responsibility (EPR). x Objectives and targets must be developed x Plans are to be set and implemented to meet objectives and targets x Training and instructions must be set to ensure that all cluster members are aware and capable of fulfilling their environmental responsibilities x The EIC must be public-private partnership, where the government role is to regulate and inspect the private sector, and force the regulations for collecting the waste. Any violation from the regulations mentioned before, or exceed in the allowable limits waste disposed to air, water, or land, must be charged by stringent fines. x 7KH FOXVWHU PXVW EH PDQDJHG E\ D TXDOLILHG ³FKDPSLRQ´ ZKR GHYHORSV VRFLDO relationships such as caring for associates, building trust, bringing people together, developing local support, identifying key people, and motivating buy-in (as cited in Hews & Lyons, 2008). x The champion needs to target top managers from local industries and workshops to create steering committee that meets periodically, over lunch for example, to learn about the reform program. Luncheons are effective tools to bring people together from their busy schedules to participate in periodical steering committee meetings. The steering committee introduces people to each other and as a result trust emerges between business associates (as cited in Hews & Lyons, 2008). Over time, social relations can lead to agreements and initiatives to protect the cluster environment. x Cluster management must make reviews to ensure that plans are implemented. 78 x The operating strategy would follow the zero-pollution approach indicated above. x Already existing factories and workshops must perform EMS, as discussed above. x New factories must perform EIAs x The techniques of cleaner production are to be used for waste elimination, or minimization, and recycling x A waste receiving station is to be created such that: It is to be located in an area close to all/most of the industries and workshops, not necessarily central area, but bearing in mind the increase in the transportation cost compared to the EBICs proposed by Nemerrow in 1977, where the waste collection station is located is the core. All industries and workshops are to transport their waste, sorted (slurry is separated from scrap), to the waste station, where at least scrap is separated from slurry. The station must be equipped with filter presses in order to separate the slurry powder suspended in the waste water, so that the effluent is water that can be reused, and the sludge can be used in the recycled products. The station must be equipped with necessary preprocessing resources, tools/equipment, and human resources, in order to meet the qualities and the standards indicated by the receiving recycling stations. A schematic diagram of the proposed cluster is illustrated in fig. (55). A long term vision can also be considered where the waste collection and preprocessing station can act as a raw material supply station for a new industrial area, not necessarily close WR6KDT$O7KX¶DQZKHUHWKLVQHZLQGXVWULDODUHDPDLQO\XVHVWKHSURFHVVHGZDVWHRI Shaq Al-Thu`ban as the raw materials. 79 ` Powder Treated water 80 Figure 55: Schematic diagram of Shaq Al-Thu`ban EIC Aggregates of various sizes Dewatering (filter press) Sorting and preprocessing station Crushing and sieving Scrap and slurry Waste Recycled water Already existing factories and workshops Shaq Al-Thu`ban EIC Other Industries Cement Composite marble Bricks New industries CHAPTER FOUR ANALYSIS OF RESULTS, AND DISCUSSIONS In this chapter, physical chemical and mechanical properties of raw materials, marble and granite scrap and slurry powder, and recycled products, composite marble, concrete bricks, and cement, are determined. Results are analyzed and compared to the respective ASTM standards, and/or European standards, and/or and Egyptian Code. 4.1. WASTE CHARACTERIZATION 4.1.1. ATTERBERG LIMITS Marble and granite particles (powder resulting from slurry) is a non-plastic material. This is in agreement with the literature, with shrinkage limit as a percentage of dry mass (SL) of 23.25, and 27.25 for marble and granite slurry respectively and shrinkage ratio (R) of 1.51 and 1.47 respectively. 4.1.2. GRAIN SIZE Marble and granite (material mixture resulting from crushing) pieces grain size distributions are shown in figures (56 to 59). The nominal maximum aggregate size is 12.5 mm and the coefficient of uniformity (Cu) of the coarse aggregate is 1.9. The fineness modulus of the mixed coarse sand (A), mixed fine sand (B) and the mixture of 30 % A+ 70 % B, which is selected based on trials for the best gradation curve obtained, are 4.596, 2.755, and 3.307 respectively. Marble particles and granite particles grain size distributions are shown in figures (60 & 61). 81 ` Marble and granite slurry powder are of grain size less than 75 microns, with 90% of WKHVDPSOHVDUHRIJUDLQVL]HOHVVWKDQȝPLQPDUEOHDQGȝPLQJUDQLWH50% of the particles KDGDGLDPHWHUORZHUWKDQȝPLQPDUEOHDQGȝP, in granite. Twenty five percent in marble powder, and 20%, in granite powder of size less than 2 microns, indicating that the samples range from clay size to silt, with granite of slightly coarser material than marble. These results show material grain size finer than the finest grain size found in the literature, 90% of the samples are of diameter less than 50 microns, with 50% of the particles had a diameter lower than 7ȝP, in marble. 4.1.3. SPECIFIC GRAVITY, DENSITY, AND ABSORPTION The values of specific gravity of the raw material used are shown in tables (6 & 7). The results are in agreement with the literature. For slurry powder, the measured specific gravity is as low as 2.55 and as high as 3.0, which is higher than what is expected to calcite materials. This is due to the presence of abrasive powder (iron grit and lime) used in sawing operations in large units. Thus, the specific gravity of slurry powder varies considerably according to cutting and processing operations. Aggregate absorption is from one to two percent in coarse and fine stone aggregates, while it is as high as 27% in granite slurry powder. This is due to the high surface area of the particles which requires high water content for saturation. 4.1.4. BULK DENSITY (UNIT WEIGHT): Bulk density of mixed coarse aggregate is 1573 kg/m3. 82 ` 4.1.5. ABRASION RESISTANCE Abrasion resistance of marble and granite mixture pieces is 29% for coarse aggregate (type C as per ASTM C131 classification) and 23% for coarse sand (type D as per ASTM C131 classification). These values are comparable to those of dolomite and limestone 18-30 (WSDOT, 2010). 4.1.6. SURFACE AREA The measured surface areas of marble and granite slurry particles are 4209 cm 2/g and 4377 cm2/g respectively, which are comparable to that of cement, 2600-4300 cm2/g. However, these values are considerably lower than that found in literature, 0.7-2.5 m2/g. Table 6: Specific gravity of marble and granite slurry particles Material Coarse aggregate Fine aggregate (A) Fine Aggregate (B) specific gravity (OD) 2.407 specific gravity (SSD) 2.434 % water absorption 1.131 2.733 (solids) , 2.587 2.791(solids), 2.632 2.632 1.729 2.688 2.145 Table 7: Specific gravity of marble and granite pieces Material specific gravity of solids Marble slurry 2.768 % water absorption 23.25 (SL) Granite slurry 2.837 27.24 (SL) 83 ` Mixed coarse aggregate 100 90 80 70 60 % Passing 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 1 10 Diameter (mm) Figure 56: Mixed coarse aggregate grain size distribution Mixed coarse sand (A) 100 80 60 % Passing 40 20 0 0.01 0.1 Diameter (mm) 1 10 Figure 57: Coarse sand (A) grain size distribution Mixed fine sand (B) 100 80 60 % Passing 40 20 0 0.01 0.1 1 Diameter (mm) Figure 58: Fine sand (B) grain size distribution 84 ` 10 30A+70B 100 90 80 70 60 % Passing 50 40 30 20 10 0 0.01 0.1 Diameter (mm) 10 1 Figure 59: 30%A + 70% B grain size distribution Marble slurry 100 90 80 70 60 50 % Finer 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Grain size (mm) Figure 60: Grain size analysis - hydrometer-for marble slurry Granite slurry 100 90 80 70 60 % Finer 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 Grain size (mm) Figure 61: Grain size analysis - hydrometer-for granite slurry 85 ` 4.1.7. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Chemical analyses of all waste material along with the microscopic captures are tabulated in tables (8 to18). Marble powder has calcium oxide as the major component (>49%) with loss of ignition (LOI) around 40%, and small amounts of SiO2 (<5%), MgO(<3%), and Fe2O3 (<2%), as indicated in the literature. On the contrary, granite shows SiO2 as the major component (>60%), with much lower level of LOI (<2%), with Al2O3 values between 6 and 14 %, CaO values of 0 to 6%, and traces of Na2O and K2O (0 to 3.5 %), in agreement with the values indicated in the literature. It is worth mentioning that the chemical analysis of granite slurry resulted from cutting operations using gang saws showed higher values of Fe 2O3, 7.73, as compared to 0 to 6.5%, in the literature, which indicate the use of iron grit in the cutting procedure as abrasive material. In addition, some granite samples show higher values of CaO, 9%, as shown in table (11), which indicates a mix of marble and granite waste. All stone waste pieces show high values of calcites (30 to 50%), except for one sample, fine green grain aggregate, table (17), which shows elevated values of Silica (60%), and Magnesium (35%), which indicates being a granite stone. Table 8: Chemical analysis of marble gang saw sample Concentration of major constituents SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O SO3 ZrO2 P2O5 SrO Cl LOI Wt,% 0.57 0.16 0.11 0.2 55.26 0.05 0.06 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 43.52 86 ` Table 9: Chemical analysis of granite gang saw sample Concentration of major constituents SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K 2O Cr2O3 P2O5 SO3 MnO Cl LOI Trace elements Cu Rb Sr Y Zn Zr Wt,% 69.88 0.05 12.21 7.73 0.07 3.17 3.00 3.65 0.07 0.03 0.05 0.07 0.01 --Ppm 44 147 57 36 46 46 Table 10: Chemical analysis of granite multi disk sample Concentration of major constituents SiO2 TiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K 2O P2O5 SO3 MnO Cl LOI Trace elements Cu Rb Sr Y Zn Co Nb Wt,% 69.99 0.34 14.01 2.98 0.82 1.68 3.57 4.3 0.10 0.02 0.07 0.02 1.9 Ppm 90 111 172 58 64 79 38 87 ` Table 11: Chemical analysis of granite powder by EDS, and SEM Element O Na Al Si K Ca Fe Total Weight% 56.11 3.63 6.20 24.76 2.11 4.20 2.99 100.00 Atomic% 70.30 3.17 4.61 17.67 1.08 2.10 1.07 Table 12: Chemical analysis of marble powder by EDS, and SEM Element O Si Ca Total Weight% 56.62 0.19 43.19 100.00 Atomic% 76.55 0.15 23.31 88 ` Table 13: Chemical analysis of coarse aggregate, red grain, by EDS, and SEM Element O Mg Al Si S Cl Ca Fe Total Weight% 56.43 0.99 1.30 3.95 0.75 0.64 31.72 4.23 100.00 Atomic% 75.61 0.87 1.03 3.01 0.50 0.39 16.96 1.63 Table 14: Chemical analysis of coarse aggregate, black grain, by EDS, and SEM Element O Mg Si S Ca Total Weight% 51.52 0.91 4.27 0.72 42.58 100.00 Atomic% 71.65 0.83 3.38 0.50 23.64 89 ` Table 15: Chemical analysis of coarse sand (A) by EDS, and SEM Element O Mg Al Si S Ca Total Weight% 50.71 2.01 2.34 7.81 0.89 36.24 100.00 Atomic% 69.67 1.82 1.91 6.12 0.61 19.88 Table 16: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), black grains, by EDS, and SEM Element O Mg Al Si Ca Total Weight% 54.17 1.48 1.54 6.91 35.91 100 Atomic% 72.88 1.31 1.23 5.29 19.29 90 ` Table 17: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), green grains, by EDS, and SEM Element O Mg Si Ca Fe Total Weight% 53.83 17.85 19.93 2.37 6.02 100.00 Atomic% 67.63 14.76 14.26 1.19 2.17 Table 18: Chemical analysis of fine sand (B), red grains, by EDS, and SEM Element O Al Si S Ca Total Weight% 48.52 1.02 2.68 0.59 47.19 100.00 Atomic% 69.53 0.87 2.18 0.42 26.99 91 ` 4.2. RECYCLED PRODUCTS 4.2.1. COMPOSITE MARBLE Composite marble, of a matrix of polyester resin of 14, 16, 18, and 20% and marble and granite waste aggregates and slurry powder of 86, 84, 82, and 80 % respectively, physical, and mechanical properties are determined according to European standards. Results are compared to ASTM specifications, if applicable, and commercially available marble and granite properties. 4.2.1.1. DENSITY AND POROSITY Apparent density and porosity of composite marble is tested according to EN 1936:1999. Poly16, 16 % polyester resin and 84 % aggregate and slurry powder, showed the highest density (2126 kg/m3), and the lowest porosity (0.5%). As for the composite slurry marble, poly30, 30% polyester and 7o% slurry powder, showed the highest density (1860 kg/m3), and the lowest porosity (0.72%). Results are shown in tables (19 & 25). 4.2.1.2. WATER ABSORPTION Water absorption at atmospheric pressure of composite marble is tested according to EN 13755:2002. The lowest water absorption is in the poly16 samples. As for the composite slurry marble, poly30 showed the lowest water absorption (0.37%). Results are shown in tables (21 & 22). 4.2.1.3. COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH Compressive strength of composite marble is tested according to EN 1926:1999. Results are shown in table (23) and illustrated in fig. (62). Poly14 showed the highest 92 ` compressive strength, where the highest percentage of aggregates exist. At higher slurry percentages, agglomeration of slurry started to decrease the bond the slurry powder creates between the resin and the aggregate matrix. This caused stress concentration thus yielding lower compressive strength. This becomes vivid when a matrix of slurry powder and resin is considered as shown in the composite slurry marble samples, where all composite slurry marble failed to resist compression, and behaved like putty. Table 19: Apparent density and open porosity for composite marble Sample code Poly14 Poly16 Poly18 Poly20 Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Apparent density (Kg/m3) Open porosity (%) 2049.4 2049.6 2049.2 2049.1 2049.4 2049.4 2049.4 2124.1 2125.6 2127.1 2125.3 2126.9 2128.4 2126.2 2126.1 2125.7 212.0 2125.7 2125.7 2125.5 1806.8 2065.4 2065.1 2065.3 2065.9 2066.4 2066.3 2065.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.9 93 ` Table 20: Apparent density and open porosity for composite marble slurry Sample code Poly30 Poly35 Poly40 Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Apparent density (Kg/m3) 1852.3 1854.6 1854.1 1897.1 1852.3 1852.4 1860.5 1703.0 1702.8 1701.5 1701.6 1703.2 1703.0 1702.5 1603.6 1603.4 1603.8 1603.9 1604.1 1603.8 1603.8 Open porosity (%) 0.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.9 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.7 0.7 0.8 4.2.1.4. FLEXURAL STRENGTH Flexural strength of composite marble under point load according to EN 12372:1999. All samples showed close values of flexural strength. However, the highest value of flexural strength appeared in poly14 samples (14.8 MPa). As for the composite slurry marble, poly30 showed the highest flexural strength (5.1 MPa). Results are shown in tables (24 & 25) and illustrated in figures (62 & 63). 94 ` Table 21: Water absorption of composite marble Sample code Sample no. 1 2 3 4 Poly14 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 Poly16 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 Poly 18 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 Poly20 5 6 Avg. Water absorption (%) 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.33 0.32 0.33 0.25 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.24 0.38 0.37 0.37 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.37 0.44 0.44 0.43 0.44 0.43 0.43 0.44 4.2.1.5. RUPTURE ENERGY Rupture energy of composite marble is tested according to EN 14758:2004. All samples showed close values of rupture energy; however, the highest value appears in poly.16 samples. Composite marble slurry showed the highest value of rupture energy at poly.40 (16.1 Joule). Results are shown in table (26 & 27) and illustrated in figures (64 & 65). 95 ` Table 22: Water absorption of composite marble slurry Sample code Poly. 30 Poly. 35 Poly. 40 Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Water absorption (%) 0.39 0.38 0.37 0.36 0.37 0.35 0.37 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.52 0.51 0.51 0.52 0.46 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 0.45 A summary of results is shown in table (24). The results indicate that poly. 16 showed the best physical and mechanical properties, where it showed the lowest porosity (0.5%), the lowest water absorption (0.24%), the highest density (2126 kg/m3), and the highest rupture energy (13.4 Joule). Although it does not show the highest value for compressive strength at 71.63 MPa, this value is higher than the required strength for marble in ASTM C503-08a. 96 ` Table 23: Compressive strength of composite marble Sample Sample no. code Poly14 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 Poly16 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 Poly18 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 Poly20 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. Dimensions (mm) L1 L2 Area 49.5 49.9 2470.1 50.0 50.0 2500.0 50.0 50.0 2500.0 50.0 49.9 2495.0 50.7 50.7 2570.5 50.0 49.8 2490.0 Breaking load (N) Compressive strength (MPa) 182994 203789 203096 203754 203546 203056 74.1 81.5 81.2 81.7 79.2 81.5 79.9 3.0 71.1 72.6 69.0 72.8 71.2 73.2 71.6 1.6 70.9 71.9 75.0 70.4 67.8 70.3 71.0 2.4 73.1 64.1 58.8 64.2 62.3 63.9 64.4 4.7 49.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.0 50.1 49.9 49.9 49.8 50.6 49.9 2480.0 2495.0 2495.0 2490.0 2565.4 2495.0 176340 181192 172043 181256 182546 182574 49.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.0 49.9 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.8 50.0 2470.1 2500.0 2500.0 2500.0 2575.6 2500.0 175231 179667 187569 175896 174586 175682 49.5 50.0 50.0 50.0 50.7 50.0 50.1 49.9 49.9 49.8 50.6 49.9 2480.0 2495.0 2495.0 2490.0 2565.4 2495.0 181192 159843 146673 159856 159745 159456 When comparing results to those required by ASTM C503-08a, composite marble sample exceeds the values required for compressive and flexural strengths, 52 and 7 MPa respectively. However, the water absorption slightly exceeds the maximum limit of 0.2 %. Although the density of composite marble is lower than that required by 97 ` ASTM C503-08a, 2595 kg/m3, it is an expected finding due to using the light density binder and it can be considered advantageous in light weight applications. Table 24: Flexural strength of composite marble Distance Breaking section Sample Sample dimensions (mm) between Breaking load Flexural strength code no. supporting (N) (MPa) Width Thickness rollers (mm) 1 76.7 31.1 125.0 5791 14.6 2 76.3 31.7 125.0 6239 15.3 3 76.1 32.7 125.0 6253 14.4 4 76.6 32.9 125.0 6245 14.1 Poly14 5 76.1 31.5 125.0 6258 15.5 6 76.2 32.2 125.0 6258 14.9 Avg. 14.8 Std. dev. 0.5 1 76.4 34.2 125.0 6040 12.7 2 76.3 34.5 125.0 6698 13.8 3 76.8 34.5 125.0 6675 13.7 4 76.4 35.0 125.0 6654 13.3 Poly16 5 76.1 34.7 125.0 6688 13.7 6 76.2 34.8 125.0 6698 13.6 Avg. 13.5 Std. dev. 0.4 1 75.0 31.5 125.0 5752 14.5 2 76.9 30.7 125.0 5574 14.4 3 76.1 29.8 125.0 5563 15.4 4 76.1 31.5 125.0 5526 13.7 Poly18 5 76.2 32.1 125.0 5536 13.2 6 76.0 30.0 125.0 5541 15.2 Avg. 14.4 Std. dev. 0.8 1 75.0 31.5 125.0 5999 15.1 2 76.2 31.1 125.0 4842 12.3 3 76.9 30.7 125.0 5978 15.5 4 76.1 29.8 125.0 5984 16.6 Poly20 5 76.2 32.1 125.0 5214 12.5 6 76.0 30.5 125.0 5682 15.1 Avg. 14.5 Std. dev. 1.7 98 ` Table 25: Flexural strength of composite slurry marble Sample code Poly30 Poly35 Poly40 Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Std. dev. Width 75.0 76.2 76.9 76.1 76.2 76.0 Thickness 34.5 34.2 34.6 35.1 34.6 34.8 Distance between supporting rollers (mm) 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 75.0 76.2 76.9 76.1 76.2 76.0 32.5 35.3 35.6 34.6 34.7 34.8 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 2175 2488 2145 2163 2135 2138 76.0 76.2 76.9 76.1 76.2 76.0 34.8 34.2 34.3 34.7 34.9 34.9 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 125.0 1732 1744 1345 1745 1742 1345 Breaking section dimensions (mm) Breaking load (N) 2595 2483 2475 2468 2415 2475 Flexural strength (Mpa) 5.5 5.2 5.0 4.9 5.0 5.0 5.1 0.2 5.1 4.9 4.1 4.5 4.4 4.4 4.6 0.4 3.5 3.7 2.8 3.6 3.5 2.7 3.3 0.4 Concerning, the composite marble slurry samples, all samples reveals unsatisfactory results except for the rupture energy, summary table (29), which shows the highest values of all composite marble samples. However, it is not recommended for use in most marble applications due to the substandard compressive strength, low values of flexural strength and its higher porosity and water absorption. Composite marble values are comparable to commercially available marble and granite. According to test results of Marble and Granite Technology Center for commercial marble and granite, marble has open porosity, absorption, compressive 99 ` strength, flexural strength, and rupture energy values of 2.7%, 1.34%, 66 MPa, 5.7 MPa, and 4.5 Joule respectively, while granite has values of 0.3%, 0.12%, 136 MPa, 14.6 MPa, and 5.6 Joule respectively. Thus, composite marble surpasses commercial marble in porosity, 0.5%, absorption, 0.24%, compressive strength, 72 MPa, flexural strength, 13.5MPa, and rupture energy, 13 Joule, yet falls behind granite in all properties, except rupture energy. Table 26: Rupture energy of composite marble Sample code Poly14 Poly16 Poly18 Poly20 Sample no. Rupture energy (Joule) 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 12.26 12.26 11.77 11.77 12.26 12.26 12.10 13.24 14.22 12.75 12.75 14.22 13.24 13.40 12.26 12.26 12.26 12.26 12.26 12.26 12.26 11.77 11.77 12.24 11.77 13.24 13.24 12.34 100 ` Table 27: Rupture energy of composite slurry marble Sample code Poly30 Poly35 Poly40 Sample no. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Avg. Rupture energy (Joule) 14.22 14.71 14.22 14.22 14.71 14.22 14.38 15.69 15.69 15.69 15.69 15.69 15.69 15.69 16.20 16.20 16.00 16.15 16.00 16.00 16.09 Table 28: Summary of composite marble test results Sample Apparent density (Kg/m3) Open porosity (%) Water absorption (%) Compressive strength (MPa) Flexural strength (MPa) Rupture energy (Joule) Poly14 2049.35 0.70 0.33 79.87 14.80 12.10 Poly16 2126.23 0.50 0.24 71.63 13.47 13.40 Poly18 1806.78 0.80 0.37 71.04 14.41 12.26 Poly20 2065.73 0.87 0.44 64.38 14.50 12.34 Poly30 1860.47 0.72 0.37 - 5.11 14.38 Poly35 1702.52 0.90 0.52 - 4.56 15.69 Poly40 1603.77 0.75 0.45 - 3.30 16.09 101 ` 90.0 80.0 70.0 Compressive strength 60.0 Strength (MPa) 50.0 40.0 30.0 Flexural strength 20.0 10.0 0.0 14 16 18 20 % polyester Figure 62: Compressive and flexural strength of composite marble at different polyester content 6.0 5.0 4.0 Strength (MPa) Flexural strength 3.0 2.0 1.0 0.0 30 35 40 % polyester Figure 63: Flexural strength of composite slurry marble at different polyester content 14.0 13.5 13.0 12.5 Rupture energy 12.0 (Joule) 11.5 11.0 10.5 10.0 14 16 18 20 % polyester Figure 64: Rupture energy of composite marble at different polyester content 102 ` 17.0 16.0 15.0 Rupture energy 14.0 (Joule) 13.0 12.0 11.0 10.0 30 35 40 % polyester Figure 65: Rupture energy of composite slurry marble at different polyester content 4.2.2. CONCRETE BRICKS Concrete bricks with 10, 20, 30, and 40 % marble and granite slurry powder, along with full replacement of aggregates with waste aggregates physical and mechanical properties is determined according to ASTM standards. Results are analyzed and compared to ASTM specifications and the Egyptian code. 4.2.2.1. Concrete brick samples are tested according to ASTM C140. Results of compression, moisture, absorption and durability are shown in tables (29 to 57). Illustrative charts of compressive strength of samples at 7 days, 28 days, after heating and cooling cycles and after salt solution immersion cycles are shown in figures (66 to 77). 4.2.2.2. Abrasion resistance results according to ASTM C902-09: standard specifications for pedestrian and light traffic paving brick, and ASTM C241/C241M-09: standard test for abrasion resistance of stone subjected to foot traffic are shown in tables (58) and (59 to 61) respectively. 103 ` 247.0 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) 37.2 34.4 1.6 1.1 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - ` 37.2 4090.5 29576.3 3.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 W Max comp. strength (MPa) 35.1 comp. strength (Mpa) 247.5 247.0 248.0 L 35.6 4029.0 Mass (g) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 29516.5 3.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 Area (mm ) 2 247.0 W Sample 1 Where, Wd = oven-dry weight of specimen, kg, Ws = saturated weight of specimen, (g), and Wi = immersed weight of specimen. C 247.0 face/ side 2 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days Table 29: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks control samples 59.5 59.0 60.0 H 104 246.5 246.0 247.0 L 34.4 4008.0 29456.8 4.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 W Sample 3 Compressive strength 59.0 59.0 59.0 H 244.8 245.5 244.0 L 40.1 3973.0 29370.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 59.0 59.0 59.0 H 246.3 245.0 247.5 L 0.3 0.5 39.3 40.1 39.6 39.3 4034.0 29550.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 2 28 days 59.0 60.0 58.0 H 245.5 247.0 244.0 L 39.4 4109.0 29460.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 59.0 60.0 58.0 H ` C 246.0 avg. dimensions 7.1 Absorption (%) H L W 52.9 61.8 42.9 8.8 10.0 Max comp.strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - H 59.0 60.0 58.0 61.8 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Comp. strength 7.3 7.4 158.0 2140.9 3828.0 4110.5 2322.5 29516.5 4.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 Avg. Absorp. (%) 247.0 248.0 246.0 155.8 58.0 60.0 56.0 Avg. Absorp. (kg/m ) 54.1 152.7 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 3 3745.0 Wd 2153.5 4010.5 Ws 3 2271.5 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 29520.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 246.0 face/ side 2 120.0 105 243.5 246.0 241.0 L 42.9 7.3 156.7 2133.6 3738.0 4012.5 2260.5 29220.0 9.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W W L 246.0 Dimensions (mm) face/ side 1 Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Parameter 59.3 60.5 58.0 H 248.5 248.0 249.0 L W 6.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 37.9 7.5 - - 3973.5 4271.0 4264.5 29820.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 30: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks control samples H 61.3 61.5 61.0 251.0 252.0 250.0 L 1.3 0.8 35.8 37.9 37.1 35.8 7.3 - 7.4 - - 3779.0 4058.5 4066.0 30371.0 4.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 W 62.8 63.5 62.0 H Salt solution cycles L 246.8 247.0 246.5 W 37.5 7.0 - - 3854.5 4124.0 4127.5 30103.5 4.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 ` 0 246.0 245.5 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 12.8 11.2 0.6 1.0 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 12.6 3985.0 30132.0 3.0 121.5 122.0 121.0 W Max comp. strength (MPa) 248.0 249.0 247.0 L 12.2 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 12.8 3537.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 29337.3 5.0 119.5 119.0 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 245.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days 61.5 61.0 62.0 H 106 247.8 248.5 247.0 L 11.2 4031.5 29791.9 3.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Sample 3 Compressive strength Table 31: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks zero slurry samples 62.0 61.0 63.0 H 248.5 250.0 247.0 L 15.6 3775.0 29820.0 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 61.0 61.0 61.0 H 247.5 250.0 245.0 L 1.3 1.1 14.1 16.4 15.4 16.4 3837.0 29700.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 2 28 days 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 248.5 250.0 247.0 L 14.1 3801.0 29820.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 60.0 60.0 60.0 H ` 0 246.0 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) 3696.0 3425.0 2101.2 166.3 Ws Wd Density (Kg/m3 ) Absorption (kg/m3) 167.9 8.3 172.9 2091.6 3253.5 3522.5 1967.0 29910.0 1.5 120.0 120.0 16.0 19.1 12.4 3.1 3.7 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 12.4 249.3 248.5 W 120.0 8.0 60.5 60.0 L 250.0 compressive strength 16.6 H 61.0 Avg. Absorption (%) Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 7.9 2066.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) Absorption (%) 29520.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 107 251.0 250.0 252.0 L 19.1 7.8 164.6 2104.3 3713.0 4003.5 2239.0 30182.8 8.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Area (mm ) 2 246.0 face/ side 2 L 246.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 59.5 59.0 60.0 H 246.0 245.0 247.0 L W 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 16.7 7.8 - - 3344.0 3603.5 3417.0 29520.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 32: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks zero slurry samples H 59.5 60.0 59.0 245.0 245.0 245.0 L 3.2 2.7 16.7 22.7 19.9 22.7 7.9 - 8.1 - - 3306.0 3574.5 3379.0 29400.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 57.5 55.0 60.0 H Salt solution cycles L 250.0 250.0 250.0 W 20.4 8.0 - - 3541.5 3823.5 3643.5 30000.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 ` M 10 240.0 243.0 avg. dimensions 34.2 28.3 2.9 3.1 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 34.2 4,176.0 29,402.0 4.0 120.5 120.0 121.00 W 31.4 244.0 243.0 245.0 L Max comp. strength (MPa) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 28.3 4,045.5 comp. strength (MPa) 29,160.0 Mass (g) 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 246.0 face/ side 2 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days 61.8 59.5 64.0 H 108 244.0 243.0 245.0 L 31.6 4,250.0 29,524.0 4.0 121.0 120.0 122.0 W Sample 3 Compressive strength Table 33: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% marble slurry samples 60.5 61.0 60.0 H 247.5 248.0 247.0 L 41.9 4037.0 29823.8 3.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Sample 1 59.0 59.0 59.0 H 246.0 245.0 247.0 L 3.8 2.6 35.5 41.9 39.4 40.6 4123.5 29520.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 2 28 days 60.5 60.0 61.0 H 245.5 246.0 245.0 L 35.5 4070.5 29460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 59.8 59.5 60.0 H ` M 10 247.0 244.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 3983.0 Wd 61.3 63.6 58.5 2.3 2.8 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 61.8 168.2 7.7 169.5 2190.0 4075.5 4391.0 2530.0 30040.9 5.0 121.5 121.0 122.0 compressive strength 247.3 249.0 245.5 7.7 61.3 60.0 62.5 W Avg. Absorption (%) 58.5 7.7 Absorption (%) Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 168.7 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 2188.5 4290.0 Ws 3 2470.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 29402.0 3.5 120.5 121.0 120.0 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 241.0 face/ side 1 L 62.3 62.0 62.5 H 109 247.3 245.5 249.0 L 63.6 7.6 166.4 2191.6 3924.0 4222.0 2431.5 29917.3 2.0 121.0 122.0 120.0 W W H Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Dimensions (mm) L Parameter 60.8 61.5 60.0 H 248.0 248.0 248.0 L 2.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W 40.2 7.5 - - 3996.0 4294.0 4239.5 29884.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 34: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% marble slurry samples 60.8 60.5 61.0 H 251.0 252.0 250.0 L 4.7 3.5 34.3 42.5 39.0 34.3 7.3 - 7.3 - - 4146.0 4449.5 4413.5 30371.0 3.5 121.0 121.0 121.0 W 62.8 63.5 62.0 H Salt solution cycles 246.8 247.0 246.5 L 42.5 7.2 - - 3987.0 4273.0 4230.5 30103.5 3.5 122.0 122.0 122.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H ` M 20 252.0 251.0 face/ side 1 (mm) face/ side 2 avg. dimensions H L W 25.2 22.7 1.5 0.9 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 22.7 4364.5 30057.3 1.0 119.8 120.5 119.0 Max comp. strength (MPa) 251.0 251.0 251.0 23.6 60.5 60.5 60.5 Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 25.2 4280.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 30245.5 2.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) L 250.0 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days H 60.5 60.5 60.5 L 110 250.0 250.0 250.0 23.0 4295.5 30062.5 0.5 120.3 120.0 120.5 W Sample 3 Compressive strength Table 35: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 20% marble slurry samples H 60.5 60.5 60.5 L 247.8 247.5 248.0 28.2 4426.0 29730.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 H 63.5 63.0 64.0 L 246.8 247.0 246.5 28 days 0.1 0.1 28.2 28.4 28.3 28.2 4388.0 29610.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 2 H 63.5 63.0 64.0 L 245.0 246.0 244.0 28.4 4304.5 29400.0 6.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 H 60.8 61.5 60.0 ` M 20 244.0 avg. dimensions 193.2 9.3 197.4 2111.8 3974.5 4346.0 2464.0 29764.9 5.0 120.8 120.5 38.5 44.5 33.5 6.0 5.0 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 44.5 246.5 245.0 W 121.0 compressive strength 31.3 62.0 L 248.0 9.1 33.5 H 0.5 Avg. Absorption (%) Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) 8.8 Absorption (%) 3 186.6 Absorption (kg/m ) 2131.8 3947.0 Wd 3 4292.5 Ws Density (Kg/m ) 2441.0 Wi 3 29463.0 9.0 120.8 121.0 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 241.0 face/ side 2 120.5 62.3 61.5 63.0 H 111 248.3 249.0 247.5 L 37.5 9.2 195.5 2123.6 3970.0 4335.5 2466.0 29852.1 2.5 120.3 120.0 120.5 W W L 247.0 Dimensions (mm) face/ side 1 Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Parameter 60.5 61.0 60.0 H 247.5 247.0 248.0 L W 3.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 29.0 9.0 - - 3835.5 4180.5 2430.0 29823.8 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 36: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 20% marble slurry samples H 60.3 60.0 60.5 245.0 248.0 242.0 L 1.9 3.4 29.0 34.3 30.9 29.4 8.9 - 8.9 - - 3983.0 4337.0 2450.0 29645.0 8.0 121.0 120.0 122.0 W 62.3 62.0 62.5 H Salt solution cycles L 246.0 247.0 245.0 W 34.3 8.8 - - 4036.5 4392.0 2550.0 29643.0 5.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 H 61.8 61.0 62.5 ` M 30 248.3 Avg. dimensions H L W 18.8 17.1 1.0 0.7 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 17.6 4,315.5 29,670.0 4.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 17.8 247.3 248.5 246.0 Max comp. strength (MPa) 60.5 60.0 61.0 Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 18.8 4,334.5 comp. strength (MPa) 29,852.1 Mass (g) 2.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 248.5 face/ side 2 L 248.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days H 64.3 64.5 64.0 L 112 247.8 248.0 247.5 17.1 4,349.5 29,977.8 2.5 121.0 121.5 120.5 W Sample 3 Compressive strength Table 37: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% marble slurry samples H 60.3 60.0 60.5 L 247.0 247.0 247.0 22.5 4,134.0 29,640.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 246.5 247.0 246.0 0.5 0.6 21.5 22.5 22.0 21.5 4,080.5 29,826.5 4.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 W Sample 2 28 days H 61.5 61.0 62.0 L 248.0 247.0 249.0 21.9 4,054.5 29,760.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 H 61.0 60.0 62.0 ` M 30 247.0 246.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 11.1 223.1 30.2 31.4 29.2 1.2 1.0 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 30.0 11.1 Absorption (%) 31.4 223.0 Absorption (kg/m3) 2002.0 3989.0 compressive strength 2007.3 Density (Kg/m3 ) 11.1 3708.5 Wd 4433.5 2441.0 30000.0 5.0 120.0 121.0 119.0 Avg. Absorption (%) 4120.5 Ws 250.0 249.0 251.0 W 222.5 2273.0 61.5 60.0 63.0 L Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 29581.5 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 9.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 245.0 face/ side 1 H 65.8 65.5 66.0 H 113 246.5 248.0 245.0 L 29.2 11.0 221.5 2006.5 3709.0 4118.5 2270.0 29641.6 2.5 120.3 120.0 120.5 W W Dimensions (mm) L Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Parameter 60.5 60.5 60.5 H 249.8 250.0 249.5 L 3.0 122.5 122.0 123.0 W 22.0 10.1 - - 3768.0 4150.0 4191.5 30594.4 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 38: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% marble slurry samples 61.3 60.0 62.5 H 251.0 250.0 252.0 L 0.3 0.3 21.4 22.0 21.7 21.4 10.5 - 10.0 - - 3844.0 4228.0 4278.5 30182.8 3.0 120.3 120.0 120.5 W 62.3 63.0 61.5 H Salt solution cycles 247.5 247.0 248.0 L 21.6 11.3 - - 3708.0 4126.0 4116.5 30009.4 3.0 121.3 121.0 121.5 W 61.5 61.0 62.0 H ` M 40 252.0 249.8 avg. dimensions 8.4 7.7 0.3 0.4 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 8.4 4057.5 29820.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Max comp. strength (MPa) 248.5 249.0 248.0 L 8.1 60.3 60.5 60.0 H Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 8.2 4076.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 29970.0 2.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 247.5 face/ side 2 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days 62.0 60.0 64.0 H 114 248.5 249.0 248.0 L 7.7 4025.5 29695.8 2.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 W Sample 3 Compressive strength Table 39: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 40% marble slurry samples 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 244.5 248.0 241.0 L 11.1 3910.0 29462.3 9.0 120.5 120.5 120.5 W Sample 1 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 249.8 250.0 249.5 L 0.7 1.0 11.1 12.8 11.8 12.8 4092.5 30032.4 3.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Sample 2 28 days 62.5 62.0 63.0 H 247.0 249.0 245.0 L 11.5 4167.5 29701.8 5.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Sample 3 62.0 62.0 62.0 H ` M 40 245.5 avg. dimensions 13.6 Absorption (%) H L W 25.0 23.5 0.8 0.6 Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 25.0 24.2 compressive strength avg. comp. strength (MPa) 13.6 13.7 261.9 1914.0 3559.0 4046.0 2186.5 29856.8 5.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 Avg. Absorption (%) 246.8 247.0 246.5 260.0 60.0 60.0 60.0 Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) 24.0 259.7 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 3 3590.0 Wd 1914.2 4077.0 Ws 3 2201.5 3 29582.8 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 9.0 120.5 121.0 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 246.0 face/ side 2 120.0 61.0 61.0 61.0 H 115 246.0 245.0 247.0 L 23.5 13.4 258.5 1922.2 3606.0 4091.0 2215.0 29766.0 2.5 121.0 121.0 121.0 W W L 245.0 Dimensions (mm) face/ side 1 Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Parameter 61.0 60.0 62.0 H 241.5 243.0 240.0 L W 7.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 15.4 14.1 - - 3483.0 3975.0 3955.5 29100.8 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 40: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 40% marble slurry samples H 61.5 61.0 62.0 249.0 248.0 250.0 L 0.8 1.2 14.9 17.0 15.8 14.9 13.8 - 13.8 - - 3637.5 4138.5 4134.5 30066.8 2.0 120.8 121.0 120.5 W 61.5 62.0 61.0 H Salt solution cycles L 249.0 248.0 250.0 W 17.0 13.4 - - 3669.0 4160.5 4156.0 30129.0 2.0 121.0 122.0 120.0 H 61.0 60.0 62.0 ` G 10 250.0 250.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 38.3 31.7 3.8 2.8 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 31.7 4,391.5 30,000.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W 7 days Max comp. strength (MPa) 250.0 250.0 250.0 L 34.5 60.0 60.0 60.0 H avg. comp. strength (MPa) 38.3 4,244.0 Mass SSD (g) comp. strength (MPa) 30,125.0 1.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 250.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 116 250.0 250.0 250.0 L 33.6 4,271.5 30,062.5 0.5 120.3 120.0 120.5 W Compressive strength Table 41: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% granite slurry samples 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 250.0 250.0 250.0 L 43.3 4,462.5 30,000.0 1.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 60.8 61.0 60.5 H 249.0 248.0 250.0 L 0.2 0.4 43.3 43.8 43.5 43.8 4,390.0 29,880.0 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W 28 days 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 249.5 249.0 250.0 L 43.3 4,400.5 30,127.1 1.5 120.8 120.5 121.0 W 60.8 60.0 61.5 H ` G 10 248.0 248.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 3910.5 Wd 54.3 62.7 49.3 8.4 5.0 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 50.8 185.0 8.3 179.8 2176.5 4074.5 4411.0 2539.0 29947.5 3.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 compressive strength 247.5 248.0 247.0 8.6 60.0 59.0 61.0 W Avg. Absorption (%) 49.3 8.6 Absorption (%) Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 186.6 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 2161.7 4248.0 Ws 3 2439.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 29760.0 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 248.0 face/ side 1 L 61.5 63.0 60.0 H 117 246.5 248.0 245.0 L 62.7 8.8 188.5 2152.0 3886.5 4227.0 2421.0 29641.6 5.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W W H Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Dimensions (mm) L Parameter 60.3 60.0 60.5 H 248.0 249.0 247.0 L 3.0 121.5 122.0 121.0 W 44.9 8.2 - - 4073.5 4405.5 4416.0 30132.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 42: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% granite slurry samples 61.3 60.0 62.5 H 246.0 248.0 244.0 L 1.6 2.8 44.5 48.9 46.1 48.9 8.2 - 8.1 - - 3950.0 4269.0 4254.5 29766.0 6.0 121.0 122.0 120.0 W 60.7 61.0 60.5 H Salt solution cycles 249.5 249.0 250.0 L 44.5 8.4 - - 3918.5 4249.0 4254.5 30439.0 2.0 122.0 122.0 122.0 W 60.5 61.0 60.0 H ` G 20 248.0 248.5 avg. dimensions 27.6 25.8 1.0 0.9 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 25.8 4,230.0 29,912.2 2.0 120.3 120.0 120.50 W 26.6 248.8 248.0 249.5 L Max comp. strength (MPa) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H avg. comp. strength (MPa) 27.6 4,225.0 comp. strength (MPa) 29,820.0 Mass (g) 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 249.0 face/ side 2 L face/ side 1 (mm) Dimensions (mm) 7 days 60.5 60.5 60.5 H 118 247.0 249.0 245.0 L 26.5 4,485.0 29,825.3 6.5 120.8 121.0 120.5 W Compressive strength Table 43: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 20% granite slurry samples 64.3 62.0 66.5 H 248.5 249.0 248.0 L 38.6 4,297.0 30,130.6 2.0 121.3 121.5 121.0 W 60.3 62.0 58.5 H 248.0 250.0 246.0 L 4.3 2.7 32.6 39.6 36.9 32.6 4,626.0 29,884.0 2.0 120.5 121.0 120.00 W 28 days 66.5 67.0 66.0 H 244.0 248.0 240.0 L 39.6 4,209.0 29,402.0 6.5 120.5 121.0 120.0 W 62.0 62.0 62.0 H ` G 20 Parameter 249.0 248.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 3957.5 Wd 52.1 58.9 47.7 6.8 4.4 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 47.7 201.1 9.6 203.7 2124.2 4010.5 4395.0 2507.0 29944.3 4.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W compressive strength 248.5 249.0 248.0 L 9.5 61.0 61.0 61.0 H Avg. Absorption (%) 49.6 9.6 Absorption (%) Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 200.1 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 2091.7 4336.0 Ws 3 2444.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 29512.0 3.0 119.0 119.0 119.0 W 61.5 64.0 59.0 H 119 245.0 246.0 244.0 L 58.9 9.4 199.6 2120.3 3841.0 4202.5 2391.0 29522.5 6.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 247.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 250.0 250.0 250.0 L 2.0 121.5 121.0 122.0 W 46.8 9.2 - - 4001.0 4370.0 4381.0 30375.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 44: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 20% granite slurry samples 61.0 62.0 60.0 H 248.5 248.0 249.0 L 1.7 1.0 44.3 47.1 46.1 47.1 9.4 - 9.5 - - 3940.0 4315.0 4304.0 30192.8 2.5 121.5 122.0 121.0 W 58.8 57.5 60.0 H Salt solution cycles 248.3 249.0 247.5 L 44.3 9.5 - - 3860.5 4226.5 4232.0 30038.3 1.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H ` G 30 250.0 250.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 21.2 20.2 0.4 0.7 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 21.0 3,949.0 29,582.8 6.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W 7 days Max comp. strength (MPa) 245.5 247.0 244.0 L 20.8 60.0 60.0 60.0 H avg. comp. strength (MPa) 20.2 3,925.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 30,000.0 0.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 250.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 60.3 60.5 60.0 H 120 249.3 249.0 249.5 L 21.2 3,744.0 29,910.0 4.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Compressive strength Table 45: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% granite slurry samples 57.3 59.0 55.5 H 247.0 245.0 249.0 L 24.0 4,195.5 29,640.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 247.5 246.0 249.0 L 0.8 0.9 23.4 25.0 24.1 25.0 3,832.0 29,823.8 5.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W 28 days 56.5 58.0 55.0 H 247.0 246.0 248.0 L 23.4 4,088.0 30,010.5 4.0 121.5 121.0 122.0 W 56.5 58.0 55.0 H ` G 30 Parameter 242.0 244.5 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 3542.0 Wd 36.3 38.9 31.6 2.6 4.7 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 38.9 compressive strength 38.4 12.4 12.5 248.2 1985.8 3504.0 3942.0 2177.5 29977.8 4.0 121.0 121.0 121.0 W 246.9 247.8 248.0 247.5 L Avg. Absorption (%) 12.4 Absorption (%) 59.5 59.0 60.0 H Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 248.2 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 1996.1 3982.5 Ws 3 2208.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 29340.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 58.3 60.5 56.0 H 121 244.5 242.0 247.0 L 31.6 12.2 244.3 1998.4 3656.0 4103.0 2273.5 29584.5 8.0 121.0 120.0 122.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 247.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 61.0 62.0 60.0 H 249.5 249.0 250.0 L 2.0 121.5 121.0 122.0 W 32.1 12.3 - - 3784.5 4249.0 4271.5 30314.3 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 46: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% granite slurry samples 61.5 62.0 61.0 H 243.5 245.0 242.0 L 3.0 2.1 28.2 33.3 31.2 28.2 12.5 - 13.1 - - 3611.5 4083.5 4111.5 29037.4 8.0 119.3 120.0 118.5 W 61.5 61.0 62.0 H Salt solution cycles 247.8 248.0 247.5 L 33.3 12.3 - - 3754.0 4214.5 4238.0 30225.5 2.5 122.0 122.0 122.0 W 61.0 60.0 62.0 H ` G 40 13.5 10.4 1.4 1.8 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 13.5 3,705.5 29,970.0 0.5 120.0 120.0 120.00 W 7 days Max comp. strength (MPa) 249.8 249.5 250.0 L 12.1 62.5 62.0 63.0 H avg. comp. strength (MPa) 10.4 3,907.5 Mass (g) comp. strength (Mpa) 29,755.5 3.0 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 249.0 119.5 120.0 248.0 ace/ side 2 avg. dimensions W 119.0 L 250.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 122 249.8 250.0 249.5 L 12.5 3,900.5 29,970.0 0.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Compressive strength Table 47: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 40% granite slurry samples 60.3 60.5 60.0 H 248.0 249.0 247.0 L 22.2 3,768.0 30,070.0 3.0 121.3 122.0 120.5 W 60.5 60.0 61.0 H 249.5 249.0 250.0 L 0.6 0.8 22.2 23.6 22.8 22.6 3,823.0 30,189.5 1.0 121.0 121.0 121.00 W 28 days 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 246.5 250.0 243.0 L 23.6 3,703.5 29,703.3 7.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W 60.3 60.5 60.0 H ` G 40 252.0 avg. dimensions 14.3 Absorption (%) H L W 31.8 24.2 4.5 3.2 Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 31.8 27.4 compressive strength avg. comp. strength (MPa) 14.4 14.5 0.3 1882.2 3370.0 3857.0 2066.5 29520.0 6.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Avg. Absorption (%) 246.0 248.0 244.0 271.2 60.3 60.5 60.0 Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) 26.1 0.3 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 3 3457.5 Wd 1886.3 3952.0 Ws 3 2119.0 3 29988.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 6.0 119.0 119.0 119.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 123 248.5 250.0 247.0 L 24.2 14.4 0.3 1886.1 3486.5 3989.0 2140.5 29757.9 3.0 119.8 120.5 119.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 254.0 face/ side 2 L 250.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 59.5 60.0 59.0 H 248.5 248.0 249.0 L W 2.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 22.9 14.4 - - 3380.0 3867.5 4126.0 29944.3 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 48: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 40% granite slurry samples H 61.0 62.0 60.0 249.5 249.0 250.0 L 0.7 0.5 22.9 24.1 23.6 23.7 14.3 - 14.1 - - 3210.0 3663.0 3863.5 30064.8 2.0 120.5 121.0 120.0 W 57.0 62.0 52.0 H Salt solution cycles L 251.0 250.0 252.0 W 24.1 14.3 - - 3375.0 3858.0 4092.0 29869.0 2.0 119.0 120.0 118.0 H 61.0 60.0 62.0 ` M10 mod. 248.0 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) H L W 9.8 9.0 0.4 0.8 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 9.0 3,615.0 29,400.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 10.2 245.0 245.0 245.0 Max comp. strength (MPa) 59.0 60.0 58.0 Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 10.2 3,569.5 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 29,760.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 2 246.0 face/ side 2 L 250.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days H 59.0 59.0 59.0 L 124 245.0 245.0 245.0 10.2 3,423.5 29,522.5 5.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Sample 3 H 59.0 59.0 59.0 Compressive strength Table 49: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% modified marble slurry samples L 247.5 245.0 250.0 11.0 3,717.0 29,700.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 244.0 245.0 243.0 0.7 1.0 10.6 12.3 11.3 12.3 3,564.5 29,280.0 8.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W Sample 2 28 days H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 245.0 245.0 245.0 10.6 3,629.5 29,400.0 8.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 ` M10 mod. 245.0 243.5 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions W 18.9 21.0 16.9 2.1 2.1 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - compressive strength 8.6 241.5 242.0 Avg. Absorption (%) 59.5 60.0 L 241.0 179.4 21.0 8.5 177.6 H 59.0 Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) Absorption (%) Absorption (kg/m ) 3 3382.0 Wd 2085.7 3670.0 Ws 3 2048.5 Density (Kg/m3 ) 29220.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 8.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 Area (mm2) Max variation in dimensions (mm) 242.0 L 16.9 8.7 181.2 2078.0 3463.0 3765.0 2098.5 28980.0 9.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 125 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter W H L 9.0 9.7 - - 2937.5 3222.5 3141.5 29337.3 5.0 1.2 1.2 9.0 11.5 10.2 9.5 - 245.5 119.5 59.5 245.5 246.0 120.0 60.0 246.0 11.5 9.3 - - 3331.5 3641.0 3592.0 29460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Salt solution cycles 245.0 119.0 59.0 245.0 L Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 50: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% modified marble slurry samples H 57.5 55.0 60.0 ` M30 mod 246.0 248.5 247.3 face/ side 1 (mm) face/ side 2 avg. dimensions 14.1 11.5 1.2 1.4 Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 11.5 4,095.5 29,610.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Max comp. strength (MPa) 246.8 248.5 245.0 L 12.9 61.3 62.0 60.5 H Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 13.1 4,083.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (MPa) 29,793.6 4.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) L Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days 62.5 62.5 62.5 H 126 242.0 242.0 242.0 L 14.1 3,855.5 28,979.5 8.0 119.8 120.0 119.5 W Sample 3 Compressive strength H 60.0 60.0 60.0 Table 51: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% modified marble slurry samples 250.3 250.5 250.0 L 13.2 4,213.5 30,030.0 2.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 62.3 62.0 62.5 H 250.3 250.0 250.5 L 0.8 0.7 13.2 14.7 14.0 14.7 4,160.0 30,280.3 2.0 121.0 120.0 122.0 W Sample 2 28 days 60.3 60.5 60.0 H 249.3 248.5 250.0 L 14.0 4,164.0 29,972.3 2.0 120.3 120.5 120.0 W Sample 3 60.5 60.0 61.0 H ` M30 modified 239.0 238.5 avg.dimensions 10.7 Absorption (%) 10.6 Avg. Absorption (%) 21.8 22.9 20.7 1.1 1.1 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp.strength (Mpa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - compressive strength 216.1 57.0 62.0 52.0 H Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) 22.9 217.5 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 3 3607.0 Wd 2027.5 3994.0 Ws 3 2215.0 3 28620.0 wi or wd (after salt cycles) 12.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 238.0 face/ side 2 L 127 241.0 242.0 240.0 L 20.7 10.6 214.7 2033.9 3600.0 3980.0 2210.0 28920.0 10.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W H 60.0 60.0 60.0 Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 247.0 248.0 246.0 L Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) 19.9 10.6 - - 3743.0 4139.0 3957.5 29640.0 4.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Table 52: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% modified marble slurry samples 61.5 60.0 63.0 H 0.9 0.9 18.1 19.9 19.0 10.5 - 249.0 248.0 250.0 L Salt solution cycles 18.1 10.4 - - 3650.0 4030.0 3852.0 29880.0 2.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H ` G10 mod 248.5 247.3 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) 245.0 245.0 245.0 L 24.9 3,803.0 29,400.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W 2.3 1.3 21.5 1.5 57.5 60.0 55.0 H - 21.5 3,897.0 29,393.0 5.0 119.0 118.0 120.0 W 1.1 247.0 245.0 249.0 L 11.5 60.0 60.0 60.0 H + 14.1 3,855.5 28,979.5 8.0 119.8 120.0 119.5 W Min comp. strength (MPa) 128 242.0 242.0 242.0 L 25.1 62.5 62.5 62.5 H Sample 2 14.1 11.5 4,095.5 29,610.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W Sample 1 23.8 246.8 248.5 245.0 L Sample 3 28 days 13.0 61.3 62.0 60.5 H Sample 2 Compressive strength avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) 13.3 4,083.0 Mass (g) comp. strength (Mpa) 29,793.6 4.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 2 246.0 face/ side 2 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days Table 53: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 10% modified granite slurry samples 60.5 62.0 59.0 H 245.0 245.0 245.0 L 25.1 3,720.0 29,400.0 8.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 59.5 59.0 60.0 H ` G10 mod parameter 245.5 246.3 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) 3 12.9 14.8 11.1 1.8 1.8 Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 14.8 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 8.8 compressive strength 9.0 189.5 2104.2 3492.0 3806.5 2147.0 29040.0 7.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Avg. Moisture content (%) 12.9 9.5 242.0 243.0 241.0 L 184.2 3 196.6 2059.4 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Avg. Absorption (kg/m ) Absorption (%) Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 3 3626.5 Ws 3310.5 2019.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) Wd 29550.0 4.5 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 129 246.0 247.0 245.0 L 11.1 7.8 166.5 2128.9 3056.0 3295.0 1859.5 29643.0 5.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling Area (mm ) 2 247.0 L face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 58.0 60.0 56.0 H 245.0 245.0 245.0 L 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 21.6 8.7 - - 3598.5 3912.5 3818.0 29400.0 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 54: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 10% modified granite slurry samples 60.0 60.0 60.0 H 249.5 250.0 249.0 L 2.3 2.9 16.4 21.6 18.7 18.1 8.1 - 7.7 - - 3546.0 3820.0 3668.5 29940.0 1.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 57.5 55.0 60.0 H Salt solution cycles 250.0 250.0 250.0 L 16.4 7.7 - - 3280.5 3533.5 3364.0 30000.0 3.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 58.5 57.0 60.0 H ` G30 mod 13.0 10.9 1.2 0.9 + - 13.0 2.2 3,955.0 29,460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 Min comp. strength (MPa) 245.5 246.0 W 120.00 Max comp. strength (Mpa) 59.5 60.0 L 245.0 11.8 10.9 comp. strength (MPa) H 59.0 Sample 2 avg. comp. strength (MPa) 2.3 4,040.5 Mass (g) Density (g/cm ) 29,462.3 6.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Sample 1 Area (mm ) 3 244.5 avg. dimensions Max variation in dimensions (mm) 2 244.0 face/ side 2 L 245.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) Parameter 7 days H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 130 245.5 245.0 246.0 11.5 2.2 3,916.0 29,460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 H 60.0 59.0 61.0 Compressive strength Table 55: Compressive strength results for concrete bricks 30% modified granite slurry samples L 245.3 245.0 245.5 17.8 2.2 3,858.0 29,430.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 1 H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 245.5 246.0 245.0 1.4 1.7 14.7 17.8 16.1 15.7 2.2 3,955.0 29,460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.00 W Sample 2 28 days H 60.0 60.0 60.0 L 245.5 245.0 246.0 14.7 2.2 3,916.0 29,460.0 5.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W Sample 3 H 60.0 59.0 61.0 ` G30 mod parameter 3523.0 Wd 35.8 36.7 34.5 1.0 1.3 avg. comp. strength (MPa) Max comp. strength (MPa) Min comp. strength (MPa) + - 36.7 compressive strength 36.1 17.5 11.2 228.6 2044.3 3550.0 3947.0 2210.5 29340.0 6.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 354.2 244.5 244.0 245.0 L Avg. Absorption (%) 11.9 Absorption (%) 60.3 60.5 60.0 H Avg. Absorption (kg/m3) 239.6 Absorption (kg/m ) Density (Kg/m ) 2014.3 3942.0 Ws 3 2193.0 Wi or Wd (after salt cycles) 3 28980.0 9.0 Area (mm ) 2 Max variation in dimensions (mm) 241.5 120.0 120.0 242.0 face/ side 2 avg. dimensions W 60.3 60.0 60.5 H 131 245.5 245.0 246.0 L 34.5 12.0 240.3 2009.4 3533.5 3956.0 2197.5 29582.8 4.0 120.5 120.0 121.0 W Moisture, Absorption, and Heating and cooling 120.0 L 241.0 face/ side 1 Dimensions (mm) 59.8 59.5 60.0 H 244.5 245.0 244.0 L 5.0 119.5 120.0 119.0 W 25.7 11.7 - - 3565.5 3983.0 3910.5 29217.8 Moisture, absorption and durability (after 28 days) Table 56: Moisture, absorption, and durability test results for concrete bricks 30% modified granite slurry samples 61.5 61.0 62.0 H 245.5 246.0 245.0 L 1.5 1.0 23.6 26.1 25.2 26.1 11.5 - 11.4 - - 3713.0 4134.5 4068.5 29460.0 1.0 120.0 120.0 120.0 W 62.3 64.5 60.0 H Salt solution cycles 243.8 244.5 243.0 L 23.6 11.7 - - 3555.0 3972.0 3905.0 29128.1 3.0 119.5 119.0 120.0 W 60.0 60.0 60.0 H Table 57: Summary table for mechanical and physical properties of bricks Mix ID Control Zero M10 M20 M30 M40 G10 G20 G30 G40 M10 Mod. M30 Mod. G10 Mod. G30 Mod 7days (MPa) 35.6 12.2 31.4 23.6 17.8 8.1 34.51 26.62 20.80 12.14 28 days (MPa) 39.6 15.4 39.4 28.3 22.0 11.8 43.5 37.0 24.1 22.8 Heat Cycles (MPa) 52.9 16.0 61.3 38.5 30.2 24.2 54.3 52.1 36.3 27.4 Salt Cycles (MPa) 37.1 19.9 39.0 30.9 21.7 15.8 46.1 46.1 31.21 23.6 Density (kg/m3) 2142.7 2099.0 2190.0 2122.4 2005.3 1916.8 2163.4 2112.1 1933.4 1884.8 Absorption (kg/m3) 155.8 167.9 168.2 193.2 222.5 260.0 185.0 201.1 246.9 271.2 Absorption (%) 7.3 8.0 7.7 9.0 10.8 13.7 8.4 9.5 12.5 14.3 9.77 11.3 18.9 10.2 2081.9 179.4 9.1 12.90 14.0 21.8 23.8 2030.7 216.1 10.6 12.98 23.8 12.9 18.7 2097.5 184.2 8.4 11.79 16.1 35.8 25.2 2022.7 354.2 14.5 The results show that the marble and the granite slurry samples yield similar mechanical, in terms of compressive strength, and physical, in terms of density and absorption, properties. In terms of compressive strength, although both marble and granite show similar results, granite slurry samples show slightly higher values. This is predictable due to the higher strength of natural granite stone and the apparent stronger bond with cement paste. This increase in strength is around 10%, 11%, 14%, and 33% in 10, 20, 30, and 40% samples respectively at 7 days. As for the 28 days test, the increase is 9%, 23%, 9%, and 48% for 10, 20, 30, and 40% samples respectively. It is worth mentioning, however, that the 40% granite slurry samples show much higher values of compressive strength (33%, and 48%), as compared to marble slurry. This can indicate that granite slurry can have a better interface with cement paste in the mix beyond purely physical micro filling action. This is more noticeable in higher incorporation percentages of granite fines. In addition, both marble and granite samples show similar trend in terms of the degree of strength achieved after 7 days when compared to that after 28 days. For example, 132 ` the 10% slurry samples, both marble and granite, achieve 80% of the 28 days strength whereas the 20% marble and granite slurry samples, achieve 83% and 72% of the 28 days strength, respectively. Comparing with the control sample, in terms of compressive strength at 28 days, the 10% marble slurry (39.4 MPa) and granite slurry ( 43.48 MPa) samples yield results close to that of the control (39.6 MPa). The 20% granite slurry samples also show similar results (36.95) to that of the control. These results emphasize the positive effect of granite slurry on brick samples that reach its optimum at 10% slurry incorporation, while at higher percentages, agglomeration of slurry started to appear, which acts as media discontinuities, thus decreasing the compressive strength of samples. It is worth mentioning that zero slurry samples showed the lowest compressive strength of all samples and this is basically due to the poor grain size distribution and the lack of filling materials. The Egyptian code requires a minimum of 7 MPa compressive strength for structural bricks, and not less than 2.5 MPa for non-structural. The ASTM specifications (ASTM C55) for structural bricks requires a minimum strength of 24.1 MPa (average of 3), and 20.7MPa (individual unit) for grade N, for architectural veneer and facing units in exterior walls and for use where high strength and resistance to moisture penetration and severe frost action are desired, and 17.3MPa (average of 3) and 13.8 MPa (individual unit) for Grade S, for general use where moderate strength and resistance to frost action and moisture are required. Therefore, all samples are acceptable, in terms of compressive strength, compared to the Egyptian specifications even for structural requirements. However, as compared to ASTM C55, the control (39.6 MPa), M10 (39.4 MPa), M20 (28.3 MPa), G10 (43.5 MPa), G20(37.0 MPa), 133 ` and G30 (24.1 MPa) are acceptable for grade N, and M30 (22.0 MPa) and G40 (22.8 MPa) are acceptable for Grade S use. M40 is rejected. There has not been a noticeable particular trend for modified samples (with decreased cement content), as indicated in tables (49 to 56), especially in the 10% samples. This could be anticipated during manufacturing the sample from their physical appearance, where samples show large and irregular voids. The obvious segregation, as the combined low cement content and the low slurry content, show ill distributed grain size and inhomogeneous mix, leads to poor mechanical strength. In addition, M10 and G10 modified samples, show compaction while running the compression test, where sample heights decreased from 60mm to around 40mm, which increases the strain, and gives unreliable values of compressive strength as indicated in tables (49) and (53). For M30 and G30 modified samples. They show results similar to that found in marble and granite slurry samples illustrated above. The compressive strength was 13.96 MPa and 16.07 MPa for M30 mod and G30 mod respectively. These samples fail according to ASTM C-55, but are acceptable according to the Egyptian specifications for structural bricks, in terms of compressive strength requirements. Heating increased the compressive strength of all samples with different ratios. Thus, it can be concluded that heating and cooling cycles did not adversely affect samples; on the contrary, they enhance compressive strength. This may be attributed to the accelerated cement hydration with higher temperature which apparently counter effected heat-associated volumetric changes. However, G10 modified samples show deterioration with heating and cooling cycles, which emphasizes that their poor grain 134 ` distribution and fine grain content yield unreliable results and lack of hydrate able cement. As for salt solution soaking and heating cycles, all samples show increase in compressive strength after the cycles, except for the 10% slurry modified samples, as mentioned, which showed decrease in strength. This is due to the obvious segregation, and the inhomogeneous mix, which allowed for the salt to penetrate through the voids and attack the particles. As for density, most samples, including the control, are of normal weight (>2000 kg/m3), according to both the Egyptian specifications and ASTM C55, except for M30, G30, and G40, which are of medium weight. Absorption is the major drawback of slurry incorporation in bricks, although the Egyptian specifications for concrete bricks do not impose limits for absorption in concrete bricks, but it specifies a maximum of 16% for wall bearing bricks, and 20% for non-wall bearing for fired clay bricks. All samples show absorption less than 15%. As for ASTM specifications, ASTM C55 requires a maximum limit of 160 kg/m 3 , 7.5%, for grade N, and 208 kg/m3, 10.1%, for grade S for normal weight, for medium weight, it requires 208 kg/m3 for grade N 240 kg/m3 for grade S for medium weight. Zero, M10, G10, M20, G20,M10 mod, and G10 mod fulfill the requirements for grade S, with absorption values of 168 kg/m3, 168 kg/m3 ,185 kg/m3, 193 kg/m3, 201 kg/m3, 179 kg/m3 and 184 kg/m3. However, all other samples fail to fulfill absorption requirement. The control sample (156 kg/m3) fulfills the absorption requirement for grade N. 135 ` Thus, it can be concluded that all brick samples are acceptable for structural use according to the requirements of the Egyptian code. However, according to ASTM C55, the control samples fulfill the requirement of grade N, and M10, M20, G10, and G20 fulfill the requirement for grade S. As for the abrasion resistance of bricks for pedestrian and light traffic use according to ASTM C902, the control sample, zero, M10, M20, M30, G10, G20, and G10 modified are all classified as class MX, type II. G30 is classified as class MX, type III, while G40 is classified as class NX, Type III. M10 modified, M30 modified, and G30 modified are not acceptable. When comparing the abrasion resistance of M10, G10, and the control samples according to ASTM C 241, G10 samples show the highest abrasion hardness value, Ha, where Ha equals 6.96, 5.38, and 7.91 for control, M10, and G10 samples, respectively. Therefore, it can be concluded that G10 samples show abrasion resistance that exceeds that of the control samples, according to ASTM C 241. Table 58: Abrasion resistance for bricks subjected to pedestrian and light traffic Brick Comp. strength (MPa) average of Individual, 3 min Absorption% average Individual, of 3 max Designation Type C 39.60 39.30 7.30 7.50 0.13 Class MX Type II 0 15.40 14.10 8.00 8.30 0.36 Class MX Type II 0.13 Class MX Type II Type II M10 39.40 35.50 7.50 7.70 M20 28.30 28.20 9.00 9.30 0.22 Class MX M30 22.00 21.50 10.80 11.10 0.34 Class MX M40 11.80 11.10 13.70 14.00 0.80 G10 43.50 43.30 8.40 8.80 0.13 Class MX Type II 0.18 Class MX Type II Type III G20 36.90 32.60 9.50 9.60 Type II Not Acceptable G30 24.10 23.40 12.50 13.10 0.36 Class MX G40 22.80 22.20 14.30 14.50 0.43 Class NX M10 Mod. 11.3 10.6 9.1 9.7 0.56 M30 Mod. 14 13.2 10.6 10.7 0.52 G10 Mod. 23.8 21.5 8.8 9.5 0.25 G30 Mod. 16.1 14.7 11.7 12 0.50 136 ` Abrasion Index Type III Not Acceptable Not Acceptable Class MX Type II Not Acceptable Where, Abrasion index = 100 × absorption compressiv estrength , psi Class MX: brick intended for exterior use where resistance to freezing is not a factor Class NX: brick not intended for exterior use but which may be acceptable for interior use where protected from freezing when wet Type II: brick subjected to intermediate abrasion Type III: brick subjected to low abrasion Table 59: Abrasion resistance of control bricks Control Parameter Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Wo (g) 151.30 142.98 135.89 153.73 131.98 Wg (g) 148.00 139.84 132.48 150.32 128.77 Ws (g) 149.65 141.41 134.19 152.03 130.38 Wa (g) 3.30 3.14 3.41 3.41 3.21 SG 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 2.14 Ha 6.97 7.30 6.70 6.75 7.10 Ha avg 6.96 Max Ha 7.30 Min Ha 6.70 + 0.33 - 0.27 Table 60: Abrasion resistance of M10 bricks M10 Parameter Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Wo (g) 144.70 146.30 159.80 147.20 150.30 Wg (g) 140.10 142.00 155.60 143.00 145.70 Ws (g) 142.40 144.15 157.70 145.10 148.00 Wa (g) 4.60 4.30 4.20 4.20 4.60 SG 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 2.19 Ha 5.10 5.46 5.63 5.59 5.11 Ha avg 5.38 Max Ha 5.63 Min Ha 5.10 + 0.25 - 0.28 137 ` Where, Wo is the original weight, g, Ha is the abrasion resistance equals 10G (2000+Ws)/2000Wa, Ws is the average weight of the specimen (original + final divided by 2), g, Wa is the loss of weight during grinding, g, Wg is the weight after grinding, g, and SG is the specific gravity. Table 61: Abrasion resistance of G10 bricks G10 Parameter Sample 1 Sample 2 Sample 3 Sample 4 Sample 5 Wo (g) 165.70 138.92 153.03 139.80 131.30 Wg (g) 163.50 135.69 150.23 136.40 127.87 Ws (g) 164.60 137.31 151.63 138.10 129.59 Wa (g) 2.20 3.23 2.80 3.40 3.43 SG 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 2.16 Ha 10.63 7.15 8.30 6.79 6.71 Ha avg 7.91 Max Ha 10.63 Min Ha 6.71 + 2.71 - 1.21 ± 1.96 Compressive strength 70 60 50 7 days Compressive 40 strength 30 (MPa) 28 days heat salt 20 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 % slurry Figure 66: Compressive strength for marble slurry samples 138 ` Compressive strength 60 50 7 days 40 Compressive strength (MPa) 28 days 30 20 heat 10 salt 0 % slurry 0 10 20 30 40 Figure 67: Compressive strength for granite slurry samples 7 days test 40 35 30 Compressive 25 20 strength (Mpa) 15 10 5 0 Marble Granite Control % slurry 0 10 20 30 40 Figure 68: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control at 7 days 28 days test 50 45 40 35 Compressive 30 25 strength (Mpa) 20 15 10 5 0 Marble Granite Control 0 10 20 30 40 % slurry Figure 69: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control at 28 days 139 ` Heat Cycles 70 Marble 60 50 Compressive 40 strength 30 (Mpa) 20 Granite Control 10 0 0 10 20 30 40 % slurry Figure 70: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry compared with the control after heating and cooling cycles Salt Cycles 50 45 40 35 Compressive 30 25 strength 20 (Mpa) 15 10 5 0 Marble Granite Control 0 10 20 30 40 % slurry Figure 71: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry compared with the control after salt solution cycles Compressive strength 30 7days 25 28 days 20 Compressive strength (MPa) Heat cycles 15 Salt solution 10 5 0 10 30 % slurry Figure 72: Compressive strength for marble slurry samples with modified (decreased) cement content 140 ` Compressive strength 40 7days 35 Compressive strength (MPa) 30 28 days 25 Heat cycles 20 Salt solution 15 10 5 0 10 % slurry 30 Figure 73: Compressive strength for granite slurry samples with modified (decreased) cement content 40 7 days test 35 Marble 30 Compresive strength (MPa) Granite 25 Control 20 15 10 5 0 10 30 % slurry Figure 74: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after 7 days 28 days test Compresive strength (MPa) 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 Marble Granite Control 10 30 % slurry Figure 75: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after 28 days 141 ` Heat cycles 60 50 Compresive strength (MPa) Marble 40 Granite 30 Control 20 10 0 10 30 % slurry Figure 76: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after heating and cooling cycles Salt cycles 40 35 Marble 30 Compresive 25 strength 20 (MPa) 15 Granite Control 10 5 0 10 30 % slurry Figure 77: Compressive strength for marble slurry and granite slurry samples compared with the control after salt solution cycles 4.2.3. USE IN MANUFACTURING CEMENT Five percent marble and granite slurry, powder and mud, is added to the clinker in cement manufacturing process. Physical, chemical and mechanical properties are determined. Results are analyzed and compared to ASTM specifications and the Egyptian code. 142 ` 4.2.3.1. CHEMICAL ANALYSIS Table (62) shows the chemical analysis of the raw material used in the production and manufacturing of cement: limestone, clay, along with the proposed waste: marble powder, granite powder, and marble and granite slurry (mud). The raw material analysis coincides with the chemical analysis indicated in tables (8 to 12) as well as the literature. More importantly, the marble powder data matches the chemical composition of the raw materials used in manufacturing Portland cement (limestone and clay), which makes it a good alternative. Granite powder can replace limestone, in spite of the different chemical composition. Marble powder was successfully added to the clinker with five percent without causing a major chemical change. However, granite powder and mud increased the Insoluble Residue (IR) to above 0.75%, 2.64 % and 3.44% respectively, which compromises the quality of cement if added to the clinker according to ASTM C 150 Type I specifications. On the other hand, according to EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5, IR can reach 5%. As for MgO and SO3, all samples comply with ASTM C 150 Type I, EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5, where the limits are 6 and 5 in clinker for MgO, and 3 and 3.5 for SO 3 respectively. Although granite and mud samples failed to comply with ASTM C 150 Type I in the specified value of Equivalent Alkalies (less than 0.6), they are acceptable according to EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5, which do not specify a limit for Equivalent Alkalies. All samples show chlorine values less than 0.1 as specified in EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5. Loss on Ignition (LOI) for all samples comply with EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5(LOI < 5). However, the 5% limestone samples and the 5% marble samples fail to comply with ASTM C 150 Type I (LOI < 3). It is worth mentioning, however, that all wastes, including granite powder, and slurry, can be 143 ` used as a raw material for cement without causing any changes in the chemical properties of cement. 4.2.3.2. PHYSICAL AND MECHANICAL ANALYSIS Cement physical analysis is demonstrated in table (63). The results show that none of the physical properties were affected by the use of stone waste. The initial set time (> 75 mins.) and the expansion (<10 mm) are fulfilled according to EN 197 and ES 4756 for CEM I 32.5. As Tables (64 to 69), and figures (78 to 82) show the compressive strength results. All samples show acceptable values of compressive strength compared to those specified by the specifications mentioned earlier (10 N/mm 2 for 2 days test and 32.5 N/mm2 for 28 days test). In addition, the 90 days tests for compressive strength demonstrate a plateau and proved that no deterioration in strength with time. 144 ` ` 0.71 1.35 0.10 SiO2 Al2O3 K2O 145 0.05 0.19 2.81 1.53 43.37 9.40 42.54 14.92 29.46 14.35 0.03 C4AF 0.15 4.79 11.59 5.76 8.83 16.37 25.39 1.21 62.63 1.02 2.32 97.09 1.06 3.26 0.32 0.15 0.45 0.21 0.04 0.43 0.45 0.14 2.80 1.39 62.81 3.81 4.61 19.56 5 % Limestone 55.47 0.25 31.62 1.63 C2S 6.71 3.07 C3A 0.18 0.82 2.13 2.00 1.99 4.66 10.00 AM C3S 3.35 0.89 93.21 2.45 12.27 SM 1.71 4.73 1409.66 L.S.F 2592.00 1.23 1.77 FL 1.59 0.19 1.21 43.24 0.00 0.48 0.33 LOI 0.00 P2O5 0.36 0.16 0.68 0.80 1.23 0.09 4.01 4.72 63.12 0.20 0.37 0.07 4.40 3.61 0.01 0.73 7.76 9.69 IR 0.14 TiO2 0.06 3.45 2.93 Mn2O3 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.09 1.86 4.91 4.82 20.30 Blank (Ck.+Gypsum) 0.04 0.00 Na2O 0.04 0.19 3.38 13.99 15.77 50.54 Clay (Comparison) 0.22 0.00 SO3 0.00 0.00 MgO 0.05 55.43 15.08 66.98 Mud Cl 0.10 CaO 11.46 62.44 Granite powder Equ.alkalies 0.01 55.04 Fe2O3 0.10 Marble powder Description Limestone Table 62: Chemical analysis of raw material and cement manufactured 11.38 6.05 11.31 59.90 1.25 2.34 95.91 1.12 3.34 0.22 0.14 0.46 0.22 0.04 0.49 0.44 0.20 2.86 1.44 62.54 3.74 4.67 19.70 5 % Marble 13.72 5.58 15.87 52.77 1.10 2.04 93.43 1.23 1.28 2.64 0.16 0.47 0.23 0.04 0.71 0.59 0.33 2.87 1.44 61.04 4.51 4.99 19.42 5 % Granite 12.37 6.91 19.30 48.57 1.28 2.10 92.07 1.23 1.28 3.44 0.15 0.47 0.21 0.04 0.87 0.68 0.42 2.75 1.47 60.31 4.07 5.21 19.51 5 % Mud Table 63: Physical analysis of cement Description Blank (Ck.+Gyp.) 5 % Limestone 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 5 % Mud Blaine cm2/g 3236 3203 3220 3207 3223 Initial Set (min) 115 145 160 150 135 Final Set (Hr) Exp. 2:50 3:20 3:35 3:25 3:10 0 0 0 1 1 Sieve >212 0.40 0.80 0.80 0.80 0.80 Sieve >90 4.80 6.40 7.20 7.60 7.20 Sieve >45 12.00 12.80 12.80 13.20 14.00 Sieve >38 % Pass 2.80 3.60 2.80 2.40 2.40 80.0 76.4 76.4 76.0 75.6 % water cons. 24.00 23.75 23.75 24.00 24.00 Table 64: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 2 days Sample Blank (Ck+Gyp) 5% Limestone 5% Marble 5% Granite 5 %Mud 1 2 27.0 26.2 23.8 24.5 22.0 26.2 24.9 24.5 23.4 22.3 3 26.4 26.2 24.0 23.1 22.0 4 26.9 25.4 24.1 22.8 22.6 5 26.6 25.1 23.6 24.1 22.5 6 26.9 25.8 25.3 23.8 22.8 Avg. 26.67 25.60 24.22 23.62 22.37 max 27.00 26.2 25.3 24.5 22.8 min 26.20 24.9 23.6 22.8 22.0 + 0.33 0.60 1.08 0.88 0.43 - 0.47 0.70 0.62 0.82 0.37 Table 65: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 7 days Sample Blank (Ck+Gyp) 5% Limestone 5% Marble 5% Granite 5% Mud 1 35.7 34.1 34.2 35.8 31.3 2 36.0 34.7 33.6 34.1 31.2 3 36.7 35.6 35.8 35.8 31.4 4 37.0 36.7 33.4 35.8 31.3 5 36.4 34.8 34.0 36.0 31.3 6 37.2 35.3 33.0 34.9 30.3 Avg. 36.50 35.20 34.00 35.40 31.13 Max 37.20 36.7 35.8 36.0 31.4 Min 35.70 34.1 33.0 34.1 30.3 + 0.70 1.50 1.80 0.60 0.27 - 0.80 1.10 1.00 1.30 0.83 146 Table 66: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 28 days Sample Blank (Ck+Gyp.) 5% Limestone 5% Marble 5% Granite 5% Mud 1 47.5 43.8 42.6 44.3 42.2 2 45.9 44.7 43.2 45.3 42.7 3 47.7 44.8 43.8 43.7 42.5 4 47.0 43.4 44.2 45.1 42.2 5 46.1 43.9 43.9 44.4 43.7 6 43.8 44.0 44.6 44.6 42.2 Avg. 46.33 44.10 43.72 44.57 42.58 Max 47.70 44.8 44.6 45.3 43.7 Min 43.80 43.4 42.6 43.7 42.2 + 1.37 0.70 0.88 0.73 1.12 - 2.53 0.70 1.12 0.87 0.38 Table 67: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 60 days Sample Blank (Ck+Gyp.) 5% Limestone 5% Marble 1 50.2 51.1 45.9 5% Granite 48.9 5% Mud 44.7 2 49.8 49.8 47.3 47.9 44.7 3 50.8 49.9 46.2 48.1 45.2 4 50.3 50.1 45.8 47.6 45.3 5 49.6 49.2 46.6 47.5 43.4 6 48.9 49.8 46.8 48.4 43.5 Avg. 49.93 49.98 46.43 48.07 44.47 max 50.80 51.1 47.3 48.9 45.3 min 48.90 49.2 45.8 47.5 43.4 + 0.87 1.12 0.87 0.83 0.83 - 1.03 0.78 0.63 0.57 1.07 ± 0.95 0.95 0.75 0.70 0.95 Table 68: Compressive strength of cement testing samples after 90 days Sample Blank (Ck+Gyp.) 5% Limestone 5% Marble 5% Granite 5% Mud 1 50.5 50.9 49.2 49.5 51.3 2 51.0 52.0 51.2 50.5 49.9 3 50.5 51.1 49.4 49.7 51.7 4 50.8 50.8 47.4 52.1 50.1 5 51.2 50.6 46.3 48.2 50.9 6 50.4 51.1 46.8 50.1 50.6 Avg. 50.73 51.08 48.38 50.02 50.75 max 51.20 52.0 51.2 52.1 51.7 min 50.40 50.6 46.3 48.2 49.9 + 0.47 0.92 2.82 2.08 0.95 - 0.33 0.48 2.08 1.82 0.85 147 Table 69: Summary table for comprissve strength of cement Description 2d Blank (Ck.+Gyp.) 5 % Limestone 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 5 % Mud Compressive Strength N/mm2 7d ± 28d ± 60d ± ± 90d ± 26.68 0.40 36.50 0.75 46.33 1.95 49.93 0.95 50.73 0.40 25.60 24.22 23.62 22.37 0.65 0.85 0.85 0.40 35.20 34.00 35.40 31.13 1.30 1.40 0.95 0.55 44.10 43.72 44.56 42.58 0.70 1.00 0.80 0.75 49.98 46.43 48.07 44.47 0.95 0.75 0.70 0.95 51.08 48.38 50.02 50.75 0.70 2.45 1.95 0.90 2 days test 28.00 26.68 Blank ( Ck.+Gypsum) 25.60 26.00 24.22 Compressive 24.00 strength (MPa) 22.00 5 % Limestone 23.62 5 % Marble 22.37 5 % Granite 5 % Mud 20.00 Figure 78: Compressive strength of cement samples after 2 days 40.00 7 days test 36.50 35.00 35.20 34.00 35.40 Blank ( Ck.+Gypsum) 31.13 Compressive strength (MPa) 30.00 5 % Limestone 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 25.00 5 % Mud 20.00 Figure 79: Compressive strength of cement samples after 7 days 28 days test 50.00 45.00 46.33 44.10 43.72 44.56 42.58 Blank ( Ck.+Gypsum) 5 % Limestone 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 5 % Mud 40.00 Compressive 35.00 strength (MPa) 30.00 25.00 20.00 Figure 80: Compressive strength of cement samples after 28 days 148 60 days test 55.00 50.00 49.93 49.98 48.07 46.43 45.00 44.47 Blank ( Ck.+Gypsum) 5 % Limestone 40.00 Compressive strength (MPa) 35.00 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 30.00 5 % Mud 25.00 20.00 Figure 81: Compressive strength of cement samples after 60 days 90 days test 55.00 50.00 50.73 51.08 50.75 48.38 50.02 45.00 Blank ( Ck.+Gypsum) 5 % Limestone 5 % Marble 5 % Granite 5 % Mud 40.00 Compressive strength (MPa) 35.00 30.00 25.00 20.00 Figure 82: Compressive strength of cement samples after 90 days 149 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 5.1. CONCLUSIONS Based on the scope covered and analysis of results in this study regarding the proposed environmental and industrial reform for Shaq Al-Thu`ban marble and granite industrial cluster, the following conclusions can be drawn: x Marble and granite particles (powder resulting from slurry) is a non-plastic material. x Marble powder has calcium oxide as the major component, while granite shows SiO2 as the major component. x Composite marble could be manufactured from marble and granite waste. A mix design of 84 % of marble waste and 16% polyester showed good physical and mechanical properties when compared with monolithic marble. x Composite marble slurry samples, only powder and resin, reveal unsatisfactory results except for the rupture energy. However, it is not recommended for use in most marble applications. x Marble and granite slurry cement bricks yield similar mechanical, in terms of compressive strength, and physical, in terms of density and absorption, properties. x There is a positive effect of granite slurry on cement brick samples that reach its optimum at 10% slurry incorporation. 150 x Absorption is the major drawback of slurry incorporation in cement bricks according to the ASTM C55 where water absorption requirement is fulfilled only at Zero, 10 %, 20% slurry samples, and 10% modified samples for grade S. x Heating increased the compressive strength of all cement brick samples with sufficient cement. The accelerated hydration compensated the detrimental effect of volumetric changes associated with temperature variation. x Most cement brick samples, including the control, are of normal weight (>2000 kg/m3), according to both the Egyptian specifications and ASTM C55. x All cement brick samples tested in this study comply with the Egyptian code requirement for structural bricks. This is not true when compared to ASTM C55. Instead, 10% and 20% marble and granite slurry yield Grade S. x Most cement brick samples which contain marble and granite waste had sufficient abrasion resistance according to ASTM C902. x The chemical analysis of marble powder, granite powder, and marble slurry (mud) proved that stone waste can be alternative raw material in the manufacturing of cement, as compared with the conventional raw material used: limestone and clay without causing any changes in the chemical properties of cement. 5.2. RECOMMENDATIONS x Eco Industrial Cluster (EIC) is to be developed through a structured Environmental Management System (EMS). x The EIC must be public-private partnership, where the government role is to regulate and inspect the private sector, and force the regulations for collecting the waste, and managed by a qualified champion. 151 x A waste receiving station is to be created and located in an area close to most/all industries and workshops, where all industries and workshops are to transport their waste, sorted, to the waste station. This waste station can be the start of a raw material supply station for other industrial sectors. x Starting the practice of using marble and granite waste in composite marble, concrete bricks, and cement production lines. x Further research on composite marble using polyester resin and other polymer resins, and further testing for the optimum powder content x Enhancement on concrete bricks regarding its weight by testing hollow blocks. 152 REFERENCES Al-Masry Al-Youm (2006, JDQXDU\6ROYLQJ:DGL'HJOD,QYHVWRUV¶3roblems with the EVWDEOLVKPHQWRID³BDUULHU´WUDQVODWHGIURP$O-Masry Al-Youm. Al-Masry Al-Youm. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.almasry-alyoum.com/printerfriendly.aspx?ArticleID=4710 ϡϮϴϟϱήμϤϟϝίΎϋέΪΟΔϣΎϗΈΑΔϠΟΩϱΩϭϱήϤΜΘδϣϞϛΎθϣϞΣ16ήϳΎϨϳ2006ϡϮϴϟϱήμϤϟ Almeida, N., Branco, F., & Santos, J. R. (2007). Recycling of Stone Slurry in Industrial Activities: Application to Concrete Mixtures. Building and Environment, 42, 810-819. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Andhra Pradesh Technology Development & Promotion Council (2003). Development and Demonstration of Tehno-Commerically Viable Solutions for Gainful Utilization of Granite Slurry in Building Materials. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdosindia.com/Papers%20technical.htm $UDE$FDGHP\IRU6FLHQFHDQG7HFKQRORJ\$UDE%XVLQHVV&RXQFLO$UDE:RPHQ¶V Organization, Economic Research Forum , & Arab Organization for Human Rights (2004, March). Alexandria Statement ± )LQDO6WDWHPHQWRI³$UDE Reform Issues: Vision and ImplementatLRQ´%LEOLRWKHFD$OH[DQGULQD-14 March 2004). Retrieved March 29, 2008 from the World Wide Web: www.pogar.org/themes/reforms/documents/alexandria.pdf Aarwal, S. (2003). Waste ± A gateway to the Future Economy of Kotah Stone Industry. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdos-india.com/Papers%20technical.htm Ashton, W., Luque, A., & Ehrenfeld, J.R. (2002, April). Best Practices in Cleaner Production Promotion and Implementation for Smaller Enterprises. 153 Retrieved March 10, 2008 from the World Wide Web: idbdocs.iadb.org/wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=553928 Average Specific Gravity of Various Rock Types. Retrieved June 17, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.edumine.com/xtoolkit/tables/sgtables.htm Baas, L.W., & Boons, F.A. (2004). An Industrial Ecology Project in Practice: Exploring the Boundaries of Decision-Making Levels in Regional Industrial Systems. Journal of Cleaner Production, 12, 1073±1085. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Binici, H., Kaplan, H., & Yilmaz, S. (2007). Influence of Marble and Limestone Dusts as Additives on some Mechanical Properties of Concrete. Scientific Research and Essay, 2 (9), 372-379. [On-line]. Academic Journals. Borsellino, C., Calabrese, L., & Di Bella, G. (2008). Effects of Powder Concentration and Type of Resin on the Performance of Marble Composite Structures. Construction and Building Materials. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Celik, M., & Sabah, E. (2008). Geological and Technical Characterisation of Iscehisar (Afyon-Turkey) Marble Deposits and the Impact of Marble Waste on Environment Pollution. Journal of Environmental Management, 87, 106116. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Ciccu R., Cosentino,R., Montani,C.C, El Kotb,A., & Hamdy, H. (2005), August. Strategic Study on the Egyptian Marble and Granite Sector (Industrial Modernisation Centre Ref-PS_1). Retrieved May 5, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.imcegypt.org/en/studies/Strategic%20study%20on%20the%20Egyptian%20Marbl e%20and%20Granite%20Sector.pdf Cluster Competitiveness Group, S.A. (2002). Cluster Based Policies. Retrieved May 8, 2009 from the World Wide Web: https://www.businessgrowthinitiative.org/Regional%20Caucasus%20Worksho p/Cluster-based%20Policies%20-%20What%20is%20a%20Cluster.pdf 154 Corinaldesi, V., Moriconi, G., & Naik, T. (2010). Charactarization of Marble Powder for its Use in Mortar Concrete. Construction and Building Materials, 24, 113-117. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Darnall, N. (2006). Why Firms Mandate ISO 14001 Certification. Business & Society, 45.3, 354-381 . [On-line]. Business Source Complete. 'HOJDGR-9D¶]TXH]$-XQFRVD5%DUULHQWRV9*HRFKHPLFDO Assessment of the Contaminant Potential of Granite Fines Produced during Sawing and Related Processes Associated to the Dimension Stone Industry. Journal of Geochemical Exploration, 88, 24-27. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. El Haggar, S. (2007). Sustainable Industrial Design and Waste Management: Cradleto-Cradle for Sustainable Development. Elsevier Academic Press. Elmusa, S., Sensamaust, S., El Shafie, H., King, A., El-Rifae, Y., Vasconi, M., *DPDO6)HNU\11DGL*³:DGL'HJOD3URWHFWRUDWHD7UDJHG\ RIWKH&RPPRQV"´&KDSWHULQEgypt, Energy and the Environment: Critical Sustainability Perspectives, Edited by Tarek H. Selim. Adnos and Abbey (UK) Publishers. Fawzi, M. A, & Abul-Azm, A. G. EIA Training for Touristic Coastal Development in Egypt. Retrieved March 29, 2008 from the World Wide Web: iodeweb1.vliz.be/odin/bitstream/1834/377/1/fawzi.pdf Gibbs, D., & Deutz, P. (2007, April 20). Reflections on Implementing Industrial Ecology through Eco-Industrial Park Development (Environmental Technologies Centre of Industrial Collaboration, Department of Geography, University of Hull, Hull HU6 7RX, UK, 2007). Journal of Cleaner Production 15, 1683 ± 1695. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Granite Sandstone. Granite Chemical Composition Retrieved April 20, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.granite-sandstone.com/granite-chemical- properties.html 155 Granite Sandstone .Granite Composition. Retrieved April 20, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.granite-sandstone.com/granite-composition.html Hagras, S. (2006, October, 18). Wadi degla..at risk, translated from Al Hewar Al Motamaden, 1707. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ahewr.org/debat/show.art.asp?aid=78412 ϥΪϤΘϤϟέϮΤϟήτΧϲϓΔϠΟΩϱΩϭαήΠϫΪόγ Hewes, A., & Lyons, D. (2008, December). The Humanistic Side of Eco-Industrial Parks: Champions and the Role of Trust. Journal of Regional Studies, 42.10, 1329-1342. [On-line]. Business Source Complete. Hourahan, C. (1996, August). ISO 14001: More pros than cons. Appliance manufacturer, 42.8, 72-73. [On-line]. Business Source Complete. Istituto nazonake per Commercio Estero. EGITTO reference period: 2003. Retrieved May 5, 2007 from the World Wide Web: www.ice.gov.it/new_settori/main/egitto_II_03.pdf Japan International Cooperation Agency (2002). Country Profile on Environment Egypt. Retrieved December 1, 2007 from the World Wide Web: www.jica.go.jp/english/global/env/profiles/pdf/10.pdf Kandil, A., & Selim, T. Characteristics of the Marble Industry in Egypt. Retrieved May 7, 2007 from the World Wide Web: www.aucegypt.edu/academics/dept/econ/Documents/marble.pdf Kumar, M., Suryanarayana, K., & Venkatesh, T. (2003). Value Added Products from Marble Slurry Waste. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdos-india.com/Papers%20technical.htm Lowe, E. (2005, February). An Eco-Industrial Park Definition for the Circular Economy. Indigo Development. Retrieved March 10, 2008 from the World Wide Web: http://www.indigodev.com/Defining_EIP.html 156 Mehdi, M, & Chaudhry, M. (2006). Cluster Diagnostic Study: Marble Processing: Rawalpindi/Islamabad. Small and Medium Enterprise Development Authority. Retrieved May 8, 2009 from the World Wide Web: https://www.unido.org/fileadmin/user_media/UNIDO_Worldwide/Offices/UN IDO_Offices/Pakistan/Cluster_Diagnostic_Study___Marble_15th_May__200 6_1_.pdf Menezes, R., Ferreira, H.S, Neves, G., Libra, H., & Ferreira, H.C. (2005). Use of Granite Sawing Wastes in the Production of Ceramic Bricks and Tiles. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 25, 1149-1158. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Minerals Zone (2005). Marble. Retrieved June 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: www.mineralszone.com/stones/marble.html Misra, A., & Mathur, R. (2003). Marble Slurry Dust (MSD) in Roads and Concrete Work. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdos-india.com/Papers%20technical.htm Monteiro, S., Pecanha, L., &Vieira, C. (2004). Reformulation of Roofing Tiles Body with Addition of Granite Waste from Sawing Operations. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 24, 2349-2356. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Nasserdine, K., Mimi, Z., Bevan, B., & Elian, B. (2007, November, 30). Environmental Management of Stone Cutting Industry. Journal of Environmental Management, 1-5. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Nemerow, N. (1995). Zero Pollution for Industry: Waste Minimization through Industrial Complexes. USA: John Willey & Soncs, Inc. Pareek, S. Gainful Utilization of Marble Waste ± An Effort towards Protection of Ecology & Environment. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved May 5, 2007 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdosindia.com/Papers%20technical.htm 157 5L]]R*'¶$JRVWLQR, F, & Ercoli, L.(2008). Problems of Soil and Groundwater 3ROOXWLRQLQWKH'LVSRVDORI³0DUEOH´6OXUULHVLQ1:6LFLO\Environmental Geology, 55, 929-935. [On-line]. Springer Science and Business Media. Saboya, F., Xavier, G., & Alexandre, J. (2007). The Use of Powder Marble Byproduct to Enhance the Properties of Brick Ceramic. Construction and Building Materials, 21, 1950-1960. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Sharma, N. (2003). Presentation on Use of Marble Slurry as a Part Substitute of Limestone in a Cement Plant. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdosindia.com/Papers%20technical.htm Torres, P., Fernandes, H., Olhero, S., & Ferreira, J. (2009). Incorporation of Wastes from Granite Rock Cutting and Polishing Industries to Produce Roof Tiles. Journal of the European Ceramic Society, 29, 23-30. [On-line]. ScienceDirect. Vijayalakshmi, V., Singh, S., & Bhatnagar, D. (2003). Developmental Efforts in R & D for Gainful Utilization of Marble Slurry in India. Centre for Development of Stones. Retrieved January 3, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cdos-india.com/Papers%20technical.htm Washington State Department of Transpiration (WSDOT). Aggregate. Retrieved November 1, 2010 from the World Wide Web: http://training.ce.washington.edu/wsdot/Modules/03_materials/03-2_body.htm Youssef, N. (2005, September 5). Shaq Al-Thu`ban Creeps to the World, translated from Al-Ahram, 43372. Retrieved May 6, 2009 from the World Wide Web: http://www.ahram.org.eg/Archive/2005/5/5/INVE1.HTM ϡήϫϷΔϴϤϟΎόϟϲϟ·ϒΣΰΗϥΎΒόΜϟϖηϒγϮϳϪϳΩΎϧ 158