Properties of Mortars Produced with PKF Press Filter Waste

  • İlker Bekir Topçu
  • Taylan Sofuoğlu
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering book series (LNCE, volume 7)


The limestone is used in different stages of the sugar industry. In a phase of the sugar manufacturing process, limestone, approximately 36 h after loading the top of a limestone quarry, which is cylindrically shaped with lime coke is taken as the bottom of a limestone quarry. Lime obtained by quenching hot water, is filtered and used in the production slurry treatment. At given temperature, the raw juice obtained from sugar beet lime is mixed in the apparatus. Some of the muddy slurry of mud here is precipitated in the decanter. The precipitated sludge is filtered by means of filter presses portions. This land including 70–80% dry material is called “PKF press filter waste soil”. The effect of the waste material referred as PKF press filter waste soil that is used rather than cement in mortar mixture by weight of cement in different ratios have been investigated on mortar properties. In the scope of this aim, the results obtained from the experiments carried out with reference mortar produced in laboratories and compressive strength values are compared with mortar samples containing waste material. Cement weight of waste, PKF waste used in the mixture of 5, 10, 15, 20% sand, water and CEM I 42.5, CEM II 32.5 type of cement were obtained from mortar mixture and was poured into prismatic molds with in size 4 × 4 × 16 cm and 2 in size 4 × 4 × 8 cm samples were prepared. Samples are over 7 and 28-day compressive strength tests were performed. 5% by weight of the cement that is used PKF waste in mortar samples 7-day average compressive strength is determined as 29.25 MPa for CEM I 42.5. These strength values; in the framework of the ongoing research process of mortars, have been shown to have the appropriate standards.


Industrial waste PKF filter press waste Pozzolanic materials Mortar Compressive strength 



Eskişehir Osmangazi University Scientific Research Fund (ESOGU BAP) supported this work under the Project Code 2016-1172. The authors wish to express their gratitude to the ESOGU for its financial assistance.


  1. 1.
    Pamukçu S, Topçu İ-B, Lynn J-D, Jablonski C-E (1991) Reuse of solidified steel industry sludge waste for transportation facilities, transportation research record no. 1310, materials, construction and maintenance, construction innovations, p 93Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Topçu İ-B (1992) Effect of environmental factors on the behavior of solidified steel process residue, environmental geotechnology. In: Proceedings of the mediterranean conference on environmental geotechnology, Çeşme Turkey, p 467Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Vejmelkova E, Konakova D, Kulovana T, Keppert M, Zumar J, Rovnanikova P, Kersner Z, Sedlmajer M, Cerny R (2015) Engineering properties of concrete containing natural zeolite as supplementary cementitious material: strength, toughness, durability, and hygrothermal performance. Cem Concr Compos 55:259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Teixeira E-R, Mateus R, Camoes A-F, Bragança L, Branco F-G (2016) Comparative environmental life-cycle analysis of concretes using biomass and coal fly ashes as partial cement replacement material. J Clean Prod 112:2221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mehta P-K (2010) Sustainable cements and concrete for the climate change, era—a review. In: Proceedings of the second international conference on sustainable construction materials and technologies, Universita Politecnica dele Marche, Italy, pp 1–10Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kabay N, Tüfekçi M-M, Kızılkanat A-B, Oktay D (2015) Properties of concrete with pumice powder and fly ash as cement replacement materials. Constr Build Mater 85:1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ballan J, Paone P (2014) Supplementary cementitious materials, concepts for the treatment of raw materials. IEEE Ind Appl Mag 20:65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Juenger M-C-G, Siddique R (2015) Recent advances in understanding the role of supplementary cementitious materials in concrete. Cem Concr Res 2015(78):71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shabab M-E, Shahzada K, Gençtürk B, Ashraf M, Fahad M (2015) Synergistic effect of fly ash and bentonite as partial replacement of cement in mass concrete. KSCE J Civil Eng 20:1987–1995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Khalid N-B, Al-Jumaily I, Atea A-M (2016) Characterization of sustainable high performance/self compacting concrete produced using CKD as a cement replacement material. Constr Build Mater 2016(103):127Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pliya P, Cree D (2015) Limestone derived eggshell powder as a replacement in Portland cement. Constr Build Mater 95:8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Prasanna K-A, Sanjaya K-P (2015) Effect of lime and ferrochrome ash (FA) as partial replacement of cement on strength, ultrasonic pulse velocity and permeability of concrete. Constr Build Mater 94:451–452Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Li H, Xu W, Yang X, Wu J (2014) Preparation of Portland cement with sugar filter mud as lime-based raw material. J Clean Prod 66:109Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arenas-Piedrahita J-C, Montes-Garcia P, Mendoza-Rangel J-M, Lopez Calvo H-Z, Valdez-Tamez P-L, Martinez-Reyes J (2016) Mechanical and durability properties of mortars prepared with untreated sugarcane bagasse ash and untreated fly ash. Constr Build Mater 105:74CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil Engineering, Faculty of Engineering and ArchitectureEskişehir Osmangazi UniversityEskişehirTurkey

Personalised recommendations