Title:
Valorization of Primary Aluminum Industry By-Product in Cement Materials
Author(s):
Victor Brial, Laurent Birry, and Claudiane Ouellet-Plamondon
Publication:
Symposium Paper
Volume:
362
Issue:
Appears on pages(s):
841-853
Keywords:
alternative supplementary cementitious materials; recycled material; reactivity tests
DOI:
10.14359/51742013
Date:
6/17/2024
Abstract:
Approximately 22 kg of spent pot lining is generated (SPL) per ton of aluminum produced by electrolytic cells. Untreated SPL is classified as hazardous industrial waste due to its hydroreactive nature and the presence of leachable cyanide and fluoride compounds. After treatment with the Low Caustic Leaching and Liming (LCL&L) industrial process, the refractory portion of the SPL is transformed into an inert material called LCLL. This project analyzed the use of LCLL as a cement binder. The reactivity of LCLL was studied using the compressive strength activity index, and RILEM R3 tests. The results showed that LCLL is composed of stable crystalline phases such as corundum, albite, and nepheline, and contains graphite. The improvement of LCLL reactivity was explored by calcination and the addition of synthetic fluorite, also from the LCL&L process. The results showed a significant improvement in reactivity with the formation of a larger amount of reactive amorphous phases with high silica and alumina content with optimum fluorite content of 10%. Calcined LCLL showed similar reactivity to fly ash, without retarding effect, with compressive strength equivalent to cement at 112 days and the formation of a new phase rich in carboaluminate.
Related References:
1. P. Friedlingstein et al., “Global Carbon Budget 2020,” Earth Syst Sci Data, vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 3269–3340, Dec. 2020, doi: 10.5194/essd-12-3269-2020.
2. J. Lehne and F. Preston, “Making Concrete Change- Innovation in Low-carbon Cement and Concrete,” 2018.
3. P. C. Hewlett and M. Liska, Lea’s Chemistry of Cement and Concrete, 5th Editio. Elsevier, 2019. doi: 10.1016/C2013-0-19325-7
4. Natural Resources Canada, “Aluminum Facts.” Online.. Available: https://www.nrcan.gc.ca/our-natural-resources/minerals-mining/minerals-metalsfacts/aluminum-facts/20510#L2
5. R. P. Pawlek, “SPL: An update,” in Minerals, Metals and Materials Series, 2018, pp. 671–674. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-72284-9_86.
6. B. L. Birry and S. Leclerc, “The LCL & L process,” no. December, pp. 2–4, 2016.
7. L. Birry, S. Leclerc, and S. Poirier, “the Lcl & L Process : a Sustainable Solution for the Treatment and Recycling of Spent Potlining,” pp. 467–472, 2016.
8. S. Broek and H. A. Øye, “Fundamentals of Managing Spent Potlining ( SPL ),” Travaux 46, Proceedings of 35th International ICSOBA Conference, pp. 817–834, 2018.
9. P. B. Personnet, “Treatment and Reuse of Spent Pot Lining, an Industrial Application in a Cement Kiln,” in Essential Readings in Light Metals, vol. 4, Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1999, pp. 1049–1056. doi: 10.1002/9781118647745.ch141
10. V. Gomes, P. Z. Drumond, J. O. P. Neto, and A. R. Lira, “Co-Processing at Cement Plant of Spent Potlining from the Aluminum Industry,” Essential Readings in Light Metals: Electrode Technology for Aluminum Production, vol. 4. pp. 1057–1063, 2005. doi: 10.1002/9781118647745.ch142
11. M. Al Jawi et al., Environmental Benefits of Using Spent Pot Lining (SPL) in Cement Production. Springer International Publishing, 2020. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36408-3_172.
12. P. Nunez, “Sustainable Spent Pot Line Management Guidance,” Minerals, Metals and Materials Series, no. February, pp. 1225–1230, 2020, doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-36408-3_168.
13. ASTM International, “C109/C109M − 21 Standard Test Method for Compressive Strength of Hydraulic Cement Mortars (Using 2-in. or 50 mm. Cube Specimens),” ASTM Standard Book, vol. 04.01, 2021, doi: 10.1520/C0109_C0109M-21.
14. British Standard Euronorm, “EN196: Methods of testing cement. Part 5: pozzolanicity test for pozzolanic cement,” 2005.
15. V. Brial, H. Tran, L. Sorelli, D. Conciatori, and C. M. Ouellet-Plamondon, “Evaluation of the reactivity of treated spent pot lining from primary aluminum production as cementitious materials,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 170, no. March, p. 105584, Jul.
2021, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2021.105584
16. S. Donatello, M. Tyrer, and C. R. Cheeseman, “Comparison of test methods to assess pozzolanic activity,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 32, no. 2, pp. 121–127, 2010, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2009.10.008
17. ASTM International, “C305 − 20 Standard Practice for Mechanical Mixing of Hydraulic Cement Pastes and Mortars of Plastic Consistency,” ASTM Standard Book, vol. 04.01, 2020, doi: 10.1520/C0305-20
18. A. Tironi, M. A. Trezza, A. N. Scian, and E. F. Irassar, “Assessment of pozzolanic activity of different calcined clays,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 37, no. 1, pp. 319–327, Mar. 2013, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2013.01.002
19. ASTM International, “C1897-20 Standard Test Methods for Measuring the Reactivity of Supplementary Cementitious Materials by Isothermal Calorimetry and Bound Water Measurements,” ASTM Standard Book, vol. 04, pp. 2–6, 2021, doi: 10.1520/C1897-20.2
20. F. Avet et al., “Report of RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 2: optimization and testing of the robustness of the R3 reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials,” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, vol. 55, no. 3, 2022, doi: 10.1617/s11527-022-01928-6
21. D. Londono-Zuluaga et al., “Report of RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 3: validation of the R3 reactivity test across a wide range of materials,” Mater Struct, vol. 55, no. 5, p. 142, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1617/s11527-022-01947-3
22. X. Li et al., “Reactivity tests for supplementary cementitious materials: RILEM TC 267-TRM phase 1,” Mater Struct, vol. 51, no. 6, p. 151, Dec. 2018, doi: 10.1617/s11527-018-1269-x
23. P. Suraneni and J. Weiss, “Examining the pozzolanicity of supplementary cementitious materials using isothermal calorimetry and thermogravimetric analysis,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 83, pp. 273–278, 2017, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2017.07.009
24. P. Suraneni, A. Hajibabaee, S. Ramanathan, Y. Wang, and J. Weiss, “New insights from reactivity testing of supplementary cementitious materials,” Cem Concr Compos, vol. 103, no. October 2018, pp. 331–338, 2019, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconcomp.2019.05.017
25. K. Scrivener, R. Snellings, and B. Lothenbach, A Practical Guide to Microstructural Analysis of Cementitious Materials. 2016. doi: 10.7693/wl20150205
26. R. Snellings et al., “Report of TC 238-SCM: hydration stoppage methods for phase assemblage studies of blended cements—results of a round robin test,” Materials and Structures/Materiaux et Constructions, vol. 51, no. 4, 2018, doi: 10.1617/s11527-018-1237-5.
27. S. Adu-Amankwah, L. Black, J. Skocek, M. Ben Haha, and M. Zajac, “Effect of sulfate additions on hydration and performance of ternary slag-limestone composite cements,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 164, pp. 451–462, Mar. 2018, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2017.12.165
28. M. Boháč, M. Palou, R. Novotný, J. Másilko, D. Všianský, and T. Staněk, “Investigation on early hydration of ternary Portland cement-blast-furnace slag-metakaolin blends,” Constr Build Mater, vol. 64, pp. 333–341, 2014, doi: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2014.04.018
29. C. Shi, C. Meyer, and A. Behnood, “Utilization of copper slag in cement and concrete,” Resour Conserv Recycl, vol. 52, no. 10, pp. 1115–1120, 2008, doi: 10.1016/j.resconrec.2008.06.008
30. V. Brial, H. Tran, L. Sorelli, D. Conciatori, and C. M. Ouellet-Plamondon, “Improvement of treated spent pot lining reactivity in cementitious material by calcination,” Developments in the Built Environment, p. 100098, Nov. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.dibe.2022.100098
31. V. Brial, H. Tran, L. Sorelli, D. Conciatori, and C. M. Ouellet-Plamondon, “Effect of fluorite addition on the reactivity of a calcined treated spent pot lining in cementitious materials,” CEMENT, vol. 12, p. 100070, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.1016/j.cement.2023.100070
32. P. Lawrence and E. Ringot, “Prise en compte des additions minérales dans le calcul des résistances de mortiers - Application aux mortiers de cendres volantes,” Revue française de génie civil, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 525–542, 2000, doi: 10.1080/12795119.2000.9692285
33. Bolomey J., “Determination of the compressive strength of mortars and concretes,” Bull Tech Suisse Romande, vol. 16, no. 22 and 24, 1927.
34. E. Berodier and K. Scrivener, “Understanding the filler effect on the nucleation and growth of C-S-H,” Journal of the American Ceramic Society, vol. 97, no. 12, pp. 3764–3773, 2014.
35. M. Tokyay, Cement and Concrete Mineral Admixtures. CRC Press, 2016. doi: 10.1201/b20093
36. M. Cyr, P. Lawrence, and E. Ringot, “Mineral admixtures in mortars Quantification of the physical effects of inert materials on short-term hydration,” vol. 35, pp. 719–730, 2005, doi: 10.1016/j.cemconres.2004.05.030
37. D. Kulik, U. R. Berner, and E. Curti, “Modeling chemical equilibrium partitioning with the GEMS-PSI code,” PSI Scientific Report 2003 / Volume IV, Nuclear Energy and Safety, vol. IV, no. March, pp. 109–122, 2004, Online.. Available: http://gems.web.psi.ch/doc/pdf/GEMS-PSI-paper-2004.pdf