Dimension Stone

The use as dimension stone of local clinoptilolite- or mordenite-rich tuff is rather

common in northeastern Greece (Thrace), especially in the villages of Petrota and
Metaxades.

From: Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, 2007

Related terms:

Intergranular Corrosion, Quarries, Zeolite, Embodied Carbon, Embodied Energy,

Base Metal, Lightweight Aggregate, Natural Zeolite, Sandstones

View all Topics

Effect of artificial accelerated salt weath-

ering on physical and mechanical be-
havior of sandstone samples from sur-
face reservoirs
Marco Ludovico-Marques, Carlos Chastre, in Handbook of Materials Failure Analysis
with Case Studies from the Oil and Gas Industry, 2016

2.1 Mineralogical Characterization

Some samples were extracted from dimension stones on masonry walls selected in
the vicinity of Atouguia da Baleia, a village near Peniche, on the west of Portugal.
Two lithotypes were studied: A + B, which includes the varieties A and B and C + M,
encompasses varieties C and M.

Ten-thin section observations of samples collected from both lithotypes were carried
out under polarizing microscope according to EN12407 recommendations [14].
Modal analysis were performed following point counting method (thousand points
of minerals were analyzed per each thin section). The lithotype A + B has around
34–40% carbonates and 30–32% quartz, whereas the lithotype C + M has about
20–25% carbonates and 45–51% quartz. Both lithotypes have the same classification
according to Folk [15], i.e., they are classified as lithic arkose with carbonate cement
[16,17].

In this chapter, only the results of variety M will be considered. Lineations were not
macroscopically detected on the variety M, but in thin sections under a polarizing
microscope, two preferred orientations of mica minerals were present. All these vari-
eties have about 4–6% mica minerals. The average size of quartz and feldspar grains
in the sandstone varieties A and B ranges between 0.1 and 0.13 mm (Figure 10.3),
whereas in variety M, the average size is about 0.24 mm (Figure 10.4). Sandstones
A and B are generally fine grained and variety M sandstones are medium to fine
grained [16].

Figure 10.3. Thin section observation of lithotype A + B (variety B) carried out under
polarizing microscope (magnification 40 ×).

Figure 10.4. Thin section observation of lithotype C + M (variety M) carried out under
polarizing microscope (magnification 40 ×).

Sandstone specimens of variety M were randomly cut in prismatic and cubic spec-
imens of 50 × 50 mm2 cross section, corresponding to a height-to-length ratio of,
respectively, 2 and 1. These samples were used to carry out physical and mechanical
tests.

> Read full chapter

Introduction to Zeolite Science and

Practice
Carmine Colella, in Studies in Surface Science and Catalysis, 2007

4.3.3 Zeolitized tuff as dimension stone: historical

The ancient use of zeolitic tuff as cut dimension stone in side of other natural
stone materials (limestone, sandstone, etc.) or fired clay bricks has initially been
related to its easy availability. Only in a second time its interesting physical and
mechanical properties were appreciated. Anyway, despite the ubiquitous occurrence
of this material all around the world, its use as building stone has been always
uncommon, especially in the past. Information on this subject is limited, but there
is sufficient evidence to assert that BC utilization of tuff as dimension stone was
practically limited to Mexico, Italy, and perhaps Japan. Employment in Germany
and Romania is reported starting from Middle Ages, whereas in other countries
(Bulgaria, Cuba, and Greece) it is only 150–250 years old [2].

As far as Italy is concerned, this use dates back at least to the times of the Greek
colonization of the southern part of the peninsula (about 2700 years ago). The Greek
colonizers used tuff as building blocks for constructing various masonry structures,
houses, and burial chambers. In Naples, remains of potent fortifications belonging
to the walls of the old city (viz., Neapolis) are still preserved (see Figure 1), but most
of these works were destroyed, because the Roman city was built over the ruins of
the Greek city. The Romans used the tuff blocks for all kinds of construction and
to meet both architectural and structural requirements [82]. Hundreds of ruins of
buildings made with zeolitic tuff are spread over the Neapolitan area. Remarkable
examples are present also in the old cities of Pompeii, Herculaneum, Stabiae, and
Oplonti, buried by thick beds of volcanic ash during the Vesuvius eruption of 79 AD
and therefore mostly preserved.

The building techniques developed by the Romans, including the practice to cover
tuff walls by plaster or more valuable stones (e.g. marble), were utilized almost
unchanged during the first millennium and beyond. More recently, beginning in the
Middle Ages, frequent use was made of tuff as a facing stone, also outside Italy, in
recognition of its architectural value. Examples of this use are numerous in Naples
and its surroundings, including some castles (Figure 8, left) and churches, made
with bare blocks of phillipsite-rich Neapolitan yellow tuff, dated from the 12th–16th
centuries [2], and the two hundreds and more monumental buildings constructed
in Germany since the Middle Ages. The greatest concentration is in Cologne, where
some 30 monuments and churches (Figure 8, right), made of Rhenish trass, a local
chabazite-rich material, are located [83]. Relevant examples of more recent use
of this material are the impressive bridges of the Acquedotto Carolino (Charles III
Bourbon Aqueduct) in Valle di Maddaloni, near Caserta (south Italy) (Figure 9), built
in the second half of the 18th century, in opus mixtum (tuff blocks intercalated with
clay brick lines) by Luigi Vanvitelli, the famous architect of Caserta Royal Palace.

Figure 8. (left) Naples (Italy): Castel dell'Ovo (12th century), a historical monument
made with Neapolitan yellow tuff; (right) Cologne (Germany): Gross-Martin Church,
a historical monument (12th–13th century) made with Rhenish trass.

Figure 9. Acquedotto Carolino's bridge, 529m long, in Valle di Maddaloni, near

Caserta (south Italy), built in the second half of the 18th century, in opus mixtum
(zeolitized tuff blocks intercalated with clay brick lines).

The use of zeolitic tuff was very extensive also in the popular constructions. In Italy
entire villages were traditionally (and are still being) constructed using this stone,
e.g. all the houses in the villages of Pitigliano, Sovana, and Bagnoregio and in the
city of Orvieto (central Italy) are made of chabazite-rich tuffs [84].

> Read full chapter

Sustainability of natural stone as a con-

struction material
A. Klemm, D. Wiggins, in Sustainability of Construction Materials (Second Edition),
2016

12.4.2 EE and carbon footprint of stone

Much of the EE/EC footprint of natural dimension stone is due to the processing
of the blocks after extraction, and there remains ample scope to reduce the current
figures further: Some 90–95% of the EC associated with dimension sandstone was
shown by Crishna et al. (2011) as being due to the processing alone. Renewably
powered processing facilities could drive stone's EE/EC footprint down to incredibly
low levels.

Natural stone has a low EE and carbon footprint (Tables 12.3 and 12.4). However,
objective comparison between materials of different build contexts is difficult:
Masonry materials tend to be used in heavy constructions, whilst the materials
associated with higher EE/EC footprints tend to be lighter. This difficulty is resolved
by the LCA for the structures respectively, although a feel for comparative purposes
can be gained by comparing constructions in the BRE's Green Guide (Anderson et al.,
2009). The context of use issue is well represented in slate; whilst there are exceptions
in which it is used in structural walling, its predominant application is as a roofing
material. Therefore, a unit area assessment of the EE/EC footprint would be in order.

Table 12.3. Embodied carbon footprint of selected natural stones available in pub-
lished literature

Embodied carbon of dimension stone (cradle-gate)

Source Sandstone Limestone Granite (kgCO2/t) Slate (kgCO2/t)
(kgCO2/t) (kgCO2/t)
Hammond and 60 90 70 7–63
Jones (2008)a

Crishna et al. 64 – 93 232

(2011)
University of Ten- – 105 62 28
nesseeb
a Hammond & Jones' Inventory of Carbon and Energy (ICE).

b University of Tennessee (2008a–c, 2009).

Table 12.4. Embodied energy footprint of selected natural stones available in pub-
lished literature

Embodied energy of dimension stone (cradle-gate)

Source Sandstone (MJ/t) Limestone (MJ/t) Granite (MJ/t) Slate (MJ/t)
Hammond & 1000(?) 410 4100 30–1400
Jones ICE
University of Ten- a 964 5908 208
nessee

a NB: Processing data was unavailable from the University of Tennessee; how-
ever, the quarrying cost was lower than limestone, and processing/dressing
techniques to produce dimension stone are quite comparable between sand-
stone and limestone.

The data pool for the EE and carbon environmental impact of natural dimension
stone was noted by the source authors to be small, leading to the relatively high
deviation observed. The figures quoted in Tables 12.3 and 12.4 are largely composed
of the energy (and related CO2 impact) in the processing of the quarried stone. The
EE figures do not appear to accord well with the EC figures, across the few sources
available. The figures indicated consider the ‘waste’ associated with the final product
(dimension stone), which is very high for slate. However, Crishna et al. (2011) observe
that, owing to the zero waste in practice arising from stone quarries, considering
the environmental footprint of stone on the total material produced (including
secondary products of rubble and hardcore, etc.), slate can be demonstrated to have
lesser carbon impact than the other building stones.

Interpreting the data generally, taking average values across the different sources,
it is clear that natural stone exhibits a low environmental footprint when compared
with other typical building materials (Table 12.5).

Table 12.5. Embodied carbon footprint of selected building materials abstracted

from Hammond & Jones ICE

Material Embodied carbon (kgCO2/t)

Aluminium (general) 8240
Cladding panel (fibre-cement, colour-coated) 1280
Concrete (RC28/35) 139
Conc. block: 8 MPa 59
Conc. block: 13 MPa 100
Conc. block: AAC 240–375
Brick: Facing 520
Brick: General 230
Glass (toughened) 1350
Steel: General 1460
Steel: Plate 1660
Steel: Section 1530
Timber: Hardwood 470
Timber: Softwood 450
Sandstonea 62
Limestonea 98
Granitea 75
Slatea 96

Note: All UK values.

a Mean average from Table 12.3.

The mortar with which the stone is laid represents a major constituent in the bulk of a
stonework wall, particularly where the masonry units are small (demanding a higher
frequency of joints, as in brickwork). Traditionally, stone masonry was laid with lime
mortar. As with natural stone, the data pool for lime mortars is correspondingly
small, and some contention is to be found in the literature as to its environmental
footprint relative to cement mortar (eg, Hammond and Jones, 2008; De Vekey, 2005;
Reddy and Jagadish, 2003).

The lower burning temperature of lime does not necessarily or directly constitute
an environmental saving, owing to the typically longer burning durations. However,
lime mortars feature a carbonation set, which reabsorbs an extent of the CO2 driven
off when the limestone is burned. This is especially so for putty limes, which
set entirely by carbonation and fully reabsorb the displaced CO2; the low end of
the natural hydraulic lime (NHL) (eg, NHL 2) similarly exhibit a high degree of
carbonation. Little difference is observed between NHL 3.5 and NHL 5 mortars in
terms of their respective proportion of carbonation set (Hughes and Swann, 1998).
The formation of the compound which demands the carbonation set (portlandite)
is strongly influenced by the phase chemistry, but in general terms the lower the
burning temperature, the higher the proportion of portlandite formed and available
for carbonation. For the more hydraulic mortars (NHL 3.5, NHL 5 and cements),
the mineralogy and higher burning temperatures lead to smaller proportion of
portlandite formed, and consequent carbonation is small if at all. Carbonation is a
complex process related to available portlandite, diffusivity of the pore matrix and
environmental conditions.

Given the foregoing, support is made for the use of the weaker, high-carbonation
limes. Reddy and Jagadish (2003) observe that lime:pozzolana mortars have the
lowest environmental impact of all the building mortars they studied, including
cementitious. Table 12.6 abstracts from Hammond & Jones Inventory of Carbon
and Energy (ICE) the data for cement mortar, and the closest available mixture to
represent a lime mortar.

Table 12.6. Environmental impacts of building mortars abstracted from Hammond

& Jones ICE

Characteristic Lime (L:A) Gauged lime (C:L:A) Cement (C:A) (1:3)

1:2:9
Embodied energy (MJ/t) – 1030 1330
Embodied carbon – 145 208
(kgCO2/t)

Data from Hammond & Jones ICE.

Appraising the difference between cradle-to-gate and cradle-to-site across the

stones is made difficult owing to the single data source available. However, Table
12.7 allows comparison between stone sourced nationally and imported stone from
abroad. The imported figures quoted were derived by Crishna et al. (2011) assuming
the shortest/most practicable route, and that processing was undertaken in the
country of origin.

Table 12.7. Embodied carbon footprint of imported natural stones available in

published literature

Embodied carbon of imported dimension stone (cradle-site)

Country of origin Sandstone Limestone Granite (kgCO2/t) Slate (kgCO2/t)
(kgCO2/t) (kgCO2/t)
UK 77.30 – 158.00 297.40
Spain 134 – 161 318
Poland – – 188 –
India 312.30 – 336.50 –
China 504.00 – 415.50 568.10

Data from Crishna, N., Banfill, P., Goodsir, S., 2011. Embodied energy and CO2 in
UK dimension stone. Resour. Conserv. Recycl. 55, 1265–1273.

The environmental footprint of stone increases many times over the further away the
source is located. Clear suppport for the use of indigenous stone is demonstrated
in EE and carbon terms, aside from the less-quantifiable sustainability benefits of
promoting local rural employment, and safeguarding local distinctiveness.

> Read full chapter

BIOMOLECULES, BIOINTERFACES,
AND APPLICATIONS
Rolando Roque-Malherbe, in Handbook of Surfaces and Interfaces of Materials,
2001

4.8 Construction Materials

The most ancient and, so far, the most massive application of natural zeolites
is in the building industry. This circumstance is related to the highly acceptable
mechanical properties of natural zeolites, their low weight, and their agreeable
external appearance [1, 262, 263].

The easiest application of these materials for building is directly as dimension stones
[263], and their use in this form is possible on account of the high compressive
strength of natural zeolites, which can reach 17.5 MPa and has average values of
3–5 MPa [264]. At present around 3 million tons of zeolitic tuff is produced each
year for building materials in Italy alone [263].

The use of zeolitic tuffs for the preparation of blended cements is a common
industrial practice [32, 265–268]. In recent times the use of blended cements has
increased for energy saving reasons, and currently large quantities of blended
cements are produced with a significant decrease in energy consumption. That is
not, however, the only reason for the production of blended cements. The addition
of zeolite increases their mechanical strength and their resistance to chemical attack,
and decreases the amount and rate of heat evolution and the alkali level in the
mortars prepared with these cements [266].

Further applications of natural zeolites in the building industry are the preparation
of lightweight brick [45] and lightweight aggregates in high-strength mortar and
concrete [269].

> Read full chapter

Nondestructive testing methodology

to assess the conservation of historic
stone buildings and monuments
Carlos Chastre, Marco Ludovico-Marques, in Handbook of Materials Failure Analy-
sis, 2018
2.4 Methods used in the petrographic analysis
The chemical weathering of building stones proceeds within a geological time
scale far beyond the historical time of the ancient constructions, set aside the acid
dissolution of carbonate materials and sulfation of stone surfaces due to industrial
pollution. Secondary minerals (e.g., clays, oxides, and hydroxides of iron) can only
occur as inherited weathering on dimension stones collected from quarries and used
as building materials of low quality. As the weathering of building stones proceeds,
gradational changes occur in the physical and mechanical properties of rocks, so
weathering is mainly considered a physical and mechanical phenomenon.

Petrographic analysis is an important tool to study the mineralogical and chemical

composition of stones on monuments and to monitor the chemical weathering
evolution, which is nowadays a result of acid dissolution of carbonate materials and
sulfation of stone surfaces due to industrial pollution. Petrographic analysis allows
also the identification and quantification of minerals of inherited weathering on
building stone blocks of low quality. The petrographic analysis plays an important
role, too, monitoring the physical weathering and allowing the determination of
the pore size and shape distribution, being very useful for the identification of
crystallized salt habits in efflorescences. The petrographic analysis is an essential
procedure in order to obtain the building stone intrinsic signature of historic stone
buildings and monuments, allowing destructive tests in similar outcrop materials
located in their vicinity, thus contributing to the maintenance of the monuments’
physical integrity, in accordance with the Athens and Venice charters [3]. In Table 13.4
a summary of the methods used in the petrographic analysis is presented.

Table 13.4. Summary of the Methods Used in the Petrographic Analysis

Type of Characterization Method/Equipment References

Macroscopic characteristics Visual observation of There are no references in this
hand-specimens pocket lens method
Microscopic characteristics Petrographic microscopy [187,200–204]
SEM fitted with an EDS [192,195,205,206]
XRD [24,149,153,192,207,208]
AAS [209]
EDXRF spectrometer [193,195,207,210-216]
LRS [192,195,207,217]
FTIR and μFTIR [192,207,210,218,219]
LIBS [220,221]
AAS, Atomic absorption spectroscopy; EDXRF, energy dispersive X-ray fluores-
cence; FTIR, Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy; LIBS, laser-induced break-
down spectroscopy; LRS, laser Raman spectroscopy; SEM-EDS, scanning electron
microscope-electron dispersive spectrometer; XRD, X-ray diffraction.

The petrographic analysis can be performed at a macroscopic or a microscopic level

(Fig. 13.11). At a macroscopic level visual observation of hand specimens is usual for
a preliminary classification, where pocket lenses are used to magnify the stone and
mineral structure. The visual observation of hand specimens allows the identification
of the surface colors using the Munsell color system or a color space specified by
the International Commission on Illumination (CIELAB) parameters and character-
ization of the stone mineralogical composition. At a microscopic level it is possible
to have the definition of the mineral composition and its geometrical arrangement
of texture and structure on the stone thin sections by petrographic microscopy
[187,200–204] on small samples (up to 1 cm3) by SEM-EDS [192,195,205,206] and
XRD [24,149,153,192,207,208].

Figure 13.11. General view of a scanning electron microscope (SEM) equipment.

The identification of the minerals or the minerals, main chemical groups or ions
(e.g., sulfates) and their extent on samples by chemical analysis can also be obtained
using atomic absorption spectroscopy (AAS), energy dispersive X-ray fluorescence
(EDXRF), laser Raman spectroscopy (LRS), Fourier transform infrared spectroscopy
(FTIR), and laser-induced breakdown spectroscopy (LIBS). According to Bitossi et al.
[207] the XRF (X-ray fluorescence spectroscopy) and EDXRF are among the most
important techniques for qualitative and semiquantitative analysis of elements in a
sample. For this purpose, portable XRF systems have been widely used for in situ
nondestructive analyses.

> Read full chapter

Piping Codes, Standards, and Specificat-
ions
Peter Smith, in The Fundamentals of Piping Design, 2007

1.4.3 American Society for Testing and Materials

The American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) is a scientific and technical
organization that develops and publishes voluntary standards on the characteristics
and performance of materials, products, standards, systems, and services. The stan-
dards published by the ASTM include test procedures for determining or verifying
characteristics, such as chemical composition, and measuring performance, such as
tensile strength and bending properties. The standards cover refined materials, such
as steel, and basic products, such as machinery and fabricated equipment. The stan-
dards are developed by committees drawn from a broad spectrum of professional,
industrial, and commercial interests. Many of the standards are made mandatory by
reference in applicable piping codes. The ASTM standards are published in a set of 67
volumes divided into 16 sections. Each volume is published annually to incorporate
new standards and revisions to existing standards and to delete obsolete standards.

Listed here are the 67 volumes, divided among their 16 sections, published by the
ASTM:

Section 1, Iron and Steel Products.Volume 01.01, Steel—Piping, Tubing, Fit-

tings.Volume 01.02, Ferrous Castings; Ferroalloys.Volume 01.03, Steel—Plate,
Sheet, Strip, Wire.Volume 01.04, Steel—Structural, Reinforcing, Pressure Ves-
sel, Railway.Volume 01.05, Steel—Bars, Forgings, Bearing, Chain, Springs.-
Volume 01.06, Coated Steel Products.Volume 01.07, Shipbuilding.
Section 2, Nonferrous Metal Products.Volume 02.01, Copper and Copper
Alloys.Volume 02.02, Aluminum and Magnesium Alloys.Volume 02.03, Elec-
trical Conductors.Volume 02.04, Nonferrous Metals—Nickel, Cobalt, Lead,
Tin, Zinc, Cadmium, Precious, Reactive, Refractory, Metals, and Alloys.Volume
02.05, Metallic and Inorganic Coatings; Metal Powders, Sintered P/M Struc-
tural Parts.
Section 3, Metals Test Methods and Analytical Procedures.Volume 03.01,
Metals—Mechanical Testing: Elevated and Low-Temperature Tests, Metal-
lography.Volume 03.02, Wear and Erosion, Metal Corrosion.Volume 03.03,
Nondestructive Testing.Volume 03.04, Magnetic Properties; Metallic Materials
for Thermostats, Electrical Heating and Resistance, Heating, Contacts, and
Connectors.Volume 03.05, Analytical Chemistry of Metals, Ores, and Related
Materials (I).Volume 03.06, Analytical Chemistry of Metals, Ores, and Related
Materials (II).
Section 4, Construction.Volume 04.01, Cement, Lime, Gypsum.Volume 04.02,
Concrete and Aggregates.Volume 04.03, Road and Paving Materials, Pave-
ment Management Technologies.Volume 04.04, Roofing, Waterproofing, and
Bituminous Materials.Volume 04.05, Chemical-Resistant Materials; Vitrified
Clay, Concrete, Fiber-Cement Products; Mortars; Masonry.Volume 04.06,
Thermal Insulation; Environmental Acoustics.Volume 04.07, Building Seals
and Sealants; Fire Standards; Building Constructions.Volume 04.08, Soil and
Rock; Dimension Stones; Geosynthetics.Volume 04.09, Wood.
Section 5, Petroleum Products, Lubricants, and Fossil Fuels.Volume 05.01,
Petroleum Products and Lubricants (1): D 56-D 1947.Volume 05.02, Petroleum
Products and Lubricants (II): D 1949-D 3601.Volume 05.03, Petroleum Prod-
ucts and Lubricants (III): D 3602–Latest; Catalysts.Volume 05.04, Test Methods
for Rating Motor, Diesel, and Aviation Fuels.Volume 05.05, Gaseous Fuels;
Coal and Coke.
Section 6, Paints, Related Coatings, and Aromatics.Volume 06.01, Paint—Tests
for Formulated Products and Applied Coatings.Volume 06.02, Paint—Pig-
ments, Resins, and Polymers; Cellulose.Volume 06.03, Paint—Fatty Oils and
Acids, Solvents, Miscellaneous; Aromatic Hydrocarbons.
Section 7, Textiles.Volume 07.01, Textiles (I): D76-D3219.Volume 07.02, Tex-
tiles (II): D3333–Latest.
Section 8, Plastics.Volume 08.01, Plastics (I): C 177-D 1600.Volume 08.02,
Plastics (II): D 1601-D 3099.Volume 08.03, Plastics (III): D 3100–Latest.Volume
08.04, Plastic Pipe and Building Products.
Section 9, Rubber.Volume 09.01, Rubber, Natural, and Synthetic—Gener-
al Test Methods; Carbon Black.Volume 09.02, Rubber Products, Industri-
al—Specifications and Related Test Methods; Gaskets; Tires.
Section 10, Electrical Insulation and Electronics.Volume 10.01, Electrical In-
sulation (I) D69-D2484.Volume 10.02, Electrical Insulation (II) D2518–Lat-
est.Volume 10.03, Electrical Insulating Liquids and Gas; Electrical Protective
Equipment.Volume 10.04, Electronics (I).Volume 10.05, Electronics (II).
Section 11, Water and Environmental Technology.Volume 11.01, Water (I).-
Volume 11.02, Water (II).Volume 11.03, Atmospheric Analysis; Occupational
Health and Safety.Volume 11.04, Pesticides; Resource Recovery; Hazardous
Substances and Oil Spill. Responses; Waste Management; Biological Effects.
Section 12, Nuclear, Solar, and Geothermal Energy.Volume 12.01, Nuclear
Energy (I).Volume 12.02, Nuclear, Solar, and Geothermal Energy.
Section 13, Medical Devices and Services.Volume 13.01, Medical Devices,
Emergency Medical Services.
Section 14, General Methods and Instrumentation.Volume 14.01, Analytical
Methods—Spectroscopy; Chromatography; Computerized Systems.Volume
14.02, General Test Methods, Nonmetal; Laboratory Apparatus; Statistical
Methods; Appearance of Materials; Durability of Nonmetallic Materials.Vol-
ume 14.03, Temperature Measurement.
Section 15, General Products, Chemical Specialties, and End-Use Products.-
Volume 15.01, Refractures; Carbon and Graphite Products; Activated Car-
bon.Volume 15.02, Glass; Ceramic Whitewares.Volume 15.03, Space Simula-
tion; Aerospace and Aircraft; High Modulus Fibers and Composites.Volume
15.04, Soap; Polishes; Leather; Resilient Floor Coverings.Volume 15.05, En-
gine Coolants; Halogenated Organic Solvents; Industrial Chemicals.Volume
15.06, Adhesives.Volume 15.07, End-Use Products.Volume 15.08, Fasteners.-
Volume 15.09, Paper; Packaging; Flexible Barrier Materials; Business Copy
Products.
Section 00, Index.Volume 00.01, Subject Index and Alphanumeric List.

A typical American Standard for Testing Materials covers, among many things, the
following;

• Scope.

• Referenced documents.

• Ordering information.

• Chemical composition.

• Mechanical requirements—tensile strength, yield strength, elongation.

• Heat treatment.

• Workmanship, finish, and appearance.

• Additional supplementary requirements.

These standards guarantee that, if the base material used is manufactured to a set of
well defined rules, then the various characteristics of that material will be predictable
and the materials of construction can be specified with confidence.

The following is an example of the detail that an ASTM specification goes into:

Section 1, Iron and Steel Products.

Volume 01.01, Steel—Piping, Tubing, Fittings.
ASTM A 106/A 106M–04b, Standard Specification for Seamless Car-
bon Steel Pipe for High-Temperature Service.(1)Scope.(2)Referenced doc-
uments.(3)Ordering information.(4)Process.(5)Heat treatment.(6)General re-
quirements.(7)Chemical composition.(8)Heat analysis.(9)Product analysis.-
(10)Tensile requirements.(11)Bending requirements.(12)Flattening tests.(13)-
Hydrostatic test.(14)Nondestructive electric test.(15)Nipples.(16)Dimensions,
mass, and permissible variations.(17)Lengths.(18)Workmanship, finish, and
appearance.(19)End finish.(20)Number of tests.(21)Retests.(22)Test specimens
and test methods.(23)Certification.(24)Product marking.(25)Government pro-
curement.(26)Keywords.
Supplementary Requirements(S1) Product analysis.(S2) Transverse tension
test.(S3) Flattening test.(S4) Metal structure and etching test.(S5) Carbon
equivalent.(S6) Heat treated test specimens.(S7) Internal cleanliness—gov-
ernment orders.(S8) Requirements for carbon steel pipe for hydrofluoric acid
alkylation service.

> Read full chapter

Utilization of solid waste materials as

alternative fillers in asphalt mixes: A re-
view
Jayvant Choudhary, ... Ankit Gupta, in Construction and Building Materials, 2020

5.2.5 Dimensional Stone Waste

Dimension stone is a popular construction material which is widely used in flooring,
cladding, and paving of buildings and monuments. During the processing and
polishing of these stones, a large quantity of waste slurry is obtained which is
dumped to open spaces, where its water gets evaporated leaving behind huge
quantities of fine dust which could be utilized as filler. There is a wide spectrum
of dimensional stones such as granite, marble, limestone, sandstone, quartzite, and
slate. Marble is a metamorphic rock which has calcium-based calcite and dolomite
minerals in its composition. These water-insoluble minerals form stronger bonds
with bitumen which resulted in highly moisture-resistant mixes [25]. Mixes prepared
with marble dust (MD) were found to have similar or improved Marshall properties
and could be optimally utilized up to 7% of the total weight of mix [29,51]. Fatigue
lives of asphalt concrete mixes prepared with marble dust were also found to be
improved up to 20% compared to that of stone dust due to improvement in mastic
stiffness [25]. Limestone is the most widely used calcium-based dimension stone.
Choudhary et al. [31] has observed that utilization of Indian limestone (Kota stone)
in asphalt mixes can produce mixes with higher stability, rutting resistance and
cracking resistance at lower OBC, due to its finer nature and lower porosity. Other
than that Kota stone mixes also displayed satisfactory adhesion as well as resistances
against moisture and raveling due to the presence of calcite in its composition.

In comparison to marble and limestone, granite has a lesser amount of calcium in

its composition, however, it doesn't have any significant negative effect on moisture
susceptibility of its mixes [25]. Granite has angular particles with rougher grain
texture which although increase the OBC of mixes at higher concentration but also
forms highly rut resistant mixes [25]. Akbulut et al. [4] have stated that granite dust
at higher concentrations fills the microvoids in the asphalt mixes ensuring mixes
with higher stability and superior resistance to moisture damage and permanent
deformation.

> Read full chapter

Low carbon and low embodied energy

materials in buildings: A review
Luisa F. Cabeza, ... A. Inés Fernández, in Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews,
2013

2.6 Sandstone
Crishna et al. [56] carried out a process based on LCA of the dimension stone
production in the UK. From a survey of eight production operations, the calculated
carbon footprint of sandstone was 77 kg CO2e/tonne, of granite 107 kg CO2e/tonne,
and of slate 251 kg CO2e/tonne. These values would be considerably higher for stone
imported from abroad due to the impact of transport. Authors stated that reducing
the use of imported stone would contribute to emissions reduction targets.

According to Reddy [32,57] a mixture of lime, fly ash and stone crusher dust can be
compacted in a high-density block. Lime reacts with fly ash minerals forming water
insoluble blonds imparting strength to the block.

> Read full chapter

Economic potential of industrial min-

erals in Zambia - A review
Chomba Kolala, Alphet Dokowe, in Resources Policy, 2021
1 Introduction
Industrial minerals e.g. phosphates, talc, barite, granite, and graphite etc. and their
products i.e. fertilizers, road aggregates, and dimension stones, to mention but a
few are non-metallic materials used for both industrial and manufacturing purposes.
Industrial minerals are important for both local and international trade (O'Driscoll,
2006). They are also known as neglected minerals or development minerals by
the African Caribbean Pacific-European Union (ACP-EU) which are important in
infrastructure development, manufacturing and agriculture industries.1 Industrial
minerals bring global development through job creation and economic growth. Un-
like the scarce occurrence of base metals, industrial minerals are found in abundant
quantities and provide both formal and informal employment to local communities
to a greater extent than base metal mining. The base metal mining of copper,
cobalt or gold generally calls for highly mechanized mining methods while industrial
minerals involve traditional methods like in artisanal or small scale mining (Franks
et al., 2020).

Zambia, a landlocked country in Southern Africa, is dependent on copper mining.

Mining of base metals (copper and cobalt) in Zambia, which contributes about 12%
towards GDP,2 has been ongoing since 1920s (Sikamo et al., 2016). With the over
dependency on such commodities, there has been a decline in economic growth
and livelihoods of residents living in close proximity to mining communities (Kolala
& Bwalya Umar, 2019). Unemployment levels in Zambia have risen to 18.4% with
youth unemployment rate of 18.2%; 18% male and 18.7% female as at 2019 (Labour
Force Survey, 2019; Mukosa et al., 2020).

According to the Government's Vision 2030 (Republic of Zambia, 2006), the people
of Zambia look forward to seeing a strong and stable middle-income industrialized
country by 2030. This means hard work through investment and diversification
of the economy by not only depending on mining but also on agriculture and
manufacturing industries. The notion of achieving a middle-income nation by 2030
is based on the implementation of policies and framework under the Sustainable
Development Goals3 (SDGs). The African Union's (AU) agenda 2063 and the Seventh
National Development Plan (7th NDP) set from 2017 to 2021 (Ministry of National
Development and Planning, 2017) have also been aligned to the aforementioned
notion predicting an average of 5% in economic growth. Zambia has potential
for investment in mining and other natural resource sectors but the problem is
mainly inadequate to poor infrastructure and social amenities including health and
education centres (ZDA, 2016).

Despite some of the industrial mineral resources not being quantified or evaluated,
they have the capacity to develop Zambia without even focusing on base metal and
 precious mineral mining. It has been estimated that over $520 million worth of
industrial minerals and related products were imported in 2017. On the other hand,
over $5 million of the same goods were exported resulting in a trade deficit of around
$515 million.4 This is a negative impact on the economy of the nation since such
imported goods can easily be extracted locally. Beneficiation of the same minerals
and products could even fetch a higher value on local and international markets.

This study gives an insight of industry minerals for the entire country specifically
highlighting their impact on the local economy and livelihoods of the local people.
Generally, the industrial mineral sector has been neglected for decades by relevant
stake-holders. This calls for more research, exploration and funding towards the
project through the Geological Survey Department (GSD) which falls under Ministry
of Mines and Minerals Development (MMMD).

> Read full chapter

ScienceDirect is Elsevier’s leading information solution for researchers.

Copyright © 2018 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. ScienceDirect ® is a registered trademark of Elsevier B.V. Terms and conditions apply.