| 摘要: | 台灣地區每年大約產生100萬公噸噸焚化爐底碴以及400萬公噸廢混凝土塊，若能有效的將其再生利用，對於減輕環境負荷將大有助益，也能減緩營建資源的耗損。 本研究針對國內焚化爐底碴及廢混凝土塊資源處理廠處理過後之再生材料，分別進行各項基本性質試驗，試驗結果發現兩者在低比重、高吸水率、高磨損等性質上都相當接近，亦符合本研究將這兩種再生材料一起比較的動機。另外本研究將焚化爐底碴與廢混凝土塊應用於控制性低強度材料當中，試驗結果發現焚化爐底碴的有機物質含量過高的因素，致使其能符合控制性低強度材料所要求的高流動性、高早期強度、低晚期強度的摻配量大約只在20 %左右；而廢混凝土塊則可添加至70 %，甚至100 %。且由於國內目前在控制性低強度材料的發展並未完全成熟，因此本研究針對預拌廠生產控制性低強度材料的廠內生管、品管以及現場施工方面提出一些建議。 在試驗室試驗之後，本研究進行這兩種再生材料與天然粒料的成本分析比較，並導入電子業常用的生命週期評估分析法評估使用再生材料所帶來的廢棄物減量等優勢是否大於其初級處理製程所造成的環境負荷。而成本分析結果顯示兩種再生材料均與天然粒料相差不遠；生命週期評估方面廢混凝土塊在CO2減量、節能、廢棄物減量等環境指標上皆優於使用天然粒料，而焚化爐底碴則因製程上耗費太多能源，所以在各項指標上優勢也相對的降低。` Each year, there are about one million tons of bottom ash and four million tons of waste concrete being produced in Taiwan. However, with efficient recycling process, the waste would be a great help in alleviating the burden of our surroundings and at the same time diminishing the consummation of construction resource. This research analyzes several basic property tests on bottom ash and waste concrete which have been dealt with in the recycling plant in the first place. The result shows that both have low specific gravity, high absorptivity and abrasion, which reinforces our motif of comparing these two experiment subjects. In addition, when applying bottom ash and waste concrete as CLSM, we discover that the high quantity of organic matter in bottom ash makes it qualify the requirements of CLSM: fine fluidity, strong intensity in early stage while low intensity in terminal period. The amount of bottom ash used must be controlled around 20% while, on the other hand, waste concrete can be added up to 70%, or even 100%. Since local development of CLSM is not fully fledged, this research then can serve as advice to production management, quality management and locale construction. After the laboratory experiment, this research proceed with the Cost Analysis between these two recycling materials and the nature aggregates. With the help of Life Cycle Assessment which is frequently adopted by electronics industry, we try to figure out whether the advantage brought by using the recycling materials is greater than the burden posed to the surroundings brought by the initial process of handling the wastes. The outcome reveals that the two recycling materials and nature aggregates have approximate cost, while waste concrete is far better than nature aggregates in reducing CO2, economizing energy, and decreasing waste. Bottom ash, however, consumes too much resource during the initial process, therefore does not perform so well in each category as waste concrete. |
