| Literature DB >> 32235687 |
Wei-Ting Lin1, Kae-Long Lin2, Kinga Korniejenko3, Lukáš Fiala4, An Cheng1, Jie Chen1.
Abstract
The vigorous promotion of reuse and recycling activities in Taiwan has solved a number of problems associated with the treatment of industrial waste. Considerable advances have been made in the conversion of waste materials into usable resources, thereby reducing the space required for waste storage and helping to conserve natural resources. This study examined the use of non-alkali activators to create bonded materials. Our aims were to evaluate the feasibility of using ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (S) and circulating fluidized bed co-fired fly ash (F) as non-cement binding materials and determine the optimal mix proportions (including embedded fibers) with the aim of achieving high dimensional stability and good mechanical properties. Under a fixed water/binder ratio of 0.55, we combined S and F to replace 100% of the cement at S:F ratios of 4:6, 5:5, 6:4. Polypropylene fibers (L/d = 375) were also included in the mix at 0.1%, 0.2% and 0.5% of the volume of all bonded materials. Samples were characterized in terms of flowability, compressive strength, tensile strength, water absorption, shrinkage, x-ray diffraction (XRD) and scanning electron microscope (SEM) analysis. Specimens made with an S:F ratio of 6:4 achieved compressive strength of roughly 30 MPa (at 28 days), which is the 80% the strength of conventional cement-based materials (control specimens). The inclusion of 0.2% fibers in the mix further increased compressive strength to 35 MPa and enhanced composite properties.Entities:
Keywords: cementless composites; co-fired fly ash; fiber reinforced; green materials; microscopic property
Year: 2020 PMID: 32235687 PMCID: PMC7143280 DOI: 10.3390/ma13061443
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1SEM images: (a) circulating fluidized bed (CFB) co-fired fly ash and (b) ground-granulated blast-furnace slag (GGBS).
Figure 2x-ray diffraction (XRD) pattern: (a) co-fired fly ash and (b) GGBS.
Chemical compositions of co-fired fly ash and GGBS.
| Chemical Compositions | Co-Fired Fly Ash | GGBS |
|---|---|---|
| Content, wt % | ||
| Silicon dioxide (SiO2) | 29.47 | 33.68 |
| Aluminum oxide (Al2O3) | 19.27 | 14.37 |
| Ferric oxide (Fe2O3) | 3.49 | 0.29 |
| Calcium oxide (CaO) | 35.54 | 40.24 |
| Magnesium oxide (MgO) | 1.82 | 7.83 |
| Sulphur trioxide (SO3) | 7.36 | 0.66 |
| others | 3.05 | 2.93 |
Mix design of the mortar specimens produced (kg/m3).
| Mix No. | Cement | GGBS | Co-Fired Fly Ash | Fine Aggregates | Water | Superplasticizers | Fiber |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | 514 | 0 | 0 | 1412 | 282 | 0 | 0 |
| S50 | 0 | 257 | 257 | 274.6 | 7.4 | ||
| S40 | 308 | 206 | 276.8 | 5.2 | |||
| S60 | 206 | 308 | 267.2 | 14.8 | |||
| P-F1 | 514 | 0 | 0 | 282 | 0 | 0.88 | |
| P-F2 | 1.76 | ||||||
| P-F5 | 4.41 | ||||||
| S50-F1 | 0 | 257 | 257 | 274.6 | 7.4 | 0.88 | |
| S50-F2 | 274.6 | 7.4 | 1.76 | ||||
| S50-F5 | 270.9 | 11.1 | 4.41 | ||||
| S40-F1 | 308 | 206 | 276.8 | 5.2 | 0.88 | ||
| S40-F2 | 274.6 | 7.4 | 1.76 | ||||
| S40-F5 | 270.9 | 11.1 | 4.41 | ||||
| S60-F1 | 206 | 308 | 267.2 | 14.8 | 0.88 | ||
| S60-F2 | 267.2 | 14.8 | 1.76 | ||||
| S60-F5 | 264.2 | 17.8 | 4.41 |
Mix design of the mortar specimens for a preliminary test (kg/m3).
| Mix No. | Cement | GGBS | Co-Fired Fly Ash | Fine Aggregates | Water |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| P | 514 | 0 | 0 | 1412 | 282 |
| S10 | 0 | 463 | 51 | ||
| S20 | 0 | 411 | 103 | ||
| S30 | 0 | 360 | 154 | ||
| S40 | 0 | 308 | 206 | ||
| S50 | 0 | 257 | 257 | ||
| S60 | 0 | 206 | 308 |
Test methods.
| Test Target | Specimen Dimensions (mm) | Referenced Standard | Testing Age (days) | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fresh properties | flow test | – | ASTM C230 | – |
| Mechanical properties | compressive strength test | 50 × 50 × 50 | ASTM C109 | 7, 28, 56 |
| tensile strength test | Briquet Specimens | ASTM C260 | 7, 28 | |
| drying shrinkage test | 285 × 25 × 25 | ASTM C596 | 2~28 | |
| Permeability | water absorption test | 50 × 50 × 50 | ASTM C642 | 56 |
| Microstructure observations | SEM observation | 10 × 10 × 3 | ASTM C1723 | 28 |
| XRD analysis | powders | ASTM C1365 | 28, 56 | |
Figure 3Flow test results.
Figure 4(a) Histogram presenting compressive strength results of the preliminary test; and (b) compressive strength development at 28 days for all mixes.
Figure 5(a) Tensile strength development curves of select samples and (b) tensile strength results of all samples at 28 days.
Figure 6Length change results: (a) comparison to P, S40, S50 and S60 specimens and (b) comparison to S60, S60-F1, S60-F2 and S60-F5.
Figure 7Absorption results of all samples at 56 days.
Figure 8XRD patterns of various samples at 28 days.
Figure 9SEM photos at 28 days: (a) P; (b) S40; (c) S50 and (d) S60.
Figure 10Scanning electron microscope (SEM) photos with energy dispersive analysis (EDS) analysis: (a) S60 specimens; (b) EDS results.