| Literature DB >> 35407996 |
Guanlei Li1, Chengke Zhou1, Waqas Ahmad2, Kseniia Iurevna Usanova3, Maria Karelina4, Abdeliazim Mustafa Mohamed5,6, Rana Khallaf7.
Abstract
This study aimed to expand the knowledge on the application of the most common industrial byproduct, i.e., fly ash, as a supplementary cementitious material. The characteristics of cement-based composites containing fly ash as supplementary cementitious material were discussed. This research evaluated the mechanical, durability, and microstructural properties of FA-based concrete. Additionally, the various factors affecting the aforementioned properties are discussed, as well as the limitations associated with the use of FA in concrete. The addition of fly ash as supplementary cementitious material has a favorable impact on the material characteristics along with the environmental benefits; however, there is an optimum level of its inclusion (up to 20%) beyond which FA has a deleterious influence on the composite's performance. The evaluation of the literature identified potential solutions to the constraints and directed future research toward the application of FA in higher amounts. The delayed early strength development is one of the key downsides of FA use in cementitious composites. This can be overcome by chemical activation (alkali/sulphate) and the addition of nanomaterials, allowing for high-volume use of FA. By utilizing FA as an SCM, sustainable development may promote by lowering CO2 emissions, conserving natural resources, managing waste effectively, reducing environmental pollution, and low hydration heat.Entities:
Keywords: cementitious composites; durability; fly ash; mechanical properties; microstructure; supplementary cementitious material
Year: 2022 PMID: 35407996 PMCID: PMC9000507 DOI: 10.3390/ma15072664
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.623
Figure 1Micrograph of fly ash: (a) [70]; (b) [71].
Element oxides range in fly ash types.
| Element Oxides | Range of Element Oxides (%) | |
|---|---|---|
| Class F | Class C | |
| SiO2 | 37.0–62.1 | 11.8–46.4 |
| Al2O3 | 16.6–35.6 | 2.6–20.5 |
| Fe2O3 | 2.6–21.2 | 1.4–15.6 |
| CaO | 0.5–14.0 | 15.1–54.8 |
| MgO | 0.3–5.2 | 0.1–6.7 |
| SO3 | 0.02–4.7 | 1.4–12.9 |
| Na2O | 0.1–3.6 | 0.2–2.8 |
| K2O | 0.1–4.1 | 0.3–9.3 |
| TiO2 | 0.5–2.6 | 0.6–1.0 |
| P2O5 | 0.1–1.7 | 0.2–0.4 |
| MnO | 0.03–0.1 | 0.3–0.2 |
| LOI | 0.3–32.8 | 0.3–11.7 |
Compressive strength (28-days) of composites containing fly ash.
| Reference | Replacement Ratio (%) | Compressive Strength (MPa) |
|---|---|---|
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 33.4 |
| 10 | 29.7 | |
| 15 | 23.3 | |
| 20 | 25.2 | |
| 30 | 22.2 | |
| 40 | 13.5 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 33.4 |
| 10 | 31.8 | |
| 15 | 27.4 | |
| 20 | 25.4 | |
| 30 | 19.6 | |
| 40 | 14.4 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 33.4 |
| 10 | 29.8 | |
| 15 | 24.1 | |
| 20 | 27.2 | |
| 30 | 20.9 | |
| 40 | 11.3 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 52.2 |
| 10 | 44.7 | |
| 20 | 36.8 | |
| 30 | 29.6 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 50.7 |
| 10 | 45.4 | |
| 20 | 37.8 | |
| 30 | 31.3 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 53.9 |
| 10 | 45.8 | |
| 20 | 36.6 | |
| 30 | 29.6 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 55.6 |
| 10 | 46.4 | |
| 20 | 37.3 | |
| 30 | 30.3 | |
| Paliwal and Maru [ | 0 | 26.4 |
| 5 | 27.8 | |
| 10 | 29.4 | |
| 15 | 28.2 | |
| 20 | 27.5 | |
| Huang et al. [ | 0 | 25.0 |
| 20 | 25.4 | |
| 40 | 25.6 | |
| 60 | 23.5 | |
| 80 | 20.9 | |
| Huang et al. [ | 0 | 34.5 |
| 20 | 36.5 | |
| 40 | 40.3 | |
| 60 | 34.5 | |
| 80 | 30.0 | |
| Huang et al. [ | 0 | 34.5 |
| 20 | 34.9 | |
| 40 | 34.1 | |
| 60 | 30.5 | |
| 80 | 25.2 |
FSA: ferrochromium slag aggregate, LOI: loss on ignition.
Figure 2Influence of fly ash as cement replacement on 28-days compressive strength of composites. FSA: ferrochromium slag aggregate [107,108,109,115].
Split-tensile strength (28-days) of composites containing fly ash.
| Fly Ash | ||
|---|---|---|
| Reference | Replacement Ratio (%) | Split-Tensile Strength (MPa) |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.72 |
| 10 | 1.58 | |
| 15 | 1.58 | |
| 20 | 0.89 | |
| 30 | 1.21 | |
| 40 | 0.89 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.72 |
| 10 | 1.51 | |
| 15 | 1.37 | |
| 20 | 1.05 | |
| 30 | 1.71 | |
| 40 | 1.02 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.72 |
| 10 | 1.94 | |
| 15 | 1.45 | |
| 20 | 0.87 | |
| 30 | 1.82 | |
| 40 | 0.85 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 5.20 |
| 10 | 4.70 | |
| 20 | 4.12 | |
| 30 | 3.63 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 5.31 |
| 10 | 4.74 | |
| 20 | 4.17 | |
| 30 | 3.66 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 5.24 |
| 10 | 4.78 | |
| 20 | 4.19 | |
| 30 | 3.78 | |
| Gencel et al. [ | 0 | 5.30 |
| 10 | 4.83 | |
| 20 | 4.22 | |
| 30 | 3.70 | |
FSA: ferrochromium slag aggregate.
Figure 3Influence of fly ash as cement replacement on 28-days split-tensile strength of composites. FSA: ferrochromium slag aggregate [107,108].
Flexural strength (28-days) of composites containing fly ash.
| Fly Ash | ||
|---|---|---|
| Reference | Replacement Ratio (%) | Flexural Strength (MPa) |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.82 |
| 10 | 2.19 | |
| 15 | 1.62 | |
| 20 | 1.53 | |
| 30 | 1.62 | |
| 40 | 1.04 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.82 |
| 10 | 2.01 | |
| 15 | 1.82 | |
| 20 | 2.16 | |
| 30 | 1.97 | |
| 40 | 1.67 | |
| Barbuta et al. [ | 0 | 1.82 |
| 10 | 2.01 | |
| 15 | 2.08 | |
| 20 | 2.49 | |
| 30 | 2.05 | |
| 40 | 1.96 | |
| Paliwal and Maru [ | 0 | 3.48 |
| 5 | 3.88 | |
| 10 | 4.44 | |
| 15 | 4.14 | |
| 20 | 3.62 | |
| Huang et al. [ | 0 | 5.1 |
| 20 | 5.3 | |
| 40 | 5.2 | |
| 60 | 5 | |
| 80 | 3.7 | |
| Huang et al. [ | 0 | 5.1 |
| 20 | 5 | |
| 40 | 5.1 | |
| 60 | 4.5 | |
| 80 | 3.2 | |
LOI: loss on ignition.
Figure 4Influence of fly ash as cement replacement on 28-days flexural strength of composites [107,109,115].
Figure 5Chloride penetration of fly ash based-concrete at 28 and 180 days of curing [122].
Figure 6Water absorption of concrete at various contents of fly ash [145].
Figure 7Microstructure of samples: (a) Without fly ash; (b) With 30% fly ash [147].
Figure 8SEM micrographs of composites containing 40% fly ash as a biner at: (a) 28-days; (b) 180-days [122].
Comparison of various aspects of utilizing silica fume and fly ash in cementitious materials.
| Aspect | Detail |
|---|---|
| Sustainability | Reduction in CO2 emission |
| Influence on material properties | Inconsistent influence on workability |
| Limitations | Utilization at higher replacement levels is not preferable |