| Literature DB >> 35806521 |
Wenhua Zhao1, Ceyao Ji1, Qi Sun1, Qi Gu2.
Abstract
At present, the research on rice hull ash and cement-based materials as cementitious materials continues to deepen. Low-cost rice hull ash replaces part of Portland cement, which plays a dual role in saving material costs and improving environmental benefits. In this study, alkali-activated rice husk ash (RHA) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBS) were used to prepare cementitious material. The influence of RHA dosage on the strength, slump degree, and coagulation time of cementitious material was studied. On this basis, tailing was used as an aggregate based on the orthogonal design method and the bone-gel ratio, modulus, and alkali content were taken as variable factors, with strength and slump degree taken as the targets. A new cemented paste backfill (CPB) was prepared and mix ratio optimization was carried out. The strength formation mechanism of cementitious material and CPB was explored by combining scanning electron microscopy (SEM), energy dispersive spectrometry (EDS) and X-ray diffraction (XRD). The results of this study show that with the increase in RHA mixing, the unconfined compressive strength (UCS) of the gelling material purification slurry showed a tendency first to increase and then decrease. When the amount of RHA was about 10%, the internal structure became denser, more C-S-H gel was generated, and greater strength could be obtained. The specific surface area of RHA is high, and a small amount of RHA can fill the internal pores, making the internal structure of concrete more dense. The active silica content in RHA is relatively high. The addition of RHA can appropriately improve the strength of the material, which is of certain significance to our material research. Finally, the micro-analysis of RHA-GGBS clean slurry, the analysis of influencing factors of fluidity and strength, and the optimal mix proportion of alkali-activated RHA-GGBS-based backfill are put forward.Entities:
Keywords: GGBS composite cementitious material; alkali excitation rice husk ash; filling; microstructure; strength formation mechanism
Year: 2022 PMID: 35806521 PMCID: PMC9267305 DOI: 10.3390/ma15134397
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Figure 1Particle size curve of cementitious material.
Chemical composition of raw materials (wt%).
| Raw Materials | CaO | Fe2O3 | SiO2 | Al2O3 | MgO | K2O | SO3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA | 2.63 | 1.63 | 83.62 | 3.01 | 0.96 | 4.59 | 0.89 |
| GGBS | 34.15 | 0.20 | 31.14 | 19.98 | 10.49 | 0.29 | 2.07 |
| Tailing | 4.45 | 16.30 | 45.39 | 14.94 | 5.47 | 3.86 | 0.61 |
Figure 2XRD of tailing sand.
Mix proportion of clean slurry.
| Group | RHA Content (%) | GGBS Content (%) | Modulus | Alkali Consumption (%) |
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RHA1 | 0 | 100 | 1.0 | 4 | 0.35 |
| RHA2 | 5 | 95 | 1.0 | 4 | 0.35 |
| RHA3 | 10 | 90 | 1.0 | 4 | 0.35 |
| RHA4 | 15 | 85 | 1.0 | 4 | 0.35 |
Figure 3Fluidity diagram and compressive strength diagram of clean slurry.
Figure 4Setting time of purified slurry.
Figure 5XRD analysis of alkali-activated GGBS slurries with different amount of RHA at 3 days and 28 days.
Figure 6RHA1 microgram. (a) Micromorphology of RHA1. (b) Upper right arrow in figure. (c) Lower right arrow in figure.
Figure 7RHA3 microgram. (a) Micromorphology of RHA3. (b) Upper arrow in figure. (c) Lower arrow in figure.
Orthogonal test factor level table.
| Factor Level | Bone–Glue Ratio | Water Glass Modulus | Alkali Excitation Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 1.0 | 5 |
| 2 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 6 |
| 3 | 5 | 1.4 | 7 |
Orthogonal mix proportion combinations.
| Test Number | Bone–Glue Ratio | Water Glass Modulus | Alkali Excitation Percentage |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 4 | 1.0 | 5 |
| 2 | 4 | 1.2 | 6 |
| 3 | 4 | 1.4 | 7 |
| 4 | 4.5 | 1.0 | 6 |
| 5 | 4.5 | 1.2 | 7 |
| 6 | 4.5 | 1.4 | 5 |
| 7 | 5 | 1.0 | 7 |
| 8 | 5 | 1.2 | 5 |
| 9 | 5 | 1.4 | 6 |
Orthogonal test results.
| Test Number | Slump | 3 Days Compressive Strength/MPa | 7 Days Compressive Strength/MPa | 28 Days Compressive Strength/MPa |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 253 | 1.76 | 6.65 | 7.14 |
| 2 | 245 | 1.02 | 4.73 | 6.53 |
| 3 | 230 | 0.32 | 4.31 | 5.60 |
| 4 | 275 | 0.55 | 4.46 | 6.20 |
| 5 | 206 | 2.02 | 6.83 | 7.31 |
| 6 | 239 | 0.18 | 0.23 | 0.39 |
| 7 | 263 | 1.46 | 5.41 | 6.94 |
| 8 | 238 | 0.05 | 0.10 | 0.11 |
| 9 | 173 | 0.10 | 0.14 | 0.27 |
Collapse range analysis table.
| Range Analysis |
| Factor | Factor | Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 242.667 | 263.667 | 243.333 |
|
| 240 | 229.667 | 231 | |
|
| 224.667 | 214 | 233 | |
|
| 18 | 49.667 | 12.333 | |
| Degree of influence | ||||
Analysis of range difference of compressive strength at each age.
| Range Analysis |
| Factor | Factor | Factor |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 1.033 | 1.257 | 1.293 |
|
| 0.917 | 1.030 | 0.887 | |
|
| 0.537 | 0.200 | 0.307 | |
|
| 0.496 | 1.057 | 0.986 | |
| Degree of influence | ||||
|
|
| 5.230 | 5.507 | 2.327 |
|
| 3.840 | 3.887 | 3.110 | |
|
| 1.833 | 1.560 | 5.517 | |
|
| 3.347 | 3.947 | 3.190 | |
| Degree of influence | ||||
|
|
| 6.423 | 6.760 | 2.547 |
|
| 4.633 | 4.650 | 4.333 | |
|
| 2.440 | 2.087 | 6.617 | |
|
| 3.983 | 4.673 | 4.070 | |
| Degree of influence | ||||
Table of variance analysis of compressive strength.
| Variance Analysis | Factor | Sum of Squares of Deviations | Freedom | Significant Level | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Bone–glue ratio | 0.405 | 2 | 1.000 | 3 |
| Modulus | 1.857 | 2 | 4.585 | 1 | |
| Alkali content | 0.879 | 2 | 2.170 | 2 | |
|
| Bone–glue ratio | 16.961 | 2 | 0.836 | 2 |
| Modulus | 23.614 | 2 | 1.164 | 1 | |
| Alkali content | 16.582 | 2 | 0.817 | 3 | |
|
| Bone–glue ratio | 23.882 | 2 | 0.842 | 3 |
| Modulus | 32.863 | 2 | 1.158 | 1 | |
| Alkali content | 24.971 | 2 | 0.880 | 2 |
Figure 8Micromorphology of CPB. (a) Magnified 200 times and (b) Magnified 50 times.
Figure 9EDS point sweep. (a) Upper left corner substance in Figure 8a, (b) Lower left corner substance in Figure 8a and (c) Upper left corner substance in Figure 8a.