| Literature DB >> 35955253 |
Zhen Wei1, Ke Yang2, Xiang He1, Jiqiang Zhang1, Guangcheng Hu3.
Abstract
The large production and low comprehensive utilization rate of solid waste from coal power base affects the efficient and coordinated development of regional resources and the ecological environment. In order to promote utilization of solid waste from coal power base, coal gangue, fly ash, and gasification slag are mixed as raw materials to prepare filling materials, and a study on the evolution law of the mechanical properties of coal-based solid waste filling body is systematically carried out. After clarifying the physical and chemical properties of the filling materials, the Box-Behnken experimental design method was used to study the effects of slurry mass fraction, coal gangue, fly ash, and gasification slag on the strength of the filling body based on the response surface-satisfaction function coupling theory. Furthermore, a multivariate nonlinear regression model was constructed for the strength of the filling body at different maintenance ages. Based on the analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the response surface function, the impact mechanism of influencing factors and their interaction on the strength of filler were revealed. The results show that the strength of the filler is affected by single factors and interactions between factors. The interaction of slurry mass fraction and gangue dosing has a significant effect on the strength of the filler in the early stage; the interaction of fly ash and gangue dosing has a significant effect on the strength of the filler in the middle stage; the interaction of slurry mass fraction and gasification slag dosing has a significant effect on the strength of the filler in the final stage. The mixed filling materials significantly affect the strength of the filler as the maintenance time is extended. The mixed filling materials are extensively interlaced with the hydration products, calcium alumina, and calcium silicate hydrate (C-S-H) gel, forming a stable three-dimensional spatial support system as the maintenance time increases. The best ratio to meet the requirements of mine filling slurry pipeline transportation and filling body strength was selected using the regression model and the proposed economic function of filling material.Entities:
Keywords: coal-based solid waste; interaction; multi-objective optimization; regression model; response surface methodology
Year: 2022 PMID: 35955253 PMCID: PMC9369863 DOI: 10.3390/ma15155318
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Materials (Basel) ISSN: 1996-1944 Impact factor: 3.748
Gangue size classification.
| Grain size (mm) | 0–5 | 5–10 | 10–15 | >15 |
| Percentage (%) | 24.8 | 32.7 | 28.3 | 14.2 |
Figure 1XRD diffraction qualitative analysis pattern of coal gangue.
Figure 2Qualitative analysis of fly ash XRD diffraction.
Figure 3Fly ash particle size distribution curve.
Figure 4Qualitative XRD diffraction analysis profile of gasification slag.
Figure 5Particle size distribution curve of gasification slag.
Test factor range settings.
| Factors | Variables | Level | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Coal gangue |
| 0.1 kg | 0.2 kg | 0.3 kg |
| Fly ash |
| 0.65 kg | 0.73 kg | 0.8 kg |
| Gasification slag |
| 0.1 kg | 0.15 kg | 0.2 kg |
| Mass fraction |
| 72% | 77% | 82% |
Experimental factor range settings.
| Number |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.15 | 82 | 1.97 | 3.18 | 4.38 |
| 2 | 0.2 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 82 | 1.96 | 2.74 | 3.52 |
| 3 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.2 | 77 | 1.13 | 1.23 | 1.89 |
| 4 | 0.1 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 82 | 1.88 | 2.21 | 2.61 |
| 5 | 0.1 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 77 | 0.94 | 1.58 | 1.65 |
| 6 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 77 | 0.86 | 1.53 | 1.77 |
| 7 | 0.3 | 0.8 | 0.15 | 77 | 0.54 | 0.90 | 1.13 |
| 8 | 0.1 | 0.73 | 0.2 | 77 | 0.80 | 1.33 | 1.50 |
| 9 | 0.1 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 77 | 0.88 | 1.50 | 1.52 |
| 10 | 0.2 | 0.65 | 0.1 | 77 | 0.97 | 1.63 | 1.66 |
| 11 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.2 | 82 | 1.63 | 2.14 | 2.48 |
| 12 | 0.1 | 0.8 | 0.15 | 77 | 1.25 | 1.77 | 1.68 |
| 13 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.2 | 77 | 1.12 | 1.65 | 2.06 |
| 14 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 77 | 0.86 | 1.23 | 1.60 |
| 15 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 77 | 0.84 | 1.16 | 1.24 |
| 16 | 0.3 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 77 | 1.41 | 1.70 | 2.02 |
| 17 | 0.1 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 72 | 1.03 | 1.20 | 1.41 |
| 18 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 82 | 2.38 | 2.40 | 2.78 |
| 19 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 72 | 0.50 | 0.53 | 0.96 |
| 20 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 77 | 1.15 | 1.32 | 1.46 |
| 21 | 0.2 | 0.65 | 0.2 | 77 | 1.30 | 1.25 | 2.19 |
| 22 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 72 | 0.80 | 0.91 | 1.03 |
| 23 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.1 | 77 | 1.08 | 1.15 | 1.59 |
| 24 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.15 | 77 | 1.01 | 1.16 | 1.48 |
| 25 | 0.2 | 0.8 | 0.15 | 72 | 0.56 | 0.92 | 1.19 |
| 26 | 0.3 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 77 | 1.00 | 1.26 | 1.75 |
| 27 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.2 | 72 | 1.17 | 1.23 | 1.94 |
| 28 | 0.2 | 0.65 | 0.15 | 72 | 0.90 | 1.08 | 1.31 |
| 29 | 0.2 | 0.73 | 0.1 | 82 | 2.18 | 2.82 | 4.25 |
Response surface regression model analysis of variance.
| Variation | Square and | Mean Square | F-Value | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Models | 5.91 | 8.94 | 12.72 | 0.4222 | 0.6387 | 0.9087 | 15.82 | 11.20 | 9.86 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.0024 | 0.1008 | 0.0002 | 0.0024 | 0.1008 | 0.0002 | 0.0903 | 1.77 | 0.0023 | 0.7683 | 0.2050 | 0.9627 |
|
| 0.0602 | 0.0520 | 0.0752 | 0.0602 | 0.0520 | 0.0752 | 2.26 | 0.9116 | 0.8163 | 0.1553 | 0.3559 | 0.3816 |
|
| 0.0048 | 0.0019 | 0.1045 | 0.0048 | 0.0019 | 0.1045 | 0.1799 | 0.0329 | 1.13 | 0.6779 | 0.8587 | 0.3048 |
|
| 4.01 | 7.11 | 9.26 | 4.01 | 7.11 | 9.26 | 150.43 | 124.71 | 100.48 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 | <0.0001 |
|
| 0.2916 | 0.2450 | 0.2970 | 0.2916 | 0.2450 | 0.2970 | 10.93 | 4.29 | 3.22 | 0.0052 | 0.0472 | 0.0942 |
|
| 0.0100 | 0.0784 | 0.0342 | 0.0100 | 0.0784 | 0.0342 | 0.3748 | 1.37 | 0.3715 | 0.5502 | 0.2607 | 0.5520 |
|
| 0.2162 | 0.1640 | 0.1190 | 0.2162 | 0.1640 | 0.1190 | 8.10 | 2.88 | 1.29 | 0.0129 | 0.1121 | 0.2748 |
|
| 0.0196 | 0.0529 | 0.0042 | 0.0196 | 0.0529 | 0.0042 | 0.7346 | 0.9272 | 0.0459 | 0.4058 | 0.3519 | 0.8335 |
|
| 0.0306 | 0.1024 | 0.0506 | 0.0306 | 0.1024 | 0.0506 | 1.15 | 1.79 | 0.5495 | 0.3021 | 0.2017 | 0.4708 |
|
| 0.2116 | 0.1260 | 0.7056 | 0.2116 | 0.1260 | 0.7056 | 7.93 | 2.21 | 7.66 | 0.0137 | 0.1594 | 0.0151 |
|
| 0.0001 | 0.0147 | 0.1038 | 0.0001 | 0.0147 | 0.1038 | 0.0041 | 0.2574 | 1.13 | 0.9501 | 0.6198 | 0.3065 |
|
| 0.0173 | 0.0401 | 0.2429 | 0.0173 | 0.0401 | 0.2429 | 0.6469 | 0.7036 | 2.64 | 0.4347 | 0.4157 | 0.1268 |
|
| 0.0133 | 0.0429 | 0.0413 | 0.0133 | 0.0429 | 0.0413 | 0.4996 | 0.7521 | 0.4478 | 0.4913 | 0.4004 | 0.5143 |
|
| 1.01 | 0.6954 | 1.62 | 1.01 | 0.6954 | 1.62 | 38.00 | 12.19 | 17.58 | <0.0001 | 0.0036 | 0.0009 |
Figure 6Comparison of experimental and predicted values of filler strength: (a) 3 day; (b) 7 day; (c) 28 day.
Figure 7Effect of single factors on the strength of the filling body: (a) gangue; (b) fly ash; (c) gasification slag; (d) slurry mass fraction.
Figure 8Effect of interaction of response surface factors on the strength of the filler: (a) The effect of interaction between slurry mass fraction and gangue dosing on the 3-day strength of the filler; (b) the effect of interaction between fly ash and gangue dosing on the 7-day strength of the filler; (c) the effect of interaction between slurry mass fraction and gasification slag dosing on the 28-day strength of the filler.