4.7 Article

Properties of cemented phosphogypsum (PG) backfill in case of partially substitution of composite Portland cement by ground granulated blast furnace slag

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 305, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2021.124786

Keywords

Phosphogypsum; Cement; Slag; Cemented backfill; Hydration; Unconfined compressive strength

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [42177160]
  2. State Key Research Development Program of China [2018YFC1800400]
  3. Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities of Central South University [2021zzts0273]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The study found that using PC-GGBFS as binder resulted in higher strength compared to pure PC. The sulfate in PG facilitated the hydration of GGBFS, increasing hydration products and refining the pore structure. GGBFS showed high potential for application in cemented PG backfill.
The present study investigates the effect of the type of binder on the performance of cemented phosphogypsum (PG) backfill. Composite Portland cement (PC) and ground granulated blast furnace slag (GGBFS) were used as binder in various mixing proportions. The hydration characteristics, evolution of the strength and pore structure of backfill were studied. The results show that PG interfered in the hydration of binders, which led to a low rate of hydration, insufficient hydration products and a weak hardened structure. Applying PC-GGBFS as binder resulted in higher strength than that obtained for the pure PC. On the contrary, the sulfate of PG was conducive to the formation of ettringite due to its participation in the hydration of GGBFS. More hydration products were produced at the early stage of hydration, which accelerated the self-desiccation process and refined the pore structure. GGBFS showed high potential for application in cemented PG backfill.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available