4.6 Article

Development of a biopolymer modified geopolymer based cementitious material for enhancement of pumpable roof support

Journal

MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages -

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1617/s11527-022-01953-5

Keywords

Pumpable roof support; Geopolymer; Biopolymer; Peak UCS; Residual UCS

Funding

  1. Alpha Foundation for the Improvement of Mine Safety and Health, Inc. (ALPHA FOUNDATION)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigates the use of biopolymer to improve the ductility of fly ash based geopolymer cementitious material for pumpable roof support. The results show that incorporation of biopolymer up to 0.5 wt.% slightly affects the compressive strength and Young's modulus, but effectively increases the residual strength. However, the tensile strength slightly decreases with the inclusion of biopolymer.
This paper investigates the utilization of biopolymer to improve the ductility of class F fly ash based geopolymer cementitious material developed for pumpable roof support. Specifically, two biopolymers, kappa-carrageenan (CAR) and gellan gum (GEL), at different dosages, were used to prepare the geopolymer cementitious material specimens and systematic tests were performed to measure the peak uniaxial compressive strength (UCS), Young's modulus, residual UCS, and tensile strength of the hybrid geopolymer-biopolymer cementitious material (HGBCM). The results show that incorporation of biopolymer up to 0.5 wt.% slightly increases or decreases the peak UCS and Young's modulus, but effectively increases the maximum residual UCS at 0.3 wt.% biopolymer as required. Furthermore, the included biopolymer slightly decreases the tensile strength, with the HGBCM containing CAR showing higher tensile strength than that containing GEL. Compared with the cementitious material currently used in practice, the HGBCM developed in this study shows superior performance.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available