4.5 Article

Preparation and rheological performance analysis of volcanic ash and metakaolin based geopolymer grouting materials

Journal

ROAD MATERIALS AND PAVEMENT DESIGN
Volume 24, Issue 6, Pages 1614-1635

Publisher

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/14680629.2022.2092024

Keywords

Volcanic ash; metakaolin; geopolymer; rheology; road grouting

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study investigated the use of volcanic ash and metakaolin (MK) for road grouting materials, exploring the effects of MK and water glass (WG) on mechanical properties, setting time, and rheological properties. The results showed that compressive strength increased with MK and WG content. Additionally, MK's microstructure enhanced rheological parameters, while WG suspended particles, reducing rheological parameters. Overall, MK reduced side reactions and sodium by-products, while WG improved compressive strength with silica-aluminate filling voids.
This study investigated the possibility of using volcanic ash and metakaolin (MK) to prepare road grouting materials. The effects of different contents of MK and water glass(WG) on the mechanical properties, setting time and rheological properties of the materials were investigated separately. The materials science testing methods were also used to observe the reaction mechanism of the geopolymer products. The test results showed that the compressive strength increased with the content of MK and SS. The average flow curve of geopolymer grouts fitted the Bingham model. The multilayer lamellar microstructure of MK increases the rheological parameters of the pastes. While the WG suspends VA and MK particles, which reduces the rheological parameters of the pastes. It can be concluded from the results of microscopic experiments that the MK reduces side reactions as well as sodium by-products, while WG produces more silica-aluminate filling the voids which enhance the compressive strength.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available