4.7 Article

Preparation and characterization of coal gangue geopolymers

Journal

CONSTRUCTION AND BUILDING MATERIALS
Volume 187, Issue -, Pages 318-326

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2018.07.220

Keywords

Coal gangue geopolymer; XRD analysis; TG-DTG analysis; SEM; Compressive strength

Funding

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) [51578539]
  2. Beijing Natural Science Foundation [8164061]
  3. Open Research Project of State Key Laboratory of Coal Resources and Safe Mining, China University of Mining and Technology [SKLCRSM16KFD07]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explores the impacts of sodium hydroxide modulus, alkali lye amount and liquid-solid ratio on the strength and microstructure of coal gangue geopolymer materials, involving a total of five sodium hydroxide moduli, four NH/NS mass ratios and seven liquid-solid ratios. To characterize the morphology and structure of coal gangue geopolymer materials, we carried out XRD, TG-DTG, FT-IR and SEM analysis on the specimens respectively. The results show that NH concentration has no impact on paste fluidity and has significant impact on compressive strength of geopolymers. Both paste fluidity and compressive strength of geopolymers increase with the increase in liquid-solid ratio. However, it should be noted that the compressive strength decreases with the increase in liquid-solid ratio when the liquid-solid ratio is greater than 0.32. The optimal NH/NS mass ratio is 1:1.5 similar to 1:2. In comparison with P.O42.5 cement specimens, coal gangue geopolymers have higher initial strength and lower 28 d compressive strength. The analytical results of microstructure are consistent with those of compressive strength, which demonstrates that the polymerization products of coal gangue geopolymers are N-A-S-H gels and some other aluminosilicate zeolite crystals. (C) 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

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